What about duel deployment? Would it be easier to deploy a flyable chute correctly after a drogue has been out for a bit and the rocket is in a more predictable state?Check out RC parachuting. The RC guys have been using ram air chutes and bodies with articulated/servo controlled arms to do parachute contests for years. Usually they fly them up with a RC plane and drop the skydiver which is controlled with a different radio. It shouldn't be hard to put a GPS unit in place of the RC radio. If you have a GPS lock when the rocket deploys the unit.
I've built a unit that is RC controlled to fly a rocket back to the pad. The issue I've had is deployment of the chute. With skydivers, RC and real, they have a known position they are in when the chute is deployed and how it deploys. With a rocket, not so much and the chute is packed in a tube formation instead of a flat back pack like a skydiver. The RC control was easy, getting it to deploy correctly in all the various ways a rocket deploys a chute was a whole different problem. Add the complexity of having a GPS lock on enough satellites to know where it's at, good luck...
What about duel deployment? Would it be easier to deploy a flyable chute correctly after a drogue has been out for a bit and the rocket is in a more predictable state?
Yes, the addition of GPS allows hands-off return to launch site capability even for beyond visual range flights, but for anything within visual range, a very cheap manually controlled system using an RC receiver and servo could be rigged up. I think I've read about examples of that posted here before.Check out RC parachuting. The RC guys have been using ram air chutes and bodies with articulated/servo controlled arms to do parachute contests for years.
Yes, the addition of GPS allows hands-off return to launch site capability even for beyond visual range flights, but for anything within visual range, a very cheap manually controlled system using an RC receiver and servo could be rigged up. I think I've read about examples of that posted here before.
EDIT: It just occurred to me that, since the definition of what defines an Unmanned Aircraft System which requires owner/pilot registration with the fedgov is anything over 250g flight weight that meets this all encompassing definition - "An "unmanned aircraft system" includes the communication links and components that control the small unmanned aircraft along with all of the other elements needed to safely operate the (aircraft)" - the use of a GPS controlled or manually RC controlled return to launch site system may get the rocketry hobby into the UAS registration requirements unless specifically exempted. NOTE also that even hobbyist RC aircraft with on-board flight controllers and GPS which are capable of and designed for autonomous flight are prohibited from flying beyond visual range.
Anything that has a remote control link or even an autonomous onboard control system, powered or unpowered, falls under the pilot registration requirement for anything over 250g . For instance, RC sailplanes over 250g require pilot registration.I haven't looked into the requirements, but does it just define it as anything in the air, or does it have to have propulsion? If it does, that might exempt rocket recovery.
Anything that has a remote control link or even an autonomous onboard control system, powered or unpowered, falls under the pilot registration requirement for anything over 250g . For instance, RC sailplanes over 250g require pilot registration.
BTW, assuming that accidental collisions with stuff is the real reason for this RC pilot registration thing, isn't it really strange that anything powered or unpowered, but which is designed and used for free flight (i.e., totally uncontrolled) doesn't require pilot registration? Don't ya' think that something totally uncontrolled would be more likely to accidentally hit something? Not that anyone would build a free flight aircraft this big, but up to 55 lbs would be the totally unregulated weight limit for a free flight hobby aircraft just as it used to be for all hobby aircraft. Kinda' gives away the real reason for RC pilot registration, doesn't it? Nudge, nudge...
An issue someone mentioned at NARCON: programmable landing aimpoints. Default is to return to launch point, but if the option exists to input an Other location, how is that not Targetting?
I must have interpreted this line incorrectly. I guess he's referring to where you launch being the place you "pick" to return to
: what do the little green triangles mean in the upper left corners by the user logo? I
I saw this presentation at NARCON. He explains why GPS only doesn't work, why ram air chutes are not optimal and some other interesting points.
In talking with them, I guess deployment is not that hard either and I think they said they are getting above 90% success rates. That is better than chute releases that seem to be somewhere in the 70% range.
I doubt it for the reasons I pointed out in my post #13 above plus a serious lack of range of that system. It's stabilization system is a novelty, interesting for technical reasons, but very inefficient because of the control system and the mass of its components. Also, with something like the GPS guided return to launch site parachute system covered in the video which started this thread, that's not a threat either unless the bad guys are wanting to blow THEMSELVES up!So does this mean that anyone who fly's Joe Banard's new vectored thrust control from BPS space or using canard fin's like Jim Jarvis is trying has to get this special license?
Enter your email address to join: