Motors > 62.5

I am not actually ready to go into much detail on that.

However in general 8 guys all except me not in the consumer rocket business at the time of startup. I put in 80% of the money and they failed to deliver on 70% of promised money and 90% of promised labor.

The precipitating act of breakup was when a couple of them "went into without authorization or business purpose" two sites and took all of the rocket assets they wanted (one a Powertech storage facilty and one a U.S. Rockets facility. None of this was purchased by them, owned by them except through a partnership which had planned purposes and uses for the material and at NO time were they ever authorized to take material off USR property.

Then they went into business for themselves. All withoout notice, quitting the partnership or folowing any of the agreed to exit strategies. They ripped off the company and sold the goods with no permits whatsoever I might add.

So the bottom line after 10 years of litigation was they get $30k and I get $5.3m and they have to return the stuff.

I'll never see it.

One partner Charles E Rogers was at the heart of the scam to claim I was in violation of FAA by NEVER filing a waivier, AND alleged I advertised

25,000 foot waivers which is false, and flew a rocket to about 25,000 feet by presenting a 13000 foot estimate to the RSO. The flight was cool, the FAA was fine, but knowing full well he bragged about flying to 25k at a 15k waiver site he had to do SOMETHING, right?

The something was not just let it be, no. He had to frame me as the perp.

FAA laughed it off as a hoax seeing my stack of waivers in their desk, but that did not dissuade Tripoli or Rogers. They removed me for "not filing FAA waivers ever".

Even at the BOD meeting I went to they were still claiming the same shit

12 years later. I did my time, I wanted to be reinstated as promised after 3 years or more. Nope Rogers REFUSED to produce the report on which I was removed despite 30 days notice before the hearing to produce the document.

It is a sham club run by sham people with sham goals and aspirtations. And they achieve them.

Me too. The behind the scenes shenanigans definitely involve actual crimes and felonies so I try to not post evidence of that by those folks.

Proof my own grudge has limits.

Jerry

tony: did you bother to ask them what they based their remarks on?=20

The reason I ask this....It dawns on me that the only possible was they = could even consider regulating any rocket engines is if it is made from = APCP since APCP is on the ATF Explosives list.....But if you believe = this to be true, that the ATF can regulate rocket engines based on the = fact that APCP is an explosive, then under that reasoning ANY APCP = engine regardless of propellant weight can and should also be = regulated......But wait... the plot thickens.....the ATF in their = infinite and all knowing wisdom have decreed that they will allow us to = have explosive APCP rocket motors =3D< 62.5 grams.....

NFPA 1125(which is the law in many states), only defines that a "Model = Rocket Engine" is 62.5 grams..... lets look at NFPA1122:

4.4.2 A model rocket shall use no more than 113 g (4 oz) of

propellant, unless one of the following is met:

(1)* A model rocket that weighs in excess of 453 g (16 oz) but not more = than 1500 g (53 oz), including propellant, shall be permitted if

the Federal Aviation Administration notice requirements are met.(2) A = model rocket that uses more than 113 g (4 oz) but less than

or equal to 125 g (4.4 oz) of propellant, shall be permitted if the = Federal Aviation Administration notice requirements are met.

4.5 Model Rocket Power Limits. A model rocket's installed motor(s) shall = produce a total impulse of no more than 320 N-s (72 lb-s).

SO NFPA 1222, Code for Model Rocketry allows for a model rocket to = contain up to either 113 or 125 grams of propellant as long as this =

113-125 gram propellant weight is also limited to a maximum of 320 N-s = in total power.=20

Its NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power = Rocket Engines that screws us...

3.3.26.4 Model Rocket Motor. A rocket motor that has a total impulse of = no greater than 160 N-sec, an average thrust of no

greater than 80 N, and a propellant weight of no greater than 62.5 g = (2.2 oz).

3.3.26.2 High Power Rocket Motor. A rocket motor that has more than 160 = N-sec but no more than 40,960 N-sec of total impulse,

or that produces an average thrust of greater than 80 N, or that = contains greater than 62.5 g (2.2 oz) of propellant.

7.6 Model Rocket Motor Limitations.

7.6.1 A model rocket motor shall contain no more than 62.5 g (2.2 oz) of = propellant materials.

7.6.2 Amodel rocket motor shall produce a total impulse less than 80 = N-sec (17.98 pound-seconds).

Exception: A model rocket motor manufactured for sale to or use by = individuals 18 years of age or older shall be permitted to have a total

impulse not in excess of 160 N-sec (36 pound-seconds).

7.6.3 A model rocket motor shall produce an average thrust of 80 N = (17.98 pounds) or less.

7.6.4 A model rocket motor manfactured for sale to or use by individuals =

17 years of age or younger shall be designed to

comply with 16 CFR 1500.85(8) and (9) of Consumer Product Safety = Commission (CPSC) Regulations.

