Call For Agenda Items
Mark Bundick
I am reviewing all my correspondance for additional items to add to this
agenda. NAR members are invited to submit agenda items for discussion, and
are also welcome to attend any or all of the meeting.
The following is an unsorted list of POTENTIAL items currently being
circulated among Trustees and committee chairmen for comment.
1. Standards and Testing
-proposed RCRG rule changes to Safety Code (John Kallend, member)
-status of HPR test stand construction (Mark Bundick, President)
-possible hybrid motor demonstration (Kevin Smith, Hypertek)
-hybrid beta testing program participants (Mark Bundick, President)
2.Regulatory Items Review
-Pursuit of a 'G' motor exemption from the CPSC regs
-Pursuit of a metallic-cased reloadable exemption from the CPSC regs
-Reversing the California ban on 'G' motors
-Reversing the recent Orange County, CA ban on E-G' motors
(all submitted by Gary Rosenfield, manufacturer)
3.NFPA Review
- review necessity of flame propigation tests (Ed LaCroix, Trustee)
4.HQ Operations
-review synching up insurance and membership (John Vigianno, member)
5.Items Developed from Houston Meeting
-financial review (Stu McNabb, Comptroller)
-C&R survey (Matt Steele, Contest and Records)
-Action plan for PR (Bob Sanford, Public Affairs)
-New consumer certification program (Steve Lubliner, Sport Services)
-Section Survey (Steve Decker, Section Activities)
6. Review of International Programs (Mark Bundick, President)
7. Alternate Insurance Possibilities (Stu McNabb, Comptroller)
As I said, I'm still working to flesh this out, and invite anyone with items
to add to email me directly or post as works best for you.
=====================================================================
Mark B. Bundick "Managing by example, not
NAR President by textbook"
JJirvine
1. Seek brown label shipping of model rocket motors by ORM-D
2. Offer an NAR card alternative to Federal explosives permits for motors
G-K
3. Seek an exemption to storage regulations for small quantities of
expendable motors or encloded reloadable motors up to 50 pounds net.
4. Ask for a formal consolidation of all "consumer" ie. retail sale
certifications to NAR and away from Tripoli with their acceptance.
5. Verify that NAR has no oversight over amateur rocketry activities.
6. Classify all metallic casing systems as within the HPR range. This
would permit non-metallic reloadables within model rocketry.
7. Start an endowment fund for the NAR which will eventually allow all
overhead expenses to be covered from income and at some time in the
future, a permanant facility to be built. I offer to make the first
$50,000 pledge of a deferred gift in the form of a permamant life
insurance policy with NAR as beneficiary. Form a committee to seek
further pledges and cash contributions with Irvine as charter chair.
Just Jerry
1-800-266-6913
Warren N. Massey
> 2.Regulatory Items Review
Perhaps NAR could consider pursuing an exemption for small quantities
(or at least short lengths) of Thermalite.
--
Warren N. Massey Mas...@Travis.LLNL.Gov
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 7000 East Ave., P.O. Box 808, L-495
Livermore, Calif. 94550 (510)422-1958 FAX: (510)422-3358
NAR# 57778 L.U.N.A.R.# 007 Tripoli# 2703
Peter G. Olivola
JI>> with Irvine as charter chair.
Well folks, it's been a while and I'm over due, so here goes...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
--
oliv...@netcom.com (Peter Olivola)
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<jjir...@aol.com> writes:
> 2. Offer an NAR card alternative to Federal explosives permits for motors
> G-K
Used to be, when you purchased black powder, before they loosened up on the
regs in the early 80's, that you had to fill out a user form on the spot. It
was your user permit, but didn't require any pre-planning. This type of system
could be most useful for all HPR activities, especially for those who can't
or don't want to have a magazine (city-apartment dwellers) and just want to buy
& fly.
This could be worth persuing by both TRA and NAR.
> 6. Classify all metallic casing systems as within the HPR range. This
> would permit non-metallic reloadables within model rocketry.
Hunh? Are you saying make them HPR even if they're not in the newton range?
If anything, I'd prefer to have them allowed, and stick with newtons as the
divider.
