Princeton University attempt at a suborbital space shot?

[MClark]

We can get paid for this?
Sweet!

M

 

[WFWalby]

Professional-Amateurs? Amateur-Professionals? Hmmm.

 

[eggplant]

Thanks for that. My opinion is that university teams should always have a professional mentor on site during launch preparations for any high power flight.

Bob Clark

Also confused by the meaning of "professional mentor", but I guess I get what you are saying. While it certainly would not hurt to require teams attempting a complex/class III launch to have an experienced mentor during prep, I don't think it will help that much if they weren't around during the design and build of the rocket, and if you add that requirement, suddenly the time you are requesting from them increases tenfold.

As a side note, I am a member of a college team and we have received multiple direct messages from Robert Clark over the past year or so egging us on to attempt more ambitious projects. I wonder what his communications with the Virginia Tech students were like?

 

[afadeev]

Thanks for that. My opinion is that university teams should always have a professional mentor on site during launch preparations for any high power flight.

Great question. The vast majority of us are just hobbyists- not professionals. So, who is to mentor the teams if not “us”?

I guess recruiting an otherwise gainfully employed and overworked SpaceX / BlueOrigin, or under-worked NASA launch crew manager would be helpful, cool, very educational, and utterly unrealistic.

Even experienced, knowledgeable, helpful, socially-adept, and otherwise available amateur rocketeers don't exactly grow on trees.

"Tripoli Board of Directors has voted to place a temporary ban upon all Class 3 projects from Universities and University clubs at Tripoli launches. Said ban will expire on 12/31/2018 if not withdrawn or extended by that date. "

A hard choice for Steve and the Tripoli BoD but I believe it's the right one...

I will venture a guess here, that instituting such a blanket ban is something that TRA will live to regret.

I do appreciate the focus on safety it aims to advertise, but rejecting an entire category of (perhaps over-) eager rocket enthusiasts goes contrary to everything amateur rocket community is supposed to be about. TRA's mission statement reads "Tripoli is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement and operation of amateur high power rocketry." The ban above contradicts that mission in every way possible.

Providing insightful advice to said groups on implementing variable safety measures, or better training and procedures for BALLS RSOs, would have been more constructive.

Luckily, rocket enthusiasts are not constrained to launch only at TRA events...

a
NAR member
TRA member

 

[JimJarvis50]

Also confused by the meaning of "professional mentor", but I guess I get what you are saying. While it certainly would not hurt to require teams attempting a complex/class III launch to have an experienced mentor during prep, I don't think it will help that much if they weren't around during the design and build of the rocket, and if you add that requirement, suddenly the time you are requesting from them increases tenfold.

As a side note, I am a member of a college team and we have received multiple direct messages from Robert Clark over the past year or so egging us on to attempt more ambitious projects. I wonder what his communications with the Virginia Tech students were like?

I have made the comment many times that any mentoring needs to be done during the design and build. There are aspects of safety for staged projects, at least in the way I do it, that have to be designed in from the start. I have raised that specific concern for IREC, where our safety team was given nominally 15 minutes to review any given project. I have also suggested to Tripoli that there needs to be a requirement to engage a mentor for University Class 3 projects (beyond what the Class 3 Commitee is willing/able to do) in order for the project to be approved by the BOD. I think this will happen in some form. Within reason, I'm willing to help any student group with staged launches. Some contact me, but most don't. They're not required to, and it seems that once permission to launch is granted, their need for advice vanishes. I doubt that individuals and organizations that push students into such projects will back off, but I do hope that the adults in the room will take back control before someone gets killed.

Jim

 

[jsdemar]

Let's change that to "experienced mentor". And not just "on site during launch preparations", but there through the whole process of design, construction, operational/safety planning, and launch.

 

[rfjustin]

I will venture a guess here, that instituting such a blanket ban is something that TRA will live to regret. I do appreciate the focus on safety it aims to advertise, but rejecting an entire category of (perhaps over-) eager rocket enthusiasts goes contrary to everything amateur rocket community is supposed to be about.

Don't forget the circumstances here... This is a tiny net cast by Tripoli, not a large one. The ban is for Class 3 University projects. To Jim's point, there needs to be more involvement/mentoring in the design phase of these Class 3 University projects.

 

[grouch]

Personally I'd rather Tripoli regret "whatever" than a student losing their lives. I still get the heebies watching that FB Live stream where the commentating girl walks in front of the nosecone completely unaware she could have been impaled had something gone wrong at that time. That's the whole thing that gets me, the lack of awareness of what could happen. I guess if sims don't tell them it's possible, they won't consider it.

 

[djs]

Don't forget the circumstances here... This is a tiny net cast by Tripoli, not a large one. The ban is for Class 3 University projects.

I was confused by afadeev’s comment as well. Really- how many Class 3 projects are done by universities in a given year... maybe 20? And I’m guessing only half of these are at any Tripoli sanctioned launch.

 

[MClark]

I don't think there would be any regret to the loss of the large college projects. One or two at a launch that hold up the other projects will not be missed. Let them get their own waivers, land use permits and insurance as part of the learning process.
I would have more sympathy if they showed up to help with set up or stay for clean up. They bring nothing to the party.

M

 

[AlphaHybrids]

I have made the comment many times that any mentoring needs to be done during the design and build. There are aspects of safety for staged projects, at least in the way I do it, that have to be designed in from the start. I have raised that specific concern for IREC, where our safety team was given nominally 15 minutes to review any given project. I have also suggested to Tripoli that there needs to be a requirement to engage a mentor for University Class 3 projects (beyond what the Class 3 Commitee is willing/able to do) in order for the project to be approved by the BOD. I think this will happen in some form. Within reason, I'm willing to help any student group with staged launches. Some contact me, but most don't. They're not required to, and it seems that once permission to launch is granted, their need for advice vanishes. I doubt that individuals and organizations that push students into such projects will back off, but I do hope that the adults in the room will take back control before someone gets killed.

Jim

I cannot second this, and what John Demar said enough. To most of those projects any outside advice is simply a check box. Some of the things and questions I get from two of the teams that I have contact with make me cringe. The attitude that I see most often that they are actual real life engineers (or student engineers) and because I don't work for an aerospace company my previous experiences and advice doesn't have any weight. And then the one where because the math/excel sheet/simulation program says it is possible it means that it is.

Edward

 

[Steve Shannon]

Let's change that to "experienced mentor". And not just "on site during launch preparations", but there through the whole process of design, construction, operational/safety planning, and launch.

Exactly!

 

[Steve Shannon]

I cannot second this, and what John Demar said enough. To most of those projects any outside advice is simply a check box. Some of the things and questions I get from two of the teams that I have contact with make me cringe. The attitude that I see most often that they are actual real life engineers (or student engineers) and because I don't work for an aerospace company my previous experiences and advice doesn't have any weight. And then the one where because the math/excel sheet/simulation program says it is possible it means that it is.

Edward

Yup

 

[Steve Shannon]

I guess recruiting an otherwise gainfully employed and overworked SpaceX / BlueOrigin, or under-worked NASA launch crew manager would be helpful, cool, very educational, and utterly unrealistic.

Even experienced, knowledgeable, helpful, socially-adept, and otherwise available amateur rocketeers don't exactly grow on trees.




I will venture a guess here, that instituting such a blanket ban is something that TRA will live to regret.

I do appreciate the focus on safety it aims to advertise, but rejecting an entire category of (perhaps over-) eager rocket enthusiasts goes contrary to everything amateur rocket community is supposed to be about. TRA's mission statement reads "Tripoli is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement and operation of amateur high power rocketry." The ban above contradicts that mission in every way possible.

Providing insightful advice to said groups on implementing variable safety measures, or better training and procedures for BALLS RSOs, would have been more constructive.

Luckily, rocket enthusiasts are not constrained to launch only at TRA events...

a
NAR member
TRA member

I’m unsure where you got the idea anybody is being rejected. Maybe you missed the word “temporary” or maybe you missed that the word “Moratorium”, which also means temporary, is in the title. You may also have missed the report I posted to the Tripoli Forum this morning explaining what happened and how we’re working with colleges to determine the best way forward. Your suggestions regarding safety, training, and procedures are exactly right and those are some of the things we’re looking at.

 

[FredA]

I am a member of a college team and we have received multiple direct messages from Robert Clark over the past year or so egging us on to attempt more ambitious projects. I wonder what his communications with the Virginia Tech students were like?

