alternative to Hatch/Kohl 724 in the works

You really are a fool aren't you. Isn't the law suit ONLY for APCP? What about all the other propellant systems out there that either are used, or
could be used?
Rocketry is not just about the NAR and TRA, nor is it just about model and high power rocketry. Amateurs and experimenters are the real people that need to be protected, just as much or more so then high power fliers. If every person who wanted to experiment with a new idea needed to jump through a billion legal hoops to develop a new useful technology, nothing would ever get done.
Letting the NAR supposedly fix our problems will set rocketry back who knows how many years. If the NAR had their way every person who so much as mixes up a sugar propellant motor would be thrown in jail.
Pax

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paxton wrote:

How do you support such a statement?
You should take your own advice: "You really are a fool aren't you. Isn't the law suit ONLY for APCP?"
-John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hardly. That might have been the attitude 20 years ago, but not for a LONG time now. NAR has changed BIG TIME since the late 80s regarding new and different technologies. It probably started when G Harry made his little speech at NARAM-29 (plus or minus a couple). I was shocked at how fast NAR accepted reloadable motors. Faster than TRA.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So maybe it was a little bit of an exaggeration, but I still don't belive that they like the idea now. They certainly don't want AM/EX at their launches. My earlier statement might be a couple years old, but I haven't seem anything that showed they are all for AM/EX now. Seems they tolerate it's existance only because they have to and people haven't been dropping dead like crazy.
I guess it doesn't matter either way, but regardless, letting a hobby organization fix all of private rocketry is a bit foolish either way.
Pax
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both NAR and TRA charters define their scope as COMMERCIALLY MADE rocket motors. NAR follows it's rules. TRA does not. NAR has no problems with what I do outside their activities. And doesn't ask 98% of the organization to subsidize overpriced insurance for the 2%.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

What makes an EX motor with >62.5g of APCP any different that a commercial motor with >62.5g of APCP in respect to a LEUP? None. So, EX is not a substitute for relief from regulation. But it is an option to those waiting for a certain manufacturer to ramp up production. And it's an option for those that would have to pay the increased shipping costs (if they don't have a local dealer or onsite vendor). Buy 'em or make 'em, you still need a permit. Unless, of course, one decides to ignore the current laws.
-john
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(RayDunakin) writes:

OK, so it's 5%

Sadly, that may be true.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
when rocketry was 500 or so people with 50 at a big time launch, rocketry was under the radar screeen of ATF and they didn't care.
in the last 15 years it's gotton tooo big for them to ignore, and they worry more then science geeks are doing it. It scares them when JQP can launch a big rocket.
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in message
(RayDunakin) writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(AlMax714) writes:

That may very well be the case. But it's outside the legal jurisdiction of the BATFE to regulate.
If congress thinks that the sheeple want all devices capable of DELIVERING a destructive or dangerous device to be heavily regulated, then they should pass a new law and creat a new federal buocracy to do so. But they better regulate EVERY such deliver device. Not just high power rockets, but Ryder trucks, Boeing (and Airbus, Cesna, Lear, et al) airplanes, Greyhound bus lines, Chrysler minivans, and personal cars. And package delivery companies too.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in

Don't forget vests, tennis shoes, plastic and metal pipe, envelopes and boxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(RayDunakin) writes:

insurance
especially
of
It's about 40% here.
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One site does not make a national population.
What percentage of HPR fliers nationally also do EX? I'd say it's a lot closer to my initial 2% estimate than your 40%.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD says...

Do you mean among those certified to fly HPR (and then launch 1 H per year) or those who actually fly HPR?
--
Kurt Kesler



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Either way. And matching AM numbers (those who only did it once)
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

I would restate the question. What portion of EX'ers even bother with HPR anymore with the TRA/LEUP/errortech treadmill?
A very small percentage.
There are ALOT more estes rocketeers than NAR members, by at least two orders of magnitude, and a similar situation exists in Am/Ex re HPR.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Point. I suspect that the BATFE is not concerned at all about recreational rocketry, but that using rocketry for education and R&D scares the hell out of them. While we like to point out the educational and scientific benifits of hobby rocketry, that may be counter productive.
Alan Fear is the mind killer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What scares the hell out of the JBGTs is what kook might do with big rocket motors. But using them in illegal acts is already illegal. And the BATFE is not authorized to regulate delivery trucks, or you'd need a BATFE permit to rent a truck or fly an airplane or mail a package.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

That is my belief, as well; It's the rockets, stupid...
I have been trying to figure out which Department actually assesses terrorist threats given the HSA reorganization and the obvious incompetence of the DOJ in assessing hobby rocket motor threats. BATFE went over to Justice, but it is not listed as a Division under the Department of Homeland Security.
I was struck by a "mission" statement at the atf.gov site:
http://www.atf.gov/index.htm
It says that, "ATF's mission is to protect this country and its citizens from the threat of terrorism and violent crime."
That's not BATFE's job according to the CFR which established their jurisdiction over "Commerce in Explosives". Violent crime; okay. Terrorist threats; no way.
Essentially, BATFE is responsible for regulations promoting a safe and efficient industrial/economic infrastructure for items under their control, and to help fight organized crime. Implementing infrastructure regulations based upon changing and poorly perceived terrorist threats is contrary to maintaining a stable and efficient infrastructure. No doubt, temporary regulations may be required and necessary. But those can be enacted by DHS on an as-needed basis.
It is counter-productive to have a regulatory agency in the business of terror threat assessment. The ATF had it's own enforcement division precisely because of the unique nature of BATFE regulatory impact.
Having BATFE doing terrorist assessment and basing regulatory decisions on terror threats is playing directly into the hands of the terrorists; their actions are changing our society in fundamental ways as we react, by way of infrastructure regulations, to their threats, real or perceived. And the skewed perception of those threats exhibited by BATFE/DOJ in regards to hobby rocket motors demonstrates the subsequent regulations will be just as skewed and ineffective. GIGO.
I'm about to communicate this view to my elected officials. Thoughts or comments?
--
Gary Bolles
NAR 82636
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've always felt that it is proper and appropriate to write to your senators and representatives.
It almost never does any good, but at least you can wind up with a pen-pal.
--
Mike KD7PVT
NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary
this is an excellent, fresh analysis
well done!
- iz

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.