Usually not, but you never know. And then there's always the issue of newcomers who don't know any better and might be taken in by the latest snake-oil salesman.
Yes, my own case. I used to be pretty firmly anti-NAR due to their former antagonism to TRA and high power. But I now accept that they have fully embraced high power and are no longer a threat to it or to TRA. What changed my mind? Something Bunny said here.
That, and the realization that holding onto old animosities was not healthy.
Jerry,
can't you make Bob a VP or something? ;o)
- z
Bob Kaplow wrote:
if I understand Duane's intent, he is suggesting that the absence of motor certification does no compromise anything provided that the manufacturer (or EX/AM builder) understands what their doing, and acts responsibly with respect to the launch conditions
I can go along with that, but it doesn't address the casual user who only wants to buy and fly ...
but this does, IMO. So then the question that arises for me is:
is there merit in the proactive (prior to distribution) testing with the goal of preventing even a "first incident", as opposed to the situation where a manufacturer with defective materials, processes or QA produces a motor whose "first incident" results in their losing credibility, getting sued, and possibly charged with some crime.
could you elaborate on this?
- iz
naysaying, albiet on-topic
"Cato's banner of "100% compliance at all times" are your words, and not mine
see "JC, TRA and the future of rocketry" thread for my actual comments regarding JC's position in relation to mine and/or ARSA's, (which Ray even then constantly misquoted, twisted, and manipulated for some political agenda)
- iz
RayDunak> RayDunak>
I am not assuming anything, I am asking questions
- iz
RayDunak> either way?>>
thank God prospective members see the snake-oil salesmen in 'your TRA' and save themselves the aggravation
THIS is a place for people with "something to contribute" to explore a possibility (which is NOT what you are doing, Ray)
gee, last I heard NAR is antagonistic to EX, yet TRA embraces (the opportunity to control) EX. Based on your reasoning, why doesn't that make you anti-NAR?
how true
don't hate the people, just hate the deeds (and incarcerate the criminals to protect society)
- iz
When the AeroTech factory in Las Vegas, Nevada, was burned, some manufacturing was temporarily outsourced to Ellis Mountain [sic?]. From what I understand (feel free to correct me) the humidity factor of the geographic location of Ellis caused problems with the propellant recipe. Las Vegas is extremely (EXTREMELY) dry. Most of Texas is not. So the first batches of motors from Ellis Mountain had many motors that were too soft, and would literally plug up the nozzle and cause a CATO rupture. The motors had been certified and distributed, and it subsequently took some time to figure out that there was an issue. Eventually the recipe or environmental controls where handled, and a "work-around" was published for existing affected batches of distributed stock (drilling a biggler central hole in the propellant slug), and recall/replacement (I believe) was offered for others. There was much discussion about end users modifying the affected batches of motors (as directed) to effectively make the motors safe, and the subsequent legality use of those modified motors at club-sanctioned launches.
It was a great example of how club testing and certification is only a pseudo "feel-good" notion. It may help those new to rocketry to hear that testing is done as a backup to the manufacturer's say-so, but it does little for the more experienced.
The part where it gets a little more complicated is when governmental authorities/insurance industries try to hold an organization responsible for what is bought, sold, and/or used at organizational functions, *especially* if that organization stands to gain in any way from those actions. Any time money/goods/trades/services changes hands, there are rules, opinions, and complications. An organization does not usually want to appear like a "rogue" entity, but yet still must be able to facilitate its' reason for existence.
~ Duane Phillips.
Ray Dunakin is the primary word twister here on rmr, whether by intent or neglegence, but always does so in a fashion to be "apologetic" or "give excuses" toward TRA.
Excuses TRA itself was not creative or timely enough to generate so Ray generates it for them!!!!!
Jerry
As I have posted before several times, it is not the law or the regulations that protect us as rocketeers. It is a high level of voluntary compliance (even mere rough compliance) with an established safety code. Let's say for the purposes of example the model rocket safety code since it has lower offset distances analagous with HPR distances before TRA got on the NFPA committee and went crazy writing many rules and far more restrictive rules. The vast majority of the safety record was accumulated under the "old rules".
The old rules in "HPR" (then referred to as MRT) called for "premanufactured motors", mostly SU at the time, "non-metallic construction", offset distances at launch roughly analagous to the "Kaplow Tables".
Thank you Estes Industries and Vern Estes.
TRA's metric of "enforcing people to follow safety" is fine for a facist dictatorship style of management for group launches among relatively small groups of people willing to wait in line 30-200 minutes to launch a rocket.
