Rocketry Related Thread

rocket sok
Onebadhawk
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
mpitfield said:
So for the long term benefit of the hobby I agree that drag races and night launches would be two of the first things to be discussed. However the number of launches per hour or whatever formula would also be something that I would put up for discussion.
Click to expand...

Number of launches gets concerning some times... And having been to a few "mega launches", I'm not sure I like them. Smaller is definately better. The minimum thing people should be doing is waiting for an event before moving on to the next launch. For me, at youth events, I typically fire a rack one at a time, waiting for landing before moving to the next. Then let the kids recover, and don't load the rack again until everyone is back. It's a bit of a slower pace, but it works very well. Also each rocket is not just inspected by the RSO, but actually prepped under experienced supervision. It may sound oppressive to us, but it makes for a very smooth launch.

I think a slightly more detailed, restrictive guide for youth groups would be helpful. These groups are typically less experienced than those at a NAR/TRA event, and should he handled a bit more directly at each step, and with more supervision than required by the NAR mod roc code.
 
Last edited:
Daddyisabar said:
Forums provide a valuable service for discussion and it is the forum's job to keep unwarranted speculation, bad taste jokes or personal attacks in line. Pertinent information is out there and basically telling everyone to be quiet and to quell discussion won't work, no matter how we feel or think others will feel in the heat of the moment. It just looked bad and has received a very negative reaction from many TRF members. If the moderators where overwhelmed with wild speculation, bad jokes and personal attacks, then say that is the reason we are shutting down the thread and that you can't handle it. The sad fact is that the story has all quickly come out in the wash elsewhere, all feelings aside. That is what happens these days with eyewitnesses with cell phones. Information is going to be posted and trying to bury your head in the sand here just gives credence to the "banned," and with nothing over here you have to go over there. Sure there is going to be speculation, that is the nature of the world, but I hope it can be kept in line over here. cause it ain't over there! That is why I still love TRF, even though it is fun to refer to it as the "Terribly Run Forum" once in a while, keeps all us "Care Bears" on our toes.
Click to expand...

The point to remember is we're not just a bunch of kids on the internet looking for a good story.

We're the people responsible for running launches...both NAR/TRA, and BSA indy launches. This matters to us.
 
mkadams001 said:
Dave has an uncanny skill to design and fly his rockets. I love watching his rockets fly.
Click to expand...

Thanks. After the latest odd roc injury a few weeks back and now this I can't seem to stress enough how vital it is to have competent and experienced oversight at an organized launch. That is what is so frustrating about this. Pyro style launch boxes surrounded with spectators/photographers up close! I have been to supervised Class C Pyro launches and they are wild and fun, but defiantly not some place to launch the "hey do you want to see my home made, 3 motor cluster rocket crash in a drag race." Wrong rules, wrong set up, absent or lack of qualified oversight, lax safety, on and on, a disaster waiting to happen. Every misstep bringing the odds closer and no one to stop a lot of missteps happening in a row.

I always envisioned the best chance the first person killed would be one launching a stupid odd roc or questionable cluster in the park, or a high power bird going ballistic through a tent.

EDIT: I don't know for sure if it was even under Pyro supervision - that was mentioned over on the other forum. I don't think even under Pyro rules you can have a launch box set up by a tent, cars and spectators like in the photo.
 
Last edited:
Daddyisabar said:
I always envisioned the best chance the first person killed would be one launching a stupid odd roc or questionable cluster in the park, or a high power bird going ballistic through a tent.
Click to expand...

It's a game of odds. LPR/MPR land in a smaller circle, closer to the pads. 50 people in a ballistic recovery zone for LPR, high odds of a strike. The ballistic recovery zone for an HPR could be a mile wide. 50 people in that, much lower odds. We just have to make sure we're doing everything we can to reduce the odds at all times. Of course, we're always going to have a level of danger, unless we build bunkers and only recover when flight operations are halted.
 
boatgeek said:
One thing I like about NTSB investigations is that they typically release a list of known facts about an incident a week or two into the investigation so that we aren't stuck speculating like this over basic details. This list doesn't include anything that is analysis or in dispute, so it's a pretty decent baseline.

