myk@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (12/25/88)
After real, serious rocket scientists started launching rockets, it occurred to some curious folks that 'they could do that too'. Welding together some metal pipe and sheeting, they mixed together some chemicals, and started doing things in their backyards. The American Institute of Aeronautics estimated back then that if someone participated in this kind of thing for a period of one year, there was a ONE IN SIX chance of being seriously injured or killed. This sort of person is referred to today as a 'basement bomber'. Because of the many awful injuries that occurred, many states banned model rocketry entirely. Fortunately, in the mid 1950's, a chemical engineer by the name of G. Harry Stine worked out a way of sealing a small amount of propellant inside a thick paper tube in such a way as to make it much safer to handle. It was found that if other safety precautions were obeyed as well, such as making rockets out of cardboard, plastic, etc. rather than metal, injuries became very rare. A recent article in this newsgroup suggested using a model rocket engine as an explosive, rather than a propulsive device. This is in violation of the Model Rocketry Safety Code, a set of sensible precautions which is packed with every commercially available model rocketry product. In the more than 30 years since 'modern' model rocketry was begun, more than 300 million model rocket motors have been manufactured, and there have been almost no (perhaps even NO) serious injuries. There is a legend among model rocketeers, called the 'Idiot'. This is someone who comes along, ignores the Safety Code, and causes a catastrophe. As far as I know, the Idiot has not come along yet. Don't let it be you. Please, please, NEVER USE MODEL ROCKET ENGINES FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN LAUNCHING MODEL ROCKETS. They are quite safe, when used as intended. Using them in other ways is foolhardy, demonstrates a lack of concern for a hobby that many thousands of people enjoy, and in my opinion shows a lack of maturity and personal integrity (the manufacturers trust us not to misuse them).
karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) (12/25/88)
>Please, please, NEVER USE MODEL ROCKET ENGINES FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN >LAUNCHING MODEL ROCKETS. I seem to recall, back when I was interested in model rocketry along with everyone else, the cover of a particular Estes catalog. It was a cartoon by Don Martin of Mad Magazine fame. It depicted a group of NASA technicians at work under the first stage of a Saturn V, busily stuffing carton after carton of Estes model rocket engines into the Saturn's engine nozzles. So even Estes was not above a little humor, even if the activity depicted would be rather dangerous (if not ineffective) if actually carried out. I do believe that the poster of the engine-triggered bomb did say that no one with a sane mind should actually *try* his idea. Phil
roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) (12/26/88)
Gentlemen,
The rocket engine in the described device is a trgger, that is, it
forces the creamer OUT of the can then ignites it. At no time is the
device in danger of concussive explosion, it is incendiary and rather
poor at that. My respect for Estes and similar companies is legion.
However, The safety guide that comes in a package is just a guide so that
foolish people that try my device (note: I didn't say BOMB) can't sue
when it sets Yellowstone park on fire. I suggest we open a new catagory
called Fools.pyro.bomb and leave the morality of self induced injury out
of Sci.space.shuttle. Please let's put the subject to rest. I will if
you will.