JJirvine
Olivola) writes:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
jerry> wouldnt it be funny if it happened?
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
JJirvine
> 6. Classify all metallic casing systems as within the HPR range. This
> would permit non-metallic reloadables within model rocketry.
Hunh? Are you saying make them HPR even if they're not in the newton
range?
If anything, I'd prefer to have them allowed, and stick with newtons as
the
divider.
jj
unfortunately, yes due to the numerous laws written specifically against
metallic and model rocketry. Sorry. It would grease the wheels for the
rest of the industry. So what if Gary has to get out the plastic molds
again.
bill nelson
: <jjir...@aol.com> writes:
:
: > 6. Classify all metallic casing systems as within the HPR range. This
: > would permit non-metallic reloadables within model rocketry.
:
: Hunh? Are you saying make them HPR even if they're not in the newton range?
: If anything, I'd prefer to have them allowed, and stick with newtons as the
: divider.
It is something to think about. The model rocketry rules, and NFPA 1122
(if I recall correctly), state "no substantial metal parts". (or is that
"no substantial metal structural parts"? If the former, then Jerry's
suggestion would make it much easier to get an exemption for reloadable
casings.
bill
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<jjir...@aol.com> writes:
> unfortunately, yes due to the numerous laws written specifically against
> metallic and model rocketry. Sorry. It would grease the wheels for the
> rest of the industry. So what if Gary has to get out the plastic molds
> again.
>
I gotta disagree on this one. The laws were probably written to keep LOX &
Kerosene out of model rockets, not a thinwalled case.
How long would a plastic RMS casing last? Not long, IMO. The threads alone
would probably get beat to death, possibily resulting in a more dangerous
situation. Go for the legal clarification/law change.
I gotta disagree with ya on this one, at least so far.
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> writes:
> It is something to think about. The model rocketry rules, and NFPA 1122
> (if I recall correctly), state "no substantial metal parts". (or is that
> "no substantial metal structural parts"? If the former, then Jerry's
> suggestion would make it much easier to get an exemption for reloadable
> casings.
I'm probably missing something here, but if we're going to go for a rules
change in one direction, why not go for it in another? Furthermore, one of
Jerry's proposals was to codify the NAR code into legal code. If this is the
case, and the NAR (Model) code allowed for metal engine casings of certain
attributes (size, weight, construction materials) it'd take care of itself.
JJirvine
<jjir...@aol.com> writes:
newjerry>
Lets assume for a moment my conclusion was wrong.
Estes conducted an anti pipe bomb campaign while legalizing model rocketry
to provide clear purpose. During that process all rocketry laws we know
today were formed. They specifically included language outlawing metallic
parts in order to differentiate (theres that word again) toys from bombs.
You may not share the opinion this is a good thing and I dont care. It is
the law, regulations, codes, etc of the land. Reality sucks sometimes.
Now I do not necessarily say we should not on technical grounds have
metallic motors in model rockets. I for one could reduce the cost of
motors 15% by switchinhg to a metallic casing for expendables. It is an
essentially religious issue. One which is ingrained and hard to change
even with a concerted effort. NAR can allow metallics with a stroke of
the pen, but as long as some agencies do not adopt the safety code by
reference we are stuck.
Getting all agencies to adopt the NAR safety code by reference should be
our life's goal. Jerry Told You So......... 11-25-94 Quote me.
Incidentally the non-metallic reloadable motors we submitted to TRA
disappeared along with the nozzleless and L motors we submitted.
Jerry
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<jjir...@aol.com> writes:
> Estes conducted an anti pipe bomb campaign while legalizing model rocketry
> to provide clear purpose. During that process all rocketry laws we know
> today were formed. They specifically included language outlawing metallic
> parts in order to differentiate (theres that word again) toys from bombs.
> You may not share the opinion this is a good thing and I dont care. It is
> the law, regulations, codes, etc of the land. Reality sucks sometimes.
Agreed that pipe bombs are bad, however Aerotech designed their reloadables to
blow the nozzle. Furthermore since Estes was using "Black Powder" I'd think
they'd be more concerned with the PR concerning putting it in a "Metal Casing"
Areotech is in a slightly better situation this way, since they can point at
the space shuttle, say we use the same stuff, and the idea is propulsion, not
explosion.
