MWP 12: 2 stage failure and bullet?`

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

gary7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
113
Location
Mattoon, IL
I noted yesterday that a video of the 2 stage rocket that flew Saturday, sending the 2nd stage east just over the spectators, Wildman's trailer and motor home and the corn field had been posted on You Tube. Today however, it has been taken down.

Does anyone know what the status of that 2nd stage was/is?
Why was the video taken down? Can it get reposted again.
For that matter, can that and any other good videos of MWP 12 get posted here on on You Tube?
 
there were 2 videos- this one is still up:
[video=youtube;1VAkWgbCtA4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VAkWgbCtA4[/video]

I'm curious as to what the owner of the rocket thinks went wrong. The discussions on the NAR facebook page said he had done sims on it to make sure it was stable, and it might've been flown before?
 
These vids have led to endless debates about safety measures, blame-storming, and litiginoia. That is why they are taking them down.

And now that the vid is posted here, I recommend people keep their comments to a minimum.
 
First - thank you for posting this most excellent and important video.
I've already learned some things from watching it.

Can anyone say what motors were used, and what the electronics setup was?

I'm curious to learn more, understand more about what happened, and grow my rocketry knowledge.
 
I noted yesterday that a video of the 2 stage rocket that flew Saturday, sending the 2nd stage east just over the spectators, Wildman's trailer and motor home and the corn field had been posted on You Tube. Today however, it has been taken down.

Does anyone know what the status of that 2nd stage was/is?
Why was the video taken down? Can it get reposted again.
For that matter, can that and any other good videos of MWP 12 get posted here on on You Tube?

Why was it taken down? Who knows...If I owned the video I would never have posted it in the first place as I would want nothing to do with the online tirades of knuckleheads who weren't there in the first place. I've watched the video half a dozen times and there's no telling what went wrong or if anything could have been done differently by launch organizers to prevent it from happening in the first place. If I had to hazard a guess it looks to me that the first stage motor did not perform as intended and that's about all I can tell. Why the second stage lit in a far from optimal angle of attack probably means it was on a timer - but that's pure speculation.

It would be nice if the rocket owner could come to this forum and enlighten us to what the actual failure was so the rest without fear of being berated so the rest of us could learn.
 
1 - booster motor appears to be functioning appropriately.

2 - booster fins appear to be pretty small, and it certainly appears to have been unstable

3 - I'm guessing a timer was used, or an accelerometer without any safety, obviously. If a barometric altimeter was used, the arming altitude was set low and allowed this failure.

Be careful out there. That means you, RSO's. It's perfectly okay to request a simulation and require that flyers explain how they will prevent this very thing from happening again.
 
J300 to J280. Looked unstable to me. Motors performed optimal in my opinion. IMHO, tilt-0-meters or something comparable should be required.
 
... I've watched the video half a dozen times and there's no telling what went wrong or if anything could have been done differently .... If I had to hazard a guess it looks to me that the first stage motor did not perform as intended....
It would be nice if the rocket owner could come to this forum and enlighten us to what the actual failure was so the rest without fear of being berated so the rest of us could learn.

I also watched the video many times. Frame by frame even. What can I say, I really like to analyze and learn... :)
The LCO seems to say "54 to 38 two stage EX J300 to Aerotech J280" although the audio isn't crystal clear.
I would tend to agree with your assessment about the first stage under performing.
 
It's hard to tell if it had sufficient velocity leaving the rail from the video.
 
Does this include an altitude check on a barometric altimeter, or is something like a tiltometer always needed?

According to what I understand from announcements made at Airfest and casual discussions with Bob Brown, it would include any reasonable altitude/velocity/time check combo as well as tilt inhibit.
 
Looked pretty unstable to me. The same thing could have happened with air starts. A pretty convincing argument for test flights in the simplest configuration first. Without the second stage ignition this situation would have been handled by the standard safety distances.
 
Here are a few frame grabs I thought might be interesting.

Just my observations, and best guesses... attempting to analyze, not criticize, and learn/understand what happened. :)

This first one is 24 frames after the first sign of smoke. Think of it as T+.08 I'm guessing the rocket is about 3ft up the 8ft rail.

1-24.jpg

This is 15 frames (1/2 second) later T+1.3 The top of the rail is visible at the bottom of the frame. If the rocket has moved about 15 feet between these two frame grabs (just a wild guess) it was moving at about 30fps between these two.

1-39.jpg

Separation and a bit of smoke. I'm guessing about 30ft off the deck at a 45 degree angle.

2-0.jpg

This first one is 24 frames after the first sign of smoke. Think of it as T+.08 (just like the first frame grab) The red spot marks the aproximate point of ignition.

2-24.jpg

This is the very next frame. Rocket moving about 5-6 feet in 1/30th of a second = 150fps-180fps mostly horizontal.

