Good points guys.
Have you looked at the recovery system as a whole I.e. where are your weakest links?
3/4” Kevlar is great what about the rest of the system? Quick links to match the breaking strength of 3/4” Kevlar are very heavy. What about the drogue and parachute shroud lines?
Now the AvBay connections need to be beefed up to match your Kevlar.
With a significant amount of weight being added how do you handle the CG being pulled forward pushing the rocket well into over-stable territory?
It’s a balancing act. Going to 3/4” Kevlar is easy to do but there are big negatives involved with that decision.
Chuck C.
Hi, Chuck,
"From my Chair" . . .
(1) Drogue & Shroud lines - We must defer to Buddy Michaelson properly sizing these, since he is familiar with the mass of the rocket and his materials. I imagine he has a "Safety Margin" in place.
(2) CG - The new, larger "R" motor has already added additional mass to the aft end of the rocket. I would be more concerned on the "Q" flight, with the original motor casing.
Since the rocket will be reaching Mach 2.2+, have you calculated the CP-shift ( Forward ), as velocity increases, for both flights ? ( Static Test data will give the most accurate results ).
(3) AV-Bay Connections - Naturally, ALL connections with have to be sufficiently strong, throughout the rocket.
(4) Weakest Links - We have not seen the Recovery System in its entirety, nor all of the hardware & attachment points throughout the rocket..
Without that, we would be "working in the blind" and, at best, we would only be guessing.
(5) Balancing Act - "Literally" true, in this case. Of course, if a Recovery System component fails, the entire project can fail, catastrophically.
Frankly, I think we need to take a brief, but thorough, look at the entire Recovery System. If we can evaluate the entire system, we will be able to make the best suggestions.
Dave F.