[saverocketrylater.tra]

That very well may be the case. Which still leaves TRA hiding information.

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

I beg to differ. I have previously PROVEN that motors were placed on the list with no testing at all, either of that delay combination, or of the motor completely.

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

Not to belabor the point, but in a previous post you indicated that you had reported such violations to the NFPA. I indicated that I'd (truly) be interested in further information from you on this, but none was forthcoming.

I would reiterate that if the agencies that perform the actual regulatory function are not concerned, then why should you be? After all, I'm all for government entities keeping their noses OUT of things, not bringing them in. And in relation to consumer organizations, folks pay with their wallets.

I'm a member of NAR, and am perfectly happy with it. I don't have any additional need (at this point in time) to join TRA, as I see no additional benefit from it, and I truly AM concerned about their actions in the past (most particularly, the entire magazine fiasco). But I've flown at several TRA launches, was welcomed at them, paid any required launch fees, and had absolutely no problems. If TRA continues on their current course, I don't really see a problem with my joining them at some future point, if no NEW problems come up.

David Erbas-White

Actually NFPA 1125 does require that.

I've just sent him a polite email requesting the delay test data. If/when I get a response, I'll post it here.

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

Could it be that Bob is the ONLY one that cares? Judging from some of Bob's past posts I going to bet that Bob has spent a fair share of his life 'tattling' on people. I get the feeling that Bob just ain't happy(at all) unless he complains to someone, whether it be TRA, NAR contest rules, smell of epoxy, noisy neighbors, people staring at him et all.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

After

I beg to differ, Bob. You've shown that there is a lack of data for certain motors that were certified about 13 years ago. While that could be considered circumstantial evidence, it's not proof. The data could simply be lost.

I believe you are mistaken. I may be wrong, but I don't think the NFPA codes specifically require publication of test data, only the results (pass/fail).

Will you call him a liar if he doesn't give you what you want?

I've heard this discussed but have never heard of it being proven. Since motors are recertified every three years, is that still a concern? If so, can you provide me with the info?

I do.

John published the results of these tests. When Tom took over after John was booted, not only did he stop, but he "certified" all delay values of any motor John had tested. So one test of say an AT M1939-XXL (I think I got this right, it was supposed to be a -L but the delay was WAY off) suddenly resulted in ALL delay values for this motor being certified. Similarly, TMT had tested exactly ONE D24-10, and based on that, ALL D24s were given TMT certification. The -4 and -7 were never tested.

We don't know what problems there may or may not be because the data has been kept from us for over a decade.

To quote from the email I just sent to Paul Holmes: "Now that AT permits delay modification, it's critical to know where you are starting from, before you can properly adjust a delay. If I have an H180-M that is supposedly 10 seconds, and I want 8, it makes no sense to drill out 2s if the thing already tests at 8s. Similarly, I need to adjust even more if it tests out at 12s."

Right now we have several manufacturers that make motors, and we have the choice to pick the motor with the most power in a given class. And we have TMT test data to tell us what we are getting. Why is it such a bad idea for them to let us know about delay accuracy as well. I should be able to know what I'm getting, so I can pick the right one for my rocket. In the end it's a matter of SAFETY, and not knowing how they test means I may end up using a delay that is not safe in my rocket.

I don't see why that hasn't scared the crap out of the TRA board for the past decade, to the point that they have made this information available. Is there some secret they are covering up? Are one manufacturers delays totally wacked compared to others?

I'd LOVE to see a list of VALID reasons for not releasing delay test information for HPR motors. But I've yet to hear ONE. Care to fill me in?

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

Interesting analogy. My employer can get a copy of my transcript from my college, to verify that I really have the degree I claim to have. And they can find out if I was an A or a C student (maybe if I were a C student, I could be president :-) ) I.E. they can access the data.

Why is it that TRA remains so secretive about delay test data? Don't we the consumers of HPR motors have the right to know if our 10 second delay is really 10, or maybe 8 or 12 or 3 or 21 seconds? What is so unreasonalbe about asking TMT to publish the results of the delay tests?

It's been a decade since Tom fraudulently extended John's certifications to cover delay values John never tested, or motors that were not tested or failed testing due to delay errors. Half a dozen TMT chairs since Tom have done nothing to rectify this fraud, or release the current delay test data. What's the big secret?

The only reason I can think of for keeping the data a secret is that motors that fail delay specs are being certified, and if exposed, it will prove that TRA motor certification is a fraud. As long as the secrecy remains, so remains the appearance of fraud.