> Incidentally the non-metallic reloadable motors we submitted to TRA
> disappeared along with the nozzleless and L motors we submitted.
Nothing I can do about that. When were they submitted? If it was after the
changeover in the TRA chairman it's possible the stuff is lost in the pipeline.
bill nelson
:
: I'm probably missing something here, but if we're going to go for a rules
: Jerry's proposals was to codify the NAR code into legal code. If this is the
: case, and the NAR (Model) code allowed for metal engine casings of certain
: attributes (size, weight, construction materials) it'd take care of itself.
Much of the NAR code is already part of the legal code - in particular,
NFPA 1122. Unfortunately, it presently does not just reference the NAR
code, so changes would not automatically affect the law. It would be a
real up-hill battle to get this changed, as it would mean the NFPA
committee would lose real control of their regulations on model rocketry,
with it being turned over to the NAR. I doubt if they will agree to this.
Bill
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> writes:
> Much of the NAR code is already part of the legal code - in particular,
> NFPA 1122. Unfortunately, it presently does not just reference the NAR
> code, so changes would not automatically affect the law. It would be a
> real up-hill battle to get this changed, as it would mean the NFPA
> committee would lose real control of their regulations on model rocketry,
> with it being turned over to the NAR. I doubt if they will agree to this.
Well, then a change to the NAR code allowing the metalic casings of a given
size, as to define them as reloads and not tanks holding LOX or such. After
that, make the move to change the NFPA 1122 code to match. Should be easier
that way.
bill nelson
:
It depends on exactly how the regulations are written. It is not clear that
metallic motor casings are a problem with NFPA 1122.
Bill
countd...@delphi.com
><jjir...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> unfortunately, yes due to the numerous laws written specifically against
>> metallic and model rocketry. Sorry. It would grease the wheels for the
>> rest of the industry. So what if Gary has to get out the plastic molds
>> again.
>>
>
>I gotta disagree on this one. The laws were probably written to keep LOX &
>Kerosene out of model rockets, not a thinwalled case.
Metal engine hooks are perfectly acceptable, and have been for years. An
aluminum motor casing which greatly decreases the possibility of casing failure
should be welcomed easily. I don't think
it constitutes a very substantial part of the rocket either, in terms of overall
size and number of components.
"
"3" Kevin Nolan countd...@delphi.com; 74640,31...@compuserve.com
"2" NAR 16148 Countdown Hobbies 203/790-9010
"1" TRA 0943 3 P.T. Barnum Square, Bethel, CT 06801-1838
"0" NARCONN/CTRA "Put Fun & Excitement in Your Life"
countd...@delphi.com
>jerry> wouldnt it be funny if it happened?
>
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
>bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage bandwidth wastage
Gee, Jerry, how impressive! What a convincing argument!! You've sure won
me over to your way of thinking!
JJirvine
changeover in the TRA chairman it's possible the stuff is lost in the
pipeline.
newjerry>
Its also possible ALL of the dimensional and total impulse data were lost
in the pipeline from Dan Meyer to Tripoli.
The comments you made while interesting do nothing to change the laws as
they stand outlawing metallic parts. Should a metallic nose cone be
allowed because it is designed to separate into smaller less inertial
pieces?
Jerry
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<jjir...@aol.com> writes:
> The comments you made while interesting do nothing to change the laws as
> they stand outlawing metallic parts. Should a metallic nose cone be
> allowed because it is designed to separate into smaller less inertial
> pieces?
No, because that's littering <g>.
But you raise another point I've been meaning to bring up. To make
rockets strong enough to withstand mind blowing G forces associated with
high impulse engines, are we making them actually stronger than metal
would be to start? IOW, once we glass up fins or nose cones, or start
making them out of 1/2" plywood (it's still wood) would we have been safer
in the long run if we had used thin metal which would bend and flex on
impact? (current safety codes notwithstanding)
JJirvine
But you raise another point I've been meaning to bring up. To make
rockets strong enough to withstand mind blowing G forces associated with
high impulse engines, are we making them actually stronger than metal
would be to start? IOW, once we glass up fins or nose cones, or start
making them out of 1/2" plywood (it's still wood) would we have been safer
in the long run if we had used thin metal which would bend and flex on
impact? (current safety codes notwithstanding)
Jerry>
Well, thats a deep subject. The true test if frangibility and
non-metallics are presumed to meet this test. However I personally know
that fiberglass rockets are more dangerous or at least as dangerous as
aluminum rockets. Of course paper rockets, even thick walled ones dig
shallower holes in the ground and make quieter dings when hitting
buildings than either fiberglass or metal rockets.
