What's the current state of the hobby?

tweak:
I would like to try and show you and others why, "Because no, I DON'T care if some teensy A motor is on a certified list or
not."
This is the sentiment expressed by several posters to this newsgroup: "Hey, its only an "A" engine!.
well what if it was a "D"... would the use of uncertfied D motors be okay? How about "G" motors? Would uncertfied G motors also be ok? What about J motors? Who and Where do we draw the line on the use of uncertfied motors on NAR ranges?
If you take this line of thought to its ultimate end, then we might as well just stop certfying ALL rocket motors. Now of course we would have to change the NFPA fire codes in 48 states to achieve this non-certfication.
Would non-certfication of rocket motors work in the USA? Well lets take a look at the UK, where they have no "motor certfciation" requirements and see how it works there.
In the UK, there is no model rocket or high power motor certfication scheme or requirements. Thats primarily because the great majority of rocket motors used in the UK have already been certfied by either the CAR/NAR or TRA. The only motor requirements in the UK is that they be CE marked which is analogous to the USDOT explosives testing classfication scheme that is required here in the USA. The only UK requirement is that the motor be "commercially made".
There no doubt in my mind, that the UKRA could, is they so desired requirment rocket motors that are sold in the UK to be certfied by the UKRA. But I think the UKRA in their ultimate wisdom has decodoed, that would be just adding another layer of regulation to the growth of rocketry in their country and therefore have decide it is not needed. Indeed, even if a major manufacturer of model rocket or HPR motors was to appar in the UK, these UK motors would never have to be certfied by anybody in the UK other than they get the required CE marking. Now of course, if the UK company wanted to export these UK motors to the USa or Canada, CAR or NAR/TRA would then have to certify them to the NFPA 125 8.1.7 standards for them to be legally sold in the USA or Canada.
Based on the above UK analysis, indeed in todays age, there is no practical reason for the NAR or the TRA to certfy model rocket or HPR motors, other than because it is required by the NFPA fire codes knows as 1122/1125/1127.
SO why do we still even bother to certify model rocket or HPR motors anymore?
There look at the history of rocket motor certfication here in the usa.
It was G.Harry Stin and Orv Carlisle and then G.Harry Stine and vern estes later who took the orginal model rocket motors to the Bureau of Explisives to get them "classified" for shipment here in the us in 1958. The BOE classified them as ICC Toy propellant Devices. This was done primarly so that future firec codes would be able to rightfuly say that modle rocket motors wre NOT fireworks. I'm not exactly sure WHo in the NAR or WHY the NAR decided that the NAR should "safety" certify model rocket motors back then, other than to prove to the fire authorties that these model rocket motors were indeed safe to be used by minors. I assume it was G.Harry Stine: in the very early 60's circa 1962, the NAR was on the verge of actually folding up its tent due to lack of finances. Obviously at this time frame Estes had superceded Model Missile,Inc as the world largest maker of model rocket motors. Theres no doubt that G.Harry Stine and Vern Estes were very good friends with one another at this time, so perhaps GHS approached Vern and asked him how he would look upon the NAR "safety certfying" his motors, as it would greatly benefit the NAR and Estes to have these motors "tested" and stamped with a "seal of approval". SO basically the motor whole certfication process was started for marketing and advertising reasons.
An alternative to the NAR certfying Estes motors back then was for Estes to simply "certify" them themselves if so desired. But I have no doubt that Vern saw this also as a good marketing tool if he could say all of his motors had the NAR stamp of approval and were almost guranteed safe for use.
Besides, there was in some states and localities all the way up to the early 70's that were admanant that model rocket were fireworks.
It wasn't until 1968 that the predecessor of todays NFPA 1122/1125/1127 appeared, and it was known as NFPA 41-L.
So now lets flash forward to 2006. Based upon the safety records on Estes, centuri,MPC,semroc,et all.....over the past 50 years, I think its been shown that the majority of rocket motors produced have been a great product. Of course there are a few instances were motors were crap, like the early D13 and the later E15, but as soon as these motors started showing problems, Eestes was a leader in either changing these motors to be more reliable or they simply took them off the market as a fany good corporate entity would do. If there had been NO NAR certfication at this time, Estes and any other rocket manufacturer would do the same. The last thing any rocket motor manufacturer wants to hear is bad publicity about their products. And in todays, internet world, beleive me, as soon as an engine batch starts to act flaky, everybody in the business and consumer fields know it.
So my question is : Could we here in the USA live without ant motor certfication? And I think the answer is yes we could. We really don't need the NAR or TRA to certfy any motors anymore. Its just adds another layer of bureaucracy and costs to the final end product. Now of course we would have to radically change the NFPA codes to delte all references to certifying and certfication and we all know the people who sit on the NFPA techincal PYRO-AAA committee is never going to let that happen.
Finally I want make this final point; Traditionally and Historically the rocketry community has used the term "certfied motor" to differentiate itself from other non-certfied motors that are used for amateur or experimental rocketry. For example, the home bre motors that are used in TRA research activites (formally Ex) are basically amateur rocketry under some TRA regulations. In non-TRA rocketry, Amateur Rocketry requires NO motor certfication, because they are usually not made in quantitiy nor are they offered for sale to the pulic. If an individual did make an AR rocket motor and then started to sell them, he would be in violation of his states fire codes and the NAR and TRA would probably do everything in their power to shut this person down. And rightfully so!. That is what has always diffrentiated model and HPR motors for amateur and ex motors: they are commercially made in relatively large quantities and they are sold.
In this new policy decision the NAR has basically thrown 50 years of tradition and history out the window, by declaring that they will allow selective NAR members at selective times and NAR places to use these uncertfied czech delta motors. If the NAR allows these czech delta motors to be used by NAR members, then it should also allow other companies and individuals to make their own rocket motors for use at these FAI competitoons. But of course that will never be allowed here in the USA as it violate NFPA fire codes. I once suggested that the FAI people be allowed to make their own motors (which woudl qualify as amateur rocktery) and then they could be used overseas in FAI competitions. The reason I made my suggstion is then the NAR could use the TRA "research/EX" model for allowing the use of homemade motors on NAR properties legally by NAR members. But why require USA FAI modelers to make their own model rocket motors when you can simply purchase the best in the world from the Czechs?
terry dean nar 16158
--
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP"


