Ethics of Building and Launching HPR

I am currently a college student and one of my courses is having a discussion on ethics this week. I am wondering what precautions are taken by RSOs to ensure everything is safe. What happens if an RSO finds a rocket to be unsafe or if there is a dispute between the owner and the RSO? These questions came to me after reading all the posts concerning the ROCKET CITY REDNECKS. It seems that they do rather unsafe things for the sensationalism of being on TV. Also, I downloaded Nat Geos LDRS 2010 and LDRS 2012 and found that the majority of the show was catastrophic launches. Having never been to a club launch what is the typical failure rate of larger rockets.

I picture an individual with a degree in a relating field who is new to rocketry and thinks he knows exactly what he is doing, but in reality does something potentially unsafe because of his lack of experience.

On the flip side to that

What is done about people biting off more than they can chew while creating a one-of-a- kind design using ROCKSIM or a similar program? I have read a few graduate level theses about the difference between computer yielded results compared to actual results. I feel that people in this hobby may becoming too reliant on what ROCKSIM or OPEN ROCKET is saying and forget their good judgment.
I understand the safety needs to come first and is extremely important but also taking a little bit of calculated risk is not always a bad thing.

I would appreciate to hear everybody’s thoughts on ETHCIS in Rocketry.

Most club launches I've been to (ROC) have been fairly reliable; about 1 in 15 or 20 HPR's fail in my experience.

That said, the one XPRS I've been to at Black Rock had rather more failures than I expected, but that's just one launch.

I haven't really thought much about the ethics of it: when doing a big project like my and CCotner's Bare Necessities (which was way above our cert levels), we tried to mitigate all of the risks we could by eliciting all the opinions we could about the design. We were given permission to fly it (from far away, so that a structural failure would not endanger anyone), but we decided not to at that time because of electronics acting unhappily.

So in short, we did hold off our launch fever because of a safety concern. But really I think anyone in our situation should have done the same. The Project60k rocket flew and shredded, so apparently they felt confident enough that it would recover should it have survived the boost.

Carefully designed large high power rockets are no more dangerous than the LPR/MPR variety. It can also depend on factors that are irrelevant to size. For example if you are doing something more complicated like clustering or staging, that can increase the chances of something not going to plan. It really depends on the situation.

What you see on those TV shows is really designed to appeal to a large audience, and people like failures/explosions. The show really doesn't depict the reliability/success seen at regular NAR/Tripoli Launches

For all intents and purposes, Rocksim/Openrocket is accurate enough for regular Class 1 and 2 rockets. There is some variance between sims and real world, but most people are fine with a reasonable amount of error, as long as they are not going close to the maximum waiver. To get good simulation results you need to put in weights/dimensions in accurately, which can take some time. You can go further and enter launch site temperature/winds and refine the CD value among other things. It is just another tool in a rocketeers toolbox, so it can be relied upon for what it is designed to do. That said with more launching experience you will gain a better grasp on judgement and develop your building techniques, and a technical background can't hurt.

If launching HPR interests you, most people will tell you to start off small and work your way up as you gain experience and confidence. It's not a race to build the biggest rocket possible. Some people may occasionally bite off more than they can chew but it can still be a learning experience.

This is a GREAT topic... good question... the answer is, as many things in life, "it depends".

I allow two clubs to use our two farms for launching fields, and believe me, safety is a big concern for us... I TRY to attend the launches whenever I can, and I'm pretty good friends with the guys that usually end up pretty much 'in charge' of the launches, and I think we have a pretty good working relationship on that score... we all seem to be 'on the same page' when it comes to our attitudes and thoughts about safety. I try not to interfere with operations, but if I see something patently unsafe, YOU BET I'm gonna call somebody on it. If that's a problem, well, nobody's forcing them to fly here at gunpoint or anything...