There is a school of fools who claim that somehow because a metallic
reloadable motor casing is enclosed in an airframe it no longer
constitutes a substantial metal part. But unlike a mylar streamer or a
motor hook or a screw eye, a metallic casing makes up a substantial
fraction of the "dry mass" of the vehicle upon return. Thus the
headbanging scenarios are not substantially safer as a result of the
casings being enclosed, to say nothing of casings ejected for one reason
or another.
I think the regular or average G forces are only nominally higher, but the
terminal velocities are much higher. Velocity is the critical variable
for damage studies. Even a wimpy material traveling at sufficient
velocity can penetrate tank armor for example.
To say nothing of the rediculous labor involved in glassing rockets which
should have been made of better materials to begin with, it also
substantially increases the safety "risk". However even if this risk was
increased by two orders of magnitude, it is weakened in overall impact by
the likelihood of ANY rocket striking a person or valuable object.
"Rockets are completely safe to operate."-Jerry Irvine
Iskandar Taib
>
><jjir...@aol.com> writes:
>> 6. Classify all metallic casing systems as within the HPR range. This
>> would permit non-metallic reloadables within model rocketry.
>
>Hunh? Are you saying make them HPR even if they're not in the newton range?
>If anything, I'd prefer to have them allowed, and stick with newtons as the
>divider.
Translation:
Newjerry hates Gary Rosenfield. Also, the only other person making
metallic reloads is Frank Kosdon, who he hates even more.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Iskandar Taib
Are the Rocketflite F and G motors NAR certified? They use aluminum
casings.
JJirvine
nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
In article <3b3k2u$6...@huron.eel.ufl.edu>, <ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu> wrote:
>
><jjir...@aol.com> writes:
>> 6. Classify all metallic casing systems as within the HPR range. This
>> would permit non-metallic reloadables within model rocketry.
>
>Hunh? Are you saying make them HPR even if they're not in the newton
range?
>If anything, I'd prefer to have them allowed, and stick with newtons as
the
>divider.
Translation:
Newjerry hates Gary Rosenfield. Also, the only other person making
metallic reloads is Frank Kosdon, who he hates even more.
Jerry>
Two things. Bullshit. And consider the source.
My position on reloads is philisophical and not modified because of
personal opinions about those two or even a dick like you. It is rooted
in the reality of existing code and the problems associated with adoption
without a wholesale revamp of all laws to accept NAR as the final
authority for rocketry. Its simpler than you horribleize.
Interesting note: the two individuals you mentioned might be described as
exploitive and thus might gravitate toward metallic reloadable motors as a
means to further their agenda, regardless of the consequenses. I invite
opposing FACTS.
Jerry
Peter G. Olivola
JJirvine <jjir...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>There is a school of fools who claim that somehow because a metallic
>reloadable motor casing is enclosed in an airframe it no longer
>constitutes a substantial metal part. But unlike a mylar streamer or a
>motor hook or a screw eye, a metallic casing makes up a substantial
>fraction of the "dry mass" of the vehicle upon return. Thus the
>headbanging scenarios are not substantially safer as a result of the
>casings being enclosed, to say nothing of casings ejected for one reason
>or another.
Which conveniently ignores the Trip Barber report used to convince the FAA
that 3.3/lbs/125grams is a reasonable limit.
The fundamental point of the report is that mass is critical and 1 lb.
ealready exceeds the critical threshhold. In this case, materials are
immaterial to the threshold.
--
oliv...@netcom.com (Peter Olivola)
JJirvine
Which conveniently ignores the Trip Barber report used to convince the FAA
that 3.3/lbs/125grams is a reasonable limit.
