Video: Next Gen Non-pyrotechnic Deployment by Jolly Logic

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

John Beans

Founder, Jolly Logic
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
888
Reaction score
348
Here's the presentation I gave at NARCON 2018 in Houston (twice, by popular demand). It explores a future that continues what Chute Release began, a future in which pyrotechnic charges are eliminated completely in favor of completely electronic deployment.




[video]https://youtu.be/a0sYNnySuo0[/video]
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting! I watched the presentation that someone posted on FB, but I couldn’t see the slides. I’m super interested in this project.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
I'm interested in what this could mean for the hobby... I haven't got a JLCR yet, but I've got plans to pick up a few. I'd be interested in not having to worry about getting BP, or smokeless powder for a reliable means to launch and recover a larger rocket.
 
John--I really have to admire your process, as much as your products. It really reflects the mindset of an engineer. As someone on YouTube commented, "Take my money!"
 
Fascinating. At the beginning of the presentation I thought "How would electronic-only deployment be possible?". Then you mentioned fairing and payload bays and I thought "That's genius! It will work."

Yup, going to set aside some money for this ahead of time as my Chute Release has been worth it for sure.
 
Can't stop thinking about John's idea. While showering, I started to wonder if there might be a way to do a "proof of concept" flight using the Jolly Logic Chute Release as an off-the-shelf building block. Thinking about a plastic payload fairing secured on the outside by rubber bands, using a JLCR to release them at the appropriate altitude. Certainly not as elegant as the solution John suggested in the presentation (and I'm certain he's working on other executions as well) but it would be fun to experiment with.

"Rocket 2.0" has a nice ring to it.
 
Can't stop thinking about John's idea. While showering, I started to wonder if there might be a way to do a "proof of concept" flight using the Jolly Logic Chute Release as an off-the-shelf building block. Thinking about a plastic payload fairing secured on the outside by rubber bands, using a JLCR to release them at the appropriate altitude. Certainly not as elegant as the solution John suggested in the presentation (and I'm certain he's working on other executions as well) but it would be fun to experiment with.

"Rocket 2.0" has a nice ring to it.

Yep, you could do this. Make a two-piece section with a groove around it and a pocket on one side for Chute Release.
Don't forget to tether it!
 
After listening to the presentation, I'll admit that it starts kind of boring, but I think by the middle there are some interesting topics that are covered.
Maybe only interesting to me, dunno.
 
John, I enjoyed the presentation and as a L1 who has hesitated using black powder DD I look forward to wherever this takes you.
 
After listening to the presentation, I'll admit that it starts kind of boring, but I think by the middle there are some interesting topics that are covered.
Maybe only interesting to me, dunno.

Nope, It was very interesting from end to end. Although I am not an engineer by trade, I love tech in all it's forms and your presentation really got the neurons firing...
 
Nope, It was very interesting from end to end. Although I am not an engineer by trade, I love tech in all it's forms and your presentation really got the neurons firing...

Yup, hats off for the presentation and raising some of the structural and engineering points.

This is certainly not a novel concept to achieve what some describe as the holy grail of HPR – there have been countless similar (side door) type concepts over the years – but it’s the 1st time I’ve seen a presentation go that deeply into the engineering of the concept.

The primary concerns I have are:
(1) How do you get generic (ie. typical size) chute(s) out from such small openings as illustrated in the presentation and how does your typical flyer pack them that compactly?
This is an important point because increasing the size of the doors/openings will have a significant effect to the structural loading on the materials for those situations that do experience some lateral loading or shear or tensile loading on one side of the airframe which will happen from time to time especially through a mach transition event.

(2) I’m assuming (and I could be interpreting it incorrectly) the system is diameter specific regarding the section of the airframe it’s being coupled to? Not a biggy, but certainly a departure from the conceptual universal flexibility of the chute release product.

(3) Again, not a biggy, but it could be limiting to nose cone ballasting ie. to those who like/need to load up their nosecones with serious mass. Saying that, such flyers would probably tend to favour typical pyro solutions for these applications as they tend to be more geared for performance flight profiles.

TP
 
Yup, hats off for the presentation and raising some of the structural and engineering points.

This is certainly not a novel concept to achieve what some describe as the holy grail of HPR – there have been countless similar (side door) type concepts over the years – but it’s the 1st time I’ve seen a presentation go that deeply into the engineering of the concept.

The primary concerns I have are:
(1) How do you get generic (ie. typical size) chute(s) out from such small openings as illustrated in the presentation and how does your typical flyer pack them that compactly?
This is an important point because increasing the size of the doors/openings will have a significant effect to the structural loading on the materials for those situations that do experience some lateral loading or shear or tensile loading on one side of the airframe which will happen from time to time especially through a mach transition event.

(2) I’m assuming (and I could be interpreting it incorrectly) the system is diameter specific regarding the section of the airframe it’s being coupled to? Not a biggy, but certainly a departure from the conceptual universal flexibility of the chute release product.

(3) Again, not a biggy, but it could be limiting to nose cone ballasting ie. to those who like/need to load up their nosecones with serious mass. Saying that, such flyers would probably tend to favour typical pyro solutions for these applications as they tend to be more geared for performance flight profiles.

TP

1) In my descriptions, there weren't "doors." It's more like SpaceX where the halves drop completely away (albeit tethered). So you could fit MORE chute than you could if you were worried about it having to slide out as in a pyrotechnic ejection.

2) Parts of the system are diameter-specific, but the point I was trying to make was that you should be able to snap out the electronics and move them from rocket to rocket. So you could snap out the electronics from a Pro-Series 2.6" rocket and snap them into a 5.5" L3 rocket. Same electronics. Different diameter plastic couplers they snap into. I realize that's hard to imagine, but I'll try to bring it to life soon.

3) I did mention that weight would initially be a factor, but maybe not too dramatic, and I think it will be worth it for reliable, clean, always-apogee deployment with the convenience of Chute Release (though it's different than Chute Release).
 
1) In my descriptions, there weren't "doors." It's more like SpaceX where the halves drop completely away (albeit tethered). So you could fit MORE chute than you could if you were worried about it having to slide out as in a pyrotechnic ejection.

2) Parts of the system are diameter-specific, but the point I was trying to make was that you should be able to snap out the electronics and move them from rocket to rocket. So you could snap out the electronics from a Pro-Series 2.6" rocket and snap them into a 5.5" L3 rocket. Same electronics. Different diameter plastic couplers they snap into. I realize that's hard to imagine, but I'll try to bring it to life soon.

3) I did mention that weight would initially be a factor, but maybe not too dramatic, and I think it will be worth it for reliable, clean, always-apogee deployment with the convenience of Chute Release (though it's different than Chute Release).

Ah... ok... I think I'm starting to get the idea (apologies it was late at night when I watched it). Starting to sound interesting and does sound quite novel indeed.

TP
 
John
I commend you on this endeavor. The chute release was and is one of the coolest rocketry products to come around in a long time. This new idea....if it flies....will be no different. Like with the CR, I would love to field test it! I still have plenty of fields to launch in at any time. All my best to you man!
Andrew K.
 
Back
Top