Lets be clear: by the current "simplification" of our safety code Overbuilding and bulletproofing is not a direct violation of the code but is so far outside the spirit of the code it's beyond rediculous. But this IS a SAFETY Issue that can no longer be ignored.
First Fibreglass is NOT plastic it is spun GLASS. while laminating epoxy can be considered a plastic, the combination is NOT. Further fibreglass, carbon fiber and other reinforcing fabrics have been proven to be totally unnecessary over standard paper and cardboard construction materials.
The mass of the bullet has absolutely NO barring on this argument. a bullet is a bullet regardless of size. model rockets...regardless of mass SHOULD be self-destructing on impact to absorb as much of their kinetic energy as possible rather then expel it.
The Cover Headline reads:
"BulletProof your next Rocket"
What the heck do you think that translates to when read by the masses. It means this construction method is perfectly fine for all model building construction. IT IS NOT! This issue, it's cover headline and the article itself must be retracted.
G Harry Stine mentions in "40 years of Safety" report that the reason we've maintained such an outstanding safety record for all that time can be directly atributed to the fact we build our models to "Self-Destruct" on impact.
Bulletproofing is counter to the aims and methods of model Rocketry. As such the practice must be at least controlled if not eliminated.
We have hard evidence and flight tested proof that overbuilding, and the use of these products involved are totally unnecessary in the first place. encouraging such behavior will only contiune to erode the already dangerously shrinking safety margins maintained at our launches.
Since it's clear we can't really settle anything here I think this well be my last post on the matter. I think we've presented the facts and answered those who disagree. I'll close by asking everyone to be sure to send an e-mail to Tom Beach the Editor of Sport Rocketry requesting action to remove and retract this Hobby hurting article and Cover HEADLINE.
Thanks for helping protecting the hobby we've loved for more the 45 years.
So, now that it is agreed that there is no violation of the rocketry code in regard to overbuilding it now becomes the spirit of the code that is being violated; Good luck with that. I think that there is a reason for the simplicity of the code to allow the builders to design, build, and, fly rockets using a variety of materials and techniques.
Within this thread, for the first time, I have heard about testing the flimsiness of a rocket by launching it into a glass pane, that a rocket must self destruct upon impact to the ground or an object, that plastic must be thin, etc. I have never heard of any of these requirements to demonstrate the safety of a rocket. What I have read is for a rocket to be safe relies on the design and construction of a rocket to be stable, to match the motor with the rocket and flight conditions, to inspect your recovery systems, and to preflight your rocket for a safe flight. I do a preflight every time I fly, I check the fins, the recovery system, the nose cone fit, I build my motors without interruption, and make certain of the retaining system. The reason for doing this is that I take my rocket flights seriously, I'm flying heavier rockets than a 4 ounce rocket that can do damage if something fails so, I don't want anything to fail that I am able to control.
I don't think that through the use of a composite material to reenforce a Estes Guardian and increasing its weight only two ounces (yes it is double, but that is a flawed why of looking at it) justifies a retraction of an article or proclaiming that the rocket is now a lethal weapon. It is no more lethal weapon that any other 4 ounce rocket. What I am seeing is for those who think that using composites in the fabrication of a rocket is somehow offensive and violates a personal code of modeling ethics. And since there are no rules being broken then the only recourse is to wave the safety flag.
Somewhere along the way a self destructing rocket design has been created. How is this accomplished? Not one of my rockets has ever self destructed I guess that I missed this revolutionary safety design, was it Mission Impossible or Estes that brought this technology about?
Just because an article is in a magazine or has a headline on the cover does not mean that the editor or publisher endorsed the article.
Some of you may thing that my defense of the builder in the article would imply that I support the bullet proofing of rockets; I do not. However, there are some people who enjoy building heavy duty rockets. I don't want them to lose that right through, what I believe to be, some individuals need to police and enforce a personal modeling code.
It is unfortunate that your club is suffering from reduced safety standards at your launches.