Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

USR cites2 (long)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Unknown

unread,
Oct 3, 1993, 1:46:33 AM10/3/93
to
Part 1 -Review of citation from: U.S. Rockets, citations

>From: ja...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jack Kobzeff)
>Date: 10 Mar 92 03:09:12 GMT
>>(You wonder where they stored the molds.....)
>Still, I applaud anything that will include more people into the hobby.
Are these Cox or MPC molds? MPC is still active in the rocket business.
Cox
is still selling the all plastic kits. Here is the original “Still, I
applaud...” quote.

Part 2 -Citations (long)

Note: started as 60k of text, edited to 31k with responses
Note: Hard carriage returns at 65 spaces 10 point monospace
reminds me of my work with CRm on a Xerox 820 running CPM/OS.
Haven’t we left the late seventies yet in E-mail? How about
simple RTF format text so my Mac can publish, edit and read real
type and real graphics.
123456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F12345

>From: lo...@src.honeywell.com (Dave Lowry)
>Subject: Compo. Rockets Motors
>Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 20:55:29 GMT
>Could someone please give me a pointer to info on the manufacture
>and handling of composite model rocket motors? Thanks.
No. But lets start a new group called Sci.rockets for just such a
discussion of
“non-model” issues. Formal compliant form proposal of Irvine follows:

Sci.rocket

Contact: Na...@site.type

Purpose: A communicaton facility for people interested in all aspects
of
rockets (except model rocketry). Includes solid, liquid, hybrid, steam,
other
and even “consumer non-model rockets”.
Design and assembly ideas, chats, event postings, conferences, posting
of
files and programs, archives of past chats and news. Open to E-mail
subscriptions, preferably with name, address, phone, E-mail address,
association numbers.
With sufficient interest we could organize projects.

Purpose: A communicaton facility for people interested in all aspects
of
non-professional rockets. Includes solid, liquid, hybrid, other and even
“consumer non-model rockets”.
Chatting, event postings, conferences, posting of files and programs,
archives of past chats and news. Open to subscription applications,
preferably
with name, address, phone, E-mail address, association numbers.
With sufficient interest we could organize projects.

Projected FTP sub-catagories (anonymous ftp Na...@site.type)
pub/rocket/solid
pub/rocket/liquid
pub/rocket/hybrid
pub/rocket/steam
pub/rocket/misc
pub/rocket/commercial
pub/rocket/news-views

Subscribers: None (new)

Administrative mail and subscription requests: Contact: Na...@site.type

Related interest groups:
Rec.models.rockets
Rec.models.rc
Rec.pyrotechnics
Sci.geo.meteorology
Sci.physics
Sci.space.news

>From: dw...@jarthur.claremont.edu (Doug Wade)
>Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 20:15:41 GMT
Mailed from the intellectual capital of the world.

>From: bu...@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Subject: Re: Video
Date: 30 Mar 92 23:48:59 GMT
>>They show a reload burning out of its package, apparently started by them
>>to show how evil they are.
>When I did my duty and called Estes last week, the Estes position was that
>they were against RMS technology. They also indicated that they would be
>introducing a line of expendable E-G composites later this year.
>Interesting that only those who DONT have RMS technology are against it??
They easily have the technology for RMS or superior technology. They
choose not to market it. Why? Metallic model rockets are banned in
virtually every code by every agency in North America. Even if you could
get
beyond that objection, they are morally opposed to metallic model rockets
and
are exercising their right, to free speech against it. I agree with their
“moral”
position and their choice to actively oppose “metallic model rockets”.

From: (Jim Cook)
Subject: Re: engine experimenr
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:18:38 GMT

>...<pranks of questionable sanity deleted>...
Flames lasted about two posts despite flagrant violations of sense, laws
ethics,
let alone netiquette. I request the same lack of flames to my posts. If
you
don’t like my opinion, say why, but calling me names will not help at all.

>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: VULCAN Motors
>Date: 24 Apr 92 16:52:21 GMT
>Scott Dixon prepared a scary video (which our newsletter dubbed
>"Reload Madness") purporting to show that metallic engine reloads were
>too unsafe to be sold to consumers. This caused the NFPA to reject
>(for the third time) a proposal to make reloadables in the 0-160Nsec
>range model rocket engines.
Read “dubbed”. Read “for the third time”. Read model rocket engines”.
Even the brain dead can assume that on the third attempt, the video alone
was not the decisive factor in the decision.

>He also distributed the video directly to CPSC and DOT, which some folks
>feel was just to make waves and cause regulatory trouble for reload
>manufacturers. This turned almost everybody's sympathies against Scott
>from the word go.
I suppose a direct mailing of the video to all model rocketeers in advance
would have been less harmful to Aerotech? The video is protected speech,
so
the method of distribution is the only issue to discuss.

>Scott left the NFPA meeting a day early (some say in a huff), declaring that
>all his HP products were "illegal" and that he was going to stop shipping
>them. No one else thinks his product is "illegal" -- this is a unilateral action
>on Scott's part.
He learned that the interpretation of the DOT and CPSC was that all current

motors over F are “banned hazardous substances”, always were, and would be
until an exemption could be filed and approved. Gary suffered when he
continued doing business after this notice. Scott did not. Scott was
right.
In fact I believe he hnew this before and used the “claim” of substantial
compliance to support his continued sale of products not yet declared
“banned hazardous substances”. He did not approach the authorities and say

this is what I am doing, what should I do to comply. He complied with
those
things his research indicated he could do within his limited resources and
“ignored the rest”, in my opinion.

