Rocket Challenge on Discover

"Joel Corwith" wrote in news:hIarb.18$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:

Hmmm... the first time I saw a biker/builder show on TV, I though, "Damn... that dude's *good*!" Of course, I was not tempted to run out and buy a motorcycle kit, but that's a different story.

Sure. I put eighty-five thousand dollars on "More Than One" ;-)

In Mania II Shaq said he looked up Jessie James after watching the first show on the Discovery Channel. Those vendors and clubs with links on flyrockets ought to check counters before the show, after the commercial airs, and after the show is over. I'd sure like to hear who got hits!

Joel. phx

But, Ray - ANY technology can be used to destructive purposes. It's all a matter of application. That makes the whole "They're Dangerous Because They're Rockets" argument irrelevant. After all - nitroglycerin is a dangerous explosive... unless it's a beneficial heart-medication. :-)

But you're right... we shouldn't drop it - we should REFUTE IT!

Oh, that shouldn't be too difficult. I think I live in one right now. If you live in "America, the land of the used-to-be-free and the home of the scared-of-his-own-shadow yuppie" as I do, then it shouldn't be too hard for you either.

Ain't that the truth! Fox may be the worst, but the others are close behind.

Loved your post!

Regards, Michael Newton

Keeper.

snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAM.rogers.com (Len Lekx) wrote in news:3fad7ffa.24948372@nntp:

Anybody ever estimate how many people have been killed by/with rocks over the centuries?

No one is to stone anyone EVEN if they DO say Jahova,... Owwwh! Who threw that rock?!

Joel. phx

Certainly our technology can be used for destructive purposes. So can cars, rental trucks, airplanes, gas cans, toasters, guns, spray paint cans, batteries, computers, knives, pens, screwdrivers, saws, electronics, etc.

The point of our entire argment is that our MOTORS are being regulated as EXPLOSIVES, which they are not, by law.

The day the BATFE regulates and/or bans anything that MIGHT POSSIBLY be used as a destructive device is the day this becomes a police state, and we all move to some other country.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

But it is relatively difficult and expensive. That is what is funny about it.

Or be put in jail for suggesting it years ago, when speech was still legal too.

As more stuff becomes criminalized and tolerance bar lowers to zero and probable cause effectively evaporates, we are all commiting crimes right now that will be enforced against us in a few short years.

Are you sure we are not there yet?

But the good news, with all the job outsourcing, is that you can probably still work for the same US employer. Isn't the internet wonderful?

Alan

Bob,not quite true:

Actually Model rocket motors and now HPR rocket motors have always been classed as explosives by the DOT.... Model Rocket engines were originally classed as Class C Explosives by the BOE...... and they are currently classed as either Division 1.4S or Division

Lets get history and law straight once and for all: Model rocket engines ahve always been classed by the DOT as explosives, while the BATFE exempted such motors from their enforcement as Toy Propellant Devices..... HPR rocket motors have also always been classed as explosives by DOT, and they were never exempted from the explosives regulations of the BATFE..this is the basis of the lawsuit, the 62.5 gram limit.....which determines what a model rocket and a hpr rocket engine is or is not....(some HPR rocket motors, the so called Easy Access have been exempted per the Toy Propellant devoces exemption too)

I know nobody wants to hear this but this is the reality.....

In addition, our own NAR/TRA NFPA representatives have helped to write the NFPA 1122/1125/1127 codes(which are law in a number of states) which state:

from NFPA 1125:

Chapter 8 Testing and Certificationation of Model Rocket Motors, Motor-Reloading Kits, and Components.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), or competent authority, as a Division 1.3 or 1.4 explosive, or a written acknowledgment

from DOT, or one of its approved testing agencies, that the model rocket motor or motor-reloading kit is a flammable solid.

8.2.1 A prerequisite for certification of a high power rocket motor or motor-reloading kit shall be its prior classification by

DOT, or competent authority as a Division 1.3. or 1.4 explosive, or a written acknowledgment from DOT, or one of its

approved testing agencies, that the high power rocket motor or motor-reloading kit is a flammable solid.