Some clubs are VERY strictly operated and have very specific, formalized procedures, sign-ins, flight cards, and RSO's that you have to PROVE that your model is "safe" via inspection and/or questioning before you can fly... some are more easygoing and are only looking for 'egregious' errors or mistakes that would have little doubt of producing a bad result... Then there are some clubs (like the ones that fly out here) which are pretty small, have a core group of dedicated and experienced flyers, and don't have a formal "RSO" at all, merely club officers or advisors which sorta keep an eye on newbs and make sure they're doing what they should... If not, well, it's a club, and they'll be asked to not fly, and if they don't want to comply, they'll be asked to leave... after all, the club doesn't want to risk problems, and the landowner (me) doesn't want to risk liability... nor does the club or officers. If you're attending a club launch, well, you have to abide by the club rules, which of course are based on the model rocket safety code and/or the Tripoli HPR code. The club's NAR insurance and charter both require that the NMRSC or HPR code be followed at all times for the launch to be "covered" by insurance. Usually the club leadership has an agreement with the landowner to conduct operations according to the NMRSC or HPR code.

Now, sometimes accidents happen... there are unforeseen failures or situations crop up that cause a malfunction, like wind blowing over a pad right at launch, or a shock cord failing and causing the rocket to come in ballistic, or failure to eject or deploy, or whatever. Sometimes these are "foreseeable" conditions that happened due to mistakes, inexperience, or bad judgement. If things are being conducted with safety in mind, there should be precautions in place to minimize the risks/damage from any unforeseen malfunctions so that injury to persons or damage to property is prevented. This usually comes in the form of making sure the launching site is actually large enough to support the size/power of the rockets being flown, and laying out the launch site so that the wind is blowing across the flight line, not towards it or away from it, which could cause rockets to overfly the parking and spectator areas or the prep areas... having the correct standoff distances between the pads and the controller area/prep area/spectator area, tilting the rods a small amount away from the prep/parking area so that any rockets that DO malfunction will drop downrange into an unoccupied area, etc.

Even then, sometimes stuff happens... sometimes it's poor judgment or human error that causes things that could have been preventable to happen... I know of instances where the landowner and club had an understanding that there were to be NO sparky motor flights. The club was assisting some students launching a project for a contest, who had been told by their advisor helping them with the project NOT to buy a sparky motor, which they did ANYWAY, and then they drove several hours to attend the launch, which was the last launch before the deadline, and they HAD to fly to qualify. The club folks TOLD them sparky motors weren't allowed, but after an inevitable sob story, the club folks, against their better judgment, relented, and allowed the flight to launch on a sparky motor anyway, without the proper precautions being taken. Of course a grass fire resulted, which not only burned off the launching field, but came within feet of burning off adjacent neighboring cropland, which had yet to be harvested... a stupid mistake nearly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of unharvested grain to be destroyed, and the club lost their field... In another situation, a club that had already crashed a rocket into an operations building and had to implement some pretty strict safety rules to fly off the gov't installation they fly from to be allowed to launch there, allowed some guy to launch a HPR rocket with shear pins, despite the fact they only had a 2500 foot waiver and shear pins aren't even needed except for very high altitude flights or high acceleration flights where drag separation might be an issue, and of course the shear pins make it a "complex model" that needs more scrutiny and precautions anyway. The rocket failed to deploy and crashed off-site, in a surrounding neighborhood, and destroyed someone's back porch canopy... thankfully they weren't under it at the time! The club had a several month standdown and had to coordinate even MORE safety rules with the gov't operator of the property... (of course the fact that they weren't following the rules established after the previous incident didn't seem to register on anybody's radar).

This sort of thing is the reason I'm solidly convinced that HPR activities should only be undertaken in REMOTE locations with a bare minimum of structures within at least a couple miles... and subsequently why I don't and won't allow HPR activities on my property... the larger rockets, especially when equipped with electronics, charges, and larger motors, are more complex, have higher energy levels and masses, and are more prone to create BIG problems when they go awry... of course other folks disagree with this stance, which is their right, but then they can always go fly somewhere else... makes no difference to me.

I hear what you're saying about Rocksim and Open Rocket... after all, "garbage in, garbage out" as they used to say, is still a valid observation... I've seen folks fly rockets that Rocksim "told" them were stable, only to have them crash spectacularly, due to as simple an oversight in the programming as setting the tube size used to calculate the stability margins incorrectly... (say figuring it based on a small LES rocket motor tube up top, instead of using the largest tube in the model to calculate the CP margin, making it appear to be a much larger ratio than it actually was). These sort of things can bite you in the butt if you're not careful, and most of the time it's VERY hard to find such mistakes until they become obvious... (afterwards). Thing is, the computer simulations ARE a VERY valuable tool, as anyone from the "pre-computer" rocketry days can attest... back then, you had basically three methods to ensure your design was stable... 1) the Barrowman method of calculating CP, which was pretty limited because it operated on simplifications of aerodynamic principles relating to shapes to "approximate" the CP location of the rocket, and was VERY limited in the shape of the rocket that it could handle. So if you're design had a weird number of fins, wingtip pods or strange shapes, then it was pretty 'hit-n-miss'. Plus, you had to be pretty good at math to use them (and a lot of folks, me included, aren't good at math). 2) the cardboard cutout "center of lateral area" method, which uses an outline of the rocket cut out of cardboard and balanced on a ruler edge to determine the approximate CP location... the balance point... but it was overly conservative-- it's the CP at the worst case scenario, an angle of attack of 90 degrees to the direction of flight (flying sideways). It tends to make rockets designed with this in mind "overstable" and prone to weathercocking and other such effects. 3) the "TLAR" method... "that looks about right", followed by a swing test on the end of a string to see if the rocket points forwards, and adding noseweight and rebalancing on the string and repeating the test until it "flies right". Usually followed by a "pray and push the button" flight somewhere as far removed as possible from everything and everybody to PROVE the rocket would fly right... (what is called a "heads up" flight today).

In the old days (80's and before) we didn't have computers or programs capable of accurately determining the CP of the rocket, and especially not capable of simulating the flight characteristics of the rocket/motor combination... (these tools were in their very infancy in the mid-late 80's and only a handful of "advanced modelers" really worked with them or could make use of them, improve them, and make them more widely available). Somehow we made it through... BUT, I can tell you I feel better about a rocket that's been designed on Rocksim or OpenRocket than the TLAR method, and I developed quite a few using the TLAR method... It's just another tool... but you're right... it can turn out bad results if one isn't careful...

Later and good luck with your project! OL JR

Chuck said:

What happens if an RSO finds a rocket to be unsafe or if there is a dispute between the owner and the RSO?

Click to expand...

Easy. The RSO wins. Period. It's not a debatable point, it's not up for discussion -- if the RSO says "No," then the answer is "No".

Having never been to a club launch what is the typical failure rate of larger rockets.

Click to expand...

Define "larger rockets" -- the really big projects are more difficult to execute 100%. That doesn't mean that less than 100% is acceptable, it just means that it's more difficult. Our big projects, even when they work, we examine them to see what we can do better, and where we can make improvements. What "worked" to an outside observer may be because a backup system worked, and the primary didn't -- that means we need to work on the primary.

I picture an individual with a degree in a relating field who is new to rocketry and thinks he knows exactly what he is doing, but in reality does something potentially unsafe because of his lack of experience.

Click to expand...

Classroom knowledge versus real world experience. Engineers can often over-engineer something, and miss the forest for the trees.

I understand the safety needs to come first and is extremely important but also taking a little bit of calculated risk is not always a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Venue makes a big difference, as do safety distances.

I'll give you an example -- the first time I flew a stack of 5 gallon buckets, I did it on a K motor. I had done everything I could to ensure it would be stable. But was I 100% certain? No. My solution? Take it out to the M pads. If something went wrong, there was no way it was going to make it back to the crowd.

Pushing bigger projects, or projects that are more in the realm of trying something new, out farther is a prudent thing to do. Flying something like that in a confined area, with an extremely large group of non-participant spectators is a bad thing.