>My personal opinion is that the loss of Vulcan wouldn't mean much to
>the hobby one way or another. Scott has consistently declined to have
>his product NAR Certified (he did so once, with one or two engines,
>only after a lot of pounding, and then refused to have them re-certified
>when the time came). I understand he's quite an engineer, but few
>people I know have given him any marks at all as a businessman. After
>this last imbroglio, I would rate him a zero in "works and plays well
>with others."
Describes me pretty well too, probably, except for my happy experiences at
launches.

>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: VULCAN Motors
>Date: 24 Apr 92 23:10:50 GMT
>I personally saw the video at the March Board meeting. The casings
>were not involved in these tests at all...They took a half shoebox worth of
>LOOSE reload slugs... set off the igniter... Steele immediately said, "There's
>some kind of an accelerant in there."... the igniter was directly inserted into
>a bag of black powder... Reload slugs now pinwheel out of the box in about
>1'-2' arcs, land on the ground and spin around. The narrator calls this
>behavior "propulsive" (a hot-button word for DOT).
>Later, Mike Hellmund does roughly equivalent tests with Estes C's and
>Vulcan F or G disposables. The igniter is installed IN one of the
>engines...three engines ignited: one manually, two sympathetically... The
>word "propulsive" never crosses anybody's lips; instead, they say this
>represents pretty safe behavior that couldn't have hurt anybody.
Proptected free speech with words and actions carefully coreographed to
make
a point they wish to make. If you disagree, you have the same option to
make
an equally powerful presentation. Does the fact that it is more difficult
to
prove a negative matter? (Not unsafe) Does evil overpower good?

>From: di...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Brian Dixon)
>Subject: Topics in Adv. Model Rocketry?
>Date: 27 Apr 92 14:42:04 GMT
>I have seen a copy of a book called "Topics in Advanced Model
>Rocketry" by Gordon K. Mandell, George J. Caporaso, and William P.
>Bengen which I'd like to have. The copy I've seen is copywrite 1973
>by the MIT Press in Cambridge and London.
California Rocketry offered to reprint this title in 1990 or so, but they
were not
interested for reasons I understood.

>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: Topics in Adv. Model Rocketry?
>Date: 27 Apr 92 17:05:32 GMT
>Rumor has it that Mandell (in Alaska) may have some left...
Confirmed. He has a few. They are his file copies and does not wish to
sell
them. I would like to find a way to establish the magnitude of demand for
the title so my offer which had merit on a business level would be accepted

on the basis of sufficient interest.

>From: bu...@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
>Subject: Re: ESTEmating the QUESTion
>Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 14:38:43 GMT
>...the difference in the way Estes and Quest motors burn. The Estes motors,
>he said, 'sputter' as they burn (a twilight launch session last night did verify
>a great deal of 'sparking' in the Estes motors we flew). The Quest motors are
>supposed to burn much 'smoother'. He seemed to think this was
>significant.
>I also have no idea what the significance of the 'sputtering/sparking' verus
>'smooth' burning fuel mixtures would be, if any. Any ideas?
>Sputtering likely a sign of higher average pressure. Verify by Isp calculations
>of actual thrust data of similar motors with relevent sample and same
>atmospheric conditions. Ie. test Quest C6-3, Estes C6-3 alternately until 32 of
>each have been fired with data capture.

>From: bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
>Subject: CATO
>Date: 27 Apr 92 19:40:57 GMT
>...interesting CATO with an Aerotech Composite Disposable engine... At
>ignition, it blew up - blowing the side out of the rocket. The interesting
>thing is that the slot grain propellant did not even ignite - nor did the delay.
>I don't suppose that Aerotech will replace destroyed high power rockets?
The propellant did ignite. The ignition spike cracked the casing. The
sudden loss of pressure caused the fail-safe composite propellant contained

within to self-extinguish. This is a feature of AT/V/USR propellants with
specific exceptions (USR Firestarter for one). Aerotech never replaced any
of my blown up rockets either and I was their first high volume customer.

>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: ESTEmating the QUESTion
>Date: 28 Apr 92 00:38:07 GMT
>>an "unnamed, small engine manufacturer in Phoenix" will be "looking
>>out after competitors' composite motor needs" and making engines...
>No comment. You know we can't comment.
It’s been 17 months. Comment now.

>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: Engine data
>Date: 30 Apr 92 15:10:17 GMT
>>I forgot to mention that the most common source of error in digital
>>altitude programs is the small number of points with which thrust curves
>>are represented, not the accuracy of each individual point.
>How many points are in the data you're using? Jack typically takes
>thousands of points per engine.
Our programs use JEND or “Jerry’s endpoint” method which plots the
significant points on the thrust curve where it starts, ends, changes
directions
or slope. This could involve 4 (square) to 20 (estes) points in some
cases. The
programs which asume a flat trace are the “error prone” ones. It shows up
most significantly in optimum weight and optimum delay runs. Altitude
runs have less error.

>From: lc...@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio)
>Subject: Re: Engine data
>Date: 1 May 92 12:59:43 GMT
>The thrust curves on calvin (RIP) have as many points as Jack Kane took,
>which was, BTW, hundreds. The digital programs can work with fewer, but
>with fast computers and math chips, there's no reason not to use all of
>them. The ten or so points you see in other digital programs give very
>poor results.
Any errors in programs such as Alt4 (Rogers’ Aeroscience, still a non-
company?) are caused by bad drag models, not poor thrust curve
interpretation. Think for yourself. If you had a choice of estimating a
curve
by either 20 or 2000 straight line segments (JEND vs. actual data sample
values), what additional error would you expect from that difference in
data
resolution? Assume both models are optimized and apply to the exact same
motor firing. That’s your math homework for tonight. Publish or perish.

