If any of you wish to post private correspondance I've exchanged with
you, I would most appreciate it if you would please ask first.
============================================================================
Mark B. Bundick 1350 Lilac Lane !7015...@notspamto.compuserve.com!
NAR President Carol Stream, IL 60188 http://www.nar.org
Somebody on the AROCKET chat list had a question about something in a Sport
Rocketry editorial, that sounded like Bunny wasn't letting experimental
rocketry into the tent. In fact, sounded like he didn't think it should
exist. I didn't read the editorial (don't get the mag) so I just passed it
off as one of those rumors.
But that somebody sent an e-mail to Bunny, asking for clarification, then
posted the reply on the chat. Okay, he probably shouldn't have done it, but
I have to say the reply wasn't any too heart-warming, if you're an
experimental type.
Joel
> I am open to constructive suggestions about how we can clearly
> separate the activities, and how the amateur rocketry community
> proposes to create structured programs that makes sure their activity
> is conducted in a safe, educated manner. I submitted, and continue to
> submit that the two incidents reported to me this year were neither
> safe or educated, and represented a threat to our hobby.
>
> I'm open to alternative explanations as to why this is such an
> unreasonable position to maintain.
On the contrary, I agree that it should be vitally important to draw
a distinction between "model rocketry", long known as an incredibly safe
and reasonably enducation activity, and "amatuer rocketry" which has a
very poor safety record, and best limited educational value. I'm not
against amateur rocketry, but there is and should be, a big difference
in the regulatory requirements. HPR seems to be in between the two. The
"sanctioned experimental launches", at least on the surface, seem to be
completely beyond the arena of what I would consider the purview of the
sanctioning body.
Brett
I've suggested that the popular press associates amateur rocketry
activity with model rocketry.
I've suggested that this is a bad thing to have happen.
I think there is a real risk to the hobby of sport rocketry from this
mis-association.
I asked what steps, if any, the amateur rocketry community offers to
make sure that the two activities are separate in the mind of the
public, which does not generally give a damn about the long run future
of either. I believe that unless there are clearly outlined steps and
programs for individuals to pursue this activity with safety first and
foremost above all else applied to the activity, and unless we reverse
the trend to call amateur rocketry model rocketry, we're headed for
difficult times in the next century.
I am open to constructive suggestions about how we can clearly
separate the activities, and how the amateur rocketry community
proposes to create structured programs that makes sure their activity
is conducted in a safe, educated manner. I submitted, and continue to
submit that the two incidents reported to me this year were neither
safe or educated, and represented a threat to our hobby.
I'm open to alternative explanations as to why this is such an
unreasonable position to maintain.
============================================================================
I agree with the above.
| and "amatuer rocketry" which has a
| very poor safety record, and best limited educational value.
On what basis do you make these statements?
| I'm not
| against amateur rocketry, but there is and should be, a big difference
| in the regulatory requirements.
Please be more specific.
| HPR seems to be in between the two. The
| "sanctioned experimental launches", at least on the surface, seem to be
| completely beyond the arena of what I would consider the purview of the
| sanctioning body.
|
| Brett
--
Bob Chmara
remove -noloaf for personal replies
The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of
undisputed authority. -P. Tillich
What makes you think that Amateur Rocketry has such a bad record?
Could it be the G. Harry Stine propaganda against "basement bombers"
from the 50's and 60's that I grew up with? When a child of 12/13 sees
this it sticks.
Have you recently studied the actual data on the RRS / PRS/ NERO or
other organizations like them that are safe and sane even when casting
propellants?
What Bunny did was try to follow G. Harry's method. It won't wash
these days. People have more information now. They can make more
informed decisions even if they come to the wrong conclusions. Amateur
rocketry needs to be separate from Model Rocketry, just don't hang the
Amateurs out to dry to save yourselves. Verify your facts, sir.
Curtis Scholl
NAR 72953
TRA 3976 L3
RRS
NERO
Brett Buck wrote:
>
> "Mark B. Bundick" wrote:
>
> > I am open to constructive suggestions about how we can clearly
> > separate the activities, and how the amateur rocketry community
> > proposes to create structured programs that makes sure their activity
> > is conducted in a safe, educated manner. I submitted, and continue to
> > submit that the two incidents reported to me this year were neither
> > safe or educated, and represented a threat to our hobby.
> >
> > I'm open to alternative explanations as to why this is such an
> > unreasonable position to maintain.