Any one who disagrees with that must either be part of the fraud, or a complete idiot. Clear the air once and for all. Publish the TMT delay test data.

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

And yet once again, I ask, since you've stated publicly that you have contacted NFPA about these purported 'violations', what the response was.

Because, once again, if the authorities are not worried about it, then it seems that you are attempting to create a problem where none exists.

Is it possible/conceivable that this could have been an issue? Certainly. But did it occur? No. There are NO (to the best of my knowledge) legal claims that ever came about because of the presence/absence of the delay testing information. Further, in most circumstances, any legal action would have been civil, not criminal (i.e., the delay causing damage to a vehicle).

I would further add that (based on the flights I've seen over the years) that incorrect delays are only one very small percentage of what can/does go wrong in a rocket. If you're going to claim this is a tremendous safety issue, then we would (logically) be having to add double- or triple-redundant systems in every flight, just to make sure that things like this don't occur.

What protects people/property from problems when flying, more than anything else, are the safety codes regarding distances, and placement of people away from the ballistic path of a rocket.

I agree that it would be nice, and convenient, to have this data made public. I don't agree that it's a legal requirement (though I have to admit to being on the fence, I feel I could safely argue pro- or con on it), but it is essentially a non-issue.

And I don't base my delay measurements or delay shortening needs on the purported 'norm'. There are far too many variables involved that I would rely on that, so my experience with a given motor/rocket combination weighs far more than what all the 'theory' predicts.

David Erbas-White

We both know that delays can vary 20% from the stated delay time. We also know that the variences will not always be the same. NFPA and all the orgs go by this.

If I test 3 10 second delays and they measure 8, 10 & 12 seconds, then I have an average of 10 seconds. How likly am I to get a delay that is right at 10 seconds when two deviated by two seconds and 66% were off their stated value by 20%? If you think that will compromise safety that much, you should find a more accurate way to handle ejection.

We need to have some trust in the certifiying groups of our organizations. If you don't maybe you should only allow motors certified by the organization of your choice to fly at your launches or matbe a manufacturer that has a certain quality certification that you like.

I can deal with this. Sorry I can't help you deal with it.

BTW - Aerotech doesn't make delays for L, M and N motors. Those motors have plugged closures.

Does that data include the actual tests you took, and the papers you wrote? I doubt it.

You don't need the test data for that. All you need to know is that it passed.

Seems like a lot of trouble to me, just to gratify one complainer who's not even a TRA member.

Allegedly.

Or maybe they've found some other way to cert the delays.

Yes, without the actual data one could theorize that the delays weren't tested. But you'd have no proof either way. Seems to me, if you're that suspicious, would you believe the data if they showed it to you?

Is it truly secretive, or just not bothering to publish, because the majority of Tripoli's members don't care?

If the motors have subsequently been tested, they're not perpetuating any fraud. I don't question that something was fishy subsequent to John, but I very much believe that Sue, and TMT Chairs since, have tested what they claim to have tested.

Either that, or their world isn't as black and white as yours, Bob.

-Kevin

Point.

Well, they used to make delays for the 98mm M motors, and they were WAY off...

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

You are right; the data has improved significantly since the last time I looked at the TRA web site. The delay information, which is the particular information being discussed, however, is still missing, as best as I can tell. Am I simply not looking for it in the right place?

I am considering joining TRA at some point, so that I can participate in the "experimental" days at BALLS and XPRS. If I'm going to travel to Black Rock for a launch, I'd like to be able to enjoy the entire event, not just a few days.

But, even though I'm currently only a NAR and PRS member, I am a consumer of TRA-certified motors. And, while I do tend to use more electronic deployment these days, I still do make use of motor delays for deployment on a fairly regular basis. As such, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to want to see what the tested delay lengths are for the motors I use, as opposed to what the manufacturer claims.

After all, I'd have probably zippered my Silver Comet a long time ago if I hadn't known the NAR-measured delay values for the F39 reload. Publishing measured delay values will help rocketeers who make deployment near apogee a design goal....

Plus, publishing the measured delays will help to shut up the whiners who keep claiming that TMT doesn't test every delay.

- Rick "NAR Apologist" Dickinson

I hear you. I doubt that an already busy volunteer force is inclined to do it when just pass/fail covers it.

TMT guy told me that he passes all data on to NAR S&T. I suppose you could ask S&T supplement the TMT results if the data provided is adaquate.