Motor Selection By Age

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

Kruegon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
5
As I've began my venture into HPR, my sons are jealous. My middle son wants to try Jr. HPR. The youngest does as well but is only 9. I cant find it spelled out in black and white anywhere. What motors can he fly at 9? I live in Alabama. I fly almost exclusively with TRA and NAR groups and clubs.
 
As I've began my venture into HPR, my sons are jealous. My middle son wants to try Jr. HPR. The youngest does as well but is only 9. I cant find it spelled out in black and white anywhere. What motors can he fly at 9? I live in Alabama. I fly almost exclusively with TRA and NAR groups and clubs.

I guess his limit would be what ever one you set, as long as you help him out with them.:wink:
 
OK. Didn't know if NAR had any set limits on motors for them. I know that RMS and LMS are not allowed.
 
The Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission has promulgated regulations that do not allow minors to purchase/use (re)loadable motors, or to use rocket motors greater than F impulse or with an average thrust greater than 80 N. Certain states also have more restrictive regulations. This is why adult supervision of minors at launches is important.

Bob
 
Ultimately, you as the registered flyer supporting a minor flyer are responsible.
 
Tripoli Participation Program is 12 and NAR HPR participation program (JR level 1) is 14. You still gotta do the motors due to the F restriction for minors, and both programs spell it out.
Both programs allow the minor with his motor Sr member, to venture out to the pad and hook it up - and be the flyer of record, although the Sr. guy is still liable for whatever happens. Juniors also can't handle BP or it's substitutes, so it's single deploy for either.
 
So no dual deploy even if I load the charges same as I would the motors?
 
The NAR rule do not allow electronic deployment, however TRA does, however in all cases, the senior member must handle all propulsive and pyrotechnic devices.

Bob
 
I assume you could do dual deploy with a cable cutter or other non-black powder system. My younger daughter (12) and I launched up to G motors with her name on the flight card and me as a pad assistant/supervisor. Also, if you are launching at TRA research launches, minors may not be able to go to the high power pads with you even if you are the registered flyer. My older daughter had a similar situation a year ago at a club launch. Check with your club for details--I'm sure they'd help you out.
 
By Federal law, minors are not allowed to launch high power rockets so it is important that the sponsoring NAR and TRA senior member understand the rules and restrictions of NAR Jr. Level 1 participation and TRA TMP HP participation programs because they are legally responsible for those flights as their name must be on the flight card as the flyer of record.

Ugh. Makes me wish I had gone TRA now.
It doesn't matter for you. You are a senior member. NAR and TRA senior members have reciprocity at each others events. TRA senior members can launch commercial motors to their certification level at NAR launches, and NAR senior members can launch commercial motors to the level of their certification at TRA commercial or research launches. If you have children, or sponsor Jr. HP flights, you, not the minor, are legally responsible for the outcome of the flight.

I assume you could do dual deploy with a cable cutter or other non-black powder system. My younger daughter (12) and I launched up to G motors with her name on the flight card and me as a pad assistant/supervisor. Also, if you are launching at TRA research launches, minors may not be able to go to the high power pads with you even if you are the registered flyer. My older daughter had a similar situation a year ago at a club launch. Check with your club for details--I'm sure they'd help you out.
1. A NAR senior member can utilize dual deployment of any type on any rocket but NAR requires motor ejection deployment on all Jr. Level 1 rocket flights and dual deployment is explicitly not allowed and a NAR senior member must be the flyer of record. For details see https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/formal-participation-procedure/

2. At TRA research launches, the only minors allowed at the high power pads are TRA Jr. TMP members under the direct supervision of a TRA senior member of the required certification level. For details see https://www.tripoli.org/TMP and links therein.

Bob
 
Yes but if I were TRA, I could do the same program, 2 years younger, and he could fly DD under supervision. Or so it seems based on reading those links.
 
Yes but if I were TRA, I could do the same program, 2 years younger, and he could fly DD under supervision. Or so it seems based on reading those links.
Not exactly. The TRA Jr. member is in reality an observer. The TRA senior member assembles and installs the motor, sets up and installs the ejection charges, signs the flight card, and after the rocket is erected on the pad, he installs the igniter. There are no rules prohibiting a NAR HP certified senior member from building a high power rocket with his son or daughter and doing exactly the same thing. The advantage of the NAR program is the Jr. L1 Participant automatically gets his L1 when he turns 18.

Bob
 
This conversation makes me curious what the legal definition of "use" is. If a parent/guardian purchases a motor, but the minor puts it into the rocket, then who is the user in this case? What if the kid only does the countdown and presses the launch controller button?

I am no expert, but it seems to me that if the parent does all the handling of the actual motor itself, then it's kind of a question of interpretation of who's actually "flying" the rocket. If a really skilled 12-year-old builds a rocket, and it's solidly built - say, examined by an RSO at a club launch or whatever, but then his or her parents actually set it up and launch the thing, to me, it seems like the kid is getting all the benefits of seeing a rocket he built fly, without breaking any rules. I am not up to HPR yet, but with my rockets, the fact that I built them is often enough for me. I don't necessarily have to be the one to press the button.
 
Thank you for the clarifications, Bob. I was interested in that DD question, so I went back to the NAR rules you linked to:

The qualification flight and all future flights must be single deployment only. This is due to regulatory requirements of ejection charges used in dual deployment systems. On board electronic devices are permitted as long as they are not used for deployment.

This seems like a place where the NAR rules might need an update, since there are dual deploy systems that do not require pyrotechnics/ejection charges. I'd suggest something similar to the TARC rules, which say something like "non-pyrotechnic systems can be used." Do you know what the process is for requesting a change in rules? A better question might be how often rules changes like these get suggested and approved. I'm always happy to try to make things better, but I don't need any more windmills to tilt at.
 
This conversation makes me curious what the legal definition of "use" is. If a parent/guardian purchases a motor, but the minor puts it into the rocket, then who is the user in this case? What if the kid only does the countdown and presses the launch controller button?

I am no expert, but it seems to me that if the parent does all the handling of the actual motor itself, then it's kind of a question of interpretation of who's actually "flying" the rocket. If a really skilled 12-year-old builds a rocket, and it's solidly built - say, examined by an RSO at a club launch or whatever, but then his or her parents actually set it up and launch the thing, to me, it seems like the kid is getting all the benefits of seeing a rocket he built fly, without breaking any rules. I am not up to HPR yet, but with my rockets, the fact that I built them is often enough for me. I don't necessarily have to be the one to press the button.
Please read the NAR and TRA HP Participation rules.

The minor is allowed to build the rocket, however:

1.) The minor can not purchase the motor.
2.) The minor can not assemble or handle the motor.
3.) The minor can not handle any ejection charges.
4.) The minor can not insert the igniter.
5.) The adult senior member is the flyer of record.

Due to the federal CPSC regulations this is the only legal way for a minor to participate in high power rocketry.

Bob
 
Thank you for the clarifications, Bob. I was interested in that DD question, so I went back to the NAR rules you linked to:



This seems like a place where the NAR rules might need an update, since there are dual deploy systems that do not require pyrotechnics/ejection charges. I'd suggest something similar to the TARC rules, which say something like "non-pyrotechnic systems can be used." Do you know what the process is for requesting a change in rules? A better question might be how often rules changes like these get suggested and approved. I'm always happy to try to make things better, but I don't need any more windmills to tilt at.
I believe the required use of single deployment apogee motor ejection is for simplicity and reliability as well as compliance with the CPSC regulations on he use of hazardous and explosive materials by minors. I did not see an exception in the TARC rules for 2-stage electronic deployment. The TARC rule reads:
2.11 FLIGHT CONTROL


Rockets may not use an externally-generated signal such as radio or computer control (except GPS navigation satellite signals) for any purpose after liftoff. They may use autonomous onboard control systems to control any aspect of flight as long as these do not involve the use of pyrotechnic charges. Any onboard flight-control electronics must use only commercially-made altitude and/or timing devices that are available to all TARC participants.

