What's the current state of the hobby?

phil:

No I have not ever been to a TRA ex/research launch.

terry dean nar 16158

Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Loading thread data ...

Yes. That is not what I thought you were saying in your original message.

Phil

Reply to
Phil Stein

Watch out ! They can be addicitive.

Phil

Reply to
Phil Stein

Well, that's a whole different discussion.

I do not know. These days my intel into NARBOT activities all comes from RMR. I think allowing the FAI team to practice with the motors that they will actually be using is the right thing to do. I'm not pleased with the way they did it. OTOH, the NARBOT is smarter than a lot of folks give them credit for. I'm sure they considered more alternatives than you and I together could come up with. What would your solution have been? How do you propose punishing the NARBOT for their transgressions?

Alan Jones 15578 OOP

Reply to
Alan Jones

Wrong part? Deltas are not model rocket motors.

Possibly, but I suspect that Virginia also has laws governing the use of fireworks, and the FAI team members will get all required fireworks permits, etc.

Maybe not. Perhaps the Deltas are brought into the US in a small wooden box hidden under a layer of Cuban cigars, that is placed in a diplomatic pouch... After arriving, they never see public transportation (including commercial shipping) again, and are never sold. Then again, exactly what did "they" do in Texas?

My concern is that when "bunny" (Not to mention any real names here. ;) ) issues a "waiver" he and the NAR becomes a party to any illegal activities.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

So....

Bob Hegwood's I65 that went off in a Danville motel room is ok?

heheh... Sorry... just have to keep the memory of that one alive!

Roy nar12605

Reply to
Roy Green

I don't think he thought that was funny, so no, an I motor would be "right out", especially those of the long burn variety.

:D

Reply to
Tweak

Anything you're willing to let a 2 year old hold on to while it fires is allowed. -Everything- else is right out! I have alot of nephews....can you tell? Don't forget, you'd have to deal with the wrath of the mother of the 2 year old as well.

I do remember back in my younger years (younger == stupid in my case) we used to play "roman candle wars" where we'd shoot at each other with roman candles....ah, those were the days.

-Aaron

Reply to
Aaron

alan: responses/comments inline

terry dean nar16158

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Rather than write certification off as overhead, let's look at what certification has BLOCKED or prevented over the years...

Does one need to say anything more than Jerry Irvine to answer this question?

:-)

Back in the 70s or 80s some Chinese fireworks compnay tried to sell modle rocket motors in the USA. They were crap. It was NAR certification that kept them off the market.

And more recently whoever found the stash of 30 year old MPC motors in a Wisconsin warehouse tried to sell them on the current market. Without certification requirements, these things would be out there blowing up rockets all over the place.

Many of the early HPR motor vendors had no idea what the actual total impulse or other specs of their motors were. The took a guess. You were never sure if the 200ns motor you bought had 200ns, 150ns, or maybe 250ns. And if 200ns put you close to your waiver limit, then 250 might break the waiver, and 150ns might result in an underpowered prang.

When the AT MR reloads first came out, their delays were WAY off. As CDT once said, "any one who can count one banana, two banana can tell, the delays are wacked". We still have "secret" wacked delay issues despite certification.

Then there's situations like the Estes E15, the AT J350 sponge, and now the CTI recall.

So, overall the manufacturers we have today are pretty good about making safe reliable motors. but we still need a system of checks and balances to make sure things stay that way.

To quote the late Ronald Reagan "Trust, but verify".

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

It happened all the time in the early days of TRA. I certified with one of those home made motors.

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

You have to be an NAR member for a year before you can vote. You have to be a member for 3 years before you can run for the board.

BTW, I heard a rumor that there might be a board candidate nominated from the floor at NARAM-48, so if you plan on attending NARAM, I strongly suggest you vote in person at the annual meeting Monday evening rather than mailing in a ballot.

And if you happen to support either the one challenger running this year, and/or the possible nomination from the floor, the only way to really help those people win the election is to vote for the one or two people and NO ONE ELSE. With whatever ballots are submitted by mail, the three incumbants will have a significant lead from the beginning.

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Paging Bob Hegwood...

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Is it any 3 years or just the 3 years before the election? I'm not planning to run I'm just curious.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Are you curious enough to download and read the NAR Bylaws?

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

As they should be. Aside from poor technique that munges attribution. :(

What would your solution have been?

Well to define a solution we first have to acknowledge there is a problema nd then define that problem.

Heres what I see as the major problem and solution:

  1. These Czech delta motors have not undergone the prerequiste USDOT explosives testing and classification.

Solution: Have the Czech delta motors undergo this USDOT explosives testing classification

This to me is the "make or break" requirement, because once you achive the above, the NAR can then properly certfiy the motors for use per NFPA

1125 8.1.7.

Its actually a pretty simple solution. I don't know why the NAR refuses to do this, other than the fact that it will cost somebody both time and money. The ONLY reason I can come up with to think why they won't do this, is there is NO guarantee that the Czech delta motors can indeed even pass the USDOT explosives testing and classification scheme. The propellant composition may be such that they will fail 1 or more of the USDOT exploives tests; obviously that would not be a good thing. You obviously have to pay 1 of the 4 USDOT testing labs upfront for these tests (say 3-4K ) so if the Czech Delta's failed, you'd be out $3-4K right off the bat.

Right off the bat, you have miss identified the problem. Deltas are not uncertified model rocket motors. They are, at best, fireworks. The chemical composition used cannot gain US DOT approval. You confirmed this when you said that I was 110% correct. No amount of money or testing will change that. Well, maybe if you threw enough money at the problem to buy enough of right people... It is not a motor certification problem; it a problem of allowing NAR members to fly such fireworks or AR motors, particularly at NAR launches.

Perhaps it is time for the NAR to consider embracing the widespread use of "uncertified motors", AR/EX/Research, etc. These days we have a pitiful selection of contest certified motors, and many rocketeers still cannot get storage permits required for the bigger stuff. I could see several classes of "uncertified motors" and related activities. I'd still like to stick with the present system of motor certification for commercial sales and distribution to mass market consumers. I also think it is bad idea to mix traditional sport rocket flying with these other activates, at least until these darker shades of rocketry are properly embraced and codified.

How do you propose punishing the NARBOT for their transgressions?

I have no such proposals and will suggest none. I simply believe the NARBOT jumped the gun on this or didn't fully do their required homework and I would just prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. If NAR members in the future election cycles want to vote certain NARBOT members out for this, thats their choice to do so.

You do realize that the NARBOT voted unanimously. You'd have to replace them all over at least three years. I think a little public humiliation is enough wrist slapping. It is pointless to continue to criticize the BOT over this issue. I think is worth properly defining the problem and focusing discussion on addressing the real problem, rather than some NARBOT witch hunt.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

Nope and I know some people here are NAR Bylaw experts.

Reply to
Phil Stein

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.