But for the other 98% of the rocket population flying lone ranger and essentially on their own personal versions of the "safety code", most of which employ the key elements, pre-manufactured motors, electrical ignition from a distance, non-metallic construction (ie USR, LOC, PML, Estes kits).
That engrained behavior and practice (with or more often without true compliance with NAR/TRA rules) is what saves us from gross errors and failures from manufacturers like errortech who releases HUNDREDS of defective motors to the general public (the foamy AT by Ellis 38mm J350's are but one example).
Motors that EXPLODE and even send bits of aluminum casing around, yet nobody is injured or killed. The safety code and engrained selfcompliance ethic of rocketeers generally with remote ignition offset distances save us yet again from "boys gone wild" at the upper echelons of rocketry (AT/Ellis/TRA/NAR who were all party to allowing this).
NO AT by Ellis motors were required to be tested before their release to the general public by either NAR or TRA.
Just Factual Jerry
Try to argue that!!
What moron does not have his chemicals closed to outside air except during the moment of installation into a batch?
Ellis.
What manufacturer moron used this excuse which flies in the face of actual motor ballistic principals?
AeroTech and/or its dealers.
The foam increased the initial surface area resulting in over pressures. The core issue was to reduce erosivity caused by the higher core mach numbers. The modified motors ran at a higher pressure (same nozzles) with shorter burning times as a result of the foaminess.
And how the metric of decertifying and recalling defective product is IGNORED when it is the ONLY copies of a product the entire industy can get since their supplier burned down, killed one person, maimed yet another, due to an industrial accident with inexcusably unsafe materials, then outsources propellant exactly contrary to a ruling another prospective (return) vendor was rejected on.
This is some variation of nepotism.
Jerry
Bruce Kelly Chuck Rogers Dick Embry Gary Rosenfield
Why would these last two things be applicable to a motor malfunction? I had an AT single use motor fail on me once... I eventually got a replacement, but there was never any thought that anyboudy should be sued or accused of anything... our safety procedures are designed so that motor failures are non-hazardous to personnel.
-dave w
Nice word. Works too.
Webster.com explains: " Main Entry: nep·o·tism Pronunciation: 'ne-p&-"ti-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nepote nephew, from Latin nepot-, nepos grandson, nephew -- more at NEPHEW Date: 1670 : favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship
- nep·o·tis·tic /"ne-p&-'tis-tik/ adjective "
~ Duane "I lern sumthun nuw ev'r dae" Phillips.
begin 666 audio.gif M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P`````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P`` ` end
I noticed that too Jerry. In fact, this particular issue was one of the final things that helped me more fully understand your comments... and the included sarcasm. Both NAR and TRA seemed to "look the other way" on this issue.
While I think the whole certification thing is sketchy, it was this departure from club protocols (yes, I know you feel they departed long ago) that for me turned your dogma into belief and understanding.
There is more to say, exceptions and otherwise, but I am out of time for now.
Evidently so.
~ Duane Phillips.
Just had to clarify... by "look the other way", I meant disregard their own procedures, that they historically forced others to follow... regardless of the crisis at hand. What they should have done (even now) in this time of crisis is be making calls to every possible vendor to certify(if they must) and beef up the supply chains, and not choke the industry/hobby.
It is like telling the body to work harder with less blood. Certain parts begin to faint away...
Focus on the safety of the motors (which is/was the primary purpose of certs), and let the manufacturer worry about how to legally get the motors into the hands of hobbyists.
~ Duane "now I am late for my meeting" Phillips.
Iz wrote:
I tend to agree with this, at least in theory. However, there may be other factors at play, such as pressure from regulators who might not approve a certification system that does not ensure the motors are legally produced and shipped.
Not to mention pressure from individuals who agree with John Cato that all such legal requirements must be followed regardless of any other considerations. ;)
True, for the occasional faulty motor there's no risk of injury as long as safety procedures are in place, and a responsible manufacturer can be depended on to replace the motor. But what about the less responsible manufacturers? For instance, I wonder how many fliers and vendors lost money on Ravenna's first commercial batch of motors, which all catoed? (This was prior to the institution of motor certifications.)
Iz wrote:
What would be required to set up a testing organization that does what NAR now accomplishes?
Subparts to the question: must each delay be tested or just the characteristics of a given delay material and propellant combination? What level of accuracy would be required? What checks and balances would be required to satisfy the various AHJs that the certs were properly conducted.
In other words, would it be worth the effort to set up a national testing center for the purpose of meeting the NFPA/IFC requirements?
Rocky Firth
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.