Neil_W's half-baked design thread

[jqavins]

Three to four years ago you were right to worry about that, I think. Today, you don't need to worry. I think.

 

[ReynoldsSlumber]

This design had its origins way back in 2016. I actually started it, then put it aside.

Use the ejection charge to "squirt" the parachute out the "needle?"

 

[techrat]

Three to four years ago you were right to worry about that, I think. Today, you don't need to worry. I think.

Yes, because most of the anti-vaxxers have since passed-on.

 

[neil_w]

I guess I should go back and get that one into shape. I was surprised to see that the only up-to-date OR models I have are in the 2-stage configuration... I had never fully convinced myself that I wanted to go that route.

 

[jqavins]

Use the ejection charge to "squirt" the parachute out the "needle?"

Or to simultaneously push the parachute out in a normal way, and to squirt shiny, aluminized mylar glitter out of the needle. (You'd have to keep the flight low for that to be visible.) Rear eject might work best for a simultaneous event, and then it would surely stick the landing.

 

[neil_w]

Or to simultaneously push the parachute out in a normal way, and to squirt shiny, aluminized mylar glitter out of the needle. (You'd have to keep the flight low for that to be visible.) Rear eject might work best for a simultaneous event, and then it would surely stick the landing.

Rear eject actually would be very desirable in a lot of ways for this design, except for one, shall we say, "sticking point"*.... I wouldn't want it coming down needle first.



*I guess the perfect play-on-words does exist.

 

[neil_w]

Yes, that was @hcraigmiller.

Here's the thread: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/anti-virus-build-thread.162645/. His ridiculously impressive build spurred me to make significant improvements to my design.

 

[mbeels]

Here's the thread: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/anti-virus-build-thread.162645/. His ridiculously impressive build spurred me to make significant improvements to my design.

Thanks, I was looking for it and couldn't find it. What a great build.

I guess I should go back and get that one into shape. I was surprised to see that the only up-to-date OR models I have are in the 2-stage configuration... I had never fully convinced myself that I wanted to go that route.

I think a 2-stage configuration is a great idea, especially if you call it "Booster Shot"!

 

[neil_w]

I think a 2-stage configuration is a great idea, especially if you call it "Booster Shot"!

Oof, that's better than what I was thinking ("Double Shot").

 

[mbeels]

Oof, that's better than what I was thinking ("Double Shot").

Booster Shot was your idea! (post #100)
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/anti-virus-build-thread.162645/page-4#post-2198117

 

[neil_w]

Booster Shot was your idea! (post #100)

So it was! Who knew?

 

[boatgeek]

Rear eject actually would be very desirable in a lot of ways for this design, except for one, shall we say, "sticking point"*.... I wouldn't want it coming down needle first.



*I guess the perfect play-on-words does exist.

I dunno, for a D-F range rocket, I wouldn't worry too much. You could make the needle out of 4mm-6mm carbon fiber tube with a wood nose cone for reasonable structural strength. With a decent size chute, it won't come down fast enough to injure people on the ground, not to mention that it should be landing on the field and not in the crowd.

Even if it broke in the middle, it would still come down needle first and stick the landing.

 

[neil_w]

Even if it broke in the middle, it would still come down needle first and stick the landing.

With the parachute attached nearer the nose cone, the aft portion of the body will land first, and then the point will land second, more slowly and with less mass behind it.

 

[Azamiryou]

Make the point retractable on a spring, like a theater prop knife.