Difference between revisions of "L2 Post-Flight Analyses"
m (→Cardinal II) |
m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= Cardinal II = | = Cardinal II = | ||
| + | == Flight Summary == | ||
{|class="wikitable" | {|class="wikitable" | ||
|'''Date of Flight''' | |'''Date of Flight''' | ||
| Line 43: | Line 44: | ||
== Analysis == | == Analysis == | ||
| + | |||
= JARVIS I = | = JARVIS I = | ||
| − | |||
== Flight Summary == | == Flight Summary == | ||
{|class="wikitable" | {|class="wikitable" | ||
Revision as of 00:11, 23 March 2016
This rockets-related article is a stub. You can help SSI by expanding it.
Cardinal II
Flight Summary
| Date of Flight | Feb. 6, 2016 |
| Launch Location | LUNAR |
| L2 Certification Attempt? | Yes |
| Launcher | Ian Gomez |
| Recovery Status | Recovered |
Rocket Specs
| Manufacturer | Giant Leap Rocketry Firestorm 54 |
| Length | |
| Weight | |
| Motor | |
| On-Board Avionics | Featherweight Raven 3 |
| Payload | 18" drogue, 36" main parachutes |
Analysis
JARVIS I
Flight Summary
| Date of Flight | Feb. 20, 2016 |
| Launch Location | TCC |
| L2 Certification Attempt? | Yes |
| Launcher | Rebecca Wong |
| Recovery Status | Recovered, minimal damage to airframe |
Rocket Specs
| Manufacturer | Giant Leap Rocketry Firestorm 54 |
| Length | 69" |
| Weight | 5.1 lbs |
| Motor | Aerotech J425 |
| On-Board Avionics | Featherweight Raven 3 |
| Payload | 18" drogue, 36" main parachutes |
Analysis
JARVIS I marked the 2nd attempted rocket flight with on-board electronics for the 2015-2016 year. Flight takeoff was nominal, however, at apogee, the drogue parachute did not deploy, nor did the main chute deploy at any lower altitude. Upon recovery, it was determined that the nose cone was ejected, which helped to increase drag substantially so the rocket did not lawn dart but fell laterally instead. The Raven was operational even after recovery, and the data retrieved from the altimeter concurred with the physical evidence that all ejection chargers successfully fired. The most reasonable hypothesis for the parachute ejection failure was that the size of the ejection charges was simply undersized.