I have an issue with the notion that an activity needs to be justified with a purpose greater than 'it pleases me'.
What if it pleases DavidMcCann to have drag races banned?
I have an issue with the notion that an activity needs to be justified with a purpose greater than 'it pleases me'.
The ratio of drunken apes to armchair scientists in this hobby is depressing
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That should be done at every launch for every rocket. Drag races shouldn't be the only ones this is done for..... 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.
That should be done at every launch for every rocket. Drag races shouldn't be the only ones this is done for.
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/
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/
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.
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.
Investigating areas of further improvement should always be embraced, especially in the name of safety.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Enter your email address to join: