Legal Limitations on Guided Rockets??

[Andrew S. Muth]

Hello everyone. I've been looking at launching mid-power model rockets that
have a payload, and was interested in finding out about any legal
limitations involved with launching rockets. The payload would be a small
robot/multiple robots that would have to successfully "reenter" and perform
some task. My goal is to use the robot computers for guidance and flight
correction, but I've heard that this may make my little rocket into an
illegal 'guided missile' :( Any suggestions, web sites, or general help
you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Josh Cowger]

So who do you work for: BATF, FAA or Homeland Security ;)

Josh

"Andrew S. Muth" <them...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9umlbk$3u1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

[Brett Buck]

in article 9umlbk$3u1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net, Andrew S. Muth at
them...@erols.com wrote on 12/5/01 6:29 PM:

As I mentioned the last time - guidance isn't illegal.

Brett

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <9umlbk$3u1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Andrew S. Muth"
<them...@erols.com> wrote:

There is no rule against guided rockets. There are rules against long
burning rockets and non vertically launched rockets within HPR and MR.
Outside of that there are fewer restrictions. You are not inherently
screwed.

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Bring common sense back to rocketry administration.

[GCGassaway]

Andrew S. Muth wrote:

>>>> I've been looking at launching mid-power model rockets that
have a payload, and was interested in finding out about any legal
limitations involved with launching rockets. The payload would be a small
robot/multiple robots that would have to successfully "reenter" and perform
some task. My goal is to use the robot computers for guidance and flight
correction, but I've heard that this may make my little rocket into an illegal
'guided missile' :( <<<<

Guidance comes up every so often, except often it doesn't involve any concerns
about whether it is legal or even a good idea.

What might be technically legal, is not necessarily a good idea. Not because
the person who wants to build/do it may have any evil intent, but the high
potential for abuse if someone with evil intent copied the same thing.

I'm not sure whether to call it a gray area legally, or a fine line. But I see
it like this:

Two types of guidance.

Upwards Guidance - Type that makes the model try to fly upwards safely. Such
as gyros for vertical flight, horizon sensing for vertical flight, and
sun-seeking (using sensors that cannot I.R. emissions from aircraft. The
simplest and easiest to use sunseeking sensors [photoresistors] detect light,
not I.R.).

Targetable guidance - The other type, which makes the model fly towards a
specific direction or target. Whether anything on the ground or something in
the air like an aircraft.

If you're talking about Upward guidance, great. If you're talking about
anything that could be considered targetable guidance, that's not great.

Is targetable guidance illegal? Well, the safety codes do not permit flying
models against targets, so in that sense they are not allowed. But does
developing and/or having a model that can guide itself to a target involve laws
that are under the jurisdiction of the FBI, BATF, or other law enforcement
authority? Well, it would not be outside the realm of possibility. That might
have seemed somewhat more farfetched before, but nowadays we sort of have to be
glad we still get to even fly MODEL rockets, much less HPR, and much less
rockets with any form of guidance.

Bottom line really is that even if the FBI or BATF is not going to come a
knocking on your door for developing a model that could be used by someone
(else) to guide itself to a target, it may not be a good idea to do it.

Note that past threads bout guidance have sometimes involved people who wanted
to do things such as "pointing a laser at the ground" so their laser-seeking
rocket could "coast to the area the laser is pointed at, then eject its chute
close to the ground" (yeah - RIGHT. Nothing to worry about abuse of a homemade
clone of military-style laser guidance). And one who wanted to hit “something”
in the air, I do not recall what, like maybe a tethered balloon, kite, or
model plane. Indeed the thread started off with a seeming innocuous question on
how to make control surface move before he mentioned it was intended to guide
towards and HIT something. And finally, some idiot who wanted to clone a
*working* copy of a Sidewinder missile I.R. seeker system (WHY?) and at least
one current RMR regular who was stupid enough to try to HELP that guy do it.
Yeah, no worries THERE either, right?

So, please do not take this personally. I do not lump your message in with
those three examples above. But I mention them as reason for being aware and
CAREFUL about such things anytime the subject of guidance for models comes up.

