UncleVanya

This seemed exciting until I started reading it in detail. Then I noticed a few things in the rules that bothered me.

• Rail buttons are required. For altitude I would prefer a tower. A tower would offer all of the benefits of rails and then some. But this is not permitted. I wonder if a pop rail button can be designed and if it would be allowed.
  
  
• Commercial motor retention is required. Friction fitting works. It's light and perfect for high altitude - but the desire to increase safety and disallow friction fitting seems rational. The irrational part is not allowing the use of improvised motor retention. Kaplow clips, medicine bottles, coat hanger wire, etc all make for fantastic lightweight and cheap motor retention. (For those who are unaware, Giant Leap sells a cheap but effective "Motorholder" which costs < 10.00 per rocket. The Giant Leap offering isn't very different from any homemade kaplow clip based unit but does offer the benefit of being "commercial" and having known good strong clips.
  
  
• External Switch for dual deployment is required. The document specifies that Dual deployment devices must be disarmed and only armed on the pad - with an external switch (no twist and tuck!). However it does not say anything about single deployment devices. The current restrictions would not prohibit using GLR's SlimShot or Aerotech's EFC even if combined with another device for main deployment. This is probably just an oversite and I suspect the intent was to limit electronic deployment to devices with external switches - which may mean no SlimShot and no EFC.
  
  
• Recovery aids? What does this mean? Do I want to know?
  
  
• Rocket Damage is poorly defined. Damaged = Disqualified. Damaged is not consistently defined in the doc. Paint scratch shouldn't disqualify but the doc is not explicit. Should be worded more like the NAR/TRA cert requirements. Minor damage that does not prevent reflight = no disqualification.
  
  
• You are required to have a different rocket for each event. Odd because two of the events have the same size (54mm) required. Seems weird that you can't reuse the G bird with the H motor... Maybe the G bird should have been 38mm to prevent this.
  

Just Jerry

Agreed, so are there only one "size and style" of small rail buttons?

Towers eliminated.

There seems to be no motor diameter restriction given the "fat airframe" rule.

"16. Any part of the rocket or motor that free falls will result in a disqualification."

This seems to preclude pop lugs using the mandated rail guides.

What is the physically lightest and smallest OD motor retainer system? Aeropack?

ONLY Perfectflite A15K Rev 2 recording altimeter allowed. Does it dual deploy too? No.

What is the absolute lowest thrust motor in each power category at or near full allowable power?

Just Jerry

denverdoc

yea I'm a little puzzles to as to why different rockets need to be flown. IMHO It should be at the teams discretion to do double duty or not. More interesting perhaps is that the rocket be the same--or an identical replacement--to keep the penalty down if you fail one one of the legs.

Or just have three "open" events without these Nascar intake restricters. Safety? Waiver? Easy to sit here and find fault--I'm glad to see the Battleplan and hope participation is good.

But if stimulating science/engr interests are the primary motives, altitude with all these additional rules to level the playing field and make it completely safe, seem...well like a govt sponsored event.

Just an idle suggestion, but have at least one mission really challengng--may I suggest an "I" powered dual egg loft Boost glider--no R/C. One egg returns with capsule, onn egg has to glide home.

Let the youngins stetch their noodles some.

R2K

Many of these rules seem to really stifle the creative process.

Dont we want people to think outside of the box? I think we can rely on the time tested RSO filter to keep things safe.

denverdoc

Succintly put, thank you. About 80 percent of the innovation around altitude events has been with GSE--towers, pistons, etc. Having a fixed af diameter does invite experimenting with af design--should see some interesting dirigible shaped rockets is my guess. At least off the top of my head thats how I'd approach it. Short and very airfoiled. Even an I is not going to take a 75mm rocket too far into transonic to call for much deviation from this mold.

UncleVanya

That had not occurred to me. I assumed 54mm diameter was implying minimum (not max) diameter for the entire length of the airframe other than the nose. I see your point. No where did they specify that this was min or max diameter. Theoretically a 76mm - 29mm transition could be placed right after the nose and you would be in the bounds for the I motor competition.

I have some I69's...

Hummmm... yummy.


And some H50's....

Hummmmm...

vahpr

Guys,

This is a work in progress but you make what I think are several good points. I've passed the thread on for review by the team, maybe we can make some positive mods to the rules. Me, I hate rules

Thanks,
Jerry O

UncleVanya

Jerry - forgive the tone of some of the concerns then. If this is still semi-fluid and can be updated before the deadline for registration then I think things can be fixed that are glaring. Some of the things we are complaining about may be by design and that's ok too.

