pros and cons list for Pro38 and Aerotech engines.

Correct. Whatever is law in your state, you're stuck with it.

I'm sure that's true.

Adhering to NFPA codes does not mean that motors have to be certified by NAR/TRA. They only have to be certified by NAR/TRA if they are intended for use in "Model" and "High Power" rocketry activities. Motor manufacturers who produce and sell motors for industrial or pyrotechnic use to do have to get NAR/TRA certification.

Only if they want to sell them for use at sanctioned launches, under the "model" or "high power" codes. If they wanted to sell to a different market, such as industrial, educational or pyrotechnical users, they would not need NAR/TRA certification. There are plenty of manufacturers who sell motors for these kinds of purposes -- Thiokol, for instance. Even Aerotech's industrial motor branch, ISP. Those manufacturers do not have or need NAR/TRA certification.

Nope. But if that's not their market, what of it? They would only have to comply with the codes that apply to non-model, non-high power rocketry motors.

Reply to
RayDunakin
Loading thread data ...

You re-read them. They clearly state that they are defining "Model" and "High Power" rockets and rocket motors, for use in Model and High Power rocketry. Do you really believe that all industrial motor makers have to be NAR/TRA certified??

Reply to
RayDunakin

Because the same guy probably stores his lawnmower/snow blower in the basement off-season, and a full tank of gas in the garage.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

It would be easier if you read the whole thread before responding.

All Jerry has to do is have Ellis make some CERTIFIED USR motors for which he oversees production (IMO).

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

It would be easier if you read the whole thread first before resonding.

Please provide the site that the F21 was not made under the control of AT. Was an employee at the site making the motors? Can a certified manufacturer not lease space at another site to expand production?

Joel. phx

Is a USR E6 a certified motor? I don't see it on either list.

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Yes! That's the point I've been trying to make in my last few posts. Other forms of rocketry besides "model" and "high power" can still be carried out, you just have to work a lot harder (in many cases) in order to meet all the regs if you want to do it legally.

The "model" and "high power" codes provide people with an easier legal path to engage in some form of rocketry. In exchange for this easier legal path, the users must accept certain minor limitations such as flyer certs and certified motors. But if you want to take the harder route, you're still free to do so.

Reply to
RayDunakin

NFPA 1125, 2001 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)

--

8.2.4* The examination and testing shall be carried out by the authority having jurisdiction or a recognized testing organization acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

8.2.5 A high power rocket motor, motor-reloading kit, or component that complies with the standards and requirements in 8.2.7 shall be permitted to be certified as acceptable for sale and use.

A.8.2.4 A nationally recognized testing organization that tests in accordance with NFPA 1122, Code for Model Rocketry, and certifies model rocket motors to the performance specifications outlined therein can include, but is not limited to, the National Association of Rocketry and Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc. or their successor organization(s).

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Since when? All they require is that the actual manufacturer be the one to submit them for cert.

Reply to
RayDunakin

When were any AT-manufacturer, USR-labled motors rejected for certification? Jerry says the motors that were rejected were made by ACS, not AT.

Of course, another difference is that both AT and Ellis have all their paperwork in order; and neither of them is a "super-secret silent partner who doesn't wish to identified or involved".

If you want to bash TRA, pick a better poster boy.

Reply to
RayDunakin

So they restrain anyone from doing this, only a buddy (oops) i mean previously certified manufacturer can do it.

Bob

Reply to
baDBob

What is it about the word "made" that you don't understand? If the actual manufacturer is submitting them, then they are certifying motors from the manufacturer, not by a third party.

Pay attention.

  1. Company A wants to get into the commercial motor business. They make motors for the government, but not for the public. They have EX numbers and an LEMP. So they make a few and submit them for certification. This is certification of motors by the manufacturer.

  1. Company A makes motors for the government. So they have EX numbers and a LEMP. They never thought about getting into the commercial motor business; no experience working with the public. Company B contracts with Company A to make some motors. The contract states that Company B is responsible for all liability and certification of said motors. Company B submits the motors for certification. This is certification of motors by a third party. Suddenly, the certifying agency asks Company B for their LEMP. Company B just stands there with a bewildered look stating that they aren't a manufacturer so they have no LEMP. The certifying agency says that Company B must also obtain EX numbers in their own name. Company B tries to explain that they aren't the manufacturer so they don't have EX numbers.

Questions:

Why is there a need for Company B to obtain a LEMP? (forgetting for the moment that all are exempt per 27 CFR 555) They aren't manufacturing anything.

If Company B is contracturally bound to hold all risks, why does anyone (including the certifying agency) need to know anything about Company A?

Since 49 CFR says that the manufacturer is responsible for obtaining EX numbers, why does the certifying agency requiring them in Company B's name?

Bob

Reply to
baDBob

If this is true, why would anyone want to be associated with an organization that seems to have their head up their A$$ and have folks that seem to support such stupidity???

Wizard

Reply to
Wizard

It's funny how "intent" becomes something else when written down and interpreted. Fortunately in this case I agree that what regulations I've seen posted don't appear to involve "home-brew".

