PDA

View Full Version : Now, THIS is a Model Rocket!



Tuckerfan
04-28-2009, 11:58 PM
Hobbyist builds scale model of Saturn V and has an absolutely beatiful flight. (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/26/content_11258964.htm)
Launch ground crew members erect a U.S. Flag in front of rocket builder Steve Eves' one-tenth scale Saturn V rocket (rear) in Price, Maryland during the early morning hours of April 25, 2009. The 36 foot high rocket, which was a three-year project costing approximately 25,000-30,000 U.S. dollars to build, is the largest model rocket ever successfully launched. Eves' rocket commemorates the 40th anniversary of the July 16, 1969 launch of the United States Apollo 11, which put the first man on the moon.Video of the launch here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj4lj6YSwzg) The rocket lands on its tail perfectly.

J Tiers
04-29-2009, 12:08 AM
Aside from violating almost every rule I can think of for amateur rocketry, not so bad.

tony ennis
04-29-2009, 12:08 AM
Impressive. I wonder how many E or F engines he was burning.

aostling
04-29-2009, 12:39 AM
Aside from violating almost every rule I can think of for amateur rocketry, not so bad.

Amateur rocketeers have rules? They don't have to deal with Boeing, Lockheed, or "the range." That makes things a lot easier.

J Tiers
04-29-2009, 12:57 AM
Amateur rocketeers have rules? They don't have to deal with Boeing, Lockheed, or "the range." That makes things a lot easier.

There are, or were, accepted safety rules, which may be relaxed somewhat these days when you don't make your own motor anymore....... used to be you did propellants yourself.

But, that's a big rocket, and there was a highway which looked to be in-range, people pretty close, lots of chances for "issues", despite being in the middle of a farm field.

danlb
04-29-2009, 01:13 AM
Since it did not go very high, it's possible that the roads were outside the range for touchdown.

It was a really beautiful flight.

Dan

gmatov
04-29-2009, 01:25 AM
I watched it on TV before I watched the tube. I believe they did have clearance, and that it went 40,000 feet and weighed 1600 pounds.

All the major pieces came down by parachute.

NO threat to any planes flying in the vicinity. More threat to airliners from geese and ducks, if you watch the news.

Cheers,

George

tdkkart
04-29-2009, 01:34 AM
It's 36ft long, weighs 1600lbs and goes 40,000ft. At what point does a "model" rocket become a "real" rocket?? Seems to me we're pretty damn close to that line, if not slightly over it???

lugnut
04-29-2009, 01:36 AM
That was pretty cool, but at that size and magnitude, I would not think it would be legal -----and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night:D
Mel

Tuckerfan
04-29-2009, 03:48 AM
Impressive. I wonder how many E or F engines he was burning.
According to this article (http://i.gizmodo.com/5219723/largest-scale-model-rocket-in-history-blasts-off-on-april-25th) (which has some nice photos of the rocket on display), it had 8 N-Class engines.

Evan
04-29-2009, 04:41 AM
There is a big difference between Model Rockets and Amateur Rockets. Model rockets adhere to the rules that were established by Estes back in the 50s. No significant amount of metal, standard premade solid fuel engines and some sort of recovery system that prevents the parts from falling at high velocity.

Amateur rockets are a different matter and the record is now into space a few years ago with an altitude mark of over 100 km. BTW, that model Saturn five didn't go to an altitude of 40,000 feet, not even close. I'm not sure where that number comes from. I might believe 4000 feet.

Circlip
04-29-2009, 05:21 AM
Good to see that only ONE of the main recovery chutes failed.

We have one or two loonies like this on our side of the pond too, "Freedom of personal rights" (and sod everyone else).

Regards Ian.

John Stevenson
04-29-2009, 07:59 AM
Dunno about model but a V1 was only 26 feet long and the V2 was 46 feet :eek:

This is a rocket :D :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4WzWFKQ20
.

tmarks11
04-29-2009, 08:06 AM
If North Korea or Iran had launched that rocket, the world press would be beating the non-proliferation drums instead of congratulating the builder.

I wonder if he added one more stage if he could reach transcontinental capability? Perhaps he could sell such a "model" rocket on the international market to some nations who might be interested in becoming "model rocket enthusiasts".

Maybe Eves (the builder) is seeking to become the world's 10th member of the nuclear club?

--------------------
Some better reading:

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/2829/30/


The Loki P motor case—made of aluminum—is six inches in diameter and the AP propellant inside that case will weigh eighty pounds. Each N motor is four inches in diameter and the propellant within each of the N motor cases will weigh sixteen pounds each. That's almost 210 pounds of propellant alone. The total cost of the propellant is not cheap: The fuel price alone, including the motor cases, will exceed $13,000. The ammonium perchlorate in those cases will burn up in less than ten seconds.

tony ennis
04-29-2009, 08:21 AM
"If all goes well, the single stage flight will top out at 3-4,000 feet and return to Earth via parachute."

From Tuckerfan's link. It also had a "P" class engine. I have never heard of any of those sizes.

You who think this was a shocking display of a near-weaponizable military rocket (North Korea! ZOMG!) are being ridiculous. It was just a big toy.

Carld
04-29-2009, 08:41 AM
The man in the video said it went about 4,000 feet high. I don't know where anyone gets the 40,000 ft from. At 40,000 ft it would have disapeared and not come down in the same spot it was launched from.

That was a neat project and I hope he had clearance from the airtraffic controllers. The FAA is starting to get real concerned about model airplanes and I would think they would be as concerned about rockets as well. We model airplane fliers are just hoping the FAA will continue to allow us to fly.

J Tiers
04-29-2009, 09:04 AM
Model, amateur, whatever....... completely meaningless.

If it went to 4k feet, it had the capability to travel over a mile horizontally, and was probably easily within range of the visible highway.

Guidance failures are hardly unknown.

Most of the weight may have been in fuel. But a weight of 150 lb, either free falling from 4k feet, or particularly impacting while still driven by its engines, is not what you want in an area such as a highway or residential spaces.

Now, as for the weapon capacity, of course that exists. It has to. I certainly haven't made a point of it, but I won't deny it.

And, I can pretty much guarantee that if that hits your house or vehicle, while still under power, you are not going to give a rip whether it is a defective katyusha or a rogue model rocket. it's still gonna potentially start a big fire. It's full of solid accelerant.

radkins
04-29-2009, 11:03 AM
I doubt he went to a lot of trouble checking for liability issues otherwise he would never have placed that "Enter at your own risk" sign at the entrance to the site. Any lawyer with half a brain knows that a sign such as "enter at your own risk" or "beware of biting dog" makes you MORE liable instead of freeing you from responsibility. The courts do not look at a sign such as that as a fair warning but instead they look at it as proof that you are aware of a dangerous situation and are doing nothing to prevent harm to others, a warning is NOT good enough! Without a warning sign such as that, or beware of dog, etc, a person can at least argue they were not aware of a danger but a warning sign will be viewed in court simply as admission that the person knew of the danger ahead of time, it does NOT relive the person of his/her liability!

Circlip
04-29-2009, 11:18 AM
So a ring fence of more than two miles diameter??

A lot of years ago, we had a "Kid" who decided to do the model rocket thing and was going to launch it but the authorities got to know and stopped him. So as not to dampen his enthusiasm, the military allowed him to use one of their test launchers on a missile site.

The thing blew up on launch and completely buggered the launch platform, just another little schoolboy jape, good ole British taxpayers.

Regards Ian.

tony ennis
04-29-2009, 11:44 AM
Now, as for the weapon capacity, of course that exists. It has to. I certainly haven't made a point of it, but I won't deny it.


Stop. Please. This thing can't be a meaningful weapon any more than a plastic fork could be a meaningful weapon. It's big so suitable precautions should be taken in case of a bogus launch. But does anyone really think this thing could carry a meaningful amount of explosives? Perhaps there are far easier ways to make a more potent weapon?

Geez, this board amazes me at times.

mwechtal
04-29-2009, 12:15 PM
It's called High Power Rocketry. Most of the motors they use are reloadable. You buy a metal case, and the propellant loads seperately. There are 3 levels of certification, and they do usually require waivers from the FAA.

From the National Association of Rocketry:

Certification for high power rocketry consists of three progressive levels:

Level 1 allows the purchase and use of H and I impulse class motors. Certain F and G motors may also require Level 1 certification for purchase and use.

Level 2 allows the purchase and use of J, K, and L impulse class motors and hybrid rocket motors.

Level 3 certification allows the purchase and use of M, N, and O impulse class rocket motors.



Where Is The Line Between Model and High Power Rocketry?

A rocket exceeds the definition of a model rocket under NFPA 1122 and becomes a High Power rocket under NFPA 1127 if it:

Uses a motor with more than 160 Newton-seconds of total impulse (an"H" motor or larger) or multiple motors that all together exceed 320 Newton-seconds;

Uses a motor with more than 80 Newtons average thrust (see rocket motor coding);
Exceeds 62.5 grams of propellant
Weighs more than 1,500 grams including motor(s); or
Includes any airframe parts of ductile metal.

vincemulhollon
04-29-2009, 12:46 PM
I believe they did have clearance

I checked the notam site at https://www.notams.jcs.mil/dinsQueryWeb/ and searched for everything within maybe 50 miles of KBWI and didn't find anything open... I don't know of a historical NOTAM service. Of course they probably closed their clearance after the thing landed.

OldRedFord
04-29-2009, 01:30 PM
I fail to see whats so bad about what this guy did. Also the argument about this being used as a weapon is just dumb.

Deja Vu
04-29-2009, 01:44 PM
one-tenth scale Saturn V rocket
Where Is The Line Between Model and High Power Rocketry?


As the OP stated and the links indicate...it is a:

one-tenth scale Saturn V rocket.

It can be likened to scale model IC or steam engines.

Circlip
04-29-2009, 02:04 PM
Don't need a payload to be a weapon, should we substitute the term "Unguided Missile" ??? Once it's lit, where does it go??? WHEREVER it Bl**dy likes. Get a life. (And protect somebody elses)

Regards Ian.

BillH
04-29-2009, 02:43 PM
What the friggen flying F*** do ANY of you care about the legalities, the rules, comparisons to weapons, or any other BULL-**** worries sheople have?

It is cool, well within his right, and if you don't like it, go sit on a log and rotate. All of you nanny state worshipers need a good ass whooping to be brought back into line. At some point in your life your male hormones were replaced with too many female hormones.

People who have nothing better to do than to think of ways to restrict what others should be able to do need to be pushed out the back of a C130 into the ocean from 10,000ft up. Sorry, it is the truth. Mind your own damn business. Like the stupid fools who buy a house and move next to an airport that's been there since ww2. They then complain about the noise... Ahhhhh people suck!

Bmyers
04-29-2009, 02:59 PM
People who have nothing better to do than to think of ways to restrict what others should be able to do need to be pushed out the back of a C130 into the ocean from 10,000ft up. Sorry, it is the truth. Mind your own damn business. Like the stupid fools who buy a house and move next to an airport that's been there since ww2. They then complain about the noise... Ahhhhh people suck!

AMEN to that !

derekm
04-29-2009, 03:09 PM
What the friggen flying F*** do ANY of you care about the legalities, the rules, comparisons to weapons, or any other BULL-**** worries sheople have?

It is cool, well within his right, and if you don't like it, go sit on a log and rotate. All of you nanny state worshipers need a good ass whooping to be brought back into line. At some point in your life your male hormones were replaced with too many female hormones.

People who have nothing better to do than to think of ways to restrict what others should be able to do need to be pushed out the back of a C130 into the ocean from 10,000ft up. Sorry, it is the truth. Mind your own damn business. Like the stupid fools who buy a house and move next to an airport that's been there since ww2. They then complain about the noise... Ahhhhh people suck!


Well we have stop people enjoying themselves dont we, lets forget that its very, very, hard to get a ground launched guided rocket to hit an aeroplane even you try... Ask some real rocket scientists, about that non trivial problem.
lets forget about that magnitude of risk is infinitesmial, lets get some votes by stopping somebodies fun, by appealing to the sort of people who buy houses next to Race car circuits and then complain about the noise.

In short I agree with BillH

mlucek
04-29-2009, 03:27 PM
People who have nothing better to do than to think of ways to restrict what others should be able to do need to be pushed out the back of a C130 into the ocean from 10,000ft up. Sorry, it is the truth. Mind your own damn business. Like the stupid fools who buy a house and move next to an airport that's been there since ww2. They then complain about the noise... Ahhhhh people suck!

HEAR HEAR !! Idiots like the folks buying fancy-schmancy places in Durango, Colorado, then complaining about smoke, cinders, noise from the excellent Durango & Silverton train that's been there for over 125 years. :eek: What do you think help create and expand that town ? DUH, the gold mines, the train and all the related infrastructure. What do you think brings in a LOT of tourism - the train and scenery - which you can especially see from the train ! DOUBLE DUH !!

Well, at least the D&SNGRT is working with those idjits to keep the smoke down at nites (engines are kept hot for many days/weeks) by using a pelletized fuel instead of coal to bank the fire.

http://www.durangotrain.com/

Mike

Deja Vu
04-29-2009, 03:37 PM
heh! I remember my first rocketry experiences...using Estes "C" or "B" engines...now this is before I graduated to placing the engines in lightweight wheeled toys and letting them go up the street.:eek: (that was a "smack!" as it veered and hit a tree)

...but the first rocket, which had a fuselage made from a rolled up Sears catalog cover, and a wood nose cone(not balsa) hand carved using a drill motor, went nice and straight up and failed to deploy the chute due to nosecone alignment problems(in other words-it stuck). lost sight of it and everyone scrambled...then..."thunk!" as the entire rocket landed not far nice and vertically and remained that way...upside down.

needless to say, we improved our technique greatly and kept a board handy for shelter after wondering what could have been, had that hit someone on the noggin...

..Actually, I hadmore fun with rocket gliders...they launched vertically, ejected the engine at high point which activated a mechanism to adjust flaps/wings, and then circled down in a nice glide pattern and landed ready for another launch.

Langanobob
04-29-2009, 04:33 PM
My first amateur rocketry experiments consisted mainly of drilling out the plugs on the ends of CO2 cartridges we used in our pellet guns so that we could pack them full of trimmed off wooden matchstick heads. Great fun and there was only one kid in our neighborhood who ended up with missing fingers.

I don't remember Estes or commercial amateur rockets being available at the time but there may have been. As I recall there were reloadable solid fuel rocket cartridges called Jetex that were used for horizontal rocket cars.

topct
04-29-2009, 04:39 PM
Ahhhhh people suck!

Typical right wing thinking. Pretty much their bottom line.

I thank them all for speaking what they truly believe in their hearts.

plastikosmd
04-29-2009, 05:11 PM
amen BillH

tmarks11
04-29-2009, 05:19 PM
Most of the weight may have been in fuel. But a weight of 150 lb, either free falling from 4k feet, or particularly impacting while still driven by its engines, is not what you want in an area such as a highway or residential spaces.
Actually the weight was something like 1600 lbs. It is impressive to pick up the equivilent of a vw bug and push it 4000' in the air.

Wish I had heard about this before the launch... I would definitely have travelled to see this.

bob308
04-29-2009, 06:06 PM
what a bunch of ninnies some of you are. how do some of you drag your self into your shop with all the worry of how what you do or could do harm someone?

i think nassa should be looking this guy up and talking to him maybe they could find out some of their problems. he mite beable to help them out.

Deja Vu
04-29-2009, 06:19 PM
My first amateur rocketry experiments consisted mainly of drilling out the plugs on the ends of CO2 cartridges we used in our pellet guns so that we could pack them full of trimmed off wooden matchstick heads. Great fun and there was only one kid in our neighborhood who ended up with missing fingers.

I don't remember Estes or commercial amateur rockets being available at the time but there may have been. As I recall there were reloadable solid fuel rocket cartridges called Jetex that were used for horizontal rocket cars.

If I remember, Estes at that time only had little ads located in the back pages of select comic books. The Astron Scout was one of their first models...about a 6" tall kit that went like a bat out hell, and just floated/tumbled back down...the engine just blew itself back an inch or so to change the center of gravity.

As far as matchheads, we were far much more stupid. I would pulverize matchbook fuel heads, pour it into my dad's spent 30.06 shells, put a full matchhead into the hole of the removed primer, stuff a crayola into the bullet end, hold in pliers and light. they all worked without a hitch until.... I accidently pushed the crayola stub all the way in the shell so I put another stub in the end. ..went through the routine with my buddy and "POW!!!!".
He was immediately holding his ear that started bleeding at the lobe(fortunately just a small slit), and I had an aching 3/4" mash on my leg that wasn't visually apparent until checking under my pants. The shell had opened up like a flower giving up some of its brass. That was the last time we/I did that. We were SOoo! lucky.
What idiots we were to mess with that stuff in that way!
Incidently, the next day JFK was shot.

