Discovery Channel Saucer

Ugggh. There ought to be a law against soccer. We've lost too many good rocket fields to soccer.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Then I guess I feel the same way.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

And I get the better end of the deal.......no need to sleep at a rocket launch. :-)

Chuck

120 yards by 80 yards, in NAR recovery area what is that? AA motors? Is that a 'good field'?

Chuck

BTW we often fly from a site of 10 soccer fields, obviously a tad bigger than you're used to.......G motors. Thank you soccer people, when you're not there we have a great time.

enlightened and

Thanks for the info, Mark. I think the real problem is how it was portrayed on the TV show. I don't recall hearing much, if anything, on the show about all the precautions that were taken.

There was no danger, and no accidents involved in that flight. If it was dangerous, you wouldn't have allowed it even at a small launch. Face it, the real reason you object is because of the media presence and the risk of it presenting a bad image. Which is fine -- that's certainly a valid argument -- but don't pretend it has anything to do with "safety".=20

=BA

I've flown D models easily in that area.

Where do you live where there is a time that soccer people are not there? I think they get there at 6AM and don't stop playing until way after sunset.

That there was no accident doesn't mean that there was no danger. That it happened hundreds of feet from any one doesn't mean that there was no danger. The fact that it was EXPECTED to fail certainly doesn't mean that there was no danger.

What annoys me about the flight is that rule 14 of the safety code was violated. What REALLY annoys me about the flight is that our own safety rules were violated in front of a thousand spectators and the TV cameras. Not just for this flight, but several others that made it into the show, including Tim and Ky.

Take that same Snitch with 30 D12s, and bring it to one of the HPR launches I've been involved in at a remote launch site with a small number of people present, and I'd probably have let it fly from the way far pad. With several people manning the fire extinguishers. That would comply with rule 14, requiring isolation for unproven designs.

But NFW at a public launch with 1000 people and the media present.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

In violation of "new and improved" NFPA-1122 rules.

:-(

launch.

presence

You keep contradicting yourself, Bob. First you say that it was too dangerous to be allowed to launch even from the far pads with extinguishers on hand (as it was at LDRS), then you say it's ok at a different launch. The number of people who are in the safety zone, far from the reach of the rocket and/or motors, is irrelevant -- safe is safe, whether there's 10 people there or ten thousand. So obviously the only real reason you're objecting is because of the media presence. Just be honest and admit it, and stop trying to claim it's a "safety" issue.

message

What "new" rule are you referring to? How new is it? =EA

No sweat!....It happens about once every 6 months....I usually let it go....but every once in awhile I need t0 present the whole enchilada....

Mark

It was a violation of the safety code to not fly this rocket in isolation. FAR PAD is not isolation. HEADS UP is not isolation. Only 10 people present at the launch site is isolation.

It was JUST PLAIN STUPID for launch organizers to violate this rule at a launch when the media was present. If anything this was a time to show everyone on their best behavior, not repeatedly ignoring the rules.

Compare what was shown during this 3 hours of TV with the 10 minute segment filmed at NSL in the middle of the "Voyage to the Milky Way" show. WHich of those presents our hobby the way we want the folks making the laws that regulate us to see?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Welcome to Tripoli.

Jerry

obviously the

"safety"

Says who? Please show me where in the safety code "isolation" is defined as "only 10 people present". Are you saying there are different safety codes for different launches?

>

Moron.

Whatever else, it is CLEAR, that "in isolation" does NOT mean at a near record large crowd.

That is the whole point.

The obvious fact you cannot even comprehend THAT, shows your level of intelligence and sense.

I am not commenting on the flight itself, but the major lapse of reading and understanding (and following) rules that pervades Ray's (and Tripoli's) minds.

Jerry

Turk II park in Doylestown PA......There are so many fields they don't use this set in wet weather as it was never graded properly. It's open right now if ya wanna head over.

Chuck

Have a waiver? 8-)

Again, according to who? Where is that written in the safety code? Does the safety code even mention the word "isolation"? And what does the size of the crowd have to do with it? As long as the rocket is launched far enough away from the crowd, it doesn't matter how many people are there. That's the whole purpose of having safe launch distances.

Bob K. says this rocket was unsafe. If that's true, I want to know what part of the safety code permits launching "unsafe" rockets at some launches but not at other launches?

As I said before, it's obvious that Bob's real complaint is that the rocket was launched with media present. Whether or not that was a wise decision is not a safety issue.

t