In addition according to NFPA 1127:

Chapter 5 High Power Rocket Motor User Certification

to both of the following:

(1) Acquisition by a certified user of a high power solid propellant rocket motor(s) or motor reloading kit(s) in a

state other than that in which the user resides

(2) Transportation by a certified user of a high power solid propellant rocket motor(s) or motor reloading kit(s) to a state other than that in which the user resides

So prior to the enaction of the SEA act in MAY 2003, the NAR/TRA had already put language into the NFPA 1127 requiring its members to get LEUP prior to purchasing a HPR rocket motor if purchased or transported out of their state of residence...now of course you have to get the LEUP for instate purchases and transportation...

also prior to SEA Act in MAy 2003, if you lived in a NFPA 1127 state and purchased or transported instate HPR rocket motors, you were violating the state law by not purchasing/transporting said HPR motrs with an LEUP...

...and did you also know that written in this NFPA 1127 code is a provision for the NAR/TRA to provide to law enforcement agencies, your certification status?

5.4.2.2 Upon request and receipt of applicable fees, if any, confirmation of an active member's user certification shall be provided to the following:

(1) Law enforcement official or authority having jurisdiction

SO if the BATFE asks, the NAR/TRA will tell......

See this is the forked tongue of the NAR/TRA......We (the NAR/TRA) make up the NFPA codes which say model rocket and HPR rocket motors must be classed as explosives, but when the BATFe comes along and agrees with us that they are explsovies and wants to regulate them as explsoives, we take the BATFE to court, saying that they aren't explosives.....

Does anybody see the inherent hyprocracy in this position?

shockie B)

CORRECTION :

this should read:

shockie B)

Not always.

TB-700.2 exempts materials from explosives CONSIDERATION that PASS Class

Then DOT and I presume UN later changed TB-700.2 to add a provision, a "note" that says even if it passes the test sand becomes exempt, if the material is for a pyrotechnic purpose it falls back into class 1. This is why most approvals since then have been by anology and not by test. Tests were a waste of money after that.

So even if the material is scientifically safe and you spend the money to prove it, it gets sucked back in by fiat.

Nobody will give me a clear answer when that provision was added, but it was after 1986 when ACS material did in fact slip out of class 1 even by DOT ruling and notice.

ACS is unique in consumer rocketry in that regard BTW. ACS may be rocketry's last best hope of a "technicality out" to the abusive actions of the government. Ironic, eh?

I do not have time to clarify your errors on this. Refer to my website and parse that.

It says "or competent authority" and NAR refuses to HONOR that and I quote from George Leo Rachor Jr. email directly:

"In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means." - 8-03 NAR BOT meeting

It says "or competent authority" and NAR refuses to HONOR that and I quote from George Leo Rachor Jr. email directly:

"In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means." - 8-03 NAR BOT meeting

ONLY where required!!! 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 exempts ALLpropellant actuated devices as defined in the code as follows:

It is critical to understanding the problem to KNOW that each NAR and TRA leader, board member, and NFPA committee member, are hyper-morons on this topic.

ONLY where required!!! 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 exempts ALLpropellant actuated devices as defined in the code as follows:

It is critical to understanding the problem to KNOW that each NAR and TRA leader, board member, and NFPA committee member, are hyper-morons on this topic.

True precisely because they are hyper-morons, and:

ONLY where required!!! 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 exempts ALLpropellant actuated devices as defined in the code as follows:

It is critical to understanding the problem to KNOW that each NAR and TRA leader, board member, and NFPA committee member, are hyper-morons on this topic.

And the lawsuit says the oppositeof hyper-moron policy.

Hence hyper-morons.

Far better than a mere moron to be sure.

This should be in the FAQ.

Jerry Irvine is your LMR/HPR master and commander. Take me to your leader. His name is Jerry Irvine.