If you could apply this wording to a Jr. Level 1 Participation Flight, you could possibly use a hot filament to burn/release a reefing/deployment line for a main chute. If you are looking for a rule change I would suggest you contact Art Upton and Steve Lubliner with your proposal. Their contact info is located on this NAR webpage. https://www.nar.org/about-nar/organization-contacts/

Bob
 
Please read the NAR and TRA HP Participation rules.

The minor is allowed to build the rocket, however:

1.) The minor can not purchase the motor.
2.) The minor can not assemble or handle the motor.
3.) The minor can not handle any ejection charges.
4.) The minor can not insert the igniter.
5.) The adult senior member is the flyer of record.

Due to the federal CPSC regulations this is the only legal way for a minor to participate in high power rocketry.

Bob

Exactly what I was thinking. But if you build a successful flying rocket, to me, that's the most satisfying part. You don't have to be the one to purchase/install/etc. the motor. If the rocket flies well when a parent or guardian actually buys the motor (hey, free motor!) and installs it, you've still built a good rocket.
 
I assume you could do dual deploy with a cable cutter or other non-black powder system. My younger daughter (12) and I launched up to G motors with her name on the flight card and me as a pad assistant/supervisor. Also, if you are launching at TRA research launches, minors may not be able to go to the high power pads with you even if you are the registered flyer. My older daughter had a similar situation a year ago at a club launch. Check with your club for details--I'm sure they'd help you out.

What kind of cable-cutter doesn't use black powder?
 
Interesting, never knew about that. Looks clunky. Wonder what the failure ratio was.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with performance. I think it was strictly a cost versus benefit issue.

For $40 you could purchase a standard dual deployment altimeter or for $200 you could purchase a timer based line burner that required motor ejection to function. Altimeters weigh less than 1 ounce and will fit in a 1" airframe while the chute-tamer weighed 5+ oz and required a 2" airframe. Dual deployment altimeter are virtually automatic whereas the chute-tamer need to be set up for each rocket/motor combination.

Dual deployment altimeters are less expensive, more reliable, more compact and simpler to use than the chute-tamer. IMO the value was not there for most fliers.

Bob
 
I've got a lot research to do on alternative DD systems. And apparently non-electronic versions. Time to study analog alternatives with no powder charges. This could get interesting.
 
Drag racers use air "cannons" or springs to launch their chutes, to get those applications to work in a rocket would be a challenge. Don't know of any other non pyro way to do it, besides the Chute Tamer method. I think it is best to just accept the fact that age restrictions are a fact of life. Our kids can't drive or go to a bar, etc. until they reach a certain age. Proper sizing motor to rocket to field size will eliminate the need for dual deployment.

The hardest part with rocketry and kids is keeping them interested in it, been there, done that, tried hard but failed. The Jr. HPR programs are all about them learning about HPR, thru their mentors, all the flights are their mentors flights. Hopefully you can keep their interest in it long enough so they can truly have their own flights. Good Luck!!
 
The hardest part with rocketry and kids is keeping them interested in it, been there, done that, tried hard but failed. The Jr. HPR programs are all about them learning about HPR, thru their mentors, all the flights are their mentors flights. Hopefully you can keep their interest in it long enough so they can truly have their own flights. Good Luck!!

I hear you. My son actually got me started in rocketry again when he came home from school in seventh grade with an Estes rocket they had built and flown in a science class and he wanted to fly it again. We launched at his school a lot and he came to all the club launches with me for several years and was building a pretty good fleet of his own. Then about 16 years of age with a drivers license and hormones, it was all about Gas & Girls and rockets just didn't hold his interest any longer. I remember those days. It's why I'm a BAR. I guess it's like father like son. There's still hope.
 
I didn't know about the pyro versions of the cable cutter until this thread. What I'd seen was on a "cable cutter perfected" thread here a few months ago, where people were using nichrome hot wires to cut zip ties holding a chute burrito together. Assuming that it worked (and it appears it did for some people at least), it would be a cable cutter method at virtually the same cost as BP-based dual deploy using essentially the same equipment.
 
Back
Top