Open letter ISP/AT

Open Letter Re: ISP/AT auction. 1/25/2004
This letter is meant to set straight the intentions of AMW Inc. regarding its pursuit of the purchase of ISP/AT assets.

We are already hearing incorrect issues and malicious statements, resulting in this statement of our position.
We have received notice from the Attorney representing ISP/AT, (Gary Rosenfield) referred to as DIP (debtors in possession.), of the intentions of DIP to sell the ISP/AT assets free and clear of any debt.
Said Notice advised of an offer for the sum of $30K from RCS Inc. (Gary Rosenfield).
The Notice also was a request for additional offers, to be received no later than 5 business days before the hearing.
1/22/04
Being that this was Very Short Notice, and the wealth of unanswered questions, incomplete financial statements, etc., we immediately hired an Attorney to investigate, and to help AMW Inc. receive further pertinent information.
AMW's attorney, having attended the creditors meeting, spoke with the US bankruptcy Trustee, and subsequently filed a motion for more time, and additional discovery. The Court agreed and set a new date for the hearing.
AMW's attorney felt that there might be some legal question regarding RCS's ability to legally acquire these assets (insider sale, lack of long arm transaction, to name a few indiscretions, in our opinion)
I, Paul Robinson, as the principle of AMW Inc., decided to call Gary.
Amongst other things, there was some talk about how "Bad Chemistry" has transpired over the last couple years between Gary, I, and another Manufacturer.
We talked about how the Acquisition of AT might be viewed by some as a "trophy", to hang on the wall.
This obviously is one of many reasons I am writing this letter.
Gary and I agreed that we could not point to any particular incident, but perhaps just bad Karma, and a series of misunderstandings, or business posturing.
The important thing here is the fact of dialogue! I have spoken to Gary on 3 occasions in the last couple weeks, and group postings have recently happened with another mfg.
So much for a brief on history.
Moving forward.
It is AMW's intention to bid on the assets of ISP/AT, and assure that all the assets and financial records are disclosed.
One cannot make a sound business decision without correct or complete information.
One of my (as well as others) personal concerns in this business is, what will happen to Gary and/or his staff?
Gary has been a part of rocketry since its early times and one cannot overlook his contributions, along with others, some of whom are still fightingL.
I can tell you that there have been discussions with Gary. One option is if Gary would remain with some of his help, but work under a new owner.
Obviously, Gary and I understand that might be a bitter pill, and more research into such an option is needed. All options are open for review.
The PARAMOUNT concern is this; that the end users who have invested in Aerotech hardware and products be supported. and that is the delivery of product return to the timely status it was two years ago.
I repeat, AMW's primary goal in this venture is to secure customer investments of AT hardware with product, insuring that their investment will not become a bad debt write off., or a wind chime!!
Though it has not been Gary's desire to see cross compatibility of different manufactures hardware, I believe that is the future. I believe that for our hobby to live and grow in the future, we must find a way to help keep it affordable. My belief to secure that future is co- operation between manufactures, instead of discord.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that most any load you wanted was available for the hardware you currently owned??
My efforts are in fact to save ISP/AT (or what it represented) and restore it, not to bury it. One of the big problems in this hobby, has been the "constant fighting, protracted lawsuits, I own this, and I invented this, you stole this, and this one did that". This is, and has been, detrimental to the hobby. This will help put an end to such behavior, though it can't be done alone!! That is one of the reasons for my desire to purchase Aerotech. I want to acquire the rights to open up the field. Let the customer benefit from open technology.
For the most part, the designs and products that are out there are public domain.
The military was using snap rings back in the 50's, tracking smoke, etc.
Unless you made an effort to protect your ideas through the legal Patent process, give it up. With very few exceptions, most of the stuff we use today was already thought of.
CTI and I have had talks regarding this. (Pro AMW) we are looking for feedback regarding these ideas!!
Both Anthony and myself are in complete agreement that it is good for the hobby.
What do you the customer think??
Let quality, reliability, and the customer's right to choose dictate his purchase.
Yes, there will be some questions regarding warranty, and a "few" that might be dishonest, and try to exploit to their advantage.
But for the most part, if people know that there is a common goal, they work together. (Fly Rockets as an example)
I welcome constructive dialog, and rational ideas to help solve some of these thoughts.
Sincerely
Paul Robinson
President
AMW Inc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:10:06 -0500, "paul" <peter pan> wrote:

<snip>
Paul,
Thanks. That was much appreciated!
Zooty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< I repeat, AMW's primary goal in this venture is to secure customer investments of AT hardware with product, insuring that their investment will not become a bad debt write off., or a wind chime!! >>
That's good news.
<< Wouldn't it be nice to know that most any load you wanted was available for the hardware you currently owned?? >>
Of course! Most consumers want to have as many options as possible. As a consumer the biggest obstacle to trying other brands is the investment for new hardware. And there's a degree of risk involved when investing in hardware -- if the manufacturer goes belly-up, so does your investment unless there are other manufacturers making reloads to fit it.
On the other hand, from a manufacturer's point of view, having customers buying from other manufacturers is rarely considered a good thing. A manufacturer who has the largest "installed base" (hardware owned by customers) has no incentive to open up that base to competition.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

