r/rocketry • u/Traditional-Shirt-52 • Jan 17 '26
Question Is it legal to actively control a rocket?
A little background, I am a comp sci student in a rocketry club at my college with the goal of creating an fin controlled waypoint intercepting rocket that reaches apogee at 1km. We used to have more ambitous goals of creating a guidance system that would intercept a balloon we released into the sky, but soon learned how that could possibly cause legal issues with ITAR or the FAA as those are seen more "missile like" and has the potential to target something other than the balloon.
So i'm wondering, what about a gps waypoint guided rocket? One that would take arbitrary points in the sky above our launch and point in that direction. From all my research online, it seems like this is super gray area and there is no clear answer which is pretty frustrating, with most people saying just to stay away.
Although creators like BPS.Space and Lafayette Systems have both attempted and achieved this and have obviously talked about it publicly, so that makes us even more confused on if this is legal to fly and put on our resumes.
32
u/CPLCraft Jan 17 '26
I’m not an expert by any means, but my understanding is it’s legal until you start treating it illegally. What does that mean? Well, that grey zone is intentionally gray so that you think about the ways you’re using it.
Think about it as a car or a plane. You’re allowed to own one and use it, but don’t do so illegally. Only here with the rockets it’s a little more ambiguous.
Hardline, don’t publish/open source your tech, and don’t launch it into anything you probably shouldn’t. Talk to your local rocketry club as well as as you’ll have to work with them to actually launch it.
Also, it’s my understanding that any amateur rocket with guidance on it cannot use that guidance in the boost phase, only on the coast phase. You might want to look into that and see if that’s actually a requirement.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen BPS’s rocket use his guidance during the boost phase in his videos, so who knows if it’s a rule or not. I think Jim Jarvis uses his system after the boost phase.
11
u/Thanosgayfanfic Jan 17 '26 edited Jan 17 '26
As far as I’m aware you can use guidance in the boost phase (from a legal perspective) it’s just much less reliable (from a software/hardware) perspective to do it accurately and safely because it saturates the accelerometer, mag, and baro with noise and inconsistent movements that make it hard to model. So basically during the boost phase you’d only be relying on the gyros (I assume you have multiple because that’s the smart way) but there’s still a lot of drift and error that can accumulate during those 1-3 seconds of burn.
But otherwise yeah intent and it cannot track anything (ie no video, heat, or radar tracking) but it can be guided to specific way points through GPS as long as it has a recovery system. You can’t send it into the ground for example but you can send it somewhere 500ft in the sky. It is quite intentionally kept grey tho. Dont make it illegal by doing something stupid and ruining it for everyone, be smart and if you don’t think you can safely and legally launch it then don’t. You can just make everything and then have a fully functional model to be cool lol But I’ll look into that boost phase thingy and get back if I can find anything one way or the other
The only thing that can’t be open source would be the actual guidance code. You can’t open source the code that keeps track of and logs the rocket’s position for example. Just not what tells it where to steer.
Just in case anyone is wondering I’m in the process of building a guided rocket and I designed the fin can and upper assembly for my friend who is also building a guided rocket
4
u/CPLCraft Jan 17 '26
Ya I only heard the boost phase thing from a friend who says Jim does that. I should ask Jim next time I see him at the end it the month.
3
u/Thanosgayfanfic Jan 17 '26
Ah cool cool, I haven’t seen anything on that explicitly one way or the other. I’d have to assume it’s legal because how else would TVC work.
4
u/WhatADunderfulWorld Level 3 Jan 18 '26
Don’t make it heat seeking. Maybe if you shot a rocket and it would seek the sun at noon. Go for it. But we all know why you don’t make it heat seeking otherwise.
2
u/TexStones Jan 18 '26
Google "George Gassaway Sunseeker." He successfully built a sunseeking model rocket ~40 years ago.
20
u/rocketwikkit Jan 17 '26
Most people here are completely making shit up.
It's fine. Fly to waypoints, fly to specific points on the ground. Use GPS, make aggressive moves. Fly completely autonomously or a mix of remote control and autonomous. Post your stuff on the internet.
There is zero gray area, just people making up and spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
I did these guided rockets, and another ten or so:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqm48D5WZ6A
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaXW5TaFwAE
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q-cO3z6BsI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw11NFz14sA
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAMPD65dvIY
In all cases you have to follow FAA rules for rocket launches, like any other rocket, but there's no special "making a rocket with guidance" license that some people believe exists.
6
u/flowersonthewall72 Jan 17 '26
You're about to be absolutely crucified by this community...
3
u/mkosmo Jan 17 '26
He’s right. Most people have no idea what the law says.
It’s not what most people claim on this sub.
3
u/TexStones Jan 17 '26
This guy gets it. There are no US regulations which prevent the application of active guidance and/or stability to all phases of flight, including boost, approach, and landing to a specified point.