7.6.5 The propellant of a model rocket motor shall contain no metal = particles larger than 150 microns (100 mesh) and

shall be designed to produce a minimum of ejected particles or sparks.

7.7.2 A rocket motor that contains greater than 62.5 g (2.2 oz) of = propellant shall be classified as a high power rocket

motor.

7.7.3 A rocket motor that produces greater than 160 N-sec (36 = pound-seconds) of total impulse shall be classified as a

high power rocket motor.

7.7.4 A rocket motor that produces an average thrust greater than 80 N = (17.98 pounds) shall be classified as a high power

rocket motor.

since there is NO current 62.5 g limit in Federal Law, the most that = could happen is you might be prosecuted by the State.... whats the odds = of that happening?=20

Well lets look at marijuana for some guidance. Marijuana has been = decrimilized in Alaska since the early 1970's.... In the early 1990's = Alaska passed a referendum to recriminalize Marijuana and it passed and = became law but was overturned and thrown out by the Courts..... Alaska = has also passed fairly lenient Medicinal Marijuana laws.....Now Alaska = is preparing by referendum to completely decrimilize mere = possession......that's right, not even a $25 ticket....so possession = within reason, becomes effective legal...... So we are going have a = situation where state allows makes mere possession "legal" while Federal = Law make mere possession "illegal".....So since the Attorney General of = Alaska is completely against this defacto legalization of possession of = marijuana ( even though it is the will of the majority of the people BY = referendum), he has ordered the police agencies in the state of Alaska = when they detain somebody and discover marijuana on their purposes to = turn them over to Federal authorities so they can still be prosecuted ( = or is that persecuted?) by the Federal laws..... I am sure that you all = can see the analogy that I am trying to make.....

I just want everybody to notice that wherever you see 62.5 g as a = limitation between a model rocket and high power rocket motor, is = courtesy of you NAR and TRA. IT is THEY who put these values in these = places. It is these 62.g values that the BATFE is using as justification = to regulate model rocket and high power rocket engines. Courtesy of our = OWN NAR AND TRA LEADERSHIP.

Ya know.....In a post from several months ago I seriously suggested = that the NAR and the TRA should consider opening additional fronts on = the war on the BATFE. And make no mistake, thsi is a WAR.... and its a = TAKE NO PRISONERS WAR.....and it doesn't matter if we win in court, the = BATFE will appeal...and it doesn't matter if we win on appeals, cause = the BATFE will appeal this ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT.... so at = beast we are looking at what? 3-7 more years of litigation ? AND then = of course there S.724....

Well with the presidential elections just 1 year away, and the "Dumb = &Dumber senators" senate hold and the Bush DOJ and the Bush HSA/BATFE = all aligned against it, the earliest we will see any movement on it is = late Spring 2005.....and does anybody really thing we have a snowball's = chance in hell of getting any positive results against this unholy = trinity? In today's post 9-11 political environment? Dream on.....=20

heres my prediction, HPR will someday be absolutely and totally = outlawed and banned or it will be SO severely restricted and controlled = that only a precious few will even make the effort.... Remember, you = heard it here first .....

shockie B)

The main reason I brought this up was because I wanted everybody to see = the significance of what the current definition of "Toy Propellant = Device(s) " mean to Rocketry..

Anybody remember NPRM968 ? Well there was a section of NPRM 968 that = effectively "gutted" the original definition of Toy Propellant = Device......the definition that model rocket and easy access motors have = been designated, so that they can be mailed......=20 See, it all becomes clear now, gutting the definition of Toy Propellant = device by the BATFE in NPRM968 is an effort by the BATFE to close off = all potential loopholes that we might use to define what a rocket engine = is.....

Does anybody see the significance of Aerotech getting the USPS to = designate Easy Access Motors as Toy Propellant devices? =20 The significance is that if an HIJ Easy Access motor can be defined as a = Toy Propellant Device, then same size or larger motors may also be able = to be defined a such as long as the Propellant slugs are no larger than =

62.5g....Now do you see how important this definition is? and why the = BATFE wants to redefine it ..

And it also points out why in an earlier post I recommended that the = NAR/TRA through the NFPA process define model rocket motors as 113 or =

125 gr.... and then redefine HPR motors to be motors above this 113/125 = g limit....then we could create 113/125 g propellant slugs for motors = and they would still be able to be classified as Toy Propellant = devices....

shockie B) =20

My only question is how Aerotech gets away with mailing H180's through = the mail......

anybody care to explain that me? go ahead I dare you to.......

shockie B)

The feds are attempting to skirt the interstate commerce clause of the constitution with the phrase "in or affecting". It was sobering to read a federal appeals court opinion in an arson case that upheld the finding that an apartment building was in interstate commerce.

