I don't want to second guess the folks involved with that rocket because there may be other factors involved which were not publicized. However, I agree that pre-flight testing should always be done on any electronics. I would not fly a rocket with electronics without first testing it in a flight configuration (as opposed to testing individual components on the bench).
By citing related data? Yep!!
ON-TOPIC JERRY
Luck as translated to a scientific principal is outcome from a series of probable risks.
I have had a longer, deeper and more diverse series of probable risks than any other launch host ever.
Yet I have the very best safety record.
Whining aside and TRA evil empire protection by Ray Dunakin aside, the record matters.
The results matter.
The statistical answer matters.
I win.
Jerry
I think that's jumping to conclusions. Yes, the narrator commented that one rocket "went into the clouds" or "was lost in the clouds", something to that effect. But remember this was not the most accurate source of info. Any specator who sees a rocket vanish in a cloudy sky may think it went into the clouds and be completely wrong.
Accurate ones. Nobody cares Ray. Relax. The evil empire is safe.
Really?
But it is possible and practical to change TRA launch procedures in a way to improve safety 500% or more. They refuse.
How about 50% fewer ambulances as a baseline goal of adopting Jerry Irvine's policies?
Seriously.
Jerry Irvine
This has been the policy at every launch I have ever attended or heard of. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't hold off a launch if they heard someone call out that an aircraft was in range. The problem is, at a large launch the RSO can't always hear what's being shouted from halfway across the field or flight line.
Why should they? What was the danger in allowing it? Looked to me like the flight went well, if not entirely perfect.
The important question isn't "Couldn't it have folded up during ascent?" The real question is "Would anyone be put at risk if it had folded up?" As long as the answer to the second question is No, the first question is nearly irrelevant. Screwing up a flight is not in itself a Bad Thing. It's often part of the learning process, and necessary for innovation.
We have to have room in this hobby for people to try out new things and unproven designs, otherwise the hobby will stagnate. You might as well require everyone to fly only a single, "approved" design using only "approved" materials and construction.
LDRS-Lucerne Saturday morning.
I find it scary that you take the edited images and narration supplied by uninformed TV producers at face value and assume you're getting the whole, unerring story.
I'd be MOST concerned about smoking anywhere near a prep area where someone could have a can of BP open. I'd rather be handling a reload kit (sans BP) with someone standing in front of me smoking, then to be handling an open can of BP with someone smoking FIFTY feet away.
You're on your way to where I keep Jerry's messages. ;)
-John
I sense a three way world war brewing:)
Ummm, this is my definition for the purpose of discussion. If you meet the flight criteria, it IS a successful launch, opinions of the validity of the criteria notwithstanding.
How was the range set up to promote in-crowd lawn darts?
Maybe. I say certification procedures and safety guidelines (Yes, Jerry, even TRA ones) enhance HPR safety and are direct contributors to rocketry's excellent safety record. Prove me wrong with hard data. A simple population density analysis will show a larger site to be statistically safer than a smaller one if the threat (dart, prang, or cruise missle) is a constant size; the chance of being hit is smaller. Proper construction of the rockets (cert procedures) will reduce preventable flight "anomalies". Etc, etc.
Your range sizes/distances are LESS than TRA's. How does that INCREASE the safety of participants?
I'm not a TRA advocate, nor detractor. Jerry, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions, except for the constant diatribes against TRA. Ever hear the story of the boy who cried, "Wolf!"? I'm simply a rocketry advocate worried that other's share Brett's concerns, especially the impression that self-regulation (policing) is not working. Lord knows we don't need "other" regulators getting involved.
Except one minor detail. It ALSO didn't even meet the flight criteria.
The above issue was sidebar.
[aircraft, clearance, other]
Wind direction wrong re site setup. Rockets fly into the wind last I checked. But I am old. I must be senile too.
The safety record preceeded TRA and let's be honest. And I mean painfully honest. It has gone down hill because of TRA and primarilly at TRA launches.
