GuyNoir
Well-Known Member
I've read the threads here regarding the potential for NAR "experimental" motor activities, and want to offer some comments, questions and observations for consideration.
1. Press Coverage
In 2005, I was contacted by a reporter in, I believe, Ohio, who was tracking down details of a "model rocket accident". After conversation, it was clear that someone had been attempting to build motors in their home, had an accident, and that the local fire department and police bomb squad had been called out in response. The reporter specifically asked me, "Mr. Bundick, Mr X had a coffee can of black powder in his workshop. What explosive force would that amount of black powder had, if it had gone off?"
Needless to say, I begged off the answer because I'm not qualified to say.
In nearly every motor making accident I've seen reported to me, in some cases days after its publication, the general media labels the incident as someone "making model rocket motors".
Readers here know the distinctions between our various hobby activities.
John Q. Public does not, and the press doesn't help.
Expecting irate letters to the editor or requests for corrections to these errors after publication to fix the problem will not, and these reports do not help us alert J. Q. Public that our hobby is safe, educational and fun.
People out there practicing what is commonly called "EX" rocketry need to know, should they unfortunately experience an accident, there's a 90%+ chance of it being labeled a "model rocket accident".
This doesn't help ANY form of sport rocketry, from model rocketry to EX, and everything in between.
2. Insurance Impacts
The last data I have, which could be incorrect, says that TRA pays over 2X what the NAR does for insurance. Their insurance, as I understand it, covers their sanctioned activities for EX rocketry.
My question to NAR member is, are you prepared to double NAR insurance costs for the ability to participate in EX? That would be roughly $40,000 or nearly $10 per member. If we asked Level 2 and Level 3 folks to pay for that increase, it would be nearly $40 per member. This is a REAL cost, hard dollars, and NAR members need to say whether this cost is worth it, and who should bear the financial burdens of any EX program.
3. Safety Issues
In addition to that Ohio reporter, I have reports from Chicago, where someone using titanium in motors had an accident, started a fire, resulted in fire and bomb squad personnel responding, and ultimately killed themselves in an accident. The bomb squad, lacking any understanding of HPR technology, carefully removed the 54MM AT casing in the house and blew them up as a safety precaution.
Last year, a Peoria, IL EX model set fire to his garage, destroying it, his cars, his rocketry stuff, his club's equipment, damaged his attached home and spent time in the hospital.
Building motors is tricky stuff, because you're handling energetic materials that need to be treated with care, and under controlled conditions. ALL motor making folks have accidents. It's been a fact of life since the Chinese developed gunpowder. Safety needs to be paramount in the business of making motors.
This is serious stuff, folks, and saying "it's safe" doesn't necessarily make it so.
4. Summary
Having said all of that, John Lyngdal, co-chairman of NAR S&T, a fine rocket flyer, a member of the NAR Board and good friend of mine, practices EX rocketry. It's clear to me that there are many other fine modelers who can practice this stuff safely. And to me, safe rocketry is good rocketry.
When approached in the past about launching an NAR EX program, I've asked the NAR members requesting that, to put together a program that outlines things like:
- what background literature should be made available to and read by folks wanting to participate.
- what physical facilities should be present to safely participate in this activity
- what training, mentoring, tutoring or combination thereof should be done for those interested in this
- what local, regional, state or federal statutes, regulations and ordinance apply to EX participants
To date, no NAR member has put together a comprehensive plan outlining how the NAR can incorporate EX activities safely and legally into the NAR's program of activities.
It's easy to get on the Net and say the NAR 's stuck in the mud on this issue, or that the NAR is anti-rocketry.
This rhetoric does not change the fact that there are real risks to EX participation, that its legal status is unclear at best, and that the general public reacts negatively to any accident by painting all of us with the same brush, ie. "that stuff is unsafe". None of those things is good for the hobby.
I don't enjoy being the "wet blanket" on rocketry activities, but unless and until we squarely confront these questions, I don't see how I, in good conscience, can drive the NAR down this path.