>From: j...@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (John Stephenson <jstephenson>)
>Subject: Lucern H.P. launch - when?
>Date: 29 May 92 17:43:38 GMT
>I've heard there will be a High Power launch at Lucerne Dry Lake...
>information would be appreciated.

>From: bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
>Subject: Re: Lucern H.P. launch - when?
>Date: 30 May 92 07:58:34 GMT
>The scheduled launches for Lucerne are: June 12-14 (Summerfest), July 4-5,
>Aug 1-2, Sept 5-6, Oct 2-4 (Octoberfest).
Correct.
>Note that the FAA waiver is for a quite limited altitude - no altitude record
>attempts will be allowed.
Incorrect. FAA to 15,000 MSL and blanket to 8000 MSL. Tripoli Prefecture
is
responsible for range operation at USR host request for the 10-91, 2-92,
6-92,
10-92 launches. They opted to advertise no altitude records.

>join the Tripoli Rocketry Association. They seem to have the best listings
>of high power launches. The NAR is also starting to get involved
>with high power.
NAR could become more popular as a HPR membership supplier by simply
providing for the needs of these rocketeers. Launch dates and coverage,
Manufacturer news without requiring high cost ads, discussion of agenda for

more complete tolerance by regulators of MR and HPR operations.

>From: pa...@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
>Subject: Re: Lucern H.P. launch - when?
>Date: 4 Jun 92 04:34:37 GMT
>It's June 12-14 (SummerFest) - with all the problems Lucerne has been
>having with FAA - and with the new CA HP regulations having just taken
>effect (has ANYONE actually been issued with a real CA HP license yet?).
>It's also likely that they will have a low waiver (5000' AGL).
Each Lucerne launch I hosted had a lisenced pyro-op and FAA to 15000/8000
MSL. Tripoli has not chosen to use the structure I already had in place
for
over five years successfully. Including standing the scrutiny of full
notification of the Fire Marshall’s office of our activities.
>I went to OctoberFest, had a great time and confirmed - if it's on it's worth
>attending (however Blackrock is closer to here - and better flying so I'm
>going there in July instead)
Black Rock allows even more power and fewer legal restrictions including a
truly “sanitized FAA zone” leaving claims of high FAA clearances
meaningless. I witnessed a rocket achieve an estimated 100,000 feet in
1982
out there.

>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: Lucern H.P. launch - when?
>Date: 4 Jun 92 17:38:06 GMT
>From what I've been reading about this meet on ModelNet, the State
>Fire Marshal WILL be in attendence. He will allow NO selling of HP
>engines on the field. You have to come with your own engines. Now
>that being said, there is some sort of deal where the meet itself
>WILL have one specific type of H engines that people can use. I don't
>profess to understand any of this, but the meet organizers are asking
>people NOT to try to weasel anything "around" the rules, because the
>Fire Marshal isn't going to play word games with anybody -- he's just
>going to shut the meet down if he doesn't like something.
They should have used the same methods and procedures I used, eh?
I believe they were flying by the seat of the pants in methods similar to
Rosenfield and DOT/CPSC.

>From: bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
>Subject: Re: Lucern H.P. launch - when?
>Date: 4 Jun 92 18:34:25 GMT
>>call ahead to (805)371-8700
Not a U.S. Rockets number.
>>It's also likely that they will have a low waiver (5000' AGL).
Bad idea. Apply for 15000/8000 MSL.

>Ah, yes. The People's Republic of California. The state is rapidly becoming
>very repressive. The next thing we will know, they will have banned
>rocketry altogether.
True, and Tripoli will have led the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dickhe*ds.
Read Rogers, Kelly, Rosenfield and Orr, in my opinion.

>From: J.C...@ENS.Prime.COM (Jim Cook)
>Subject: Re: Rocketry articles in Model Aviation
>Date: 1 Jun 92 19:30:00 GMT
>The black smoke effect (Aerotech Blackjack/Vulcan Smokey Sam) is
>produced by underoxidizing the propellant, I believe.
Smoke is caused by excess fuel in the propellant exhaust. It can be
introduced
by adding more rubber “fuel”, by adding more metallic stabilizers well
beyond
the efficient range, or by introducing inert materials or carbon
generators.
Vulcan uses at least three of these four methods in Smokey Sam. Aerotech
uses at least two of these methods in Blackjack and U.S. Rockets uses at
least
three of these methods in its Black.

>From: Jim Cook <J.C...@ENS.Prime.COM>
>Subject: Re: Software for the Mac?
>Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 14:51:55 GMT
>Tom Beach <7154...@CompuServe.COM> has some Hypercard-based
>rocketry software for the Mac. You can reach him via email at the indicated
>CIS address.

>From: soc1070
>Subject: MAc Software
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 12:55:00 GMT
>The software I mentioned in a posting a couple weeks ago for my Mac is
>called CompuRoc. So far, it is one of the best programs for ANY computer
>that I have seen for simulating rocket flights.
>However, it has a couple limitations...with an ISP Chaparrel. With the G
>reload, the program gave me an altitude prediction of about 350 meters. A
>little low. But, for the little stuff, it seems to be pretty accurate.
The best? A little low? Tight Code? Forget that, give me Alt.mac or
Alt.ibm
any day. Maybe we should offer these on a shareware basis. They include
hundreds of motor data files.

