WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ANTI-DRAGRACE SENTIMENT???

Advertise with us
rocket sok
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
dixontj93060 said:
Gary, Justin, et. al.,

I assume this was an economic decision? But frankly don't know (or even know if you want to comment). Sadly though, it has changed the past decade+ of free-spirited fun inherent in this launch from it's inception.
Click to expand...

Curious why that's an issue? The advent of the Tripoli Research rules really negated the need for independent insurance. Other clubs like METRA and MDRA went independent to allow mixed Research and Commercial motor usage, not circumvent the safety code. In fact, those clubs recognized the safety code with regards to distances and launch practices.

Independent insurance should not be equated with "we do what we want."
 
rockdoc said:
QCRS, which is running MisWest Power is a Tripoli Prefecture and we are insured by Tripoli, we are no longer self insured.
Click to expand...


Question, honest not being a jerk. Even self insured launches have to stay within NFPA if it's codified into law in their area, yes?
 
DavidMcCann said:
Question, honest not being a jerk. Even self insured launches have to stay within NFPA if it's codified into law in their area, yes?
Click to expand...

True for commercial motors, but there are two different places in 1127 that define exceptions. One is in the administration section, chapter 1, where it claims jurisdiction only over commercial motors. The second is chapter 6, part 6.1(5) where it prohibits making your own motors but then carves out an exception for an organization interested in research motors.


Steve Shannon
 
Steve Shannon said:
True for commercial motors, but there are two different places in 1127 that define exceptions. One is in the administration section, chapter 1, where it claims jurisdiction only over commercial motors. The second is chapter 6, part 6.1(5) where it prohibits making your own motors but then carves out an exception for an organization interested in research motors.
Click to expand...

My Facebook law degree leads me to wonder if the ex safety code rules then never applied to commercial drag races
 
Steve Shannon said:
I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean that perhaps the previous Research Safety code drag race distances could only be applied when research motors only were flown?
Click to expand...

Yea, if the NFPA outlined rules for commercial motors, but made no rules for EX, how would the research safety code allow a commercial drag race that the NFPA would restrict? (assuming that NFPA was codified into law in the area in question)
 
DavidMcCann said:
Yea, if the NFPA outlined rules for commercial motors, but made no rules for EX, how would the research safety code allow a commercial drag race that the NFPA would restrict? (assuming that NFPA was codified into law in the area in question)
Click to expand...

I think that goes to which exception is appropriate of the two I mentioned. The first affects the entire 1127 code, meaning we set our own rules. The second only affects our ability to make research motors.
 
Right. I'm saying I don't see how either exception says "you can use your own EX rules to fly a commerical
motor drag race"
 
Steve Shannon said:
Bob,
According to the wording of the previous research rule the safe distance for a drag race was twice the complex distance for the impulse installed in that rocket. I pasted the actual text a few pages back. If it was intended to be twice the complex distance of the largest impulse motor in the drag race that got left out of the rule.
So, a drag race with three K motors in the previous rule would have been held at 2 x 350 = 700 feet.
Under the new rule, three K550 motors, with a combined impulse of 5100 Ns, can be placed at 500 feet, because the complex distance for up to 5120 Ns is 500 feet. 500 feet < 700 feet.
How is that patently false?
Click to expand...
Hi Steve first off I want to thank you for your service in running the organization voluntarily, and taking your time to address questions here in this public forum(that you don't have to).
I do however have a couple of suggestions /problems with rules being put in place with out member justification .As Bob said previous BOD's found that the current rules were getting to be shall we say a little over burdening.
Now there is not much you can do with the commercial code since it is totally driven buy NFPA, how ever the research code was totally written by the TRA BOD, with what they wanted from the commercial code but omitted what they didn't want including at the time the new drag race rules.
I believe there goal was to keep it to one page.
What I don't understand is in this day and age of communication, why are there any rules being put in place with out a vote directly from the membership.
The BOD should take suggestions for any rule changes into consideration, if they feel it is worth passing it on to the membership for a vote. Do so, maybe once a year, say with the BOD ballots.
Then you would not have to defend the BODs actions, it was voted on by the membership.
 
