never flown to L1 in one step?

[billspad]

At our launch this weekend we had several college students from a major engineering school in Cambridge do Level 1 certification flights. Some were successful, some were not, most didn't have a clue about the basics. I really don't care to hear "but the software says it's stable" ever again. They all were old enough and had current NAR cards. It was clear that they built the rockets themselves (also clear that they hadn't done much building before) and the ones that we signed off on were stable, deployed their chutes and recovered intact but I didn't real feel good about doing it. There's nothing in the rules that says you have to have prior experience. I think there should be but can't think of any way that could be done. What do you think?

 

[CarVac]

I went to L1 before ever flying anything midpower. But I had someone to bounce ideas off, as well as an engineering background.

Regarding my thoughts: if you were RSOing, then you should have taken the obviously unstable ones aside and had them show stability calculations or demonstrate valid simulation use if they wanted to cert. Or just say no.

 

[troj]

I went to L1 before ever flying anything midpower. But I had someone to bounce ideas off, as well as an engineering background.

To be honest, it's the "engineering background" that concerns me the most on things like this, and where I've seen the most problems.

Why? Because far too often, students don't grasp the difference between the perfection of the textbook and the real world.

That doesn't mean students can't do great work -- we see it every year in SLI. But we also see unmitigated disasters, too.

-Kevin

 

[watheyak]

This is a very familiar scenario to my club. Imagine this scenario-

ASU engineering student shows up with a rocket that is clearly over-powered, under-built, and comically unstable. "The computer says it's stable, and I'm an engineering student, so it'll be ok..." He says to the RSO with an engineering degree from UofA. It did not end well

Scott w.

The universities in this story may have been changes to protect the innocent.

 

[CarVac]

A worthy engineering student ought to be able to convince you through logic and calculations, not by pulling the "engineering student" card.

Otherwise they're not a good enough engineering student in my book (or else they realize their errors and stop making claims).

 

[KennB]

The kits were all very similar. There was no obvioius way to distinguish between the stable and unstable ones before hitting the button. The stable ones were only just stable and we coined a new phrase for a not-straight-as-an-arrow-but-kinda-stable flight; the MIT Wiggle.

Yeah, most of these kids had never flown anything before joining this club at their school. When I was asked how to install the igniter, I told him it was just about like the ones he had used on all the black powder motors he had ever launched. When I got a quizical look back from him, I directed him to Robert to have the question answered. He provided the motor, he could answer the questions (and he did - it's a shame the kids didn't take him up on his offer of knowledge earlier in the semester).

 

[Area66]

The first rocket I build was my Lev 1, I build many things in my life and I found building rockets easier than many other things I build. Just as example it's far more stressing to put water in a 400 gallons aquarium you just build with only silicone to old the glass, or it’s harder to install a decoder in an Nscale locomotive than an altimeter in a rocket.

 

[troj]

A worthy engineering student ought to be able to convince you through logic and calculations, not by pulling the "engineering student" card.

Except you're assuming the RSO or anyone else helping can debate formulae with the students. The reality is there are a lot of folks who'd be completely lost in a discussion about the formulas involved who can tell you pretty darned accurately what'll work and what won't.

Instead, what the students should be doing is engaging a mentor early on, and getting frequent, active guidance. It's a lot less painful for everyone involved.

-Kevin

 

[DizWolf]

I don't see any reason someone couldn't go right to L1. I'm not sure how I feel about a paper test for it, but it's not a terrible idea. Perhaps a short online test to avoid massive testing hassles at the launch site, or a required intro to rockets video. We're at the point you can now buy an estes kit off the rack at hobby lobby, slap a baby H in it and bang! L1. I don't have a problem with that.... More people involved is a GOOD thing. But making sure people understand the basics isn't a bad idea. As it sits though, all you can really do is RSO the rocket closely and try to educate people.

Rockets are indeed very easy to build Area66....the trick is building them -right- for the situation and motor. I've seen similar stability issues. The problem is they're not checking the sim against the actual rocket, and the CG isn't where they think it is. They also tend to miss on the delays in those cases.

 

[CarVac]

Except you're assuming the RSO or anyone else helping can debate formulae with the students. The reality is there are a lot of folks who'd be completely lost in a discussion about the formulas involved who can tell you pretty darned accurately what'll work and what won't.

That is when the RSO just says "No, this is not safe to fly."

