Safety Incident from NSL:

[OzHybrid]

Memes.

View attachment 604335 View attachment 604336View attachment 604337
View attachment 604340 View attachment 604341

Ok. I'm guilty. The stick is down.

 

[OzHybrid]

Link to relevant NFPA magazine. Search for "rocket" Ctrl F

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nfpa/journal_2023fall/index.php

 

[cerving]

The NFPA article is almost verbatim from the newspaper article... including that a "motherboard" in the rocket had failed.

 

[CoyoteNumber2]

Seems to be a common theme when the news reports on rocketry mishaps. Remember "Nitro-Methane bottle rocket fuel"?

 

[manixFan]

The NFPA article is almost verbatim from the newspaper article... including that a "motherboard" in the rocket had failed.

The ‘motherboards’ that failed weren’t the ones in the rocket.


Tony

 

[rcktnut]

The most impressive part to me is the motor exhaust pressurized the room to the point it pushed a wall out a couple inches and part of the ceiling fell in. This was only a “j” motor.

Shoddy Construction!!!

 

[bjphoenix]

The most impressive part to me is the motor exhaust pressurized the room to the point it pushed a wall out a couple inches and part of the ceiling fell in. This was only a “j” motor.

It doesn't take much pressure to do that. I've visited facilities that test exterior window systems for highrise buildings- essentially they build a piece of the glass wall on the side of a big chamber and use a hair dryer to pressurize the chamber and fail the window system.

If our members aren’t smart enough to understand that the requirement to leave an igniter out of a motor until it’s on the pad at a launch also means that you shouldn’t have one in there at all other times, there’s truly no hope for the human race.

Oh but we already know that. There is a joke I see on facebook, made up as far as I know but not so farfetched, that says "50 years ago the instruction manual for an automobile told how to adjust the valves, now it tells you not to drink the fluid in the battery". And humans seem to get more stupid year by year.

 

[David Schwantz]

You drive much on the interstate and you see it everyday

 

[OverTheTop]

Just renewed my NAR membership. This is what the bottom of the form looks like.

 

[JoePfeiffer]

I agree and on the whole and so does ChatGPT.

Moving to the second part because you have to look at the whole picture and this is where there is room for improvement. And this is the area of ambiguity

13-10 Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position.

Chat GPT differs. Feel free to ask it your own version of the same question. I think the question I asked is reasonable. I agree with the answer. But It's agreeing with me that there is ambiguity. So I'm going to agree with an opinion that echos mine. But I feel there is no bias in the question and I have no arrangement with ChatGPT to agree with me.

You also apparently have no understanding of ChatGPT if you imagine anything it says has any value. It's simply stringing words (OK, that's a simplification) together in ways that have been encountered in its training set. Its "agreement" means nothing.

 

[boatgeek]

The most impressive part to me is the motor exhaust pressurized the room to the point it pushed a wall out a couple inches and part of the ceiling fell in. This was only a “j” motor.

It doesn't take much pressure to do that. I've visited facilities that test exterior window systems for highrise buildings- essentially they build a piece of the glass wall on the side of a big chamber and use a hair dryer to pressurize the chamber and fail the window system.

It doesn't take much pressure to generate a lot of force over a big wall. Even 2-3 inches of water column (~0.1 psi) difference in air pressure can make a door either unsafe to use (it can break/cut off appendages if it slams on them) or impossible to open.

 

[OzHybrid]

You also apparently have no understanding of ChatGPT if you imagine anything it says has any value. It's simply stringing words (OK, that's a simplification) together in ways that have been encountered in its training set. Its "agreement" means nothing.

Did you read the analysis of the sentence structure of the rule it put forward? It's correct. Discuss the analysis put forward, If there iis a flaw in the structure analysis, discuss that.

I'm aware of the limitations of an AI. But it can do a lot of boring legwork.

I had put this stick down. I thought the horse was dead, I was mistaken.

 

[Art Upton]

I agree and on the whole and so does ChatGPT.

Moving to the second part because you have to look at the whole picture and this is where there is room for improvement. And this is the area of ambiguity

13-10 Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position.