If you are trying to develop anything that could be targetable, even if that is
not YOUR intent, please reconsider. Not everything that one could build is
necessarily a good idea to build and fly when it could be easily abused by
someone who managed to make or otherwise get a copy of the same thing.

If, OTOH, you have in mind something that would not be of that variety, then
please elaborate more on what you have in mind. What you would like for it to
do.

I think we have to be careful about this line we walk regarding guidance.
Otherwise, at some point we could find any form of guidance of any kind
whatsoever banned, or much worse than that. Better to try to self-police within
reason than to have some idiot or some terrorist do something which would
inevitably bring about extreme regulatory over-reaction.

- George Gassaway

[Carl-Lisa Van Camp]

Hear, hear, George! Well put.

Best,
Carl Van Camp

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <20011206004236...@mb-ck.aol.com>,
gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote:

With head in sand.

I don't even have to comment further. It speaks for itself!

This is your leader, hardly at work.

Jerry

--

[Chuck Pierce]

>With head in sand.
>
>I don't even have to comment further. It speaks for itself!
>
>This is your leader, hardly at work.
>
>Jerry
>

So, what does that mean, Jerry? Do you agree or disagree with what
George said?
--
Chuck Pierce
NAR 78629, Level 2
cpierce_AT_knology.net

[Pete Lilja]

With such a diplomatic response, George, I must ask - "You're an ambassador to what
country?"

GCGassaway wrote:

> - George Gassaway

[Bob Kaplow]

In article <20011206004236...@mb-ck.aol.com>, gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) writes:
> Is targetable guidance illegal? Well, the safety codes do not permit flying
> models against targets, so in that sense they are not allowed. But does

You mean the new S8E rules violate the safety code?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"

Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us/Leading_Edge/MayJun00.pdf
NIRA: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us NAR: http://www.nar.org

This is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a country
that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its constitutional
heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values
that lie at the roots of our democratic system. -- Supreme Court
Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1972

26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy
Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/

[GGoldy]

"note to self........Gassaway, an inteligent dude"
got it :-)
Gary R Goldenbaum
Never grow up!
NAR #73669

[Eric Pederson]

Sounds like you want to talk to Bob Fortune about can-sats.
Some of these have included guidance, once separated from the
booster, however.

Will your "robots" be up to the task?
The programming for accent path control may be radically
different from that for the device's intended function. Not
to mention the need to provide some way for the robot to
influence the rocket. The weight of the control linkages,
both mechanical and electrical, may be a significant
percentage of your available payload. At mid-power levels,
you only have a few pounds of total lift-off weight
available, most of which will be the rocket and motor.

Why are you trying to control the rocket?
Decent drift may cause more variance in landing location than
accent deviations if you are trying to drop the bots on a
particular spot. Several folks have discussed GPS guided
parafoils, though reports of success have been limited.

With in reason, do you really care where the robot lands?

[Andrew S. Muth]

To answer your last question, yes and no. My goal with the individual
mobile robots themselves does not require that they land at an exact
location; technically drift would benefit the experiment by allowing me to
demonstrate error-compensation algorithms. However, I would really like to
be able to guide the robots to a particular 'target area'... Maybe the more
effective guidance would involve making a 2-part system: a very rough system
for guiding the rocket's trajectory into a particular area, and then a more
complex system that would work after the robots have been released. Oh
well, I've got time to deal with these problems... Thank you everyone for
the assistance!

-- Andrew Muth

"Eric Pederson" <eric.a....@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:3C100DA3...@boeing.com...

[Cochran Ted]

In article <20011206004236...@mb-ck.aol.com>,
gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote:

>Is targetable guidance illegal? Well, the safety codes do not permit flying
>models against targets, so in that sense they are not allowed. But does
>developing and/or having a model that can guide itself to a target involve laws
>that are under the jurisdiction of the FBI, BATF, or other law enforcement
>authority?

It's in the NFPA codes, so if your state is using those, flying against a
target (or even deliberately flying horizontally) is in fact illegal (but
that would result in a fire code violation, not a federal offense).

But there are weapons of mass destruction laws which, if applied, would
lead to a very nasty federal charge. I think that it might be hard to
dissuade a prosecutor that you were developing guidance systems to fly
against targets just for fun......