 

[chris m]

Yes building is easy if you check your work and doing the work right . Cg and cp on paper or a sim can be different than the build is . On mega Hi flyer the sim for it ,the cg and cp was closer then what the rocket was . And the big fins had to add the cant to cancel out weather cocking . That's not in a sim . That from reading on aerodynamics. But if you think that you can build and fly go for it . I took a lot of crap for my cert rocket . But had the paper work of my build on what I built and why . Didn't need it but had it .

 

[iter]

Failure is one of the best teachers. One lessons few schools teach is that failure is an option. Few things cure arrogance quicker than failure.

L1 is relatively small rockets. If the only experience the applicant has is his L1 rocket and he succeeds, maybe he's good enough to fly these relatively small rockets. If he fails, he may learn the limits of his current methods.

Neither NAR nor TRA have experience requirements for certification, and I like that they don't. Both these organizations use actual ability to build and fly rockets safely as certification criterion, rather than the proxy of experience.

Those of us with advanced HPR certification feel very protective of our achievement. We want to protect its value from "inflation." Back when we were kids, we had to roll our own tubes, uphill, both ways; now kids can simply buy kits off the shelf. We want to have more people in the hobby, but we want to feel superior to them.

Ari.

 

[chris m]

Iter , so very true . There was a time were there wasn't fiber glass or computer Sims . Scratch building is the challenge that is a great path . But it's not for everyone .

 

[T-Rex]

When I did my L1, I was asked a few questions, even though it was a kit. I think that is the key. There is no requirement, but we owe it to ourselves to make sure that an L1 flyer understands the basics. Don't just ask if it's stable. Ask them to show you. Where are the CP & CG? Why is that important? What speed does it leave the rail? Why is that important?

I don't think I agree with Ari's statement above about L1 rockets being small. My 3" Starship Vega is a 6lb L1 rocket, made for low and slow flights. If it turns on it's side due to weather cocking, it is going to become low and fast since it is no longer pushing that mass vertical. L1 rockets are still dangerous in the wrong hands.

I have no need to feel superior, I want to be sure that L1 means something. If we degrade it's value by not ensuring that the folks that we sign off know at least the basics, than the program might as well not exist.
I don't care if he or she has only built the one model, as long as they can show me they understand how to build it and how it works.

 

[bobkrech]

They are obvious smart or they would not have been accepted to college, but being typical students, it appeared they relied a bit too much on simulations instead of putting a lot of thought into building their rockets. What was mildly amusing that about half of the rockets were fiberglassed on the aft end only. I'm pretty sure that the students did their stability calculations without considering the extra aft weight of the fiberglass. When asked about the Cg-Cp relationship, they estimated about 2 calibers stability, but the RSO balance test showed it had been an overestimate. The ones with ~1 caliber stability had noticeable tail wiggles on the way up. I'm sure they learned that building and flying is different than idealized simulations.

Bob

 

[dward]

I think where they probably went wrong is they depended on the design simulation without measuring the cg after building and re-simulating with mass and cg override. I seem to recall that the fin can was a homemade composite material, which means the correct parameters in OR or RockSim may not have been available. All the more reason to weigh and measure the cg.

 

[billspad]

Failure is one of the best teachers. One lessons few schools teach is that failure is an option. Few things cure arrogance quicker than failure.

I'll confess that this wasn't the smartest thing to do. At the end of the day one of them showed up with a rocket that obviously didn't have enough fin area. The CG was ahead of the fins but not by much. It was clear that it was going to be marginal at best. The RSO asked me what to do and I told him I doubted it was stable but he could fly it on the pad that was far enough away so that it wouldn't be chasing us if it went unstable. As expected, it flew okay for a while then did an impressive loop and fell to the ground. I asked the kid if he had run a sim on the rocket (which I asked them to do well in advance) and I got the "Open Rocket said it was stable" answer. Then I asked him if he actually weighed the parts and did an override on the mass where necessary. I got a blank stare. I hoped he learned something.

To tell you the truth, I don't feel particularly protective about my L2 certification. I'm more concerned that someone who certified on a marginal but acceptable flight could show up to our next launch wanting to go for his L2. Let's face it, if you can read you can pass the written test. Flying a J after one iffy H flight scares me a little.

