Is it really a model rocket if you don't launch it?

[techrat]

dummy round

Speaking of which, I have orange pieces of plastic that I can load into a pistol and practice firing inside my house although there's no gunpowder and no metal. but they are the right size and shape to fit into the gun. Are they bullets?

 

[Steven]

A hole is a hole is a hole, until it's entirely filled.

 

[SolarYellow]

Correct, however those bullets were designed and made expecting that it would/could be fired. Making a round without gunpowder and never intending for it to be fired is a dummy round and not a bullet (I think lol).

If it's made with an actual bullet, the bullet is still a bullet. The inert assembly is not ammunition, because ammunition can be fired.

Except under certain legal constructs, where if someone is a prohibited person (from possessing firearms), then any part of ammunition, even spent components, is considered ammo. But that's specific to the jurisdiction and its laws.

 

[Pappy]

my research has concluded that the cause of over 98% of rocket loss is directly traceable to launching.

 

[Hobie1dog]

This thread has just about run its course.

 

[H_Rocket]

Full Scale Boat Tail ARCAS NEW! (Made to order. Allow four weeks production time for this kit). Pre order using 4 zeros for credit card number & expiration date. Use 3 zeroes for ccv.

Kit includes:

• Filament wound 4.5” G-12 fiberglass Scale ARCAS nosecone with aluminum tip
• Filament wound 4.5” x 40” G-12 one piece fiberglass slotted airframe with boat tail
• 4.5” x 2” G-12 switch band
• 4.5” x 12” G-12 coupler
• 4.5” x 24” G-12 payload
• (1) 1/8” G-10 nosecone bulk plate
• (2) G-10 Avbay lids
• (2) 1/8” x 54mm G-10 centering rings
• 54mm x 16” G-12 motor mount tube
• (4) 1/8” G-10 fins with leading edge beveled
• Optional 75 or 98mm motor mount

Is it a model rocket if it's full scale?

So where did you see this?

 

[Steven]

So where did you see this?

https://performancehobbies.com/secure/store.aspx?groupid=12920049501496

 

[KenECoyote]

If it's made with an actual bullet, the bullet is still a bullet. The inert assembly is not ammunition, because ammunition can be fired.

Except under certain legal constructs, where if someone is a prohibited person (from possessing firearms), then any part of ammunition, even spent components, is considered ammo. But that's specific to the jurisdiction and its laws.

Is it still a bullet if assembled without a bullet head or gunpowder?

Same as my above question... is this still a "model rocket" if I build it without the motor mount and stability probe?

 

[Steven]

Is it still a bullet if assembled without a bullet head or gunpowder?

Same as my above question... is this still a "model rocket" if I build it without the motor mount and stability probe?
View attachment 575756

I have a couple of those, as well as the Klingon battleship. None of them are built.

 

[BigMacDaddy]

To each his/her own - everyone's challenge is different... I like the challenge of making something fly (even if I will only launch it once or a few times).

However, I see the incredible finishing that some people put into their models and I can totally appreciate that they do not want to launch it. I guess best of both worlds is to have a display model and a launching model...

 

[SolarYellow]

Is it still a bullet if assembled without a bullet head or gunpowder?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The bullet is the projectile. If the case for an ammunition cartridge is assembled without the bullet or propellant, then all that has been inserted is the primer. That is called a primed case. No bullet.

Once an item is a finished bullet, it is a bullet before, during and after being assembled into live or dummy ammunition and before, during and after being fired. It may cease to be a bullet if it is sufficiently destroyed upon impact that it would be reasonable to call it "bullet fragments."

 

[icyclops]

OMG, this reminds me of a glue thread….to each their own!
You can discuss this till the cows come home but it still won’t matter….people that enjoy this hobby for the build and design will continue to long after this is archived….and those that only build just to fly will also continue.

 

[Steven]

my research has concluded that the cause of over 98% of rocket loss is directly traceable to launching.

Then there's hangar rash.

 

[bjphoenix]

I think the difference is that you had built it intending and planning to launch it vs. cases where the model is built without any intention of launch them.

I have a clone of an Estes Apogee II that I built (without the clear payload section) probably 20 years ago. It hasn't been launched yet, and I really can't remember why I built it because it would not be my style these days. But since I built it as a rocket I intend to launch it some day, it is even sitting out in the garage with motors in it. I recognize that this might be the last time I see it.

 

[Jeff Lassahn]

Is it still a bullet if assembled without a bullet head or gunpowder?

Same as my above question... is this still a "model rocket" if I build it without the motor mount and stability probe?
View attachment 575756

Stop it! You're having fun wrong!

If you're not building it to fly, why would you build _that_ model Enterprise? There's much better display models of that particular design available from other sources.

As for terminology, a model rocket can still be a model rocket if it doesn't fly, just like a model car doesn't have to drive and a model airplane doesn't have to fly. But a model of the Starship Enterprise that doesn't fly is both not a rocket because it doesn't fly and not a model of a rocket because the prototype isn't a rocket. So it's starting to feel pretty distant from the Platonic ideal of "Model Rocket" to me.

Related: if you build this
http://www.squirrel-works.com/catalog/pie/pie.htmlas a hangar queen without a motor mount is it a model rocket?

 

[KenECoyote]

Stop it! You're having fun wrong!

If you're not building it to fly, why would you build _that_ model Enterprise? There's much better display models of that particular design available from other sources.

As for terminology, a model rocket can still be a model rocket if it doesn't fly, just like a model car doesn't have to drive and a model airplane doesn't have to fly. But a model of the Starship Enterprise that doesn't fly is both not a rocket because it doesn't fly and not a model of a rocket because the prototype isn't a rocket. So it's starting to feel pretty distant from the Platonic ideal of "Model Rocket" to me.

Related: if you build this
http://www.squirrel-works.com/catalog/pie/pie.htmlas a hangar queen without a motor mount is it a model rocket?

Trust me, I'm having a ton of fun! 😁 😆

I'm a person who loves discussing logic, so this is a good exercise. Plus above I was only responding to the person who asked about bullets.

An interesting side note about me is that I almost majored in English since that was my best subject in High School (straight As, etc.). I was also a proofreader on my first job out of college.

I'm definitely not a grammar expert, but regarding the point of "model rocket" vs. "rocket model", the second word of each is the noun and the preceding word is the descriptive adjective. The first is mainly a rocket and the second is mainly a model.

I've got a bunch of different Enterprise models including one with lights and fiber optics from years ago (I built a Star Destroyer from the same line with fiber optics and had to drill hundreds of tiny holes lol); however, I just love the Estes one and do plan to build it as a static model (not a rocket! 😆) and I'm sure I'll enjoy every minute of it.

 

[KenECoyote]

If you're not building it to fly, why would you build _that_ ...

💯! Exactly! 😁

Related: if you build this
http://www.squirrel-works.com/catalog/pie/pie.htmlas a hangar queen without a motor mount is it a model rocket?

I did build it and I lunched launched it!

 

[anbhtblr]

That makes it simple for me, thinking about the past and still having built many more airplanes of both kinds than rockets:

model airplane = flyable

airplane model = static display

Model rocket (static display) or amateur rocket modeled after/on xxx.

 

[Funkworks]

If I build 2 Estes V2s but only fly one of them, is the other one a model rocket or not?

😁

 

[lakeroadster]

If I build 2 Estes V2s but only fly one of them, is the other one a model rocket or not?

😁

They are both model rockets.... the one that fly's is a "Flying" model rocket.

 

[KenECoyote]

If I build 2 Estes V2s but only fly one of them, is the other one a model rocket or not?

😁

Start a build thread and take a vote! 😁

 

[Pappy]

staring into the great void of meaningless semantics i will offer that any model rocket properly finished with engine mount and recovery system packaged, containing the potential for immediate launch, is not different enough from one already launched to require new assignation.

 

[ewomack]

I didn't know this site could be so philosophical. I might enjoy these kind of discussions as well, even if I can appreciate that they aren't always useful.

I think a "model rocket" is a model rocket as long as it 1. was built to resemble a rocket or to manifest the basic functionality of a rocket; 2. fulfills all of the criteria of the Platonic Form of "rocket" (see Phaedo); 3. looks, smells, tastes or generally conceives as a "rocket" in "model" form; 4. looks cool on a shelf. Q.E.D.

"Model Rockets" shouldn't have to fly to be subsumed under the "model rocket" rubric. Unbuilt model rockets, i.e., still in kit form, are "potential" model rockets, whereas built model rockets have fulfilled their potentiality, but not as much as model rockets that a. are intended to fly; and b. have actually flown, whether successfully or not. This leaves us with the following subsumations: i. model rockets (includes actualized, potential, flown or unflown); ii. potential model rockets, generally unflown. iii. actualized model rockets, unflown, unintentionally or intentionally; iv. actualized model rockets, flown, unintentionally or intentionally. "Model rocket" as a signifier subsumes all of these categories in all various forms and substances. Normative valuations between these various manifestations will vary widely, but actualized, flown model rockets extend more towards the ultimate Good than the other previously delineated forms. Q.E.D.

 

[Jeff Lassahn]

Also, everyone remember that it's only a true model rocket if it clears its orbit of all other rockets. Otherwise it's a dwarf rocket.

 

[KenECoyote]

I didn't know this site could be so philosophical. I might enjoy these kind of discussions as well, even if I can appreciate that they aren't always useful.

I think a "model rocket" is a model rocket as long as it 1. was built to resemble a rocket or to manifest the basic functionality of a rocket; 2. fulfills all of the criteria of the Platonic Form of "rocket" (see Phaedo); 3. looks, smells, tastes or generally conceives as a "rocket" in "model" form; 4. looks cool on a shelf. Q.E.D.

"Model Rockets" shouldn't have to fly to be subsumed under the "model rocket" rubric. Unbuilt model rockets, i.e., still in kit form, are "potential" model rockets, whereas built model rockets have fulfilled their potentiality, but not as much as model rockets that a. are intended to fly; and b. have actually flown, whether successfully or not. This leaves us with the following subsumations: i. model rockets (includes actualized, potential, flown or unflown); ii. potential model rockets, generally unflown. iii. actualized model rockets, unflown, unintentionally or intentionally; iv. actualized model rockets, flown, unintentionally or intentionally. "Model rocket" as a signifier subsumes all of these categories in all various forms and substances. Normative valuations between these various manifestations will vary widely, but actualized, flown model rockets extend more towards the ultimate Good than the other previously delineated forms. Q.E.D.

Are you a lawyer? 😆

 

[KenECoyote]

I didn't know this site could be so philosophical. I might enjoy these kind of discussions as well, even if I can appreciate that they aren't always useful.

If a rocket sits on a shelf unlaunched does it make a sound?

No, because it's NOT a rocket and it's a static model.
😆

 

[Cape Byron]

If a rocket sits on a shelf unlaunched does it make a sound?

No, because it's NOT a rocket and it's a static model.
😆

If you buy an new kit and your wife doesn't know, are you still in trouble?

 

[KenECoyote]

If you buy an new kit and your wife doesn't know, are you still in trouble?

 

[Grog6]

If I want one to look at and keep, I build two.

 

[KenECoyote]

If you're not building it to fly, why would you build _that_ model Enterprise? There's much better display models of that particular design available from other sources.

As for terminology, a model rocket can still be a model rocket if it doesn't fly, just like a model car doesn't have to drive and a model airplane doesn't have to fly. But a model of the Starship Enterprise that doesn't fly is both not a rocket because it doesn't fly and not a model of a rocket because the prototype isn't a rocket. So it's starting to feel pretty distant from the Platonic ideal of "Model Rocket" to me.

Along those lines, someone recently posted about the Estes Maxi Brute X-wing being a common base for a really great static model and had a link to it on ebay (can't find the post)...


However I'm 100% sure that one won't be launched!

Also it goes to my point that built that way, a "model rocket" is transformed into something else... a static model.

BTW that listing isn't fake nor is it unrealistic. The seller has sold thousands of items and has a lot of other similar built models for sale.