JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

TRA has decided that either the actual policy is of insufficient importance for us mere members to be bothered with it, or so complicated that we are too stupid to understand it; as it is neither in our membership materials (I checked) or their website (I checked). I have even witnessed members explicitly request it, and they have provided neither the policy nor an justification for not doing so

therefore, all I know about the insurance policy is what is in the overview on the website, and I think it is reasonable to assume that the overview has some relationship to the actual policy, at least to the extent that observing safety code is a requirement for a commercial launch to be insured. (if that is not the case, the overview is a gross misrepresentation that exceeds negligience, and borders on [yet more] fraud)

now the website overview c "if you can't keep up with the conversation, its best you keep quiet" - Anthony Hopkins in "Hannibal"

- iz

RayDunak> insurance does or does not cover.

you can ask Jerry about this

it is part of the "cost of doing business"

the cost would ultimately be passed onto consumers, but the testing of a motor product every 3-5 years recouped from the revenue from that product over the same period cannot amount to a substantial increase in price. Jerry, whats your guess? ten or fifteen percent? less?

so a $22 reload would cost you $25 (assuming 15%, which I think overestimating the cost)

and for that you get:

1. motors actually tested by industry experts whose conclusions have validity and credibility in a number of venues (DOT, etc)

1. new motor products to market faster, as you no longer depend upon "volunteers", and can contract as many testing organizations as you need to meet the scheduling requirement

2. objectivity, so politics is not a factor in deciding what products consumers (rocketeers) have access to

"new" manufacturers expect considerable ramp-up costs to bring a product to market, for raw materials, inventory, tooling, staff, distribution, contracted services, etc. Certification testing is just one of those expected costs.

- iz

RayDunak> I see one big problem with this: Cost. Current testing is done "in house" by

But he was the one who had originally made arrangements with the sod company to use their fields for rocketry, so it's perfectly understandable that he'd consider it his responsibility to be concerned whether such use might bring unexpected liabilities back on them.

-dave w

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m05.aol.com:

It could also be because the "leadership" has stacked the rules in their favor, making it very difficult for the membership to replace them.

Actually you have it EXACTLY right.

Point!! I propose the AMATEUR test site at Cantil,CA as the test site since there are real rocket professionals that run it for fun, and with MORE than enough permits and only about 60 years of experience. And NO model rocket or high power rocket interests AT ALL.

The current fee is $50 per type. If the Amateur site at Cantil, CA were selected those folks fire motors for fun and to maintain their CA Pyro-Op logs. The fee would be 100% profit to them and they would not do custom paint jobs to match the new truck with the new trailer with it. They would build and upgrade TEST EQUIPMENT with it.

Strange concept, eh?

The realproblemissomemotors sell welland the costis trivial.But if I hadtopay $50for every motoratwww.usrockets.comregardlessofsales,then itmight beprohibitive.

I have posted to rmr a proposed alternative testing scheme to test a REPRESENTATIVE sample of motors of similar propellant and diameter at different lengths and delays to involve fewer test samples.

Example:

Test articlelist:

1 of each. $100 per series.

Validated data: Thrust curve from EVERY diameter, propellant, power combination.

Delay data for a variety of length and erosivity motors thus actually ADDING delay variance with issues data.

ALL data published on a website of any APPROVED motor. FULL disclosure.

DATABASE OF USER PROVIDED IN FLIGHT DATA PUBLISHED RIGHT NEAR THE OFFICIAL TEST DATA FOR REAL WORLD APPLICATION INFO.

May I say it is time to rock and roll?

Proof of fraud! Change the subject quick!

Bootlicking asskissing TRA member.

-

-

-

Aerotech sells a lot of "uncertified motors" which is tolerated by TRA and NAR, yet they have "zero tolerance" for me.

Jerry

Yes. But once they do, should they even bother folowing them?

Ray?

Jerry

ROFL

Happy Thanksgiving!

I find it instructive that the remaining TRA member zealots fall into this "intellectually void trap" almost universally.

Poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

He is just applying to TRA what TRA applied to Jerry Irvine. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Or the TURKEY. Hapy Thanksgiving.

A single local event rehashed endlessly on the internet does not make it a statewide or a nationwide event of import. It was a single launch dude. Get over it. Reform the launch as indy at the same site and make fewer rules so fewer can be broken or used as enforcement levers.

Decriminalize rocketry. Starting at home in your own back yard and in your own clubs.

Critcize me for saying that!!!

Actually it WAS his launch that was at risk (however large or small) since the same landowner was providing THREE sites and the feeling was if one got shut down or enforced against it would harm all.

The claimed insurance was indeed voided by the launch policies and the national org policies of the time.

Yes what of the folks exploiting the work of John Cato and bringing in types of rocketry specifically NOT allowed?

Finally,a drama I have NOTHING to do with!