>From: ja...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jack Kobzeff)
>Subject: Lucerne launch
>Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 17:36:17 GMT
>I was at the Lucerne Summerfest launch last weekend, although I could only
>be there for a few hours. I arrived about 9:30 or so on Saturday morning
>and left about 1:00 or so in the afternoon. During this time, I was pleased
>to see that the Tripoli group has 'taken over' the running of the launch
>from Jerry Irvine. The Tripoli people had much more organization, and
>were much more professional than the last few Lucerne launchs I attended
>run by Irvine.
I guess you missed the launches in 10-90, 2-91, 6-91 where Tripoli members
were manning all range positions for USR or the 10-91, 2-92 launches where
Tripoli had substantially full operational control with USR as host. USR
is not the evil influence Tripoli saved you from that you imply.

>The conditions (when I arrived) were almost perfect, but the wind started
>shortly after I got there. There were 15 pads, arranged in groups of five.
>There was no apparent limit on engine size, as there were lots of H's, a
>few I's and two or three larger motors launched (while I was there, but
>there were a LOT of rockets for huge engines on display.). As far as I
>could tell in talking to several people, the Cal Fire Marshall never was
>there, but they did have a friendly visit by a county sheriff. The 5000'
>limit was in effect. Gary from AeroTech said that to get a Cal HP license,
>all you have to do is call or mail the State Fire Marshall office for a
>form. He made it sound pretty automatic. There were no motors for sale
>at the site.
So if it was so wonderful, how did it get so bad? Not by USR actions.

>There were several manufacturers at the site. I got the AeroTech, LOC-
>Precision, and Public Missles, Ltd. catalogs, and a couple catalogs from
>smaller vendors. It's very interesting to me how rapidly this sport has
>grown in the last couple of years. I'm guessing that (counting
>family & spectators) there were over 300 people there, about 100 of them
>were flying. Also, the age group has moved up in the last few years
>with a lot of 30-something fliers. (It always seemed to me that in the
>past the average age was low-to-mid 20's.) Old rocketeers coming back??
>Overall, the meet ran very smoothly, and a good time was had by all that
>didn't prang. There were a few questions that I didn't get answered. For
>instance, a couple of mentions were made of a 'Lucerne Test Range' as if
>it was a group. The few people that I asked didn't have any real info.
Lucerne Test Range Prefecture of Tripoli. It looks like five years of USR
marketing efforts, consultations with officials and constant institution of
new
safety procedures paid off. Why dump (or kill) a successful franchise?

>From: bar...@aaet.csc.ti.com (Stu Barrett)
>Subject: New Tripoli Address
>Date: 26 Jun 92 10:50:30
>Scott Dingman has taken over the job. Tripoli, POB 339, Kenner, LA. 70065-
>0339, home @504-467-1967.
My experience is that casual incoming calls waste more high value time than

anything.

>From: rjun...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (R. M. Jungclas)
>Subject: List of rocket manufacturers and organizations (Updated 2-13-92)
>Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 13:00:48 GMT
>Copright, 1991, 1992 R. Michael Jungclas
>Send corrections/comments to rjun...@ihlpb.att.com.
>UPDATED: October 27, 1991:
>Added Orange Country Rockets,
>US Rockets(out of business),
>Internal Ballistics Co., 807 N. Armal Drive, Covina, CA 91722
By information and belief, out of business.
>Rodgers Aerospace Software
By information and belief, not a real company.
>Truly Recyclable Motors, c/o Franklin Kosnon, 316 Carol Dr., Ventura, CA
By information and belief operating in violation of DOT and CA laws. Using

resources converted from U.S. Rockets. Operating in violation of non-
competition agreements and non-disclosure agreements. Currently in
litigation with U.S. Rockets.
>U. S. Rockets P.O. Box 1242 Claremont, California 91711
>(CAUTION: This company has been very slow to deliver and have been
>unresponsive! BUYER BEWARE! This company is rumored to be out of
>business.)
Suggest replacing this warning with a suggestion to simply order on the
company’s Net 30 day terms. Then pay the bill!
>Copyright, 1991 R. Michael Jungclas

>Article: 4588 of rec.models.rockets
>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: List of rocket manufacturers and organizations (Updated 2-13-92)
>Date: 1 Jul 92 19:35:26 GMT
>October 27, 1991: Added Orange Country Rockets,
>US Rockets(out of business),
>U. S. Rockets, P.O. Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711
>(CAUTION: This company has been very slow to deliver and have been
>unresponsive! BUYER BEWARE! This company is rumored to be out of
>business.)
Suggest replacing this warning with a suggestion to simply order on the
company’s Net 30 day terms. Then pay the bill!

Add California Rocketry, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711

>Oh yeah. Rumor has it that Jerry is looking into signing up on CompuServe
>and participating in MODELNET. I'll be sure to give y'all his network
>address as soon as he appears. We don't want him to be lonely.
I suppose there is a rumour that every rocketeer in America is looking into

“signing up on CompuServe and participating in MODELNET”. Keep them
all company. By the way, false. I don’t have an asbestos CI$ jacket.
Read
Chicken Incompetent Sh*t. When was the last time you saw any of those
folks write real letters like their electronic flamage? Where’s the brain?

