JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

Which is why we have TRA, NAR, and CAR testing. It may not be a perfect system, but as others have confirmed it is several orders of magnitude cheaper than paying UL (or similar) to do it.

Bob K wrote:

Cato's puppet posted for him:

So you asked if it was legal and insured, you were informed that it was, so what's the problem? Oh right, they didn't kiss your backside. You didn't like their attitude so you independently acted to shut them down. Nice.

Tom Binford wrote many enlightening things, including the following:

Dave W. responded to my question with a question of his own:

Of course I wouldn't like it. But I'd have to see WHY he was doing it. Was it jsut a vendetta because he didn't like me. Or was he covering his ass because he had built the initial relationship I was using, and I wasn't following the established rules any more?

John got access to these sites. The relationship was based onthe use of certified motors, and insurance coverage for the site owner. Suddenly TRA was issuing fraudulent motor certifications, i.e. flying uncertified motors at their normal launches. And claiming that John had certified these untested motors. Then they added "EX" before even updating their own rules and insurance to cover this activity.

George, how would YOU feel if we used your coat tails and your insurance to fly on a flying field that you personally had secured access to, but violated all the rules so that the insurance was invalid and did things beyond what you had permission to do?

If you'd just let it continue, please send me the list of those fields you use. I'll arrange a launch there, and invite Jerry Irvine to provide the motors for all participants. I'm sure he'll be there, since you won't mind.

If you'd object, and stop our activity, you're in the same boat as John Cato. Which we already new.

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

Nope. Amateur rocketry is amateur rocketry. "EX" is slipping something that looks like amateur rocketry past insurance companies, landowners, and regulators as HPR.

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

Lets fix this right now.

The manufacturer is the guy who collects a group of subcontractors and makes a finished product. I am that. Propellant from one vendor, casings from another, nozzles from another, certifications from 5 others.

As a PACKAGE it is a manufactured product.

The propellant is treated as an insignificant sub-component by everyone EXCEPT TRA who insists that Jerry be the named propellant guy and the named paperwork guy etc.

EVEN THOUGH THEY ALLOW THE PRECISE OPPOSITE FOR AEROTECH/ELLIS AND KOSDON/AEROTECH AND PML/AEROTECH AND ROCKET VISION/AEROTECH AND ESTES/CENTURI.

Jerry

It is probably important to remember this is Tom Binford and Ray Dunakin CHARACTERIZING their OPINION of someone else, and not a true first hand account of what he really thinks leading up to his observable acts.

Jerry

But only if they GET tested. Only if motors submitted ARE tested. ONLY if the test results are made AVAILABLE, and only if there is some semblence of reliability to the testing AHJ which is NOT the case in this wacky industry of miscreants.

Jerry

Bill Davenport...not me.

No, JC emailed me, not Muri. Almost verbatim? How about a direct quote from the email he sent me to forward to the Prefect?

One other thing. Philip D. was Rocket Stuff, not Rocket Flyer (who, if Flyer's claim of not being a TRA member is true, couldn't be Philip). Philip moved onto other things long ago.

and Aerotech-UT/Aerotech-NV

I'm sorry that you think my reply was unresponsive to your question.

To elaborate, I made a blanket statement about my trust of NAR S&T motor testing. I cannot make the same blanket statement about TRA motor testing. I feel I have to review TMT motor testing on an idividueal motor basis to determin if I trust their testing and reporting for any particulaar motor. OTOH, if I criticaly reviewd every NAR S&T motor test, I may well find one that I am not entirely satisfied with. I have as yet, no opinion, trust or distrust, of CAR motor certification testing.

I suggested that NAR S&T may want to fine tune its cross certification policy. Jack Kane acknowleged my suggestion, but I am unaware of any action or plans to actualy revise thier policy.

Alan

Hmmm... do it on a "per motor" basis - NAR will include any motor in its "Combined List" if and when TMT sends 'em actual thrust curves to publish.

-dave w

General contractor?

Sub contractors?

Finished product, bearing the single name of the person / intity, that is willing to assume the legal responsibilty for the consequences of using the product?

Is it just that simple?

Randy

Does anyone think that it may be possible that the ATF or whomever is concerned, that if UL did the testing it would reduce to some degree their determination to extingusih the hobby? It couldn't hurt to have a nationally recognized independent testing agency say the motors on the market are safe when used correctly.

Randy

Not a chance, because their opposition to rocketry has NEVER been about the safety of the materials.

In which case, it would have been much more accurate if Dave had said, "Jerry's subcontractors make kick-butt motors!"

Go back a bit to Tom Binford's postings, Bob. You'll see that it's already been shown that the launch was insured and the insurer did cover EX.