 

[CarVac]

I'll confess that this wasn't the smartest thing to do. At the end of the day one of them showed up with a rocket that obviously didn't have enough fin area. The CG was ahead of the fins but not by much. It was clear that it was going to be marginal at best. The RSO asked me what to do and I told him I doubted it was stable but he could fly it on the pad that was far enough away so that it wouldn't be chasing us if it went unstable. As expected, it flew okay for a while then did an impressive loop and fell to the ground. I asked the kid if he had run a sim on the rocket (which I asked them to do well in advance) and I got the "Open Rocket said it was stable" answer. Then I asked him if he actually weighed the parts and did an override on the mass where necessary. I got a blank stare. I hoped he learned something.

To tell you the truth, I don't feel particularly protective about my L2 certification. I'm more concerned that someone who certified on a marginal but acceptable flight could show up to our next launch wanting to go for his L2. Let's face it, if you can read you can pass the written test. Flying a J after one iffy H flight scares me a little.

Did he mark the CP on the rocket like you're supposedly supposed to? That way you can actually check...

 

[billspad]

Did he mark the CP on the rocket like you're supposedly supposed to? That way you can actually check...

You don't have to actually mark it on the rocket. You just have to know where it is. I have no doubt that it was where he said it was and that the rocket was stable on paper. But, as we know, that isn't the whole story. And it's not like that information wasn't available to them. The documentation for Open Rocket (that's what they used) explains that clearly.

 

[edp8489]

I saw this thread and decided to make an account to chime in with my observations. I'm a local alum of the team, and I've been (loosely) following their progress over the past month while trying to provide guidance when I could. The general impression I got was that everyone is very enthusiastic about rocketry, especially the team leader. It seems like he was trying to jump right into the deep end by encouraging everyone to get their L1 certifications, even though some (many?) members were unprepared. I know that at the beginning of the semester, they gave a few "lectures" on the basics of rocketry to the new members with little or no experience, but I wasn't around to see how in-depth they went.

Regarding all of the "kits" being very similar, I know that a few of the team's executive members provided a basic rocket design for everyone to use or modify as they wanted. Some people obviously did, to varying degrees of success (like the one with the tiny elliptical fins). Some stuck with the basic design. But this was the biggest concern that I had - that some people were going for an L1 flight because they were told to, when in actuality they should have been flying an Estes starter kit on a C6-5 to learn basics such as how to stow a parachute, how to insert a motor, how to install an ignitor...

I went to the launch this weekend to help out with transportation and be supportive of the team. It was great to see that they had 21 people eager and involved. When I got my L1 certification back in 2009, there were only four of us on the team... But back to the subject at hand, I found myself having to explain to almost everybody there how to assemble the motor and adjust the timing of the deployment charge. A lot of them asked how much they should adjust the delay. When I asked them what their simulation predicted the time to apogee was, they scurried off to find someone who had a printout of results. Had I known things were that bad, I would've grounded everyone before we left Cambridge and held an impromptu workshop on launch logistics.

I'm one of several local alums who has offered to provide as much help and guidance as they'd like. But at the end of the day, it's up to them to realize they don't know everything and seek help. Another alum and I just sent them a pretty lengthy email that summarized a lot of the opinions that were echoed in this thread (and one or two others) and encouraged them to ask questions and take advantage of all of the knowledgeable people who are willing to help. Hopefully the next launch will be smoother.

 

[terryg]

It's interesting that this thread showed up just now, as I ran into this same situation at our last club launch. I volunteered to do two different L1 certs. One was a group of college students one of which was certifying. The lack of experience was immediately obvious so I extended the usual preflight inspection into a mini-lesson in prepping a rocket and made them show me the cp and balance the rocket to determine the cg. The biggest problem with some one doing this with no flight experience is that they have no idea on how to pack and set up the recovery system and this is the most common failure point. The second cert of the day was some one that had a lot of previous flight experience and the difference was night and day. I suggested he not use the flimsy plastic nose cone loop and he immediately saw and corrected the issue. Both flights were successful but I will keep an eye on the first group at future launches till they get more experience.

 

[grouch]

They should have all started with G's. Plenty of power, plenty of fun, plenty to learn.

 

[dgreger]

it’s harder to install a decoder in an Nscale locomotive than an altimeter in a rocket.

Thats why I am selling all my Nscale to help fund my Rockets!

Being a BAR, It had been an awfully long time since I had launched any BP, and my first Launch back was my Archer on an Estes F50, then my MDRM on a G80.
The following monthly launch I attended I did my L1 Cert, but I had an experienced rocketeer (G-Dog) come to my house and go over the details, and the "don't forget to do this" stuff. I also pride myself on exhaustive research. Its a touchy subject, but I personally feel there should be some demonstrated knowledge, and at least some experience in the safe launch of BP and AP powered rockets. Estes and Aerotech have made it very easy to get that experience with the larger rockets and availability of the AP single use motors. As it states in the L2 study guide and exam, The RSO has the Last word on whether someone is allowed to launch a rocket. That person has the responsibility to all in attendance to ensure safe launches to the best of his/her ability and should never feel bad if their decision is to tell someone I dont think your rocket is stable enough and or feel that the rocketeer just doesnt seem to have the knowledge to attempt a safe cert.
Just my .02

 

[billspad]

It seems like he was trying to jump right into the deep end by encouraging everyone to get their L1 certifications, even though some (many?) members were unprepared.

At our previous launch we had a similar group from Boston University. They had no desire to get their L1 cert. The rockets we built by teams. I did have to insist that the person who brought the rocket to be checked and put it on the pad have the proper certification but that wasn't a problem. I think one of their advisers was L3. The results were much better. They had their failures too but not as drastic.

At some point in the future I hope the MIT kids return to show us they can do it right.

 

[Cyril's Scribe]

Speaking from a position with an admittedly small amount of experience, my journey with WPI has been somewhat similar. I will not criticize MIT as I have definitely made some of the same mistakes as them in the past, especially in regards to team management. The biggest problem I have seen with college and universities in general is simply spin up. You have a large number of students who are extremely interested in rocketry, but have little to no knowledge on how to fly.

I was fortunate that my father caught the BAR bug back in the early 00s, so I have been flying since I was ten years old or so, but many of these students lack the experiential and theoretical knowledge to fly...successfully. Trying to educate many students at the same time, particularly in such a decidedly non-intuitive subject is fairly hard to do, especially in between classes, sports, and life, in that order. I am not saying it can not be done, and I will definitely adopt the team-build idea, but it is certainly more than a little difficult. Trying to maintain and sustain that interest is a different story and I believe, can be as much a factor as the skill level of the persons involved. And, if anyone knows someone in the Worcester, MA area who would like to teach the basics of LPR, MPR, and HPR rocketry, I would be more than happy to help them get involved.

 

[UpsilonAerospace]

I would agree with many people on this thread that it would be alright to certify Level 1 without prior *flying* experience. However, I think that if you are planning to certify L1, you should probably examine a few proper L1 rockets, have a qualified mentor, and have a RSO who checks the rocket out especially thoroughly. I also think that they should build a kit - Scratch building a rocket for the first time on an H motor is worrying to me.

I would like to share a nice little anecdote. A father-son team tried to certify L1 at our club a few years back (after, I believe, only flying tiny BP rockets). The father went first, and his rocket went up about fifty feet and spectacularly shredded. After the flight, the father was convinced that it was a motor problem that doomed his poor rocket, and so he sent his son's rocket up. It, too, shredded in the exact same way. Both times, the rockets could have landed in the spectator area or caught the grass on fire, and both of the rockets were a huge safety risk. It is very important that new L1 fliers do not follow this path.

 

[CarVac]

I also think that they should build a kit - Scratch building a rocket for the first time on an H motor is worrying to me.

I agree, except in exceptional cases where they put weeks of careful thought and discussion into the design.

 

[troj]

I agree, except in exceptional cases where they put weeks of careful thought and discussion into the design.

....except that design, and implementation, are two very different things. If you're building a kit and following the instructions, odds are you're going to be successful.

If you're building a kit and deviating, the opportunity for problems increases.

If you're scratch building and don't understand the ramifications of things (such as adding fiberglass to the rear, or that weights in the sim software are estimates and don't necessarily match reality) you can run into problems.

It's the little things that most learn via experience that matter the most. This is why I'd encourage every student team to have an actively involved mentor, to help them along.

-Kevin

 

[chadrog]

I agree, except in exceptional cases where they put weeks of careful thought and discussion into the design.

Spending weeks thinking about building a bridge does not give me the qualification to build one.

 

[GregGleason]

While allowed by the rules, I do not think that it is necessarily wise to go from nothing to L1.

There is little an RSO can do other than check it. If he has a "funny feeling" about it, I suppose he can refuse to let it fly.

Greg