ROL NEWS--RCS IERT "Advanced Propellant Formulation and Processing Course" Announced

BS and if it were worth the money to bother, the real prior artisans would make a filing with the patent office and invalidate his patents.

But it's not!

Curious. According to Gary and TRA I am not on that short list.

This one is interesting and futile. Because it sems about 5 minutes after someone takes the course they are "more qualified" to be commercial motor makers than before.

Proven safety record there! Bad one.

Scary business model there. And catocene too. Is there any limit at all to Gary's technology transfers when poor?

How can his "stockholders" tolerate this. It obviously is totally adverse to AeroTech's and ISP's interests.

Jerry

I'd take the course if a had more money and time. Sounds very interesting! Why the harsh comments, Jerry? You don't support a rocketeer who wants to make his own motors?

-- Joe Michel NAR 82797 L1

It looks like I'm on the DQ list. I guess you were right, there are good reasons not to have a LEMP.

Great stuff, too bad it is so bloody expensive. Should be just the ticket for propellant used for end-burning monocopter motors.

John

Oooh, a tech flamewar!

-dave w

Hmmm... do you mean "sensitive" in the political sense ("information that Certain People would prefer not to have Certain Other People know about"), or in the engineering sense ("possibility of producing accidental explosions")?

-dave w

Monocopters Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Jerry

If something is $2000/kg AND banned by the mil sites AND on the state department watchlist, maybe you should not publicly mail order it.

Jerry

Nope. In a more sinister sense.

"Proliferation threat".

Jerry Irvine wrote: [re: catocene]

Hmmm.... RCS is offering it at $70 / 50 grams - that's only $1400/kg. Bargain?

Since it's only used at less than 2% concentration in the propellant; that $70 worth would thus be enough for at least 2.5 kg of propellant, or about 5K N-sec (full L) at an Isp of ~200 sec (2KN-sec/kg), no? Doesn't sound _that_ "bloody expensive" for the amount of propellant involved...

I thought that only applied to exports?

(I'd be more nervous about the "adverse effect on propellant friction and impact sensitivity" than the State Department!)

OTOH, if the very thought of the stuff seems to be provoking a "scares me and I'm fearless" reaction from _Jerry_...

-dave w

Since the rest of the ingredients cost about $30, it triples the cost of the propellant. I would call that expensive.

Tom

Let me summarize this in a way that captures the "flavor" of my objection.

1. Gary R spent a decade running full page ads harassing the ATF over products they and the law knew were exempt, but Gary R alone did not. (poke in ATF eye with sharp stick)

Gary confused NAR and TRA and caused massive collateral damage in unneeded explosives lisences and regs assuming such.

1. Gary R has massive industrial accident.

1. Gary R selects to sell to the general public a material which is particularly high on the government hit list for multiple reasons:

a. It is an identified safety hazard as used by some military programs. Notably it is the first thing raised at many mil propellant meetings.

b. It is clearly export controlled and considerable effort has been employed to keep it out of public discourse (do a google and see for yourself.)

(yet another poke)

We are trying to get consumer and amateur rocketry relaxed on right when GCR is trying to provide as as strong a case as he can possiblty muster that we need some sort of regulation to control the elements we cannot control ourselves.

What is sad is we controlled our info and people just fine till one had a virtual monopoly and STILL had massive sales disruptions and as a result becomes so hard-up that he has to sell elements of the farm to survive. Normally controlled elements.

No size of motor or reload sale transfers the technology of how to make it. Those sales are and should remain exempt.

Jerry

A General ROL News release goes to the GENERAL public, as in 90% CONSUMERS and well under 10% EX. And is clearly international. And unrestricted or vetted.

Jerry

I think there's a good market for this class. It looks to be right between a "make it take it" class and the U of Tennessee solids class.

However, I do think some of the participant requirements are pretty silly.

-Dan

Dan Chandler Southern New England Association of Rocketry

Specifically, "Participants must not be affiliated with commercial rocket propellant or rocket motor manufacturing enterprises."

Kind of like asking professional train engineers not to attend an advanced course on model railroading.

More like, "I don't want to provide training to my competitors". Makes sense to me. Of course, today's EX hobbyist could be tomorrow's commercial manufacturer.

I think you have to sign a non-compete clause too

-- Joe Michel NAR 82797 L1

At

Metal fuels in particle sizes less than 60 micrometres whether spherical, atomized, spheroidal, flaked or ground, consisting of 99% or more of any of the following: Zirconium, boron, magnesium and alloys of these;

Ammonium perchlorate;

Hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB); Tepanol" (HX-878), reaction product of tetraethylenepentamine, acrylonitrile and glycidol (see § 121.12.(b)(11));

Catocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));

N-butyl-ferrocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));

Other ferrocene derivatives (see § 121.12(b));

Superfine iron oxide with a specific surface area greater than

Basic copper salicylate; lead salicylate;

Lead stannate, lead maleate, lead citrate;

Triphenyl bismuth (TPB); Hydrogen peroxide of over 85 percent concentration; Fine grain recrystallized bulk graphites (with a bulk density of at least 1.72 g/cc measured at 15 degrees C), pyrolytic, or fibrous reinforced graphites useable for rocket nozzles and reentry vehicle;

Rocket motor cases, "interior lining", "insulation" and nozzles;

Any UN Class 1.3 solid propellant with a theoretical specific impulse greater than 230 seconds for non-halogenized, 250 seconds for non-metallized and 266 seconds for metallized compositions;

Solid or liquid propellant rocket engines, having a total impulse capacity of 1.1 x 10 N-sec (2.5 x 10 lb-sec) or greater;

Hybrid rocket motors and specially designed components;

P O I N T

Jerry

-snip remainder of list-

So even the makings for "garden variety" composite motors are considered "too good to let any o'them furr'n'rs get hold of'em" by the export control folks...

"Nobody expects the United States State Department!"

-dave w

or tires.