-Kevin

The ethics of an HPR launch are remarkably simple: the RSO is the final word on what does or does not fly.

It is the responsibility of the builder to demonstrate some awareness of the stability of his or her rocket, and the ability of the intended motor to lift the rocket in a safe and stable manner. If the RSO is satisfied with the efforts of the builder, the rocket will probably be allowed to fly, but only if the intended motor would not cause the rocket to exceed the current FAA waiver.

The position of RSO carries a significant responsibility, and most that I have met take the job seriously, to the point of rejecting unsafe rockets, even when the builder is a friend.

G.D.

The club launches I attend are pretty formal affairs: Sign ins, flight cards, Range Safety Officer and Launch Control Officer, pads assigned and controlled, etc. I've done my stints as RSO and more recntly as LCO.

That being said, not every launch is perfect. A lot of the low power stuff flown by new rocketeers has issues with poor internal glue joints which allow the motor mount to shoot through the nosecone. There are also a number of CATOs with the larger Estes motors. Occasionally a fin will fall off or a chute and nose cone will detach from the airframe. This is routine stuff and comes with the territory.

Mid power is better. The rocketeers flying in this bracket have been around for a while and have cut their teeth on Low Power rockets. Not much goes wrong here but then again it's rocketry and the unexpected sometimes happens. Usually the things going wrong here occur when the motor and reload aren't assembled quite right or there is a problem with the recovery system.

High power is where it gets exciting and the review by the RSO of the rockets is more stringent, especially if you're not known to the club or the particular RSO. If you are known to have a history of "adventures", expect an even closer scrutiny of anything you bring up to the RSO. You get to know who these rocketeers are after a while. Usually the string of failures is not due to "bad luck" and represents a continuing pattern. Bringing up a rocket built from a kit is usually a good thing. Bringing up a scratch-built warrants extra scrutiny from the RSO...as a scratch builder of tube fin rockets, I know this firsthand. Bringing up something no one has ever attempted before is asking for the whole nine yards. Better bring along your sim printouts, be able to identify the CP, CG and such. High power failures can be any number of things: Motor CATOs on the pad or in the air, fins shredded, dual or single deploy failures (too early, too late, not at all), or recovery failures (chute tangled, burned, disconnected from airframe), and the occasional problematic flight trajectory.

All things considered, out of whack flights are the exception rather than the rule but they occur for a wide range of reasons.

The wise rocketeer keeps his wits about him at all times, remains observant, and does not disregard the call of "HEADS UP!" from any source.

Easy. The RSO wins. Period. It's not a debatable point, it's not up for discussion -- if the RSO says "No," then the answer is "No".

Click to expand...

The ethics of an HPR launch are remarkably simple: the RSO is the final word on what does or does not fly.

Click to expand...

These statements are definitely true. The modeler is also beholden to be honest in letting the RSO know any concerns that he has. If something is a novel design and has never flown before it probably warrants a "heads-up" flight no matter if it is LPR, MPR, or HPR. The same goes for construction techniques that the RSO may or may not be able to see. It may be that the RSO is agreeable to fly the model, but the RSO may deem that the model should be flown at a pad farther away than what would normally be allowed for the that size of the motor.

I am relatively new to HPR, but I can tell you that the "ethics" of rocketry come from the fact that we all want to have a fun time and have everyone go home and say, "I had a blast." Our club, MARS, launches at a WWII Historic aircraft museum, and if a rocket lands through the wing of a vintage B-17, then we have a lot of problems on our hands.

Our club has a forum of its own and as people design rockets, they post their progress and discuss ideas. Given what we have to deal with...historic aircraft to the west...valuable crops everywhere else, we are safety conscious to the nth degree. We have fun but we respect the RSO's call.

I tend to push the envelope with what I fly, but I make sure that club members are OK with what I build before I take it to the launch. I had a Nuke Pro Maxx that I flew for my L2. It hit 8,500'. In our winter meetings we discussed the need for redundancy for a small rocket approaching mach speeds that you cannot see, so after some discussion, I left the motor's ejection charge in it so that it would at least come down separated at a much slower speed. I wasn't upset with anyone. Had it come down ballistic, it could have ruined the day, and I did not want that to happen.

