Redundancy

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,603
Reaction score
842
We'll miss you Steve, I think TRA has definitely improved under your watch both in terms of governance and safety issues. I hope that TRA continues to recognize new technologies and the impact that they have upon the hobby, and adjusts the rules in a prudent manner with safety as the #1 consideration.
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,228
Reaction score
2,744
Location
Butte, Montana
We'll miss you Steve, I think TRA has definitely improved under your watch both in terms of governance and safety issues. I hope that TRA continues to recognize new technologies and the impact that they have upon the hobby, and adjusts the rules in a prudent manner with safety as the #1 consideration.
I’ll still be around. I’ll be on the board for nearly three years from now still. I agree that it’s vital that we allow for new technologies. I’m personally interested in GPS and tracking tech after spending years in application programming for a couple mapping programs.
I’m also very interested in 3D printing and new composite methods, such as infusion.
I also have a deep interest in the regulations that affect this hobby. If we’re not careful others will decide what those will be, but if we lead the way by policing ourselves, we may be able to keep regulations to a minimum.
 

Onebadhawk

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
5,781
Reaction score
297
Why has noone answered the original posters question
that a redundant electronic recovery set up means redundant.
If the two batts and altimeters share a switch the set up isn't redundant.
The not redundant set up will and should be rejected by the TAPs oking the set up for the cert flight..
( Or any other level 3 flight for that matter )..

( Or did someone say this and I missed it ?? )..

Teddy
 

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,603
Reaction score
842
Redundancy means that there is no single point of failure, so the entire deployment system needs to be duplicated. Technically that includes charges too, although it's fairly common to make the charges a bit oversized and put both altimeters' ematches into the same well.
 

SammyD

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
823
Reaction score
77
Location
Wilmington, NC
Redundancy means that there is no single point of failure, so the entire deployment system needs to be duplicated. Technically that includes charges too, although it's fairly common to make the charges a bit oversized and put both altimeters' ematches into the same well.
I don't like that setup (two e-matches in the same charge well) because an undersized charge will cause a recovery failure. If you're going to be fully redundant, you'll need two charge wells for each end of the AV Bay, usually with the backup charge being slightly larger than what ground testing indicated was adequate for successful deployment of the recovery components. In short, sometimes things get a little "tight", and a larger charge can "encourage" the separation when the first charge might not have gotten the job done...
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,779
Reaction score
2,933
Location
Glennville, GA
I don't like that setup (two e-matches in the same charge well) because an undersized charge will cause a recovery failure. If you're going to be fully redundant, you'll need two charge wells for each end of the AV Bay, usually with the backup charge being slightly larger than what ground testing indicated was adequate for successful deployment of the recovery components. In short, sometimes things get a little "tight", and a larger charge can "encourage" the separation when the first charge might not have gotten the job done...
This is a concept I full agree with. I like the redundancy of 2 separate charges and matches. I like to add just a little extra charge to the second well.

I consider deployment charges an art based on science similar to that of medicine. Like in medicine, full redundancy is good in rocketry.
 

SammyD

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
823
Reaction score
77
Location
Wilmington, NC
I have redundant altimeters set up with separate power sources in my bay, but both going through a single switch as a safe/off.
Am I defeating the redundancy by doing this, or once armed at the pad I shouldn’t worry about the one switch failing somehow?
As stated above, a single switch makes that a single (non-redundant) point of failure. To be truly redundant, you'll need two of everything inside and outside the AV Bay: two altimeters, two batteries, two sets of wiring, two sets of charge wells, two switches, etc. See photos below of a 4" AV Bay, though I've done fully redundant this same way down to a 2.25" airframe - tight, but I got it all in there... :) Though not photographed, on either end of the AV Bays, I have two (2) charge wells too.
 

Attachments

SammyD

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
823
Reaction score
77
Location
Wilmington, NC
This is a concept I full agree with. I like the redundancy of 2 separate charges and matches. I like to add just a little extra charge to the second well.

I consider deployment charges an art based on science similar to that of medicine. Like in medicine, full redundancy is good in rocketry.

