"People just go to those to see the cockroaches crash"
Even NASA has this problem. No one cares about the shuttle until something
goes wrong. Then every eye is on them.
WHAT does this mean?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
THIS is a serious problem that MUST be addressed by NAR and TRA. We will
NEVER win against the BATFE if this is the image we are presenting to
others.
Even the Discovery channel stuff did more harm than good IMHO. The only
thing I can recall seeing on TV that showed our hobby in a favorable light
was the 10 minutes of footage in "Voyage to the Milky Way" that included Ray
Halm's Arcon flight.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
How do you propose they "address" it, Bob? The ONLY way is to either
ban members from speaking to the press at these events, or only allow
them to "read the script". Neither of those is in any way, shape or
form acceptable.
-Kevin
People don't go to the race to see the crashes, they go to see
competitive racing. How do you know it's competitive? Drivers push it
to the limit, sometimes go beyond it and crash. No crashes means no one
is really racing all that hard.
If rocketeers only used designs and techniques they have always used in
the past; if no one ever tried to make anything bigger or better; most
flights would be error free, but not as much fun.
Curtis
rick:
I wonder why so many HPR seem to cato? Does anybody have an idea? Does
anybody fill out a NAR MESS or TRA equivalent, when these catos's occur. I
would submit, that everytime there is a cato, some form of report should be
made and made available to the rocketry community, perhaps online or in the
respective org's publications?
shockie B)
so ray, would you say that the majority of cato's in HPR are HPR TRA EX ?
versus commercial HPR ?
Does TRA keep any types of reports like the NAR MESS form on EX cato's ?
IF there is an over-abundance of EX cato's that tells me alot of people
aren't doing something correctly. How big is the TRA EX market anyway?
shockie B)
Jerry Irv> >
Since you're not a motor manufacturer, I can see why you might have
trouble understanding such things. Maybe you should ask one of the
folks who are active in EX to explain to you why EX motors sometimes
cato.
ê
kevin: I also have problems with a "script".....
But don't you think it would be good if there was at least some form of
mutually agreed pros and cons?
I mean ONE clear loud voice would seem to me to be better than 1000 smaller
voices...
shockie B)
Shockie...
Didn't NAR just form a committee to looking in to the increase in flight
problems at their launches? (including non HP) Seems they're even including
one or more people from TRA.
It doesn't seem the committee was formed due to "cato" problems..
I'll say that the vast majority of "cato" problems I've seen in the past
have not been a manufacturing problem, but a user problem.
(often temp stressed BP motors or poor assembly of an reloadable or the
setup of electronics..)
Filing a MESS when ever there's a cato is probably a bad idea, as often the
post mortum will indicate another problem. "Darn, I forgot to tell the
electronics the right delay for mach inhibit!" (this realization might come
a few days after the launch!) or "darn - the ematch for the ejection charge
came loose"
Remember the "boy that cried wolf" - filing a MESS on every cato may
diminish the meaning of the MESS.
Hi Shockie. The one in the first picture of the PopSci article
was definitely an EX M motor. And it was almost expected to
CATO, as another from the same batch, in someone else's rocket,
had CATO'd minutes earlier.
And what do you mean by "so many"? I've never thought of the
CATO rate, except for that one summer with the bad AT J350 grains
and the QC problem plaguing CTI, as being particularly
remarkable. As for why at a particular event, well the more
motors we burn, the more motors (number-wise) are going to CATO.
LDRS 23 had a lot of commercial motors burned over four days, and
because it's LDRS the projects are a little more extreme, so
you'd expect more than the normal number of CATOs than at a
typical weekend launch. Why do HPR motors CATO at all? Well,
lots of reasons, including but not necessarily limited to overly
energetic igniters, cracked grains, plugged nozzles, improper
assembly, parts fatigue, etc.
I've had three mid-power / HPR CATOs myself, and frankly, I never
submitted a formal report. One was an old G80, which failed
longitudinally and didn't damage the rocket. One was an F50
which, on post-flight reflection, was my fault, as I'd left one
motor in the cluster resting on the blast deflector, plugging its
nozzle. And the third, an M1419, blew out half its nozzle in
flight, presumably due to an unnoticed pre-flight fracture. That
CATO was reported to Aerotech, who replaced the hardware and the
reload.
...Rick
EX means EXperimental. If we all knew, right off the bat, how to
"do it correctly", then there wouldn't be much EXperimentation
going on.
EXers are, for the most part, people who are seeking via
systematic experimentation to make advancements in their
technical knowledge to overcome technical uncertainties.
Even with a CATO in EX, we walk away having learned something,
whether it's about the motor design, the nozzle design, the
nozzle or casing manufacture, the propellant mixing and casting, etc.
And isn't that what EXperimentation is about - to form a
hypothesis and then test it, and to learn something from the test
regardless of whether we end up validating or rejecting the
hypothesis?
...Rick
Your pros and cons don't necessarily match mine, and so forth.
The better way is when you know the media will be present, select
someone from the host group that's eloquent and stops and thinks before
answering questions, and have that person be their initial contact and
show them around.
-Kevin
TRA members cannot even agree that HPR magazine is "unacceptably late"
and that it needs to be "repoed".
How could they agree on something with ANY dissent at all?
Jerry
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.