WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ANTI-DRAGRACE SENTIMENT???

[DavidMcCann]

So where is this line drawn? How is it any more risky than the same rockets being launched one at a time. The same risk of failure exist. You make no sense.

BECASUE TRACKING MULTIPLE ROCKETS IS HARDER THAN ONE.

I put it in all caps like you've been posting hoping you see it this time,

 

[DavidMcCann]

A single failure is hard enough to track and dodge...and they happen more often than people would like to admit.

Note- still looking up as it thumps home. Think he could have dodged it?

 

[BayouRat]

Actually the further away you are the more probability you have of getting hit with something. Go look at the splash model data. The guy that got killed was not tracking two rockets he was looking for the one that killed him. He never saw it. So your argument does not hold water. So we will build you your box 500' away.

 

[BayouRat]

BECASUE TRACKING MULTIPLE ROCKETS IS HARDER THAN ONE.

I put it in all caps like you've been posting hoping you see it this time,

Duh, that's why you have more people tracking.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Actually the further away you are the more probability you have of getting hit with something. Go look at the splash model data. The guy that got killed was not tracking two rockets he was looking for the one that killed him. He never saw it. So your argument does not hold water. So we will build you your box 500' away.

You're deflecting. poorly.

 

[BayouRat]

All of this can be prevent with better range management. I would give a huge fail to whoever set this range up. They were trying to get someone killed. These were entirely preventable incidents.

A single failure is hard enough to track and dodge...and they happen more often than people would like to admit.

Note- still looking up as it thumps home. Think he could have dodged it?

 

[BayouRat]

No one is defecting anything! I am stating facts and data.

You're deflecting. poorly.

 

[dhbarr]

But there is a line where the risk becomes unacceptable. Drag racing breaks that line, and the rules are in place to mitigate that risk to an acceptable level...

I think we're both pressing the same point here? Elevated risk estimates are quantized in the setback tables. Look up the mitigation distance, and enjoy your hybrid saucer drag race.

 

[DavidMcCann]

No one is defecting anything! I am stating facts and data.

You're pulling the argument all over the field, but not addressing the fact it is not possible to track multiple rockets visually at the same time, and that this increases the risk to spectators.

 

[DavidMcCann]

All of this can be prevent with better range management. I would give a huge fail to whoever set this range up. They were trying to get someone killed. These were entirely preventable incidents.

It was an LDRS, and several hundred flights a day. As for the fat boy...those pads are further than the min safe distance from where it came from. These photos are not by any means unheard of. Point the rods away, keep min safe distances, watch the wind.... whatever you do, these things happen, and we've ALL seen it. Yes, it's a risky hobby and we know the risks going in. but you have to take steps to mitigate risk. Putting multiple rockets up at the same time makes it harder to safely watch them all.

I'd rather have a guy throw a dart at me 5 times.... than five guys throwing a dart at me at once.

 

[Sabrina]

Sorry I'm late to the party.

Didn't the wording in NFPA 1127 4.16.3.3 change a year or so ago?

I'm sure we already had this discussion here quite some time ago.

As for me, I'm all for putting safety first. I'm fine with the multi-launch distances in the current regs.

If the club or the RSO says no Drag Races, or no sparkies, or no kids at the high-power pads, we all know the drill - The RSO has the final say - even if they are more restrictive than the safety code or NFPA.

That's my :2:

... oh yeah, one more thing. Even though I'm only 14, I fully understand the danger, I get it. I watched that MWP9 drag race in person, I was there. Most of the ballistic recoveries I have witnessed over the few years I have attended High-Power launches have involved single rockets - single launches. My personal opinion is the focus needs to be on reducing recovery fails.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Didn't the wording in NFPA 1127 4.16.3.3 change a year or so ago?


... oh yeah, one more thing. Even though I'm only 14, I fully understand the danger, I get it. I watched that MWP9 drag race in person, I was there. Most of the ballistic recoveries I have witnessed over the few years I have attended High-Power launches have involved single rockets - single launches. My personal opinion is the focus needs to be on reducing recovery fails.

yea, it was a long time ago....and recent changes actually reduced the required distances.....but here we are again, at this same poor dead horse....

I agree, we should all focus on recovery more.... but thats not the point of the rule or this discussion. No one is suggesting that drag raced rockets fail individually at a higher rate than single rocket flights. and since the volume of single flights compared to drag races is so much higher, it makes sense that more rockets by volume come in ballistic solo than in drags.

The issue is that more rockets in the air under boost/coast is a safety risk. And not a single person has even attempted to disprove that very basic issue.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

The issue is that more rockets in the air under boost/coast is a safety risk.

Not a single person has proven or attempted to actually prove that this statement is any more true than a single rocket launch.
Consequently, nor has any person proven that increasing launch distances makes such a launch safer.
What we're after, David, is proof. Any real, evidence-based proof.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Not a single person has proven or attempted to actually prove that this statement is any more true than a single rocket launch.
Consequently, nor has any person proven that increasing launch distances makes such a launch safer.
What we're after, David, is proof. Any real, evidence-based proof.

yes we have....and you simply dismiss it with the logic of my 5 year old who claims she can use a steak knife because she's never cut herself with one.

but to beat it again-

If you are further away, you're looking at the side of a rocket...not it's ass. It's also appears to be moving slower and you have to move your head less to watch it. A 2,000 foot flight right under the rocket will require much more angular tilt of your head than if you're 300' away....and at a much slower rate. You have more of the rocket to see, and an easier time physically moving your head to see it.

the side to side field of vision full of rockets is also reduced, making tracking multiple targets easier. 3 rockets 500' away may only cover 5 degrees of vision left to right.... at 100', much more. (these are random numbers, but they illustrate the point)

These things DO make a launch safer.

If you don't believe me, Go stand a mile away from a launch. You'll be amazed at how easy it is to track an entire flight.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

yes we have....and you simply dismiss it with the logic of my 5 year old who claims she can use a steak knife because she's never cut herself with one.

but to beat it again-

If you are further away, you're looking at the side of a rocket...not it's ass. It's also appears to be moving slower and you have to move your head less to watch it. A 2,000 foot flight right under the rocket will require much more angular tilt of your head than if you're 300' away....and at a much slower rate. You have more of the rocket to see, and an easier time physically moving your head to see it.

the side to side field of vision full of rockets is also reduced, making tracking multiple targets easier. 3 rockets 500' away may only cover 5 degrees of vision left to right.... at 100', much more. (these are random numbers, but they illustrate the point)

These things DO make a launch safer.

If you don't believe me, Go stand a mile away from a launch. You'll be amazed at how easy it is to track an entire flight.

But again, you seem to conflate conjecture with evidence. Reasoning is not evidence. Using reasoning, others have presented reasonable counter arguments which you also continue to ignore.
Evidence is actual data points. And there is only one single data point... That there is no data points proving anything at all about an increased risk of danger from drag races.
Side note, I know it's hard to tell from text alone, but I'm not being snotty here, I'm just making my point.

EDIT: here's my final statement on the matter... If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't understand rule changes just for the sake of rule changes. There were no problems with the safety of launches under the rules prior to the recent changes. Nothing changed, but the rules were changed. Why? David, your reasoning is sound, I'll give you that, but so is the counter-reasoning. If nothing in the data changed, then why did the rules change? That's why we're upset by the rule change. Things were fine, the rules were fine, and all of a sudden, the rules changed with no discussion and no precipitating event. If you want to have any sort of rational discussion, you're going to have to acknowledge that point of view.
Thanks for your time and your thoughts, I certainly appreciate them. I've said all I can say and probably way too much more. I'm sorry, I'm an English major, sometimes I can't help myself.
I hope we all have clear skies and low winds for the upcoming fall launches. Enjoy!

 

[DavidMcCann]

I know it's hard to tell from text alone, but I'm not being snotty here, I'm just making my point.

Naw, I get it... just a debate.

When the rules were changed, which was some time ago remember, there were issues. Drag races have rained parts down on people. It wasn't out of the blue for the sake of change. I don't have the data that caused it. And I wasn't part of the process when it happened. Just vague recollection of discussions at the time.

 

[OverTheTop]

OK. Consider this. Bunch of rockets launched. They are never quite even in performance (acceleration, ignition time, direction etc). One rocket clips another and tips it around so it flies under full thrust way off vertical. Gravity turn completes the flight facing towards the ground. Sub-optimal flight. Increased probability of collision with something (people, cars etc) on the way to the ground at very high speed.

If a single rocket is launched it goes in the direction of the launch rod (generally). Exceptionally small chance of being hit by anything to deflect it. Nominal flight.

IMHO there is no comparison for safety if the distances are the same. Even at 2x distance option one is likely to be higher risk. I would need to get some official numbers for solid evidence, but you get the idea. Even if they hit at burnout (or near to) the scatter from the ballistic component of the flight would be significant.

I like the idea of drag races. They are fun. I have no opinion on whether to allow them or not. They are riskier than single flights, for a multitude of reasons. It is a matter of what level of acceptable risk we accept for this. Remember, we choose acceptable risks every day of our lives in all sorts of things.

I have said enough and am not going to flog a dead horse if people continue to refute the risks.

 

[Steve Shannon]

If you want someone to blame, and if blaming someone will make you feel better, blame me. Here's the history:
Several years back NFPA 1127 was changed to cover drag races. The change was almost word for word what is in the rule now EXCEPT it was TWICE the complex distance for the total impulse. That then became the drag race safe distance rule for the Tripoli High Power Safety Code. That was too far for some so Tripoli's BOD came up with a special drag race rule for Research launches.
In September 2016 the NFPA Pyrotechnic Technical Committee, which includes rocketry codes, determined that the word "twice" probably should not have been included in the drag race rule. The committee (with Ken Good and me as representative and alternate) did an emergency TIA to change it. Ken/I voted for the change and the result is that the word "twice" will be removed from the current version as soon as it is approved by the Standards Council. If this sounds familiar it's because we explained it all before, in this thread, (https://www.tripoli.org/Forums/aft/386),">https://www.tripoli.org/Forums/aft/386), where we announced the changes to the safety codes. Whit, you were very involved in the discussion.
Once it was approved by the Pyrotechnic Technical Committee, we (TRA BoD) felt we were safe adopting the new rule which cut in half the safe distances for our Tripoli High Power launches. I don't think there's any way we can be blamed for HATING drag races if we cut the drag race safe distances for commercial launches in half.
Then, because we still had that Research rule out there that was completely different, we tried to simplify things by adopting the same rule for our Tripoli Research Safety Code as the one for HPR.
It was all explained here:
https://www.tripoli.org/Forums/aft/386
Now before everyone gets too wound up, I urge you to do the calculations, using the impulse values you actually fly, and see what safe distance is really required. A 3K drag race with baby K motors could be done at 500 feet. Four 100% K motors can be done at 1000 feet. 10 K motors averaging 2000 Ns each can be launched at 1500 feet.
Then look at the old research rule and see what difference it makes if you're racing 3 or 30 K motors. Ask yourself, should the number of rockets make a difference?


Steve Shannon

 

[OverTheTop]

Great information. Thanks Steve.

 

[patelldp]

Ask yourself, should the number of rockets make a difference?


Steve Shannon

The distance from spectators only provides protection from CATO's and events occurring very close to the ground, whether it's 1 rocket or 1,000 rockets . No distance between pad and crowd can replace sensible practices. Having multiple rockets in the air without the reasonable expectation the spectators can track all of them concurrently is increasing the risk to those spectators, plain and simple.

A rocket that has nominally deployed and lands in the spectator area is a significant hazard to participants. That hazard can be reasonably mitigated and reduced to a property damage threat versus a bodily harm threat with proper tracking and notification procedures. The same cannot be said for mass launches pushing the envelope of materials/electronics/etc. A drag race containing multiple HPR rockets (especially >5, if I must put a number on it) is gross negligence, in my opinion.

I appreciate the work of all the governing bodies of this hobby. You're tasked with representing a hobby, meaning you've transcended the "fun" portion of the hobby and made it a lot more like "work." You're tasked with making decisions and self-regulating with common sense and tact while making sure that the rules satisfy the insurance policy that we operate within. By doing this you align "fun" with "safety," which is critically important.