>
> On the contrary, I agree that it should be vitally important to draw
> a distinction between "model rocketry", long known as an incredibly safe
> and reasonably enducation activity, and "amatuer rocketry" which has a
> very poor safety record, and best limited educational value. I'm not
> against amateur rocketry, but there is and should be, a big difference
> in the regulatory requirements. HPR seems to be in between the two. The
>
> Brett,
> I believe that your comments about amateur rocketry were based on your
> ignorance of "amateur rocketry." As a subscriber to arocket, I can
> assure you that most of the amateur rocketeers in there are much more
> likely to further the knowledge-base of rocketry than are model
> rocketeers. And as for their safety record, how many rockets have you
> launched from a concrete-reinforced bunker?
Does a nuclear-safe steel vault count?
> Your misinformation on what
> amateur rocketry is is almost as damaging to the hobby as the BATF.
> Amateur means, non-professional, not basement bomber. I think that you
> owe many amateur rocketeers that read RMR a big apology for painting
> them with the same brush as basement bombers.
As I responded to the others, I am *not* drawing a distinction. I am
not concerned with organized groups of serious experimentors, I am
concerned with the basement bombers. If you don't like my definition,
please show me where a legally defined difference exists. Then I'll
apologize.
If everybody took it seriously I wouldn't be worried. But if you
have been paying attention on RMR, you know full well that many won't.
Regulation is a good trump card to pull, and probably keeps a bunch of
people out of trouble.
> I expect that you'll be receiving a few more replies from "disgruntled
> amateurs". ;-)
That's true. But so far they have at least been civil....
Brett
I am not concerned with organized amateur groups, but with the vast
majority that will not take the proper precautions. I know from personal
experience how this works.
>
> What Bunny did was try to follow G. Harry's method. It won't wash
> these days. People have more information now. They can make more
> informed decisions even if they come to the wrong conclusions. Amateur
> rocketry needs to be separate from Model Rocketry, just don't hang the
> Amateurs out to dry to save yourselves. Verify your facts, sir.
For the record, I had not seen Mr. Bundick's latest article when I
wrote this message. I was basing my opinion on past exeprience. I do not
advocate "hanging amateurs out to dry". But in trying to keep the
regulations for model rocketry as unfettered, as has proven almost
perfectly safe over the years, it's important to draw clear distinction.
Brett
Mark Simpson wrote in message <384DB0...@nospamsprintmail.com>...
>Brett Buck wrote:
>>
>> "Mark B. Bundick" wrote:
>>
>> > I am open to constructive suggestions about how we can clearly
>> > separate the activities, and how the amateur rocketry community
>> > proposes to create structured programs that makes sure their activity
>> > is conducted in a safe, educated manner. I submitted, and continue to
>> > submit that the two incidents reported to me this year were neither
>> > safe or educated, and represented a threat to our hobby.
>> >
>> > I'm open to alternative explanations as to why this is such an
>> > unreasonable position to maintain.
>>
>> On the contrary, I agree that it should be vitally important to draw
>> a distinction between "model rocketry", long known as an incredibly safe
>> and reasonably enducation activity, and "amatuer rocketry" which has a
>> very poor safety record, and best limited educational value. I'm not
>> against amateur rocketry, but there is and should be, a big difference
>> in the regulatory requirements. HPR seems to be in between the two. The
>> "sanctioned experimental launches", at least on the surface, seem to be
>> completely beyond the arena of what I would consider the purview of the
>> sanctioning body.
>>
>> Brett
>
>Brett,
>I believe that your comments about amateur rocketry were based on your
>ignorance of "amateur rocketry." As a subscriber to arocket, I can
>assure you that most of the amateur rocketeers in there are much more
>likely to further the knowledge-base of rocketry than are model
>rocketeers. And as for their safety record, how many rockets have you
>launched from a concrete-reinforced bunker? Your misinformation on what
>amateur rocketry is is almost as damaging to the hobby as the BATF.
>Amateur means, non-professional, not basement bomber. I think that you
>owe many amateur rocketeers that read RMR a big apology for painting
>them with the same brush as basement bombers.
>I expect that you'll be receiving a few more replies from "disgruntled
>amateurs". ;-)
>
>Mark Simpson
>NAR 71503 Level II
Mike Bernard
Amateur, High power and Model Rocketeer
In article <384C851D...@pacbell.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brett,
Bill
In article <Ij834.5269$qC1.3...@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>,
"Bob Chmara" <bob-n...@mindseye-inc.com> wrote:
> Brett Buck wrote:
> | On the contrary, I agree that it should be vitally important to
draw
> | a distinction between "model rocketry", long known as an incredibly
safe
> | and reasonably enducation activity,
>
> I agree with the above.