Not always.

TB-700.2 exempts materials from explosives CONSIDERATION that PASS Class

Then DOT and I presume UN later changed TB-700.2 to add a provision, a "note" that says even if it passes the test sand becomes exempt, if the material is for a pyrotechnic purpose it falls back into class 1. This is why most approvals since then have been by anology and not by test. Tests were a waste of money after that.

So even if the material is scientifically safe and you spend the money to prove it, it gets sucked back in by fiat.

Nobody will give me a clear answer when that provision was added, but it was after 1986 when ACS material did in fact slip out of class 1 even by DOT ruling and notice.

ACS is unique in consumer rocketry in that regard BTW. ACS may be rocketry's last best hope of a "technicality out" to the abusive actions of the government. Ironic, eh?

I do not have time to clarify your errors on this. Refer to my website and parse that.

It says "or competent authority" and NAR refuses to HONOR that and I quote from George Leo Rachor Jr. email directly:

"In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means." - 8-03 NAR BOT meeting

It says "or competent authority" and NAR refuses to HONOR that and I quote from George Leo Rachor Jr. email directly:

"In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means." - 8-03 NAR BOT meeting

ONLY where required!!! 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 exempts ALLpropellant actuated devices as defined in the code as follows:

It is critical to understanding the problem to KNOW that each NAR and TRA leader, board member, and NFPA committee member, are hyper-morons on this topic.

ONLY where required!!! 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 exempts ALLpropellant actuated devices as defined in the code as follows:

It is critical to understanding the problem to KNOW that each NAR and TRA leader, board member, and NFPA committee member, are hyper-morons on this topic.

True precisely because they are hyper-morons, and:

ONLY where required!!! 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 exempts ALLpropellant actuated devices as defined in the code as follows:

It is critical to understanding the problem to KNOW that each NAR and TRA leader, board member, and NFPA committee member, are hyper-morons on this topic.

And the lawsuit says the oppositeof hyper-moron policy.

Hence hyper-morons.

Far better than a mere moron to be sure.

This should be in the FAQ.

Jerry Irvine is your LMR/HPR master and commander. Take me to your leader. His name is Jerry Irvine.

BP Model Rocket Motors have always been classed as explosives by DOT : true

They were 1st classed as Class C explosives from 1957 and then in 1994 as

the BATFE exempted these model rocket motors from their compliance as Toy Propellant devices: true Until 1992-93(?) when the DOT "accidently" removed the Toy Propellant Device classification

My comment on HPR rocket motors having always being classed as explosives by DOT make be too all encompassing...So I am looking for historical documentation On > 62.5 APCP(or other composite formula) composite motors....

I gather that a number of comapnies manufacturered >62.5 g APCP or other Compoiste type motors, but I do not know the time periods involved.... It is apparent that for a while, the BATFE did not deem regulation of these motors necessary.....their interest in regulation seems to have started circa

shockie B)

But only because Estes and other BP vendors have not ever performed the Class 1 tests to drop them out, which an "article" such as a cardboard case motor would certainly pass.

Still.

RDC/Enerjet 1968-72 Plasmajet 1977-89 Composite Distribution 1978-89 Aerotech 1981- Powertech 1988-92

There are a few.

She did! um him him....

I disagree. If they had left that out and people showed up at a launch and saw failure, what would they think? We sometimes fail but we do it safely. That's what I got out of it. I didn't keep track, but it seemed the big failures (P motor, guy off the tower) they covered the why they thought it happened. But the real question is what non-techs got out of it. I noticed Discovery has message boards for most of the other shows and was planning to ask them about one for the Rocket challenge. Then we could see what the ave Joe thinks.

I didn't quite understand the 3 hours in one night. Seemed like they were trying to fill slots when everything else is still in re-run. Didn't most of the other real-life end with "next time {on this show} we..."?

Joel. phx

I'm expecting something on the news tonight. Just BECAUSE you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're NOT out to get you.