That said, this is a potential criminal and/or civil case, up to manslaughter on the criminal side or ~$10M on the civil side. I'm not saying that anyone is going to get charged or that a lawsuit against the scouts will be filed, but that's what everyone's lawyers are looking at. BSA and whoever owned the rocket are going to be told in no uncertain terms to shut the #$%* up and talk to nobody except through a lawyer. Unfortunately, I have to say that most of the lawyers (except possibly the DA) involved probably do not want NAR involved. Independent agencies conducting investigations can be unpredictable, and the last thing a lawyer wants is unpredictable. They want to control information as much as possible. That's not to say that NAR can't investigate, but they may be limited to what information law enforcement gathers. The local sheriff may or may not ask the kind of information NAR needs for a real investigation.

All that said, the question remains, what to do? If I may be so bold, can we have a safety section on the forum? Companies that have good safety records talk about safety and are willing to call out unsafe practices and talk about issues. I'm not thinking of "I saw DaddyisaBAR (*) launching some craaaazy train-shaped thing that shouldn't ever have gotten off the pad," but "I saw an oddroc flight go bad, and here's what I think could be done differently." I know that there are people who think that Practice A is unsafe, while others think it's fine. Heck, I've asked about a couple of those myself here. On the other hand, if we don't discuss, we can't share knowledge. If a safety section is added, I'd nominate drag races and night launches as first topics. I've seen both and really enjoy them, but I can also see the safety hazards.

* I'm specifically mentioning DIABAR here because I have seen and admired many of his build threads and think that he does an excellent job of making bizarre and wonderful rockets fly remarkably well and safely. In other words, I'm mentioning him as a compliment not as an insult.
Click to expand...

+1

If I had not hooked up with a club, got some experience and certified oversight, I could have ended up in the park with an ekranoplan lodged in my belly! Oh my, did I just mention the ekranoplan?
 
I want to thank Bob Krech and the other moderators for allowing this thread to run its course and allowing the membership to vent regarding this tragic event. The details will emerge in due course. Be happy this Thanksgiving and thank God that you live in a country where this conversation is allowed to take place at all.
 
The NAR is apparently providing information to support the legal authorities who are actually doing the investigation.

I was asked for info about the state laws and regulations. I provided the current laws and regulations as well as the revised law that will go into effect on January 1, 2016.

bobkrech said:
Safety is our business. It is the primary reason why NAR and TRA exist, and why we as hobbyists can get $5,000,000 of liability insurance for ~$10 (NAR) or ~$30 (TRA) per year. Because we are safe is the only reason why we can obtain launch liability insurance which allows us to launch from other peoples property into federally controlled airspace, so investigating the causes of a fatal hobby rocketry accident is certainly within the mandate of NAR and TRA from an institutional survival viewpoint. If our insurance rates increase substantially as a result of this accident, rest assured our hobby as we know it is kaput.

NAR doesn't have to get in people's faces to conduct an investigation, not does it have to be an AHJ to conduct an investigation. Any rocketry accident investigation benefits the hobbyist so they can understand what happened, and how to prevent it from happening at a sanctioned NAR/TRA launch.

Bob
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the info Fred. It makes sense that they can not comment in this situation, and it's good to know that the authorities are getting good advice from yourself and Ted.


I think it was still a good conversation for us all to have, and a reminder of why we do all the silly things we do.
 
It figures, the legal authorities would ask Fred about the laws on rockets. :lol:
 
mkadams001 said:
They do reference to the NAR for safety operations for model rocketry.
Click to expand...


They may reference it, but from my experience, they sure as hell don't follow it.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ucators-A-cautionary-tale&p=533482#post533482

Here's my story.
A few years ago, I went to a Boy Scout camp for summer camp. Naturally, for one of my merit badges, I signed up for Space Exploration. This is the one where you have to launch a model rocket. Well, we get in there for the 3rd out of 4 meetings, and the instructor pulls out a bulk pack of Estes Gnomes. Well, he asks everybody to turn in their instructions, because he was going to tell us how to build them. (I tucked mine under my seat, I figured what was about to happen.) Well, he has everybody pass in their body tubes, and he hacks about 3 inches off of each tube with his dull pocketknife. He then hands them back out. I take my (sharp) pocketknife, and clean up the cut.


Now, he has everyone make a tiny cut for the engine hook. I was the only person who new what he was talking about. Everybody else almost cuts the tube in half. I ask if he can point that out. He says to me, "Do you want to teach this class or something? I am the instructor, I know what I am doing!"

So, I ignore him and go back to working on this rocket.