>
> | and "amatuer rocketry" which has a
> | very poor safety record, and best limited educational value.
>
> On what basis do you make these statements?
>
> | I'm not
> | against amateur rocketry, but there is and should be, a big
difference
> | in the regulatory requirements.
>
> Please be more specific.
>
> | HPR seems to be in between the two. The
> | "sanctioned experimental launches", at least on the surface, seem
to be
> | completely beyond the arena of what I would consider the purview of
the
> | sanctioning body.
> |
> | Brett
>
> --
> Bob Chmara
> remove -noloaf for personal replies
> The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of
> undisputed authority. -P. Tillich
>
>
> Where did I say that I wanted to screw up amateur rocketry? And since
>it appears we are largely agreeing why are we arguing?
This is (organized) non-professional rocketry (on the internet, no less).
(Like the 'guvmint'), it doesn't HAVE to "make sense".
-- john.
So I guess these loose cannons are just as dangerous as amateur
rocketeers..hmmm?
Very poor may have been an overstatement on Brett's part.
Can you post the 40 year statistics for AmRoc? In that time Model ROcketry
has had ZERO fatalities and one serious injury.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"
Kaplow Klips: http://members.aol.com/myhprcato/KaplowKlips.html (baffle too!)
NIRA: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us NAR: http://www.nar.org
SPAM: spamr...@ChooseYourmail.com u...@ftc.gov postm...@127.0.0.1
As an NAR member I support this position by our elected leaders. Amateur and
model rocketry / HPR do not mix and should not be mixed. Ever. By any one.
Any where.
I see it as being VERY different than the situation regarding HPR in the NAR
about 10 years ago. HPR and MR were comperable activities that differed by
scale. AmRoc is VERY different. I personally don't want any part of it, and
don't want my association allowing it at our activities.
I strongly support those interested in AmRoc to go elsewhere, RRS, PRS, etc
and enjoy. But PLEASE leave model rocketry and HPR out of it.
Counts in my book. ;-)
>
> > Your misinformation on what
> > amateur rocketry is is almost as damaging to the hobby as the BATF.
> > Amateur means, non-professional, not basement bomber. I think that you
> > owe many amateur rocketeers that read RMR a big apology for painting
> > them with the same brush as basement bombers.
>
> As I responded to the others, I am *not* drawing a distinction. I am
> not concerned with organized groups of serious experimentors, I am
> concerned with the basement bombers. If you don't like my definition,
> please show me where a legally defined difference exists. Then I'll
> apologize.
That's part of the problem. If we use amateur and basement bomber
interchangeably, how can we expect the media to not do the same. We
need to make the distinction so that others will as well.
>
> If everybody took it seriously I wouldn't be worried. But if you
> have been paying attention on RMR, you know full well that many won't.
> Regulation is a good trump card to pull, and probably keeps a bunch of
> people out of trouble.
If we call those clown basement bombers and not amateurs, we'll be
helping the situation more than lumping them together. That was my only
point to be made.
>
> > I expect that you'll be receiving a few more replies from "disgruntled
> > amateurs". ;-)
>
> That's true. But so far they have at least been civil....
I hope that it continues that way.
Take care,
RRS claims zero injuries ever at their official events, which span a
timeframe longer than model rocketry has existed. I don't know about the
injury rate for RRS members including "external" activities. Both model
and amateur rocketry are somewhat guilty of excluding people who manage to
get hurt from their numbers by virtue of violated rules. Otherwise you
wind up counting idiots trying to retrieve models from high-voltage
powerlines with aluminum poles, or similar idiots who stuff pipes with
matchheads (or put pipebombs on the ends of rockets, or whatever.) (Even
in amateur pyrotechnics, people who get hurt often exclude THEMSELVES from
the "sensible, rule-following, bunch.")
Can anyone count injuries for all model and/or amateur rocketry related
activities, sensible and rule-following or not? THAT will be the
ammunition BATF uses (they have their 400+ "incidents", right?)
BillW
--
(remove spam food from return address)
Paxton
Bob Kaplow wrote in message <1999Dec8.172018.1@eisner>...
joe bob <darks...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:7AH34.1096$yZ3....@news.uswest.net...
> Wow. So your not aloud to fly a amateur rocket and a model rocket at the
> same time at the same place?
> Amateur can be nothing more then the reload being cast on your own. Still
> using the same hardware nozels, kits, electronics.... Is that realy
> detramental to NARs heath having a well made propellant used in commercial
> hardware? Make the stuff the same color and nobody would probably be able
to
> tell unless they really looked at your leload while you set things up. Its
> not like a CATO there would be any different from a "normal"
CATO(snipperoo)
Oh, god. If you can't debate more reasonably (and grammatically) than that,
please don't try to help, okay? You're not making a very good case. Also,
there's a thing called a "spell checker." Look it up in your help menu;
it's very interesting. ;-)
Joel
Much more dangerous.