A bit late for me to go into detail to the degree I am comfortable being on the record forever, but in simple terms:
Failure modes:
Shrapnel: 20-100 feet does it to spectators G-O
Ballistic: There is a "modal impact ring" as previously published, also depending on power but TRA offsets also vary with power and for example an O is 1500 feet range at launch so this is looking pretty good.
Land Shark: Greater the diastance the higher the speed. So again closer is better.
Ballistic Land Shark: A compromise between the above two.
Recovery failure: Normally not a problem I admit.
ALL of the above are greatly attenuated by having the wind at your backl or even to your side.
Flight anomolies are factored into "proper" range setup. Whether that is to fly the rocket at a designated angle away from the crowd like a steel is real launch, or to have the wind in your face so the rockets fly away consistently.
As stated above and as stated in other older messages referencing the same file names at different URL's.
Self regulation relies on having some. If you have rules that are based on history, experience, and common sense, people naturally follow them. If they are arbitrary they only follow them to the extent forced or policed.
The Model Rocketry industry has a history of true self regulation by self-compliance with the safety code. That culture was briefly translated to HPR while during the early days the culture was the self-regulation.
Then people like Kelly, Rogers, Rosenfield and others wanted to "codify everything". Much of that was speciically targeted at excluding specific vendors. By doing that more and more over the years now we have so many rules only the rules are the culture and not the culture itself.
THAT is what needs to be changed.
One of the many ways I have suggested returning that culture is to replace badly codified rules with exemptions. (again) Exemptions tell you in effect "anything goes" and it becomes incumbunt on the culture to apply the rules.
For decades rocketry had a NFPA exemption, an ATF exemption (which still exists) and reasonable and common sense FAA rules.
I refer to past posts as to the many and varied ways NFPA rules are excessive, arbritrary, capricious and broken.
Jerry
Thanks for the brief supportive comment BTW.
Dobrovolsky, Patsayev, and Volkov were killed by a safe recovery.
Y'know, there's a limit to even my curiosity.
I'll make a prediction: The first person to die at a high power launch will die from some form of cardiovascular failure brought on by walking to recover a rocket.
The second will be the safety-concious person electrocuted while telling the idiot "You're risking your life trying to get that $10 rocket out of the high power lines." Of course, the idiot will be uninjured.
We are not Pierson's Puppeteers. There's a limit to what you can do to protect yourself.
Statistical Anomalies Happen.
Zooty
Tripoli: 3+ ambulances in 10 years or less All other rocket organizations combined since 1935: Zero
Statistical Anomalies Happen?
Contributing culture happens too.
What other organizations have instances where you're 10 ft in the air arming a altimeter? The guy could have easily fallen climbing the ladder (a common injury in construction).
I saw a NAR person set off their ejection on the ground (moved the nose cone). Another (not sure if NAR, at a NAR launch) managed to ignite the airstarts (or second stage, I don't remember) while they were hooking up the igniters.
How do you know there's been no injures in any other organization since
1935? Where would that even be reported?Joel. phx
"Statistical Hazard Integrated Techniques" Happens
My church:
20 ambulances in 10 years. (I wasn't there for one of those ambulance calls.)Your point is?
Zooty
(I wasn't there for one of those ambulance calls.)
(If Jerry Irvine starts up a crusade to ban churches, I'm gonna get blamed, ain't I?)
Rocket newsgroup.
Rocket clubs are at issue.
At what point is an identifiable problem worth correcting?
Having been at LDRS this year (my 1st LDRS by btw)....The heat was an overwhelming factor in reducing prepration effectiveness. It was oppressively hot.Having prepped several large flights, around the First TV folks schedule I might add...I have an insight into what the group was facing....I am in good physical shape, spend a lot of time outdoors and am not usually bothered by extremes in temperature (hot or cold)....But I would not rule this out as a contributing factor. It sapped your energy, muddled your thinking and was IMHO a contributing factor.
Mark A Palmer TRA 08542 L3
Alex Mericas wrote:
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.