BillH
04-29-2009, 06:25 PM
Typical right wing thinking. Pretty much their bottom line.

I thank them all for speaking what they truly believe in their hearts.

You know Gene, many will say that stereotyping people is wrong. Well why is it that every time I encounter some one from the Pacific North West, they are a flaming left wing liberal?
You never addressed the question posed by my scholarly well thought out thesis on people who want to restrict others from doing anything fun. Do you not agree with me that people who have no business telling you what you can and can't do should be pushed out the back of a C130 from 10,000ft up?

Do you not have a problem with a fool who buys a house next to an airport or a historical steam railroad that has been well established long before the fool was ever born, only to complain about the existence of the said railroad or airport, and campaigns for the closure of said establishments?
This is why (liberal left wing)people suck.

John Stevenson
04-29-2009, 06:42 PM
As far as matchheads, we were far much more stupid. I would pulverize matchbook fuel heads, pour it into my dad's spent 30.06 shells, put a full matchhead into the hole of the removed primer, stuff a crayola into the bullet end, hold in pliers and light. they all worked without a hitch until.... I accidently pushed the crayola stub all the way in the shell so I put another stub in the end. ..went through the routine with my buddy and "POW!!!!".
He was immediately holding his ear that started bleeding at the lobe(fortunately just a small slit), and I had an aching 3/4" mash on my leg that wasn't visually apparent until checking under my pants. The shell had opened up like a flower giving up some of its brass. That was the last time we/I did that. We were SOoo! lucky.
What idiots we were to mess with that stuff in that way!
Incidently, the next day JFK was shot.

Wot with a Crayola bullet, wow.

.

john hobdeclipe
04-29-2009, 06:45 PM
My first amateur rocketry experiments consisted mainly of drilling out the plugs on the ends of CO2 cartridges we used in our pellet guns so that we could pack them full of trimmed off wooden matchstick heads. Great fun and there was only one kid in our neighborhood who ended up with missing fingers.

Just before discovering Estes rockets, in about 1964 or so, I learned about action / reaction by cramming 7 sparklers into an empty 30 caliber rifle cartridge and lighting the center one, which I had left a bit longer. Lot of fire, quite a bit of thrust, I guess I'm fortunate that it didn't blow up in my face. Somehow I don't think of brass as the ideal material for a rocket combustion chamber.

Evan
04-29-2009, 06:48 PM
should we substitute the term "Unguided Missile" ??? Once it's lit, where does it go??? WHEREVER it Bl**dy likes.

That is not at all obvious. I would strongly suspect that it has a guidance system to insure that it goes straight up. That is easily made using available off the shelf RC aircraft parts such as gyros and servos. I also think the parachutes were controllable as it appears that the one supporting the tail had lines cut just before the landing. It looked like the tail first landing was planned and controlled. I also would not be surprised if the parachutes could have been deployed during the boost phase if something had gone wrong, or perhaps stage separation could have been triggered to prevent a problem such as unstable flight taking the missile in the wrong direction. All of those possibilites would be very straight forward to implement and would likely be required by the FAA for approval to launch where he did.

john hobdeclipe
04-29-2009, 06:52 PM
If I remember, Estes at that time only had little ads located in the back pages of select comic books. The Astron Scout was one of their first models...about a 6" tall kit that went like a bat out hell, and just floated/tumbled back down...the engine just blew itself back an inch or so to change the center of gravity.


They also had ads in the back of Mechanix Illustrated.

I still have my Astron Scout. Somewhere.

topct
04-29-2009, 06:53 PM
This is why (liberal left wing)people suck.

You have used the "suck" word. A simpletons based argument.

I will not go any further with this.

It is interesting that a right winger displays emotion however. Your supposed to leave that out aren't you?

John Stevenson
04-29-2009, 07:07 PM
Jettex used to sell an *engine* here for use on a plane, usually control line.
It was held onto the plane by two of those spring clips you have on tool boards, the cap was held on by a spring clip so that if any crud got stuck in the nozzle it would release pressure and not blow up, the engines were cheap but the pellets were quite expensive for someone on two shillings a week pocket money.

More history on Jetex motors. In England in 1947, Charles Wilmot and Joe Mansour were developing a micro rocket motor for model aeroplanes. The name "Jetex" seems to have been coined towards the end of that year. Certainly, their first advertisement appeared in Aeromodeller magazine, in June 1948, with a cover story and two plans, for a scale Gloster Meteor (below) and a Zephyr duration model.

The cover painting was by renowned aeronautical artist C. Rupert Moore and depicted a Gloster Meteor model in flight ( see our Pioneers of aeromodelling progress appraisal elsewhere ) It was a balsa block design, powered by twin Jetex 100 engines.

Wilmot Mansour claimed in that first Jetex advertisement that "Jetex 'Space Age' miniature jet reaction engines provide the latest scientific form of power. Jetex engines have an unlimited variety of scientific as well as recreational uses; they may be installed easily and safely in most any form of model aircraft, boat, or car." Round the pole cars were becoming the vogue also at that time.

The first Jetex advertisement, from that same issue. The two engines on offer were the 100 and the 200. Aeromodeller's reviewer considered the new engines expensive, priced as they were at 27/6d and 37/6d.

The first motor produced, the 100, developed approximately 1 ounce (28 g) static thrust and weighed 7/8 ounce (25 g) loaded. It was priced at 27/6d and its larger sibling, the 200, at 37/6d – about half the price of a small diesel model aeroplane engine at that time. As diesel fuel was so much cheaper per flight, Aeromodeller magazine was rather dismissive of Jetex as "expensive to fly".

In late 1948, the larger 350 motor arrived ( shortly lived due to poor sales), followed by the overwhelmingly popular 50 size in May 1949. The 50 outfit cost just 10/6d, equivalent to about eight copies of Aeromodeller magazine. It came attractively packaged in a yellow box with everything required to operate, which would come to be regarded as classically Jetex.

It is interesting to record also that during the height of the IRA problems in the UK all Jetex fuse was withdrawn from sale in the shops, however solid fuel capsules continued to be available,it is not known for sure when the fuse became available once again but its withdrawel could have been a big factor in the decline of Jetex sales until the resurgence of interest in more recent years.

Deja Vu
04-29-2009, 07:35 PM
I once had a "Jettex" engine...about the size of a co2 cartridge. The pellets were around 5/8" diameter and 1/2" thick...maybe smaller as my hands were a lot smaller then.

Never had much luck or fun with it...It just didn't seem, if I recall, to perform well. something about the fuse/wire protruding out the nozzle, impeding the jet flow. It's a fuzzy memory...

Spin Doctor
04-29-2009, 07:39 PM
Don't need a payload to be a weapon, should we substitute the term "Unguided Missile" ??? Once it's lit, where does it go??? WHEREVER it Bl**dy likes. Get a life. (And protect somebody elses)

Regards Ian.

As Tom Leher said "Vonce zer rockets go up, who cares vhere die come down. Zhat's not my department zays Werner Von Bruan"

outback
04-29-2009, 07:46 PM
Those videos were great. I want to see more.
Outback

J Tiers
04-29-2009, 10:12 PM
Stop. Please. This thing can't be a meaningful weapon any more than a plastic fork could be a meaningful weapon. It's big so suitable precautions should be taken in case of a bogus launch. But does anyone really think this thing could carry a meaningful amount of explosives? Perhaps there are far easier ways to make a more potent weapon?

Geez, this board amazes me at times.

This is , well, STUPID. I rarely say that. I am saying it now, because I mean it. Complain to the moderator if you want, I don't give a rip. If he has any sense he'll agree with me.

First, let's be VERY CLEAR that "Tony Ennis" is making a big deal out of this.... "Tony Ennis" is bringing it up again. Not me.

Explosives? What the ^%$#@ do you think solid fuel is? Candy cane?

But explosives isn't the point.

If it weighed 1600 lb, I assume a goodly percentage of that, like maybe 60%, is fuel. I am reducing the percentage due to the use of pre-packaged engines, and what I'll call "model factors".

Now, once you light those motors, they have a couple of characteristics. They burn until they go out, virtually regardless of anything you do to put them out. And they burn hot, spewing a hot flame for some distance.

So here we have a fairly massive device (most of a ton, remember), which attains a reasonably high speed, and carries a few hundred pounds (at least) of hot burning solid propellant.

It therefore has a considerable destructive potential. First, from pure impact. Second, it is an incendiary device.

It therefore has an associated weapons potential, and, to be brutally frank, only a fool, knave or, remarkable optimist would deny there is that potential. Apparently we have some such folks here. I won't attempt to classify them further, let's charitably put them as "optimists", and let it be.

I focused only on it's potential for inadvertent destruction, which is very much larger than the risks posed by small model rockets, if for no other reasons than it's sheer mass, and the related amount of fuel.

The closeness of spectators, as well as a highway, and the silly sign, suggested some lack of precautions on the part of those putting on the spectacle (which "spectacle" I happen to think is cool).

I certainly would expect to have some sort of range safety precautions, with something to stop a runaway. But with a packaged solid fuel rocket, and the explosives rules these days, I am not entirely sure what would have been possible. you couldn't expect to just split the fuel tanks, nor split the motor. Presumably some control surface action, possibly other things.

Something would have been necessary to stop it from simply laying over and heading for the highway, etc.

Scoff, sneer, call names, whatever you like. I don't care. A nearly one ton all-up weight means a serious machine, not a "model" in the typical sense.

I have NO interest in stopping people from doing stuff like that. I think if they can, and want to, they should.

It does tick me when it appears that they have been cavalier about it, and thus risked a serious problem. Problems tend to result in "there oughtta be a law" comments, and a clamp-down of regulations, with much wagging of fingers by the "you can't have fun, it's illegal" crowd.

BillH
04-29-2009, 10:31 PM
The parachutes on higher end rockets are usually deployed by their own black powder charge controlled by an altimeter inside of the rocket. Although guidance could be constructed with off the shelf parts and would be very cool, I have not seen anyone do that. Radio telemetry however is used extensively, use your imagination what data you want to send back to the ground station, that has been done routinely. It is very easy to call up the local controlling agency of the airspace over head to ask for a waiver or a window to do a launch.
I have seen a M sized motor up close, I believe they run about 400$ a launch just for one. As much as his rocket costs to build, a big chunk of that went up in flames shall you say.

tony ennis
04-29-2009, 11:30 PM
J Tiers, methinks you protest too much.

If you bother to read what I wrote, I scoffed at the idea that this could be considered a weapon. Someone mentioned North Korea. You implied it could be weaponized.

If I understand this rocket, it uses solid propellant. Solid propellant isn't an explosive - it does not explode. It burns - uncontrollably - at an engineered rate. That's why it is safe for kids to play with garden-variety Estes rockets. Liquid propellant rockets explode spectacularly and are bad juju for amateurs.


Complain to the moderator if you want

Why? I don't even know why you're pissed off. Seriously. /shrug


I would strongly suspect that it has a guidance system to insure that it goes straight up.

Well, he spent $25,000 on *something* Surely it wasn't just a really big cardboard tube. But you never know, hehehe. I'd have thought he'd have included a camera it.

radkins
04-29-2009, 11:43 PM
Fellows J has a REALLY valid point and I don't see how anyone could sensibly argue otherwise. Think about it, once that thing is lit he is going to have a 1600 pound missile traveling at high speed and carrying hundreds of pounds of highly (violently!) combustible fuel and it will do so in a completely uncontrollable manner! It is one thing to complain about someone just having fun with model rocketry but something like that could be very dangerous and apparently a lot of people who would be in harms range if something went out of control, complaining about that is not trampling someones rights. Now if he wants to build another one of those things or maybe even a bigger one then fine but take the dang thing out in the desert somewhere where nobody would be in range if it decides to head off in any and all directions.

mwechtal
04-29-2009, 11:50 PM
I'm trying to find more information on the specific model, but it seems scarce at this point. I wanted to point out that this was the last launch at a rocket meet called Red Glare VI. So, they had to have all kinds of clearance, permission, and approval to launch dozens if not hundreds of "large" models. Also, the propellant was "only" about 200lbs.

This is the most info I have found so far:
Link to more info. (http://www.rocketryplanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2829&Itemid=38)

BillH
04-30-2009, 12:20 AM
Fellows J has a REALLY valid point and I don't see how anyone could sensibly argue otherwise. Think about it, once that thing is lit he is going to have a 1600 pound missile traveling at high speed and carrying hundreds of pounds of highly (violently!) combustible fuel and it will do so in a completely uncontrollable manner! It is one thing to complain about someone just having fun with model rocketry but something like that could be very dangerous and apparently a lot of people who would be in harms range if something went out of control, complaining about that is not trampling someones rights. Now if he wants to build another one of those things or maybe even a bigger one then fine but take the dang thing out in the desert somewhere where nobody would be in range if it decides to head off in any and all directions.

You are supporting the nanny state.
Aren't we jumping to conclusions here? First of all, for him to even be able to buy those rocket motors, he needs to have a sign off from some one designated in the hobby to show he is competent to play with such items. No different than if I wanted to rent a high performance airplane to fly, I'd have to do a check out flight and show proof of my high performance endorsement. No reputable dealer for reasons of liability would sell him such equipment without the said endorsement. It was this way when I was big into the hobby about 10 years ago, I could not buy a motor larger than a "G" motor. With one reload for that costing nearly 20$ I didn't want to bother going any further. My friend did however and he had to have a successful launch of a complex rocket. My local hobby store at the time was "Count Down Hobbies". He WAS the guy to buy all this stuff from. Altimeters galore, Hybrid rocket motors that burned rubber mixed with laughing gas, black powder charges for parachutes, a whole bunch of cool stuff.
Another thing is that the camera's being used have telephoto lenses. They compress images meaning that things very far away look very close.
I can assure you this guy took all the safety precautions he could and I find such claims that he did not to be uneducated guesses at best.
The key to everything is to be responsible, and you don't need some stupid government official or some stupid regulation to ruin anything remotely fun.

BillH
04-30-2009, 12:31 AM
And one more thing, about converting these rockets to weapons... At best you can put an M-80 inside of an estes rocket, shoot it up, let the parachute charge ignite the m80, see a bright flash, and a few seconds later hear the rumble echo down. Don't ask how I know this.

Besides some fancy home made firework with a cool factor, it's not going to do much. Hell, remember that kid that flew a C172 into the side of a bank shortly after 9/11? He left a nice oil stain...

Radio control model airplanes are far more dangerous, especially when they fall apart in mid air and heavy battery packs fall from the sky from 1000ft up and land 5 ft from people picknicking... Again, don't ask...

tony ennis
04-30-2009, 12:42 AM
Ok, now regarding safety.

1. I reviewed the beginning of the clip. The engines burned for about 12 seconds.
2. How fast was it going? 12 seconds, charitably 4000 ft = 230 mph. Fast but not scary fast. That's the max speed. The minimum speed would be about 170 MPH (assuming 3000 ft.)
3. The rocket is fired straight up. Unless there's a major structural failure, it is probably close to impossible for it to hit the ground before its engines are expended. The person capable of applying that rocket's paint job is probably incapable of building a rocket that accidentally flies in a banana-shaped arc.
3b. If there's a major structural failure, it won't fly far.
4. The fuel doesn't explode in any event.
5. It will suck if it lands on you so wear a hardhat and sunscreen.

In short, on a bad flight, there's little risk of fire from the engines. A full structural failure would pose little risk to anything very far at all. The biggest risks would seem to come from
1. a non-vertical launch
2. a partial structural failure
3. failed chute deployment

#1 is mitigated by making ignition impossible if he rocket is out of plumb.

#2 can be mitigated by a manual override that blows the parachute. This allows an operator to pull the plug. Once the rocket is apart and the chutes are being dragged, it will be unstable and won't go far. This should happen automatically if the rocket gets too far out of plumb anyway. This is normally what you want anyway as it lets the rocket achieve its highest flight.

#3 is mitigated by the manual override, but it would need to use a different/parallel mechanism.

Who knows if he builder took any of this into account. I am betting he considered all of these things and a lot more. That's half the fun.

-=-=-=-

I wonder if that rocket had a gyroscope in it. I find it unlikely it would land on its tail.

Circlip
04-30-2009, 06:22 AM
Yes, this is the attitude the world has come to lurv and trust (I'm sure quite erroniously) about the "American way".

Firstly Evan, perhaps it'sthe pixels on my screen but I can see quite clearly that one of the main chutes "Roman candled",so auto deployment,safety systems etc. don't mean a fig when sh1t happens.