Wow! Not cool.

 

[Pyropetepete]

What happened. Not seen anything to say exactly what happened

 

[Binder Design]

To Jim's point, there needs to be more involvement/mentoring in the design phase of these Class 3 University projects.

I've given this my best shot on a few occasions. It's hard to mentor people that know it all.

 

[troj]

Regarding University projects...

I've been involved with student projects. A lot of student projects - I've been involved in SLI for over 10 years, I've been on the Tripoli Class 3 Committee for...four years, if I remember right.

College students tend to treat rocketry projects like homework - cram it all into the last minute, and you'll do fine. The reality is that in rocketry, this leads to cutting corners and unforeseen problems. In addition, far too many college students involved in these are accustomed to being better students, so they often tend to think they know things. A lot of things. Coupled with a bad case of "We learned about that last semester, so I'm an expert." They've learned some, but they haven't yet reached the point of learning just how much they don't know.

These things tend to lead them to believe they are capable of things well beyond their knowledge and experience. The reality is that the projects these students want to undertake are hard. They're hard for people with a lot of experience, and the failure rates are high. Add the lack of experience and the rush approach that is altogether far too common and the odds of failure increases. As do the odds of injuries.

With SLI, there's been a gradual change over time. People new to the program think some of the rules are overly strict or harsh. The reality is those rules exist for a reason. They're based on lessons learned over time. They're in place to increase the odds of success and decrease the odds of an injury.

College Class 3 projects don't have that institutional knowledge we have in SLI. Those lessons are being learned now, and because of the complexity of the projects, the risk of injuries are higher.

While I wasn't involved with the Tripoli Board's discussion or decision, I understand where it's coming from. Three of those Board members have also been involved in SLI, and all of the Board members bring a tremendous amount of rocketry knowledge and experience to the table. I know these people personally. I very much suspect their goal is to temporarily put a halt in place while giving them the time to determine a structure under which these projects can be allowed to continue at Tripoli launches while still providing an appropriate level of safety for all participants.

For the students out there, this isn't an attack on you or what you're doing. This is an effort by the organization to try to A) keep you safe and B) figure out a way to help you be successful.

Trust the Board to have the best interests of the students, the organization and the hobby at heart.

-Kevin

 

[Bobfly]

I think it’s great that these young minds can be motivated to study engineering through Rocketry. However something is very wrong with the university’s mentoring program. Are the university’s mentoring professors experienced Level 3 rocketeers?

That mob of kids wandering around that high power rocket was dangerous. I would have thought that a university team would use checklists. Doesn’t the university have a film / video department that could have produced a clean video of the launch? Maybe with remote cameras?

Are the university teams subject to the same supervision as any other rocketeer by the events RSO? It would be a disaster for the students as well as our sport if some of these young students were hurt.

 

[Bobfly]

I think it’s great that these young minds can be motivated to study engineering through Rocketry. However something is very wrong with the university’s mentoring program. Are the university’s mentoring professors experienced Level 3 rocketeers?

That mob of kids wandering around that high power rocket was dangerous. I would have thought that a university team would use checklists. Doesn’t the university have a film / video department that could have produced a clean video of the launch? Maybe with remote cameras?

Are the university teams subject to the same supervision as any other rocketeer by the events RSO? It would be a disaster for the students as well as our sport if some of these young students were hurt.

 

[Bobfly]

I think it’s great that these young minds can be motivated to study engineering through Rocketry. However something is very wrong with the university’s mentoring program. Are the university’s mentoring professors experienced Level 3 rocketeers?

That mob of kids wandering around that high power rocket was dangerous. I would have thought that a university team would use checklists. Doesn’t the university have a film / video department that could have produced a clean video of the launch? Maybe with remote cameras?

Are the university teams subject to the same supervision as any other rocketeer by the events RSO? It would be a disaster for the students as well as our sport if some of these young students were hurt.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Regarding University projects...

I've been involved with student projects. A lot of student projects - I've been involved in SLI for over 10 years, I've been on the Tripoli Class 3 Committee for...four years, if I remember right.