1. Press Coverage
In 2005, I was contacted by a reporter in, I believe, Ohio, who was tracking down details of a "model rocket accident". After conversation, it was clear that someone had been attempting to build motors in their home, had an accident, and that the local fire department and police bomb squad had been called out in response. The reporter specifically asked me, "Mr. Bundick, Mr X had a coffee can of black powder in his workshop. What explosive force would that amount of black powder had, if it had gone off?"
Needless to say, I begged off the answer because I'm not qualified to say.
In nearly every motor making accident I've seen reported to me, in some cases days after its publication, the general media labels the incident as someone "making model rocket motors".
Readers here know the distinctions between our various hobby activities.
John Q. Public does not, and the press doesn't help.
Expecting irate letters to the editor or requests for corrections to these errors after publication to fix the problem will not, and these reports do not help us alert J. Q. Public that our hobby is safe, educational and fun.
People out there practicing what is commonly called "EX" rocketry need to know, should they unfortunately experience an accident, there's a 90%+ chance of it being labeled a "model rocket accident".
This doesn't help ANY form of sport rocketry, from model rocketry to EX, and everything in between.
2. Insurance Impacts
The last data I have, which could be incorrect, says that TRA pays over 2X what the NAR does for insurance. Their insurance, as I understand it, covers their sanctioned activities for EX rocketry.
My question to NAR member is, are you prepared to double NAR insurance costs for the ability to participate in EX? That would be roughly $40,000 or nearly $10 per member. If we asked Level 2 and Level 3 folks to pay for that increase, it would be nearly $40 per member. This is a REAL cost, hard dollars, and NAR members need to say whether this cost is worth it, and who should bear the financial burdens of any EX program.
3. Safety Issues
In addition to that Ohio reporter, I have reports from Chicago, where someone using titanium in motors had an accident, started a fire, resulted in fire and bomb squad personnel responding, and ultimately killed themselves in an accident. The bomb squad, lacking any understanding of HPR technology, carefully removed the 54MM AT casing in the house and blew them up as a safety precaution.
Last year, a Peoria, IL EX model set fire to his garage, destroying it, his cars, his rocketry stuff, his club's equipment, damaged his attached home and spent time in the hospital.
Building motors is tricky stuff, because you're handling energetic materials that need to be treated with care, and under controlled conditions. ALL motor making folks have accidents. It's been a fact of life since the Chinese developed gunpowder. Safety needs to be paramount in the business of making motors.
This is serious stuff, folks, and saying "it's safe" doesn't necessarily make it so.
4. Summary
Having said all of that, John Lyngdal, co-chairman of NAR S&T, a fine rocket flyer, a member of the NAR Board and good friend of mine, practices EX rocketry. It's clear to me that there are many other fine modelers who can practice this stuff safely. And to me, safe rocketry is good rocketry.
When approached in the past about launching an NAR EX program, I've asked the NAR members requesting that, to put together a program that outlines things like:
- what background literature should be made available to and read by folks wanting to participate.
- what physical facilities should be present to safely participate in this activity
- what training, mentoring, tutoring or combination thereof should be done for those interested in this
- what local, regional, state or federal statutes, regulations and ordinance apply to EX participants
To date, no NAR member has put together a comprehensive plan outlining how the NAR can incorporate EX activities safely and legally into the NAR's program of activities.
It's easy to get on the Net and say the NAR 's stuck in the mud on this issue, or that the NAR is anti-rocketry.
This rhetoric does not change the fact that there are real risks to EX participation, that its legal status is unclear at best, and that the general public reacts negatively to any accident by painting all of us with the same brush, ie. "that stuff is unsafe". None of those things is good for the hobby.
I don't enjoy being the "wet blanket" on rocketry activities, but unless and until we squarely confront these questions, I don't see how I, in good conscience, can drive the NAR down this path.