 

[markkoelsch]

So where is this line drawn? How is it any more risky than the same rockets being launched one at a time. The same risk of failure exist. You make no sense.

The difference is simply that there are more rockets in the air. More incoming to keep track of, which if several rockets shred etc can be difficult.

 

[WILDMANRS]

OK guys, let's get serious about the safety issue. Remember that guy who got killed in CA? That was a drag race, and he didn't see the rocket that came in ballistic. What about the Wildman drag races at Midwest Power? OK, take a look at this one from 5 years ago or so: [video=youtube;wHhTypnw5Og]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHhTypnw5Og[/video] Of the 9-10 rockets in that drag race, 3+ didn't survive boost and there was a rain of parts. So don't try to say that there's no safety issue here.

Yes, staging, Ex, and clusters all have their own special dangers. And that's why they all have their own special rules (tiltometers, TRA Research rules, heads-up flights, etc.). Drag races have a set of rules now that are based on mitigating real risks. Does that mean there's probably no more Wildman drag races? Maybe, but seriously, if you're shredding 30%+ of the rockets, might that not be a good thing?

Yes I was waiting for this one .
Please start puling up footage and changing the rules of all of the close calls in rocketry and we won't be flying rockets any more.
I have seen Estes put holes in trailer, a LOC mini magg almost kill a child ( on the spectator side of the flight line), a 2 stager fly sideways because of a Motor that didn't have as much thrust as was thought it was (an EX motor ) BTW.
Not to mention the fatal accident that was a midpower cardboard rocket.
This rule was put into the NFPA with out and discussion with the membership.
Then it was left out of research safety code on purpose buy the previous BOD.
For some reason this BOD decided they wanted it put into the safety code.

 

[WILDMANRS]

If you want someone to blame, and if blaming someone will make you feel better, blame me. Here's the history:
Several years back NFPA 1127 was changed to cover drag races. The change was almost word for word what is in the rule now EXCEPT it was TWICE the complex distance for the total impulse. That then became the drag race safe distance rule for the Tripoli High Power Safety Code. That was too far for some so Tripoli's BOD came up with a special drag race rule for Research launches.
In September 2016 the NFPA Pyrotechnic Technical Committee, which includes rocketry codes, determined that the word "twice" probably should not have been included in the drag race rule. The committee (with Ken Good and me as representative and alternate) did an emergency TIA to change it. Ken/I voted for the change and the result is that the word "twice" will be removed from the current version as soon as it is approved by the Standards Council. If this sounds familiar it's because we explained it all before, in this thread, (https://www.tripoli.org/Forums/aft/386),">https://www.tripoli.org/Forums/aft/386), where we announced the changes to the safety codes. Whit, you were very involved in the discussion.
Once it was approved by the Pyrotechnic Technical Committee, we (TRA BoD) felt we were safe adopting the new rule which cut in half the safe distances for our Tripoli High Power launches. I don't think there's any way we can be blamed for HATING drag races if we cut the drag race safe distances for commercial launches in half.
Then, because we still had that Research rule out there that was completely different, we tried to simplify things by adopting the same rule for our Tripoli Research Safety Code as the one for HPR.
It was all explained here:
https://www.tripoli.org/Forums/aft/386
Now before everyone gets too wound up, I urge you to do the calculations, using the impulse values you actually fly, and see what safe distance is really required. A 3K drag race with baby K motors could be done at 500 feet. Four 100% K motors can be done at 1000 feet. 10 K motors averaging 2000 Ns each can be launched at 1500 feet.
Then look at the old research rule and see what difference it makes if you're racing 3 or 30 K motors. Ask yourself, should the number of rockets make a difference?


Steve Shannon

Actually Steve the whole rule makes no sense.
Safe distance is only safe for CATO's
The Dangerous part of a drag race as pointed out so many times here is ballistic recovery not being able to track so many at a time.
By putting them out farther you might actually be doing more harm than good .
Was there any real research done to justify this rule change .
One of the reasons people are getting worked up over this most of us don't have the capability flying from those kind of distances .

