I was thinking more along the lines of a 6 inch diameter, 5 foot long
3FNC all carbon fiber rocket using a small H motor. The amount of drag on the rocket compared to it's weight would be about the same as coming in on a smaller parachute (I think, I would have to sim, build, test this all myself first) I seem to recall a similar rocket by PML that was launched on a G motor. It was so light, it could be held up with 2 fingers. Its first flight was on an H-180 and the booster came in without a parachute (not by design) with no damage to the rocket.This seems like regulation for the sake of regulation to me. If a builder can explain WHY a rocket with no active recovery is still a safe recovery, then that would mean to me that he understands the physics of flight and would be a safe flyer. If they can't explain to me why its safe, then more than likely, they don't know why its safe and in that case, I would agree that they shouldn't be flying a rocket without active recovery (cert or no cert). This feels more to the spirit of the certification process to me. Almost anyone can but a LOC or PML kit, slap on some epoxy and an H motor and cert level 1.
This may not ban any type of rocket, (spool, saucer, oddroc, what-have-you) but it does ban a type of rocket for certification, one that uses passive recovery.
I guess it really doesn't matter at this point. The time for discussion on this has already passed. The rule is in place and to change the rule would take more than just my voice.
-Aaron
AZ Woody wrote: