So he was coerced to not fly rockets on a huge dry lake even though
airspace is SHARED?
TRA sucks hard. ROC sucks more. They held a big-ass launch on BLM land
with VENDORS with NO BLM permit!!! Proven fact.
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org>
Well I can assert that Kosdon is crazy at times ... at a Balls event,
he was burning up excess AP right in the prep area ... this cloud of
reagents was choking serveral people set up next and NEAR him. The
guys is a VERY talented rocket scientist, and VERY eccentric! God
Bless him! Andd yes, the "smackdown" was laid on him by the "gaspers"
and Aero_Pac personel.
Now as for the other "big name" that I dare not mention less I get a
lawyer calling me, he has EARNED his expulsion from TRA and RRS ...
although I see he is active at the Mojave test range from time to time,
but those people let anyone in who is will to pay :)
Phil Stein wrote:
oops I left one off the list:
the NAR also initially opposed Vashon Cold Propellant motors, NAR S&T
refused to certfiy them for use...
of course they eventually relented and allowed their use.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:47:37 GMT, "shockwaveriderz"
I doubt that NAR S&T took the lead on that issue, but do you have a
time line of significant events? YOu can't expect S&T to certify
something unusual as a model rocket motor before it has be recognized
as a model rocket motor with established performance and certification
criteria. When was Vashon recognized as a model rocket motor by the
CSPC and NFPA codes, and when did NAR S&T actually refuse to certify
Probably never, as the device does not work by pyrotechnics, and is not a
model rocket motor by NFPA codes.
It is a freon propulsion device, just as a ballon car is operated by a
I doubt S&T never even had to certify it, it just could be sold, just as an
airplane engine can just be sold...
well you get the picture.
actually it looks like NAR S&T did take the lead on opposing Vashon Cold
Vashon Model Rockets Cold Propellant motors first appeared in February 1969
at the Chicago HIAA Trade show. Whats stranage about this is the fact that
G.Harry Stine was also there and actually wrote an overview of this HIAA
trade show in the 4/69 issue of Model Rocketry magazine and makes NO mention
of the Vashon rockets.
Vashon Ads first appeared in the Model Rocketry mag in Jan 1970(see below
In January 1969 the NAR S&T commitee issued a WARNING to its members (Via
the Model Rocketeer?) That the Vashon Cold Propellamt motors did not conform
to the model rocket definitions in FAA FAR 101.1, a.3.ii(a) through (d) in
that the Vashon Cold propellant motors consisted of substantial metal parts
(the aluminum body). This from the 5/70 issue of Model Rocketry mag page 41
where the NAR S&T announces that they are now NAR safety certified and also
announce notice of the Cold Propellant Safety Code. Seems Vashon got the FAA
permission in Jan 70.
This same warning was re-issued and printed in the 5/69 Issue of Model
Rocketry mag on page 10.
whats interesting is, in this warning, the NAR S&T states they are not
certified per Safety Code rule 2 and the 1967 edition of the US Model
Rocket Sporting Code rule 3.6 , aka the "Pink Book". Its states, "This is
because the Valkyrie uses an aluminum tube for a Body"
Then it goes on to tell NAR members that they will be in violation of the
NAR Safety Code and your NAR membrship will be revoked" if you get caught
using these puppies. Have we heard that before? somewhere?
I can think of one small organization who has had the same leader since it
was founded. And when asked if any member would like to run to be eleted to
the post, no one asks to run.
And it's been around in the background since 1971.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
Sort of true. Prior to the safety study that expanded model rockets from
453g to 1500g NFPA and other regs limited the hobby to F motors. But in the
mid 80s, the NAR did the study to look into expanding the hobby beyong the
original boundaries. Once the study was done, and the results showed no
increased risk, LMR and G motors were accepted by NFPA and the NAR. NAR had
certified G motors when TRA was still getting organized.
Absolutely not true. AT demoed an RMS motor at NARAM in 1990 when they first
came out. This may even have been prior to the LDRS demos. By the next year,
when RMS motors were actually certified, they were flown at NARAM-33. NAR
never had the special RMS certification process TRA did. You could fly RMS
up to whatever level you were certified for from day 1.
See #1 above.
OK, NAR screwed the pooch on this from the early 80s until 1990. In 1987
they finally allowed members to do HPR outside of NAR events. But by 1991
NAR had adopted HPR and has endorsed it ever since.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
This is one of my biggest complaints with NAR -- they move at a speed
slower than molasses on a January day in the Arctic!
Case in point? Cross-certification of motors with CAR. This is
something that could EASILY have been handled via email/phone calls, but
they had to exhibit analysis paralysis and wait until meeting
face-to-face at NARAM.
Knee-jerk rash decisions are bad, but so is taking forever to make a
decision. There IS a happy middle ground.
Ok, I might agree a little in principle but the problem is obvious. How do
you MAKE, people get involved in a volunteer position ( little or no pay and
requires tireless effort for the long term) that gets blasted from all
sides, regardless of what they do? And it's not just rocketry, it's anything
you can name, Little League, church board, PTA, Scouts, etc. Everyone wants
to have the best for little or no cost or obligation but FEW will accept the
position, even if they are elected. That is the real problem.
Mark can stand or fall on his own merits but there's no doubting his
devotion and tireless efforts.
One thing I did notice while I was a NAR member (it's been a couple years),
is when an election came up there were x openings and x people running. So
there was no reason to vote. If no members other than those running voted,
the results would be the same as if every member voted.
While I'm not currently a NAR member, in theory, it might be time for there
to be some actual competition for BOT positions. And more so, some
challenge to the NAR Pres. position.
If I compare NAR to TRA (during the same timeframe), during the time I've
been with TRA, their pres has changed 3 times - each for the better, IMHO.
NAR needs new blood at the top - many in this thread have stated the reasons
I was a member of both TRA and NAR for years, and due to my job situation,
found that I could only retain 1 of the 2 memberships. Though TRA cost
more, I went with that, as I felt they were evolving to meet what I
expected, while NAR was just running the same as they had for years, and
years, and years
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.