Bill, IF by some small chance some of your loved ones were tooling down the highway we can see and god forbid the thing had gone sideways and hit and killed them, you would shrug your sholders and say "Just an accident"??? B4llsh1t!! You would be the first to drag down the laws of litigation if not stalking the perpitrator with an M16. Accidents and death only happen to OTHER people. Having witnessed a death due to a model A/c, don't even go there.

Yea, NASA should get in touch and employ him, perhaps the two Apollo incidents and the Challenger problem might not have happened?? After all, these guys get payed thousands of dollars a year to get it right? buy Hey Ho, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOps.

Far from trying to stop some one else enjoying their civil liberties and playing to the "Nanny State" as there are so many desert areas out there????? 'Tain't Rocket science Oh, perhaps it is, Perhaps you could form an Ejector seat club Bill???

Another one of W & B's problems John was that one of the main constituents of the original Jetex pellets was Anchovies, well it was before being proccesed and ejected by the sea birds. If you had the wire core sticking out of the motor thus restricting the Horryfise, you hadn't read the instructions properly. After lighting, you waited for the motor to pick up and ensured you cleared the nozzle by pulling the wire out before launching, and yes it DID burn yer fingers so you either wet them BEFORE doing it or used a pair of jewellers pliers. Litigate not.

Regards Ian.

Evan
04-30-2009, 06:37 AM
Firstly Evan, perhaps it'sthe pixels on my screen but I can see quite clearly that one of the main chutes "Roman candled",so auto deployment,safety systems etc. don't mean a fig when sh1t happens.


If you are correct then your statement is self contradictory. We have sh*t happening AND a perfect landing.

Ever seen a chute designed with control lines to the center of the canopy? Cut those lines and it allows the chute to blow out without cutting it away and causing problems.

jkilroy
04-30-2009, 06:50 AM
That thing needed multiple stages like the real deal, then he might have been able to get some real altitude! Oh yeah!

"Fellows J has a REALLY valid point and I don't see how anyone could sensibly argue otherwise. Think about it, once that thing is lit he is going to have a 1600 pound missile traveling at high speed and carrying hundreds of pounds of highly (violently!) combustible fuel..."

Millions of people do this every day when they drive to work.

Evan
04-30-2009, 06:50 AM
It's hard to get a real sense of scale from the video. This is not an Estes rocket scaled up a bit. There is no way that somebody built this without incorporating all the necessary safety systems as well as guidance systems.

http://ixian.ca/pics6/sat5.jpg

Circlip
04-30-2009, 08:05 AM
Sorry, the statement is not self contradictory, three worked and one didn't. "Landed Safely"?? Yes, with enough force to keep it upright or was that the automatic legs that deployed to ensure it landed on the motors and fins.?? Coool.

Real safe, what is the structure we see before it "Lands"?? Suppose the inertial guidance and object avoidence circuitry saw it and made course corrections. Good ole James T, boldly go etc..

Regards Ian.

PS, STILL think a desert is safer. ;)

Evan
04-30-2009, 08:54 AM
I agree the desert is safer, especially when using an unproven design based on science fiction.

I guess nobody told this guy that that the X wing fighter wasn't ever flight tested...

Sure is big though.

http://www.break.com/index/x-wing-model-launch-fails.html

http://ixian.ca/pics6/xwing.jpg

Circlip
04-30-2009, 08:58 AM
Prickcisely, and the chute deployed on that one ?????? :D

Lurved the screams and KERUMP

Regards Ian.

J Tiers
04-30-2009, 09:16 AM
If I understand this rocket, it uses solid propellant. Solid propellant isn't an explosive - it does not explode. It burns - uncontrollably - at an engineered rate. That's why it is safe for kids to play with garden-variety Estes rockets. Liquid propellant rockets explode spectacularly and are bad juju for amateurs.


You show total ignorance of explosives. More below.

lets start by mentioning AGAIN (sigh) that I don't have a problem with this sort of activity. When it is properly organized and suitable precautions are taken, it's fine.

Some of the visible stuff in the video suggested that the "perps" were NOT taking precautions. If that was a wrong impression, OK. A "long lens" is notorious for showing distant backgrounds as much closer than they are, and of course the video is not a complete description. Maybe the event was OK.

If so, fine, but the only evidence I saw made it seem like a "bubba spectacle" more akin to a tractor pull..... "Bubbas" have money too, so expense proves nothing.

Now, about that solid fuel ignorant misinformation.

Solid propellant definitely IS an explosive, although that is NOT the risk involved here. It is not a "detonating" explosive*, for obvious reasons.

If you put a pile of the propellant on the ground and light it, it will burn. Burn brightly and rapidly, of course.

If you put it in a container with a hole, such as a rocket motor casing, it will burn FASTER. The pressure buildup makes it burn faster and hotter.

If you put it in a casing with too small a hole, or no hole, the thing will explode.

if you increase the area exposed to flame front, it will burn much more rapidly.

If you "corn" it, like smokeless "powder", the area exposed is large enough that it will likely explode just like "powder".

When you make a solid fuel motor, you shape the inside cross-section so as to get the correct pressure throughout the burn. If there is a crack or void, that increases surface area and the rate of combustion may increase enough to overpressure the case and cause an explosion.

Virtually ANY fuel material which carries its own oxidizer is capable of exploding just like gunpowder. An explosion is really, in such materials, a very rapid combustion. You may be thinking of 'detonating explosives"*.


Why am I, as you put it "pissed off"? Simple, "Tony". You called me an idiot. I don't like that. Especially when you are wrong in your other facts. But I am not actually "pissed off', since you apparently don't know any better. I can forgive ignorance.

* A detonating explosive is a material so unstable that sufficient shock will initiate the reaction without requiring the flame front to move through the material. Nitroglycerine, for instance. The dynamite version requires a larger shock wave than the liquid, traditionally provided by the small pellet emitted from the initiator.

They will "explode" when just lying open on the ground. Most other types require a confining case, which eventually ruptures.

tmarks11
04-30-2009, 09:18 AM
If it weighed 1600 lb, I assume a goodly percentage of that, like maybe 60%, is fuel.
No. 210 lbs of solid propellant. That is total (80# in one large engine and 16# in 8 small engines, all produced by Loki Research, which is a commercial manufacturer of high-power rocket motors.).

Read this link for the facts:
http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/2829/30/

Some of the rest of the weight is the engines (which had Aluminum casings), and a very solid fiberglass and wood airframe.

Note the discussion of his previous 16' rocket:


The flight of the Iroc—on a central M, four Ks and eight I motors—was a disaster. The rocket took off, said Eves, but there was a significant delay in the ignition of some of the motors. When the motors finally did come up to pressure, the rocket veered sharply and then turned into a huge cruise missile, crashing in the thick forest surrounding the Orangeburg sod farm. The six-foot-long nose cone was never found.

:eek:

J Tiers
04-30-2009, 09:23 AM
No. 210 lbs of solid propellant. That is total (80# in one large engine and 16# in 8 small engines, all produced by Loki Research, which is a commercial manufacturer of high-power rocket motors.).

That would explain the short burn/low altitude.... I was thinking of higher altitude units..... but DHS probably wouldn't like a 30k foot rocket.......

Circlip
04-30-2009, 09:23 AM
Even better, so us Nannies don't have a pot to p*ss in then???

Regards Ian.

madman
04-30-2009, 09:33 AM
I guess the next one will be big enough for him to sit inside for a ride of sorts??

tmarks11
04-30-2009, 09:40 AM
oh, and in answer to the FAA clearance/NOTAM question, here is what Steve Eves said in the followup forum on Rocketry Planet:


The FAA does not clear the area. It is up to us to make sure the area is clear.
They issue a waiver, sometime months in advance, that allows the flyer(s) to launch. The waiver does not give us right-of-way for the airspace. If a plane comes into the airspace, we cease operations until the plane is far enough away and heading away before launching.
I apply for a waiver in February for our launch site. That covers us for the entire year of launches. Then, when we are planning a specific launch day I call the FAA contact (for me that's Salt Lake City Air Traffic Control) listed on my waiver between 24 and 72 hours in advance of the launch and notify them that we have a launch coming up. I also have to call a separate number and request a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).
The day of the launch I call them half an hour before we start launching rockets and let them know we are going to start in half an hour. I give them a phone number where they can call me and have me stop if they need to. Then, when we have shut down the range in the late afternoon, I call them again and tell them I have stopped. If for any reason we stop launching early I call them right away and inform them AND I make a separate call to cancel the NOTAM.

And some other info. Apparently Eves made the record books because it is the largest precise scale-model, not because it was the largest amateur built rocket.


Chuck Sacket's Project 463 was about 42ft tall and over 1/3rd of a ton gross launch mass... StarChaser's 'Nova' was somewhere over 35ft tall, half a ton in weight and powered by 19 AeroTech 'M's. There was a 50ft tall (7.5" dia) rocket launched in the US at a Tripoli launch about five years or so ago... and the 1/4(ish) scale Space Shuttle (with a car as the shuttle) launched in the UK for the Top Gear TV show was almost 40ft tall, 4ft+ diameter and heading for a ton and a half launch weight, powered by six commercially made 'P' hybrids.

Deja Vu
04-30-2009, 09:49 AM
A Farmer has already sent himself up...at great risk I might add.
he actually did it in 2006, but the documentary film was released in 2007.:rolleyes:
...But not without a failure due to improper fuel....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390WaPcxnFI

radkins
04-30-2009, 12:31 PM
You are supporting the nanny state.
Aren't we jumping to conclusions here? First of all, for him to even be able to buy those rocket motors, he needs to have a sign off from some one designated in the hobby to show he is competent to play with such items. No different than if I wanted to rent a high performance airplane to fly, I'd have to do a check out flight and show proof of my high performance endorsement. No reputable dealer for reasons of liability would sell him such equipment without the said endorsement. It was this way when I was big into the hobby about 10 years ago, I could not buy a motor larger than a "G" motor. With one reload for that costing nearly 20$ I didn't want to bother going any further. My friend did however and he had to have a successful launch of a complex rocket. My local hobby store at the time was "Count Down Hobbies". He WAS the guy to buy all this stuff from. Altimeters galore, Hybrid rocket motors that burned rubber mixed with laughing gas, black powder charges for parachutes, a whole bunch of cool stuff.
Another thing is that the camera's being used have telephoto lenses. They compress images meaning that things very far away look very close.
I can assure you this guy took all the safety precautions he could and I find such claims that he did not to be uneducated guesses at best.
The key to everything is to be responsible, and you don't need some stupid government official or some stupid regulation to ruin anything remotely fun.


Not at all and if the highway and any other structure/person is in fact out of range then by all mean let,er fly! It sure don't look that way in the pics however and as far as the comparison to the airplane that is the old "apples and oranges" adage because the plane has a pilot at the controls guiding the darn thing, that so called "model" is completely on it's own and will go where ever it darn well pleases and the guy standing on the ground can't do a darn thing about it! I would assume that if he has all the clearances and approvals then all this must have been taken into consideration but again it looks a bit if'y in the pics.




The key to everything is to be responsible, and you don't need some stupid government official or some stupid regulation to ruin anything remotely fun.

That all sounds well and good too but without regulation we would be living in chaos (even more so than now!) and what somebody may consider fun someone else may consider dangerous leading to a confrontation if it were not for those "officials", remember your rights to swing your fist ends where the other guy's nose begins and that fellows right to have fun with his model ends where the other guy's safety is concerned! As I said earlier I doubt he went into any real detail researching his liabilities as evidenced by that goofy sign that would hang him in court so is he really a careful sort of guy or just reckless? Do we really NOT need some "stupid government official" telling us that, for example, an unlicensed ultra light pilot can not just jump into a King Air and go have some fun because he thinks he knows how to fly and just wants to have some fun? Come on now common sense tells us there has to be some regulation and if not a government official then who? Do you REALLY think you can depend on someone to be "responsible"? How safe would you feel at the airport if the regulation was taken away and that ultra light pilot could just "go have fun" and fly anything he wants to?

mwechtal
04-30-2009, 12:39 PM
Now, about that solid fuel ignorant misinformation.

Solid propellant definitely IS an explosive, although that is NOT the risk involved here. It is not a "detonating" explosive*, for obvious reasons.

If you put a pile of the propellant on the ground and light it, it will burn. Burn brightly and rapidly, of course.

If you put it in a container with a hole, such as a rocket motor casing, it will burn FASTER. The pressure buildup makes it burn faster and hotter.

If you put it in a casing with too small a hole, or no hole, the thing will explode.

if you increase the area exposed to flame front, it will burn much more rapidly.

If you "corn" it, like smokeless "powder", the area exposed is large enough that it will likely explode just like "powder".

Wrong! Smokeless powder is not an explosive, it's a propellant. Pour it in a dish and light it, and you get a big whoosh. Confine it enough that it can't expand, and the CONTAINER explodes from the pressure. It's very difficult, but possible with, ironically, very small powder loads in a large cartridge to get it to detonate. When that happens, barrels explode.

digger_doug
04-30-2009, 12:44 PM
"How safe would you feel at the airport if the regulation was taken away and that ultra light pilot could just "go have fun" and fly anything he wants to?"

That's kinda what I've been saying about the powered parachute craze.
We've got complete uneducated people trying to fly into or next to
our local airport,(and other controlled airspace) the tower has no way to radio them. The "pilot" has no clue. Had them buzzing farm's, had to explain to them the 1000' rule, they argued with me that they aren't regulated,
as no license is required. One got in my face and declared he was a city
police officer, and no one will tell him what to do....


While I cannot view the video of the rocket, if these hobbyist are having
to notify the F.A.A. and are taking precautions as was posted,
I've got no problem with that. Sound's like the are dottting the "i's"
and crossing the "t's". These people don't sound like careless
people that are a problem.

Evan
04-30-2009, 01:02 PM
One got in my face and declared he was a city
police officer, and no one will tell him what to do....


That attitude is easy to deal with. You just say "Your watch commander will, badge number please." which he is obligated to give since he has represented himself as a police officer. If he doesn't give you his badge number remind him that both you and his watch commander know what he looks like and shortly so will the FAA and Homeland Security. You can also remind him that using his status as a police officer to gain privilege or to excuse infractions of the law is an abuse of power for which he may be suspended or even dismissed.

derekm
04-30-2009, 01:06 PM
Regulation and how people actually react to it is quite interesting...
for reason or other the RYA has managed to keep the nannies out of sailing in the UK.

You can sail upto 70ft or there abouts in the Uk ,no licence, no checks no PFDs required, no nuthin! Yet we have statistically the best trained Amateur yachtsmen in the world and considering the numbers who venture out low incident statistics.

Perhaps because the waters are cold enough to kill inside a couple of hours even in summer, the tides & rips strong enough to frighten most even off the south coast , the weather fickle and often deadly at sea, The navigation varied and often perilous (east coast sandbanks, west coast rocks south coast traffic...) so only the dedicated go farther than the end of the Marina.
Thats all suppostion...

Thank goodness teenager can still jump into a sailing dinghy and take it across the channel or even the Atlantic and there is no offence committed (Parental neglect omitted :) )

or Have we taken this to heart

"BETTER DROWNED THAN DUFFERS IF NOT DUFFERS WON'T DROWN"

Derek

digger_doug
04-30-2009, 01:24 PM
"That attitude is easy to deal with. You just say "Your watch commander will, badge number please.""

Yes, I took no notice to the threat, I was tired of trying to keep
these guy's legal, and keep general aviation from getting a black
eye in the public's view.

Google Erie, Pa police officer for some more of our wonderfull
city police strong arm tatic's. Happened last week.

Officer was bragging in a bar (loudly) about a murder case,
when he shouldn't have. His boss tried to strongarm the
person who caught it on his phone camera, as well as
internal investigators.

It is on U-tube.

Evan
04-30-2009, 01:25 PM
Regulation is appropriate when doing something stupid has the potential to hurt other people or damage their property. If the only expected consequence of gross stupidity is to remove yourself as a problem then the activity should be encouraged, not regulated.

Take for example base jumping. There isn't much of a threat to the rest of us from sombody that wants to try jumping off a bridge. If that activity is bothersome to the officials they should provide platforms on a local bridge, each at a lower level than the previous. This will encourage the really dumb jumpers to engage in a competition to see who can jump from the lowest altitude. The landing area should be cleared of dangerous objects and paved with a slight slope toward a drain. This will simplify cleanup.

digger_doug
04-30-2009, 01:29 PM
"This will encourage the really dumb jumpers to engage in a competition to see who can jump from the lowest altitude. The landing area should be cleared of dangerous objects and paved with a slight slope toward a drain. This will simplify cleanup."

Add a 24 hour webcam for documentation.

We think alike.

Circlip
04-30-2009, 02:28 PM
Sadly, you can't leave them rotting in the streets Digger, SOMEONE has to clean up. We had a similar scenario to your airport saga when a hillside site that had been used for many years by R/C glider guiders was suddenly invaded by a self righteous group of hang glider guiders. Death by missadventure was the outcome. No consellation to the poor bugger with the transmitter in his hands, and certainly not for the dipstick in the hang glider playing at space invaders.

