Originally posted by JRThro
Well, yeah, exactly. The model rocket safety code, which was specifically referred to in the post above, says this, which I've taken directly from the NAR website at https://nar.org/NARmrsc.html:
"Model Rocket Safety Code
1. Materials. I will use only lightweight, non-metal parts for the nose, body, and fins of my rocket."
Well,
NO, exactly. Sort of.
The ORIGINAL post asking the question mentioned nothing about the Model Rocket Safety Code.
The reply did.
Nor did the original post make mention of any organizations, be they guvamint or private.
As there are two certifying organizations in addition to, as I understand it, independant groups that stive to conform to NFPA 1127 but not necessarily other standards held by either NAR or TRA or both, your assertation is correct in only some cases.
NAR members have that nasty business of THE "Model Rocket Safety Code" while TRA seems not to have a big problem with it as long as it's done safely and when necessary, and the RSO can be talked into it.
It would seem that if a person is a member of TRA or and independant group, they can build rocket up to and including entirely out of metal if it is deemed to be necessary.
AND they will not be in violation of any part of NFPA 1127.
As for the
I know I don't want a metal dart coming after me.
Why? What difference does it make? I'll let ya in on a little physics secret....
It doesn't make one whit of difference if the rocket is steel, aluminum, depleted uranium, phenolic, plastic, resin soaked toilet paper or whatever.
The energy with which it is gonna thump you or the ground or your car or Wildman's RV is dependant upon velocity and mass, not material. For the most part.
A five pound phenolic and plastic rocket traveling at 800fps is gonna mess you up the same as a five pound aluminum rocket traveling at 800fps.
Basically.
There is the whole "elastic" versus "inelastic" collision stuff if you want to get really technical where the phenolic rocket will probably crumple more and absorb "some" of the energy itself resulting in a somewhat less completely nasty boo-boo, but not enough to make a difference.
In the above examples I'm betting you're kaput either way so the minutia is moot.
And Tim's RV will have a BIG hole in it.
'Cuz by my calculations, they both hit you with right around 49,734 ft# of smack down.
To compare, a .45ACP, 230 FMJ (full metal jacket) aka, hardball, traveling at the same 800fps is going to deliver a seemingly measly 327 ft#.
It would be interesting to get a cadaver (even private individuals can do that you know) and see what the above rocket configuration would do to it.
But, ewwww, I'll leave that to others.
Greg