action: motor certification

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote in news:rndBb.377252$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyc.rr.com:

That's not the basis for "explosives" regulation. Maybe BATFE considers sport rockets "firearms"?

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens
Loading thread data ...

Exactly.

That only matters when you fly at an NAR (or TRA) launch and need to show the certification to the NAR launch officials to "prove" that you know what you are doing. Furthermore, you can be certified L3 and still have no experience or competency with hybrids.

True, it has nothing to do with hybrid motor materials (assumimg rather inert plastic fuel grains without imbedded oxidixer), which are MUCH safer than PB and APCP motors. I think it is codified in the NFPA "fire codes" because the NAR/TRA saw hybrid motors as a subclass of HPR motors and they wanted to codify it there.

The likely injuries ate those that arise from lugging the support equipment to the launch site, and this is also the reason why you don't see terrorists, or miltary forces using hybrids.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

Well, you know that hyb...

Never mind. ;-)

Reply to
Kurt Kesler

meanwhile rockets are trashed, and someone could be seriously killed.

And even when they work, if they are under spec, my rocket doesn't get off the pad and heads for the crowd. Or if it's over power, it shreads or breaks the waiver.

When I buy a product in a store, it's likely been tested by UL, CSA, etc.

What is "after shave"?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

On what grounds? That TRA management is a lying cheating bunch of lowlife scumbags?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I didn't write what you quoted...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

You've got hybrids? Submit them to the NAR instead of TRA!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Um, uh, you are far more likely to be "seriously killed" by tripping and falling on a pipe, or in a car accident to or from the launch or from falling out of a tree or being electrocuted recovering something. Many hundreds of times more likely.

Or "fully killed".

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Same problem. I am just less noisy criticizing them as they actually act like they would take my motors "if only". We seem to be in a death struggle over the terms of "if only" right now.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Remember? This was the 3 29mm hybrid motors would not fit into Sue McMurray's car. This at an LDRS (the very last) where my motors were actually allowed.

I even had all CF rockets for sale there long before there was a Shadow Composites.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

No, it's in the fire codes because rockets in general are there, and were there long before TRA or even NAR existed.

Reply to
RayDunakin

Bob K. wrote:

Reply to
RayDunakin

But only listed as exempted!

Any exemption is better than any codification. Always. Ever!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

As opposed to "not-seriously" killed?

You're killing me.

Seriously.

;-)

Reply to
Kurt Kesler

I think he meant "seriously killed" as opposed to "lightly killed".

As in, "We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose."

Mmmmmmmmmm......

Reply to
BB

Maybe he got better :-)

John

Reply to
John Stein

Being "lightly killed" is how you end up "mostly dead". :)

Reply to
RayDunakin

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.