Model Forum / General / Rockets / March 2006

The logic is that hybrids are more complicated than typical rocket
motors. You are dealing with compressed gas, which involves different
handling techniques. Some regulation is appropriate, in my opinion.

Nitrous oxide itself is not a cryogenic or a toxic material, and is not
classified as a flammable gas. Its handling characteristics are very
similar to CO-2, so the techniques for handling it safely can be
derived from procedures used to recharge soda fountains and similar
devices. You have to be careful not to release it carelessly, or you
can get frostbite from touching metal surfaces over which it is flowing
or impinging. Hoses are also a problem; they can whip around and whack
you.

Then, of course, the fact that you have to use electronic deployment.

I can sell an H hybrid to someone who is planning to use it for his
Level 1. Other than that, you need to be Level 1 before I can sell you
a hybrid of any size.

I really don't have a problem with this setup. After all,
self-regulation is what has brought us our excellent safety record. I
know there has been some discussion of a separate hybrid safety code,
but it was decided that it wasn't necessary. I wouldn't be averse to
seeing a new safety code for hybrids from either NAR or Tripoli; I'm
sure there would be plenty of chance for input and discussion. We've
learned a lot about hybrids since I fired my first H70 in 1999.

Doug Pratt
www.pratthobbies.com

Why not just email the 'elected representatives' directly?

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

You can't be serious. Hybrids are a highly energetic device that can propel
a significant mass to high velocities and altitudes. They also are quite
capable of exploding BTW. If the rocketry sanctioning bodies hadn't had the
foresight to implement some safety standards and there was an accident, you
can be sure that the feds would step in. I have that directly from at least
one senior inspector at the federal level. Hybrids are not toys. If these
rules didn't exist, our HPR group would not make or sell them.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

They gave it to themselves, via the NFPA.

According to industry representatives, AKA hobby associations, they feel
*someone* has to be in charge to prevent the federal authorities from
*taking* charge.  It's seen as a form of self-policing.  But it didn't work,
as evidenced by the BATFE regulatory excursion into the rocketry hobby.
Some of the self-policing may be just as over-reaching as the BATFE
regulatory oversight.

Back during the Louie Freeh days of ATF, there was a call to reign in
duplicated agencies (or is it more accurately labeled "duplicitous"?) and
all of a sudden agencies like the ATF were trying to justify their existence
rather than being absorbed into other Department of Justice agencies.  So
they extended their reach.

Also, consider the growth of "experimental" rocketry, where hybrids grew
from.  Experimental rocketry groups teach that you can make your own motors
(albeit with a kitchen mixer in normally crowded preparation facilities such
as hotels and convention centers) and that you don't need any national hobby
organization affiliation or certification level to make and launch these
motors.  And, we're not talking about small motors either, rather motors up
to and larger than are commercially available to the hobby populace at
large.

This offshoot is viewed as "non-self-policing", and the national
organizations view this as detrimental to the safe growth of the hobby.  On
the surface, this makes sense.  It is also nonsensical in the fact that it
is a form of hobby censorship.

If the ATF is in charge, then they insure their survival.  If the hobby
organizations are in charge, they insure THEIR survival.  If no one is in
charge, the hobby may not have a chance for survival.  Which one is best?
It depends on who you ask.

Good luck.  After reading the rest of the replies to this post, I am
reminded of the state of regulatory oversight back in 1998 when I wrote the
special report "GETTING LEGAL: Regulatory Issues Shaping Our Hobby"
(http://www.rocketryonline.com/special_report.shtml or
http://www.uhostme.com/images/archive/special_report.shtml when ROL deletes
the report).  It reported on vendors not wanting to sell motors to people
who weren't certified with a national organization when the flyers were
within their legal grounds for wanting to purchase and use them.

There are NO federal regulations that prevent you from purchasing or flying
hybrid rocket motors.  But, if the state you live in has adopted NFPA 1127
into its fire code, then state law may require you to abide by these
seemingly arbitrary regulations.

