Beginner questions adding maneuverability and/or guidance under power to amateur model rockets; could/should they be closed as inherently dangerous?

Question

Background

What kind of security while using solid propellent? was asked at 2018-06-27 00:06 UTC, I flagged it at 01:28 and it was closed by moderators at 16:09. This ultimately lead to the drafting of a community specific close reason:

Questions about dangerous amateur experiments, such as constructing your own engine or propellants are off-topic. Rockets and their propellants are INHERENTLY DANGEROUS and can pose hazards to not just yourself, but others around you (friends, family, neighbors, etc). It may also be illegal. Please see this meta post for more information.

We have both that meta post and a previous one:

• Why can't I ask my question about amateur space projects and development? (current)
• Should we have a canonical response for folks intent on blowing themselves up? (immediate predecessor)

Question

While the specific risk discussed in those is rocket fuel or the handling of explosive/dangerous chemicals, and "constructing your own engine", the expressed goals in these posts and the close reason is to close questions that ask about doing things that are inherently dangerous and/or illegal, and therefore preventing (further) answers to these questions from being posted.

How to make a model rocket that doesn't spin? asks about a rocket with articulated fins connected to servo motors, which are presumably connected to some control system with at a minimum some inertial feedback. The question asks about roll control (avoiding spinning) as a side issue, so presumably the main purpose goes beyond just avoiding the spinning that the adding of articulated fins near may cause.

Can we explore the following two questions:

1. Could building a model rocket with maneuverability and/or guidance under power have some reasonable potential to be inherently dangerous? (please consider how many launches this would take to get working by trial and error; servo systems with millisecond response control loops are not beginner projects, and once perfected, this thing starts looking like a small missile)
2. Would some model rocket question that was deemed potentially inherently dangerous and five people would like to close it be properly closed under the current existing close reason?

Answer 1

My concern in the OP was directed towards the specific issue of there being a question asked out of context and and then potentially answered out of context - which did indeed happen in the comments.

e.g.

• in the OP there was no clue as to the test environment (town backyard vs. licensed club area in a desert)
• no context about the size of the rocket or propellants (it could have been a footpump water rocket)
• a negative statement about the OP author's self-rating (I'd look at this two ways, it was at least potential right for inviting comments from people to get the OP to set out their experience more clearly)
• no context for other safety features.

Anyway, to answer the questions in this Meta post:

1. Yes, it could be inherently dangerous to the uninvolved public but its complex. Its not that different from forum websites where people give advice about fixing your car brakes, except that (in the UK at least) cars are tested for safety by a licenced tester every year. It comes down to context and I would simply vote to close something like this where there is no context given. I'd do that rather than waste time waiting for the OP to improve their question because, in that time, everyone and their dog is chipping in with out-of-context advice.

2. I'm not sure whether you are referring to should-we-have-a-canonical-response-for-folks-intent-on-blowing-themselves-up or why-cant-i-ask-my-question-about-amateur-space-projects-and-development and, actually, the close votes dialogue refers to "A community-specific reason - This question doesn’t meet a Space Exploration Stack Exchange guideline." which I presume means on-topic. To cut it short, I think that page does just cover it but could be improved so as not to narrow things down to just rocket propellant mixing. If it helps, I would like to see a slightly broader guideline that relates to perceived danger in conjunction with context.

As an aside, I put in a close vote on the OP based on insufficient clarity in the question because I got distracted with the various references to Meta posts and couldn't find the main on-topic guidelines.

Answer 2

This answer is not intended to compete with @Puffin's answer but rather to supplement it. Issues of whether we as a community think questions about rocket guidance are "safe" aside, this starts getting dangerously close to export control issues, both under ITAR and EAR.

It's important to note that ITAR and EAR do not necessarily prohibit building or possessing items covered by these regulations. They do, however, restrict export of those items. What is important to note here is that an export is more than just a transfer of hardware outside the country. Simply discussing certain items with non-US persons would constitute an export, as would discussing those items in a venue where non-US persons would be able to access the information (i.e., here).

The following is a not-exhaustive list of items requiring careful attention.

EAR-controlled items relevant to this question are as follows:

• 7A001: Accelerometers
• 7A002: Angular rate sensors
• 7A003: Inertial measurement equipment
• 7A101 through 7A103 are similar but less likely to be applicable
• 7E004: "Technology" related to guidance and control of air vehicles -- multiple items covered in this one
• 9A004: Spacecraft and launch vehicles (particularly under subheading h: sub-orbital craft)
• 9E002: "Technology" related to 9A004

For ITAR, the relevant USML items are as follows:

• IV(a)(5): Rockets, SLVs, and missiles not meeting the categories of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4)
  • Particular attention needs to be paid to Note 3 to Paragraph (a) of category IV of the USML (emphasis added):

    This paragraph does not control model and high power rockets (as defined in National Fire Protection Association Code 1122) and kits thereof made of paper, wood, fiberglass, or plastic containing no substantial metal parts and designed to be flown with hobby rocket motors that are certified for consumer use. Such rockets must not contain active controls (e.g., RF, GPS).

• IV(h)(1): Flight control and guidance systems (including guidance sets) specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category

While you might be interested in quibbling over the details of whether any of these items actually apply, I would find it wise as a site to stay back to a degree where we aren't acting as armchair lawyers, especially when violations would require hiring real ones. This is especially important for those of us who work in the space industry, where penalties for violating ITAR and EAR include debarment in addition to various other traditional government punishments.

Answer 3

The idea is bad, it is so bad that even talking about it is dangerous. It can lead to an accumulation of evil people wanting to make the site always more and more restricted.

Many other SE sites are ruled by such bad actors, the Space SE was so or so exempt from them (well, the another bad idea about the banning of rocket fuels was already a very bad signature).

I won't ever accept such a rule and I will vote always against it, ignoring the consequences. Consider it some type of a "civil disobedience".

I am also thinking that you are likely collecting voters for an once coming election after the site graduation. You lost my vote now.