NFPA vs. mass launches

rocket sok
SilicdyneTRF
Shop deals on ebay
the rocketry show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DavidMcCann said:
The ratio of drunken apes to armchair scientists in this hobby is depressing
Click to expand...

David, you disagree so you start insulting people? Stay on topic, stay substantive and perhaps you will win the day. Insulting people is not only not effective, but brings into question who the drunken ape is.
 
DavidMcCann said:
If you're going to stand next to me and risk my life, you better have a better reason than "but it's gonna look awesome!"

i have an an issue with the notion that if something is fun, there is no need for it to be safe
Click to expand...

David, I doubt anyone is suggesting they do not want safety. I think the argument breaks down to a few points.

1) what is acceptable risk? I think this needs to be studied more. That said, I tend to not be for mass launches...especially really large motors and rockets.

2) some folks do not want to accept any rules ever. Others want rules for everything. Reality is that there needs to be balance between the two. As a previous post said- the only rocket that is zero risk is one that never flies.

3) if I read some of the previous posts correctly some of these rockets did not hit the RSO. Not sure what type of launch this occurred at, but sounds pretty fishy.
 
Last edited:
markkoelsch said:
David, you disagree so you start insulting people? Stay on topic, stay substantive and perhaps you will win the day. Insulting people is not only not effective, but brings into question who the drunken ape is.
Click to expand...

Frustration. How does "the ratio of people willing to disregard the safety of others compared to those who wish to responsibly mitigate risks is depressing" sound?
 
Last edited:
DavidMcCann said:
Frustration. How does "the ratio of people willing to disregard the safety of others compared to those who wish to responsibly mitigate risks is depressing" sound?
Click to expand...

Stop sweating it so much. I speak from much experience in the forum deal. Walk away for a bit- this crap is not worth getting overly frustrated about.
 
i think most of us are ok with a pair of Hs. I think most of use would pucker at 15 J motors. So where's the safe middle?

id put it at two rockets at a time. The issue is tracking, and the failure rate. If we accept a failure rate of 40% on a single flight, 3 rockets in the air means one fails, and we don't know which one to watch.
 
markkoelsch said:
Stop sweating it so much. I speak from much experience in the forum deal. Walk away for a bit- this crap is not worth getting overly frustrated about.
Click to expand...

im half trolling, half trying to get people thinking.

As said, TRA rules in effect prohibit massive drag races. Go run the numbers on 15 H motors.
 
Where I have a problem is when there's an expectation or strong history of failure and you keep going ahead. On the former, I've seen a few videos where the flyer said just before liftoff, "This probably isn't gonna survive the motor" or something like that. If you're expecting it to shred, why are you flying it? The other is the large drag races at one of the midwest launches, where there are 10 or so rockets flying on large L2/small L3 motors. Almost all of the videos of that event I've seen have multiple shreds per event. If you keep having that happen and you continue to do the drag race, you have no excuse when parts rain from the sky into the crowd.

I think 3 at a time is fairly reasonable, and could maybe be convinced of 5, but 10-12 with a known history of shredding rockets is asking for trouble and nobody should try to claim otherwise. I focus more on the shreds than the ballistic because the shreds leave parts over a wide area, and in HPR even the parts are enough to do serious damage.
 
boatgeek said:
Where I have a problem is when there's an expectation or strong history of failure and you keep going ahead. On the former, I've seen a few videos where the flyer said just before liftoff, "This probably isn't gonna survive the motor" or something like that. If you're expecting it to shred, why are you flying it? The other is the large drag races at one of the midwest launches, where there are 10 or so rockets flying on large L2/small L3 motors. Almost all of the videos of that event I've seen have multiple shreds per event. If you keep having that happen and you continue to do the drag race, you have no excuse when parts rain from the sky into the crowd.

I think 3 at a time is fairly reasonable, and could maybe be convinced of 5, but 10-12 with a known history of shredding rockets is asking for trouble and nobody should try to claim otherwise. I focus more on the shreds than the ballistic because the shreds leave parts over a wide area, and in HPR even the parts are enough to do serious damage.
Click to expand...

This! I think that over two at a time the RSO's should review each case. It's one thing to have 5 or 6 proven rockets fly vs putting up 5 or 6 that are unproven or on really crazy motors that will likely shred many of them.
 