On yet another hand, that sort of attitude - where each manufacturer views the others as "competition" may well be dysfunctional in present circumstances - what we need now is "Cooperation, Not Competition": if Aerotech intends to ever really be in full operation again, what it will need is a viable market to sell into.
At the moment, they (and NAR/TRA) ought to be aiding and _encouraging_ any and all possible other suppliers to go into the HPR (and especially LMR) markets. My opinion is that the effect of this would not be "stealing the LMR/HPR market from AT" so much as "keeping it warm for them to come back to".
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< On yet another hand, that sort of attitude - where each manufacturer views the others as "competition" may well be dysfunctional in present circumstances - what we need now is "Cooperation, Not Competition": if Aerotech intends to ever really be in full operation again, what it will need is a viable market to sell into. >>
I don't know, seems to me anyone holding the upper hand would not be served by discarding it under normal circumstances, and reducing competition is definitely an upper hand. However, at this time AT is hurting enough they may have to discard it to survive.
<< At the moment, they (and NAR/TRA) ought to be aiding and _encouraging_ any and all possible other suppliers to go into the HPR (and especially LMR) markets. >>
In what way could they do this without relaxing the requirements that other manufacturers have had to meet?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul, Thank you for posting this. I think cross-compatibility between mfgr's would be great. My questions would be what about the lines of motors that Aerotech made that either yourself or Anthony C. did not. Specifically, 29MM and mid-power stuff. If AMW acquired AT/ISP, would you mfg that stuff as well?
And what about the smaller single-use motors, say G-80 on down? Many people have commented on RMR about their displeasure on the availability of these types of motors.
-- Joe Michel NAR 82797 L1 http://home.alltel.net/jm44316 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul - I am totally for a universal hardware. It would make the commercial motor world so much easier. I salute your efforts.
--
Stephen Corban
"If you build it they will come" - May 2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"paul" <peter pan> wrote in

Don't forget that a lot of the appeal of AT's product line was to users of SU F and G impulse motors, and the smaller SU motors OEMed for Apogee.
len.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Don't forget that a lot of the appeal of AT's product line was to users of SU F and G impulse motors... >>
Yes! Currently AT is the only significant supplier in this range.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.geocities.com/ellismountain/motors.html
RayDunakin wrote:

--
Alex Mericas


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<<http://www.geocities.com/ellismountain/motors.html
Yes, I'm aware that Ellis has some G motors, but so far their selection is very limited and availability is even more limited. They don't have CSFM approval either so they're not available in CA at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I fully support compatibility between manufacturers. It works in the rest of the world, why not with rocketry? My concern though, is what Len has pointed out. One hundred percent of my flying is with 29mm G and lower, and mostly single use. I am working towards L1, but even with that, most all of my flying will be low to mid power. The selection for E,F,and G motors with out AT, is extremely slim. Especially since what hardware I currently have is AT's. If AMW purchases AT, will the 24mm and 29mm line of motors and reloads be continued? David Logan NAR#79313

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
david: only time will tell... I do think its instructive to look at both AMW and CTI's current product lineup.... I notice no 24/29mm motors at all... Why? Insurance costs.... shockie B)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gary is a model rocket zealot. If you ask me, that is a feature, not a bug.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:40:43 -0500, "shockwaveriderz"

Ever consider profitability?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hey phil... I have heard and or read that the labor costs to manufacture EFG SU or reloads are almost prohibitive.....I don't know if this applies to both SU and reloads.....perhaps it only applies to SU motors? IF so I say discontinue SU and lets just go to an all reload solution.....and that smaller motors are the "loss-leaders" for the larger HIJKLMN....... as the labor costs are lower on the bigger motors and the margins are larger on the bigger motors....
I do know right now the H motor costs are comparable to some FG motor costs if you do a price/performance analysis.....
This is what I have been told and read in here primarily...
It seems to me that if you sold large quantities of small engine versus small quantities of larger motors that you would make more money on the smaller motors as you are selling on a order of magnitude greater than the larger motors being sold....say 1,000,000 EFG versus maybe 10,000 JKL .....? I'm no economist so I really don't know of course...
shockie B)
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It does? Can I really buy GM engine parts for my Honda VTEC?
Can I put a Nikon lense on my Minolta SLR?
Do Sunbeam beaters fit our Kitchenaid mixer?
Can I use my SD memory card in my friends Sony digital camera?
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Grrr this makes me mad
below

Can you buy NON honda parts for your honda. YES

Can you buy NON minolta lens and stuff for your minolta. YES

Can you buy third party for these. PROBABLY unless they are so cheap thats it not worth their time.

Depends. I have seen many sony camera's that take PCMCIA cards so you can get an ADAPTOR for any type of card.
Better question. can you buy NON SONY memory sticks for your memory stick camera. YES.
Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
YOU CAN put MOBIL, SHELL, CITGO fuel in GM, HONDA , FORD, ETC.
YOU CAN put FIRESTONE tires on NISSAN Dodge and Chrysler
YOU can add a practically unlimited assortment of after market items to virtually any make and / or model.....
YES mfg,s need individuality and a niche, DOING it and SHARING some features makes the business GROW for EVERYONE. its better for mfg AND most of all consumers.....
Paul's Idea of somewhat universal hardware WILL happen... its just a matter of time... AND I hope the time is NOW.......
Bobby B
writes:

the
Len
http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.nar.org
http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not on my car. Which is never again going to be Dodge or Chrysler :-(
I would like to see you put Corvette Goodyear Eagles on my Civic!

As I just posted, that will end innovation in design. AT was first. Say their hardware became standard. No snap-rings ever. No PRO-38s either.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.