--tc

My opinions only.

[GCGassaway]

Jasrry Irvine wrote:

>>>>With head in sand.

I don't even have to comment further. It speaks for itself!<<<<

Figures Jerry would BUTT into the thread for the sake of butting in but not
actually have anything useful to say.

Not even say enough to make clear what it was that he had nothing useful to say
about... :-)

- George Gassaway

[David Weinshenker]

Cochran Ted wrote:
> But there are weapons of mass destruction
> laws which, if applied, would
> lead to a very nasty federal charge.

These, such as the BATF inclusion of "rockets over
4 oz. propellant, unless not designed or equipped
to be used as a weapon" in thir definition of
"destructive device" (along with bombs, machine
guns, and short-barreled shoulder-fired guns),
would probably IMHO be more dependent on the
presence of an explosive or otherwise destructive
payload than on the presence of a guidance mechanism.

Making a rocket that could fly or descend to a specified
position should be no more reprehensible under any law
than building an RC airplane that can be guided along
a desired flight path; equipping either with mechanisms
(explosives, incendiaries, etc.) intended to do damage
upon arrival definitely would be.

-dave w

[GCGassaway]

Pete Lilja wrote:

>>>>With such a diplomatic response, George, I must ask - "You're an ambassador
to what country?" <<<<

Ummm, diplomacy isn't exactly my forte, which should be more obvious from other
messages I've posted on occasion. :-)

I did try to be more careful with this one than the last time or so this topic
came up, when in retrospect I was harder on the particular person who asked
than their oriignal message really deserved.

Also, Andrew Muth did want to know about the legality first (most have never
cared).

And it sounded like a project which on the surface was not ominous.

But anything self-guided that can be targetable has to set off warning bells.
Even if that's not the builder's intent to use as a missile, that someone else
using the same system could.

- George Gassaway

[Andy Eng]

Hello Pete,

On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:24:16 -0600, Pete Lilja <pli...@cfu.net> wrote:

>With such a diplomatic response, George, I must ask - "You're an ambassador to what
>country?"

IIRC, there were at least four sides to this topic a) recreational &
hobby, b) educational, c) professional & d) use the knowledge to go
kill somebody. We had *alot* of pretty "spirited" debates on this in
the past as the topic crosses alot of areas (as opposed to topics
like streamer attachment or copperhead ignitors) . Those of us that
had a piece to say back then all probably appreciate that George
summarized it so well today--Notice how we've kept our swords
sheathed? :-)

As to what country? I'll guess Germanitzerland.... That's the place
I figure that would be into gadgets and craftsmanship. Maybe I'll get
to meet him next summer and see if he Yoddles... ;-P

Regards,
Andy (ducking and running) Eng

[kallend]

for more information:

http://www.iit.edu/~kallend/rocketsci.wav

[Fred Shecter]

He's no Troy McClure!

http://www.cartoonsounds.com/simpsons/sim1.wav

http://www.cartoonsounds.com/simpsons/egghead.wav

-Shread Vector NRA #1 Paramount Leader

kallend <jo...@kallend.net> wrote in message
news:3C10DF0D...@kallend.net...

[Andrew S. Muth]

Now that I've thought about the legal problem and seen all of the responses
you've given, I'd say there shouldn't be a problem as far as guidance. Now
though I'm more concerned with the safety issue: robots are very dense, made
of alot of metal and plastic anchored together securely. From my knowledge
of physics this rocket would have considerable force if it struck something
during flight - I'm afraid that should there be a problem with the launch
and the rocket did not follow its planned trajectory, it would become a
fairly powerful kinetic weapon. Please know that my goal here is not at all
to make some kind or missile or anything like that, I just want to be safe.

"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C104E00...@earthlink.net...

[David Weinshenker]

"Andrew S. Muth" wrote:
> Now that I've thought about the legal problem and seen all of the responses
> you've given, I'd say there shouldn't be a problem as far as guidance. Now
> though I'm more concerned with the safety issue: robots are very dense, made
> of alot of metal and plastic anchored together securely. From my knowledge
> of physics this rocket would have considerable force if it struck something
> during flight - I'm afraid that should there be a problem with the launch
> and the rocket did not follow its planned trajectory, it would become a
> fairly powerful kinetic weapon. Please know that my goal here is not at all
> to make some kind or missile or anything like that, I just want to be safe.

