Selection criteria for parachutes of student-built sounding rockets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various parachute-type decelerators can be considered in the design of a sounding rocket recovery system. During the development of various flagship missions of Delft Aerospace Rocket Engineering (DARE), the Parachute Research Group of DARE has developed several methods and criteria to select the right parachutes for a given mission. This paper presents and discusses the operational envelopes, advantages, and disadvantages of different parachute types. The parachutes described in the paper are variations of cross parachutes, disk-gap-bands, ringsails, conical ribbon parachutes, and hemisflo ribbon parachutes. Variants of these parachute types have previously been developed in-house and flown, allowing for acquaintance with their design, manufacturing and performance. Apart from the more traditional parachutes used for student-built sounding rockets, this paper will also cover the opportunities and challenges that are associated with the use of less conventional parachutes, such as ringsails, ringslots, and parafoils. Each parachute is described in detail after which all are compared to one another based on several sets of typical requirements. Factors that influence the parachute selection process are, for example, the parachute flight envelope, stability behaviour, and manufacturing complexity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".