Skippy bringing down HPR

I was assigned 100 numbers. I assigned some of those to rocket publications.

The publisher assigns the numbers from a pool issued (with a check sum).

Hmmm.

Took alot of snipping but I found it.

It's not RMR thats down the tube, its organizations that lie about motor certs and other things. THen they wonder why they aren't trusted no matter what they do.

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

On second thought, I suppose those old basic programs might have been written by Chuck. I've seen better code from grade school kids. I find it amazing that any one would want to claim cradit for that junk 25 years later.

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

Until there is an admission of past transgressions, a public apology, and open and audited controls in place, yes I do.

Do you trust Enron executives today? After all, they haven't lied or stolen for a while now...

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

Sole "cradit" no less.

True enough. I'd be fighting to have my name taken off the credits. I know I've written code in high school that was painfully inefficent, and even some some as an undergrad that could stand rewriting.

The grade school kids that I have met do not program, they just play on the computer. However, computer literacy does not mean the ability to run and program computers like it did 25 years ago. Today it means the ability to use Excell, Powerpoint, etc. on Windows. So mabey trying to lay claim to the ancient arts is not such a bad thing...

Alan

open and audited controls in

Yep, Bob will never be satisfied until he sees someone's head on a pike. The present doesn't matter to him, only the past. He's as bad as Jerry.

You're too witless to even understand why you should be embarassed to make such an observation, so I'll have to explain it to you. And you aren't the first bunch of clueless hicks to claim, "STYLE equals SUBSTANCE", but I'm very comfortable with you living with that assertion.

You are just competent enough to know what spaghetti code looks like, and Chuck Rogers wrote a lot of it back in the 80s. It was a bear for me to deal with; riddled with GOTOs and cryptic variable names...but he dealt with it effortlessly. Over time, he got it debugged just fine. Its cleaned-up descendants are the black boxes in the ALT4 software.

But, not only do you not understand all of the aerodynamic principlies embodied in the spaghetti code, you don't know what and where the bugs turned out to be, that were long ago fixed as the code evolved. The point here is that you're only slightly less clueless than Britney Spears would be about the content, so all you have left to criticize is the style.

On the other hand, if you would like to open up a technical discusssion of why you think Chuck Rogers' aero work was infererior to what else was being used in high power rocketry in 1984 or at any time since, then bring it on. I'm sure he'll be quite happy to take you on in this space. Actually, you could have done that at any time since RMR started. I don't believe I've seen much here along that line.

Now that you've established your core principle that style = substance; where do you take it next? How about looking at photocopies of Einstein's notebooks and concluding that your sixth-grade nephew can write better than Einstein did, as if that means something important? And therefore if Einstein couldn't write any better than than, why the hell did he bother claiming credit for *anything* ? Then you can go on to Newton, DaVinci, Von Neumann. It could be an important TV documentary. You could pitch Michael Moore on it.

Hey, on Ky's rocket that went up into space on March 17th, about 77 miles I believe it was, there was a decal that was a little crooked. Maybe you can criticize that and observe that a four year old could have put it on straight and thus belittle his accomplishment. That's IS the kind of keen observation you and your tiny group of disturbed apologists find relevant, right?

Have to?

You seem to not understand usenet. One option is not to play.

So, braggert. List them. It would still require a programmer and aerodynamicist to fix them. I is one of those.

Huh?

Nobody even made an issue of style EXCEPT you and you didn't even specify which style except "spaghetti code".

I do not believe that debate would have traction.

But that "code inside black boxes" are derivitives of my authorship :)

YOU are making that characterization.

Your brain is all over the place.

They ripped off the side. Care to estimate at which mach number by distance from pad? :)

I'll write a program to model it. I will use kludges.

:)

Should or will?

One is a transaction by a firm

One is fraud under color of authority claiming a public facility.

NFPA 1122 is law in 49 states. It states that model rocket motors must be certified, and defines the process. At NARAM-34 Chuck Rogers claimed that all Aerotech 18-29mm consumer RMS motors were TRA certified per NFPA 1122 when they were not. Based on this fraudulent claim, those motors were allowed to be flown in the state of Nevada, one of the 49 NFPA states. As a result of Chuck Rogers lying about the status of those motors, all those flights were illegal.

There are many other motors that TRA claimed were certified but were never tested per NFPA regs between 1994 and 1997. I have previously documented in RMR that there were more AT motors certified during that time period than the number of AT motors tested could possibly allow (by almost an order of magnitude!).

Please let me know when and where you've filed the charges. Thanks.

It's really no different than shipping rocket motors as model airplane parts. It should be subject to similar fines and penalties. And a revocation of both NFPA AHJ status and 501C3 status.

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

You're too witless to even understand why you should be embarassed to make such an observation, so I'll have to explain it to you. And you aren't the first bunch of clueless hicks to claim "STYLE equals SUBSTANCE", but I'm very comfortable with you living with that assertion.

You are just competent enough to know what spaghetti code looks like, and Chuck Rogers wrote a lot of it back in the 80s. It was a bear for me to deal with; riddled with GOTOs and cryptic variable names...but he dealt with it effortlessly. Over time, he got it debugged just fine. Its cleaned-up descendants are the black boxes in the ALT4 software.

But, not only do you not understand all of the aerodynamic principlies embodied in the spaghetti code, you don't know what and where the bugs turned out to be, that were long ago fixed as the code evolved. The point here is that you're only slightly less clueless than Britney Spears would be about the content, so all you have left to criticize is the style.

On the other hand, if you would like to open up a technical discusssion of why you think Chuck Rogers' aero work was infererior to what else was being used in high power rocketry in 1984 or at any time since, then bring it on. I'm sure he'll be quite happy to take you on in this space. Actually, you could have done that at any time since RMR started. I don't believe I've seen much here along that line.

Now that you've established your core principle that style = substance; where do you take it next? How about looking at photocopies of Einstein's notebooks and concluding that your sixth-grade nephew can write better than Einstein did, as if that means something important? And therefore if Einstein couldn't write any better than than, why the hell did he have the balls to accept credit for *anything* ? Then you can go on to Newton, DaVinci, Von Neumann. It could be an important TV documentary. You could pitch Michael Moore on it.

Hey, on Ky's rocket that went up into space on March 17th, about 77 miles I believe it was, there was a decal that was a little crooked. Maybe you can criticize that and observe that a four year old could have put it on straight and thus belittle his accomplishment. That's IS the kind of keen observation you and your tiny group of disturbed apologists find relevant, right?

Be careful what you ask for. I don't think Jerry can take additional investigation of his past or present activities..(:-)

Fred

Fred