Rocket Challenge on Discover

Brett Buck wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@pacbell.net:

Bad assumption. Said Astron Alpha will almost certainly penetrate the skull.

How many times do I have to tell this story? I have seen the 3rd stage of an Astron Farside fail to ignite and impale itself in an asphalt runway. Soft balsa nose cone, BT-50 airframe. So much for your "assumption" about frangibility.

len.

Brett Buck wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@pacbell.net:

Assuming 100% efficient momentum transfer to 150 lb individual,

40/(150/3) = .8 mph. Somebody might stumble 10 feet at that speed, but "get knocked" is a bit of an overstatement.

I'd be more concerned about what the propeller would do to me than any blunt force trauma.

len.

The bad news of the story is it was an Astron Farside! A true classic.

The good news is that rmr will never listen to fact or logic and it has not changed today.

If that was his meaning, then I misunderstood it. I took it to mean that even a single mistake _would_ cause injury, which clearly is not the case.

I believe our launches DO meet the criteria that you describe. There is virtually no way that a single mistake could result in serious injury or death. For instance, a rocket coming in ballistic -- that's one mistake. For it to cause injury there has to be several more mistakes made: Someone must be in the precisely the wrong spot, AND not watching the rocket, AND not paying attention to LCO or spectators shouting a warning.

Of course not. I'm not trying to discount the risk or play down the need for reducing risk. Certainly there is room for improvement, but I strongly disagree with Brett's claim that our launches are wildly unsafe and demonstrate a lack of concern for safety.

As launches grow in size and the number of participants and spectators increase, so does the risk. I'm open (as we all should be) to any reasonable solutions for mitigating this risk, but so far I haven't seen any. And I for one don't want to live in "Nerf World", where anything with even the slightest risk is deemed to dangerous to be allowed.

Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket- snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

I sanded the flat spot out of the nose cone and flew it again...

There's a picture of it at:

(If you can't put that back together, it's in the NARAM7 folder of the photos area at the OldRockets Yahoo Group.)

The aforementioned runway can be seen in the background.

len.

Professional launches are not entertainment, so being there and being able to witness the launch is not the purpose of the launch. (Not to mention the fact that professional launches usually involve much larger, heavier rockets and far more volatile materials.)

Risk cannot be eliminated entirely from recreational activities without also removing the appeal. In the case of rocketry, the only way to eliminate the risks to a degree that would suit you* is to either remove every single person from within miles of the launch site, or hide everyone in bunkers. Both solutions make it difficult to even see the launch, much less get anything out of it; and the second solution is also impractical or impossible for large crowds.

*That's really the crux of this whole argument -- by your own admission, risk cannot be completely eliminated, so who gets to decide what is an acceptable level of risk?

No, I do not. I feel it shows that our safety standards are working to mitigate the risk to an acceptable level.

If you feel that the only acceptable level of risk is no risk at all, then you'd better start shutting down all the other activities that have worse safety records than ours.

Again, point taken, but the analogy is too generalized.

Consider the kinetic energy of a vehicle going down the highway and the possible failure modes for a car accident. We all, probably, drive and it is an inherently dangerous endeavor (statistically, one of the most dangerous activities the average person participates in). But we choose to drive, just as we choose to attend rocket launches. We (being participants, not bystanders) accept the risks for the perceived benefits.

Minimizing the risks and not the perceived benefits is the point, I think. The danger aspect is evident, what to do about it, if anything, is the question.

It sounds like the strict enforcement of an "off limits" impact zone would reduce your concerns. Would the impact zone be a footprint below the anticipated flight path, or would it include possible out-of-envelope flight paths as well? There is going to be a trade-off at some point for any real-world solution; access to the experience of the launch, versus "off limits" range safety. And again, consideration must be given to the fact that participants see some risk as acceptable.

Three???

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

What he said.

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

Planes tend to be moving horizontally, not vertically. It's a lot easier to knock you over from the side than from above.

Plus planes tend to have these large cutting surfaces on their forward end that treat body parts like hamburger.

Our rockets are much safer than any powered model airplane. MR is on par with free flight, HPR on par with big RC sailplanes.

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

A lot of NFPA regs duplicate regs that exist elsewhere.

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

Well. if 3 ambulance calls in 10 years nationwide is worth correcting, then wouldn't 20 ambulance calls in a church with a membership of about 300 be worth correcting?

I'm used to dealing with one location with one person generating at least one ambulance call a week. Taking care of the situation is, unfortunately, illegal and immoral. That's not even counting the one goof that called 911 90 times a day. The judge was gonna let him go, when he asked to borrow the judge's phone. Guess what number he dialed?

3 non-fatal incidents in 10 years nationwide? I'd be in favor of fixing that, after all other recreational events with 10 fatalities in 10 years nationwide are taken care of. Trust me, they ain't gonna get around to high power rocketry in our lifetimes on that basis. Heck, no one can agree about what to do with Dimple Rock in the Ohiopyle rapids, and that's only 9 drownings since 1976.

Could you list the other two incidents?

Zooty

That would be bad enough, but they are low fidelity too!

If 100% of the three are avoidable and 100% of the 20 are medical, no.

That's why I never take the whole pound to the launch - I bring enough for the day's ejections in a small plastic vial, and leave the bulk supply at home.

-dave w

What, is that an AOL "feature", formatting quoted text like:

like God intended newsgroup messages to be arranged?

-dave w

Chuck is not someone whose name carries weight or respect. I don't think I ever met Scott.

Moose *IS* a real rocket scientist, but has little to do with how things are done today.

If anything, I'd say that the way TRA runs a rocket range is more descended from G Harry Stine and how NAR competition ranges were run over 20 years ago, than any "rocket professional" that's come up through the TRA ranks. The sad part of it is that TRA hasn't learned what others have learned in how to run a range over the past 2 decades.

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

Exactly

Lavigne BTW

Rogers gets paid to advocate and analyse SSTO. That should tell you something about his "expertise".

I could comment on Bartel, but if you want an honest and neutral opinion (if couched in careful language), ask the owner of CTI.

>

First off, I don't smoke so I wouldn't be the one doing it. Secondly, I personally would not be overly concerned about someone else smoking in the general vicinity while I'm prepping BP (unless they are REALLY close to the BP)

-- but that's just me. If someone else wants more safety margin than that, it's fine with me. Just don't stick me with any "one size fits all" regulations.

Third, if someone is smoking while prepping their own rocket, well... it may not be the brightest thing to do but it's their neck, not mine. As long as they aren't endangering anyone else, it's nobody's business but their own. I don't endorse or condone "nanny state" rules designed to protect people from the consequences of their own actions.