Compromise S724 Bill Developed by ARSA

You're kidding right? You think that just because the judge has it on his desk that it's all over and paid for? It's called building up the war chest, saving for a rainy day, and lots of other things.

Both sides are doing some of that, but one side is being very vocal about those who don't fall into line and do as we're being told.

Ted

That may be how some people write software, but there are much better methods. There is a difference between iterations in the design as planned by the design methodology, and iterations due to a lack of good skills and experience. You could probably guess where I could take this as an analogy for the topic at hand. ;)

-John DeMar NAR #52094

It would be nice if you didn't need an LEUP to buy anything that wasn't an actual explosive!

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

Even if this were required for motors larger than 0.9#, it's better than what we've got today, or what HK724 currenty does. As long as the 25# aggregate limit is also history.

One comment though. Even with no license in state transfers (history thanks to SEA), the JBGTs didn't have to be notified of every sale. The seller had to keep the paperwork, so that **IF AN INCIDENT OCCURED**, the paper trail could be followed from the source to the destination. The JBGTs still didn't have immediate access to those records, unless required to investigate an incident.

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

The bill needs a checksum!

This tells me that the system is seriously broken.

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

Actually, I *am* kidding... a little, anyway. :-)

But, just as I don't want my Union dues going to support political parties whose policies I don't agree with, I want my donations to the legal fund going where they were originally mandated to go... namely, in support of the lawsuit. The money can be used to pay the lawyers' retainer, or building a war-chest for the *next* legal action. But the legislative effort is a separate entity - if they want me to donate to support it, I'd appreciate being asked.

It's been sounding to me that both sides are pretty vocal in their positions. ;-)

Point taken. However, even the *best* author (of software *or* legislation...) cannot take every potential problem into account. If they could, there would be no need for Beta-testers.

That's not necessarily a lack of skill, but a fact of life. :-)

Besides... how do we _gain_ experience in something, unless we make the attempt? If we all "Let the Experts Do It", there wouldn't be any unique scratch-built rockets to marvel at. ;-)

Does that come in an evening wear?

Joel. phx

Maybe it'll be included in as an amendment to something else... (Look at how we _got_ the SEA in the first place...)

That way nobody has to publicly vote for something that might as well have been titled "a bill to weaken the new security legislation that Protects Us From Terrorism" (at the potential expense of their "anti-terrorist" credibility with what commentators are calling the "Security Mom swing vote"); all they have to do is leave the amendment in while they're passing the including legislation - and the bit about telling homeland security when we buy big motors is the piece that lets it go through without opposition... it gives the measure enough of an appearance of "anti-terrorist precautions" that folks won't be feeling like they have to oppose it.

I suspect that Enzi may well be discussing this sort of thing with Wickman (as well as various legislative staff) behind the scenes, but they might consider it premature to disseminate the specifics (at this point in their gestation, at least) for something like a "NAR/TRA Legislative Update."

(Note: this is just speculation on my part ... I have no inside info, just a general sense of how things seem to be working in the legislature these days...)

-dave w

Well, we'll just _have_ to do something about the "post-9/11 mindset", then, won't we?

-dave w

No - all NAR and Tripoli members are asked to make a donation to a Legal Fund, which was set up when the lawsuit was initiated.

camps and being gassed (at least not yet, cross your

Yes, it is... and that's the point - how long are we supposed to 'go with the flow' before somebody says that this is WRONG and I'm not going along with it? :-)

is not the same as the interests of the AR/EX people

Think not...? ALL commercially-available MR/HPR motors were, at one point, AM/EX motors. If we're not permitted to experiment, there won't be any new toys to play with. ;-)

And *that* is why we shouldn't support legislation that binds us to specific fuel types, weights, or combinations. Remember, the EX motor of today, is the AT motor of tomorrow... :-)

the way to the Supreme Court....

The sad part of it is... you're probably right. And also likely will be that the Supreme Court won't bother to rule on it, because it doesn't affect enough people to warrant a decision.

"shockwaveriderz"

NAR/TRA lawsuit....its been sitting on his desk now for

with a poorly designed congressional

--------

Well, plan on it to be appealed... we are two years away on the lawsuit deal.