This problem would be mitigated by typical sport rocketry construction
techniques - there'd be some mass concentrations associated with batteries,
actuators, electronics, etc., but these associated hazard is probably on
the same order of magnitude as that from the batteries and altimeters
of a typical "electric ejector" rocket or the receiver and servo-actuators
in a conventional RC model airplane.

In some ways the rocket will be at an advantage here - a battery that
needs to power some servos for perhaps 10-20 sec. of boost and coast,
and is replaced/recharged as part of pre-flight prep, can be smaller
than the one required to power those same servos through several
10-minute model-airplane engine runs.

-dave w

[GCGassaway]

David Weinshenker wrote:

>>>>In some ways the rocket will be at an advantage here - a battery that
needs to power some servos for perhaps 10-20 sec. of boost and coast,
and is replaced/recharged as part of pre-flight prep, can be smaller
than the one required to power those same servos through several
10-minute model-airplane engine runs.
<<<<<

You're right that the batteries can be optimized. But there is a practical
limit on how small one can go. While the batteries are not needed for more
than 10 seconds of boost and coast, they will be running on the pad for awhile.
Hopefully not for very long, but there is a need to have at least enough run
time to be able to be tested before flight, and then sit on the pad, for as
long as one might ever allow that to happen, plus some reserve time. I once
had a Sunguidance model crash because I had shown some people a few times
earlier that day how it worked, and then when I flew it, delayed the launch for
a few minutes till a cloud went by (it would fly OK with a cloud, generally up,
but the demo purpose of the flight was to show it flying towards the sun.
Anyway, while I did a preflight test to confirm the system was working before
liftoff (waving hand over the sensors to see the controls responded), in the
time between that and liftoff, the batteries went dead. At the least, in
retrospect, I should have turned it off during the wait, then on again when the
cloud was past but I thoguht I had enough margin left in the battery (After the
crash I realized it was delivering a lot less than 100 mAh capacity due to
age).

But as you point out, one does not have to go overboard on battery size. That
crash I described was due 100% to exceeding what was a safe margin of battery
time. Even the real shuttle does not run certain critical consumable for
hours. It uses external electrical power till shortly before liftoff, and does
not start up its APU's till under 5 minutes before liftoff. Once those APU's
are started, the fuel is so limited that they can only hold for a few minutes
(something around 5 minutes I think) before they have to call it off for the
day and refuel the APU tanks.

Also I do not quite understand why some HPR rockets crash due to having their
batteries on for long long times, even HOURS. For one, in a rocket that big
and heavy, the batteries tend not to be such a significant mass, so if for
logistical reasons they are going to be run a long time then they need to have
plenty of safety margin in how long they can be run. And for the other, I
don't get how one could be made to run for an hour or more before being flown.
If something has to be turned on and left on early in prepping, instead of
being turned on shortly before leaving the model for launch, then something is
not planned out very well. Not if it doesn’t have the ability to indeed stay on
for a very very long time without going dead.

The logistics ought to be better than that. Electronics ought not be left
running inside a model on the pad for excessively long periods.

Not just by the builder/flier, but also the people running the launch. Ten HPR
rockets waiting to be flown. One on pad 10 that has electronic ejection, and 9
other rockets without electronic ejection. Which one should be flown first? The
one that just happens to be on a pad with a number 1 assigned to it and not pad
10? I would suggest the one on pad 10 that is becoming less safe the longer it
sits on the pad - running its batteries down. :-)

Also BTW, there are some darned nice peak detection on-field battery chargers
days that could help solve some of this, at least for models using nicad packs.
Charge 'em between flights, and if the on-time is too excessive before flying
then recharge before the next attempt. If I'd had a field charger the day I
had that Sunguidance crash, I definitely would have recharged it before the
flight after having run it a bit earlier in the day. But this only works for
second flights or repreps (misfire?), not for first flights if the batteries
were fullycharged to begin with.