Like Chuck said, I add a bit more black powder to the second charge. If ground testing shows that .5g of powder will do it, I add about .2g to the backup charge. For larger charges where 1g will do it on the ground, I add about .3g to the backup for a total of 1.3g on the backup. The primary charge is always the same as ground testing determined was the correct charge...
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,779
Reaction score
2,933
Location
Glennville, GA
I think that goes to the old adage: “blow it out or blow it up”. I would never advocate this approach, but a little extra will not blow it up.
 

SammyD

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
823
Reaction score
77
Location
Wilmington, NC
I think that goes to the old adage: “blow it out or blow it up”. I would never advocate this approach, but a little extra will not blow it up.
Yep. There is a friend of mine that came to fly with us at Bayboro two weeks ago, and he subscribes to the "blow it apart or blow it up" theory. Whenever you here one of his charges go off (usually the backup), it sounds like a cannon above our heads. We call them "________ charges" (won't use his name here) LOL!
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,779
Reaction score
2,933
Location
Glennville, GA
Yep. There is a friend of mine that came to fly with us at Bayboro two weeks ago, and he subscribes to the "blow it apart or blow it up" theory. Whenever you here one of his charges go off (usually the backup), it sounds like a cannon above our heads. We call them "________ charges" (won't use his name here) LOL!
Been there, done that. It is all great until you have a charge go off under your canopy. My ears still ring.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,123
Reaction score
537
I understand the concept of two initiators per charge but it is not redundant enough for me.
^ yes. What if lose containment of the charge during boost or other unplanned violent action. Not an unheard of failure mode. More common I suggest than altimeter failure.
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,779
Reaction score
2,933
Location
Glennville, GA
The funny thing is that you can plan for everything and the Unknown, Unknown will surprise you. Those darn unknown, unknowns bite you the behind every time.

 

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,603
Reaction score
842
^ yes. What if lose containment of the charge during boost or other unplanned violent action. Not an unheard of failure mode. More common I suggest than altimeter failure.
Yup, I would suggest that even BP needs to be contained somewhat, if for no other reason than to prevent this failure mode.

I know somebody who was using the Firewire ematches when they first came out, and he got some from that first bad batch. 3 of his 4 ematches didn't light the pyrogen... fortunately the one that went off was the backup drogue, so the only consequence was a bit of a hard landing. They all passed a resistance check prior to installation, so this is one of those failure modes that you would definitely not anticipate.
 

manixFan

Not a rocket scientist
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
1,625
Reaction score
633
Location
TX
I guess I don't see how anything other than two independent systems creates redundancy. If something is shared it's not a redundant system. Nothing on the OP, but it shouldn't even be up for discussion. Shared switch? Shared charge? Shared battery? Not redundant. Here's the 'engineering' definition of redundant:

"not strictly necessary to functioning but included in case of failure in another component"

So if you don't have something to cover the failure of another component, it's not redundant.


Tony
 

Greg Furtman

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
521
Location
Webster, Wisconsin
Yup, I would suggest that even BP needs to be contained somewhat, if for no other reason than to prevent this failure mode.

I know somebody who was using the Firewire ematches when they first came out, and he got some from that first bad batch. 3 of his 4 ematches didn't light the pyrogen... fortunately the one that went off was the backup drogue, so the only consequence was a bit of a hard landing. They all passed a resistance check prior to installation, so this is one of those failure modes that you would definitely not anticipate.
I've been buying my ematches from Wildman & haven't had a failure yet. After I put the ematch & BP in the canister I stuff it with dog barf and tape the top. It works great.
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,228
Reaction score
2,744
Location
Butte, Montana
LOL! You're still a good guy in my book, even if we disagree about whether an independent, software-free solid-state switch should be treated like any other kind of switch.
Thank you for that. I think you will find that we will end up with a better shared understanding that will benefit all of us. I don’t really dislike solid state switches. I am sorry for the acrimony that has appeared, however.
 

gtg738w

FlightSketch - flightsketch.com
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
201
Reaction score
135
Too late.
Ha!

Fortunately, the impacts of preemptive safety practices are hard to quantify due to the lack of events. Sure, someone may have skipped a launch this month but we'll never know if this might save a life, an eye or just someone's pride in the pits. We have to remember that rocketry is not inherently safe. We make it safe by how we mitigate the known (and unknown) risks that are present. Flying should always be optional, coming home at the end of the day shouldn't be.

Hopefully we do establish an easier and safer option but nobody should complain about staying safe while the data is gathered.
 
Top