Regards Ian.

BillH
04-30-2009, 02:34 PM
Regulation is also why everything is now made in China, be careful what you wish for.

As far as Ultralight pilots, I was on an IFR flight plan, doing a VOR approach, approach told me he had a primary return on his radar off my 2 o clock position, no altitude information.. I am in and out of clouds looking, see nothing. Then the approach says the blip is no longer visible. I look down and I see an ultra light parked behind some guys house in the middle of no where with his own dirt strip. He never posed any threat to me, he was also outside of the class D airspace, and most likely below 1200ft agl where class Echo starts.
The nice thing about aviation is that Darwin usually wins out. If he wanted to fly his ultra light into IFR conditions, he would be dead within 15 minutes max.

All of this reminds me of the r/c airplane hobby. The very unique hobby where an ordinary man becomes a law enforcement officer and acts like he has authority over others to tell them what they can and can't do. Stop! You cannot fly that airplane in this park! You are not a member of our club! You do not have our special hat, our special handshake, nor our special hat pin! You must leave immediately! Just so much wrong on all accounts with that bull crap...

digger_doug
04-30-2009, 02:46 PM
Yup,
2nd day into the complete stoppage of all flights after 911...
A guy sneeks his ultralight up, for a quick flight....

Used to be (up until last year) the Erie airport's radar would
not see below 2000 agl south of i-90 because of the ridge
i-90 is on, would shadow. South to Meadville, you would be
at 4,000 agl before being seen.

The radar tower is now on that ridge, and see's all the
way to the ground, they tell me.

"I look down and I see an ultra light parked behind some guys house in the middle of no where with his own dirt strip."

We have a field just like this on the end of 24, within a mile of
the Omni.

------------------------- BUT-----------------------------

The tower know's it's there, they know the owner, the pilots
based there (ultralights) are instructed as to proper operation,
and no problems that I hear of.

radkins
04-30-2009, 03:35 PM
Regulation is also why everything is now made in China, be careful what you wish for.

As far as Ultralight pilots, I was on an IFR flight plan, doing a VOR approach, approach told me he had a primary return on his radar off my 2 o clock position, no altitude information.. I am in and out of clouds looking, see nothing. Then the approach says the blip is no longer visible. I look down and I see an ultra light parked behind some guys house in the middle of no where with his own dirt strip. He never posed any threat to me, he was also outside of the class D airspace, and most likely below 1200ft agl where class Echo starts.
The nice thing about aviation is that Darwin usually wins out. If he wanted to fly his ultra light into IFR conditions, he would be dead within 15 minutes max.

All of this reminds me of the r/c airplane hobby. The very unique hobby where an ordinary man becomes a law enforcement officer and acts like he has authority over others to tell them what they can and can't do. Stop! You cannot fly that airplane in this park! You are not a member of our club! You do not have our special hat, our special handshake, nor our special hat pin! You must leave immediately! Just so much wrong on all accounts with that bull crap...


Bill you are going to extremes, that ultra light example was used because I nearly clobbered one of those idiots while on final in a 152, he came out of nowhere and was trying to land across the runway! Also that example of the ultra light pilot and the King Air, while a bit exaggerated because it was actually a Cessna 310, happened too. I guess what I am trying to say is that regulation is absolutely necessary but needs to be regulated.:rolleyes: So it is a matter of common sense, if it puts no one in danger then OK go for it but if a highway or neighborhood is in range and some innocent party could be harmed then relying on the person's sense of responsibility will simply not work in most cases.

Circlip
04-30-2009, 03:46 PM
If he wanted to fly his ultra light into IFR conditions, he would be dead within 15 minutes max.


AW shucks Bill. HE has freedom of expression too, so your personal rights exceed his??? Seems to be getting a bit selective.??? Hmmmmmm.

tony ennis
04-30-2009, 05:50 PM
JTiers, I never called you an idiot. You've indeed put a lot of words into my mouth. I simply scoffed at the idea that this rocket is a weapon or weaponizable in any real sense and you went nuts. I am surprised how unbalanced this simple assertion has made you.

Solid propellant is simply that - propellant. You can put a smoke bomb in a bottle and get an explosion. However, smoke bombs are not explosives. You can put dry ice into a bottle of water and get an explosion. Neither dry ice or water are explosives. If someone contained this rocket's propellant in a closed vessel, then why should anyone be surprised that something bad would happen.

I have never heard of an Estes rocket motor exploding. Since one end is open, it would be hard to see how it would be contained enough to explode.

I won't comment on this any aspect of the topic any more. I stick by my opinions. If you wish to continue to continue your tantrum, feel free. You get the last word.

tony ennis
04-30-2009, 05:53 PM
"If he wanted to fly his ultra light into IFR conditions, he would be dead within 15 minutes max."

My pilot friend tells me that IFR flying is just *fatal* to untrained pilots. He said that it was very typical for the pilot to think he needs to pull up and to the right when in fact no correction is needed. This invariably leads to a stall and spin. And this is in a craft with full instrumentation.

I believe JFK Jr went down in such a way.

tony ennis
04-30-2009, 06:01 PM
I like this one better... (http://www.break.com/index/what-really-happened-at-the-x-wing-launch.html) :D

Major structural failure, and the rockets are out by the time it hits the ground, debris doesn't go far. I hope they cleaned all that debris up.

The desert is sounding like a good idea, lol.

radkins
04-30-2009, 06:16 PM
Lots of things not normally considered explosive just might explode under the right circumstances, such as the dry ice in a bottle. Smokeless powder most certainly can explode but let's not get "explode" confused with "detonate". An explosion can occur from a pressure build up or from a material rapidly oxidizing and expanding as a gas such as in burning smokeless powder, detonation occurs when this expansion rate exceeds the speed of sound, which even smokeless powder can do given the right conditions.

chrsbrbnk
04-30-2009, 06:44 PM
someone mentioned if the airframe contained ductile metals .... like what nonductile metals would they thinking of?

Evan
04-30-2009, 07:05 PM
You are allowed to use small quantities of spring steel for ejection mechanisms and retaining clips for the engines and other parts.

Evan
04-30-2009, 07:30 PM
On the subject of explosives, there are two categories of explosives, low explosive and high explosive.

Low explosives are materials such as black powder. They cause an explosion by the rapid generation of gases via chemical burning called a deflagration. Deflagrations proceed faster under pressure as the temperature reaches the ignition point throughout the material more quickly. There are a few low explosives that approach the energy of the low end of the high explosives, notably some mixtures that are used for rocket fuel. In particular a mixture of aluminum dust and potassium perchlorate will burn so fast in free air that it will produce a shock wave without being confined. The slightest amount of confinement ensures that even very small quantities will explode forcefully when ignited. Merely wrapping a small amount in some paper is sufficient.

This mixture is also used as the propellant in solid rocket motors. To slow down the burn rate it is mixed with a buffer and a binder material that allows the fuel to be poured and cast much like a hard rubber.


High explosives release energy because the molecular structure is in a metastable configuration. The atoms are loosely bound together to form molecules that can be easily disrupted by the addition of some energy. Sensitive explosives require very small inputs of energy to initiate a reaction. Some are so sensitive that merely shining sunlight on the explosive is enough to initiate an explosion. One such compound it nitrogen triiodide and another is an explosive used by some terrorists that goes by the acronym TATP. High explosives don't burn but instead the molecules collapse or fall apart to a lower energy state which changes the molecules to a gas that expands forcefully because of the sudden release of kinetic energy.

These are primary explosives and once a molecule is disrupted it produces enough energy to disrupt those nearby. The reaction produces a shock wave that can travel at many times the speed of sound in the material as well as in the air. When a shock wave expands in air faster than the speed of sound it is called a "driven shockwave". This is characteristic of all high explosives and the velocity of this shock wave is a measure of the brisance or shattering ability of the explosive.

DICKEYBIRD
04-30-2009, 09:50 PM
I have never heard of an Estes rocket motor exploding.I've had a D size motor blow up. Well, actually more of a very sudden burn but it sure sounded like an explosion.

It had been accidently dropped onto a hard surface (I found out later) and I assume the propellant was cracked badly. Estes motors are normally "endburners" (instead of coreburners) and burn very consistently. However, if the propellant gets cracked, the flame runs up the cracks and burns fast enough to overpressure the nozzle; especially when the ignitor is held in with a bit too much tissue paper. The thick cardboard outer shell wasn't compromised but the nozzle was blown to smithereens and the R/C rocket-glider it was attached too was damaged quite a bit.