Electronics that use 9 volt alkaline batteries? Given the cost of HPR motors
and the value of the rocket itself, it's cheap insurance to use a fresh 9-volt
alkaline for every flight. Maybe use the old ones for ground testing long as
you don't leave it in for a flight, or better yet maybe you have some other
non-critical electronics that a partially used 9 volt would be OK for.

On the R/C RBG side, most model's batteries would be stone cold dead an hour
after being turned on. Fortunately they are typically not turned on till
shortly before liftoff, though with models that glide for a long time one can
only get in a few flights before needing to swap batteries or do a recharge
(best of all, swapping out freshly charged packs from a field charger). Of
course for R/C RBG's, the gliders are so relatively light and batteries
relatively heavy, that there is great incentive to sacrifice battery run time,
long as it's not TOO short. Best to swap and/or recharge than to have an
"overkill" battery pack that really hurts the model's performance. Note that
with a Cuda type of model that battery mass can range from about 8% to 15% of
the total model mass, a pretty high percentage in the model even for "small" 50
and 100 mAh nicads. Assuming an average S8E type model, every gram of extra
mass costs 6 seconds of dead air flight time, so the theoretical performance
cost is about 1.5 minutes between using a 50 and 100 mAh nicad pack in a Cuda
type model. I don't trust a 50 mAh pack to run for over 20 minutes total on
time (from turning on at the pad to turning off after landing) , nor a 100
pack for run for over 40 mins in models like that.

- George Gassaway

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <20011208023554...@mb-fr.aol.com>,
gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote:

> You're right that the batteries can be optimized. But there is a practical
> limit on how small one can go. While the batteries are not needed for more
> than 10 seconds of boost and coast, they will be running on the pad for
awhile.

A first motion switch would solve that.

> plenty of safety margin in how long they can be run. And for the other, I
> don't get how one could be made to run for an hour or more before being
flown.
> If something has to be turned on and left on early in prepping, instead of
> being turned on shortly before leaving the model for launch, then something is
> not planned out very well.

LIKE THE LAUNCH RANGE ORGANIZATION AT TYPICAL TRA LAUNCHES AND ESPECIALLY
LDRS!!! TORTURE RACK IS SO 70'S AND SO TRA.

> Not if it doesn’t have the ability to indeed stay on
> for a very very long time without going dead.
>
> The logistics ought to be better than that. Electronics ought not be left
> running inside a model on the pad for excessively long periods.
>
> Not just by the builder/flier, but also the people running the launch.
Ten HPR
> rockets waiting to be flown. One on pad 10 that has electronic ejection, and 9
> other rockets without electronic ejection. Which one should be flown
first? The
> one that just happens to be on a pad with a number 1 assigned to it and
not pad
> 10? I would suggest the one on pad 10 that is becoming less safe the longer it
> sits on the pad - running its batteries down. :-)

> > - George Gassaway
>

Jerry

[RayDunakin]

<< From my knowledge of physics this rocket would have considerable force if it
struck something during flight - I'm afraid that should there be a problem with
the launch and the rocket did not follow its planned trajectory, it would
become a fairly powerful kinetic weapon.>>

This problem is no different than that faced by anyone flying a large, heavy
rocket, regardless of the payload.

In a nutshell, there are two ways to deal with this. First, make sure your
rocket is stable -- don't fly an unstable design. Second, fly in a suitable,
open area, with the rocket angled downrange slightly so that if something does
go wrong, you won't hit anything or anyone.

[Alan Jones]

No comment. Er, I mean you have a very well written position paper.
You put a lot of work into it, rather than just dashing off a quick
reply. OTOH, I did not get a sense of what the initial poster
reallywanted to do, and I doubt that he is capable of much more than
trolling.

Alan Jones

[David Weinshenker]

GCGassaway wrote:
> Not just by the builder/flier, but also the people running the launch. Ten HPR
> rockets waiting to be flown. One on pad 10 that has electronic ejection, and 9
> other rockets without electronic ejection. Which one should be flown first? The
> one that just happens to be on a pad with a number 1 assigned to it and not pad
> 10? I would suggest the one on pad 10 that is becoming less safe the longer it
> sits on the pad - running its batteries down. :-)

This is actually a fairly common practice at some clubs (such as Tripoli
Central CA at Fresno, my usual "bib bird" venue) - if there's an "electric
ejector" in the lineup, they tend to expeditie it to conserve its battery
power.