Then, he passes around 1 TINY TUBE OF PLASTIC CEMENT for 40 boys to attach a PLASTIC FIN CAN TO THE CARDBOARD BODY TUBE.
After everyone attaches these, he remembers the important thing that everybody has to remember when they launch a rocket that they normally remember when they get out to the pad.
Launch lugs.

He has everybody attach the launch lugs (again, I was the only person who knew what they were for). Everybody just glues theirs on the body tube, not caring where it went, or even if it was in line with the other lug. Then, AFTER the plastic cement has set, he takes a tiny 1/16 by 8 inch long rod to check the alignment.
I ask him, slightly worried, "Is that the launch rod?"
I almost have a heart attack when he responds, "Yes. Is there a problem?"

The part that really got me is the previous day, he had gone over the NAR safety code with the whole class. Obviously he thought he didn't need to use it or something.

The next day (final meeting), we all gather out in the 50ft by 50ft field. I learn that we are not allowed to handle the motors OR igniters. He hooks up the first rocket, then steps back 5-7 feet, then touches the wire to the battery (no safety interlock, by the way). This thing comes off the pad, goes up a good 400 feet, then turns over and lawn darts into the hard packed road.

Then, all 40 boys and the instructor proceed to CHEER and SHOUT WITH DELIGHT!
REALLY!


Then the guy throws his design on the pad. He tried to take the fin can and stick it on the front end of the rocket. The following conversation ensued between him and me:
Me: "You know that is going to be unstable, right?"
Him "Do you want to teach this class or something? I am the instructor, I know what I am doing!"
Me: "OK, never mind."
I step back about 60 feet.

He touches the wire to the battery, and this thing comes off the pad, pinwheels 40 feet above the ground, then suddenly becomes stable and fires under power into the ground.

MORE CHEERING!



Suddenly it starts to rain, and the guy proceeds to say (this was his only intelligent comment of the entire week) "OK, guys, we need you to go back to your campgrounds."




A kid then says, "Wait, do we get the signoff?"
He then replies, "Yeah, you watched it, you can get it signed off."


EVEN THOUGH THE REQUIREMENT CLEARLY STATES:

Build, launch, and recover a model rocket.* Make a second launch to accomplish a specific objective.




That was the most irritated I have ever been in my life. I actually went up to the instructor and asked him not to sign me off on that requirement.
He refused, saying it would be too hard.




So yeah, never do Space Exploration in a group setting, it never works if you have a rocket geek and a Modern Warfare addict in the same classroom setting.
Click to expand...
 
Hey Matt, thanks for posting! The attorneys for the plaintiff will be in touch! :wink:
 
The thing that drives me crazy, is that the boy scouts have one of the safest programs I've seen considering shooting sports of any kind.

Hand them some rockets and it turns into an episode of Jackass. The pack launch I ran didn't see any hijinks obviously, but the number of adults who thought it would be funny to glue a nosecone on was shocking. I flatly explained why that was stupid. There's an obvious misunderstanding of the danger involved, and a belief that it's not dangerous.
 
A couple threads over the years have talked about why rocketry isn't more popular or whatever. I've always said I don't think rocketry could stand to be very popular. You've got the smart, enthusiastic, scientific minded kids...but that's always going to be a small percentage. The rest are watching for the NASCAR phenomenom: watching to see the cool wrecks. It's the sad truth that for every Von Braun out there, there are 12 Jackass cast members.
 
If someone has said I missed it, but has there been any indication about the rest of the launch? Since other rockets had landed down range was the accident rocket the ONLY rocket designed to crash or was the entire launch about crashing rockets? It just seems odd to me that they would be teaching kids to crash a rocket.

Verna
www.vernarockets.com
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HHJHOK6/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O14ET8K/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.facebook.com/RocketBabeDustStorm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Verna said:
If someone has said I missed it, but has there been any indication about the rest of the launch? Since other rockets had landed down range was the accident rocket the ONLY rocket designed to crash or was the entire launch about crashing rockets? It just seems odd to me that they would be teaching kids to crash a rocket.

Verna
www.vernarockets.com
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HHJHOK6/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O14ET8K/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.facebook.com/RocketBabeDustStorm
Click to expand...


I would guess that would certainly be a central question in the upcoming legal investigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what was stated by people there, it seems that the scout rockets were flown from numerous pads for the scout rockets, angled away, and were apparently done safely (as far as stated). The rocket in question was flown from a special pad farther away:

It was Launched at an experimental pad for rockets of this nature.
Click to expand...

It is not clear just exactly what "rockets of this nature" means. I take it to mean bigger rockets by the adults, and not the scout rockets. Such as, many pads for A to C powered scout rockets, then this experimental pad area for higher impulse.

Also, it does not necessarily mean that the rockets flown from that pad were generally dangerous or anything else, no more than NAR/TRA launches that have "away" pads for rockets that DO follow the safety codes but may be a bit riskier than average. Or simply small club launches with a lot of pads for low impulse models, and a special area farther out for higher impulse. Just that clearly THIS rocket was dangerous on purpose, and it was known at least by a few before flight that it had no recovery system, in violation of the Safety Code.

The owner had stated as he walked by me that the rocket would not have a parachute, and that it had three size "E" engines, and he was expecting it to "not survive" the flight.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DizWolf said:
Number of launches gets concerning some times... And having been to a few "mega launches", I'm not sure I like them. Smaller is definately better. The minimum thing people should be doing is waiting for an event before moving on to the next launch. For me, at youth events, I typically fire a rack one at a time, waiting for landing before moving to the next. Then let the kids recover, and don't load the rack again until everyone is back. It's a bit of a slower pace, but it works very well. Also each rocket is not just inspected by the RSO, but actually prepped under experienced supervision. It may sound oppressive to us, but it makes for a very smooth launch.

I think a slightly more detailed, restrictive guide for youth groups would be helpful. These groups are typically less experienced than those at a NAR/TRA event, and should he handled a bit more directly at each step, and with more supervision than required by the NAR mod roc code.
Click to expand...

It is important that these events be done correctly and to standard, not to time. We have a tendency to hang on to the first way we learn something and it is much more difficult to re-learn a new way. Teach them right the first time and they won't have to worry about it.

tmacklin said:
I want to thank Bob Krech and the other moderators for allowing this thread to run its course and allowing the membership to vent regarding this tragic event. The details will emerge in due course. Be happy this Thanksgiving and thank God that you live in a country where this conversation is allowed to take place at all.
Click to expand...

What he said.

Now, my :2:. We live in a world where we are accustomed to instant information and when we don't get that information yesterday, we begin to wonder if there is something going on. Although there is a fair amount more that we would like to know, we do know enough to have a productive conversation concerning safety as evidenced by this thread.

I like the idea of a safety related section. Topics could be posted as stickys and folks would be able to comment at their leisure or as they observe things in the field. I also believe that this would be a valuable resource for those just getting their start in the hobby.

My own thanks to the mods and the community for keeping this thread relevant.
 
Last edited:
blackbrandt said:
They may reference it, but from my experience, they sure as hell don't follow it.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ucators-A-cautionary-tale&p=533482#post533482

Here's my story.
Click to expand...

As a former Scout leader I can relate to your story. Control of the adults is often harder than control of the Scouts.
My experience at Summer Camps when I volunteered my services as a "knowledgeable person" often included trying to maintain order among the other adults some of whom attempted to build the rocket themselves or tried to push their Scouts through with out actually fulfilling all of the requirements for the merit badge. It didn't make me really popular, and I didn't care.
It wasn't unusual to get to the launch portion of the class to find that the rocket was missing, squashed flat from being carried in a pocket, etc. etc. I would give them a partial for what they had done but no more.
My last time with Scouts was the best of all though and it was a Cub pack. A friend of mine set the event up after a co-worker/Cub Scout leader found out we did High Power rockets. We did a Show and Tell then helped with the first build session. Every Cub had an adult to help them and the Leaders kept everybody under control. The second session was done without us but we supplied the pads and controller for the Launch. We had adults assist the Cubs with motor/igniter installation while we loaded the rockets on the pads. We launched using four pads then allowed the boys to recover the rockets while racking four more. Worked out really well and I would love to do it again!
 
We get scout groups fairly often at both NARHAMS and MDRA, where they get the proper training.:wink:
 
If it is true that it was an intentional "crash" I'd like to know if the nose cone was glued, motors not retained, in other words how the rocket was set up for this outcome.

If it was an intentional "crash", could we consider this not a valid model rocketry accident?? Hate to ruin model rocketry's record over something like this. I think it would fit into the same category as the You Tube "experimenters", Master Blasters, and Rocket City Rednecks should one of those be hurt or worse while launching their "rockets".
 