2-25.jpg
 
The LCO seems to say "54 to 38 two stage EX J300 to Aerotech J280" although the audio isn't crystal clear.

Agree that it is good to have this available to learn from. Not that it really matters, but I don't think AT makes a 38 mm J280; maybe he meant CTI?
 
i was takling to a bud by his RV when seen rocket was started going off kilter
and just as said "hope good electronics in there" whoosh over by RV.

adrenalin and relief at same time,

guy walking back from field is looking for new BVD's

john
 
These vids have led to endless debates about safety measures, blame-storming, and litiginoia. That is why they are taking them down.

And now that the vid is posted here, I recommend people keep their comments to a minimum.

I'll never understand the attitude that we should sweep things like this under the carpet and ignore that they ever happened.
 
I'll never understand the attitude that we should sweep things like this under the carpet and ignore that they ever happened.

It' pretty simple really. People cannot remain civil so who wants to deal with the nasty PM's and rude online commentary. I've "poked the bear" as it were raising legitimate concerns in what I thought was a polite way - and sometimes not so polite. All I have to say is, it just isn't worth the time. It's no coincidence that I haven't posted much here over the last few months...
 
I've always been of the opinion that if something unsafe happens, discussion is a good thing. If that hurts people's feelings so be it. Suggesting people stay on point and not just rudely spout off is a good thing. Saying "just ignore this" is just dangerous.

Along those lines, does anyone know what was onboard or how it was setup?
 
I talked to the flyer afterward. He is super old school, and so this one was set up using an Adept ES231 staging timer.

He was super shaken up (obviously) and said he won't be trying that again without more intelligent avionics.
 
I talked to the flyer afterward. He is super old school, and so this one was set up using an Adept ES231 staging timer.

He was super shaken up (obviously) and said he won't be trying that again without more intelligent avionics.

Well, book closed on that one. See? It can be civil.
 
DizWolf is absolutely spot-on here.

I for one would really like to know what went wrong here, so that I can AVOID the same problems myself. Having just recently started flying multi-stage HPR, any and all information on how to do it right is extremely beneficial - and how to avoid doing it wrong is even more so. I'd be very interested in more details about this flight - configurations/setup/avionics/pre-flight prep/etc.

s6
 
Well, book closed on that one. See? It can be civil.

Hah. That was the exception rather than the rule.

Make no mistake, I have no issue discussing issues like this in a forum like this so long as everyone plays nice.

Using an old school timer explains it.
 
It's what I suspected, but I'd rather verify.

I'm also building a two stage, and the temptation to use a timer is very high. So I understand. 95% of the flights that go as planned...no issue. But if anything does go wrong you're screwed. With the availability of systems with checks.... it's a better way to go I think. Nothing is fool-proof, but finding the best way to minimize risk is good.
 
I'll never understand the attitude that we should sweep things like this under the carpet and ignore that they ever happened.

I never suggested it be swept under the rug. I simply wanted to avoid the same kind of toxic discussion that occurred elsewhere. Yes, people provided very intelligent discussion this time. But let's face it, that is not always the case - even here on this forum.

I'd like to think that my comment might have even been a contributing factor in making this conversation a civil one.
 
Last edited:
As explained to my by the flier, it seems a few things happened that prevented this from being a safer launch than what it was. He is a very good friend and I trust 100% what this he tells me, and yes, as David said the result disturbed him quite a bit. As they say, hind sight is 20/20 so it was good for him to discuss this. So the same should be true here.

My first thought, which he agrees with is that the 1st stage did not have enough thrust to get the rocket moving fast enough for the fins to provide stability. You can see the yellow tape blowing in the wind and when launched, the rocket seems to instantly weather cock and never recovers. The motor was old, and was probably a little over rated to begin with. I think it just didn't have enough oomph off the pad. Had it been a J500+, the fins might have done their job as they were designed.

His simulations said it was stable and did not indicate any real problems. I'm talking numerous simulations here too. This guy in general is a data guru. Even still he didn't trust their results. However, and this is where it goes down hill, most all of the people he spoke with about it were able to convince him to trust the simulations and in the end, not trust his gut.

We all want to see a cool flight like a 2 stage, but when the concern of safety takes a back seat to seeing something cool, our minds need to be re-programed. I understand peer pressure and as ridiculously smart as my friend is, he is not perfect. The atmosphere you are in when attending a rocket launch needs to be one of being safety consciousness with a vigilance. I'm not advocating you be a safety nazi, but it needs to lead your decisions as well as your recommendations to others on what they should do when they ask you your advice. If you're telling someone they should fly something because it would be cool to see, without first qualifying it as being a safe flight, you need to re-program.

So he was convinced to fly it. He brought his simulations up to the RSO, got his signature and he "the flier" marked it as a "heads up" flight. He fully intended to take it out to the far pads, however when he went out to the pads, the pad manager on duty instructed him to put it on the closer set of pads so it could be seen better. (yes, this is what he told me the individual said) I was told he didn't continue out to the far pads because it didn't seem like there was a choice in the matter. That's where he made yet another mistake IMO.

Lessons learned....he agrees, in the future, it is his rocket, his decision and his responsibility alone on whether to fly and where to fly it from. If somebody doesn't let you fly it from where you think it can be safely flown from, it is also your decision NOT to fly it.

Lastly, it gets launched. As the video above shows, there is a quick announcement of the flight, at the end of which is stated "head's up flight". This is immediately followed by the count down. 5 seconds after the words "head's up flight" are announced, the rocket is leaving the pad.

Marking the box "Head's Up Flight" is the fliers way of letting everyone know that they as a flier have a safety concern about some aspect of the flight. It is also the last "safety check" of sorts before the button is pushed. All too often we treat this announcement with a lack of respect. However, the more importance the LSO puts on those words just prior to flight, the more aware and conscious those attending the event will be about what is to happen next. The "norm" I think is that when heads up is called prior to a flight, everyone is asked to get out of their chair, stand up and look out at the rocket being launched. At least that's what I am use to. IMO, at the very minimum, "heads up flight" should be announced at both the beginning and the end of a flight announcement in order to give everyone enough time to stop what they are doing and pay attention.


It only takes one bad thing to ruin your day. At Airfest this year I had a ~54mm rocket nearly puncture my brand new canopy. At the MWP 3 night launch, I had a 4" diameter rocket on a I-300 come in ballistic about 3-4 feet from the drivers side rear door of my car. There had been a car backed in next to be about 10-15 seconds prior to that. He was less than 100 feet away when it hit the ground. It impacted right about where the drivers seat would have been on his SUV. I want to say his name was Bill Bertoldi. He does rockets for schools or something like that I believe. After I showed him the large hole in the ground the next morning and told him when it happened, he was a bit shaken. The last I spoke with him a few years later, he said that was why he no longer attends night launches.

My point in telling the above, is that these were a few examples of close calls that directly involved me. However there are many of us that these things have happened to. Tim Dixon's 2nd stage on pad ignition comes to mind. It happened strait out in front of me and scared the crap out of me cause I thought he got hurt at first. I'm pretty sure Tim went back and changed his pants. These things change us, and change how we act, as they should. They need to be talked about and learned from if at all possible. Even if it upsets and ruffles a few feathers, I'd take that any day over seeing the same thing happen twice and perhaps seeing someone get hurt the next time around.

I know I have ruffled my share of feathers over different safety issues with this club before. I do apologize if I have ever offended, rubbed someone the wrong way, or just plain ticked you off. I would only ask that you put yourself in my shoes for a moment. I depend on the safe continuation of this hobby activity for my sole income and complete livelihood. I don't have a retirement fund pension or government contracts to keep me happy. YOU participating in this hobby is what keeps me happy. To see people use poor judgement on safety issues or the complete lack there of on anything that could jeopardize an entire club, a field, a waiver or the entire sport of flying in general is seen by me as a threat to my livelihood. I don't take kindly to threats and my general politeness tends to go out the window. Do things correctly and be safe to yourself and those around you and I'm a very pleasant person to be around.

The way every person acts from a flier, to a Prefect, to a LSO or a pad manager, your actions directly influence and affect those around you. If you think and act safety first, those around you will be more likely to do the same. However, if you think and act to be cool, show off, act wild and reckless, it will also affect those around you in the same manner. When it come to launching fast pointy things high in the air, the former generally has positive results, the latter generally has negative results. Please keep that in mind.
 
Last edited:
I know I have ruffled my share of feathers over different safety issues with this club before. I do apologize if I have ever offended, rubbed someone the wrong way, or just plain ticked you off. I would only ask that you put yourself in my shoes for a moment. I depend on the safe continuation of this hobby activity for my sole income and complete livelihood. I don't have a retirement fund pension or government contracts to keep me happy. YOU participating in this hobby is what keeps me happy. To see people use poor judgement on safety issues or the complete lack there of on anything that could jeopardize an entire club, a field, a waiver or the entire sport of flying in general is seen by me as a threat to my livelihood. I don't take kindly to threats and my general politeness tends to go out the window. Do things correctly and be safe to yourself and those around you and I'm a very pleasant person to be around.

The way every person acts from a flier, to a Prefect, to a LSO or a pad manager, your actions directly influence and affect those around you. If you think and act safety first, those around you will be more likely to do the same. However, if you think and act to be cool, show off, act wild and reckless, it will also affect those around you in the same manner. When it come to launching fast pointy things high in the air, the former generally has positive results, the later generally has negative results. Please keep that in mind.


Well said....and received...and thank you.
 
Back
Top