"Tweak" < snipped-for-privacy@keslers.removethistosend.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You make a good point. Is there anything in the NAR Bylaws that give anyone the power to over ride the certified motor rule? Guess I should study up on the fine points.
Phil
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:24:37 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, there isn't In fact he bylaws do include a clause requiring members to follow the NAR safety code at all times. And the NAR safety code requires the use of certified motors. And the combined certified motor list is the list we use.
One more time: if the BOT had asked S&T to examine FAI certification, and if all the ducks were in order grant them reciprocal status as they had with TRA and CAR, I'd be fine with this. Add the motors to the combined list, and it's case closed.
But the board can't just waive a portion of the safety code and bylaws for a select group of members.
The BOT has established a dangerous precedent wit this ruling, which mst be overturned immediately. It is on the agenda for the meeting later this month.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Either that or give themselves permission to over ride the rule.
Phil
On 8 Jul 2006 18:56:33 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
they have already given themselves the power to over ride the NAR MRSC.....Thats what this is all about.
Motors. I will use only certified, commercially-made model rocket motors,...
Would you believe I can't even get 1 NAR Trustee to admit or agree with me what certified actually means? To be a "certfied motor" for the definition used in NFPA there are 3 requirements The definition in the NFPA codes is:
Certified Motor. A commercially made rocket motor that has been tested by a recognized testing organization that
is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and found to meet the requirements set forth in this code.
These Czech Delta pyrotehnic devices have not been tested " by a recognized testing organiztion ........that is acceptable to te authority having juriosdiction (AHJ).
The NAR S&tT (which is a recognized testing organization) have not tested these Czech Delta pyrotechnic devices . Therefore they would NOT be acceptable to the AHJ, which in most cases would be the local or state fire marshall.The Kentucky State Fire Marshal's office, through a Fire Code Inspector. has told me the in KY these pyrotechnic devices would eb considered "contraband" and if they show up here in KY, they would be conficasted.
Now the naysayers will, say, well you probably just "packaged" and "massgaed" the way you presented it to yopur State Fire Marshal, so you would you get a predetermined outcome. Actually this is what I am accusing Mark Bundick of doing with this issue. He packaged and marketed in such away so the NARBOT would go alone with it. ANd I have the facts to back that statement up.
IN additon, "....and found to meet the requirements set forth in this code"..... The Czech Delta pyrotechnic devices have also NOT been found to meet the requirements set forth in this code....... at 8.1.7.
Thi is where Bob Kaplow and I diagree: The NAR wants YOU to beleive that the FAI certfication regime is equivalent to the NFPA 1125 8.1.7 requirements. Well the FAI testing regime falls short in several areas as far as the requirements are concerned. Therefore the NAR can not say truthfully these Czech Delta pyrotehnic devices have been equivalentlly tested .Since the testing is NOT equivalent, the NAR cannot "recognize" the FAI with a reciporcal agreemnet as they have done with the TRA and CAR. I would argue that the FAI certfication testing regime could ONLY be recognized by the NAR IF the FAI certfications standards were 100% congruent.
Mark Bundick himself has admitted as much , " .the Board recognized that the certification standards used in 25+ FAI member countries may not be perfectly congruent to US standards specified in NFPA 1125." I might add that Cesaroni motors made in Canada and Quest motors made in Germany both have been tested to NFPA 1125 8.1.7. standards by either the NAR S&T, the TRA TMT or the CAR.
NAR President, MArk Bundick then goes on to state:
"...The Board also considered previous policy decisions regarding non-NAR certified motor usage on NAR ranges. The two particular policies of interest here include accepting for use on NAR ranges motors certified by the Tripoli Rocketry Association and the Canadian Rocketry Association,....
Here Mark tries to "imply" that FAI certfication = NAR certfication=TRA certfciationΚR certfciation and its not true as I showed above.
terry dean
nar 16158
--
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP"


