Which begs the question of what does it mean to “survive”?
I’m still a proud Level-0, but I believe the criteria for a successful level 1 qualification is a reasonable definition.
“In general, the guideline for acceptable flight damage is that the model could be flown again without repair. It is left to the judgment of the Certification Team to differentiate between flight damage and “normal” maintenance to assure reliability (e.g., shock cord replacement to prevent future flight problems). “Zippering” of the body tube is another area of flight damage left to Certification Teams judgment for acceptability.”
https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/level-1-hpr-certification-procedures/
Breaking off a true glued on fin I think would be pushing it, by that definition, even if you have spares that could easily be glued back in place. That is truly a “repair.” Breaking off a soda straw which is attached over an unbroken dowel with tape, readily removed and replaced in the field, I think (not being an RSO so my opinion is worth what you paid for it) WOULD qualify as normal maintenance.
This obviously isn’t a level 1 attempt, and kind of an “angels on the head of a pin” argument. I do think “single use” rockets are wrong (with the exception of hyper-finished rockets like
@neil_w builds which reasonably could be “one good flight and then shelf queen” builds
), I think all low and mid power rockets and level 1 high power rockets SHOULD be designed such that a second same day flight IS reasonably expected. I will except level 2 and 3 not for damage but simply that the prep for each flight potentially exceeds a day.
This is all in fun, for practical purposes if the rocket is designed with frangible balsa fins which can easily be replaced in the field with superglue and flown again the same day, that is a “survivable “ rocket.