Chat GPT differs. Feel free to ask it your own version of the same question. I think the question I asked is reasonable. I agree with the answer. But It's agreeing with me that there is ambiguity. So I'm going to agree with an opinion that echos mine. But I feel there is no bias in the question and I have no arrangement with ChatGPT to agree with me.

Hello

Hello! How can I assist you today?

please analyze the sentence "Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position. " and advise where any misinterpretation might occur.

The sentence "Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position" is fairly clear and straightforward, but there is a potential for misinterpretation or ambiguity in the phrase "Where possible."
Here's a breakdown of the sentence:

1. "Where possible" - This phrase indicates that the action of removing igniters and disarming sources of ignition should be carried out if it is feasible or practical to do so. It leaves room for discretion or judgment regarding whether it's possible to remove igniters and disarm ignition sources in a given situation.
2. "Igniters must be removed" - This part of the sentence is clear. It states that igniters must be taken out or disconnected from the rocket.
3. "All sources of ignition must be disarmed" - This part also seems clear, stating that any potential sources of ignition should be made inactive or safe.
4. "Before lowering a rocket from launch position" - This specifies the timing of the actions: they must be completed before the rocket is lowered from its launch position.

The potential for misinterpretation or ambiguity arises from the discretion implied by "Where possible." Here are a couple of scenarios where misinterpretation might occur:

1. Varying interpretations of "Where possible": People may have different opinions on what constitutes "possible" in a given situation. Some might interpret it as an absolute requirement, while others might see it as a recommendation that can be disregarded if they believe there's minimal risk.
2. Assumption of safety: Depending on the context, someone might assume that the rocket is inherently safe during the lowering process and, therefore, neglect to remove igniters or disarm ignition sources, thinking it's unnecessary.

To minimize misinterpretation, it would be helpful to provide additional context or guidelines that specify when and under what conditions it is considered "possible" or "feasible" to remove igniters and disarm ignition sources. This could include specific criteria or safety protocols that must be followed. Clarity in communication is essential, especially in situations involving potentially hazardous activities like rocket launches.

Well, that proves that ChatGPT would make a good Pink Book Lawyer

Pink Book Lawyer came from certain folks in NAR competition that would scrutinize rules to make what they did legal and what someone else did to their rocket not legal for the competition.

Quick Search on use here on TRF: https://www.rocketryforum.com/search/520675/?q=pink+book+lawyer&o=relevance

 

[OzHybrid]

Well, that proves that ChatGPT would make a good Pink Book Lawyer

Pink Book Lawyer came from certain folks in NAR competition that would scrutinize rules to make what they did legal and whate someone else did to their rocket not legal for the competition.

Quick Search on use here on TRF: https://www.rocketryforum.com/search/520675/?q=pink+book+lawyer&o=relevance

Is there anything specific in the analysis of the Tripoli rule 13:10 given above you disagree with? Instead of tackling me to the ground, play the ball.

 

[Art Upton]

Those Old TRA members might remember the Danville Dare in 92 I think it was, if not it was 91, where a member won an Ignitor Continuity Tester at the Night TRA meeting in the bar.

Next day I am walking out of my Motel and see huge smoke coming out a window at the motel across the parking lot. Seems he had a long burn motor, in a rocket , put the ignitor in and Tested it. The Ignitor must not have been a continuity safe ignitor.

Outcome?

The company making the tester no longer sold it
The member had to pay the motel $500 to clean the smoke damage; lots of money in early 90s.
He quit flying rockets for a while, but did talk to others about the incident.
The story spread all over USENET Rec.Models.Rockets text forum an morphed.
TRA and Later NAR for HPR put the ignitor on the pad only rule in the HPR safety codes [its not in NARs Model Code]

Decades later I hear youngers talking about the rocket in the Midwest that flew thru a motel wall. Like the old telephone game we played as kids, the story changes with each one telling it.

 

[ksaves2]

Those Old TRA members might remember the Danville Dare in 92 I think it was, if not it was 91, where a member won an Ignitor Continuity Tester at the Night TRA meeting in the bar.