Timothy P. P. Roberts
(sorry for the typing mistakes but I blew off two fingers and
my speed has been reduced considerably)
Tat Tvam Asi (that thou art) Sorry I ever started ...dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (12/28/88)
In article <17612@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> myk@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes: >In the more than 30 years since 'modern' model rocketry was begun, more than >300 million model rocket motors have been manufactured, and there have >been almost no (perhaps even NO) serious injuries. I know of one. My high school chem lab partner was setting up a rocket. He didn't tell me what he did wrong, but the rocket fired while he had his hand under it, and blew off the outer two sections of each of his right index and middle fingers. I guess I should add that the making and firing of Estes rockets was a high point of our family reunion this last summer. It was the first time for all of us but one brother in law. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (01/06/89)
In article <17612@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> myk@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes: >After real, serious rocket scientists started launching rockets, it >occurred to some curious folks that 'they could do that too'. The first recognized pioneer in rocketry got there through consistent use of what is now regarded as 'amateur' methodology. I refer to Robert Goddard. >Institute of Aeronautics estimated back then that if someone participated >in this kind of thing for a period of one year, there was a ONE IN SIX >chance of being seriously injured or killed. This sort of person is >referred to today as a 'basement bomber'. One of the big problems that wasn't solved until recently was the question of liquid versus solid fuels. Liquid fuels have, by and large, been retired, and solid fuels are preferred, but in any case the inevitable explosions and occasional fires are no reason to designate responsible individuals as alleged 'basement bombers'. Seeing as the question of getting objects into orbit economically is still an unsolved problem, I'd say that such research is still appropriate, and needed. Before naming people as 'irresponsible', I'd examine their laboratory. It's entirely possible that someone could study fuel mixtures, test them, and still beat the aforementioned odds. >Please, please, NEVER USE MODEL ROCKET ENGINES FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN >LAUNCHING MODEL ROCKETS. They are quite safe, when used as intended. >Using them in other ways is foolhardy, demonstrates a lack of concern for >a hobby that many thousands of people enjoy, and in my opinion shows a >lack of maturity and personal integrity (the manufacturers trust us not >to misuse them). True. But let's not mix up 'hobbyists' with 'rocketeers'. -- richard -- * Supernovae are a blast * * * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D *
donegan@stanton.TCC.COM (Steven P. Donegan) (01/07/89)
In the amateur rocketeer genre, has anyone ever used the Zinc/Sulfur mix that was recommended in an Amateur Scientist column? This was supposed to be a totally safe, no explosion possible, mixture for solid engines. This engine was built inside a METAL (aluminum tubing) casing which, in my state, is illegal for model rocketry. Any results? -- Steven P. Donegan These opinions are given on MY time, not Area Telecommunications Engineer Western Digital's Western Digital Corp. stanton!donegan || donegan@stanton.TCC.COM || donegan%stanton@tcc.com
charette@edsews.EDS.COM (Mark A. Charette) (01/09/89)
In article <101@stanton.TCC.COM>, donegan@stanton.TCC.COM (Steven P. Donegan) writes: > > In the amateur rocketeer genre, has anyone ever used the Zinc/Sulfur mix that > was recommended in an Amateur Scientist column? This was supposed to be a I must have missed this Amateur Scientist column, but I have a short story printed in 1961 (Reader's Digest Treasury for Young Readers - I was pretty young when I read it :') by David Woodbury (Since it mentions Mr. Woodbury and the Woodbury children, it seems autobiographical) which mentions this mixture, recommended by an explosives chemist at a university. (He fails to mention the university or chemist's name, but it ends with saying that the chemist was the head of a "Rocket Ground" up some canyon.) The story mentions "several pounds of sulfur and zinc dust" and a "six foot tall rocket". Any ideas if this story could be true?? -- Mark Charette "People only like me when I'm dumb!", he said. Electronic Data Systems "I like you a lot." was the reply. 750 Tower Drive Voice: (313)265-7006 FAX: (313)265-5770 Troy, MI 48007-7019 charette@edsews.eds.com uunet!edsews!charette
rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) (01/09/89)
