pros and cons list for Pro38 and Aerotech engines.

Here's the tricky part with codes. Look only at any one part and you're wrong. See, you snipped this:

"1.3 Application. This code shall apply to the design, construction, limitation of propellant mass and power, and reliability of high power rocket motors and motor components **produced commercially** for sale or for use by a certified user for education, recreation, and sporting competition."

PRODUCED COMMERCIALLY for sale or use. EX by {TRA} definition is not commercial.

Joel. phx

Good try though.

>

unfortunately it is immediately followed by this

1.3.1 This code also shall apply to the design and construction of high power rockets propelled by the high power rocket motors specified in Section 1.3.

- iz

pertinent to

4.7 Rocket Airframe Materials. A high power rocket intended to be propelled by one or more high power rocket motors shall be constructed using lightweight materials such as paper, wood, rubber, plastic, fiberglass, or, when necessary, ductile metal so that the rocket conforms to the other requirements of this code

- iz

Then by that logic it also does NOT apply to "uncertified users" ala University students who have never even heard of NAR orTRA.

Furthermore if you want to accesss a wider variety of motors you should immediately lapse or surrender your certification status so you can do so. Right?

That's the people.

As for the motors, if ANY are for "intended use" by certified users they are ALL covered by the code, whether they themselves comply or not (TRA/NAR can/will arbitrarily not certify/decertify those as we have seen), and are thus excluded for use by code/law. But if they are NOT intended for certified users then they are not subject to the code? Is that how you read it?

Jerry

Pink Book Lawyer

I believe that has been established to a certainty NOT to be the case hence why this line of inquiry was initiated.

If "Only the manufacturer can verify that they have the proper shipping and manufacturing permits", then how can either NAR or TRA say they do not?

And if I hand you a copy of AeroTech's HEMP for the Cedar City facility is it invalid FOR THEM because *I* handed it to you?

Jerry

IF you try and claim it as yours, it would be invalid.

Lets see if I can get this straight. The answer to this is no. If the landowner didn't have to answer to the fire marshall, he could put rules up allowing just about any motor. But that rule would not go beyond his property because he doesn't have juristiction outside of his property. Now if the local Fire Marshall(warden or whatever you call them) decides that only CSFM-registered motors are allowed then that would supercede the landowner but still only effect the area where that local fire marshall had juristiction, not beyond. It is kind of like a chain of command with the federal government at the head, then the state fire marshall then local fire warden(what we call them here) then the property owner.(there are probably a few more in there). The ones at the bottom have to respect what the ones above put into effect but they can have stricter rules but they cannot lessen the rules.

God, legaleze gives me headaches.

Using your logic then even a CSFM approved motor under NFPA-1122/25/27 would not be translatable nationally. Only NAR/TRA can do that, right?

Thus bolstering the restraint of trade arguement that started this subthread.

My comment was tongue in cheek and not well marked as such.

Point!

Jerry

(was getting too long)

Actually, how I read it is that is that the only entity that can make it national is the federal government. IIRC, NFPA-1122/25/27 turns the power to regulate what motors can be used down to the state fire marshall. From there the state fire marshall can determine what AHJ he/she thinks is acceptable. Now most fire marshall will probably just point at what is in the appendix to who are sources for these certifications. Now if you started a independent organization for certifying motors, you would either have to have the NFPA make the change or to contact each state fire marshall to see if they will add said organization as a AHJ. (of course I am probably completely wrong, time to actually read NFPA 1122/25/27)

The only way NAR/TRA can "do that" is by making agreements with the AHJ in each of the 50 states. In most cases, the AHJ is going to be happy to have someone else incur the expense. If a new state lawifies 112x and determines that N/T have not been certifying to 112x they don't have to accept them as a certifying body.

Does UL or that Insurance Institute which conducts independent testing on car n trucks have any more power than 'reputation'?.

