[F-FT] RMS delay question/comment

Even a newbie with zero rocket experience can see the system is broken.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Hey . . . New safety code!!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Everything.

There are criteria for acceptance. Not everything submitted has to PASS.

The system breaks down when materials submitted are "lost" "en masse" or not tested at all.

Or the rules are changed 5 minutes AFTER submission and ACCEPTANCE of samples.

Jerry

Plenty of examples cited on rmr. Search for posts by Iz and Cato. John Cato was TRA TMT testing chair that got TRA approved by NFPA. Fact. He cited examples of misstated TRA TMT motor certs.

You are unqualified.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

There is always room for improvement. I wouldn't call it broken. There are ways to affect change. Quacking on rmr isn't one of them.

Reply to
Phil Stein

In any case how long somebody has been in rocketry, or if they are even in rocketry (ie lawyers for NAR), is NOT an issue.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I disagree. If someone is familiar with a little history and how the orgs work, they usually have different opinions than if they don't. I've been there I know.

Reply to
Phil Stein

In article , Phil Stein wrote:

Oh, you mean like the members of the TRA BOD for example?

Tripoli Board of Directors Meeting Summary Teleconference of October 5, 2004 Present: Ken Good, Pat Gordzelik, Bruce Lee, Bob Schoner, Terry McCreary, Derek Deville, Bill Davidson, Dick Embry, Chuck Rogers Absent: none Proxies: none Executive Session Summary: The purpose of the call was to examine the current situation with HPR magazine deliveries and decide required actions. During 2003, approval had been given to HPR to move to a twelve-issue per year production scheme, along with other earlier changes that simplified the accounting of HPR subscription funds received through TRA memberships. Ken Good presented the Board an assessment that showed as of September 30, 2004, only four of the promised twelve 2004 issues had been confirmed as dis- tributed, with a fifth in the process of currently being distributed. The Board expectation is that nine of the twelve should have already been pro- duced, and it was apparent that the twelve-issue per year commitment could not be met. Extensive e-mail on this topic had been exchanged among the Board, and Ken and other Board members had been in com- munication with Bruce Kelly to ascertain what options were available to get HPR on track. Decision Outline: o HPR Publisher Bruce Kelly was unable to assure the Board that 12- issues could be produced in 2004, although it appeared that several other issues could be produced by year's end. o Options available to the Board were to sever the relationship with HPR or re-evaluate the relationship and find a way to continue with HPR, while enabling ongoing performance and no default of what subscribers had paid for. o Severing the relationship results in no immediate magazine alter- natives, money owed to subscribers, and a problem of finding/creat- ing a replacement publication. o While 12-issues per year is not realistic, a lower number, like the previous 9-issue scheme looks feasible.. o A detailed proposal for the Board to consider that would permit HPR to continue was presented by Chuck Rogers, based on previous Board e- mail input/concerns. This was discussed and largely adopted. The final proposal that was unanimously supported includes: o HPR reverts to a nine (9) issue per year production cycle. o HPR may increase subscription rates to $5.50 per issue as the reg- ular delivery discount rate for TRA members. This will permit the magazine to retain reasonable profitability, and thus enable the publisher to remain in business. o All subscribers who paid for twelve issues would still receive twelve, and the publisher will be required to extend their subscription peri- ods to ensure this occurs.. o Since no formal contract or agreement had ever been executed between TRA and HPR after it was spun off to Bruce Kelly many years earlier (and much difficulty and misunderstanding had result- ed in recent years because of this), a formal contract will be drafted and executed between the parties. Pat Gordzelik will draft the con- tract, and it will be signed by Ken Good and Bruce Kelly. Submitted by Ken Good, TRA President

Good is bad.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

testing

So someone could submit something that doesn't qualify as a model or high power rocket motor, and this hypothetical testing agency would be forced to test it?