I think drag races can be fun but I honestly can't think of a time when I participated in one where the motors were larger than a C6-5. There needs to be a balance between fun and safe. Banning drag races outright is not the answer. Having no rules at all is also not the answer.

Every rocket should be RSO'd and should be held to the same safety standard. If there is doubt that the rocket would survive the flight, it shouldn't fly. Period. If there are launches where rockets don't get RSO'd or just get a pass at the RSO table, then those launches and clubs should be investigated.

As for mass launches or drag races, what if the rockets were treated as a single entity from a safety stand-off distance? A pair of H's -> complex I distance. 16 J's -> complex N distance.

-Aaron
 
rstaff3 said:
This! I think that over two at a time the RSO's should review each case. It's one thing to have 5 or 6 proven rockets fly vs putting up 5 or 6 that are unproven or on really crazy motors that will likely shred many of them.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is the solution. If you want to fly in an HPR drag race, the rocket must have flown that motor before. That's the same basic rule our club has for night launches (must have flown successfully that weekend in the lighting configuration to be flown at night). That takes you out of the major shred risk territory and just into recovery failures. The range team should probably also angle the launch rails well away from the crowd as well to protect against ballistic flights landing in the crowd.
 
rharshberger said:
There is an entire thread devoted to the subject on TRF.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/11/16/boy-scout-community-mourns-death-of-leader-killed-in-rocketry-accident/
Click to expand...


The scout master death was not done at an NAR-sanctioned launch. The rocket that was involved probably would not have passed a safety inspection. It was a drag race of only two rockets as far as I can tell from the news reports. The scoutmaster was tracking his own. The other flier had lost track of his. The scoutmaster was hit by the other flier's rocket, which had been damaged from a previous flight.

I do not think this is an apples-to-apples comparison to the types of drag races we are talking about.

I have however seen rockets in a drag race collide...more than once... and we all know that flying damaged rockets is more dangerous that flying ones that are not damaged. I'm not saying "Don't do them," but I do believe there has to be limits. I would be willing to follow these guidelines.

1. No more than 5 rockets.
2. It is announced as a "heads-*** flight, the RSO can insist that all spectators watch the flight, and the flight would be held up until the RSO is satisfied that people are paying attention.
3. Rockets must be launched from every other pad (i.e., pads 1,3,5,7, and 9.)...NOT side by side. This would reduce the risk of mid-air collisions, and the subsequent rain of debris.

It wouldn't be as "spectacular," but it would be safer.
 
EeebeeE said:
The scout master death was not done at an NAR-sanctioned launch. The rocket that was involved probably would not have passed a safety inspection. It was a drag race of only two rockets as far as I can tell from the news reports. The scoutmaster was tracking his own. The other flier had lost track of his. The scoutmaster was hit by the other flier's rocket, which had been damaged from a previous flight.

I do not think this is an apples-to-apples comparison to the types of drag races we are talking about.

I have however seen rockets in a drag race collide...more than once... and we all know that flying damaged rockets is more dangerous that flying ones that are not damaged. I'm not saying "Don't do them," but I do believe there has to be limits. I would be willing to follow these guidelines.

1. No more than 5 rockets.
2. It is announced as a "heads-*** flight, the RSO can insist that all spectators watch the flight, and the flight would be held up until the RSO is satisfied that people are paying attention.
3. Rockets must be launched from every other pad (i.e., pads 1,3,5,7, and 9.)...NOT side by side. This would reduce the risk of mid-air collisions, and the subsequent rain of debris.

It wouldn't be as "spectacular," but it would be safer.
Click to expand...

I can't believe the TRF is censoring the word, up, in the phrase "heads --- up."
 
I'd also be interested in more data. Some potential additional safety rules for mass launches (3 or more rockets, which I am distinguishing from "drag races" having 2 rockets):

1) All rockets must have previously flown successfully on the loaded motor and in the planned recovery configuration
2) Reasonable altitude limit at the RSO discretion - main idea is that all rockets should be easily in sight the entire flight
3) No complex rockets
4) For high power, must have redundant deployment for at least one event (i.e. electronic dual deploy with motor backup for drogue would be okay). L2 and above, if allowed at all (and I'd lean to no) would need fully redundant deployment.
5) Designated spotter for each rocket
6) RSO inspects every rocket as loaded on the pad to verify pointed away from crowd/parking

I don't think the increased minimum distance helps much at all, it's primarily helpful to avoid CATO debris, and that's the same size no matter how many small rockets you have.