In article <101@stanton.TCC.COM> donegan@stanton.TCC.COM (Steven P. Donegan) writes: > >In the amateur rocketeer genre, has anyone ever used the Zinc/Sulfur mix that >was recommended in an Amateur Scientist column? This was supposed to be a >totally safe, no explosion possible, mixture for solid engines. This engine >was built inside a METAL (aluminum tubing) casing which, in my state, is >illegal for model rocketry. Any results? > Oh Lord. Yes you may use Zn/Sulfer safely, IF you have lots of sand for your sandbags to build bunkers with! ANY engine that uses METAL casings is dangerous, PERIOD. ANY propellant can explode in the wrong conditions. (using copper for a burst diaphram, for example!) Lots of basement bombers have used Zinc/Sulfur and survived, but with "G" engines available who needs the risk? The time you spent building fuelingb pits and launch pits and observation bunkers would be better spent earning a few bucks for buying G engines!! Jeeeeezzzz, "G"?! I remember when a 12 oz thrust , 2 second engine (C2.0?) was HOT stuff.... Paul Rodman rodman@mfci.uucp
rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) (01/10/89)
In article <7993@edsews.EDS.COM> charette@edsews.EDS.COM (Mark A. Charette) writes: >I must have missed this Amateur Scientist column, but I have a short story >printed in 1961 (Reader's Digest Treasury for Young Readers - I was pretty >The story mentions "several pounds of sulfur and zinc dust" and a "six foot >tall rocket". Any ideas if this story could be true?? ---- Yes, it is true. I have read every Am. S. from 1955 at one time or another and I remember this one, although I don't know the date. Please keep in mind that what the Amateur S. column calls "safe" has changed over the years. For example: - Would you like to build your own X-ray machine using and old TV tube, some aluminum foil and a 10Kv power supply? YIKES! You can find a whole article , complete with X ray views of your typical 50's alarm clock! (I think it was late 50's). - How about your own plasma jet? That is hotter than the surface of of the sun (6000F ++). Oh, by the way, you will need some welders glass due to the soft X rays emitted by the flame. - The aformentioned Zinc Sulfer rockets. - 10 W CO2 lasers that can shatter microscope slides. All of these can be done safely enough, with care, but they are a LONG way from being as safe as a simple model rocket. (They are much more difficult to construct, fortunately.) Paul Rodman rodman@mfci.uucp
cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles J. Lord) (01/10/89)
[sorry for extending this discussion on sci.space.shuttle] All this talk re model rocketry has peaked an old interest in a long-ago hobby. I have a number of old engines from the late 60's to early 70's , all Estes A and B series. Anyone got any idea how reliable these would still be? They have been kept cool and dry for the time, so little to no breakdown of the propellant or recovery charge should have occurred. I might get ol' Big Bertha out and find out myself... -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include <std.disclamers> cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include <cutsey.quote> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *
mjohnson@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) (01/14/89)
In article <6189@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles J. Lord) writes: >All this talk re model rocketry has peaked an old interest in a >long-ago hobby. I have a number of old engines from the late >60's to early 70's , all Estes A and B series. Anyone got any >idea how reliable these would still be? They have been kept >cool and dry for the time, so little to no breakdown of the >propellant or recovery charge should have occurred. I might >get ol' Big Bertha out and find out myself... They should (and I emphasize SHOULD) be OK to use...try one flight; if it functions normally all of 'em are probably OK to use...I have seen 10-15 year old MR engines, similarly cared for, work without problems. On the other hand, if the first test flight yields a blow-thru incident (characterized by a sudden WHOOF which cleans the motor casing from end to end at an altitude of 10-30 feet, and ejects the chute at such altitude), throw all of them out (per instructions) and pick up some new A/B/C series motors, which are still about $3-$3.50/3 pack. In fact, (small :-) here) save those motors--I know some old-motor collectors who just might be interested. Sorry to prolong this, but there isn't a rec.rockets or rec.model.rockets or anything like it yet (although some of us are working on it). -- Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM) WB9QLR/0 (Monon RR enthusiast) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS phone: (316)636-8189 email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/15/89)
In article <6189@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles J. Lord) writes: >... I have a number of old engines from the late >60's to early 70's , all Estes A and B series. Anyone got any >idea how reliable these would still be? ... Hmm, 20 years. That's a fairly long shelf life for a solid-fuel motor. Not impossible, but long. Test some, *carefully*. Inspect the remains thoroughly afterward. If even one malfunctions in test or shows something odd in the post-mortem, I wouldn't trust them. If testing goes perfectly, then try using some of them... carefully. -- "God willing, we will return." | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology -Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu