Failure Analysis of Hyperion

1tree said:

Sorry late and didn't read all the comments. But unless I am missing something there are multiple failures here.

1) Your stopped receiving a signal from your egg finder.
2) You had a deployment of the main at apogee.
3) You lost sight of the rocket on descent.

Now the question I didn't see in a couple pages is - did both main and rogue deploy at apogee? Or just one of them?

I am also left wracking my brain to recall if heart beats are sent while the egg finder doesn't have a lock. I missed if you had a heartbeat and no location or no heartbeat. Evidently you didn't have a second spotter with eyes on the rocket (or they lost it as well making another failure). I do recall from my L1 that my egg finder lost lock at launch and picket it up several seconds after deployment (single deployment).

I am assuming also that you took your receiver out while looking for the rocket on chance that it might pick up somewhere along the way.

One thing I will leave you with is don't give up hope on it. I lost a rocket on an L1 attempt. Three months later, I got a voicemail (on my birthday no less) from the club president's wife that it had been returned. (And my wife gave me an egg finder that day as well.)

Click to expand...

The Eggfinder transmitters will send whatever data it gets from the GPS module, whether or not it has valid $GPGGA packets. The LCD receiver will only acknowledge receipt of data when a valid $GPGGA packet with a fix is received. Do you think there would be some value in giving you some kind of indication that data is being received without a valid fix? (i.e., perhaps a short beep-beep instead of the longer "I have a fix" beep).

DavidMcCann said:

I see this change bemoaned, and I don't know enough to have an opinion, but I do have a question- if a main charge were to fail, and the secondary fired and deployed, would the flight pass? I guess the question is, should it be a perfect flight, or should it be successful and safe to pass? Not being a wiseass, honest.

Click to expand...

Of course it would pass. Why question that. Rocket returns under chute, no damage,cert good. Irregardless of "intended" bull crap.

cerving - I think there would be value in some sort of indication from the LCD that it's connected to a Tx, whether or not it's getting valid GPS packets. That way I know immediately if I've mis-set my frequency / ID values, vs. waiting some number of minutes before I give up on getting a valid GPS fix.

Buckeye said:

Wait, what? Does this really happen? The L3 requires "redundancy", yet you can be penalized for using it?

Hmm, I guess I won't be attempting an L3 anytime soon. There are too many process rules for my liking. I am perfectly happy with L2, as I have barely scratched K motors and haven't even whiffed L motors.

Anyway, good luck finding your rig, Matt. This has been an interesting thread all the way around.

Click to expand...

Buckeye, I'm confused. From your previous posts you seem to be one of the people pushing for more stringent certification requirements (such as "first deployment within two seconds of apogee"), yet here you're saying "already too many rules for my liking".

There doesn't seem to be anyone who thinks "main charge fails, but rocket successfully deploys on backup charge" ought to be a cert failure. But the question is, is a popped main chute at apogee more like a lawn dart (definite fail) or more like a backup charge deployment (off-nominal, but safe because you designed for safety under that scenario).

Nah. I am more interested in what the flight does and not so much in the process steps leading up to it.

Why the intended flight profile is important--consider this, on L3 flight apogee charge fails to separate rocket; return is ballistic until main altitude of 1000ft; main deploys while rocket is "whistling in", yet due to bullet proof fiberglass rocket and Kevlar harness, rocket stays together and returns to ground (within recovery area of course because it was coming in ballistic).

The above is a pass??!! I don't think so.

I thought originally the intent to allow non-dual deploy recovery for L3 was mainly for West Coast flyers that are predominately on playa and need soft landings. Historically due to their large recovery area, they often only used main deployment of large chutes. Thus, for these West Coast flyers their intended profile was main deployment at apogee, and if they did what they intended, then they received their cert.

Could an East Coast flyer design a heavy L3 rocket and put it up on a baby M, and thus by doing so assure that he/she will most likely stay within the recovery area with main deploy only, absolutely. If they plan that as their intended flight profile, again fine.