>If you believe that I speak for my company write today for my special
>Investors' Packet...
I do. Send it. Don’t forget to comply with all mail order laws.

>From: aa...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan Scott Tuskes)
>Subject: The Truth about LDRS.....
>Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 07:02:28 GMT
>I was flying about 15 years ago... my NAR number was 23467.
Mine is 24333.
>LDRS
This was a period of Pearson and Irvine friendship and cooperation. Ah,
the
good ole’ days. The enemy of his enemy (Miller, Bunny) was his friend.
Pearson/Steele/SNOAR were in the anti Bunny/Miller/Stine wars and
Irvine/Kline/Rosenfield/CRm were in the MRT (over 1, pound over F, NAR
tolerance) wars. Rosenfield never put his balls on the line. In hindsight
we
won at great cost (NAR expulsion of Kline and Irvine) and they lost (Bunny,

Stine and Miller are still all powerful).

>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Subject: Re: Re: Estes Camroc and other ???'s (long)
>Date: 13 Jul 92 14:51:48 GMT
>I can't say I'm pleased with AeroTech's legal maneuverings of this sort:
>1) Just do it until you enter controlled airspace;
>2) Their R/C glider has "an airplane engine, not a rocket engine"
>3) Self-classifying reloadables as DOT Class C without asking DOT
>In all of these cases, they have gotten NO confirmation of their opinion
>from the government agency that would squash them if they were wrong. I
>don't agree with that way of doing business.
Neither does Jerry Irvine, Scott Dixon, Mike Hellmund, Estes formally.
>with regard to Aerotech operating as a reputable firm and/or their
>adherence (or lack thereof) to DOT, FAA, NAR or Tripoli regulations.
> In other words, my previous posting regarding Aerotech's position on G
>flights not only failed to surprise a few of you, but your responses indicated
>ill will pre-exists. Could someone rehash why this is?
>"Ill will" is the wrong term. I think AeroTech makes a great product, and
>I think they are real innovators. However, I think they should keep their
>innovations to the drawing board and in the lab, and leave it out of the
>courtroom.
>Suppose you bought a GM car, and the drivers' manual said,
>"This car has been designed and tested to operate properly up to 110
>MPH, which you may do as long as there are no lower speed limit signs
>immediately visible in your vicinity."
>It doesn't say, "It is our INTERPRETATION that you may do this;" it
>doesn't say, "The government disagrees with us that you may do this;"
>it doesn't say, "You won't hear this interpretation from anybody but
>us;" it doesn't say, "If you do this and get reamed, it's YOUR ass
>on the line, not ours."
>Would you think GM was being responsible?
It sure is refreshing to see public acceptance of the very thing I have
been
alerting people about Rosenfield for the better part of the past decade.
The
problem is that it is hard to convince people who are having fun buying I
motors in Florida hobby stores they are breaking the law when their
supplier
assures them they are “probably not”. Plausible deniability is a procedure

used masterfully by both Rosenfield and Rogers. Another useful skill is
suspended disbelief, where you shed ill impressions on the position that
your
efforts are wrong thus leading people to “believe” they are right.
Remember
“perception is more important than realitiy”-Jerry Irvine
>Here's a relevant posting I saw last night on CompuServe. (Given the
>politics of the situation, I should mention, in case it's important to
>any of you, that Mike Hellmund works for Estes):

>Message: #98446, S/8 Sport Rocketry
>Date: Jul 12, 1992 4:05:25 PM
>Subject: #98389-E, F & G Power
>From: Michael Hellmund 71351,32
>To: Will S. AsstOp(rockets) 73760,3533
>Will, That is not correct Will. According to the Northwestern regional
>office of the FAA (in Seattle), ANYTHING, no exceptions, over 16 oz
>and 4 oz of propellant requires a waiver. After having our club
>strongly lectured to by the FAA, we enforce the rule at all unwaviered
>launches. They also do not buy in to the "unrestricted" vs "restricted"
>airspace. I think this is one area where everyone better contact their
>FAA office to insure what their interpertation is. I think you will find that
>most abide by the 1 lb, 4 oz propellant, no exceptions. The NW FAA office
>was going to make sure that all FAA offices in their region interpert the
>FARs that way.

>From: l...@uni.ins.com (Lawrence A. Deleski)
>Subject: Re: Status of reloads and G engines
>Date: 16 Jul 92 15:42:45 GMT
>Aerotech... said that the stay has not yet been granted, meaning the ban on G
motors is still on.
They don’t ban legal products.
>On the reloads issue, she said that "reloads are banned, and we do not know
when, or if, that ban will be lifted".
They don’t ban legal products.
>This kind of thing is costing people like Kosdon and others a living, and it's
>keeping Californians from enjoying the cost benefit of reloadable motors.
Kosdon was investigated for manufacturing motors in his garage. Not just
making flammable solids, but making Uncertified Class B type devices with
NO PERMITS. That would do it too.
>Who can we threaten to not re-elect to get this changed?
The Tripoli board. The Aerotech representatives on NFPA. The California
Fire Marshalls office for not following their own procedures in
investigating
and changing rocket laws.