-dave w

[Art Fuldodger]

"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote:
> In article <20011208023554...@mb-fr.aol.com>,
> gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote:
>
> > You're right that the batteries can be optimized. But there is a practical
> > limit on how small one can go. While the batteries are not needed for more
> > than 10 seconds of boost and coast, they will be running on the pad for
> awhile.
>
> A first motion switch would solve that.

Now THAT'S safe thinking.... don't power up and verify that the electronics
have initialized and are functioning properly, until the rocket is actually moving
up the rail. Wow, I wonder why no one thought of that before.

[john]

Whenever I've flown an RCRG at a "regular" launch I have been offered
the option of going first to save the battery, regardless of pad number.

--
Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared
to
exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of
freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the
United States.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <RepQ7.616$TN3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, "Art Fuldodger"
<phl...@hocccccch.ptuey.com> wrote:

Or verify, then power down till launch.

The only other alternative seems to assure you have enough battery for the
typical 3 hour wait at LDRS.

Attacking me will not change physics, only entertain you and like minded
folks at my expense, and at the expense of your civility.

[Glen Gardner]

Do you know what F.U.D. is ?

GCGassaway wrote in message <20011206004236...@mb-ck.aol.com>...

>Andrew S. Muth wrote:
>
>>>>> I've been looking at launching mid-power model rockets that
>have a payload, and was interested in finding out about any legal
>limitations involved with launching rockets. The payload would be a small
>robot/multiple robots that would have to successfully "reenter" and perform
>some task. My goal is to use the robot computers for guidance and flight
>correction, but I've heard that this may make my little rocket into an
illegal
>'guided missile' :( <<<<
>
>

>Guidance comes up every so often, except often it doesn't involve any
concerns
>about whether it is legal or even a good idea.
>
>What might be technically legal, is not necessarily a good idea. Not
because
>the person who wants to build/do it may have any evil intent, but the high
>potential for abuse if someone with evil intent copied the same thing.
>
>I'm not sure whether to call it a gray area legally, or a fine line. But I
see
>it like this:
>
>Two types of guidance.
>
>Upwards Guidance - Type that makes the model try to fly upwards safely.
Such
>as gyros for vertical flight, horizon sensing for vertical flight, and
>sun-seeking (using sensors that cannot I.R. emissions from aircraft. The
>simplest and easiest to use sunseeking sensors [photoresistors] detect
light,
>not I.R.).
>
>Targetable guidance - The other type, which makes the model fly towards a
>specific direction or target. Whether anything on the ground or something
in
>the air like an aircraft.
>
>If you're talking about Upward guidance, great. If you're talking about
>anything that could be considered targetable guidance, that's not great.
>

>Is targetable guidance illegal? Well, the safety codes do not permit flying
>models against targets, so in that sense they are not allowed. But does
>developing and/or having a model that can guide itself to a target involve
laws
>that are under the jurisdiction of the FBI, BATF, or other law enforcement

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <U%sQ7.224$zz2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Glen Gardner"
<Aeg...@nospam.concentric.net> wrote:

> Do you know what F.U.D. is ?
>
>
> GCGassaway wrote in message <20011206004236...@mb-ck.aol.com>...

FUD is his actual hobby.

FUD is his MO.

He lives for FUD.

[Bob Kaplow]

In article <01rocket-081...@1cust144.tnt1.rancho-cucamonga.ca.da.uu.net>, 01ro...@gte.net (Jerry Irvine) writes:
>> Now THAT'S safe thinking.... don't power up and verify that the electronics
>> have initialized and are functioning properly, until the rocket is
> actually moving
>> up the rail. Wow, I wonder why no one thought of that before.
>
> Or verify, then power down till launch.
>
> The only other alternative seems to assure you have enough battery for the
> typical 3 hour wait at LDRS.