Yet, if your altitude is expected to be much higher and to stay within a small recovery area you need to fly dual deploy and don't, but by luck, or by the near tragic situation outlined above, do stay within the recovery zone(?!)--in my mind no way should that be approved.

dixontj93060 said:

Why the intended flight profile is important--consider this, on L3 flight apogee charge fails to separate rocket; return is ballistic until main altitude of 1000ft; main deploys while rocket is "whistling in", yet due to bullet proof fiberglass rocket and Kevlar harness, rocket stays together and returns to ground (within recovery area of course because it was coming in ballistic).

The above is a pass??!! I don't think so.

I thought originally the intent to allow non-dual deploy recovery for L3 was mainly for West Coast flyers that are predominately on playa and need soft landings. Historically due to their large recovery area, they often only used main deployment of large chutes. Thus, for these West Coast flyers their intended profile was main deployment at apogee, and if they did what they intended, then they received their cert.

Conversely, if to stay within much smaller range parameters you need to fly dual deploy and don't, but by luck, or by the near tragic situation outlined above, do stay within the recovery zone(?!)--in my mind no way should that be approved.

Click to expand...

Don't the rules still state that the observing TAP or TAPs can fail a cert flight if they observe something they would deem grounds for failure? I think there is room for them to make a judgement where your scenario would likely be a fail vs black and white of, "It came down in one piece."

Maybe I'm a scrooge, but I would want to see the flight generally following the planned profile. If I say apogee event and main at lower alt, I'd expect that. Now whether the apogee event is right at apogee or several seconds later, I'm ok with that. As long as it doesn't enter an unsafe descent.

Then again, I'm not a TAP, nor am I knowledgeable enough to pretend to be one, so I'm just making noise from my face hole.

dixontj93060 said:

Could an East Coast flyer design a heavy L3 rocket and put it up on a baby M, and thus by doing so assure that he/she will most likely stay within the recovery area with main deploy only, absolutely. If they plan that as their intended flight profile, again fine.

Click to expand...

This is what I see suggested often and don't understand. Everyone all up in arms about having to follow the exact planned recovery, and that a main at apogee on a flight that lands in bounds should fail - yet if you were to fly the same rocket on the same motor single deploy, thats cool.

cerving said:

The Eggfinder transmitters will send whatever data it gets from the GPS module, whether or not it has valid $GPGGA packets. The LCD receiver will only acknowledge receipt of data when a valid $GPGGA packet with a fix is received. Do you think there would be some value in giving you some kind of indication that data is being received without a valid fix? (i.e., perhaps a short beep-beep instead of the longer "I have a fix" beep).

Click to expand...

Seems like a reasonable idea, of course there's probably a decent chance that you'll get some corrupted and/or unlocked packets during ascent (I've certainly recorded some on my EF RX), so it might panic people for something that is otherwise perfectly normal. What I did is wire-up a second green LED that mounts on the side of my enclosure, so I can see that the Hope module is receiving something (could even be interference or someone else on the frequency I chose) as soon as I turn on the power. So I use the external LED both to confirm that I'm not getting anyone else's signal before I power-up my TX, then that the LCD is hearing the TX as soon as I power it up. I also have a mute switch on the beeper, so most of the time my LCD is silent anyhow.

mccordmw said:

Don't the rules still state that the observing TAP or TAPs can fail a cert flight if they observe something they would deem grounds for failure? I think there is room for them to make a judgement where your scenario would likely be a fail vs black and white of, "It came down in one piece."

Maybe I'm a scrooge, but I would want to see the flight generally following the planned profile. If I say apogee event and main at lower alt, I'd expect that. Now whether the apogee event is right at apogee or several seconds later, I'm ok with that. As long as it doesn't enter an unsafe descent.

Then again, I'm not a TAP, nor am I knowledgeable enough to pretend to be one, so I'm just making noise from my face hole.

Click to expand...

Yes but if an attempt blew the main at apogee unintended and landed within the waiver radius, the flier would have grounds to protest to the BOD if an
over-zealous TAP refused to sign. In that case, GPS positions and maps that clearly show the rockets landing position within the waiver zone would be
required to the BOD's satisfaction for a ruling.

