USR Motors on ROL

Is that what he said or your interpretation of the meaning of what he said??

Ok, but it also does not make them inaccurate or unathoritatave. You have obviously taken a position that supports much if not all of Jerry's positions on his issues with TRA. Are those positions based on Jerry's version of events or your firsthand knowledge??

Good, perhaps I have been reading your posts in a preconceived and discriminate manner; I will take more care when reading your posts in the future. BTW, my posts, in response to Jerry and the DOT are as the result of my "first had knowledge", are not embellished, and are somewhat restrained in content, and Jerry knows it.

Fred

Maybe not, but you seem to take as gospel anything said by certain individuals; while discounting anything said by others that does not present TRA/NAR in an unflattering way.

"seem" ? thats subjective and so cannot be challenged

but I do not take as gospel _anything_, and have considerable backchannel communication always going on with a reasonable cross section of personalities

I equally scrutinize what I hear said about Tripoli, including the factual material which is still coming to light as we speak

you, on the other hand "seem" to disregard all evidence no matter how compelling, and what rare admissions of impropriety you make is severely understated

- iz

What you do not understand is there is ratonal reasoning behind those judgements. I do not simply call you names, I JUSTIFY them with examples and reasons.

I cite my basis, whether that basis is a government document, TRA document, 2nd hand report, my wild-assed opinion, or made up out of nothing. I say so.

That makes me a more reliable person to believe than you.

I for example ADMIT I am rude. I see dead people. I do NOT apologize for that.

When I make an error I DO correct it. When I am told about a correction to a long tome I have written, the baby does not get thrown out with the bathwater, the one element is ignored/corrected/modified.

You could learn from that.

Considering the sheer size of the industry devoted to discrediting me I have shockingly high credibility. Yes **I** am shocked. But frankly it is justified and rational.

Jerry

LOL! Not me. I may frequently disagree with Jerry but not always, and I don't have anything against him personally.

Say What?? Other than "MDRA being a cool club", what in the hell are you talking about?? You been smoking some of that shit from up Shasta away?(;-)

Talk to Dave or Neil, maybe they can help you, not my problem.

Fred

Is that what he said or your interpretation of the meaning of what he said??

OK, but it also does not make them inaccurate or not authoritative. You have obviously taken a position that supports much of, if not all, of Jerry's positions on his issues with TRA. Are those positions based on Jerry's version of events or your firsthand knowledge??

Good, perhaps I have been reading your posts in a preconceived and discriminate manner: I will take more care when reading your posts in the future. BTW, my posts, in response to Jerry and the DOT are as the result of my first hand knowledge", are not embellished, and are somewhat restrained in content, and Jerry knows it...

Fred

The problems with TRA are not related to DOT. The DOT papers are "valid on their face". The issue is whatever TRA says is required , and which is presented to them somehow becomes either invalid or a subset of the requirements upon arrival, WITH NO EXPLANATION OR REMEDY.

Then if certs are IN PLACE they are revoked WITH NO EXPLANATION, RULE CITED, OR REMEDY.

Then if certs are ATTEMPTED TO BE RENEWED they are refused WITH NO EXPLANATION, RULE CITED, OR REMEDY.

Jerry

While the "DOT papers may be valid on their face", there is no recognition from DOT, they belong to you; in fact, just the opposite is the case, they do not!!!!!!!!!!! Until "you" fix that problem, TRA or NAR will have nothing to do with certifications that reflect US Rockets or JI as the source.

I suggest you contact Paul Holmes directly, he is the TRA, TMT secretary. He can give you the requirements, if certification is your intended goal. All you need do is follow the yellow brick road like everyone else is doing "now", except you and Frank; sure you two are not brothers??(;-).

Fred

1. Ownership of DOT papers is transferrrable. However in this case they were not transferred per se, the entire company was "bulk transferred" in running condition.
2. They do not have to Reecognize" something which is obviuous on its face.
3. NAR and TRA are out in left field on this.

I followed it. 3 OEM's followed it. The minute the recognition happened they were motors designed by Jerry the story changed (after approval of DOT and LEMP papers for example). If that is not the story you are being told then it is a lie to cover up their misdeeds. That would not surprise me.

Jerry

Please elaborate, ie details?

As you did not follow the DOT process in a timely manner, the "DOT papers" are not recognised by DOT as yours; hense the problem you must first fix.

Da!

Although I disagree with your assertion, let's say for the sake of argument, you are correct: In that case, it is their field and their rules. If you want the rules changed, it is up to you to provide reasoning that convinces those in a position to make rule changes, change is needed. Also, IMO your reasoning should be relevant to the present and not the past, as the rules of the past do not apply.

Fred

Kind of hard when the "route alignment" of that "yellow brick road" seems to have been deliberately laid out to be sure it misses Jerry's outsource production model...

-dave w

Doesn't jerry own acs reaction labs?

If he does, why would NAR/TRA be resistant to accepting motors for certification based on a hazard classification issued for ACS propellant?

-dave w

First we have to ascertain if jerry does or does not own acs rl. Jerry acts as if he does, but then says he's just an "agent". Which is it?

He will not know until he attempts the process, and neither will you or I..

Fred

He must own the assets, as he can't be an agent for a company no longer in business. Timely transfer of DOT EX classifications to himself or US Rockets? Never happened. If Jerry wants me to, I'll "go fetch", from the DOT; don't really want to, but I can, probably get it in writhing: However, not sure about the fall out from such a request; no whata mean (;-)..

Fred

No, that is _not_ what we have to ascertain. Either way, owner or agent (or otherwise), if the USR motors were in fact made with propellant to which the ACS test report is applicable, then they should be considered "legal to ship".

Are you saying that they do not contain such propellant? Do you have an alternate story of their origin? Is Jerry just mixing homebrew in his mom's KitchenAid and trying to pass it off as an unrelated DOT-tested commercial formula? You sure seem to be sounding like you perceive some such thing to be the case; if so, why don't you give us a concrete and coherent statement of what you think the actual circumstances of their manufacture were?

You act like you have stories to tell... why are you being such a tease?

-dave w