I think that you will find that 99.9% of all rocket enthusiasts are safety-minded, and respectful of other people's property. We had a couple come to NSL this past summer from Japan. People had spoken with the man a little and noticed one of his rockets, and Estes High Flyer, and commented on the quality of his work. Later at the lost and found, another saw that high flyer and immediately told the person watching them that he knew who the rocket belonged to. It would have been a shame for him to come half-way around the world and lose such a beautifully built rocket that flew very well, but got lost in our grass.

I went to LDRS this summer and saw the same respect and comraderie there as well. The work, love, and attention that people put into this hobby defines our ethics. Watching out for each other is expected and appreciated.

Thank you for all of the imput.

If you search SCI Sports in the Itunes store they come up as a TV show. There are four episodes in vol. 1. They cost 1.99 an episode.

It is the job of the RSO to ensure that the vehicle in question is built in such a manner that it will be capable of surviving the flight and make a safe recovery. Their word is absolutely final. The flier can in no way fly their rocket until there is an RSO signature. If they disagree, the RSO wins.Their ethics are to keep the people in the audience safe and to make sure that everything runs smoothly. I have yet to see a properly built HPR motor fail. There is a strict safety code that is enforced by the NAR and TRA to keep things safe.

LDRS is a safe launch. The big rockets that have a higher chance of not working properly are seated VERY long distances from the spectators. Can't speak for RCR, though.

MasonH said:

LDRS is a safe launch. The big rockets that have a higher chance of not working properly are seated VERY long distances from the spectators.

Click to expand...

The stand-off distances to the launch pads are specified in our safety codes. They are based on the total impulse and complexity of the rocket. If NASA followed our codes and extrapolated the distance based on the size of the motors in the space shuttle, everyone would have had to leave Florida when it launched.

NAR put together an excellent document called "Launching Safely in the 21st Century" that highlights the success of our safety program and illustrates some ways to improve.

-- Roger

Chuck, if you are interested in seeing the "best practice" example of what a range instruction (although a different kind) could include, please let me know.

I am in the Army and if it would benefit you in your studies I could provide you with a range instruction / safety brief for how the military briefs people who are about to fire weapons on the range. It is weapon-based and not rocket-based, but you could replace one for the other.

It covers everything from what words of command people will here, how the conduct of the range will flow, what to do with stoppages, etc.

(I am not at all suggesting rocket briefs or launches are not safe by comparison).

PS - Why are you covering rockets in an Ethics class??? Shouldn't you be learning about Aristotle and Kant?

Petamocto said:

Chuck, if you are interested in seeing the "best practice" example of what a range instruction (although a different kind) could include, please let me know.

I am in the Army and if it would benefit you in your studies I could provide you with a range instruction / safety brief for how the military briefs people who are about to fire weapons on the range. It is weapon-based and not rocket-based, but you could replace one for the other.

It covers everything from what words of command people will here, how the conduct of the range will flow, what to do with stoppages, etc.

(I am not at all suggesting rocket briefs or launches are not safe by comparison).

PS - Why are you covering rockets in an Ethics class??? Shouldn't you be learning about Aristotle and Kant?

Click to expand...

I just got off active duty and have had my fair share of safety briefings both on and off shooting ranges. Before I posted this thread I had a general idea how a rocket range was run but wanted clarification. Thanks to all the members who posted, my questions have been answered.

The reason I posted about ethics within the rocket community is that I have found posts from either young people or people with very little technical background that have ideas that seem quite alarming. With this forum, people are kept in check and advised as to not do something stupid or dangerous. So, I wondered what happened when people showed up with "the next greatest thing" expecting to fly.