Let us know what changes if anything.

ivang44

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback. We originally designed this competition for high schools and a lot of the restrictions carried over. We'll take you concerns into consideration and make the changes. We can drop the launch pad and rail button requirements but will still keep the ban on lugs since we don't want to deal with rod whipping. One of the concerns we need to keep in mind is keeping spectators safe. Maybe not this year, but future events may have significant numbers of spectators.

Rocket diameter was specified to keep the maximum altitude at about 5000 feet. This was done after consulting with Tripoli board members to make the event available to more people who may have access to launch sites with low waivers.

Again, thanks for the feedback. We'll work out the changes within a week.

Ivan

ivang44

Rule 15 says if the rocket is not flyable without any need of repairs or mods then it is a DQ. I expanded the Disqualifications #4 as Rocket is damaged after flight and cannot be reflown without the need for repairs or modifications.

Does that help?

Ivan

UncleVanya

Hummm... I saw the requirement for a flight - but no requirement for documentation of the flight. Does the previous flight need to be on the same power level, same motor, etc.?

My home field is limited to 4K and is more rational with 3K flights and I was thinking that a smaller motor flight would be sufficient to prove stability - is that inadequate?

UncleVanya

Absolutely. It's removing some concerns over minor damage causing dq. Still some wiggle room left however. Would a very small zipper (half inch) matter? Would a lost button? Perhaps allowing for 5 (or 15) mins to repair and show the rocket is ready for reflight would prevent squabbles over this kind of minor damage?

ivang44

You don't need to use the same motor for test flight as for the competition flight. We'll have to think about a way to determine that you had a stable flight. Maybe this first event we don't worry much about it. This again is from the high school/college events for the spring.

At minimum, we may post a form that requires a signature from another member or from the RSO or someone. I know TARC requires two members to sign a form.

Ivan

ivang44

Hello,

I have posted the updated guide for the competition. It addresses the launch systems, motor retention, recovery aids explained, damage a little more expanded (still need to define it better), different rockets requirement eliminated. The high school/college competition had scheduled launch times for the teams. This requirement was to make sure the teams didn't rely on one rocket in case the team had two launches close in time.

The altimeter specified is only a recording altimeter. It is used for TARC. The reason is to use matched calibrated altimeters.

Review the guide and let me know if there are other things that need better explanation or changes.

Ivan

StuBarrett

This discussion only reinforces why I stopped doing competition and went to 'sport' rocketry.

Stu

denverdoc

Ah come on Stu, there are only 7 pages and 22 rules.

One remaining ambiguous point is diameter--as UV read it he thought that this was a min diameter, as I read it, I figured at least part of the AF had to be that big, and whats to keep you from making a really long nosecone, and if thats OK, why not a boattail too? I believe the TRA has grappled with this issue and is is on the web site as to how they handled it under fat rocket competition rules.

UncleVanya

I have no axe to grind. I just thought the rules were a bit short sighted on some points. I'm hopeful that this discussion results in less contention at flight time. Right now in the armchair - talk is cheap and hopefully doesn't hurt anyones feelings - later when the competition is in full swing and there is no time to adjust to rule clarifications it will be hard not to have people get mad if their interpretation is different from someone else's.

ivang44

It is minimum diameter.

Ivan

denverdoc

So nosecones aren't allowed? Not trying to be a smartass, but say I want to make a biconical cone that is 14" long. The airframe itself at 54mm is one quarter inch long, is that ok?

UncleVanya

Ivan - just to be clear - what is the date and version on that new copy? The one I looked at just now still shows June 18th 2008 as the date and still has basically the same content in these areas. I may be the victim of some cache somewhere but I think it's the site.

Is this the latest version or is there another lurking not quite published yet?

ivang44

It is rev 1.9 dated June 27. You may need to refresh or clear out cache. I've had that problem before. I also just refined the diameter requirement to at minimum.

Ivan

UncleVanya

LOL - that comes without any effort John. You don't have to try... neither do I (pot meet kettle...)

denverdoc

OK maybe I'm guilty. but w/o clarification the rule makes no sense and whether sarcastic or not, my heartfelt desire is to see these guys succeed. I would love to see more G-J competition. I like the NAR events but I feel just as they start to get really interesting, you run at of impulse or they are so rarely flown as to be non-existent.

I also am completely behind the mission of furthering interest in science/engr. And if I could fly by proxy in this first event, would do so in a NY minute!

vahpr

Yea Stu, I personally was never interested in competition. But as an engineering challenge for the kids I think it's cool...