>From: Jim Cook <J.C...@ENS.Prime.COM>
>Subject: Re: Status of reloads and G engines
>Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 20:29:42 GMT
>If California is anything like Massachusetts, you are being regulated by a
>Board of Fire Protection or by/in cooperation with the State Fire Marshall's
>Office. Continuing on the assumption they are similar, they have to listen
>to you but they can choose to answer "yes", answer "no", or not even
>consider what you have to say or ask. Furthermore, they are appointed not
>elected. Bottom line, you have to find out what branch of government they
>are in or are appointed by and yank on their chains. Try asking your
>govenor or state legislator for help.
Yes, but they have a “consumer consious charter” to consider any better
option when refining the laws, which they promptly ignored fully. If you
want to sue someone and win, sue them.

>Non-Tripoli Sanctioned Launch, August 17 Fire(BALLS) 02, Experimental-
>Unlimited Launch. A separate launch package specifying rules, Safety code
>and disclaimer requirements available.
Disclaimers are a lisence to sue.
>for launch package send to: Ronald Devine, Launch Director, 20161 Wisteria
>St. Apt. 8, Castro Valley, Ca. 94546
Receive a fee, assume a liability.

Part 3 -Responses to U.S. Rockets, citations

>Path:news.claremont.edu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.c
>c.utexas.edu!slip-2-21.ots.utexas.edu!awdd
>From: Andrew W. Donoho <aw...@bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
>Date: 2 Oct 1993 04:43:04 GMT
>Organization: UT-Grad. School of Lib. and Information Science
>As a novice HPR rocketeer, I sincerely resent your supercilious tone and
>pompous demeanor. I have found this to be an excellent newsgroup
>generally devoid of the noise and bombasity so prevalent on CI$ and other
>forums. I have recently started the process of reading the archives and I
>do not find the intrusive egos you describe. I was recruited to this
>hobby by the rather even handed presentations in r.m.r and the excellent
>FAQ (thanks Buzz).
>Finally, I think you should go start collecting Barbies because you're
>not going to get much of my business.
You are attacking my demeanor not my content and simply name calling.
The following proactive proposal was met with ill feelings:
>>I would be quite happy to see more thoughtful postings.
>I believe that this is happening without your obvious business bias. I
>have been in business for myself on a national and international basis,
>because of this experience I have learned to divorce myself from my
>business interests when speaking in public. I think that you, Mr. Irvine,
>should respect your customers opinions and help them see any flaws in
>their reasoning. I regard your browbeating as poor business and poor
>social behavior. You are not winning any friends and are hurting your
>business. Please shut up!
How is an alleged business bias relevent, percieved, important here? The
entirety of my last posting and this address the latter part of that
paragraph.
Don’t feel browbeaten. Don’t feel as though you have to read my posting or

ask me to shut up.
>Hey lets fly rockets, stupid!.
>Jeez, I hope I can meet the low BS Jerry.
I hope so too.

From: bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 06:49:32 GMT
>>My advice NOW (I posted a somewhat less cautious message last week)
>>would be to just NOT buy from him.
>That’s a recommending a course of action...
Not advise.
>He is making the recommendation, based on what he has read
An affirmative endorsement on information and belief
>Also, why should he provide you with his personal property.
Good faith and intentions.

>Just about all the newsgroups are mostly noise - it goes with the territory.
True.
>I suspect the general public is more scared off by silly government rules,
>like those in california, where they have everyone believing that even an
>Estes model is so dangerous that it requires special permission from the
>local fire marshal before you can legally launch it.
Very true.
>So, why are you still selling motors?
:) Flying rockets and designing motors to make the experience fun for other

people is quite fun and rewarding. The “industry” (read central command)
sucks because of the self-absorbed people and especially the way they
choose to
organize and run the organizatons from national to local to launches in
some
cases.
>>The probability that this is a forgery approaches 100%.
>So, I may be wrong. It isn't the first time, and undoubtedly won't be the last.
A humble man like you should be on the board of directors. I should not
and
I admit it.

>News, as usual, is mostly personal opinion. You have to take it for what it is
>worth, which often is very little.
News is not necessarily biased, hurtful, and inaccurate. I checked with
two
PRIMARY sources before writing the responses in this post.

From: wmc...@superior.carleton.ca (Wendy McKeen)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 13:24:38 GMT
>Well, I don't know who this really is, but if it is Jerry Irvine then
>I must admit I find it rather cowardly that he has failed to include a
>return email address, so we cannot reply directly too him.
Provision of an E-mail address is a prerequisite to meeting your belief
standards, then.
Note this:
>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Date: 1 Jul 92 19:35:26 GMT
>Oh yeah. Rumor has it that Jerry is looking into signing up on CompuServe
>and participating in MODELNET. I'll be sure to give y'all his network
>address as soon as he appears. We don't want him to be lonely.
What would you do?
>I also find it rather odd that he would act in such a deliberatly rude
>manner. I have the impression that he is somehow connected with USR
>(certainly, he seems to be defending them). Why would he risk
>alienating his customer base? Or am I missing something?
In the past posts I have addressed many RUDE postings about me, none of
which were CC: to me either by USPS (my address is ultimately public), none

of which were confirmed by a PRIMARY source, most of which relied partly
or in whole by PRIMARY, SECONDARY and TERTIARY opposition sources
only. Oh, maybe that’s not rude but merely unethical. So, I am sorry for
being rude.
>Oh, an whoever you are, why are you including special codes in your
>articles? They not only make them hard to read, they make you look
>like you havn't actually used Usenet before...
What codes? Not very much as a poster. You are correct.
>Let's just say that if I were Jerry Irvine then I would be “hoping”
>that everyone thought this was a forgery...
Your opinion is read with proper respect and consideration.