The fundamental point of the report is that mass is critical and 1 lb.
ealready exceeds the critical threshhold. In this case, materials are
immaterial to the threshold.
Jerry> Once again I agree with your technical stance and warn you your
path falls on its face as it is applied by code. Firstly you will note
that USR designs were used in the Barber report for examples and I support
its conclusions.
Also in the special case of the proposals I made in 1982 of increasing the
propellant mass to 125g to allow for metric rather than english rounding
and to increase the liftoff weight to 5 pounds to DECREASE the maximum
velocity and altitude possible with EXISTING model rockets, they were
fully implemented, but with the 1500g liftoff mass.
However the term "substantial metal parts" is the one which causes
problems in several areas and I invite you to show me how an empty
reloadable motor case inside a near minimal diameter airframe is not a
substantial metal part?
Jerry
Peter G. Olivola
JJirvine <jjir...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>However the term "substantial metal parts" is the one which causes
>problems in several areas and I invite you to show me how an empty
>reloadable motor case inside a near minimal diameter airframe is not a
>substantial metal part?
Have you read the most recent version of NFPA 1122, Jerry? Every
interpretation I've heard so far specifically allows metal reloads.
--
oliv...@netcom.com (Peter Olivola)
bill nelson
: |
: |It depends on exactly how the regulations are written. It is not clear that
: |metallic motor casings are a problem with NFPA 1122.
:
: Are the Rocketflite F and G motors NAR certified? They use aluminum
: casings.
I doubt if any metallic cased motors are NAR certified. However, that does
not mean that TRA would not certify them. I believe at least some of Aerotech's
aluminum cased disposables are on the certified list.
Didn't someone post here that the NAR's lawyer said there was no intrinsic
problems with such motors?
Bill
Xiaoyi Eve Zhang
#In article <1994Nov23.1...@fnbc.com>, ma...@fnbc.com (Mark
Bundick) #writes:
#> 2.Regulatory Items Review
#
# Perhaps NAR could consider pursuing an exemption for small quantities
# (or at least short lengths) of Thermalite.
The BATF won't consider a straight exemption, I'm sure. It might be
helpful for the NAR to work toward a special magazine requirement
relaxation for small quantities of Thermalite - eliminating the 75-foot
from a bulding clause.
-Larry C.
Iskandar Taib
JJirvine <jjir...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <olivolapC...@netcom.com>, oliv...@netcom.com (Peter G.
>Olivola) writes:
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
>
>jerry> wouldnt it be funny if it happened?
Yes it would. But it would be funny-peculiar rather than funny-ha ha.
The suggestion, however, is very much funny-ha ha. I don't find the
fact that it was made peculiar in the least. Just the usual expected
behavioral patterns.
kapl...@hccompare.com
> today were formed. They specifically included language outlawing metallic
> parts in order to differentiate (theres that word again) toys from bombs.
Nope. In the late 50's the basement bomber rocket of choice was a CO2
cartridge crammed full of match heads. The non-metalic rule was to prevent
people from trying to build rocket motors and end up with bombs.
It makes as much sense to eliminate metal cased reloads from model rocketry
in the 90's as it does to roll back to 453g limits, and get rid of ALL SPORT
ROCKET MOTORS OVER A. Jerry, if you want to fly in the 50's, then you better
find Mr. Peabody, and set his wayback machine for 1958.
Bob Kaplow INTERNET: kapl...@hccompare.com
USPO: HealthCare COMPARE Corp, 5ISD, 3200 Highland Av. Downers Grove, IL 60515
TPC: (708) 241-7919 x5327 ICBM: 41°49'48" North 88°0'51" West
Sherman, set the wayback machine for 1994!
Disclaimer: If this message is caught or killed, the secretary will disavow
any knowledge of my actions. These bits will self destruct in 5 seconds....
Iskandar Taib
JJirvine <jjir...@aol.com> wrote:
>Interesting note: the two individuals you mentioned might be described as
>exploitive and thus might gravitate toward metallic reloadable motors as a
>means to further their agenda, regardless of the consequenses. I invite
>opposing FACTS.
