Afternoon all;

Following on from comments here (and some questions from those not able to 
access the UKRA members forums) the details of the new Certificates of 
Exemption (as they are understood at this point) have been kicked onto the 
UKRA front page where anyone can access them;

http://www.ukra.org.uk/

The changes in regulation represent a huge return on the 5 years(!) of work 
Charles Simpson put in as UKRA Chairman and then as the UKRA Council's 
representative to the Health & Safety Executive after his "retirement".  I 
would like to thank Charles both personally and on behalf of UKRA for his 
tireless efforts to secure these changes.

It should be noted that some minor aspects of the new regulations do require 
clarification with the HSE and so the discussions are ongoing - please keep 
an eye on the UKRA site as it will be updated as and when ;)

Regards;

-- 
Richard Parkin
UKRA 1268 L2 (and Chair of Vices)

Scopus meus excelsior est

On 25 Jan, 13:39, "Richard Parkin"  wrote:
> Afternoon all;
>
> Following on from comments here (and some questions from those not able to> access the UKRA members forums) the details of the new Certificates of
> Exemption (as they are understood at this point) have been kicked onto the> UKRA front page where anyone can access them;
>
> http://www.ukra.org.uk/
>
> The changes in regulation represent a huge return on the 5 years(!) of work
> Charles Simpson put in as UKRA Chairman and then as the UKRA Council's
> representative to the Health & Safety Executive after his "retirement".  I
> would like to thank Charles both personally and on behalf of UKRA for his
> tireless efforts to secure these changes.
>
> It should be noted that some minor aspects of the new regulations do require
> clarification with the HSE and so the discussions are ongoing - please keep
> an eye on the UKRA site as it will be updated as and when ;)
>
> Regards;
>
> --
> Richard Parkin
> UKRA 1268 L2 (and Chair of Vices)
>
> Scopus meus excelsior est

In all hinestly i do not know exactly whom to tahnk for making the
huge effort on getting things changed, but i really would like to say
thank you. You have made a massive chnage in the sport/hobby and for
me i want to get back into it now as i can get bigger and heavy
rockets and really have some fun.

Once again thank you for all involved in making this happen!

Pete

Richard Parkin wrote:
> Afternoon all;
> 
> Following on from comments here (and some questions from those not able to 
> access the UKRA members forums) the details of the new Certificates of 
> Exemption (as they are understood at this point) have been kicked onto the 
> UKRA front page where anyone can access them;
> 
> http://www.ukra.org.uk/
> 
> The changes in regulation represent a huge return on the 5 years(!) of work 
> Charles Simpson put in as UKRA Chairman and then as the UKRA Council's 
> representative to the Health & Safety Executive after his "retirement".  I 
> would like to thank Charles both personally and on behalf of UKRA for his 
> tireless efforts to secure these changes.
> 
> It should be noted that some minor aspects of the new regulations do require 
> clarification with the HSE and so the discussions are ongoing - please keep 
> an eye on the UKRA site as it will be updated as and when ;)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! You beauty! Maga thanks to Chas
and all others involved. Just as my certs were up for renewal as well. :-)

Cheers,

-- 
bob [at] bobarnott [dot] com                       http://www.bobarnott.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Crash programs fail because they are based on theory that,
  with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby in a month."
                                                         -- Wernher von Braun

On Jan 25, 5:33 pm, Bob  wrote:

> Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! You beauty! Maga thanks to Chas
> and all others involved. Just as my certs were up for renewal as well. :-)

What he said! This makes me very happy :-) I raise my glass to Chas
and everyone else who helped with this.

Perhaps I'll be burning more than just BP and shutter actuations at
March EARS ;)

Niall

Fantastic. Great job

Fantastic. Great job

Niall Oswald (via Google) wrote:
> On Jan 25, 5:33 pm, Bob  wrote:
> 
>> Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! You beauty! Maga thanks to Chas
>> and all others involved. Just as my certs were up for renewal as well. :-)
> 
> What he said! This makes me very happy :-) I raise my glass to Chas
> and everyone else who helped with this.

Thirded! Well done Charles!

-- Peter Fairbrother

Mike Roberts wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> While we still have many nanny state problems here in Blighty, I'm 
>> pleased to note that motors containing up to 1 kg of AP are now 
>> available without a license.
> 
> I think a little caution is needed here. A provisional announcement 
> has been made and it is awaiting final clarification from the Health
>  and Safety Executive. There is also an HSE consulation document in 
> the  works which still needs ratification by the authorities 
> including by the numerous Police forces (who are reported to already 
> raised concerns about some parts) and to be put before Parliament in 
> due course before all the changes become law.

