action: motor certification

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed · 2003-11-28T11:55:23+00:00

motor certification - meeting DoT requirements vs. publishing reliability and performance statisticscurrently motor certification for commercial launches is a requirement in NFPA 1127. What about states where the IBC or NFPA 1127 code is not? Is mandated motor certification something we wish to see remain in the code, or is it possible revise or dispose of it?what is the role of AHJs, like the State Fire Marshal, in constraining the use of flammable solids, or other materials used in rocketry, and how does that bear on motor certification?and what of the DoT? How does DoT testing required for legal motor shipment relate to motor certification as it exists today?apart from meeting specific AHJ and DoT requirements, and if the NFPA can be revised or disposed of, is there a case for continued motor certification to provide reliability and performance statistics? Apart from consumer confidence, to what extent does these statistics bear on the cost of insurance?what is the best way to satisfy testing requirements?- inhouse- DoT, UN, etc.- independent testing (UL, etc)comments?- iz

A

Alan Jones 22 years ago

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

Vote

K

Kurt Kesler 22 years ago

Well, you know that hyb...

Never mind. ;-)

Vote

B

Bob Kaplow 22 years ago

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!

Vote

B

Bob Kaplow 22 years ago

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!

Vote

B

Bob Kaplow 22 years ago

I didn't write what you quoted...

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

Vote

B

Bob Kaplow 22 years ago

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!

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

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

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

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

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

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

Vote

R

RayDunakin 22 years ago

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

Vote

R

RayDunakin 22 years ago

Bob K. wrote:

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

But only listed as exempted!

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

Vote

K

Kurt Kesler 22 years ago

As opposed to "not-seriously" killed?

You're killing me.

Seriously.

;-)

Vote

B

BB 22 years ago

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......

Vote