Part 4 - Conclusions

Opinions and posturing aside, the post here provided should provide food
for
thought. I hope that this evidence of “bad” events will inspire the reader
to
aspire to proactive solutions. These include such things as more
thoughtful
postings to be sure, but more importantly, a renewed effort to make
consumer
rocketry universally legal and accessable. That broad goal fits within the

specific agendas of most of the people on this net. The history of the
rocket
community is division, conflict and backstabbing in the worst ways. A new
chapter of litigation has been added when the civil justice system is at an
all
time low in efficiency. It is possible that the only possible solution is
a “peace
treaty” and agreement to terms. NFPA 1127 is a big step in federal
regulations. The NAR/TRA Safety code is a big step within the industry
regulations. Remaining issues include State Laws, FAA, Tripoli
management, and frankly some revision of the NAR management.

Part 5 - A challenge

If you respond to this post, write at least one paragraph of the most
powerful
points you DO agree with. Then, only then, if you must, flame away.
That’s
what rocketry has been about for a decade.

END

When reading responses and comments, approach them from the perspective
that they have merit and are correct and think of reasons why so, then
consider dissenting positions and weigh the options.

This post covers the dates 23 Mar 1992 to 16 Jul 1992
Please excuse the length on this basis.

The guy “crazy” enough to suggest high power rocketry, essentially in its
current form in the 1979 to 1982 timeframe. Within the system, of course.

>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

>The word "politics" is derived from the word "poly", meaning
>"many", and the word "ticks", meaning "blood sucking parasites".
>-- Larry Hardiman

>620 the power of a P7. However, since the P7 won't be along for nearly three
>years by which time the 620 will have been obsoleted by its newer PPC
>breathren, the 6xx line of chips has a HUGE technological advantage. Intel is
>losing because its stuck with an architecture from the stone age.

U.S. Rockets, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA

Iskandar Taib

unread,
Oct 3, 1993, 2:50:13 AM10/3/93
to
In article <CEB41...@news.claremont.edu> (Jerry Irvine) writes:

>Note: started as 60k of text, edited to 31k with responses
>Note: Hard carriage returns at 65 spaces 10 point monospace
>reminds me of my work with CRm on a Xerox 820 running CPM/OS.
>Haven’t we left the late seventies yet in E-mail? How about
>simple RTF format text so my Mac can publish, edit and read real
>type and real graphics.
>123456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F12345

I find the above really funny considering the following! Does everyone
else agree its nearly unreadable? I suppose its the Mac .. he ought
to get a Unix account and start using emacs or something.

>I suppose there is a rumour that every rocketeer in America is looking into
>
>“signing up on CompuServe and participating in MODELNET”. Keep them
>all company. By the way, false. I don’t have an asbestos CI$ jacket.
>Read
>Chicken Incompetent Sh*t. When was the last time you saw any of those
>folks write real letters like their electronic flamage? Where’s the brain?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And what do you call this?

Anyhow.. thanks for posting all this stuff.. a lot of it is from way
before I started reading this newsgroup, and thats been a WHILE. I
do appreciate being informed of all the goings on.. looks like I
missed some juicy stuff!

^_^


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NT...@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !

bill nelson

unread,
Oct 3, 1993, 10:49:59 PM10/3/93
to
(Jerry Irvine) writes:
: >From: bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)

: >Subject: CATO
: >Date: 27 Apr 92 19:40:57 GMT
: >...interesting CATO with an Aerotech Composite Disposable engine... At
: >ignition, it blew up - blowing the side out of the rocket. The interesting
: >thing is that the slot grain propellant did not even ignite - nor did the delay.

: The propellant did ignite. The ignition spike cracked the casing. The

: sudden loss of pressure caused the fail-safe composite propellant contained
:
: within to self-extinguish. This is a feature of AT/V/USR propellants with
: specific exceptions (USR Firestarter for one). Aerotech never replaced any

I disagree. There is no sign that the grain ignited, except where the ignitor
vaporized a very small amount of it. On one of the motors, there is an air
bubble in the milled slot. This bubble is still sharp edged, which it wouldn't
be if the grain had started to burn.

Bill

Joe Pfeiffer

unread,
Oct 3, 1993, 11:06:51 PM10/3/93
to
Why am I seeing a 797 line post responding to other people posting in
April of 1992?

-Joe.

Iskandar Taib

unread,
Oct 4, 1993, 1:35:05 PM10/4/93
to
In article <CEB41...@news.claremont.edu> (Jerry Irvine) writes:
>From: wmc...@superior.carleton.ca (Wendy McKeen)
>Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 13:24:38 GMT

>>Well, I don't know who this really is, but if it is Jerry Irvine then
>>I must admit I find it rather cowardly that he has failed to include a
>>return email address, so we cannot reply directly too him.

>Provision of an E-mail address is a prerequisite to meeting your belief
>standards, then.

Yes. (Hmm.. Looks like he's gotten me in this "reply with one word"
mode too.)

>Note this:

>>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>>Date: 1 Jul 92 19:35:26 GMT
>>Oh yeah. Rumor has it that Jerry is looking into signing up on CompuServe
>>and participating in MODELNET. I'll be sure to give y'all his network
>>address as soon as he appears. We don't want him to be lonely.

>What would you do?

I'd post with my address. Is e-mail going to hurt? I don't think you
really have one at hmc and are spoofing the mailserver.