"Phil Stein" < snipped-for-privacy@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After further research, the state of Virginia does indeed incorporate NFPA 1122/1125/1127 into it Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code via IFC 2003 chapter 33:
IFC Chapter 33 Explosives and Fireworks
"§3301.1.4 Rocketry. The storage, handling, and use of model and high powered rockets shall conform with the requirements of NFPA 1122, NFPA 1125, and NFPA 1127."
So when the NAR issues another FAI team practice "waiver", the NAR members who will be using these uncertfied Czech Delta motors will be violating the state of Virginia's fire codes. ( In addition these same NAR members will also be violating the USDOT regulations and CPSC regulations (( as they also did in Texas))).
Terry Dean nar 16158
--
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP"


"shockwaveriderz" < snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:23:00 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"

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

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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".
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Paging Bob Hegwood...
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shockie,
I rejoined NAR yesterday. Is it to late to vote for you?
Phil
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:19:21 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
yes phil, its too late to vote for me....sorry
terry dean nar 16158
--
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP"


"Phil Stein" < snipped-for-privacy@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11 Jul 2006 17:11:20 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

Is it any 3 years or just the 3 years before the election? I'm not planning to run I'm just curious.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you curious enough to download and read the NAR Bylaws?
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11 Jul 2006 21:21:56 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

Nope and I know some people here are NAR Bylaw experts.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred Shecter wrote:

Gosh, I never, no wait a minute, I did think of that.
Apogee did a run of the E6 and F10 motors in the last year or so. So I would think that S&T would have changed the status of the motors by now which is why I asked them about this. Their response is that the current production Apogee composite motors are not NAR certified.
If you have any questions I suggest that you ask NAR S&T about the status of the Apogee motors.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Welcome back Les! Things are about the same. I hope you get back to flying soon.
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.