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Butofcourse. The question is if a Canadian Cert actually matters because a certification body says it does. A certified motor might not be flyable at a club, but if it's 1/2 the price of "approved motors" what are club members going to do?

Joel. phx

And more importantly if no state or federal agency 'approves' this Canadian cert board, what's to stop a new test agency from being formed?

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Do you mean to say that a manufacturer with certified motors can only make motors in that one building? What if he expands or builds new plants to ease shipping costs? Is he required to re-certify in those cases (current regs, not ideally).

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Before you go on berating Ray Bob,.. what DOES "made" mean? To Make, right? Manufacturers make things. Labelers don't. TRA certs motors made by a 3rd party because that 3rd party is a manufacturer who submits the motors for testing.

Company B doesn't "MAKE" motors.

True, company B has nothing to do with the cert, so they wouldn't need an LEMP (tra rules).

The certifying agency has decided that verifing 1125 is important.

Because they don't? They want them in the same name,.. the manufacturer.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

organization

Because people are reasonable and understand that if the manufacturer says the case is identical to the one they produce and fully authorize it's use that it's safe to use?

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Joel, et. al

please look at this closely for the implications for AER

RayDunak> >

(I must be getting some serious brownie points in rocket heaven for doing this, but ok, Ray) :

NFPA 1125, 2001 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)

1.1.1* This code shall apply to the manufacture of model and high power rocket motors designed, sold, and used for the purpose of propelling recoverable aero models. 3.3.1 Aero Model. An unmanned flying device including the category of model or high power rocket as defined in this section.

(N.B.: despite this affirmation, the terms "model rocket" and "high power rocket" are not defined anywhere in NFPA 1125.)

if Thiokol intends that their rockets be recoverable (and they are unmanned) then it appears that NFPA 1125 does apply. But irrespective of that ...

1.1.2 This code shall apply to the design, construction, limitation of propellant mass and power, and reliability of model and high power rocket motors and model rocket and high power motor-reloading kits and their components. 3.3.26 Rocket Motor. As used in this code, the term rocket motor means model rocket motor or high power rocket motor. 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. 7.7.2 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.

oh, oh! any motor exceeding specified propellant weight, total impulse or average thrust "shall be classified as a high power rocket motor",

"But wait! That's not all!"

7.7.1 A high power rocket motor shall produce a total impulse no greater than 40,960 N-sec (9,216 pound-seconds).

so there is no lower boundary for NFPA 1125 scope, and no motors are permitted to be manufactured that exceed the upper boundary for total impulse (a full "O" motor). That means all motors are within its scope!

Real bad news for Thiokol, unless there is an explicit exclusion for companies like them, lets see ...

1.1.5 This code shall not apply to the manufacture, transportation, and storage of rocket motors by the United States military or other agencies or political subdivisions of the United States.

is Thiokol "military or [an]other agenc[y] or political subdivision[] of the United States" ? I don't think so. Then ...

4.1.1 The manufacture of any rocket motor shall be conducted in accordance with this code.

however ...

8.2.3 High power rocket motor, motor-reloading kit, and components offered for sale, exposed for sale, sold, used, or made available to the public shall be examined and tested to determine whether they comply with the standards and requirements detailed in 8.2.7.

are Thiokols products "offered for sale, exposed for sale, sold, used, or made available to the public" ? If they are then ...

8.2.4* The examination and testing shall be carried out by the authority having jurisdiction or a recognized testing organization acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

there is some leeway in what AHJ or "recognized testing organization" may be used for Thiokol motors meeting the criteria of a "rocket motor" which are "available to the public" (if they are not made "available to the public" there is no certification requirement).

In fact, Thiokol may be its own "recognized testing organization" acceptable to the state or federal governent (AHJ) under whose license it operates. But publicly available motors still have to conform to NFPA certification requirements.

note also that NFPA 1125 does not limit its scope to solid and hybrid propellants. Observe ..

3.3.22 Propellant. The material(s) utilized in a model or high power rocket motor that produces thrust by the discharge of a working fluid generated by combustion, decomposition, change of state, or other operation of such material contained, carried, or stored within the model or high power rocket motor.

so even liquid fueled rockets and tribrids appear within its scope.

and now, the good news!?

of course, the states in which Thiokol operates may exempt it from NFPA

1125 under the license with which it operates, or other state codes may grant exemptions or otherwise limit the scope of NFPA 1125 in such as way as to exclude Thiokol and similar companies.

But AFAICT there is nothing in NFPA 1125 that explicitly exempts Thiokol or any commerical manufacturer (or any non-commercial "manufacturer")

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

according to NFPA 1125, "model" is anything under 62.5g, "high power" is anything above that up to a full "O", and manufacture of motors larger than that are explicitly prohibited

see my post starting thread "more on NFPA 1125"

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

hope, Wiz, hope

- iz

P.S., which of your parents chose the name "Wizard", or were they > If this is true, why would anyone want to be associated with an organization

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

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.