Strange, the justification that the BATFE uses in their court documents are the NA0276 (1.4C) and NA0323 (1.4S) DOT hazardous materials classifications for model rocket motors. NA0323 being for up to 30 grams of propellant and NA0276 being for up to 62.5 grams.

A phone call does not provide you with anything that will hold up in court. You need to mail them the question and ask for a ruling. The address is on the BATFE web site. But be careful what you ask for....

shockwaveriderz wrote: > The main reason I brought this up was because I wanted everybody to > see the significance of what the current definition of "Toy > Propellant Device(s) " mean to Rocketry.. >

Actually, the USPS is allowing Aerotech to ship rocket motors that are classified as NA0323 (UN 1.4S) by the DOT. It just so happens that some of the Aerotech reloads have been classified as NA0323 by the DOT. 29mm and under. No 38mm reloads make the cut.

The old DOT "toy propellant device" classification also included motors in the 30 to 62.5 gram range. These are now 1.4C and are not shippable by USPS under any circumstances.

Now the interesting thing is that it would appear that HPR reloads do not meet the additional requirements (basically the NFPA/CPSC definition of a model rocket motor). How Aerotech managed to sweet talk the USPS into allowing the reloads to be shipped I have no idea.

Herb wrote: > I know it has been hashed out alot about motors over 62.5 grams. But > hear is my question. > I just had a warrenty claim with Aerotech and they sent me 2-H180's > never asking if i had a permit. which I don't . > But yet to buy the same motor from their Dealer I need a permit in > most cases. > So am I breaking any laws by recieving these motors without a permit ?

Maybe. The BATFE says you are but (so far as I know) has never charged anyone.

Some have been told by BATFE that permits are required.

Manufacturer.

You have put your finger on the center of the arguement. Aerotech has DOT paperwork classifying some of their motors as Class C Toy Propellant Devices. The BATFE regulations exempted Class C motors classified by the DOT as toy propellant devices until the regulations were changed by the BATFE in 1998. That change mistakenly (so the BATFE claims) removed the exemptions for all Class C items (including toy propellant devices and toy caps) except consumer fireworks. Aerotech has even more recent DOT documents for a "HPR Lite" category of motors that have 30 grams or less propellant per slug (29mm and under reloads) that classifies them as NA0323 which (along with NA0276 for 62.5 gram and under) replaced the DOT's toy propellant device category.

The BATFE is now claiming (to a judge no less) that because the DOT changed their regulations in the early 90's (to "harmonize" them with UN hazadous materials classification) and removed the "toy propellant device" definition (replaced by two NAxxxx classifications that are acceptable ONLY within the United States) that the BATFE gets to "interpret" the obsolete DOT regulations. This is where they come up with the 62.5 gram limit. The addition of assembled motor weight bit is a total fabrication on the BATFE's part. They never published this change (as required by Federal law) for notice and comment. Therefore, because there are no court cases (so far as I know) to set precedent, this part of the regulations is now a grey area. The BATFE claims that Class C (aka UN1.4) motors with greater than 62.5 grams assembled propellant mass are regulated. There is good reason to believe that the law does not back them up on this. Some choose not to question the ATF on this and therefore require permits from purchasers.

The BATFE claims that the vast majority of rocketry enthusiasts are not affected by this. This is true only for the non- high power community. They also claim that the new "Limited Permit" is now available and try to make it sound as though it is a valid option to the regular permit. I don't think that this is true because in return for a minor discount on the permit fee, you have the same regulatory hassles as with the regular permit but are limited in the number (6 per year) and kind (intrastate only) of transactions you can perform. During my recent meeting with a local ATF inspector, she indicated that there have been almost no apllications for a Limited Permit. Which goes to show just how worthless it is.

Bingo. Proposed to NAR board. Answer?

Jerry

Original logic:

AP under 45u is an exploaive APCP combining "exlosive AP" and aluminum and others is APCP APCP is an explosive.

How it was verified as different from explosive when above 45u?

55.141-a-8 "propellants" exempt. (ie not designed to function by explosion)

That is lost on the explosives neophytes at ATF in 2003.

I asked these items be changed in my NAR board statements.

I asked these items be changed in my NAR board statements.

I asked these items be changed in my NAR board statements.

I asked these items be changed in my NAR board statements.

I thought this was killed. The test proved sarky motors safe.

I asked these items be changed in my NAR board statements.

I asked these items be changed in my NAR board statements.

80%

documents=20

and where did these 2 definitions come from for the DOT ? the NAR.... ? = Didn't J.Patrick Miller help with this DOT definition? these definitions = first appeared in 1995 on the DOT Hazardous Materials Table a 172.101..

