I think he is attacking anybody that does not agree with HIM:
Stein: I totally agree. I know there are some (like Art Applewhite) that totally disagree but that's just a combination of conflict of interest & not knowing any better.
Mandated by NFPA-1127 is the ONLY reason.
That added rule was not self-regulation, it was self-destruction codified.
With me, it was more that I had a rocket that I had flown on G's and felt that it really needed just a bit more impulse, so I pulled out the cert blank that I'd been carrying around in my range box, lined up a witness, and said "hey everyone watch this - I'm gonna fly an H now..."
Level 2 was interesting... it was kind of a last-minute thing getting written test arrangements made, and due to the uncertainty, I was working on getting things set up for either a NAR or TRA cert, hoping one or the other would be consummated: in the end, both came through, and (having passed each writen exam) I made a flight that was observed by two NAR witnesses and the prefect of the local TRA field, counting simultaneously for certification by both organizations.
-dave w
wow. I didn't mean to start an argument, nor did I mean to imply anything about the methods people use for certifying L1. To each their own. For me it's all about the "quality of experience".
I could launch any number of kit rockets, with a variety of APCP motors, and certify. For me, not exciting enough. I've built lots of kits, I've launched tons of rockets with engine-based time delays. A bigger engine? Ok. More epoxy. Still essentially same-o, same-o. My goal with this project is to build and launch a L1 rocket, incorporating as many of the requirements for a L3 bird as is appropriate. Partly because of the complexity, partly because of the quality of technique demanded (i.e. external disarm of pyro charges). Partly because I believe that if something is worth doing, it's worth overdoing.
My L1 launch will be a "peak experience", and I want it to be one to remember (hopefully in a good way, eh?) The complexity and personal involvement will leave me progressively more "keyed -up" until the moment of launch. If I fail, that's cool. I promise you I will have learned a great deal that will be incorporated in the next attempt.
I'll admit to a hidden agenda of challenging the local NAR section to grow a bit.... I am the only member shooting hybrids, for example. Only one other member scratch-builds most of their birds. Kits are fine, APCP is fine. Just not enough psychological "oomph" for me.
Of course, I'm warped.
Kevin OClassen NAR 13578
My point is Phil (and like minded folks) disagrees and wants to impose his view on those certifying, not theirs, and not the rules.
He applies this ethic in a variety of ways and a variety of places in rocketry.
And supports and endorses others that do as well.
All to the detriment of others ocketry experience.
Jerry
Look at the bright side - I have certified quite a few people and have never refused anyone (yet)
-----snip-----
It took some scrounging around the Lab 'O Computers and PAD's before I figured out how to use a 'remove before flight' streamer with my RRC2. What I came up with was a standard motherboard jumper to connect two wires together at J3 for positive power control along with an identical non-electrical plastic jumper. The plastic jumper has the 'remove' flag attached via a lanyard and when installed I know the RRC2 is off. At the pad I will put on the conductive jumper, listen to the beeps, tape it to the wires and tuck it into one of the vent holes. Simple and secure.
-----snip-----
And "Real BAR's do Fault Tree Analysis" on the front :-)
John
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.