Next day I am walking out of my Motel and see huge smoke coming out a window at the motel across the parking lot. Seems he had a long burn motor, in a rocket , put the ignitor in and Tested it. The Ignitor must not have been a continuity safe ignitor.

Outcome?

The company making the tester no longer sold it
The member had to pay the motel $500 to clean the smoke damage; lots of money in early 90s.
He quit flying rockets for a while, but did talk to others about the incident.
The story spread all over USENET Rec.Models.Rockets text forum an morphed.
TRA and Later NAR for HPR put the ignitor on the pad only rule in the HPR safety codes [its not in NARs Model Code]

Decades later I hear youngers talking about the rocket in the Midwest that flew thru a motel wall. Like the old telephone game we played as kids, the story changes with each one telling it.

Thanks for mentioning it Art. I remember being regaled about it in the early 2000's and reading it in various forms on the USENET. Was a sobering warning I took to heart. That event is before I went back to the hobby. Kurt

 

[cwbullet]

Those Old TRA members might remember the Danville Dare in 92 I think it was, if not it was 91, where a member won an Ignitor Continuity Tester at the Night TRA meeting in the bar.

Next day I am walking out of my Motel and see huge smoke coming out a window at the motel across the parking lot. Seems he had a long burn motor, in a rocket , put the ignitor in and Tested it. The Ignitor must not have been a continuity safe ignitor.

Outcome?

The company making the tester no longer sold it
The member had to pay the motel $500 to clean the smoke damage; lots of money in early 90s.
He quit flying rockets for a while, but did talk to others about the incident.
The story spread all over USENET Rec.Models.Rockets text forum an morphed.
TRA and Later NAR for HPR put the ignitor on the pad only rule in the HPR safety codes [its not in NARs Model Code]

Decades later I hear youngers talking about the rocket in the Midwest that flew thru a motel wall. Like the old telephone game we played as kids, the story changes with each one telling it.

Was that rocketvision?

 

[Art Upton]

Was that rocketvision?

I don't recall, sorry.

 

[cwbullet]

I don't recall, sorry.

I have a little tester. It is from the late 90s. I think the Company is rocket vision or rocket silo. I would never trust it to test continuity in a rocket, but it does work.

 

[gldknght]

Six pages of back and forth on this issue, really?

Don't put motor starters in your rocket until at the pad, or designated area.
Take the starters out and disarm before you leave the pad or designated area.

How hard is that to understand, really?

I can't even begin to understand the thought process that would make someone think it's in anyway safe to travel with starters installed in a rocket inside a car. Something goes wrong and said person BURNS TO DEATH before they can even stop the car. I won't even do that with my low power Estes type rockets.

I don't like adding complexity to the RSO's job, but maybe we should have a requirement that rockets coming back from the pads after a failed or aborted launch must pass a disarm safety inspection, especially complex or multi-stage rockets?

 

[dhbarr]

I don't like adding complexity to the RSO's job, but maybe we should have a requirement that rockets coming back from the pads after a failed or aborted launch must pass a disarm safety inspection, especially complex or multi-stage rockets?

Some clubs already have trouble getting enough volunteers for oversight, but if I was going to implement something like that at a major launch I'd probably make it a separate table & personnel.

 

[samb]

Just to remind everyone, this thread was started to disseminate information about an accident in a hotel room.
Just sayin’

 

[OzHybrid]

lll

Six pages of back and forth on this issue, really?

Don't put motor starters in your rocket until at the pad, or designated area.
Take the starters out and disarm before you leave the pad or designated area.

How hard is that to understand, really?
think and
I can't even begin to understand the thought process that would make someone think it's in anyway safe to travel with starters installed in a rocket inside a car. Something goes wrong and said person BURNS TO DEATH before they can even stop the car. I won't even do that with my low power Estes type rockets.

I don't like adding complexity to the RSO's job, but maybe we should have a requirement that rockets coming back from the pads after a failed or aborted launch must pass a disarm safety inspection, especially complex or multi-stage rockets?

Discussing the Tripoli Rules which are in the public domain.

