Originally posted by n3tjm
Its not explosive.
It is flammable
And I would not concider it a payload; a payload is the cargo of the rocket... usually has nothing to do with the functioning of the rocket.
The rocket functions identically without it.
Like the flamable rocket motor itself; it has a cruicial function. I don't want to do it for coolness. I want to do it because I want to see my rocket to apogee. They will be installed like rocket motors; and as such, they are no different then rocket motor... except maybe a little different; because smokeballs do not explode... like G35's...
Smokeballs are fireworks. Sparklers are fireworks and do not explode. They're the only fireworks legal in some places, but they're still fireworks.
In fact, they might be considered "aerial fireworks displays" by the FAA. Best look that stuff over too.
RSO's have aloud it... thats why I asked. I wanted to see your guys opinion. I even contacted the Club president to see if CMASS will allow it; and right now there is a very lively discussion about it (and most of the people in the discussion are also in the NAR S&T committee)... so far the answer is not no... but there are other concerns.
One of them are the smoke balls legal in MASS, since they are sold as Novelty Fireworks. The suggestion of smoke candles, which are not concidered fireworks have also been brought up.
Smokeballs are legal fireworks. That doesn't make them legal to fly. The rules don't say it this way exactly, but
In an RSO actually allowed them, they took it upon themselves to risk everybody's NAR or TRA insurance for that launch. And that's an important point.*
Tracking powder idea is impratical for this application.
The general purpose is to add tracking smoke when my Magnum is flown with an AMW motor that has no smoke...
I thought about buying a 54mm bulkead that has a tracking smoke well... and some tracking smoke elements from AMW... however.. the 54/1050 was not certified for such a change... and even though AMW wouldn't mind me doing that, that is a violation because that would modify the motor....
my 3 cents.
The tracking powder idea as presented may well be impractical. There can be any number of alternatives. How about a cap in the bottom of the pod with a burst diaphragm, and venting ejection charge into the pod to burst the valve? I never buy "it won't work" because I make things work. There's always a way.
* You can do and fly anything you want as long as it fits the government regulations and nobody can tell you you can't. NAR and TRA may say that, but it really means that if you do these things you're covered by their insurance, and that you may not state that it's an NAR or TRA sanctioned event. If you go outside their rules, you're not covered. If an RSO says yes to something that's not allowed, the entire chapter or whatever risks losing its coverage for that launch. If they're a NAR/TRA approved RSO and they do this, I suspect they could get their RSO certification taken away. You, however, and as many people who want to participate in any activity that doesn't conform to the NAR/TRA rules if you're willing to take responsibility for the results, which means having your own insurance (and actually a lot of people do or can) or being willing to shoulder the liability 100%. I have some Aerotech G110 motors. They lost their certification in 1996 because AT stopped making them and didn't get them recertified. I have every intention of flying them, but retracted a request to do so at a club launch for this reason. When I do fly them I will be doing so under coverage of my homeowner's insurance.