^^^^^
Coming from someone like you thats an interesting statement. Exploi-
tive? Oh come on. Certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle
black.
In the common Macintosh vs. PC wars that rage in other parts of the
net, this is called Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD. Further their
agenda? Whats yours?
JJirvine
writes:
It makes as much sense to eliminate metal cased reloads from model
rocketry
in the 90's as it does to roll back to 453g limits, and get rid of ALL
SPORT
ROCKET MOTORS OVER A. Jerry, if you want to fly in the 50's, then you
better
find Mr. Peabody, and set his wayback machine for 1958.
Jerry> The post I sent said essentially the same thing. And as far as
metallic model rockets, it is an unfortunate fact that NAR guidelines are
not universally accepted, but as you know NAR specifically certified and
permits metallic model rocket motors now. So it is essentially a game of
regulatory catch up now.
As for the way back machine I recently set it for 1966 and went on a trip
back to my childhood. I then set it for 1974 and took my son Andrew on a
rocket flying excursion involving hundreds of (gasp) mini-motors no more
powerful than A. Both were a blast.
JJirvine
nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>opposing FACTS.
^^^^^
Coming from someone like you thats an interesting statement. Exploi-
tive? Oh come on. Certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle
black.
In the common Macintosh vs. PC wars that rage in other parts of the
net, this is called Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD. Further their
agenda? Whats yours?
Jerry> Facts? None. Theres the kettle calling the pot black indeed!!!
What a fool.
kapl...@hccompare.com
> Are the Rocketflite F and G motors NAR certified? They use aluminum
> casings.
Nope. They are TRA certified, which means they are allowed at NAR launches.
Do keep in mind that either NAR or TRA launches, I've seen responsible RSOs
refuse to allow them or FireStarters in dry grass conditions. I missed by a
day the mother of all grass fires at a Kankakee launch, started by an
original Silver Streak. They've changed the granularity since then, but
still, caution is advised.
Bob Kaplow INTERNET: kapl...@hccompare.com
USPO: HealthCare COMPARE Corp, 5ISD, 3200 Highland Av. Downers Grove, IL 60515
TPC: (708) 241-7919 x5327 ICBM: 41°49'48" North 88°0'51" West
Infinite Improbability Drive
kapl...@hccompare.com
...personal attacks deleted to save sanity...
> I invite opposing FACTS.
Facts are facts. Opinions might be more accurate.
kapl...@hccompare.com
>
> But you raise another point I've been meaning to bring up. To make
> rockets strong enough to withstand mind blowing G forces associated with
> high impulse engines, are we making them actually stronger than metal
> would be to start? IOW, once we glass up fins or nose cones, or start
> making them out of 1/2" plywood (it's still wood) would we have been safer
Ole!!! [In Spain, that's what they say when the bull comes out :-) ]
This is a popular but quite bogus misconception. My biggest HPR model is
currently a NCR Phantom 4000HD: if flown with an Aerotech I357T it pulls
about 18 G's in flight. My first model rocket over 30 years ago was an
Astron Streak: with a B14, it pulls about 90 G's. So you tell me if it is
the HPR model or the tiny model rocket with the "mind blowing" G forces?
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<kapl...@hccompare.com> writes:
> This is a popular but quite bogus misconception. My biggest HPR model is
> currently a NCR Phantom 4000HD: if flown with an Aerotech I357T it pulls
> about 18 G's in flight. My first model rocket over 30 years ago was an
> Astron Streak: with a B14, it pulls about 90 G's. So you tell me if it is
> the HPR model or the tiny model rocket with the "mind blowing" G forces?
The energy involved in a Astron Streak ain't the same as a NCR Phantom. The
"G" force attainable is a function of weight, so if you have a NCR Phantom
pulling 90 G's it's more energy than the streak.
But back to the original point, when we reinforce rockets to higher strenght
levels, are we starting to push it?
Besides, I thought it was "Toro! Toro!"
William
> about 18 G's in flight. My first model rocket over 30 years ago was an
> Astron Streak: with a B14, it pulls about 90 G's. So you tell me if it is
> the HPR model or the tiny model rocket with the "mind blowing" G forces?