Last edited:
WILDMANRS said:
Hi Steve first off I want to thank you for your service in running the organization voluntarily, and taking your time to address questions here in this public forum(that you don't have to).
I do however have a couple of suggestions /problems with rules being put in place with out member justification .As Bob said previous BOD's found that the current rules were getting to be shall we say a little over burdening.
Now there is not much you can do with the commercial code since it is totally driven buy NFPA, how ever the research code was totally written by the TRA BOD, with what they wanted from the commercial code but omitted what they didn't want including at the time the new drag race rules.
I believe there goal was to keep it to one page.
What I don't understand is in this day and age of communication, why are there any rules being put in place with out a vote directly from the membership.
The BOD should take suggestions for any rule changes into consideration, if they feel it is worth passing it on to the membership for a vote. Do so, maybe once a year, say with the BOD ballots.
Then you would not have to defend the BODs actions, it was voted on by the membership.
Click to expand...

Tim,
Al Gloer (H_Rocket) asked something similar. I think (especially after this last week) that that would be a good idea. I'll add it to the agenda as a discussion point for the next board meeting.
Thanks Tim!
 
WILDMANRS said:
What I don't understand is in this day and age of communication, why are there any rules being put in place with out a vote directly from the membership.
The BOD should take suggestions for any rule changes into consideration, if they feel it is worth passing it on to the membership for a vote. Do so, maybe once a year, say with the BOD ballots.
Then you would not have to defend the BODs actions, it was voted on by the membership.
Click to expand...

We elect a BoD to be more informed than we are, and to make choices based off that knowledge. Every choice they make should not be put to membership, we'd be voting on 700 things a year and nothing would get done. Or worse, we'd make a lot of poor, uninformed choices.

In this current case, I don't think there were really options to do nothing and external forces demanded the changes.
 
Last edited:
DavidMcCann said:
We elect a BoD to be more informed than we are, and to make choices based off that knowledge. Every choice they make should not be put to membership, we'd be voting on 700 things a year and nothing would get done. Or worse, we'd make a lot of poor, uninformed choices.

In this current case, I don't think there were really options to do nothing and external forces demanded the changes.
Click to expand...

Right. Difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic. In a true Democracy, the majority rules; which means that if the majority are idiots, the smart people don't get a voice.

In a Democratic Republic, like the United States, we elect representatives who are (supposedly) smart enough to make good decisions for us. That doesn't mean that the representatives can't opt to put up certain issues for a democratic vote; but it begs the question as to whether or not every Joe Rocketlauncher has the wisdom and experience to make good decisions.
 
Right. And I don't think TRA bylaws have a provision requiring anything like this be put before the membership.

I can understand people wanting to add that to the bylaws, but being upset it didn't happen is senseless, and I think being done simply because they're upset with the outcome.

Trouble is, in this case, if you really look at what Steve and Ted have said, regardless of what the membership wanted, this needed to happen. The only way around it would be to get involved and change the NFPA, which it seems the other parties involved in have a pretty solid negative opinion.
 
DavidMcCann said:
We elect a BoD to be more informed than we are, and to make choices based off that knowledge. Every choice they make should not be put to membership, we'd be voting on 700 things a year and nothing would get done. Or worse, we'd make a lot of poor, uninformed choices.

In this current case, I don't think there were really options to do nothing and external forces demanded the changes.
Click to expand...
That's why the BOD would first vote on weather it was worth passing it on to the membership and basically the last step is the membership voting it into a final rule.
I am only talking about changes to the exiting rules

If there are outside forces pushing for a rule change the membership should know about it.
The membership might be able to help.
 
DavidMcCann said:
Right. And I don't think TRA bylaws have a provision requiring anything like this be put before the membership.

I can understand people wanting to add that to the bylaws, but being upset it didn't happen is senseless, and I think being done simply because they're upset with the outcome.

Trouble is, in this case, if you really look at what Steve and Ted have said, regardless of what the membership wanted, this needed to happen. The only way around it would be to get involved and change the NFPA, which it seems the other parties involved in have a pretty solid negative opinion.
Click to expand...
That's the whole problem is it didn't need to happen.
TRA is not abiding by NFPA now at every research launch., In for a penny in for a pound. you can not partially follow NFPA.
The reason the research code exists is because of that.
 
