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 Historical content remains viewable.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

NAR President Requests...

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark B. Bundick

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
My email unfortunately informed me this afternoon that a private
correspondance was posted to a listserver without my prior permission.

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


Joel C Simon

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to

I think I found out what this is about today.

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

Brett Buck

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
"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

Mark B. Bundick

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99
to

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.

============================================================================

Bob Chmara

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99
to
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

Curtis Scholl

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99
to
Brett:

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 Buck

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99
to
Mark Simpson wrote:

>
> 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

Brett Buck

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99
to
Curtis Scholl wrote:
>
> Brett:
>
> 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?

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

joe bob

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99
to
haha, 'at a boys, rip 'em to pieces! :-)

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_b...@my-deja.com

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
Brett,
Amateur Experimental Rocketry has as good a safety
record as any other high risk hobby. When
undertaken properly it has a much higher safety
record than HPR or even model rocketry. Do not
confuse the basement bomber hysteria of the 50s
and 60s (due in part to Estes and NAR propaganda
of the period) to what serious amateurs are doing
today. Do not go about smearing a useful,
educational and very enjoyable past time that you
obviously know nothing about. I am not talking
about the lone kid that downloads inadequate
information from the net, mixes some chemicals in
his bedroom while mom and dad are away then
proceeds to blow himself up. That is not amateur
rocketry. Do us all a favor, subscribe to arocket
and learn what responsible amateurs the world over
are doing to advance the state of all forms of
rocketry (including the small model rockets that
we all so dearly love). See RocketryOnline for
subscribtion information.
BTW I wholeheartedly agree that Amateur
Experimental Rocketry should be viewed separately
from either HPR or model rocketry but we all have
a stake in the outcome of the legal issues being
persued by NAR and TRA. The future of your
favorite hobby may just well rest in the hands of
an amatuer that figured out a better way to
propel a rocket. One that may not have to deal
with BATF regulations at all. Don't cut off your
nose to spite your face (or something like that).

Mike Bernard
Amateur, High power and Model Rocketeer


In article <384C851D...@pacbell.net>,

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Mark Simpson

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
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,

kreu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
Those in amateur rocketry who have answered to these posts may well be
able to distance themselves from the disparaging comments regarding
amateur rocketry. However, amateur rocketry by its very nature cannot
police itself. Anybody can go to sites like CP Technologies, buy the
books, videos, and materials and venture into amateur rocketry.
There's no lists of certified and tested motors to draw from, just your
home-made types. So don't for a second believe that just because you
may be operating in a safe manner, that joe-blow amateur rocketeer is.

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
>
>

John H. Cato, Jr.

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to

Brett Buck wrote

> 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.

Lewis Garrow

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to

You also musst keep in mind that part of model rocketry's safety record
includes rocketeers who do not belong to any organized group, something that
will increase with the new Estes empahsis on rtf rockets. Why join
everythings in the box, no additional knowledge or skill required!

So I guess these loose cannons are just as dangerous as amateur
rocketeers..hmmm?

Lewis Garrow

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
and anyone can go to toys 'r' us and buy modrocs and shoot them sideways,
put warheads (small) in them, etc..
so what point are you making?...or not making as the case seems to be.

Bob Kaplow

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
In article <Ij834.5269$qC1.3...@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, "Bob Chmara" <bob-n...@mindseye-inc.com> writes:
> | and "amatuer rocketry" which has a
> | very poor safety record, and best limited educational value.
>
> On what basis do you make these statements?

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

Bob Kaplow

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
> 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.
>
> ============================================================================
> Mark B. Bundick 1350 Lilac Lane !7015...@notspamto.compuserve.com!
> NAR President Carol Stream, IL 60188 http://www.nar.org

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.

Mark Simpson

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to buc...@pacbell.net
Brett Buck wrote:

>
> Mark Simpson wrote:
>
> >
> > 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?


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,

Bill Westfield

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
Can you post the 40 year statistics for AmRoc? In that time
Model ROcketry has had ZERO fatalities and one serious injury.

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)

joe bob

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to
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. Its
different when you have somebody really experimenting and trying new and
untested things, those should definently be treated differently then
model/HPR. Heck. I think they should have commercial propelant making kits
for HPR. They have ignitor kits so why not. Even make it a must to be L2 to
use the stuff at a launch. I think that would be pretty slick. The next step
in the reload chain from SU motors. I dunno, i dont get all this, boo hoo
this, boo hoo that, amateur rocketry is the devil, Mr. bundick is the devil,
the BATF is the devil, Im the devil..... When will it end? Why did it start?
Is all this BS anythign like rappers vs. rockers on a high school level? Is
it the popular kids vs. the nerds on a middle school level? And im shure
people thought I was immature! If you think about my gibberish long enough
some sence might come out of it.

Paxton


Bob Kaplow wrote in message <1999Dec8.172018.1@eisner>...

Joel C Simon

unread,
Dec 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/8/99
to

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

spam...@my-deja.com

unread,
Dec 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/9/99
to
In article <384E62D0...@hbo.com>,

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

Bob Kaplow

unread,
Dec 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/9/99
to
In article <7AH34.1096$yZ3....@news.uswest.net>, "joe bob" <darks...@uswest.net> writes:
> 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?

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.

joe bob

unread,
Dec 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/9/99
to
I resent that!!! :-)

spam...@my-deja.com wrote in message <82p6qa$kh5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

joe bob

unread,
Dec 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/9/99
to
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!
Realisticly as was noted in a e-mail to me the only reasnoble and logicle
motive for not sharing model and amateur rocketry is because of legal
liability issues. But thats what orginizations are for right? Certifications
anyone? Smart RSO's anyone? If there was every a way for me to take part in
a RRS event I would join them in a second. But thats just me, and I dont
live in cali. One of the only reasons this argument can even exist is
because of ignorance, stupidity, and lame patheticness of the media and the
general puplic(who are also scared of thier own shadow). Puplic not
nessesarily being the lame part of that. Theres always a time and place for
certain things, I know big HPR's and amateurs would probably rather not
share the same flight times with the "small stuff". You could dedicate
certain hours for different things. Organize certifications and competency
tests........ and bring rocketeers together and unite. But I am a idealistic
person and none of that isnt going to happen with NAR so I shoudl just quit
now and go play UT.

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>...

Jim Kerns

unread,
Dec 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/9/99
to
Mark Simpson wrote:

>
> 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.

Joel C Simon

unread,
Dec 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/9/99
to

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

Hank Ball

unread,
Dec 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/12/99
to
Lewis, you choose to miss my point, that much is obvious. Either that
or you have not followed this thread nor why it came about.

Come back when you are adult enough to have an intelligent conversation.

Bill

In article <384E97BB...@hbo.com>,

Lewis Garrow

unread,
Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99
to
talk about missing points, my answer was very direct and to the point. If
disagreeing with you is not adult then I'll just let you lay on the floor
kicking your feet and crying, Hank..or is it Bill um or whoever you are
little boy.
0 new messages