Ok, N/T were there first, and would apparently be the only "certification" body. But 112x does not say they're the ONLY avenue to certification. So, it's up to someone to say "we're starting a testing lab" or some manufacturer to say "I'm submitting motors to UL (or such) instead of N/T".

Complaining restraint of trade is not valid when the other options of 112x haven't even been pursued.

Joel. phx

Just so your cheek is the ONLY place it's been :o

>

{questioning EX legality based on 4.5.1}

Ok, it's getting pretty confusing, so I've snipped most of the discussion (to not be a bandwidth hog) and what we were discussing was whether or not

112x makes AR (EX) illegal. You've quoted ("unfortunately it...") a section on the construction of the rockets themselves, so I do not see how that fits into the discussion. The code will apply to the construction and launch operations of AR/EX motors, yes? Does something I'm not seeing make building the motors yourself illegal?

Joel. phx

I just noticed your follow-up with 4.7. It appears your point is that AR activities which include metal rockets would be considered illegal? I believe we were discussing "EX" and not strictly "AR" outside the fiber/cardboard rockets.

Here's the three (of 4 posted) sections of "what the code applies to"*:

1.3 Application. This code shall apply to the design, construction, limitation of propellant mass and power, and reliability of high power rocket motors and motor components PRODUCED COMMERCIALLY for sale or for use by a certified user for education, recreation, and sporting competition.

1.3.1 This code also shall apply to the design and construction of high power rockets propelled by the high power rocket motors specified in Section 1.3.

1.3.2 This code shall apply to the conduct of launch operations of high power rockets specified in 1.3.1.

1.3.3 {exclusions}

*That have been posted. I do not have a hardcopy in front of me.

Are YOU a manufacturer?

so:

1. NAR/TRA stillhave the powertoagree/not agree.
2. They could in principal make such an agreement with a "landowner AHJ" (thus translating nationally) if they were both so inclined and that AHJ tested to NFPA standards (as opposed to a NAR/TRA superset).
3. ASSUMING NAR/TRA have the legal authority to recognize other certs at all including CAR certs.

Show me where it is excluded that a manufacturer themselves can set up such a lab in-house.

Jerry

No I think that is "mostly right". Except the Fed Gov is not really part of NFPA. It is a state thing. It is the state legislature that points for the SFM BTW.

Jerry

University students are excluded in 1.3.3(3)

Does this help: "This code shall apply to hpr motors and motor components produced commercially for sale or for use by a certified user."

If there is no section that says you must be a certified user to use HPR motors, I would agree. Not having the document here nor 1125 makes it a bit difficult to guess. There was something in 1125 that said manufacturers could only sell to certified users, yes?

Unless you want to buy from a manufacturer who is following 1125 and can't sell to an uncertified user.

It is?

Lost me there. Commercially produced motors for certified users must comply. I don't see where "and are thus..." fits into the sentence.

Any COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED for sale or use(by certified...). If you make a motor with the intent to sell you must follow the code.

Here's a bone. If you commercially produce motors and give them away to non-certified users, you're Scott free.

Are we still on EX being illegal or did we branch again?

Joel. phx (just play a pink book lawyer on tv)

Based on what's Iz has posted, I don't see that it requires a user to be certified to fly HPR (unless they want to buy the motors).

I'f storage were allowed in homes and attached garages without red tape, and the permits were stright forward, without all the red tape, I think it would be more accepted, like it seems to be in the UK.

The US agency is making a real debacle out of it at the current time, and doesn't even know it's own rules.

you are correct

you just can't, for example, use metal fins or body tube of such material or thickness that they are not ductile

it apparently has no bearing on motors whatsoever

just design, construction, and launch operations as you said

- iz

Sounds to me like a corporation and licensed business needs formed to conduct research into produciton, testing and flying rockets. Humm.. I think I remember that being done back in the early 80s some time, to follow this rule. I can't quite remember, ...

It Could be done yet again.

/ArtU

competition.

organization.

inconsistencies".