No one has ever posted any examples of "editorial bias" being injected into a motor test report. Even the ridiculous, unsupported accusations made by Cato had nothing to do with "editorial bias" in test reports. The motor test reports merely state the data for the motors that were tested, nothing more.

Reply to
raydunakin

You coming up with a "highly unlikely" scenario does not invalidate what I said.

For Ray:

What if the army submitted a nuke to Tripoli and detonated it when it was on the test stand? Would they lose the entire $500 load cell deposit or only $100 for the actual cost of the load cell damage?

The chairman of the test committee posted several.

Your denial of the obvious notwithstanding.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

,

Ok, here a few examples:

March 4, 2005: "I showed by example that the ATF believes in the exemption when confronted with it on multiple repeated inspections."

formatting link
In that same post, you also said, "...this seems like the perfect time for every rocketeer to aggressively live the ATF exempt lifestyle."

On March 5, 2005:

formatting link
On May 13, 2004: "So don't take a "legal" position. Just "live the lifestyle and invite members to do so without fear or doubt."
formatting link
You've been using the phrase "live the lifestyle" at least as far back as 2002.

Now, in this current thread, you've said that if anyone tried to verify what the ATF told you, that the ATF would "stir up trouble" for the hobby.

And that brings us up to the present. On the one hand you say that ATF has told you, "in the field", that permits aren't required. You've also advised people to "live the lifestyle" by not getting ATF permits, and that they could do so "without fear or doubt". Yet you say that if anyone tries to verify this, the ATF will "stir up trouble" for the hobby. Clearly, these are contradictory statements. Care to explain that, now that you can no longer deny you said these things?


Reply to
raydunakin

I said it and it is true.

It does not say "and they'll go away" as you claimed.

I said it and it is true.

It does not say "and they'll go away" as you claimed.

I said it and it is true.

It does not say "and they'll go away" as you claimed.

I said it and it is true.

It does not say "and they'll go away" as you claimed.

I said it and it is true.

It does not say "and they'll go away" as you claimed.

I said it and it is true.

It does not say "and they'll go away" as you claimed.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

It was improperly "ratified" by the members 5 years after the BOD changed it in secret.

According to Alaska law, yes, it was done illegally.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Ask any smaller motor manufacturer how long they've had to wait for TMT to test their motors. Like SkyRipper, who finally got their stuff tested.

Where's the DATA for the currently certified motors, including delay accuracy?

Why were USR motors decertified immediately, while Kosdon motors were given several months to be used up. Why aren't other vendors who produce motors whose certs have expired been similarly dealth with?

For that matter where's the test data from the USR motors that TMT pulled the certs on. If they were so bad, you'd think TMT would post the data to show the world how bad Jerry's stuff was in the first place.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Hardly. Scott Pearce was nailed back in IIRC the late 70s. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the only one.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Nope. It's law in every state except the PRK.

Although I once was told by a TRA BOD member that TRAs "safety code" was a set of guidelines, not rules. BTW, after not having their complete safety code on the web page for how many years now, you'd think they'd finally fulfil the promise to put the full one up there. The following has been on their web page since before Y2K:

"The following is a condensed version of the TRIPOLI HIGH POWER SAFETY CODE. ... The entire safety code will be published here at a later date."

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

OK, Bob, disprove that statement...

David Erbas-White (it's a joke, guys)

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Also such a change is fraudulant and moot from the beginning. It would require an entirely new and COMPLIANT member vote to perfect, which has not occured, ever.

Thus this is an "illegally operated" association.

If Alaska were to be informed of this in a formal way and the Alaska DA were to become sufficiently incenced (particularly since Tripoli selected Alaska as a tactical action), criminal charges could be filed against all BOD members from the time at issue forward.

The E&O coverage would not cover it either.

Jerry

Warning, warning, danger, danger Will Robinson.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

MUCH later :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Actually this is hard proof the rules are subject to the whim of the board (unwritten rules) and subject to who appears before them at the moment.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.