Honestly the biggest / most common safety issues I've seen at launches are rockets that go (predictably!) over the crowd. That ought to be easily fixed for mass launches.
 
These are the Draconian rules I put in place for LDRS 32.


Mass Launches (Drag Races)
(3 or more rockets intended to be launched simultaneously)
Rockets will be launched from the complex distance for the total impulse of the group
Total impulse of the group shall not exceed O, 40,860Nsec
No more than 10 rockets will be attempted to be launched at one time. This means all the rockets in the first group have landed before a second group is launched.
No Odd Rockets.
All must have active recovery with a decent rate not greater than 30’/sec Flyers must have previously successfully launched and recovered a rocket of the same or great er impulse
No multi stage or clusters.
Drag races with any rocket in the group having L or greater impulse must be approved in advance (2) by LDRS Special Projects Coordinator.
 
Here's what I've learned by reading this thread.....
1) I'm much more libertarian than I thought I was... As in, I'm firmly on the side of not needing a rule because some people just want one.
2) I clearly don't know what kind of clubs people are launching at... As in the clubs where I launch, all rockets get RSO'd pretty effectively and the are very few mishaps. I collected all the data from the last MWP. The rate of failures to success was fantastically safe. The most dangerous flights we had that weekend were due to errors that could not have been foreseen by the flyer or RSO (motor issues, CATO, etc). In fact, the couple flights that we were super cautious about because they appeared to be marginal... Both of them went flawlessly.
3) I've seen several "mass" launches. I get it, and I understand the danger. But no one, and I do mean no one, left the launch due to fear. Everyone stood up, kept their eyes on the sky, was safe, and enjoyed the spectacle.
4) Since the current rules are in place (and even the old ones), the safety record is still fantastically great. Therefore, anyone arguing to change the current rules should really, really, really be basing that argument on overwhelming evidence. Of which, I've seen none on this thread. I've seen some basic reasoning that is logical. However, that reasoning fails to account for the obvious fact of the existing safety record.
Last thing...
5) I've learned that I can type and then delete smartass responses several times before deciding to type a rational, calm, and reasoned argument.
 
CzTeacherMan said:
Here's what I've learned by reading this thread.....
1) I'm much more libertarian than I thought I was... As in, I'm firmly on the side of not needing a rule because some people just want one.
2) I clearly don't know what kind of clubs people are launching at... As in the clubs where I launch, all rockets get RSO'd pretty effectively and the are very few mishaps. I collected all the data from the last MWP. The rate of failures to success was fantastically safe. The most dangerous flights we had that weekend were due to errors that could not have been foreseen by the flyer or RSO (motor issues, CATO, etc). In fact, the couple flights that we were super cautious about because they appeared to be marginal... Both of them went flawlessly.
3) I've seen several "mass" launches. I get it, and I understand the danger. But no one, and I do mean no one, left the launch due to fear. Everyone stood up, kept their eyes on the sky, was safe, and enjoyed the spectacle.
4) Since the current rules are in place (and even the old ones), the safety record is still fantastically great. Therefore, anyone arguing to change the current rules should really, really, really be basing that argument on overwhelming evidence. Of which, I've seen none on this thread. I've seen some basic reasoning that is logical. However, that reasoning fails to account for the obvious fact of the existing safety record.
Last thing...
5) I've learned that I can type and then delete smartass responses several times before deciding to type a rational, calm, and reasoned argument.
Click to expand...

Point 4 is problematic because you're basing it off of unsubstantiated evidence. Read my post, I want to have a large undertaking of collecting the data to prove or disprove the point.

The club you fly with has cleaned their act up significantly in the last 2-3 years, thankfully. The current leadership has done, as far as I can tell, a wonderful job of cutting out reckless behavior. Investigating areas of further improvement should always be embraced, especially in the name of safety.
 
patelldp said:
Investigating areas of further improvement should always be embraced, especially in the name of safety.
Click to expand...