A properly run launch wouldn't have a 3 hour wait to fly. A properly run
launch shouldn't have a 30 minute wait to fly, from first entering the line
to pushing the launch button. (Not counting your pad futzing time)

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"

Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us/Leading_Edge/MayJun00.pdf
NIRA: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us NAR: http://www.nar.org

We must have faith in our democratic system and our Constitution,
and in our ability to protect at the same time both the freedom and
the security of all Americans.

[GCGassaway]

I wrote:

>>>>> You're right that the batteries can be optimized. But there is a
practical limit on how small one can go. While the batteries are not needed
for more than 10 seconds of boost and coast, they will be running on the pad
for awhile. <<<<<<

Jerry Irvine replied:

>>>A first motion switch would solve that.<<<

Misght solve that but owuld be a Pandora's box for too many other problems.

It's best to be able to have the system "on" and to confirm it is working
properly before leaving the pad area.

- George Gassaway

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <20011208192758...@mb-mg.aol.com>,
gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote:

> Jerry Irvine replied:
>
> >>>A first motion switch would solve that.<<<
>
> Misght solve that but owuld be a Pandora's box for too many other problems.
>
> It's best to be able to have the system "on" and to confirm it is working
> properly before leaving the pad area.
>
> - George Gassaway
>

Sleep mode?

[Bob Kaplow]

In article <01rocket-081...@1cust157.tnt1.rancho-cucamonga.ca.da.uu.net>, 01ro...@gte.net (Jerry Irvine) writes:
> In article <20011208192758...@mb-mg.aol.com>,
> gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote:
>
>> Jerry Irvine replied:
>> >>>A first motion switch would solve that.<<<
>>
>> Misght solve that but owuld be a Pandora's box for too many other problems.
>>
>> It's best to be able to have the system "on" and to confirm it is working
>> properly before leaving the pad area.
>

> Sleep mode?

Better yet, do what NASA does. Umbilical to run the electronics off ground
power. If your alitmeter used one of those 12v lighter batteries, it would
be as simple as a connector at the bottom of the rocket, jumpered to put the
12v auto battery used for the launch system in series with the onboard
supply.

Or just solve the range flow problem so no one sits for 180 minutes waiting
for a launch. There is no excuse for such range delays.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"

Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us/Leading_Edge/MayJun00.pdf
NIRA: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us NAR: http://www.nar.org

We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the
principles of a democratic society, accountable government and
international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner
consistent with the Constitution.

[Chris Taylor Jr.]

the difference is that I do not agree with disuading them from doing it
(targetable)

although I DO agree with being careful WHO you give your help to IE know who
you are helping and KNOW what they will do with it. If I am unsure about
this I will simply choose not to help.

IE if Rob Edmonds asked for help on this I would give it. I know him. I am
pretty certain he is not going to go shooting things with it. I would also
have an understanding with HIM about GIVING out this knowledge to others

I agree with you george on that part. Just use some common sense and be
AWARE of what it is you want or are giving out.

Chris
http://www.nerys.com/

"GCGassaway" <gcgas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011207002310...@mb-mm.aol.com...

[Chris Taylor Jr.]

I do not think FAI follows NAR rules.

but technically the FULL S8 contest as done by FAI could be argued as being
against the NAR rules :-)

Chris
http://www.nerys.com/

"Bob Kaplow" <kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message
news:bjeT$9Lt...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <20011206004236...@mb-ck.aol.com>,

gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) writes:
> > Is targetable guidance illegal? Well, the safety codes do not permit
flying
> > models against targets, so in that sense they are not allowed. But does
>

> You mean the new S8E rules violate the safety code?

>
> Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"
>
> Kaplow Klips & Baffle:
http://www.nira.chicago.il.us/Leading_Edge/MayJun00.pdf
> NIRA: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us NAR: http://www.nar.org
>

> This is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a
country
> that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its
constitutional
> heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values
> that lie at the roots of our democratic system. -- Supreme Court
> Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1972

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <BQ3iP5...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

> Or just solve the range flow problem so no one sits for 180 minutes waiting
> for a launch. There is no excuse for such range delays.
>

Herecy!!

[saifars...@gmail.com]

I want to make a guided rocket that only goes to space I want to show my school my only intention is to take pictures in space or just send it there is that legal?