As I understand it, at present it's an HSE exemption, and the
certificates have already been signed - these don't need to go to
Parliament, they are in force as soon as they are signed.

Though I gather the consultation document does envisage adding AP etc to
COER Schedule 1 in a new SI (Statutory Instrument) instead/as well.

I haven't seen the exemption certificates though, and I'm relying on
second-hand data, so I may be entirely wrong. Do you know where I can
get a copy? Tried the HSE website, maybe my search-fu wasn't up to it.


>> I'm not sure, but it might even cover up to 5 kg of AP reloads if 
>> each segment is less than 1 kg.
> 
> This is not the case. As I understand it it is an exemption of up to 
> 1Kg net propellant mass for a single motor assembly. This means that 
> motors up in to Mid K range will be available without an Explosives 
> Certificate. It definitely would not cover a larger motor broken up 
> in to smaller parts.

I did say I wasn't sure - but aiui you could store 5 x 1 kg
reload segments, article 0272. Haven't read the certificates though, so
I don't know about assembling them into a motor - maybe you'd have to
cluster some K's instead :)

lessee, 4 K's - that sounds familiar ("4K in LL", best name for a rocket
yet - was pretty impressive in flight too)

or chad stage 3 or 4 full J's - space, anyone?


> It is worth noting that the 5kg you mention is the total amount of 
> propellant / "explosive" a person can store under this new exemption 
> without having to apply for an Explosives Certificate and Storage 
> Licence. I believe that this mass may include all other COER1 exempt 
> materials i.e. all Estes BP motors if held and Black Powder if held.
> 
That's my understanding. Also, you still need a certificate for BP (but
not Pyrodex), it's just that the separation rules have been relaxed.

It may be that the situation regarding BP will change slightly after the
SI, but it's kinda complex [1] ..!


> I would sit tight and await the approved wording UKRA is working on 
> with the HSE before making further comment.

There is now some stuff on the UKRA website, http://ukra.org.uk/node/560

>> I wonder whether they will get cheaper? Anthony?
> 
> Why would motors get any cheaper? The only thing to change is the 
> paperwork the recipient has to go through to acquire a motor. All the
>  Manufacturer's paperwork, processeses, requirements for control and 
> shipping remain unchanged as far as I am aware.


There will probably be more sold, and maybe more dealers? Maybe even a
UK manufacturer?


[1] MSER and COER refer to the exempt materials as the materials which
are in COER Schedule 1 - sorry, all my explosives law stuff is on
another computer and I don't have references to hand, this is from
memory - and the exemption certificates, while providing exemptions for
some AP materials, don't include these materials in the schedule (HSE
don't have the power to do that without going to Parliament).

So the only circumstances in which the exemptions in the certificates
apply now are those circumstances mentioned in the certificates. However
if AP is included in the schedule by a SI then the exemptions will apply
in all the circumstances mentioned in COER and MSER for COER Schedule 1
materials.


-- Peter Fairbrother

On 28 Jan, 03:53, Peter Fairbrother  wrote:

> or chad stage 3 or 4 full J's - space, anyone?

Tsiolkovsky says no ;)

Niall

Bank manager says no as well.
"Niall Oswald (via Google)"  wrote in message
news:c7856c0b-4e26-4d01-9543-c7e25f8b66ad@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Jan, 03:53, Peter Fairbrother  wrote:
>
> > or chad stage 3 or 4 full J's - space, anyone?
>
> Tsiolkovsky says no ;)
>
> Niall
>

Niall Oswald (via Google) wrote:
> On 28 Jan, 03:53, Peter Fairbrother  wrote:
> 
>> or chad stage 3 or 4 full J's - space, anyone?
> 
> Tsiolkovsky says no ;)
> 
> Niall
> 

Nope - say 3 stages, each with an empty mass of 300g and 700g of 
propellent of Isp 260, no payload. Liftoff mass is 3 kg, 1st staging is 
at 2.3 kg, second stage starts at 2 kg to 1.3 kg, third stage goes from 
1 kg to 0.3 kg.