Consider: you can purchase gasoline, a very volatile chemical, just about
anywhere -- provided you put it into an approved container.  But you don't
have to join the American Automobile Association and be certified an AAA
Level 1 Gasoline User in order to burn gasoline.   Oddly enough, anyone can
also purchase a nitrous oxide performance kit for their automobile. And,
anyone who has done so, equipped with the approved containers, can purchase
the nitrous oxide gas to put in their newly-equipped nitrous oxide-enhanced
automobile.  Certainly there is greater danger with a nitrous oxide-enhanced
automobile (burning gasoline, no less) to have an accident than there is
with a hybrid rocket, yet no one has to be certified to do so.

On the other hand, to purchase a "hybrid rocket motor" (read: a few pieces
of aluminum, paper and plastic), you must belong to a national rocketry
organization (i.e. pay more money) and jump through their hoops (i.e. pay
even more money) to prove that you are capable of not killing yourself.  It
doesn't make the situation any safer for you, but it does give the industry
a cushion to fall back on in the event of a lawsuit or regulatory claim.

Again, this is even more fuel for the proponents of "experimental"
build-your-own motors.  In the end, you will have more luck getting the
federal government off hobby rocketry's back than you will repealing NFPA
regulatory recommendations, since now you much sue 50 states instead of just
Washington, DC.  But those seeking additional regulatory oversight can
always find some entity somewhere willing to do so.

I can't find the reference, but I know Tripoli and NAR fixed this when G
hybrids became available.  You do not need to be L1 to fly a G hybrid
but you do have be be 18 or supervised by an adult.

Shockie

1.  Hybrid motors are considered reloadables by NAR (and I assume TRA
and CAR).  The sale of reloadable rocket motors are restricted by
federal law to adults 18 and older.

2.  G-hybrids that use less than 62.5 grams of propellant (combined
weight of N2O and consumed propellant) are considered model rocket
motors by NAR (and I assume by TRA and  CAR), so you do not need to be
L1 certified to fly a model rocket weight G-hybrid, but you do have to
be 18 years of age or older.

3.  It is a little known fact within the sport rocketry community that
hybrids present a greater safety hazard than APCP motors because N2O is
a also a monopropellant as well as an oxidizer.  Should the chamber
pressure in a hybrid exceed the tank pressure, the flame can propagate
into the N2O tank and initiate a rapid decomposition of the N2O and
disassemble the tank.  In a G-Hybrid, there is up to 55 grams of N2O,
and if it goes, the fragments the tank will travel much further than a
CATOed APCP casing where it is unikely that more than several grams of
propellant will be consumed before the casing ruptures and the rapid
pressure drop extinguishes the remainder of the fuel grain.

For this reason, the minimum separation distance of any hybrid is 100
feet, as compared to the 30 ft minimum separation for a APCP G-motor.
This distance was set by NAR S&T after much discussion with TMT and
CAR.

4.  Hybrids are rocket motors.  If you need insurance, then the
underwriters have a legitimate authority to set requirements and the
terms and conditions under which the liability coverage will be
applicable.  If you are a manufacturer and desire liability insurance
for your products, the insurance underwriters require you to follow
NFPA 1125.  If you are a flyier and desire liability insurance, the
insurance underwriters require you to follow NFPA 1122 and 1127.

5.  A person with property and investments wants and needs liability
insurance.  If you don't need insurance, and if you don't live in a
state that has adopted the NFPA codes as part of their requlations, you
are free do do as you please, howver the vast majority of manufacturers
and flyiers want the coverage and therefore are willing to comply with
the underwriters requirements.

6.  The NFPA requirements are based on established scientific facts and
engineering principles, the goal of which is to minimize the hazards of
rocket motor motor and use.  I'm not sure why you would want to object
to this?

Bob Krech
CMASS Senior Advisor
Member NAR S&T

How does a hybrid motor propel a rocket if it doesn't have any flammable
solids?  Nitrous Oxide only provides oxygen and not fuel.  The fuel is
generally plastic or cardboard which are both flammable and will burn.

Brian Elfert

Hybrids are regulated for the same reason that these motors are regulated:
they don't meet the 1122 definition of a model rocket motor. Anything beyond
1122 is HPR.

I'd really like to see someone manufacture and certify a complete micro
hybrid package.