Cato was right



Then they should have said that. DO it as an activity not under the NAR umbrella, like an EX or independent launch. And not allowed the practice to be comingled with NSL.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 May 2006 20:44:22 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

Gee, I wish I had said that. ;)

FAI team competition is still done under the AMA umbrella. Ideally, this should provide some separation and avoid commingling. The NAR has agreed to do the FAI team member selection, but presumably this will be done using only NAR certified motors, flown in accordance with the Safety Code.
Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
effective today, the AMA and the NAR signed an 5 yr agreement to turn over FAI spacemodeling competition back to the NAR; I have it on good authority that only a NAR membership will be required for USA Team Flyoffs and Practices, so only the NAR MRSC will be in effect. This, no doubt, is one reason for the recent policy shift . Once the USA Team is selected, ONLy then will a AMA membership with FAI stamp be required to actually participate in World SPacemodleing Championships (WSMC). I personally am all for growing and popularizing FAI Spacemodleing competition here in the USA. This NAR had the choice of choosing wthe "right" thing to do versus the "easy" and expedient thing to do. Unfortunately they took the easy way out.
Its my understanding that the NAR will pay the AMA $1600 per WSMC and $160 per competitior in the WSMC. Since there are 5 WSMC events and a JR and SR team that would amount to: 5 events x 3 people per event team x 2 teams 30 x 160.= $4800 + $1600 = $5400. Over the 5 yr life of the contract this comes to: $5400 x 5 = $27,000. For this kind of money they could have got the czech delta motors legally tested for use here in the USA.
And it wouldn't be the first time the NAR used NAR membership money to "seed" fund a program. Alot of people don't realize that the NAR put up $75K seed money to get TARC off the ground. Now of course they were reimbursed by the AIA.
Theres nothing in any local,state or federal laws that says the NAR couldn't import and sell czech delta motors ONLY to NAR FAI competitiors. The reason I say ONLY, is Jiri Taborsky doesn't have the capacity nor the interest to make the quantities of motors that would be required NAR members in general could use them for NAR competition. The NAR could then sell them at a suitable markup, such that:
1. they get back their initial investment for doing the required USDOT testing 2. they actually turn a profit at some point in time such that the profit is invested back in to purchasing future motors 3. it provides a source of income dedicated to the FAI Team funding
I don't have any objection to NAR members uisng Czech Delta or any other foreign motors as long as they undergo the same USDOT paperwork that all of our USA motor manufacturing compnaies have to go through or that they have the marking and labeling required by the CPSC like all USA manufactured motors do.
terry dean
writes:

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

$75K
I didn't know that either but it seems a logical use of the organization's money. I don't see a problem with the above. It's all part of growing the hobby. Isn't that what NAR should be doing?

Great, they got it back but what if they hadn't? TARC is still a good use of funds, IMHO.
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Someone brought to my attention some factual errors regarding NAR programs.
shockwaveriderz wrote:

This understanding would be 100% incorrect and a complete fabrication.

Since its inception, TARC has been funded by AIA members companies' generous sponsorships, not by NAR funds.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip
Thanks Mark for clearing that up.
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
there may be factual errors in my comments but as far as the AMA quotes, I was told that by AMA HQ. SO its not a complete fabrication... as far as the $75 K seed money for TARC, I just reviewed the NAR financials spreadsheets , and I evidently misread the data... SO I am wrong on that point.... The NAR financials spreadsheets do seem to indicate some TARC continuing expenses though which I suppose is to be expected and accepted....
None of the above negate the facts that the NAR could use some its membership monies to do what I have suggested they do.
terry dean

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

Wait, I know!!! The NAR could use some of its membership monies to do what I want them to do!!!
or...
Alternatively, the NAR could use some of its membership monies to do what the BOT votes they should do... <G>
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

Oh...my...god... Let the BoT actually run an organization? Make decisions and stuff, without running everything past the membership for their approval, first?
Wow! What a novel concept! Letting elected officials do their jobs....
-Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We can all see how well that's worked with GW Bush. The NSA likes the "no warrant" requirement.
All elected leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. Period.
They might make decisions with out the vote of the masses (that's why the US is a Republic and not a Democracy), but once a decision is made, the elected officials should be held accountable for those decisions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sigh - I know just how you feel.
I keep writing letters to Jessica Simpson, suggesting that she have my babies, but the only thing I get are rude letters from her lawyers, and restraining orders.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcolm Reynolds wrote:

A restraining order is just another way of saying I love you.
:)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course it's always nicer when they do so within the laws, be they the bylaws and procedures of the organization, the laws of the land, the constitution, etc. etc.
In ancient times, TRA had this nasty habit of ignoring their own rules and doing things that violated them. The NAR honored their own rules, until 3 months ago.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

It is YOUR opinion that they did so.
It is MY opinion that they did not.
I'm not debating the action that they took (I think it could, perhaps, have been handled differently, but I don't have access to all of the information), but as best as I can tell the actions that they took are well within the bounds of law, the bylaws, and good taste.
I would add that I've been sitting on various Boards of Directors for the past 20 years, at the local, national, and international levels, and have sat through at least 2 bylaws creations, and 3 bylaws re-writes, along with the interminable lawyers meetings, etc., so I've learned a great deal about the process.
You MAY find a (relatively small) percentage of members who don't agree with decision, but IMHO you'll find an even smaller percentage who feel this action was 'illegal' in any way shape or form. Further, I can't see any lawyer taking this case, unless you agreed to pay them, up front, without contingency fee -- which is one way of gauging the merit of the case.
You can continue with your diatribes against the BOT, or you can calmly discuss the issues without the bomb-throwing invective. Your choice...
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Jack hasn't but at least 2 S&T committee members have. One verified that Jack was not consulted on this decision.

That's certainly THE BIG ONE. But with the exception of the post-NARAM-38 manufacturer demo policy, which does not apply at all in this case, I object to the use of ANY motor at ANY NAR range, unless that motor is on the combined motor certification list. That's the rule that's been enforced in the past. That's the rule that should continue to be enforced in the future.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Under NAR, all model rocketeers are equal ... under NARBOD, some model rocketeers are MORE equal than others ...
Look, you people are getting what you deserver fron NAR. You have a BOD that is VERY heavily influenced and ran by manufactures going back almost 47 years. The current NAR prez has been in office what some 10,12+ years now? Mark Bundick even publically admitted back in 1997/98 that he had NEVER launched a HPR and after visiting a TRA launch, was impressed with the safety and his misgivings had been removed.
Now that combined with NAR's anti-HPR attitude, LPR manufacture influenced, of the 1990s, I decided to stop supporting NAR.
And if only 3% of the NAR membership votes for its Prez/BOD, then you get what you pay for ...
AZWoody wrote:

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

OH MY GOD, LIKE THAT EVIL CAPITALIST BARON, VERN ESTES???
So on the one hand, NAR is run by "weenies", and on the other hand, it is being controlled by an evil cabal of powerful rocketry manufacturers?????
LOL!
p.s. the rest of your message had me in stitches, too!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@browncoats.nei says...
<snippage happens>
You do us "real" rednecks an injustice, sir.
--
Tweak

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Is this one of those jokes: 'You know you are a REDNECK when your rocket has your NRA number on it instead of your NAR number!'
Tweak wrote:

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

Sorry. I actually like a lot of rednecks. Poor choice of derogatives.
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.