When Joe-bob and son go out with the brand new RTF and launch it in
40+ MPH winds and bone dry conditions and burn down a house, a large
field, etc. they do more damage to the hobby's image than all of the
amateur experimental rocketry types ever will. It does require some
effort and self-motivation to get started in amateur rocketry, enough
to keep most of the basement bombers out. The steep learning curve
can be daunting. The problem with basement bombers is that they have
easy access to Estes motors, with which you can make a bomb. It may
be an expensive and inefficient method, but it is possible. The fear
factor is there, and is being pushed.
We are at a much greater risk from joe-bob and his RTF.
The burned down house, the large fields (40+acres), both happened
"nearby" within the last year. Both poor fools suffered a large
amount of liability. Both garnered significant publicity, in which
model rocketry was cast in a bad light. We spent some significant
effort in "damage control".
Todd Williams
ABSOLUTELY. And if the folks running TRA had any brains, they'd take the
same position.
> model/HPR. Heck. I think they should have commercial propelant making kits
> for HPR.
You clearly have a different definition of sport rocketry than I do. And
it's different than the principles that the NAR was founded upon. Or TRA for
that matter.
Still, if you wnat to make your own propellant and fly home made motors, go
for it. Be sure you are in full compliance with all appropriate regulations
wherever you happen to make the motors.
But PLEASE don't call it model rocketry, HPR, or sport rocketry.
It's either amateur rocketry or basement bombing. And the scary part is that
the former can easilly be one screw-up away from the latter.
spam...@my-deja.com wrote in message <82p6qa$kh5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Paxton
PS-and if your going to discount somebodys ideas on thier speling and
grammer boo hoo.
Bob Kaplow wrote in message <1999Dec9.135228.1@eisner>...
>
> That's part of the problem. If we use amateur and basement bomber
> interchangeably, how can we expect the media to not do the same. We
> need to make the distinction so that others will as well.
>
Right-o. Therein lies the problem.
In the bits of this thread that I've read, some people were clearly
referencing the organized, careful amateur groups, and others were
clearly discussing the habits of those attempting to clear out a bit of
the gene pool. 'tis hard to have much of a discussion when two people
are talking about two completely different things that happen to go by
the same name.
Eh?
Way back in the 50's a distinction was drawn between "model rocketry"
using pre manufactured engines and the rest of amateur rocketry.
Now, we have professional, model/hpr, and some amateur rocketry (e.g.
RRS) on the safe and sane side (for the most part - anything can be
abused if you try hard enough). And some amateur rocketry (e.g. basement
bombers) on the stupid side.
How do you go about drawing the line between safe and stupid? _And_ make
it clear to John Q.Public? They are still reading about basement bombers
as "model rocketeers" (e.g. Ohio and somewhere on the left coast in the
last few months). All the precautions taken by RRS or AMROC don't do
much good for the people stuffing black powder into pipes or match heads
into CO2 cartridges.
--
Jim K. !When Great Britain changed to the Gregorian calendar in
Ji...@ili.net !1751, the day following Sept. 2 was declared to be
-- !Sept. 14. Thinking that somehow they were being cheated
out of 11 days, people rioted. Slightly more than 248 years later,
people celebrated Jan. 1 2000 as the start of the new millennium.
joe bob <darks...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:DSV34.2390$BN5....@news.uswest.net...
> Alright check this out. SCRATCH BUILDS!!! I supose your not aloud to fly
> them either because they arent a commercial kit. Wham bam thank you mam.
> Guess they goin to have to outlaw those nasty unreliable scratch build
> models, especially the "heads up" type flights. Bummer. haha. Its funny to
> see how scared everybody is of their own shadow around here. The boogie
> mans(Am/EXrocket) ganna get ya(snip, snip, oh god, snip!)
Joe Bob - the spell checker's got pictures of naked women on it! Really!
And late-model pick-up trucks, red ones, with duallies and chrome shotgun
racks! You gotta check it out!
>
> PS-and if your going to discount somebodys ideas on thier speling and
> grammer boo hoo.
I would like to officially ask permission to change sides in this
discussion. I can't stand thinking I might have any opinion in common with
this yahoo.
Joel
Come back when you are adult enough to have an intelligent conversation.
Bill
In article <384E97BB...@hbo.com>,