|
RAM wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> news:1249pr92arpn221@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "RAM" <rmaccrone@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21...
> >
> > > It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most
> > > likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it),
> > > I would
> > > rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!!
> > >
> >
> > There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is
> > bomb.
> >
> >
>
> That's a valid point, although I have never heard of a solid fuel rocket in a
> ballisticaly deployed parachute "exploding". I believe that it the event of
> an instantaneous and total ignition of the charge (which you alude to) the
> container would fail long before an explosive pressure could be generated.
> I think the issue of rockets that are "old" is the previously mentioned
> oxide which forms resulting in a misfire.
>
A cow-orker and his brother used to build and launch model rockets in
Williams Bay, Winsconsin. Two of them, using off-the-shelf solid
propellant motors blew up on the launch pad. Both incidents occurred
in the dead of Winter. He thinks the manufacturer of the solid motors
recommends against use below some critical temperature.
One supposes that the BRS makers have taken such effects into
consideration.
But it isn't an unreasonable concern.
Besides, if you use the bang chute and it fails the particulars of the
failure mode are probably of little consequence. Don't most
manufacturers repack the chute and replace the rocket for a fee?
--
FF
|
|
Re: Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