College students tend to treat rocketry projects like homework - cram it all into the last minute, and you'll do fine. The reality is that in rocketry, this leads to cutting corners and unforeseen problems. In addition, far too many college students involved in these are accustomed to being better students, so they often tend to think they know things. A lot of things. Coupled with a bad case of "We learned about that last semester, so I'm an expert." They've learned some, but they haven't yet reached the point of learning just how much they don't know.

These things tend to lead them to believe they are capable of things well beyond their knowledge and experience. The reality is that the projects these students want to undertake are hard. They're hard for people with a lot of experience, and the failure rates are high. Add the lack of experience and the rush approach that is altogether far too common and the odds of failure increases. As do the odds of injuries.

With SLI, there's been a gradual change over time. People new to the program think some of the rules are overly strict or harsh. The reality is those rules exist for a reason. They're based on lessons learned over time. They're in place to increase the odds of success and decrease the odds of an injury.

College Class 3 projects don't have that institutional knowledge we have in SLI. Those lessons are being learned now, and because of the complexity of the projects, the risk of injuries are higher.

While I wasn't involved with the Tripoli Board's discussion or decision, I understand where it's coming from. Three of those Board members have also been involved in SLI, and all of the Board members bring a tremendous amount of rocketry knowledge and experience to the table. I know these people personally. I very much suspect their goal is to temporarily put a halt in place while giving them the time to determine a structure under which these projects can be allowed to continue at Tripoli launches while still providing an appropriate level of safety for all participants.

For the students out there, this isn't an attack on you or what you're doing. This is an effort by the organization to try to A) keep you safe and B) figure out a way to help you be successful.

Trust the Board to have the best interests of the students, the organization and the hobby at heart.

-Kevin

Very well said, Kevin. You hit the nail right on the head regarding the purpose of the moratorium. The only thing I would add is that all Tripoli members should log into the Tripoli website and read the full report on the forum about the incident. Read what others are saying and get involved. Ask questions of us board members. Trust, but verify.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I think it’s great that these young minds can be motivated to study engineering through Rocketry. However something is very wrong with the university’s mentoring program. Are the university’s mentoring professors experienced Level 3 rocketeers?

That mob of kids wandering around that high power rocket was dangerous. I would have thought that a university team would use checklists. Doesn’t the university have a film / video department that could have produced a clean video of the launch? Maybe with remote cameras?

Are the university teams subject to the same supervision as any other rocketeer by the events RSO? It would be a disaster for the students as well as our sport if some of these young students were hurt.

Universities are exempt from the requirements of NFPA 1127. Those requirements are the foundation of our Safety Codes, but they also require certification by an organization before being able to access rocket motors.
Fortunately, many universities really do respect our role in teaching Rocketry safety and have become much more interested in what we have to offer; but we have to figure that out on our side, too.
Eric Paterson of Virginia Tech has been extremely helpful in arranging for us to make our case this winter with the heads of other Aerospace Departments. He is a Tripoli L3 flyer and understands the problem. The day after the incident at BALLS he and I had a very good conversation on the phone. We’re unofficial partners in this, and I think that will really help.

 

[RGClark]

As far as mentoring university teams on high power launches, I like the efforts of the professional engineers running the Mavericks Civilian Space Foundation in instructing high school students on building and launching a high power, two stage rocket:



I noticed that only the professional engineers are allowed at the launch pad during final launch preparations.

Bob Clark

 

[mpitfield]

Personally the requirement of a "Professional" is nothing but another example of academic elitism. It is far more practical and helpful for all parties, the College teams and our hobby, to ensure there is an "Experienced" mentor involved, regardless of their academic achievements.

 

[UhClem]

I noticed that only the professional engineers are allowed at the launch pad during final launch preparations.

Only PE's? That really limits the field.

 

[RGClark]

Personally the requirement of a "Professional" is nothing but another example of academic elitism. It is far more practical and helpful for all parties, the College teams and our hobby, to ensure there is an "Experienced" mentor involved, regardless of their academic achievements.

I like the idea of well-experienced mentors. I don't actually know the background of Tom Atchison, head of the Mavericks Civilian Space Foundation. I gather that he had industry experience. But he mentions in the video that there were amateur rocketeers who decided to form the foundation and asked Tom to head it.

Bob Clark

 

[Steve Shannon]

I like the idea of well-experienced mentors. I don't actually know the background of Tom Atchison, head of the Mavericks Civilian Space Foundation. I gather that he had industry experience. But he mentions in the video that there were amateur rocketeers who decided to form the foundation and asked Tom to head it.

