ATFE to produce anti-rocketry video

I am always right (and VERY unhappy about it), you just realized and noticed it this time.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

When you call your rocket the 'penetrator' I think they have some odd issues. The report will be commensurate with the amount of pay. :-)

formatting link

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

Or not at all, which is government's greatest fear.

Exactly.

I know.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

ROFL

Unless you skew the test.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Is there an echo in this room?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

The reason the test is CLASSIFIED (and it is) is to prevent a bad result from being disclosed (ie rockets are safe).

Isn't it cool to talk about a classified program IN PUBLIC and REAL TIME? And LEGALLY?

It is rare.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I think is in itself is an important question. If the guy was L2, he possessed the background to be L2. And then violated the BATFE's own rule, and passed them on to others for the filming of this "dog and pony".

If not, who sold him the motors? I'm sure that AT would like to know about any vendor passing on J350's without a national cert!

Reply to
AZ Woody

Cirrus Darts?

They better do a good glass job, they won't be too accurate with those fins flying off.

Good rocket choice though, mine broke mach at ~600ft and dropped back through at about 2200ft., also flew very straight.

Let's see, could a 2 pound rocket at mach speed do much damage?

-Bruce

Reply to
Bruce OBrien

The symptoms/leaks have preceeded the release to rmr by weeks.

So "no comment" is assumed.

JUST like NAR/TRA position on 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 outside of the lawsuit itself.

The parties, all of them, are squirming.

Fun to watch actually.

The only card I have showed the back of so far is the guidance supplier.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Nope. They will be needing explosives and guidance, which they have.

Even then, only a direct hit on a soft target will do anything at all.

Hence the drone (oops :) )

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Doesn't it rather spoil the test if they're using guidance not available to the typical hobbyist?

(Too bad that so many congresscritters seem, as a general case, to assume that Law Enforcement Agencies can do no wrong... but it's not too surprising: after all, they can only _write_ laws; their sense of their own power depends on their perception that someone will enforce them!)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

See my post re BATFE goals in this test. Summary: justify their existence at all cost.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Robert DeHate

Association of RETARDED Arsonists :)

Ted Novak TRA#5512

Robert DeHate wrote:

Reply to
the notorious t-e-d

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Chuck Rudy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@tradenet.nospam.net:

My experience with commercial hobby motors and igniters is that the rocket usually launches in about 5 seconds +10/-3. What kind of a baseline can you get with that?

Reply to
David W.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Alex, Jerry is right on the 'leaks'. They were known to few. You were just not in the loop.

RDH8

Reply to
Robert DeHate

Jerry means well... I think :)

But, like, whatever...

The fact is that later "hittile" systems used the technique very effectively. The French Catulle system, for example.

But such systems require both high-tech ground support AND performance characteristics from the rocket propellant that would be magical for even a high-power model rocket to achieve.

Thus anything resembling resembling even a near miss would require a lot of fixing on the BATF's side.

Unfortunately they have a documented record of fixing such things.

And getting caught.

_After_ the damage is done...

Reply to
Chuck Stewart

Apparently without much success, since we've never heard of any Israeli planes being shot down this way. In Iraq, they rigged a homemade launcher to fire a battery of discarded military missiles at a _building_ and most of them missed.

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.