The insertion rule is ok.

The removal rule is open to interpretation. Read the sentence structure analysis previously.

You say "Take the starters out and disarm before you leave the pad or designated area."

That's not what 13:10 says. Please read it. Specifically, there is no mention of removing at a designated area. And where possible is in there.

Your version of the wording would be better. It would remove ambiguity. It's important when you read a rule that you try to remove any preconception of what you think it is and read what is actually there.

I don't think we need to burden the RSO with any further duties.

Stick dropped.

 

[bjphoenix]

The insertion rule is ok.

The removal rule is open to interpretation.

I would not have thought it necessary to question this. If the rule is that you don't put the starter in until the rocket is standing on the pad, then it makes sense that the starter is only allowed to be in the motor when the rocket is standing on the pad, nowhere else, so if you leave the pad without flying the rocket you take the starter back out.

 

[OzHybrid]

I would not have thought it necessary to question this. If the rule is that you don't put the starter in until the rocket is standing on the pad, then it makes sense that the starter is only allowed to be in the motor when the rocket is standing on the pad, nowhere else, so if you leave the pad without flying the rocket you take the starter back out.

I've put my igniter in as per the rule for putting an ingiter in.

Now.

Read the actual rule regarding removal.

What you are thinking it says, is not what is actually written. Read the analysis.

Find a flaw in the analysis and tell me what it is.

If you cannot find a flaw in the written analysis of the rule, stop telling me I'm wrong and accept that there might be a possibility that there is "some" validity in what I've stated.

 

[Titan II]

Your version of the wording would be better. It would remove ambiguity. It's important when you read a rule that you try to remove any preconception of what you think it is and read what is actually there.

Good grief! Think about what you are saying. You want it to say something about removing the igniters in a designated area. Why not add to make sure you are not standing behind the motor so you do not get grilled if it lights. How about adding that you are not standing in front of the rocket so you do not get skewered if it goes off. How about while you are in the designated area, you do not point the rocket at spectators, range officials, houses, or livestock. You could go on ad infinitum.

Rule 13:10 has absolutly nothing to do with the incident that this thread is about.

 

[OzHybrid]

Good grief! Think about what you are saying. You want it to say something about removing the igniters in a designated area. Why not add to make sure you are not standing behind the motor so you do not get grilled if it lights. How about adding that you are not standing in front of the rocket so you do not get skewered if it goes off. How about while you are in the designated area, you do not point the rocket at spectators, range officials, houses, or livestock. You could go on ad infinitum.

Rule 13:10 has absolutly nothing to do with the incident that this thread is about.

The location for fitting ignitors is specified explicitly in the insertion rule. It is not specified explicitly in the removal rule.
What this has to do with the incident is to prevent any ambiguity in the rules from allowing an igniter based incident in the future.

As you have not provided any refutal of the rule analysis specifically, I'll repeat what I said.

Read the analysis of the rule and if there is any issue with the analysis, please state specifically what that is.

The rest of what you have said is a distraction. No-one is suggesting over complicating it.

 

[bjphoenix]

Read the actual rule regarding removal.

I was expressing my opinion and not intending to tell anyone that they were wrong. In the process of reading all of this thread I was thinking it isn't necessary to have a rule about removing the starter, it should be obvious.

 

[gldknght]

I would not have thought it necessary to question this. If the rule is that you don't put the starter in until the rocket is standing on the pad, then it makes sense that the starter is only allowed to be in the motor when the rocket is standing on the pad, nowhere else, so if you leave the pad without flying the rocket you take the starter back out.

Yes. This!

 

[Steve Shannon]

The location for fitting ignitors is specified explicitly in the insertion rule.

The word “installed” in the first rule should be taken to mean both the act of installation as well as the passive meaning that describes the condition of having been installed. For instance, “is an igniter installed in the motor?” In other words, there are only those locations (at a preparation area or the pad) where an igniter is allowed to be in a motor.
The second rule emphasizes how soon an igniter must be removed.
The meanings of both rules seemed clear to me at the time, but I’ll look at how to improve them.