>>I also find it rather odd that he would act in such a deliberatly rude
>>manner. I have the impression that he is somehow connected with USR
>>(certainly, he seems to be defending them). Why would he risk
>>alienating his customer base? Or am I missing something?

>In the past posts I have addressed many RUDE postings about me, none of
>which were CC: to me either by USPS (my address is ultimately public), none

Oh yeah.. right..

By the same reasoning, anyone who posts anything about Clinton should
cc the white house. Anyone who posts funny songs about Fergie and her
millionaire friend (anyone who wants this can get it from me via mail)
should print a copy and send it to Windsor Castle.

>of which were confirmed by a PRIMARY source, most of which relied partly
>or in whole by PRIMARY, SECONDARY and TERTIARY opposition sources
>only. Oh, maybe that’s not rude but merely unethical. So, I am sorry for
>being rude.

Why don't you just post 1-2 pages saying something like "I got hold of
the archives to rec.models.rockets and would like to say that things
were said about me that were unfair" without including half the
archive? Could you at least be a little less clear in what you write?
I find most of it pretty hard to read, cryptic _and_ exceedingly rude,
not to mention egotistical. You're just hurting yourself.

>>Oh, an whoever you are, why are you including special codes in your
>>articles? They not only make them hard to read, they make you look
>>like you havn't actually used Usenet before...
>What codes? Not very much as a poster. You are correct.

Those o's with the accents on top. The \322 and \323 like on the next
line.

>>Let's just say that if I were Jerry Irvine then I would be “hoping”

--

Iskandar Taib

unread,
Oct 4, 1993, 1:41:08 PM10/4/93
to
In article <CEB41...@news.claremont.edu> (Jerry Irvine) writes:
>From: wmc...@superior.carleton.ca (Wendy McKeen)
>Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 13:24:38 GMT

>>Well, I don't know who this really is, but if it is Jerry Irvine then
>>I must admit I find it rather cowardly that he has failed to include a
>>return email address, so we cannot reply directly too him.

>Provision of an E-mail address is a prerequisite to meeting your belief
>standards, then.

Yes. (Hmm.. Looks like he's gotten me in this "reply with one word"
mode too.) I'm not about to explain this one agian.

>Note this:

>>From: c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>>Date: 1 Jul 92 19:35:26 GMT
>>Oh yeah. Rumor has it that Jerry is looking into signing up on CompuServe
>>and participating in MODELNET. I'll be sure to give y'all his network
>>address as soon as he appears. We don't want him to be lonely.

>What would you do?

I'd post with my address. Is e-mail going to hurt? CD and I have had
disagreements in the past and we've traded some pretty heated e-mail.
We're still civil to each other. Whats the problem? I don't think you
really have a mail address at hmc and are spoofing the newsserver by
telnetting into the port.

>>I also find it rather odd that he would act in such a deliberatly rude
>>manner. I have the impression that he is somehow connected with USR
>>(certainly, he seems to be defending them). Why would he risk
>>alienating his customer base? Or am I missing something?

>In the past posts I have addressed many RUDE postings about me, none of
>which were CC: to me either by USPS (my address is ultimately public), none

Oh yeah.. right..

By the same reasoning, anyone who posts anything about Clinton should
cc the white house. Anyone who posts funny songs about Fergie and her
millionaire friend (anyone who wants this can get it from me via mail)
should print a copy and send it to Windsor Castle.

>of which were confirmed by a PRIMARY source, most of which relied partly

>or in whole by PRIMARY, SECONDARY and TERTIARY opposition sources
>only. Oh, maybe that’s not rude but merely unethical. So, I am sorry for
>being rude.

Why don't you just post 1-2 pages saying something like "I got hold of


the archives to rec.models.rockets and would like to say that things
were said about me that were unfair" without including half the
archive? Could you at least be a little less clear in what you write?
I find most of it pretty hard to read, cryptic _and_ exceedingly rude,
not to mention egotistical. You're just hurting yourself.

>>Oh, an whoever you are, why are you including special codes in your


>>articles? They not only make them hard to read, they make you look
>>like you havn't actually used Usenet before...
>What codes? Not very much as a poster. You are correct.

Those o's with the accents on top. The \322 and \323 like on the next
line.

>>Let's just say that if I were Jerry Irvine then I would be “hoping”


Walt Rosenberg

unread,
Oct 4, 1993, 2:26:13 PM10/4/93
to
In article <CEDvs...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <CEB41...@news.claremont.edu> (Jerry Irvine) writes:

Another entry for my KILL file. Seems as if the poster has accomplished
their goal with all the responses they are receiving.


--
WA...@NETCOM.COM TRA# 1448
AERO-PAC Northern Calif Prefect
(408) 526-3557
Time to change the laws in the People's Republic of California.

R.E. Wiersbe

unread,
Oct 5, 1993, 10:46:41 AM10/5/93
to

Because Jerry has access to the archives and is systematically going through
them to nit-pick. I'm afraid we're in for a long time of it, maybe we should
all agree to ignore him, it might help cut down on the traffic. Had I thought
that someone would use the archives like this, I never would have done it.

Bob Wiersbe hr...@ixstar.ih.att.com

Paul J. Ste. Marie

unread,
Oct 9, 1993, 11:57:32 PM10/9/93
to

Jerry, if yo don't like 7-bit ASCII, I'd suggest either MIME encoding
the message or actually going out and reading RFC 1036, which is the
stand for netnews article format. I'd email you a copy (or two ;-) )
if you send me a valid email address.
0 new messages