enough talk, what now?

Jerry, you transporting motors for sale, constitutes commerce.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
Loading thread data ...
Let me get this straight. If I carry a bunch of reloads to a launch to fly and someone wants to buy one off me then I would be breaking the law if I sold them one? Bullshit.
Bob
Reply to
baDBob
Wow, it seems that's difficult for several people to understand.
Joel. phx
I can make rocket motors all I want and fly them. Once I sell a single one, that's commerce and I have to obey the laws whether shipping or explosive if applicable.
Reply to
Lab1
If TRA certs are in general for the country, they have to cert to the lowest common denominator.
Joel. phx
Say isn't a current certified motor not able to sell in California? Maybe those requirements should be added as well.
Reply to
Lab1
This should be in the FAQ and in the TRA and NAR policy manual.
The requirement in CA shouldbe eliminated not furthered at considerable expensein travelto CA by Easte,Quest, Aerotech tomaintian it to keep the considerable base of CA potentialrocket competitorsout of the market (HPR permitis $9000 a year).
In caseyou have not noticed,90% of rocketrycame from CA and as soon as it was commerciallyviablethey left in a hurry.
Plasmajet Aerotech Kosdon (East) (Now AMW) Pro38 (Bartel/Kline) ACS
etc
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Them doing it does NOT. I have to carry my own fun motors.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
This is why trolls are counter productive, not merely useless. They are LOOKING for trouble. And not with a silly little club like TRA. Nope. With DOT, ATF, EPA and people with fines, guns, badges and jails. This guy could fuck us all.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
TRA has a "team" approach to "confuse" the transfer issue. When I work with someone on a rocket project and provide propulsion I am "on the team".
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Who is "Them"? How did "They" get your motors?
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
I thought you were "legal"? I thought you said your propellant was exempt? Now you're afraid you'll get busted and ruin it for the rest of us?
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
Not exactly. It "dropped out" by testing, not was "affirmatively classified". That is why the historical revisionists point to a lack of a specific "DOT" paper stating it is non explosive as alleged evidence it is explosive. These TRA members are FAR from technical or legal experts.
The fact is the regulations of the time required materials to affirmatively show explosive properties to be classified as an explosive. Made sense back then. So when the federal agency, Bureau of Explosives, performed the tests (Aerotech did no such tests, Estes did no such tests, FSI did no such tests, Centuri did no such tests) and explosive properties were found above 3.3 x 36" that was recommended to receive a 1.3C classification, That recommendation was followed EXACTLY AND TO THE LETTER (on BOTH sides of the threshold) by the DOT who issues the competent authorities themselves.
As such by clearly and WRITTEN evidence the material did NOT qualify for explosive status below a size certain is now and forever on the record. There is NO provision for "reentry" of a material as an explosive that has already "fallen out".
Grandfathering!
And TRA/NAR attacks that! The potential crown jewel of consumer rocketry!
What a bunch of fixated hate morons.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
TRA has a "team" approach to keep manufacturers from selling non-certified (EX) motors under the pretense of a "demo" flight (anti-jerry rule). Selling that motor still constitutes commerce.
Bullbob was talking of SELLING a motor, not working on a team, "if I carry a bunch of reloads to a launch to fly and someone wants to buy one off me". That would be commercial sales. If a manufacturer's "team approach" constitutes a manufacturer showing up at a launch and selling a specified motor to a team, they are in violation of any laws associated with commerce. I would be highly suspect if you can not show any more involvement than the motor. If that manufacturer has attended build sessions AND motor design specification sessions and splits the costs, I would argue they are indeed part of a team and the cost of the motor is no different than the cost of the plywood for fins. If they are a legal, certified, commercial manufacturer then it matters not, they have the paperwork in order and the motor would either be taxed as sold or deducted as advertising (for example).
Joel. phx
Reply to
Lab1
Should be but I believe you've mistaken the point. The lowest common denominator isn't the least restrictive laws, but the most. If a motor is to be certified with the rules of the most restrictive state then all the other states are covered.
Reply to
Lab1
Plenty of TRA-EX teams "pay the costs including labor" of the motor guy.
How is that NOT commercial?
Jerry
You would argue?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Which TRA-EX teams would those be? Give us names, not excuses.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
What is your name and address?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
non-certified
I'm sorry I'm not biting on your TRA trolls. If anyone {just} shows up to a (national club or otherwise) launch and sells a motor it's commerce for federal and state laws. That is completely separate from the TRA EX organization allowing them at EX launches as teams. If you would like to list these ex teams perhaps the lurkers can provide feedback to the organization. Or do you need my real name and address to back up that accusation.
Joel. phx
Reply to
Lab1
Jerry, don't turn this into a glue thread. Just exactly how did He change the subject? And don't change the subject.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
You did not ask him a question.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis

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.