Interesting high lights of the NAR BoD Meeting and ...

Why do people always refer to the porta-potty launch when they wand to reference an unsafe launch?

There was nothing unsafe about that launch.

I was at the away pad before and after the launch and the TRA safety codes were followed and then some. It was launch much further away then need be due to worries about weather cocking. It was underpowered but was designed that way as an entry in the 'how low can you go' contest at that years LDRS. It was launched from the FAR AWAY pad and even if it had had a stable flight directly at the flight line it never would have made it half the distance as it was it landed 40feet away.

I have seen the flight line be in more danger do to D power models that veer towards them then this flight ever had the potential for.

So again, what was unsafe about this flight? Is it just that it was that memorable of a flight that people keep referencing it?

I think the astronauts were aware of the breakup of the craft but once a rapid decompression occurred death would be very fast. There would be rapid formation of bubbles in the bloodstream that would stop blood flow to the brain.

The only thing I hope didn't happen but may have is if there were one- way check valves in the spacesuits themselves. That would have prevented immediate decompression and prevent loss of consciousness. If that occurred I am afraid you would be correct in that those poor souls could have experienced heat and mechanical trauma before death. I still believe that death would be rapid but there may have been a few seconds of discomfort.

Kurt Savegnago

Use a Perfect Flite or a Loki ARTS.

that won't happen then, and they both let you twist wires without blown' your charges

Since I referenced that flight, I will respond to your question:

I never said that it was "unsafe". Frankly, I don't beleive I even implied that.

I agree, by the way, based on what I saw there was nothing unsafe about the launch of the porta potty. It was a bit controversial (the amount of discussion about it attests to that), but that's about it.

I mentioned it in the context that I did to emphasize the safe nature of the launch I performed at NARAM with the foam cup rocket. In the case of the launch shown in the video there is controversy about how far *I* was from the pad (I was about 18 feet at time of launch whereas I probably should have been 30 feet) No one else was closer than 30 feet.

anywho, that's my 2 cents :)

jim

Thanks. I'll add that (after I stop laughing.)

That is what I use but there are lots of other people using other stuff.

Missle Works and GWiz are the ones people are mentioning to be careful of.

According to Kurt :

"Appeared". Minimum safe distance for model rocketry in the US is 15 feet. What with foreshortening and the picture angle, I suspect he made the 15'.

We had a similar thing at a CAR launch on a K. Rocketeer had to hold the _pad_ upright during wind gusts.

I imagine he made the minimum distance before launch, but only just... ;-)

actually it looks like NAR S&T did take the lead on opposing Vashon Cold Propellant motors.

Background:

Vashon Model Rockets Cold Propellant motors first appeared in February 1969 at the Chicago HIAA Trade show. Whats stranage about this is the fact that G.Harry Stine was also there and actually wrote an overview of this HIAA trade show in the 4/69 issue of Model Rocketry magazine and makes NO mention of the Vashon rockets.

Vashon Ads first appeared in the Model Rocketry mag in Jan 1970(see below why)

In January 1969 the NAR S&T commitee issued a WARNING to its members (Via the Model Rocketeer?) That the Vashon Cold Propellamt motors did not conform to the model rocket definitions in FAA FAR 101.1, a.3.ii(a) through (d) in that the Vashon Cold propellant motors consisted of substantial metal parts (the aluminum body). This from the 5/70 issue of Model Rocketry mag page 41 where the NAR S&T announces that they are now NAR safety certified and also announce notice of the Cold Propellant Safety Code. Seems Vashon got the FAA permission in Jan 70.