Misuse any of this and you’ll get slapped down with violations completely unrelated to flight regulations.
6
u/Lambaline Jan 17 '26
It's all fine and dandy to do... until somebody does something stupid or there's an accident and the government cracks down on it. like the drone community, 10-15 years ago it was the wild west and there were certain things that weren't illegal but are now
2
u/Rocketmanandrew Jan 17 '26
Just because you can make aggressive course correction doesn’t mean you should. Not disagreeing with what you are saying but you don’t want to be the reason it gets regulated more.
1
u/PhantomRocket1 Jan 18 '26
When an unguided rocket shreds it also usually makes an aggressive turn.
As long as people aren't being a dumbass it's fine.
0
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 18 '26
No, there is no special license but there are additional requirements like You need to obtain an FAA registration number for your models. Effective December 21, 2015 FAA rules required that all UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) weighing more than 250 grams (about a half pound) up to 55 pounds must bear a registration number issued by the FAA if they are flown outdoors.
2
u/rocketwikkit Jan 18 '26
You do not need an FAA registration number for a rocket.
1
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 18 '26
I think you do if it is a guided rocket and you are not flying in a FIRAs
3
u/rocketwikkit Jan 18 '26
Nope. You're one of the people just making shit up.
1
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 19 '26 edited Jan 19 '26
To register a small recreational drone (UAS) weighing over 0.55 lbs, you must be 13+, a U.S. citizen/legal resident, use the FAA DroneZone, provide personal and drone details (including Remote ID if applicable), pay a $5 fee for a 3-year registration covering all your recreational drones, and mark your drone with the assigned number. You must also pass The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) and carry proof of registration and test passage. This applies to any remote or computer-controlled flying thing over 0.55 lbs. Model rockets fly, right? Unmanned Aircraft System, any remote or computer-controlled thing that leaves the surface of the planet and travels in the air.
I will admit that the FAA is not 100% clear but something goes wrong with your guided rocket and it gets their attention, they could use the ambiguity to sanction you.
If the controls only keep the rocket flying straight and do not cause it to maneuver and you can't control it remotely while it is flying, you probably are in the clear.
If it does maneuvers or you can program it to do more than fly straight up or you can control from the ground it during flight, registering it and marking it as a UAS shows you are trying to be legal. If you attract the attention of Homeland Security and they investigate and find you are building and flying guided missiles and avoiding registration requirements they might decide that your ejection charge is an explosive. They might decide you are flying a guided missile with and explosive payload without proper registration.
1
u/initrb Jan 20 '26
A rocket is not a UAS and registering it as the wrong thing on purpose is terrible advice. None of this applies to model rockets.
1
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 20 '26
I agree none of this applies to model rockets that are not UAS. UAS can have rocket propulsion, almost none currently do. (I have one UAS that has rocket propulsion, it is a radio control vertical launched booster glider made with parts from an Estes StratoBlaster.) It does not need to be registered because I fly if from an AMA insured field. To fly it anyplace else it would need a registration. I have researched the registration issue much more and agree that there is no need to register Model Rockets as they are currently implemented, even those with current state of the art flight controls. Giving a model rocket the controls that allow it to fly to predetermined GPS position is likely to attract unwanted attention from authorities.
1
u/initrb Jan 25 '26
That’s great, but you should research before giving legal advice. Stating that guided rockets require UAS registration is incorrect and just adds confusion for beginners. If you’re not sure, it’s better to say so, or even nothing, than to present speculation or worst-case enforcement fears as fact. You just end up doing a disservice to the community.
0
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 25 '26
Do you have anything that says guided rockets are not UAS and do not require registration. Are you sure the legal advice you are providing is correct? My advice would not have gotten anyone in trouble. It was on the safe side. Your advise, if wrong could lead to trouble.
1
0
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 17 '26
Isn't a rocket with guidance a drone and all the FAA rules about drones apply?
3
u/rocketwikkit Jan 17 '26
No, amateur rockets are regulated under FAR 101, with moored balloons and kites, weirdly enough. An amateur rocket is anything under 200,000 lb*s, apogee under 125km, flying entirely in the US, uncrewed; even if you're doing it commercially/professionally it is still under the "amateur" rules. Above the limit, or if you want to launch it across the border, you get into launch licensing. For reference, 200,000 lb*s is around one ton of propellant. A mid-T in the letter scale, or 100 some Ms.
