"Guided"

[DynaSoar]

Can someone please point me at the regulations that prohibit active guidance systems in MR/HPR? People occasionally inquire about such things and are told it's against the code(s), but I don't see anything in NAR or TRA codes even mentioning it (other than requiring a launch rod or such to provide initial flight guidance, and that's passive guidance).

 

[KermieD]

I can't find it, and, in fact, am fairly sure it isn't there. If it were, you wouldn't be able to fly R/C rocket gliders. That being said, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with any active guidance information being posted here that steps outside the bounds of what's a normal part of the hobby.

 

[vjp]

There is no such rule, nor does there need to be - any intentional misuse is already well covered by the rules which prohibit harmful payloads, not to mention federal laws.

In fact, auto-stabilization schemes like sun-seekers and gimballed motor mounts using R/C gyro stabilizing hardware have been used for a while now.

There are a few quantum leaps in complexity, though, between something that could stabilize a rocket's flight, and a system which can track and target a moving object, or bring a rocket down on a particular coordinate. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean it's wise to discuss things like those mentioned above in a public forum.

It's always a good idea to keep the 'bad guys' a few steps dumber than they need to be, in order to do some harm.

 

[Micromeister]

Originally posted by vjp
There is no such rule, nor does there need to be - any intentional misuse is already well covered by the rules which prohibit harmful payloads, not to mention federal laws.

In fact, auto-stabilization schemes like sun-seekers and gimballed motor mounts using R/C gyro stabilizing hardware have been used for a while now.

It's always a good idea to keep the 'bad guys' a few steps dumber than they need to be, in order to do some harm.

All manor of flight stabilization schemes have indeed been flown in years past. George Gassaway's sun-seeker being a most well known example. Actiive Flight stability guidence systems are a real challange to design and even more of a challange to minaturize, power and lighten enough for our Mod-Roc, LMR or even HPR use.
I also agree public forums are not the place to discuss these designs and experiments.

 

[DavRedf]

I for one want nothing to do with any form of active guidance that does anything more than go straight up.
It is a very fine line between a model rocket and a guided missile and if that line is crossed then the BATFE and other agencies will rightly get involved.
In my opinion passive systems like the sun seeker are fine but anything that deviates from the straight line flight, straight up, is out.
There is nothing in the NAR/TRA rules that make this sort of guidance illegal but you can bet you boxer shorts thr FBI/BATFE/POLICE will find plenty of laws if they are pushed.

whew sorry for the rant

By the way I would like the kind of money to research, develope and build such a sytem let alone the knowlege to do so.

David

 

[Elapid]

is what makes US the strongest country in the world.
face it.
there are plenty of books and websites to help the misguided or curious. try a quick search on www.amazon.com for model rockets and you'll see what i mean.

if you want to develop something new, a good college education couldn't hurt.


i was thinking of attatching a small motor to my kid's gyroscope...and nitrous oxide for the pellet stove...

good ol' american ingenuity!

 

[DavRedf]

good ol' american ingenuity

Most of which is swiped from us brits LOL

David

 

[WiK]

Yeah, but they have to have the ingenuity to steal it of us!

 

[rabidsheeep]

i was reading in a magazine in LDRS 21 i believe somone had a RC glider... a smoke trail blocked the view, and then a servo broke, so it ended up crashing

 

[DynaSoar]

I asked primarily because I've seen people state specifically that it's against the rules. This is apparently not true. I'm disappointed that people involved in a hobby that's so safety and regulation conscious would make such a mistake as to assume a rule existed which did not, if in fact it was a mistake and not an overstatement of opinion. I know full well the reasons people may have for not liking the topic. I also understand better than most that the people who own and operate TRF have not only the right but the responsibility to decide what is and is not acceptable on their forum and enforce those decisions. I was senior editor of a computer magazine that was published in part in Moscow when it was still USSR; I had to decide regularly what might contravene technology transfer regulations and remove it. It may be called "editorial priviledge", but it's a duty. However, people (not necessarily associated with TRF) telling people it is against a rule which does not exist says at a minimum that some people are not as familiar with the regulations they operate under as they should be. That, too, is something for ATFE et al. to take notice of. It is also contrary to the principles of accuracy in information which should be second nature to people associated with an activity so deeply involved in science and engineering.

 

[Len B]

DynaSoar!

Sir, you really said a lot there. Too true. I've caught myself and killed posts when I couldn't cite a rule. It is easy to do when you *think* there is a rule.

I'm speaking to that part of the issue as I remember someone asking a similar question here (Canada) about guidance and the person answering said that guidance would define the rocket as a missile at that point. I just stepped away as I know nothing about it really.

Anyway, I agree with your post.

Len Bryan

 

[Ryan S.]

I don't think there is a rule because there doesn't need to be. If you make a guided missile you will have the FBI on your case and NAR and TRA will be the least of your worries.

I think it is really a common sense kind of thing. One just doesn't do anything that really borders on illegal. Now, it is true I do not know whether or not it is illegal to have a guided missile but if I ponder for a brief moment, I can see that there is a pretty good chance that it is.

You bring up a good point Dyna, If people are misquoting rules, or quoting nonexistent rules, how do I know they themselves are following the rules, because they probably don't know them.

Anything beyond making a rocket fly straighter and RC gliders, I think, is unneeded,

 

[Silverleaf]

I totally agree with "keeping the specifics off/out" of a public forum, and understand why such things should not be discussed in this setting.

That said, when I subscribed to HPR back in the late 80's early 90's, a few articles on Gimballed engines really lit my imagination. In particular was a single image of a Saturn V project on a gents back porch - which totally blew my socks off (still looking for them by the way).

From a query here at TRF I was led to believe that model rocket is now in the Smithsonian Institute. Fitting given just how darn good it looked on the platform and all.

Anyways, though I'm not actively persueing gimballed flight, I am still very interested in the ideas behind it, as a few of the pics in HPR really showed just how well this system could aid in finless designs like the Titan and Delta II and III - to name but a few.

So, if anyone has any good reading on this subject, please pm or email me as I'd be very interested in understanding more about whats involved.

NOTE This is in no way meant as a plot to gather data to create anything - other than stimulating my Medula Oblongata.

Cheers,