 

[Charles_McG]

I'd like to make a contribution to the discussion - perhaps more about the language than the merits. All these topics have been touched previously in the thread.

Regarding the drag races themselves: As far as I can tell, there is only one new failure mode associated with a drag race that is not present in a single launch - mid air collision. Other than that, all the failures of motor, airframe, trajectory and recovery are the same as for a solo launch. Neither probability nor the impact of failure for -any given- rocket changes by virtue of simultaneous launch. What necessarily changes is the probability per LCO action. The chance of failure per button press goes up - it simply has to. But there is one other change, and it might be under appreciated, the number of people tracking the rocket in flight. Not counting distant spectators, this number really drops fast - even for three rockets. At launches I attend, there would be about 5 people tracking a solo flight - the three fliers with rockets on the pads waiting for launch, plus the RSO and LCO. If all three fly at once, 1 rocket gets 3 trackers (or 2 rockets get two trackers) and 1 or 2 rockets get just one tracker. That's a big change from 5.

Regarding the word 'safe': I'm seeing two uses in this discussion, and I think it speaks to a deep difference and it's why I'm posting at all. One use of the word is 'no harm has resulted', and the other is 'risked were identified and managed'. The first is an empirical observation, the other is a management process. I love empirical science - it's really important to me. I had this very difference come up in a recent lab inspection when I was asked to cover the corners of a surface mounted plastic 6-jack Ethernet box. My 'never a problem' response was rejected out of hand. 'That's not evidence of safety'. Now, when I look at it from a measurement systems perspective, I'd have to admit that it's not evidence in -either- direction. A signal that never varies contains no information. You can't use that data to speak to either conclusion (safe/not safe). No data is not proof of anything. Evidence of safety is in your near misses, not in the -lack- of incidences. Your evidence/data comes from looking at the results of actual failures - when they happen, were the result controlled and mitigated as designed? There is plenty of evidence of near misses posted above (though none are unique to mass launches). For the people who look at the lack of incidences, the next question is 'was it by plan, or by luck'? It's one or the other - either you planned and controlled for it, or you were lucky. 'By luck' has a happy outcome, but is vastly unsatisfying to people -managing- safety. They want to see the plan, not the result. Otherwise they will assume the result is just luck. By role and temperament, safety managers are process people. They verb safety - not accept it as an adjective.

Regarding the CA fatality: Can we just stop using it in this discussion, please? First, it was an extreme outcome - and hence emotionally charged. Second, it was two rockets - and rules being discussed address 3+. Third, I'm pretty sure it was a LPR launch - 'E's, wasn't it - also outside these HPR rules. Lastly, it wasn't a failure mode unique to simultaneous launches. Any single flight can get lost during tracking. Any single flight can have deployment failure. The only relevant point is the number of observers per rocket-in-air; and that isn't addressed by the rule - which sets a distance requirement, not a tracking requirement. It was a fluke. That it was a 2-up drag race wasn't a root cause - it was also a fluke.

Regarding 'this is a hobby': Now this is an interesting aspect, but I don't think there will be any consensus as to it's value as a point. It speaks to acceptable risk - but is riskier acceptable because it's for personal recreation? Or is riskier less acceptable because no one should get hurt doing something that just for fun? Or must risk be controlled at a lower per rocket level because of variability among individual lay rocket builders? I'll point out one logical fallacy I've seen in related threads: the idea that commercial or scientific gain can be used to justify additional risk due to the reward. (Usually combined with the idea that mere recreation is an unworthy reward.) Sorry, but in my professional life, that's just not true. For over twenty years, it's been drilled into me that -no- commercial gain is worth additional risk. (I work at a company that at one point had been jointly owned by Allied (who poisoned off the James River) and Carbide (involved in Bhopal) - so we ended up with strong environmental safety controls from one parent and strong process safety controls from the other.) That's simply not the equation - the equation is 'is the cost of mitigating risk back down to acceptable levels justified by the reward?' And acceptable risk, in my commercial research world, is -lower- than for lay/consumer life. Good heavens, we aren't even allowed to step over a curb in the parking lot any more. Walk around it - it's safer.