Also, the acceptance was specifically for an unintended Main Chute at apogee. I believe the discretion of the TAPS to negate a ballistic descent under failed
to deploy drogue is there so a "bulletproof" main deployment at high speed is still grounds to negate the attempt whether the rocket survived or not.
Me suspects a chute is going to tear out or something will break to negate the flight so it's simpler to make that decision. Plus, I've seen some pretty strong
harnesses and eyebolts turn to mush in that scenario so I suspect a "true" survival" is rare. Kurt

ksaves2 said:

Yes but if an attempt blew the main at apogee unintended and landed within the waiver radius, the flier would have grounds to protest to the BOD if an
over-zealous TAP refused to sign. In that case, GPS positions and maps that clearly show the rockets landing position within the waiver zone would be
required to the BOD's satisfaction for a ruling.

Also, the acceptance was specifically for an unintended Main Chute at apogee. I believe the discretion of the TAPS to negate a ballistic descent under failed
to deploy drogue is there so a "bulletproof" main deployment at high speed is still grounds to negate the attempt whether the rocket survived or not.
Me suspects a chute is going to tear out or something will break to negate the flight so it's simpler to make that decision. Plus, I've seen some pretty strong
harnesses and eyebolts turn to mush in that scenario so I suspect a "true" survival" is rare. Kurt

Click to expand...

I think it's up to the flyer to discuss with their TAPs what would constitute a failure in advance. I've never heard of a flyer appealing to the BoD and it's not mentioned in the procedure.

Steve Shannon said:

I think it's up to the flyer to discuss with their TAPs what would constitute a failure in advance. I've never heard of a flyer appealing to the BoD and it's not mentioned in the procedure.

Click to expand...

Absolutely... I don't want to get started on this one... I guess I'm one of those "over zealous" ones. :lol:

Steve Shannon said:

I think it's up to the flyer to discuss with their TAPs what would constitute a failure in advance. I've never heard of a flyer appealing to the BoD and it's not mentioned in the procedure.

Click to expand...

Steve, I would imagine that a main at apogee that lands within the confines of the waiver is rare if one elects a high flying DD rocket. If it lands within the waiver one could wonder why it couldn't have been a single deploy flight in the
first place. Recovering a main at apogee that drifts for miles would be a challenge and the flier can take solace if they get the rocket back, they can trouble-shoot and make another attempt. The bottom line is if the BOD has
ruled it is acceptable to grant the certification under those conditions, a protest would be viable with over zealous TAP's period. The fact that it hasn't happened may point to the rarity of such an event though I suspect there may
have been an index case somewhere that would have prompted the discussion. Kurt

jimzcatz said:

Of course it would pass. Why question that. Rocket returns under chute, no damage,cert good. Irregardless of "intended" bull crap.

Click to expand...

+1. No one intends to use the in-flight back up plans but if one should be needed and prove effective then the flight should be considered successful. To suggest otherwise is to state that a flight fails when the backup charge separates a rocket when the main charge fails to do so. Or a great many number of other examples outside of the most extreme of circumstance.

mpitfield said:

I have always believed that at the L3 level, anything less that intended should be a fail.

Click to expand...

Nothing should be based on absolutes, my friend. This suggests a +2 fps discrepancy in descent rate constitutes a failure. I realize that situation is not what you mean, but I do think that relative performance should be considered.

This thread has been completely hijacked and is no longer about Matt's rocket. Time to move on? Start a new L3 argument thread with appropriate subject line?

Bat-mite said:

This thread has been completely hijacked and is no longer about Matt's rocket. Time to move on? Start a new L3 argument thread with appropriate subject line?

Click to expand...

Yes, It would be interesting to know, (other than what appears to be landing well outside the wavered air space), what malfunction happened to cause the premature deployment...

Frederocket said:

Yes, It would be interesting to know, (other than what appears to be landing well outside the wavered air space), what malfunction happened to cause the premature deployment...

Click to expand...

Yup, outside of the waiver is a DNF (Did Not Finish). Unfortunately with Matt's project the tracker failed and couldn't affect a recovery (so far) for a future "redo"
at a another time. That's the sad thing. I would say the thread was "sidetracked" as this subject matter is relevant to Matt's circumstances and is beneficial for
one to know. Especially if faced with the exact same situation and have the fortune to land in good shape within the waiver radius. There is no
need to be "over zealous" in that regard and grant the certification. Kurt