The energy involved in a Astron Streak ain't the same as a NCR Phantom.
The key factor is structural stress, which isn't exactly G force or
"energy", but the force the structure (and especially the joints) are
subjected to via various causes. Acceleration ("G forces") is one of the
forces. For acceleration, we have F = MA. If the "rest of rocket" weights
10 grams and it accelerates at 90G ("Streak"), the force on the motor mount
joints is 900 (weird units). If the rocket weighs 2kg and accelerates at
18Gs, the force on the motor mount is 36000 (same weird units.)
The force on the fin mounts is more difficult to calculate, since at higher
speeds, it gets dominated by aerodynamic forces (which are hard to calculate!)
rather than acceleration forces...
BillW
ri...@owl.wsc.mass.edu
<bi...@glare.cisco.com> writes:
> The key factor is structural stress, ...
We're getting deep into thread drift here <g>. The original thought was, given
all the reinforcing we're adding onto models, are we getting past the "Easily
breakable" safety concern (IOW, if the rocket hits something, it's suppose to
destruct, not destroy)
Iskandar Taib
JJirvine <jjir...@aol.com> wrote:
> Facts? None. Theres the kettle calling the pot black indeed!!!
>What a fool.
Jerry misses the point yet again.
Observe:
From jjir...@aol.com Mon Dec 5 18:14:01 EST 1994
>My position on reloads is philisophical and not modified because of
>personal opinions about those two or even a dick like you. It is rooted
>in the reality of existing code and the problems associated with adoption
>without a wholesale revamp of all laws to accept NAR as the final
>authority for rocketry. Its simpler than you horribleize.
Up to this point, good. Even sounds convincing.
Then newjerry spoils it all by writing:
>Interesting note: the two individuals you mentioned might be described as
>exploitive and thus might gravitate toward metallic reloadable motors as a
>means to further their agenda, regardless of the consequenses. I invite
>opposing FACTS.
I suppose its a "FACT" (in newjerryspeak) that Kosdon and Rosenfield
are "exploitative". Your agenda shows through. The FACT here is that
you hate these guys.
kapl...@hccompare.com
>
> <kapl...@hccompare.com> writes:
>
>> This is a popular but quite bogus misconception. My biggest HPR model is
>> currently a NCR Phantom 4000HD: if flown with an Aerotech I357T it pulls
>> about 18 G's in flight. My first model rocket over 30 years ago was an
>> Astron Streak: with a B14, it pulls about 90 G's. So you tell me if it is
>> the HPR model or the tiny model rocket with the "mind blowing" G forces?
>
> The energy involved in a Astron Streak ain't the same as a NCR Phantom. The
> "G" force attainable is a function of weight, so if you have a NCR Phantom
> pulling 90 G's it's more energy than the streak.
Agreed that the forces on an HPR model may be much greater than an Astron
Streak, especially if you start bumping the trans-sonic region. But you
refered to the "mind blowing G forces" which just ain't so as the numbers I
quoted clearly show.
> Besides, I thought it was "Toro! Toro!"
Nope, That's a lawn mower and a smow blower combination.
Xiaoyi Eve Zhang
It's true that small models often pull a high number of G's, but G's are
acceleration, not force. The m in F = ma goes up with the volume. Take,
for example, a fin. The root of the fin increases roughly linearly with
the length of the rocket. If we scale up a small rocket in all
dimensions, though, the mass of the fin goes up with the cube of the
length. Thus, the strength of the fin, as manifested in root chord
length, doesn't keep up with the G *forces* as a rocket is scaled up,
even if the acceleration goes down by, say, a factor of 10 - not, at
least, after a point. Tiny models make poor examples here.
God, that all sounds serious :-) Who needs it? Have a nice day!
Regards,
-Larry C.
Lee Reep
: Besides, I thought it was "Toro! Toro!"
No, that's what you yell at the beginning of summer when the mower
comes out.
--
/\ Lee Reep TRIPOLI ROCKY MOUNTAINS -- # 72
/\ /~~\ /\ Fort Collins, Colorado TRA 2007
/~~\/ \/~~\/\ email: le...@fc.hp.com NAR 55948
__/____\____/___/~~\_____________________________________________