Yes the BATFE is using that definition but they are also using the = following as additonal justification for their position on 62.5:

The following comes from page 25 of the document entitled: "Defendent's Memorandum of Points and Authorities In support of Renewed = Motion for Summary Judgement " by the BATFE:

"In construing its regulation, ATF determined that 62.5 grams was an = appropriate ceiling for what sould be considered a "small charge" of = propellant for these "toy" devices, a determination that was(is) in = keeping with guidelines published by the NFPA(footnote 17) ...

footnote 17 states: see e.g. NFPA1122- Unmanned Rockets 1987...NFPA 1122-Code for Model = Rocketry at 3-1.5.1 at 1122-7(1997)

What was at 3-1.5.1 in the 1997 edition of NFPA 1122 was relocated to = NFPA 1125 with the NFPA 2002 NFPA revision:

3.3.26.4 Model Rocket Motor. Arocket motor that has a total impulse of = no greater than 160 N-sec, an average thrust of no

greater than 80 N, and a propellant weight of no greater than 62.5 g = (2.2 oz).

3.3.26.2 High Power Rocket Motor. A rocket motor that has more than 160 = N-sec but no more than 40,960 N-sec of total impulse,

or that produces an average thrust of greater than 80 N, or that = contains greater than 62.5 g (2.2 oz) of propellant.

Who helped write NFPA 1122 2000 edition? the NAR/TRA.

Who Voted to remove the defintion of a model rocket motor with its 62.5 = gr limit from section 3.1 to section 3 and others in the new NFPA 1125 ? = the NAR/TRA..

Who placed this 62.5 gr limit into NFOPA 410L in 1968 for the 1st time = in 1968 .... the NAR

The BATFE is also using the model rocket defintioon in the CSPC to = justify the 62.5 gr limit, but again this is an incorrect justication = because as I pointed out in past posts, this CSPC regulation applies = ONLY to modle rocket motors sold to children and so that they may be = exemepted from the BAnned Hazrdous Substances ACT...Thats all it applies = to....

shockie B)

suggested

did..back

NA numbers are not recognized by UN either.

Point.

Need I even say it?

Jerry

david: actually the USPS is allowing Aerotech to ship UN351 UN 1.4C see : =

shockie B)

I think you may be mistaken here david..... see this:

definition=20

well it hasn't been proposed to the NAR...yet...although I did suggest = it to Mark and got this response back:

I would like to see Trips Barber's research behind this response and = also see the applicable CSPC requirements......just to be sure of = course....

=20

shockie B)

limit....then we=20

*I* proposed it to the NAR BoT. This cycle. Awaiting an answer something along the lines of an NPRM response.

Jerry

Hey Shock... your posts lately have been a bit hard to read. The lines are broken up and separated by a "equal" sign. Is there any way you can correct that?

ray: are you serious or messing with me? I have not changed anything on my newsreader poster....text all the = way... ok I found one setting that I usually don't use....hope this helps ray..

shockie B)

Jerry...I took notes during the phone call... but so far I can't find them..I will let you know when I locate them...

Tony

The document you reference is a DOT classification document. How does it say that these items can be shipped via USPS?

It doesn't.

But another document does reference these EX numbers. It has the problem of being quite old plus not exactly letting 1.4C be shipped.

This letter (dated 1993) allows the shipment of reload kits (not specified) with certain EX numbers. Until recently these EX numbers also covered the reload kits with 30 gram and under propellant grains. Why did Aerotech decide to get new EX numbers for "HPR Lite"? The only good reason is for USPS shipping purposes.

The 1993 USPS letter states: "Postal regulations generally permit the mailing of hazardous materials that fall within the smallest quantity grouping regulated by (DOT)."

The USPS letter then quotes what is basically the definition of a model rocket motor. Do not be fooled by the mention of 62.5 grams here. The controlling limit is the requirement (read USPS publication 52) that the motor MUST be UN 1.4S AND NA0323 (model rocket motor) or UN0454 (igniters). It would appear that Pub. 52 has been updated since 1993 to make its language more clear than "smallest quantity grouping".

See the USPS letter to Aerotech on Aerotech's application to ship "Redline" propellants and other more recent USPS letters.

"The other two Aerotech redline products (EX-0104078 and EX-0103055) that contain more than 30 grams of propellant material may NOT be placed in the mail under any circumstances."

Seems pretty clear to me.

The 1993 USPS letter seems to have been superseded by other letters from the USPS and should probably be removed or be clearly marked as being for historical purposes only.

shockwaveriderz wrote: > david: > actually the USPS is allowing Aerotech to ship UN351 UN 1.4C see : >

>