Rocket Launching System - Design Compromises...

Len Lekx · 2003-11-01T00:43:51+00:00

I've been looking around the Net, in an attempt to find RFtransceivers that will allow me to set up my *potential* launchingsystem for wireless operation. I've come up with the followingroadblocks... Long-range (5000-10000 foot) radio modules are expensive. Sinceeach group of ten pads would require one module, expansion adds up.Jerry - would *you* be willing to pay an additional $250 per ten-padgrouping for wireless...? ;-) There are lower-cost modulesavailable, but their use would limit the effective range of the systemas a whole. High-power pads would be limited to under 1000 feet fromthe LCO, so multi-M away cells would be out. The transmitters I've found are available in analog-only ordigital-only modes. In order to have a continuity tone sent back tothe LCO console, I'd have to add a second transmitter in each 10-padmodule, and a second receiver in the LCO system. Can personal'analysis' of the continuity signal be eliminated...? Thoughts...?

Nov 01, 2003 42 Replies

Rate this thread:

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

Every one is current (ie 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 is as of 4-03)

HSA is a standalone law. Your source of confusion may lay in the assumption that there is "one set of laws". Nope. About a dozen SETS.

Vote

Robert DeHate 22 years ago

Exactly. I am no lawer so what I want to know is simply which one applies? It's kinda like getting a permit for many other things. The Feds might tell you its OK but if the local fire marshal sayes no then the answer is no. Likewise if the local fire marshal sayes yes but the feds say no then again the answer is no.

Using the same logic if the regs you quote say yes but the new BATFE regs say no then I bet they would side with the BATFE regs.

It sounds like you discussed this with authorities, what is allowed and what is not. Maybe you can show them the specific lines from the HSA with regard to rocketry activities and ask if this changes their position at all.

Not that you 'want' to kick a sleeping dog, since we all know the intention of the BATFE with their classifications is to regulate rocketry.

Not that I like it any more then the next guy, if I could just find a vendor that will sell me PRO58 motors without showing a LEUP. If you know of one, let me know.

RDH8

Vote

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

All of them. In the opinion of each authority :)

It is up to us to discern how the regs and laws pertain to us. NAR/TRA's function is toclarify that, but since they are both incapable and refuse, I did on my website. I have not had 45 years to refine my site but I am doing pretty well for 2 years.

The Shultz site is also a good law reference site but with less editing and less organized presentation. More depth.

Exactly.

The problems we are having are 100% federal. That simplifies it.

They are each standalone and they ALL allow and exempt rockets (except CA state). Two agencies are unhappy with their own laws: ATF and DOT. ATF being more extreme.

Correct. In both an official and an unofficial capacity and more than once.

I have asked rmr people to post the relevent aspects of HSA, PA1 and PA2 so I can analyse and integrate it. I admit to being too lazy/busy to wade through 1200 pages of regs to find the 2-4 paragraphs of note.

I do know this. They changed how NON-EXEMPT ATF EXPLOSIVES are treated, but all exemptions are still in place and all of our stuff is exempt.

AT/HPR/TRA does!!!!!

People are working on that very, very, reasonable request.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required