As luck would have it, I had just hand launched it and hit full throttle on the transmitter (onboard microservo-switched battery ignitor) when it went fiss-BOOM! Scared the poop outta me but luckily no bodily damage done. Young, stoopid, lucky.

BillH
04-30-2009, 10:37 PM
If he wanted to fly his ultra light into IFR conditions, he would be dead within 15 minutes max.


AW shucks Bill. HE has freedom of expression too, so your personal rights exceed his??? Seems to be getting a bit selective.??? Hmmmmmm.
Nope, just the statistics of non IFR trained pilots entering IFR conditions. Well I highly doubt his ultra-light even has the instrumentation to give him proper attitude information inside of a cloud. So he would not last that long.

You noticed I made no such comments as "he should not be doing that", or "They need to regulate people like that".

tony ennis
04-30-2009, 10:53 PM
It had been accidently dropped onto a hard surface (I found out later) and I assume the propellant was cracked badly.

Ha, that'll do it. FOOOOOM! A "D" is a serious engine. It is he largest I ever used.

Normally I'd use he ubiquitous C6-7, but we always used those on tiny rockets so the result was pretty extreme. I cut spill hole in the "D" rocket's chute so I wouldn't have to chase it so far.

J Tiers
04-30-2009, 11:19 PM
JTiers, I never called you an idiot. You've indeed put a lot of words into my mouth. I simply scoffed at the idea that this rocket is a weapon or weaponizable in any real sense and you went nuts. I am surprised how unbalanced this simple assertion has made you.


I won't comment on this any aspect of the topic any more. I stick by my opinions. If you wish to continue to continue your tantrum, feel free. You get the last word.

Fine, you do that.

I have been pretty balanced, I said it was stupid, and I stand by that. You have started with the loaded words, and implications.

It has been said that we see in others what is in ourselves....... Do I have to spell out where that goes?

J Tiers
04-30-2009, 11:27 PM
Wrong! Smokeless powder is not an explosive, it's a propellant. Pour it in a dish and light it, and you get a big whoosh. Confine it enough that it can't expand, and the CONTAINER explodes from the pressure. It's very difficult, but possible with, ironically, very small powder loads in a large cartridge to get it to detonate. When that happens, barrels explode.

Which, if you read up, is exactly what I said......... things can burn happily open, and explode when confined. Black powder and mining comes to mind.......

If smokeless powder is not an explosive, well, you are very limiting in your definitions, and I very much doubt if Homeland Security (aka Geheim Sicherheits Dienst) would stand with you in the definition. or very many otehrs, for that matter.

I suggest that you first read Evan's quite correct explanation, and also refer to Dickeybird's exploding estes rocket. I mentioned the basic facts in both those posts earlier. Evan has expanded on them, and Dickeybird has illustrated my point about cracked propellants.

But the explosive capabilities are not the issue in Tony's quarreling.

mwechtal
04-30-2009, 11:37 PM
Doing a little more research, HPR flights have to comply with NFPA 1127 and FARS part 101.

Launch site dimensions have to be a minimum of half the estimated flight height.

Each engine size has a minimum personal distance, and total impulse for a cluster is added. For an O engine(or cluster adding to the same impulse), the minimum personal distance is 2000'.

There are minimum distances from highways, and occupied structures.

Flamable materials have to be cleared for a specified radius depending on engine type and if Ti is added to the propellant to generate sparks.

You can't launch in more than 20mph of wind, more than 20deg. from vertical in more than 50% cloud cover, or in less than 5 miles vislbility.

You have to be 18 for certification, and 21 for an explosive permit.
(You can in many cases buy and use the fuel at a meet without the explosive permit.)

So, they're not out there just winging it. They have regulations out the wazoo to comply with, and the two national organizations have their own additional rules.

mwechtal
04-30-2009, 11:44 PM
Which, if you read up, is exactly what I said......... things can burn happily open, and explode when confined. Black powder and mining comes to mind.......

If smokeless powder is not an explosive, well, you are very limiting in your definitions, and I very much doubt if Homeland Security (aka Geheim Sicherheits Dienst) would stand with you in the definition. or very many otehrs, for that matter.

I suggest that you first read Evan's quite correct explanation, and also refer to Dickeybird's exploding estes rocket. I mentioned the basic facts in both those posts earlier. Evan has expanded on them, and Dickeybird has illustrated my point about cracked propellants.

But the explosive capabilities are not the issue in Tony's quarreling.

OK, I see that the gummint does classify them as low explosives. I could have sworn... oh well.

I think that the engines also have the provision that the nozzle blows out if there is an overpressure situation, keeping an explosion from happening, but I can't verify that yet. Still looking.

BillH
04-30-2009, 11:49 PM
This link was posted by some one else on this forum, you guys ought to read his page so you all can understand the people in this hobby a whole lot better.
http://www.thefintels.com/aer/rocketindex.htm

.RC.
05-01-2009, 08:34 AM
................

DICKEYBIRD
05-01-2009, 01:39 PM
Oh well, this thread is OT anyway.:) I looked around and found this admittedly lousy snapshot from about 1987. I scanned/cropped it and did the best I could in Photoshop.

The r/c rocket delta was originally built for our club's airshows in '84. It was airdropped from a Telemaster 40 with an r/c glider release on top. It would be released from the "mother ship" at about 500 ft. altitude followed by a steep dive back to 30 ft. high or so at "airshow center" then a gentle pullup to about 30 degrees noseup and the rocket fired off. It would belch fire and zap back up to where it started, eject the spent motor and glide around for a couple minutes before landing. Big fun.

It was later brought down from the attic for a water take-off at one of our club's r/c float fly-ins. I added a styrofoam float with a deep step about 2" forward of the CG and 2 little under wing tip floats to keep the motor dry. It worked perfect. Only problem is it took most of the motor's power to get it off the water and only made it about 50 ft. high before running out of boost. Delta's ain't real efficient in the glide mode so I was JUST able to milk it around through a 180 deg. turn and touched down about 20 ft from shore. The crowd thought it was all planned out and had been done many times, nice and smooth. Hah! ;)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g227/DBAviation/Rocket.jpg

dshulbert
05-08-2009, 11:01 AM
:mad: That rocket photo link has a pop-up that is persistant and you can't make it go away. It wants to install something to do with Chinese language on your computer.
Take a guess at what the Chicoms are really installing!

Evan
05-08-2009, 12:38 PM
That popup is from your web browser. It wants to know if you want to be able to display Chinese Simplified Script. If you visit any web site that is using a language that your setup cannot display the same thing will happen. It has nothing to do with the web site other than the fact it uses the Chinese written language.

Go to View>Encoding> and turn off "Auto Select" if it is turned on (has a black dot beside it).

dan s
05-09-2009, 12:31 AM
I got to this thread late, but I can add a little insight, because I was into high power model rocketry when I wan in my mid teens. I never went above e sized motors, so I didn't need to get certified.

The Saturn 5 model launch is unique, because usually high powered model rocketry is about high velocity or high altitude.

Here are some good examples of lhigh powered rocketry(from low power to high power).

A J90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8zfzAWWuLM

A J350
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI47Gwm5Nrw

A M1130
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOQA7W_Iovc

A M2100
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KTAYMAsLV4

A N4000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHdyA2BTbRo&feature=related

two stage M1350W to a K250W (take notice of how far away the cars are)
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=21718716

A P11000 :eek::eek::eek::eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ilmZv5Stg

RancherBill
05-09-2009, 01:21 AM
They pale in comparison to the Top Gear Space Shuttle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4WzWFKQ20). This is amateur rocketry at the highest level.

Michael Edwards
05-09-2009, 10:27 AM
They pale in comparison to the Top Gear Space Shuttle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4WzWFKQ20). This is amateur rocketry at the highest level.


That was the best lawn dart I've ever seen. :D

ME

tmarks11
05-09-2009, 11:17 AM
ok, maybe the "model" sace shuttle doesn't have the range or the hitting power of a Tomahawk missile, but it still was a pretty impressive explosion when it hit.

Add a few sticks of TNT, and we are there....

http://quietboating.com/tmp/model_space_shuttle.JPG

plastikosmd
05-09-2009, 01:58 PM
cool rocket here, but what is better, a video camera is mounted..but falls off around the time the parachute deploys...camera survives the free fall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8JgHb0q7Bw