Does this call the NFPA1127 safe distance requirements into any question??
Was 1127 _intended_ to require major revisions in previously-established field safety practice, or did someone pull numbers out of the air and inadvertently create requirements such that HPR had been "doing it wrong all along?"
Inquiring minds want to know...
-dave w
That's what we're searching for. ; )
Randy
How about the Bong Rec Area? Yeah, I know it's a swamp but I don't have any better ideas. The 22nd is a Friday, so it could be a 3-day launch. That might motivate people from further away to attend.
Glen
Good version 1 suggestion!
They would get really P.O.ed at me if my rocket landed inside prison property. Think of all the bad publicity resulting with me breaking into and then back out of prison with a 10 foot rocket in tow. ;)
tim
I had one land in prison property at Danville. It took over 6 hours to get it back, but it was delivered to my bungalow on the edge of the field :)
Danville Rocks.
Oh, I don't save reload remains, just the spent casings of old single-use motors. I don't save all my G motor casings anymore either, since they're all the same and I already have a big box full. They do come in handy sometimes for things like 29mm couplers.
YES and NO.
YES, ***ALL*** of the numbers were simply pulled out of the air. Or perhaps some bodily orfice. There was absolutely ZERO research done to come up with these numbers. They have exactly as much validity as a 62.5g motor limit from the JBGTs. Except WE did this to OURSELVES. [Jerry Sez so!]
NO, most of the numbers make no sense.
The safe distance requirements for pad to LCO are definitely screwed up. As we pointed out in a recent thread, a cluster of 5 D12s can be flown at 15', but a cluster of 6 D12s requires 200'. A cluster of 2 G80s that weighs 1499g is legal at 30', but add 2g wadding and the safe distance is now 200'. Or replace the 2 G motors with a single H motor and the distance is 100'. And the NASA safe distance for an N class rocket that's got a metal case and a more reactive propellant than we use (Super Loki Dart) is what the NFPA requires for an L motor. I've pointed this out many times. The first time was during the initial draft of the rules, and their response was to make the problem WORSE, not to fix it. I even suggested a more reasonable formula where the safe distance in meters is the square root of the NS being flown. But the NFPA committee has too high a ballistic coefficient to realize there is a problem.
The launch site dimennsions requirements based on motor size are totally wacked. Field size needed is related to altitude, not motor size. Do you really need a field 3 miles square to launch an M powered FTBOD that goes as high as an ALpha with a B6-4? But if you read that section you find that there is a rational alternate based on maximum altitude and you MUST comply with the alternate. That makes the entire table null and void. It's a simple logic exercise: (A.or.B).and.B) simplifies to just B. But in over a decade, no one on the NFPA committee seems to understand that. Again, their ballistic coefficient is too high.
The occupied building clause is overkill as well. There's no problem with an occupied building on the site, as long as the building is affiliated with the launch! I certainly wouldn't set up 50' from such a building, but having to be 1500' away from your own house on your own property is absurd. Certainly there should be none within the safe distance range, and the 1500' rules DOES make sense if the building is NOT part of the launch activity (neighbors house, motel, etc.)
The 1500' requirement for a road is a mixed rule. In the case of Danville, it was ABSOLUTELY UNSAFE to be dropping HPR models on an interstate with a
65mph speed limit. Even if the rocket was nothing more than an Alpha with a B6-4, it could startle a driver, causing an accident. But to not allow any road with 10 vehicles per hour effectively eliminates sites just based on the road that you use to access the launch site. And it doesn't say how to count the 10 VPH number. Is this an average over a day, week, or month? Or is it you NEVER have 10 cars in a 1 hour period. I've been to many launches where the access road generates more traffic than that!Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
That was an interesting situation when it first happened. The lady that owned the motel and field was there long before the prison. When they built that thing on top of her, she wasn't very happy. Then the guards started doing machine gun practice in the middle of the night, wakig her guests and driving away business. She started complaining, and got in connectin with the local state politicos. When the prison warden refused to return the rockets, she made a couple phone calls, and the warden was reminded who he worked for, the taxpayers, told to PERSONALLY return the rockets to their owners and apoligize for his behavior. Don't you just LOVE politics when it works in our favor every now and then.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
The 2002 editi4.14.2 The dimension of the launch site shall be one of the following:
(1) Not less than one-half the maximum altitude expected, calculated, or simulated, or as granted by an FAA waiver or the authority having jurisdiction (2) As specified in Table 4.14.2
No matter how I read this, it does not say "(A.or.B).and.B)" but simply A.or.B.
But where are the actual thresholds of distance changes? They are wacky. They do not even closely resemble the standards that EVOLVED over perhaps 20 years or more.
well, we get another bite at the apple in 2006/2007 as those are the revision dates for 1122/25/27......
shockie B)
david: thats very interesting part of your response..
" or as granted by an FAA waiver"
the simple solution then is to jsut get as high a FAA waiver as high as possible and within reason.... then you are no longer restricted to the 1/2 max altitude ..?
IF the above is true then the question becomes: which takes precedence? NFPA
1127 or the NAR HPR Safety Code?shockie B)
The full committee can declare the defects so severe that they require immediate attention. This much variance from logic and pending litigation over issues overlapping still other errors of the NFPA codes constitute a basis for "immediate attention".
NAR says one thing and NFPA says another.
I guess they've updated it. The old one did require that you comply with the alternate minimum. And the alternate (option 1 above) is the one I'd ALWAYS use anyway. The table is useless.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
I would say that they are all effective, such that the most resstrictive takes precedence. The FAA controls airspace, and they issue waivers for use of airspace. You should also be able to get waivers from NFPA regulations, probably from the local Fire Marshal. NAR HPR safety codes, apart from NFPA codes, would only apply to NAR members and NAR launches, but the NAR BOD may be able to issue waivers.
Alan
And there was the time one of the guards was yanking on a rocket with the nose stuck on the barbed fence. It finally let go and whacked him on the head. :)
-John
and did not the next year they fetch rockets landing near by for us with their ATVs helping us out ? I recall one of them handing me my rocket on an ATV.
I have Cd-rom video of the 89 launch if people want it.
it does for estes, and even small hp rockets bob. look at the video of daville 89. you will see how far out in the field everyone is, and for even d-g and even H rockets, it meets the requirements.
BUT for those many I-J , and KLMs going off in the video, yes , it's now too small.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.