vance2loud wrote:trying to decelerate a 2kg booster from 1000km/h to 20km/h in around 2 seconds applies a force of 5 tons, if the tubular nylon survived that something else would still have to give, either the airframe or part of the recovery equipment. Unfortunately at that speed if the recovery harness doesn't zipper the airframe (and bleed of force doing so) then it will shred something else anyway and possibly lawn dart causing more damage as it impacts. Makes you wonder about either beefing up recovery gear or reducing weight to lower the amount of energy that may need to be dissipated. Personally I try to size my recovery equipment to handle at least 100 G's, what are other peoples guidelines when it comes to recovery equipment?
I can't remember if I read what actually caused the incorrect deployment on the Dutchman, was it ever explained?
vance2loud wrote:I think I found it, Motor cato http://www.ausrocketry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4161&start=105
Realistically a deployment going transonic or faster is going to cause major issues that you cannot build around. Cato cause the drouge to come out caused the nc to seperate and the main to come out. All chutes are destroyed, shock cords are snapped and zippered and the 3 sections of rocket tumble back on their own. The lower body had to be replaced as it was fried by the Cato, I kept about half of it which may turn out to be useful some day.