I fully expected the answer to my RSO question be that he has final say, but I was wondering whether clubs had an appeal process. In short, it doesn’t sound like there is one but that is probably for the best.
Why not discuss ethics as they relate to rocketry? We can all learn from each other about what “right” looks like so we can be better and more competent flyers. And I’m talking about more than proper construction techniques, though that certainly plays into everything.

It is hard to be the RSO when you have silly builders. Experience and trust are very important. Don't get too weird too fast. Distance and small, knowledgeable crowds are your best friends. When I first brought up the Blackburn Triplane I was singin’ “I fought the Pad Fuehrer and the Pad Fuehrer won. . . . Maybe I can fly it on the Discovery Channel…” Jokes and street cred help but then the rubber meets the road. Go over all aspects of the flight. Get all the members around because the more input the better. Get your posse together to put out any fires, BE PREPARED, BE ALL YOU CAN BE. Show the Pad Fuehrer the CP and CG. Demonstrate the super heavy nose cone is secured enough by shaking the rocket upside down over his lap . . . well maybe not but it worked that time. Don’t say you are just flying the nose and the rest of the rocket is coming along for the ride. Make sure you have enough power for the weight. Any good rocket science also helps but sometimes that is a bit lacking. Make a comment about how clear and windless it is, and what a long launch rod and hot system the club has.

Ethics . . . who cares. All that mamby-pamby, “man is good,” Commie Enlightenment Philosophy clap chat is for the birds. These are good ole boys, self-interested American Capitalists who kick some A and are not sorry for it. Do it right and don’t wimp out. HOORAH!

Chuck said:

I fully expected the answer to my RSO question be that he has final say, but I was wondering whether clubs had an appeal process. In short, it doesn’t sound like there is one but that is probably for the best.

Click to expand...

The guys I know who are experienced at running big launches all will tell you that you can try to appeal an RSO decision to them, but it'll be an uphill battle. If they don't trust the RSO's judgement, they won't let 'em be RSO.

-Kevin

If you ask someone like Rick Comshaw or Al Gloer, they can tell you that the RSO words is ABSOLUTELY final. There is no appeal process, and the flier would lose that battle 9 times out of 10.

Chuck said:

I fully expected the answer to my RSO question be that he has final say, but I was wondering whether clubs had an appeal process. In short, it doesn’t sound like there is one but that is probably for the best.

Click to expand...

Like Kevin said, the RSO is appointed by the club's officers to insure the launch is conducted safely. It is one method we use to make sure launches are conducted in a safe manner so no one is injured and no property is damaged which also allows us to keep using the launch fields.

There is no appeals process. The RSO has the final say at a launch. He is the final authority at a launch. If he say no, it's no.

Bob

The best I can say is don't think what you see on these shows is typical of a normal launch. It's not even close. Every single flight I have ever seen was carefully thought out and constructed with the best skills the builder had. Those stupid LDRS show portray our hobby as a "hear hold my beer" event that is so far from the truth it's not funny. They didn't even bother showcasing a "real" rocket flight. They chose instead to show the drag races and oddrock crap. Plenty of people including myself wouldn't shed a tear if an oddrock never flew again. I can see how the ethics question would come up after watching those shows but after attending a couple regional launches and a few local club launches, the question would be the farthest thing from your mind. The questions would be, which rocket do I build and how high do I send it?

For LDRS, I was highly disappointed with the show. They showed people doing "Hold my beer and watch this" flights. I watched one of the old Point 39 LDRS videos, and I wish that the LDRS show was more like that. It showed what the real rockets were like, not the oddrocs. IMHO, oddrocs are a waste of time. Especially Tim Lehr's (no offense) snowmobile launch.

I have had people ask me (just because they watched Discovery's LDRS show) if my rockets deploy a parachute.
"Yes, they do."
"Well, the ones that I saw on this LDRS show on TV don't."

In my mind, I am thinking "Really? Just because of that one show, you think that all rockets do not deploy a parachute?
I think there needs to be an educational video on rocketry that is on TV, showing what rocketry is truly about. About how rockets do not blow up intentionally, how they don't intentionally come in ballistic.