Then we have deltaV = (ln(3/2.3)+ln(2/1.3)+ln(1/0.3)) x 260 x 9.8 m/s.

That's 4842 m/s. Even allowing 1742 m/s for air resistance, and 100 m/s 
for gravitational losses, the final velocity is 3,000 m/s, giving a 
theoretical altitude of 450 km!!

Some of these figures may be a bit hard to obtain, or even a bit 
fanciful - but Tsiolkovsky certainly doesn't prevent you getting to 100 km.

(I did not mean orbit, btw, just space, at 100 km)

-- Peter Fairbrother

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:53:24 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
 wrote:

>Mike Roberts wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>>> While we still have many nanny state problems here in Blighty, I'm 
>>> pleased to note that motors containing up to 1 kg of AP are now 
>>> available without a license.
>> 
>> I think a little caution is needed here. A provisional announcement 
>> has been made and it is awaiting final clarification from the Health
>>  and Safety Executive. There is also an HSE consulation document in 
>> the  works which still needs ratification by the authorities 
>> including by the numerous Police forces (who are reported to already 
>> raised concerns about some parts) and to be put before Parliament in 
>> due course before all the changes become law.
>
>As I understand it, at present it's an HSE exemption, and the

Peter, I do not appreciate a post to arocket being cross posted here
without attriburion or explaining the source. I did not post my reply
to you here. I posted it to arocket which is not a usenet forum. 

However pertinent your points I do not believe it was appropriate to
post my comments here.

Cheers Mike 8-{>

--
UKRA #1208 L2 RSO             EARS # 1118
TRA  #3207 L1
-=*=- Gravity is a harsh Mistress -=*=-
-=*=-          The Tick           -=*=-
Remove .co.uk from Reply To: address.

I thought that max delta-v occurred when the payload ratios of all the
stages was the same?

As all the stages above the one that's burning count as payload your
solution would be far from optimal.  Also, once you get past three
stages the advantage of serial staging get marginal.

Tsiolkovsky says maybe, but probably not ;)

Phil

Phil wrote:
> I thought that max delta-v occurred when the payload ratios of all the
> stages was the same?
> 
> As all the stages above the one that's burning count as payload your
> solution would be far from optimal.  Also, once you get past three
> stages the advantage of serial staging get marginal.

For an example of six identical stages:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/rocket_train_speed_record_secret_test_fun/

-- Peter Fairbrother

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:06:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
 wrote:

>Phil wrote:
>> I thought that max delta-v occurred when the payload ratios of all the
>> stages was the same?
>> 
>> As all the stages above the one that's burning count as payload your
>> solution would be far from optimal.  Also, once you get past three
>> stages the advantage of serial staging get marginal.
>
>For an example of six identical stages:
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/rocket_train_speed_record_secret_test_fun/

I dont think Tsiolkovsky's calaculations are relevant for railways are
they? Or do you know of previously unpublished works where he included
an interstellar / orbital railway?

Cheers Mike 8-{>

--
UKRA #1208 L2 RSO             EARS # 1118
TRA  #3207 L1
-=*=- Gravity is a harsh Mistress -=*=-
-=*=-          The Tick           -=*=-
Remove .co.uk from Reply To: address.

Mike Roberts wrote:

[snipped...]

> I dont think Tsiolkovsky's calaculations are relevant for railways are
> they? Or do you know of previously unpublished works where he included
> an interstellar / orbital railway?

Especially one in a tunnel of helium...

Cheers,

-- 
bob [at] bobarnott [dot] com                   http://www.bobarnott.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Crash programs fail because they are based on theory that,
  with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby in a month."
                                                     -- Wernher von Braun

Mike Roberts wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:06:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
>  wrote:
> 
>> Phil wrote:
>>> I thought that max delta-v occurred when the payload ratios of all the
>>> stages was the same?
>>>
>>> As all the stages above the one that's burning count as payload your
>>> solution would be far from optimal.  Also, once you get past three
>>> stages the advantage of serial staging get marginal.
>> For an example of six identical stages:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/rocket_train_speed_record_secret_test_fun/
> 
> I dont think Tsiolkovsky's calculations are relevant for railways are they?

Of course they are, ignoring friction (and the rotational energy of the 
wheels), as T. did.

  Or do you know of previously unpublished works where he included
> an interstellar / orbital railway?

"When Worlds Collide"?

Dunno if T. was involved tho' :)

-- Peter Fairbrother