-
#80
by
Morten C.
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:37
-
Opening the control panel
-
#81
by
spectre9
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:37
-
Trying for launch replay clip right NOW!!
-
#82
by
Morten C.
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:39
-
-
#83
by
spectre9
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:42
-
Looks like they just streamed the clip from that news site.
It looked really good except for the lack of height.
I wouldn't know if it's supposed to be upside down when LES separates.
-
#84
by
Morten C.
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:43
-
Looks like they just streamed the clip from that news site.
It looked really good except for the lack of height.
I wouldn't know if it's supposed to be upside down when LES separates.
Good chance that it is on the SD cards inside TDS
-
#85
by
spectre9
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:55
-
Tycho Deep Space looks really good considering the parachutes didn't really deploy much if at all.
Built tough
-
#86
by
Morten C.
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:56
-
Kristian with a cigar
One of the panels on TDS was not used, so CS packed some cigars inside
-
#87
by
Morten C.
on 12 Aug, 2012 08:59
-
Tycho Deep Space looks really good considering the parachutes didn't really deploy much if at all.
Built tough
8mm construction steel i believe
Can take a punch
-
#88
by
Morten C.
on 12 Aug, 2012 09:10
-
In an interview on the news, Pad leader Niels Foldager says that they are all in all happy with the test and it looks like they got a lot of data. The differences event that was supposed to happen did. All they missed was the altitude for the parachutes.
-
#89
by
Morten C.
on 13 Aug, 2012 16:56
-
Pictures and video starting to come
Photo: Thomas Pedersen/CS
Photo: Thomas Pedersen/CS
| 
Photo: Thomas Pedersen/CS
|
Photo: Thomas Pedersen/CS
Photo: Thomas Pedersen/CS
Photo: Thomas Pedersen/CS
Photo: Thomas Pedersen/CSMore photos in the
galleryVideos
Yesterdays stream is in the loop at Copenhagen Suborbitals Support Livestream on
http://www.livestream.com/csscphThere have not been any blogs yet, but Niels Foldager did sum it up like this in a post at ing.dk (Google translate)
Tycho / LES has given us much benefit since this subproject started, both in terms of space capsule and LES 'construction, various drop tests and static tests.
Now we just returned from the mission and obviously can not comment on details yet. But anything we can say:
1. Operational on the lake went perfectly.
2. Preparation is extensive, but went well.
3. Up-link radio went well. We started at T-0 and all acts in flight occurred immediately command was sent.
4. The system ended up tumbling. It was not surprising, but unfortunately ate too much of our parachute altitude.
5. Despite this toddler managed vonB to start various events exactly perfect throughout. It was really well done. There should be 5 correct decisions within a few seconds. (For example. He may not start before the separation LES burn-out.) A sequencer would have created chaos. "Staffing" worked.
6. LES engine started perfectly and performed his work. (It was weakened by approximately 6% in performance, but fuel is prolonged accordingly.)
7. The separation was perfect.
8. Tractor engine started and ran as it should and pulled the rocket well away from the capsule.
9. LES launcher with tower came down in full bearing parachute.
10. Drogue screen came out well and was starting to make up the capsule.
(But had not much time as desired, since the flight so that the height was decreased strongly and the main screens to go out now)
11. The main screens were triggered correctly, but was not enough time.
12. The main screens were properly the cut (under water).
13. The capsule lay with the head downwards, as the course makes in between (see drop-tests). We tried to start the planned balloon-turn test, but the internal damage in the capsule had put the system out of operation.
14. Salvage operation went well.
We salvaged all the parts except for the firebox. Its 100m line was observed, but still perceived as consistent with the parachute. It was not (the parachute gave namely up, down in the water!), And since the line was pulled down by the stream.
The time for the parachutes were not enough of a couple of reasons: flying height was below the desired. Tractor engine came to work on the decline.
That all systems worked, just had to altitude have been a bit higher.
(Another time we will try at ebb :-)
Article at
ing.dk (Google translate), about the future for CS
I'll post if I find more information
Enjoy
Regards
Morten
-
#90
by
IRobot
on 14 Aug, 2012 00:58
-
Is it just me or are these guys neglecting the electronics and control part a bit? I guess their background is mechanics and chemistry and they want to stay focused on that, but is that enough?