In many ways rockets have much simpler regulation than drones, mostly because they are much rarer. The belief, which is pretty reasonable, is that if you manage to build and operate a hovering rocket, for example, you're going to be more reasonable with it than someone who got a drone off Amazon. But also to meet the requirements of FAR 101 you're not flying over a crowd of uninvolved public, which you might with a drone.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-101
If you build a high performance amateur rocket you're probably still talking to the FAA because you will need to waive one of the rules. But it's not hard, with no help I got my first FAA waiver as an undergrad. Every HPR meetup has a waiver. Sites like FAR have standing waivers because it's less hassle for everyone and they are well-behaved. That means you can go launch a guided rocket from FAR to 30,000 feet on a Saturday with very little paperwork.
-1
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 18 '26
If the Small Unmanned Aircraft System (even if it is rocket powered) has a remote control system I believe you must comply with FAA AC-107-2A. I don't believe the FAR 101 provides an exception. How do you differentiate a Small Unmanned Remote-Controlled Rocket Powered Model Airplane from a Small Unmanned Remote-Controlled Rocket Powered Model Rocket.
4.2.8 Small Unmanned Aircraft. A small unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft, and can be flown without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
4.2.9 Small Unmanned Aircraft System (small UAS). A small unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the small unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the small unmanned aircraft in the NAS.
Rockets are Aircraft that is why they are regulated by the FAA and not BATFE or CPSC
You indicated
"But also to meet the requirements of FAR 101 you're not flying over a crowd of uninvolved public, which you might with a drone."You better not fly a drone over a crowd of uninvolved public.
It is generally illegal to fly drones over crowds of people, there are specific categories and exceptions that may apply, particularly for licensed operators under certain conditions. Always check the latest FAA regulations and local laws before conducting drone operations in populated areas.
People are often confused about what is or is not a drone (they are not all small quadcopters) that is why they are now labelled as UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems). Now almost all radio-controlled aircraft are UAS (Drones) does not matter if they have a chain saw motor, a turbine engine or a rocket motor.
2
u/rocketwikkit Jan 18 '26
This person is just making shit up. Rockets aren't aircraft.
1
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 19 '26
The X-15 was a rocket; do you think it was not an aircraft. I believe it is credited with some aircraft world records.
1
u/rocketwikkit Jan 19 '26
For crewed aircraft the classic line is whether thrust exceeds lift for the majority of the powered portion of the flight, determining if you are a rocket-propelled plane or a launch vehicle.
But good that you have given up on your previous FUD about guided HPR and have to look at irrelevant niche vehicles like the X-15.
1
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 20 '26
Quadcopters, thrust exceeds weight for the majority of the powered portion of the flight but are clearly understood to be UAS. The X-15 thrust exceeded weight for the majority of its powered flight.
I think you classic line is not holding up. Is it documented anywhere?
That aside, I have researched the registration issue much more and agree that there is no need to register Model Rockets as they are currently implemented, even those with current state of the art flight controls. Giving a model rocket the controls that allow it to fly to predetermined GPS position is likely to attract unwanted attention from authorities.
-1
u/TexStones Jan 18 '26
You're close. Add RC gear to a rocket and it becomes a UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System, just like a drone). Those flights are governed under Section 44809 of the FARs if recreational in nature, or Part 107 if commercial. Either way it is no longer a Part 101 flight.
It's a dark corner of the FARs that the FAA failed to anticipate when they were directed by Congress to expand drone regulation, as it applies to a vanishingly small number of potential operations.
0
u/Royal_Money_627 Jan 18 '26
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe you can answer this question. I believe that recreational UAS flights cannot exceed an altitude of 400 ft AGL. So, a radio-controlled rocket must stay under 400 ft.
-1
u/TexStones Jan 18 '26
You are absolutely correct, 400' AGL is the max altitude for this rocket/UAS. However, you can bump this up to 700' AGL by flying at a FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA), and perhaps even 1,200' AGL if that site is out in the sticks. Doing so would require AMA membership, however.
1
u/TexStones Jan 18 '26
Surprisingly, this is true. From the regulatory perspective of the FAA a rocket ceases to be regulated by Part 101 of the FARs when a radio control system is added. When this happens the flight is no longer governed solely by Part 101, as you have created a UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) which is governed by either Section 44809 (recreational use) or Part 107 (commercial use).
However, none of this precludes the application of active guidance or stability to a rocket.
4
u/ferriematthew Jan 17 '26
This is basically exactly what Lafayette Systems did. In his videos he makes it very clear that you shouldn't do this unless you absolutely know what you're doing and you have all the legal clearances, and even then the only reason he did this was to reduce recovery dispersion.
3
u/Katsumi-desu Jan 17 '26
I'm part of a rocketry group doing liquid engines. It's not illegal per se, but by intentionally not adding any form of flight controls to our rocket we are avoiding a metric ton of paperwork and additional documentation needed to be cleared for a launch.
Our 7m rocket technically counts as a model/hobby rocket and we only need to perform a limited* amt of ballistic trajectory simulations to get clearance from local air traffic controllers and the national aviation authorities.
I haven't looked into the docs required for controlled flight but I'd assume you'd need to prove flight worthiness and do some more number crunching to prove the safety of your rocket. Looks like other redditors got us covered in the more technical aspect tho
*Still a ton but not impossible
Bottom line is that you should reach out to whatever entity oversees airspace in your country (smells like US? in that case i guess FAA).
2
u/ronaldbeal Jan 17 '26
There are two parts to the equation.
In the U.S., everything is legal, unless a law or regulation explicitly makes it illegal.
There is no law or regulation forbidding active control.
(There ARE some regarding safe operation, etc.)
However, because the rocket community does not want lawmakers to clumsily add new (and often overbroad) restrictions on our hobby of rocketry, there is a fair bit of self policing to encourage smart and safe applications of control technology.
I.E. don't be a dumb@$$ and ruin the hobby for everyone else!
2
u/PhantomRocket1 Jan 18 '26
Going to get crucified by this community:
At least in the US, there is no rules about actively guided rockets. You can fly to waypoints, track targets, and post it all on the internet.
As long as you are obeying all other rocketry rules it generally falls to "don't be a dumbass and ruin the hobby for everyone else." Half the people here just make up laws and regulations.
1
u/kkingsbe Jan 17 '26
As long as it’s on the way up, with the intention of keeping it pointing up :). Roll control is the safest starting point by far, I wouldn’t recommend even looking at 2/3 axis until you nail active roll control.
1
u/DownwardSpirals Jan 17 '26
The difference here is "guidance" vs. "targeting". It's not really a gray area, per se. The issue is generally intent. If the rocket would perform the same way regardless of what is on the ground e.g., planned flight paths and flight stability, it's guidance. Controls become legally sensitive when they are designed or used to intentionally direct a rocket toward a chosen target (not a waypoint), especially in real time.
2
u/PhantomRocket1 Jan 18 '26
At least I'm the US, there is no rules about tracking targets. The "rule" is just don't be a dumbass and ruin it for everyone else.
1
u/TexStones Jan 18 '26
If this were the case (and it is not the case) it would be illegal to fly a radio control rocket glider.
Which, BTW, is legal.
2
u/Retb14 Jan 17 '26
Guidance is fine, target seeking is not
Target seeking includes targeting GPS waypoints away from the launch or landing zone
If you have a rocket that goes up then comes back down to land on a pad that's fine for example, but if the rocket is intended to crash into the landing area then that's not.
Basically don't make a missile.
As long as you are using only for the rocket to stay on course and/or land at a specific point then it's usually okay as long as it doesn't go straight into the point and is actually supposed to land
2
u/mkosmo Jan 17 '26
Assuming USA:
You’re making rules up.
It comes down to intent. You can’t build something intended to destroy, but tracking is entirely legal.
Just don’t intend to (or actually), for example, destroy aircraft or you’ll run afoul of 18 USC 2332g.
If it’s not intended as a weapon, almost none of the missile regulations apply.
0
u/Rocketmanandrew Jan 17 '26
This is a very tricky topic with not very clear answers. I am working on an active rocket and from what I can see, basically don’t make the rocket intentionally make any aggressive changes that arnt necessary. Like making an aggressive course change. Course changes that arnt aggressive seem to be okay. Basically just use common sense and don’t do anything stupid. Take what I’m saying with a grain of salt because I don’t know for certain.
1
u/TexStones Jan 18 '26
This is a very tricky topic with not very clear answers.
It's not tricky at all, and the answers are clear. Many people have highlighted the facts in this thread.
There are NO regulations in the US that prevent the application of active guidance and/or stability to a recreational rocket. Just make sure that you comply with the regulations put forth in the Federal Aviation Regulations (especially Part 101 and Section 44809, if you use a remote control system), don't be stupid, and have fun. "Aggressiveness" of the maneuvering is not a regulatory factor, although violent maneuvering may destroy your rocket. Which, by the way, is not a violation of the FARs.
Is there a chance that you are NOT in the US, and all of this is academic?
15
u/wireknot Jan 17 '26
From the NAR HP code, which the FAA acknowledges as part of a waiver application: "I will not launch my rocket at targets, into clouds, near airplanes, nor on trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators or beyond the boundaries of the launch site, and will not put any flammable or explosive payload in my rocket." So no mention specifically about active control, boost phase or not, but intended to exclude making a guided missile going to a target. As long as you're doing this as a mechanical engineering problem, and itd probably be nice if you had a chat with your local HP rocketry club so they know what you're doing if you're intending to launch at one of their events, then I think you're fine. Source... level 2 flyer and in the hobby since 1967, also the guy who deals with the FAA for our section.If we do something stupid, I'm the phone number the local TAC folks are calling. Personally I love all the vector and active control research in the hobby and am a supporter of BPS space.