Bob Clark

I know Tom and he does a great job. His way of doing things should definitely be considered as we fix our problems.

 

[Voyager1]

This is a very useful discussion. Our group is currently involved in mentoring two university teams. While we admire their enthusiasm, we are constantly attempting to reign in their overly ambitious desire to certify L1/L2 before they have even built and launched low/mid power rockets. Regardless of their engineering background, invariably they have no or, at best, very little experience in building and launching anything. I totally support the TRA’s action here.

 

[OverTheTop]

I have forwarded the report to the Uni team I am currently mentoring, and am getting each sub-team to analyse it and see what they can learn. I am trying to teach them to learn from other peoples' mistakes.

 

[plugger]

I'm of the opinion that the hubris and overly ambitious nature of some university students and teams, whilst quite prevalent, is definitely not the rule. I say this as I've been involved in mentoring two university teams out here in Western Australia for the AURC competition. We're a little more challenged out here in the west in terms of fire bans and only being able to fly in winter. That said one of the teams I've been working with showed up to our season opener in April with low power rockets in hand. Nearly a dozen students all up. They launched, talked to others, watched people working on bigger and more aggressive flights, and left enthused. They've spent hours in my shed learning and asking questions. By the end of July they were successful in both their L1 and L2 cert attempts. By the end of August they were flying their competition vehicle that is 100% scratch built. On our last launch of the season which took place 10 days ago they flew this rocket on a big K to roughly 60% of their target altitude (and they were limited to that due to our 7k' ceiling at our lower altitude launch site). When they told me about their K plans I told them they needed to thicken their fins or else they'd shred them. They listened and the fins worked fine given their added thickness. They've been to every club launch we've had this year even though they've not flown at every one.

They're all engineering students, roughly 15-20 of them in all, and yet given it's the first year of the competition and none of them had ever flown HPR before they've decided to go the (what I describe as the more scientific) path of attempting to hit 10k' first before going the whole hog and attempting the 30k' launch. I can't commend them enough on this approach. They can hone their component fabrication and build skills, iron out any issues with their in house avionics/telemetry system, and most importantly they can build actual flight experience with reasonably grunty L2 motors before attempting their L3. This approach is both inherently safer and more logical from my perspective. Their next flight will be the competition in April 2019 and I'm both comfortable and confident that they'll be able to both fly and recover successfully given all the hard work they've put in thus far and the results they've already achieved.

The other team had two members show up to a launch at the start of the year. One regaled me with grandiose declarations that he'd been studying liquid engines for a year now and felt comfortable to declare that he was going to build an "exotic biprop" and reach space. In between this monologue he made sweeping declarations about how our "toy rockets" were just that and they didn't interest him. I've not seen that guy come back. His compatriot is more logical and grounded but they showed up to our last launch of the season at 2PM with a rocket to attempt their L1. That was successful but they lawn darted their L2 attempt roughly 2 hours later. I believe they've decided to press the pause button and not compete in April. Conversely the other team had flown their K and left before both of these flights.

What concerns me is that apparently a majority of these teams have decided to start with the 30k' challenge and have ordered N5800s and O3400s to use for these attempts. I've been an L3 for just over 5 years now and I've never flown anything other than a baby Ms. I'm sure I could fly both the N5800 and O3400 successfully but my gut tells me many of these teams are going to fall victim to rapid unplanned disassembles during boost. The vast majority of them have only just certed L1 on kits and are expecting to fly some of the most aggressive motors we have in the hobby in 6 months from now. That level of hubris both frustrates and frightens me. I've joked about renting an APC for the competition.

More than anything what I don't understand is why someone didn't sit them down and explain to them that they'd probably be better off with a longer burn and less aggressive 98mm 6GXL motor (like the N1560 for example) instead of the likes of the N5800 or O3400. For such smart students it seems quite stupid to me. But as I like to point out to the team I'm mentoring that listens to me is that it's the "unknown unknowns" that will f them. And to be honest I believe many of the other teams in the comp are completely blind to the unknown unknowns that will most likely bite them in the comp.

It's going to be interesting, that's for sure. I can't imagine how frightening it would be if they were planning on staging with homemade Q motors.