Have you investigated the safety of not flying rockets at all versus flying rockets as a hobby? I'd be curious to see what the safety ratio is, myself.
...
...
Darn... I just lost on my own 5th point.
 
CzTeacherMan said:
Have you investigated the safety of not flying rockets at all versus flying rockets as a hobby? I'd be curious to see what the safety ratio is, myself.
...
...
Darn... I just lost on my own 5th point.
Click to expand...

You're being ignorant. As I already said, a single launch is deemed acceptable risk by us, by UP Aerospace, by NASA, and by SpaceX. From there we need to scrutinize.

Your all or nothing attitude should be checked at the door. Don't ignore rational safety questions.
 
patelldp said:
You're being ignorant. As I already said, a single launch is deemed acceptable risk by us, by UP Aerospace, by NASA, and by SpaceX. From there we need to scrutinize.

Your all or nothing attitude should be checked at the door. Don't ignore rational safety questions.
Click to expand...

"You're being..." Thanks! I thought I was being a smartass. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Clearly, you didn't know that. So... Clearly... You're being ignorant.

...

And, if you had read my post, you would have noticed that I did not have an all or nothing attitude. Nor did I ignore rational safety questions. In fact, I directly acknowledged those rational safety questions. So, again, you lack knowledge about my post.
... You're being ignorant again.
Just sayin.
 
CzTeacherMan said:
"You're being..." Thanks! I thought I was being a smartass. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Clearly, you didn't know that. So... Clearly... You're being ignorant.

...

And, if you had read my post, you would have noticed that I did not have an all or nothing attitude. Nor did I ignore rational safety questions. In fact, I directly acknowledged those rational safety questions. So, again, you lack knowledge about my post.
... You're being ignorant again.
Just sayin.
Click to expand...

I'm really not being ignorant, I am clearly saying further research needs to be done on the matter. If it's safe it's safe, if it's not we self police. It's that simple.
 
The bottom line here is that we need to have better reporting of failed flights. Yes, this is "only a hobby," but it is also science, and the scientific method treats failures as being as important as successes. With better reporting comes more complete data, and with more complete data we can make more informed decisions.

The other thing we need is for a couple people to take a time out, and chill. Really. We're supposed to have fun with this.
 
EeebeeE said:
The bottom line here is that we need to have better reporting of failed flights. Yes, this is "only a hobby," but it is also science, and the scientific method treats failures as being as important as successes. With better reporting comes more complete data, and with more complete data we can make more informed decisions.

The other thing we need is for a couple people to take a time out, and chill. Really. We're supposed to have fun with this.
Click to expand...

I agree...we need to push our clubs and members to analyze their practices and change for the better.
 
If no one dies it's not an incident! Perfect safety record!

the truth is the near misses keep getting closer, and no one wants to talk about it
 
You would think that the lack of insurance coverage would have a self regulating effect on individual launch safety? From what I understand most of the drag races people want to do are extremely difficult under current NFPA rules. I believe NAR and TRA individual insurance coverage requires following NFPA as per their safety codes.

Indy insured clubs may not require this but Indy insurance doesn't cover the individual flyer. So yeah, if you have little net worth and are willing to lose that, I can see you wanting to participate in mass drag races.
 
Thanks for that perspective John. I didn't even think of that.

I think this debate boils down to two camps. One seeks knowledge and wants to learn and challenge themselves, and takes risks after consideration and tries to keep them as low as possible. The other is in this for kicks and is willing to increase risk to others substantially, and thinks "but it's fun" justifys that risk.
 

Similar threads

Steve Shannon
  • Locked
Revision to Tripoli Rule Regarding Wireless Remote Switches
42 43 44
Replies
1K
Views
93K
tim cubbedge
tim cubbedge
KennB
03 October 2020 CMASS Launch - Amesbury, MA
Replies
1
Views
713
KennB
KennB
A
F-117A Shootdown
Replies
18
Views
6K
darrenf
darrenf
Ted Cochran
NAR announces a revised HPR Safety Code
Replies
5
Views
819
Batman
B
GuyNoir
NAR PREZ - DRAFT Response to FAA NPRM
Replies
20
Views
3K
denverdoc
denverdoc

Latest posts

Back
Top