Last edited:
Hmmmmm….. sorta getting into semantics there.

It was a hobby rocket *, purposely flown unsafely.

Don't think that means by being flown unsafely on purpose, that it wasn't a hobby rocket, even though it did break critical safety rules that hobby rockets are supposed to follow.

* - I am saying Hobby Rocket, as a catch-all term, so as to avoid wrangling over Model Rocket, Large Model Rocket, HPR, whatever, since this rocket seemed to have mixed elements (it might have been heavy enough to be HPR, but the engines were model rocket E engines). The actual rocket, may have been built using commercial hobby rocket parts, of about 4" diameter, rather than scratch-built as implied earlier

I mean, if a lunatic kills someone using a meat cleaver, or baseball bat, those are still a meat cleaver and baseball bat, right?

Or if a Baby Bertha has the nose cone glued on by accident, then another Baby Bertha has the nose cone glued on on purpose, is the first one a model rocket and second one not a model rocket?

If a Baby Bertha has a functional recovery system, with chute than can be ejected, but is purposely launched nearly horizontally, it is a model rocket that's being flown unsafely, against the safety code, but it would be a stretch to claim it's not a model rocket because of the angle it was purposely launched at.

FWIW, here is part of FAA's FAR 101 rocketry definitions:

§101.22***Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
(a) Class 1—Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that:
(1) Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant;
(2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;
(3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic;
(4) Contains no substantial metal parts; and
(5) Weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces), including the propellant.
(b) Class 2—High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket that is propelled by a motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds (9,208 pound-seconds) or less.
(c) Class 3—Advanced High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket or high-power rocket.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27390, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008]
Click to expand...
If one goes by that, then there is no mention of intent for making a safe flight or reusability, or following safety codes. Of course, the FAA is mainly concerned with what goes into airspace, and possible danger to other aircraft.

Now, having said the above, I will loop back to the words you used regarding a "valid" Model Rocketry accident, and this is perhaps more of what you may have intended:

Definitely, it needs to be stressed that this was not an "accident" from flying hobby rockets in the way they are supposed to be flown, following the safety codes. It was a intentionally flown CRASH, totally violating major safety rules, that "accidentally" happened to hit a person when it crashed.

BTW , I forgot to note elsewhere, that the description of the rocket was using PVC pipe for the body tube, was provided by a spectator who seemed to be going by what they saw, not necessarily that they knew it really was PVC. As I pointed out elsewhere, the tube could have been something other than PVC, including various possible tube types sold by rocket vendors (the nose of the rocket did not seem to be homemade since curved ogives are not very practical to make at home versus a straight cone or some non-rocket item used as a nose, like a funnel)
 
Last edited:
What I'm trying to say is that any model rocket, all power levels, that is flown with gross disregard to the safety codes and an accident results, it should not be considered a true model rocketry accident. I guess we need a category for the rockets that are flown irresponsibly. By that I mean any rocket altered intentionally to be ballistic, explode, shoulder fired, launched horizontally etc. I consider a true model rocket as defined and launched according to the safety codes, all others are something else I don't know what though!!
 
Anything that is deemed to be within the TOS. But, that's OT for this thread. A topic that is beat to death with regularity.

I'm glad this one is still active.
 
I'm afraid that in the minds of the general public all they will glean from this tragic event is: rockets = death/destruction. The media will reinforce this notion because they are also largely ignorant of what a rocket is or is not and are content to portray all rockets as those terrible instruments of death being launched into Israel by Hamas, Hezzbolah etc., just as they portray all guns as evil. It will thus fall upon the "hobby rocket community" to educate both the public and the media. Good luck with that!

One thing is for certain: the first rules that were violated here were the rules of common sense.
 

Similar threads

Scott_650
Godzilla Minus One
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Fattbank64
Fattbank64
boatgeek
Fafnir, a 3" Dragon-Themed Rocket
Replies
4
Views
191
boatgeek
boatgeek
bandman444
Bryce's Handicap Record Quest: NSL 2024
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
MClark
M
prfesser
Radical Rocketry's Thunderbird 3 builder's kit: build thread
Replies
7
Views
1K
prfesser
prfesser
M
Mach 1 Rocketry Patriot Missile BT50
Replies
26
Views
2K
ShadowSpire48
S

Latest posts

Back
Top