Regarding the process: Dave, I'm going to call you out on one wording usage. You said 'the people have spoken' - and I don't think you get to say that unless there was a membership ballot. The technical committees have spoken. NFPA and TRA. And the board as responded. Even if NFPA isn't the law in every land, it's certainly going to drive national associations - and insurers. But those committees aren't 'the people'. The people might decide that they are willing to accept a higher risk from mass launches. But I'm thinking their insurers are going to want to see that process of safety.

 

[jderimig]

Not taking a side here but raising a point to think about.

Drag races even at a large launch are still relatively infrequent events.
Hundreds (perhaps) of people ignoring individual flights for long periods of a time while they are working in their camps is much more frequent.

If you multiply the occurence by risk then the latter risk is dominant over the former. In my opinion.

One could even argue that drag races are safer because they are almost always watched by everyone. The other flights not so much.

 

[patelldp]

Please start puling up footage and changing the rules of all of the close calls in rocketry and we won't be flying rockets any more.

Tim,

I fully agree with you. Close calls occur in single rocket launch formats as well as drag race formats and I have zero interest in showing videos of close calls. It's more dangerous to drive to a launch than it is to attend a launch. I also agree the safe launch distances are a non-factor for any failures aside from CATO's, in which case it doesn't matter if it's commercial or EX in nature, 1 or 1,000 rockets.

My only point in all of this is that we as a self-regulating hobby owe it to ourselves to use proper care and caution when launching. Launching rockets one at a time is the baseline, acceptable level of risk that I think we can all agree to. If someone does not, do not attend. Multi-stage and cluster rockets do introduce additional uncertainty and risk, but are in the spirit of the "Real" rockets that this hobby emulates. Certain things can be done to make said rockets acceptably safe and it's the duty of the RSO, club, and national organization to mandate to regulate.

I just can't make the same argument for drag races. They certainly "enhance" the visual and auditory experience of a rocket launch, but it needs to be done in a prudent manner. There are sensible limitations that need to be in place.

 

[patelldp]

Not taking a side here but raising a point to think about.

Drag races even at a large launch are still relatively infrequent events.
Hundreds (perhaps) of people ignoring individual flights for long periods of a time while they are working in their camps is much more frequent.

If you multiply the occurence by risk then the latter risk is dominant over the former. In my opinion.

One could even argue that drag races are safer because they are almost always watched by everyone. The other flights not so much.

Interesting perspective with one caveat:

In single launch scenarios, ample people are watching a singular moving object, namely the LCO, RSO, and others. If something goes wrong it is reasonable to assume that those individuals will be able to alert the crowd. I personally monitor launches even when prepping, and admit that I may be in the minority there. That is concerning.

For drag races of the large magnitude that I have seen (10-15+ rockets) it's difficult to track all moving pieces even when everyone is paying attention. The average attentiveness is higher than a single launch scenario, but it's sensory saturation that negates its effectiveness.

 

[jderimig]

In single launch scenarios, ample people are watching a singular moving object, namely the LCO, RSO, and others. If something goes wrong it is reasonable to assume that those individuals will be able to alert the crowd.

For drag races of the large magnitude that I have seen (10-15+ rockets) it's difficult to track all moving pieces even when everyone is paying attention. The average attentiveness is higher than a single launch scenario, but it's sensory saturation that negates its effectiveness.

Can't argue with anything you posted. However, if 100+ people are watching a drag race there is a high probability that there will be at least one set of eyes on every "target". Maybe.

 

[patelldp]

Maybe.

We all rely on that word, both sides of the argument.

 

[Bat-mite]

If multiple rockets in the air at the same time, and being able to track them, is the issue, then what about this? At MDRA, in order to keep the flights moving along and minimize wait time, once a rocket has drifted out of range of the pads, then we usually launch the next one. So at any given time, we have at least one coming down and one going up. Spectators will be watching the one going up (a lot more exciting, eh?), and so the one coming down gets forgotten.

Do we need a rule stating that no rocket can be launched while one is in the air? Or, that if you do, it counts as a drag race?