Jerry O

UncleVanya

Ok new version is finally showing up. Not sure what happened. In any case I still have some questions:




Did you mean to preclude someone from using a forward eyebolt retention design using a threaded forward closure or was this an oversight? I'm not certain but I think the wording you might be looking for is, "Positive Motor retention is required - friction fitting the motor is not deemed sufficient for this launch. Motor retention must pass RSO approval before flight will be allowed."




I think you might be better off saying "Electronic deployment devices" if your aim is to ensure that all devices with ejection charges (except for GLR SlimShot and Aerotech EFC as noted in the rule) use a means of disarming that allows power to be disconnected until they are at the pad. This would keep some yahoo from putting a SlimShot and a Timer in their rocket and not disarming the timer. They technically wouldn't have a dual deployment device and that's outside the spirit but not the letter of the restrictions.

Speaking of which... what if someone wanted to use a fuse to act as a poor mans timer. Is this allowed. If lit by the motor there really isn't anything to stop them from doing so in the safety code or rules is there?

Speaking of the safety code - do you reference it? I'm not sure if not you might want to add that.




I assume that Loki DAT / CTI DAT / and Aerotech delay drilling is ok since these are all approved by the manufacturer.




If we were to devise a pop rail guide (like a pop lug) that was deemed safe would this be considered a part of the GSE rather than the rocket and not disqualify the rocket?




Uh... which is it?




I assume that this refers to the perfect flite not any deployment device. You might want to clarify this before the spring launch knowing that some may be confused by it as stated.

I think you have an interesting competition brewing. Still need a few tweaks to make the rules a bit less confusing but you're getting there.

UncleVanya

John - I may go. I would be honored to have you as a team member. Which brings up the question:

Do all team members need to be present at the launch? Obviously the adult mentor is required if the team is under 18 but otherwise is anyone else able to be "left behind" due to travel restrictions or other reasons (sick etc.) and still be credited with being on the team?

UncleVanya

Oh - the language about L1 certification is a little strange. Not the part about solo fliers - that makes sense. The part about teams. Is this really permitted? I'm not sure that you can have help building your L1 rocket by TRA rules. May need clarification on this language. Your intent may have been to say that a person who is the primary builder on the team could L1 certify - and that might fit the rules of TRA but I didn't quite think that was what was said.

ivang44

There is nothing in the rules requiring all team members to attend. I run a university cansat competition and most teams only send a small group.

Our corporate sponsor has also volunteered to make any banners for the competition. I will probably get them to make certificates of participation. It would be up to the team members present to distribute the certificates to those who don't attend. It will be up to those who don't attend to hunt down the other team members to get their share of the prize money.

Ivan

ivang44

Thanks for the feedback. I am making changes to what you have pointed out.

Ivan

ivang44

I discussed this with a Tripoli board member. I can ask them to see if I need to clarify.

Ivan

Just Jerry

!


Just Jerry

Just Jerry

Funny. I thought the safety code ITSELF kept you safe from a VARIETY of rockets. Maybe I was in ERROR after 40 years of first hand EXPERIENCE.

Just Jerry

Maybe not.

FTR I was not complaining about the rules so much as identifying some consequences intended or not. I am a devout Pink Book Lawyer. I am embarrassed, but I will get over it in a decade or three. Okay, maybe complaining a little.

UncleVanya

I've been called a rules lawyer in many games... not something I'm proud of - but also not particularly embarrassing. I am inquisitive and irrationally motivated to explore rules and see if they break in thought experiments.

Just Jerry

I tend to test it in the field and force people to think. Real time with real-world consequences.

I can take my licks. I am exactly like G. Harry Stine in that one way. We were both offensive as rules Nazi's.

It forces positive change.

Jerry

StuBarrett

Agreed, and it also helps support those that feel that our rights to fly rockets should be based on 'education', not on a fundamental right of 'pursuit of happiness'.

I attended the recent CanSat launch with about a dozen universities competing. Lots of fun for all involved.

Stu

ivang44

I think I met you out there. I head the cansat competition.

Ivan

StuBarrett

Yes, you did. You guys did a great job; well run show. I had fun showing some of the Yankee's a tarantula nest :-o

Stu

ivang44

Hello all,

We have updated the guide and cleaned up a lot of stuff on the competition guide. I also updated the website with more information such as hotels and motor vendor. We did adjust the application fee thinking it was a bit high. The fee goes into the cash award pot. No 50/50. It's winner takes all. We have been getting sponsors. Praxis Inc has been quite generous and donated a few thousand dollars to help get the event off the ground. This is an engineering company that does aerospace work.

Ivan