WILDMANRS said:
That's the whole problem is it didn't need to happen.
TRA is not abiding by NFPA now at every research launch., In for a penny in for a pound. you can not partially follow NFPA.
The reason the research code exists is because of that.
Click to expand...

What part of the EX code is against the NFPA currently
 
Last edited:
What I'm seeing is previous drag races with commercial motors (and I'm guessing a few NAR fliers mixed in) used the EX code improperly to try and loophole the rules, however were still against the NFPA, and where codified into law, the law.

The recent changes eliminate that error. Am I wrong? (I admit I could be, however at best the old setup was ambiguous, where this is much clearer)
 
Last edited:
Handeman said:
Is it really that much of a safety issue? I keep hearing some argue it is, but it seems to be their opinion that's its that much more unsafe. For every drag race "near miss" that is brought up, there are many more single launch "near misses". Has anyone ever really looked at the difference in risk? I seriously doubt it. I've never heard of any. It's all just opinion.

My experience is NOT typical, but I've never seen a near miss during a drag race. I've seen plenty during single launches. If you have a 1 in 10000 chance of an issue with one rocket, it's only a little bit more for 10 rockets.

Since I have never seen or heard of any actual analysis or numbers, it's my opinion that it's a lot more dangerous to drive to the launch then it is to attend it. If I'm going to die that day, it's probably going to be on the highway, not the range.
Click to expand...

Like burkefj, I'd say that the chance of failure of any individual flight is 1:100 or so. Maybe as high as 1:50, but probably not. The chance of that failure being potentially catastrophic is much lower, maybe 1:1000 or so. If a rocket lawn darts out on the range far away from spectators, that's a failure, but not potentially catastrophic because the normal range safety rules kept everyone out of where they could be hit by parts. The spit motor casing that bounced off an occupied tent was both.

Getting into anecdata, I've seen one injury, on a single rocket flight where the rocket came in ballistic and hit someone sitting in the bleachers. They didn't get up/look up/acquire the incoming rocket in time to get out of the way. I've seen a dozen or so flights where single rockets or parts came down in the general spectator area. I've seen one drag race, and that ended with one of the three rockets shredding. I don't think that any of the parts landed in the spectator area since it shredded pretty low.

My big concern when launching is tracking what's in the air. With a single rocket, it's not usually a problem because you typically have a lot more eyes than you have rockets. At most launches, you only have a few people with the mystical rocket-tracking powers to follow a 3" rocket to 8,000 feet. The more rockets in the air at once, the more their attention is divided. There is a much higher chance that a failed flight will slip through people's attention if there are more than one in the air. That's reasoning, not data, so feel free to ignore it.
 
WILDMANRS said:
Then why the second safety code?
And then why does NAR not allow research motors if its covered by NFPA ?
Click to expand...

my Boy Scout troop doesn't allow EX motors. Nor my church. Or my model train club. And we're not even an NFPA state.

(Just because something is allowed doesn't mean a group ha to let it happen.)
 
I've always assumed NAR has avoided EX as part of their generally "family-oriented" approach to rocketry. I mean, they even eschewed high power initially, until Tripoli showed that it was popular and safe.
 
Bat-mite said:
I've always assumed NAR has avoided EX as part of their generally "family-oriented" approach to rocketry. I mean, they even eschewed high power initially, until Tripoli showed that it was popular and safe.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I think some people in this thread are now in this photo..

87651635.ExdwAP6i.DSC06554_s.jpg
 

Similar threads

boatgeek
Anti-satellite warfare
Replies
23
Views
718
Bill Hanson
Bill Hanson
Bobbyg334
  • Locked
Rocket man parachutes, no response
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
cwbullet
cwbullet
Maxhiker14
L3 Project (video report)
Replies
0
Views
137
Maxhiker14
Maxhiker14
ThirstyBarbarian
  • Locked
Who would you like to see Rachel Maddow interview?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
DAllen
DAllen
DragonRocketry
4" AT-3 Sagger Russian Anti-tank guided missile
Replies
1
Views
465
Sooner Boomer
Sooner Boomer

Latest posts

Back
Top