[F-FT] RMS delay question/comment

IIRC, the reason TMT requested the discrete steps from CTI is that they DID test every one of the options. I'm sure Mike can enjighten us on what CAR testing did, but it seems to me that they'd also need to test every combination.

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

The barrier to entry in the LMR market is the cost of getting your product into the distribution chains of the mass market retail stores. Wonder why all you see at Walmart, TRU, Target, Kmart, Michaels, Meijer, et al is Estes? A couple other companies including pre-fire AT penetrated Hobby Lobby, but no other large retail chain carries anything else. I'd LOVE to see that change.

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

One thing I have learned over the years is that misfires can change the delay time of a motor. Each one burns off a tad of the propellant and delay charge. Yet I've NEVER seen this documented any where.

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

If that's a problem paint one side of the thumbscrew red.

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

In article snipped-for-privacy@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com at snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote on 4/8/05 10:46 PM:

I believe they are PADS.

The ATF said they were PADS the first time I called their Washington office and spoke with Bob Dexter about APCP rocket motors in the late '70's. But since 1994, it has been a tortured process to "persuade" the ATF and the courts to agree that the (a) (8) exemption still applies.

The (a) (7) exemption has a stronger legal basis IMHO and won't be invalidated until the January 2003 NPRM becomes regulation.

Gary/RCS

That rule needs to be changed since it is being widely ignored anyway (by TMT).

Jerry

There is zero additional liability. The safety code is your prophylactic against crashes.

It makes sense for two to three different settings to be tested, but it should also be allowed to be sampled among a range of motor powers/lengths of the same propellant, and diameter.

Jerry

Because the lower power motors more easily meet the NEW unnecessarily restrictive 1/2 the expected altitude rule (the Mary Roberts NFPA-1122 rule. Centuri grew into OWNING Estes on 1/4 the expected altitude).

It made NCR make all unsafe low altitide rockets to comply.

Entering distribution is a capital problem not a compliance problem. Reducing CONSUMER barriers, more fields are valid, more consumers can fly more rockets. Youk now, like it used to be when the exceptional safety record was accumulated!! When participation grew large enough to facilitate the Tripoli/Roberts/Boles/Rosenfield NFPA-1122/1127 led REDUCTION in market size by about 90% by most accounts.

Can't we just fly more rockets since they are ACTUALLY safe?

Jerry

That's just sad.

Does that explain why the Tripoli site does not have updated motor certs with mandatory required delay reporting too?

That's been decades!

Including your entire multi-year term as webmaster.

Jerry

You are clueless. Your posts to the FAA thread and this one further confirm it.

Nobody listen to Ray Dunakin re regulatory matters.

Jerry

Then do the world a favor and give up and go home until they change their mind to YOUR satisfaction, in a decade or two or never at all.

In the mean time, the folks that can read and comprehend the regulations will operate rockets with no federal restriction. And laugh our ass off at you.

Jerry

There you go. The two folks that really started HPR and LMR propulsion agree on this point. Your own current dominant motor supplier.

Don't you suppose it is just about time to "live the lifestyle" (club, vendor, and manufacturer rules and practices fully conform) and openly and agressively ENJOY the exemption all authoritative figures agree we have NOW?

Just asking.

Brought to you from the people at Jerry.

Hey retard - if you read and comprehended Kevin's post, he sait TMT maintains their part of the site themselves.

If you have to slam people that don't meet your expectations, at least do it to the right one.

Thanks Kevin for doing what you do. I understand what it's like to have to split your time amongst so many demands.

Yea listen to Big Fine Irvine. Hey Jerry did you WEASEL that Big Fine into a tax deduction?

Like we did to you when you got your Big Fine?

Actually John Kane of NAR S&T was involved in the infinite adjustment data review and methodology with CAR as well. Mike Dennett knows all the history.

Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

887-2370 x222 Toronto (410) 571-8292 Annapolis

Jerry

nationally

propellant

So do I, absolutely. Jerry just needs reminding now and then, that the ATF's position is not the same as ours. He finds it much easier to blame TRA/NAR, you, and everyone else in rocketry than admit that the ATF is the problem.

ts/ATF/gcr_atf_affidavit_6-27-02.pdf

'70's. But

=B5

NFPA-1122

NFPA 1122 isn't new. Besides, you're talking about modrocs, which are mostly flown by kids. Do you really think they know about 1122 or care about some altitude rule?

Bull. Field size limits vary from site to site, and are not something the kit manufacturers have to comply with.

The only real barriers to finding legal launch sites are political. In CA and many other western states, the authorities are so afraid of wildfires that they often won't permit rocketry anywhere. Then you've got your soccer moms who insist on hogging every park and playfield in the country. Whatever's left is usually prohibited due to liability concerns in this age of rampant litigation.

Soccer moms and fire officials don't care about safety records.

"Most accounts"?? You're the only one who's ever made that claim, and you've never produced a shred of evidence to back it up.



I think John has been waiting for Jerry to send him some certification motors ... or was that one of his kids