Sorry for the rant, I have just been irritated with how much confusion the LDRS show on Discovery has caused about rockets.


Matt

blackbrandt said:

For LDRS, I was highly disappointed with the show. They showed people doing "Hold my beer and watch this" flights. I watched one of the old Point 39 LDRS videos, and I wish that the LDRS show was more like that. It showed what the real rockets were like, not the oddrocs. IMHO, oddrocs are a waste of time. Especially Tim Lehr's (no offense) snowmobile launch.

I have had people ask me (just because they watched Discovery's LDRS show) if my rockets deploy a parachute.
"Yes, they do."
"Well, the ones that I saw on this LDRS show on TV don't."

In my mind, I am thinking "Really? Just because of that one show, you think that all rockets do not deploy a parachute?
I think there needs to be an educational video on rocketry that is on TV, showing what rocketry is truly about. About how rockets do not blow up intentionally, how they don't intentionally come in ballistic.

Sorry for the rant, I have just been irritated with how much confusion the LDRS show on Discovery has caused about rockets.

Matt

Click to expand...

In all honesty, the general public would not watch a Point 39 Productions video. We see the value in it, but others wouldn't unless you're fully involved in the hobby.

Probably what the hobby and general viewers would appreciate is a TV crew following the work on one big rocket project all of the way through. It would be more interesting than a compilation of successful launch videos, and give a better impression of the hobby than oddroc failures.

There has been a time or two when I've tried to help people getting hybrid rockets off the ground, and they've absolutely refused to set things up safely - stuff like substituting chunks of homebrew APCP for the standard preheater, using the wrong type of hose for the U/C valve, etc. When I encounter this sort of stuff, I gently suggest to the RSO that they ask specific questions about the flight. On one or two occasions they've asked me to RSO a hybrid rocket because they weren't adequately knowledgeable.

Our club is pretty tight on safety/RSO standards. We use logs, flight cards, and RSO every flight - even for our club's old-timers. Nobody gets a free pass, nobody, nohow...

Some things are off the table. For example, twist-and-tuck won't be approved. First flights that haven't had their deployment systems ground tested won't be approved. Shoddy builds won't be approved.

At the same time, as RSO, I'll certainly give someone every opportunity to validate their model. If they can talk me into approving it (on its' merits) I don't mind changing my mind.



Frankly, though, if you want to talk about the ethics of flying rockets, let's talk about overbuild....

Kevin O

I like the idea of a televised Level 3 build thread. Or a documentary of something like the recently successful 100K project.

Of course the producers would want to capture/focus on some sort of major interpersonal drama between the team members, and you end up with more "reality" tv. :eyeroll:

Nessalco said:

For example, twist-and-tuck won't be approved.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with this term. What is "twist-and-tuck"?

CarVac said:

Probably what the hobby and general viewers would appreciate is a TV crew following the work on one big rocket project all of the way through. It would be more interesting than a compilation of successful launch videos, and give a better impression of the hobby than oddroc failures.

Click to expand...

Sorry about continuing the off-topic diversion, but a documentary featuring TARC or SLI teams would be really cool, and not just because of the rockets. For example, look at the story of the TARC team from Presido, Texas.

-- Roger

rbelknap said:

I'm not familiar with this term. What is "twist-and-tuck"?

Click to expand...

This is a technique to activate an altimeter. Rather than using a $2 switch, some fliers hang battery lead wires out the e-bay vent hole. When they want to activate the altimeter, they twist the wires together, then tuck them back into the e-bay through the vent hole.

Biggest problem is there is no way to disarm the altimeter in case of an aborted flight.

Kevin O

What about twist-and-tape? Is that allowed?

Nessalco said:

Rather than using a $2 switch, some fliers hang battery lead wires out the e-bay vent hole.

Click to expand...

If you can recommend a $2 switch that doesn't bounce, doesn't have fragile solder lugs, is easy to activate and deactivate, is readily available, and fits in a 38-54mm x 4-5" avbay, I'm all ears.