HDS

Bob, best I can tell the system got broken in the 1800s during the robber baron era when money bought you the government. It might have been broken even sooner.

It was also the first time I can find they infringed the second amendment away. Railroad police did'nt like the fact that farmers who they stole farms from fought back with firearms and they made illeagal laws to keep firearms out of the cites the railroad private police owned.

the railroads ran the law, talk about CBCT.

first "c" cowboy , secound "c" corporate.

What more needs to be funded with regard to the litigation? My understanding is that everything wag completed except for the judge actualy rendering his decision and banging his gavel. Perhaps the wheels of justice need to be greased?

Thanks. This is what I wanted to know. Essentialy, Wickman's efforts, wich likely will go nowhere (at least nowhere good), has cost the NAR (general fund) $30,000.

$30,000 is a lot of money for the NAR. For example, this amount could fund half of the TARC prize money. My understanding was that the litigation was to be primarily funded from voluntary contributions. If the case was won, the legal fees would be paid by the losing party and this money would then likely be rolled oover into a legistlative efort to address issues not satisfactoraly resolved in the lawsuit. Wickman upset the plan, by initiating legislation before the lawsuit was settled, but also presented an oportunity, however small, to score a quick cheap victory (asside from the $30,000 that the NAR elected to spend).

I propose that if the lawsuit is won and money recovered, that $30,000, the amount paid for legal advice on the legislative effort, be repaid to the NAR general fund. I admit that this is a pointless accounting trick, but it seems to restore balance back toward the original plan. I acknowlege that the NAR fully supports the HPR user community, but I don't want to see the needs of the HPR community place an undue burden (e.g. legal fees) on the MR community as HPR specific payments from the general fund are. I'd rather see such funding come from voluntary contributions or alternative funding.

I have no problem with the NAR leadership or spending on these matters. If the NAR administration says it needs $30,000 of legal aldvice on Wickman's legislative effort, I trust that they do. I just wanted to know what the numbers are, and to try and and put it all into my warped perspective.

Alan Jones, NAR 15578, L0

You do understand that despite the current legislation effort, NAR/TRA was still going to have to pursue legislative relief following the litigation, no matter the out come,.. don't you?

Joel. phx

Apparently despite my best efforts at communicating it, the status of the lawsuit has misunderstood.

We're at the summary judgement phase awaiting a hearing on motions for summary judgement. Either party could win the suit on those motions, or the judge could rule against some or all of both parties motions. In that case, we're headed to trial. If we go to trial then we'll have to go through the process of collecting and presenting evidence, etc. It will be costly. How costly? Can't say. I'd perfer to think we'd win on summary jugement and be done (grin).

I don't think there's any good financial, or even cosmetic reason for this. The NAR Board has, to date, not funded a project in order to apply resources to the legislative fight. Applying what you called "an accounting trick" is quite transparent to the membership, and has no practical effect on the program funding.

And in my opinion, given that the HPR community outnumbers all others in the NAR right now, I'm not sure I buy the idea that says MR is bearing HPR's burden. An arguement could be made in exactly the opposite direction. HPR flyers could claim "why put effort and funding behind competition?" That approach runs counter to the idea I expound that the NAR is all about all aspects of sport rocketry, regardless of participation rates. The NAR should support whatever activity works to promote safety, education and fun in sport rocketry.

A "Balkenization" of NAR financial analysis would not, again in my opinion, not be a healthy way to run the organization.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

Most commercially available motors were commercially developed technology.

For the rest, who says we're "not permitted to experiment" right now? Someone might object to the requirements of a LEUP, but it's not stopping most people from doing AM/EX motors.

The commercial and military propellants of yesterday are the basis of the consumer propellants of today. The 'innovations' are in the form of the casings they're stuffed into and the effects additives. And the marketing. ;)

The bigger stumbling block to making the jump to a commercial rocket motor is the requirements for NFPA1125/1127 and certification testing at various levels. A little thing like a LEUP isn't a problem compared to the time/money required for the whole process.

The connection between the regulation of APCP and the availability of motors is this: if more people can easily purchase them, more companies will make the investment and go through the technical and regulatory effort to bring out more products.

-John DeMar NAR #52094