-
#91
by
mrhuggy
on 14 Aug, 2012 13:09
-
Nice work there Morten and the rest of the team.
Looking at the video the main problem the capsule didn't release on time as a result it rotated too much and ended up much lower and in the wrong postion. As a result the parachutes didn't have time to inflate.
-
#92
by
Morten C.
on 14 Aug, 2012 16:16
-
Is it just me or are these guys neglecting the electronics and control part a bit? I guess their background is mechanics and chemistry and they want to stay focused on that, but is that enough?
They already work on active control. They have just not flown anything yet.
In the fall of 2011 they did some static test to find what material to use for jet vane rudders. They settle with copper vane, after first tried out graphite, that could not cope with the forces.
Photos: Thomas Pedersen/CSFlemming Nyboe/CS have been working on the software to the guidance system that consists off an IMU from Analog Devices and a ARM7-microprocessor.
This is what going to be the SAPPHIRE rocket. The plan was the fly it this year, but it might be next year, because last weekend was the last launch window and CS have been working hard on the missions they already had. But who knows if they get the energy and a new window to do it this year.
There is a few videos on their site, that show a servo test, and static test with and without highspeed
http://copenhagensuborbitals.com/sapphire.phpThere is more photos their gallery
Regards
Morten
-
#93
by
Morten C.
on 14 Aug, 2012 16:52
-
Nice work there Morten and the rest of the team.
Looking at the video the main problem the capsule didn't release on time as a result it rotated too much and ended up much lower and in the wrong postion. As a result the parachutes didn't have time to inflate.
You give me way to much credits. Not a part of CS myself, but I am a member of the support group CSS, so I pay for a little part of the fun
Well as i understand the comments on Arocket, the stack got unstable as the propellant burn it change the CG and move after the CP, and that leads to the loop. Sure other can explain it much better then me.
That is one of the reason that the Apollo LES have a ballast of depleted uranium to move the CG forward.
Been trying to look for information about the Apollo LES, but don't think there is much out there.
Not sure if they separated the LES before the loop it would have gain enough altitude. At that point there 1.5 sec or so left of the burn, that was needed to get the rest of the altitude.
Maybe if they separated just before it it reach the apogee, there would have been altitude enough to get the main parachutes fully unfolded. But that is guessing
Regards
Morten
-
#94
by
Morten C.
on 15 Aug, 2012 19:58
-
Looking at the video the main problem the capsule didn't release on time as a result it rotated too much and ended up much lower and in the wrong postion. As a result the parachutes didn't have time to inflate.
From article on Wired
DIY Space Capsule Test Launch Ends With Crushing SplashAs their launch escape system tumbled out of control, Copenhagen Suborbitals didn’t want to remotely trigger the explosive bolts and separate rocket from capsule. That could have unleashed an out-of-control rocket toward their observation ships. Instead von Bengtson waited until the engines had almost stopped burning, then triggered the separation and the capsule’s parachutes.
-
#95
by
savuporo
on 16 Aug, 2012 03:00
-
4. The system ended up tumbling. It was not surprising, but unfortunately ate too much of our parachute altitude.
I am surprised, but probably out of ignorance. It's not supposed to be passively stable ?
-
#96
by
Morten C.
on 18 Aug, 2012 15:18
-
-
#97
by
Morten C.
on 18 Aug, 2012 15:46
-
4. The system ended up tumbling. It was not surprising, but unfortunately ate too much of our parachute altitude.
I am surprised, but probably out of ignorance. It's not supposed to be passively stable ?
Not sure what you mean, but if you mean it could be inherited stable, than no.
It is a little counterintuitive, as one would guess that the weight of the capsule would keep the LES pointing up.
Have a look at The Pendulum Rocket Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy or
http://web.archive.org/web/20091018232320/http://geocities.com/jim_bowery/pendrock.htmlThere is a reason to why rockets have the engine in the bottom and the mass on top.
Even passive stable rocket normally have fins and spin to even out the imperfection of the thrust
Regards
Morten