This same warning was re-issued and printed in the 5/69 Issue of Model Rocketry mag on page 10.

whats interesting is, in this warning, the NAR S&T states they are not certified per Safety Code rule 2 and the 1967 edition of the US Model Rocket Sporting Code rule 3.6 , aka the "Pink Book". Its states, "This is because the Valkyrie uses an aluminum tube for a Body"

Then it goes on to tell NAR members that they will be in violation of the NAR Safety Code and your NAR membrship will be revoked" if you get caught using these puppies. Have we heard that before? somewhere?

shockie B)

Um if you check the bylaws I think you will find that the vote in quesiton was for a seat on the Board of Trusties. The NAR membership does not get to vote for Prez, VP, treasurer or secretary. We are voting (or not) for people to sit on the board of trusties. It is the board members who then vote for the officers. I am not sure what you call this arrangement, but this is essentially how it works as far as I can tell.

This is very interesting. It seems there is at least some smoke involved here. Was there actually a launch in question? Please do tell what transpired. I am curious now.

According to Greg Cisko :

This is fairly common in the corporate world and probably even more so in small clubs. It's also how many governments work.

Especially in clubs, you often don't get enough candidates with the right expertise to have more than one sufficiently well qualified person for each position. Especially things like treasurer or secretary. Gives the BoD flexibility to move people into the role they suit best.

In _most_ parliamentary systems, you vote in a party representative from your riding. At most, the only pre-ordained position is prime minister. Then, depending on how the party does these things, they apportion out what ministries will exist, and which member gets which ministerial position. Etc.

The US electoral system doesn't work that way. You vote for president, congressional and senatorial members. The heads of departments (the equivalent of our ministries) are politically appointed, usually _not_ elected.

Our government ministries then, have civil servants running the ministry, with an elected minister overseeing/responsible for it.

Your government "ministries" (departments) have political appointees running the operation with somewhat looser (or less specific) oversight from elected officials.

Pretty simple. The insurer of one organization talks to the insurer of the other following an accident and up go the rates.

John

Tell me you haven't heard of Jerry's sad tale about how he got tossed ut of TRA. That's what he's talking about. It must have been at least 12 years ago.

lunarlos are you out of your mind ?

please buy me a ticket to jim flis's place and I will let you fire that rocket at me from any angle at any distance you want. no helmet.

its NOT POSSIBLE except under really weird conditions for that rocket to every heart anyone even under full thrust

for craps sake man its made of foam cups and hot glue !!! and its only flying on 4 d motors !!! ( anything stronger and it would probably fly apart)

did you not watch the video as to how slow it boosted and recovered ????

and you call that dangerous ??

note to all it was an 18.5 foot tall foam model rocket (well under 3 pounds) it went up at about the same speed as it came down. ie snail slow and really cool.

absolutely NOT a dangerous rocket by any remote stretch of the imagination. i mean even if it hits you under power (impossible inertia would not allow it to rotate that far) the motors are nearly 19 feet way from you when it does !! thats about the safe distance for launching the thing !!! :-) and the fins where foamboard as well.

i just watched the video again. OH MY GOD A BAG OF FOAM CUPS IS FALLING RUN RUN RUN RUN for your life !!

it was falling horizontally at about 1/5th the speed that I see plastic pointed fin can estes models under shoot with kids CATCHING THEM !!! and you call this dangerous ? something to be appalled by or ashamed by ?

man your nuts.

Chris Taylor

How about we use your head for a blast deflector? 8-)

If You're referring to Bob's claim, You'll have to get the details from Him. Bob's statements are based on claims made by jerry.

Maybe Bob could tell Us when and where this launch took place. Maybe Bob could describe the technical details of the rocket and flight.

"How about we use your head for a blast deflector? 8-)"

did you have a point ? oh thats right NO you did not come back when you have something useful to say

Chris Taylor

oh it also does look like he was less than 15 feet (hard to tell its an angle etc..) but I watched it a dozen times what "flinch" do you refer too. he ran turned about running backwards and watched it take off. no flinch that I could see.

either way on a model like that it could not hurt him. its pure length and intertia would not permit it to rotate enough to harm him no matter what happened.

Chris Taylor

The PortaPotty came in ballistic because it was underpowered; the parachutes have nothing to do with it. Photos and video both prove that quite definitively.

-Kevin