 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / April 2005[history] MR-LMR-HPR-?
The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a revolutionary change in consumer rocket safety, access, use in schools and use in local parks. The second era of model rocketry was pioneered by Kline, Irvine, Rosenfield and others whereby increased rocket size, power, technology, and variety motivated increased toleration by NAR and FAA. The third era has not yet been defined. But so far it is looking to be radically increased regulation and radically reduced participation. It has been over 20 years since #2 and over 40 since #1. The time is neigh. Jerry Irvine  SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, >Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >The time is neigh. No it's not. The time is whinny... And it's Carlisle... CAR - leese - lay... Jeez... <g> tah -- Tod A. Hilty Hilty Information Systems Do not look in the direction of the flash... Curl up in a ball as you hit the ground... CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight Please replace weinerboy dot org with adelphia dot net for reply. > The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, > Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jerry Irvine Poor jerry. > > The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, > > Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Poor jerry. You are part of the low tide. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 Can't wait for it to merge into Model & High Power Anti-Gravity Beasts.... :-) Big trees from little seeds...Who's pioneering this effort??? MR-LMR-HPR-AGRAV > The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, > Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jerry Irvine > Can't wait for it to merge into > .Who's pioneering this effort??? Honestly? Whoever picks up the ball. I'm retired. Remember? And based on my email . . . somebody will. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, >Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Rosenfield and others whereby increased rocket size, power, technology, >and variety motivated increased toleration by NAR and FAA. No, Waite, I think Irv was the pioneer, especialy with a marketing assist by Lee. >The third era has not yet been defined. But so far it is looking to be >radically increased regulation and radically reduced participation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Jerry Irvine > The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, > Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The third era has not yet been defined. But so far it is looking to be > radically increased regulation and radically reduced participation. Depends on the outcome of the court case. If we win, it'll be a whole new era of growth for the hobby. If we lose, it'll drastically alter the hobby and radically reduce participation. If HPR survives at all it will only be at a few locations, hosted by clubs with large on-site magazines. The reduced market will kill off some manufacturers and dealers, and force massive price increases on those who remain. Anyone who can't get storage, or can't/won't get a LEUP, will either be forced out of the hobby or be driven underground, dependent on homemade and/or black market motors. > > The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, > Estes, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Or go to non-"explosive" alternatives such as hybrids and liquids... -dave w > > If we lose, it'll drastically alter the hobby and radically reduce > > participation. If HPR survives at all it will only be at a few [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -dave w Personally, I'm pursuing both hybrids and amateur motors. I won't get a LEUP (screw the ATF-- fascists!!) and the fact that a preferred propellant is over-regulated hardly seems like the "end of it all". It seems fairly straightforward to shoot HPR without APCP. Maybe this prohibition can be a good thing-- forcing the next stage in technology onto the main floor... I do support the legal efforts to get the ATF to step off, but don't believe my participation in the sport is defined by the outcome of those efforts. BTW-- the fact that I detest the ATF doesn't mean I'm operating outside the law. A little ingenuity and a bit of thought, and it's amazing what can be accomplished. Legally. The sky is *not* falling. And lemonade can be goooood....... Kevin OClassen NAR 13578 > > The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, > Estes, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Depends on the outcome of the court case. If only that were actually true. "Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions." - Jerry Irvine SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > "Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions." ATF says there is no exemption. i > > "Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions." > > ATF says there is no exemption. Ummm, that doesn't matter. > i > > > "Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions." > > > > ATF says there is no exemption. > > Ummm, that doesn't matter. LOL! Yeah, right. That's what Jerry thought when the DOT told him his motors weren't legal to ship. "Unfortunately, our system of laws is set up so that an agency's own interpretation of its regulations is valid unless you show it to be otherwise. You do that by convincing a court that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary, capricious or without authority." -- Harold Gilliam, Skylighter Inc. > > > > "Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions." > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > LOL! Yeah, right. That's what Jerry thought when the DOT told him his > motors weren't legal to ship. Ummm, your Jerry bashing opinion doesn't matter, nor Jerry's nor the ATFs. What the JUDGE says is what matters and he's ruled the pad exemption exists. It is sad that being right over Jerry is all that does matter. > "Unfortunately, our system of laws is set up so that an agency's own > interpretation of its regulations is valid unless you > show it to be otherwise. You do that by convincing a court that the > agency's interpretation is arbitrary, capricious or without > authority." -- Harold Gilliam, Skylighter Inc. Nice quote. You prove my point, NAR/TRA has shown otherwise in a court of law. I'd go to the NAR web page and get the statement, but that would be a waste of my time. Please return to the mindless Jerry bashing and continue to make rmr a valuable asset to the rocket community. Sorry for the interruption. > > > > > "Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions." > > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ummm, your Jerry bashing opinion doesn't matter, nor Jerry's nor the ATFs. > What the JUDGE says is what matters and he's ruled the pad exemption exists. Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it. "In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA." Here is the court order that is from: http://www.v-serv.com/atf/62.pdf Just factual Jerry See SOMETHING useful can be saved from this thread. It took a lot of editing. > It is sad that being right over Jerry is all that does matter. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to make rmr a valuable asset to the rocket community. Sorry for the > interruption. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it. > > "In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport > rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without > compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just factual Jerry Too bad that ruling was superceded by the later ruling I just quoted, and which you have consistently refused to acknowledge. You're only half-factual. > See SOMETHING useful can be saved from this thread. > It took a lot of editing. Yeah, that's your style -- edit out any facts that happen to be inconvenient. > > Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Too bad that ruling was superceded by the later ruling I just quoted, Nope. The ruling I quoted was from the "compliant being ruled on". The ruling you quote from is "on a motion for expidited relief". Relief must wait till the end. BUT the fact that it was already ruled that rocket motors are PADS is in no way superceeded. In fact it is now a given. "In addition" "In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid..." - http://www.v-serv.com/atf/62.pdf Jerry > and which you have consistently refused to acknowledge. You're only > half-factual. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah, that's your style -- edit out any facts that happen to be > inconvenient. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > Too bad that ruling was superceded by the later ruling I just quoted, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Relief must wait till the end. Correct, and until then we're stuck with the ATF's position and enforcement. > BUT the fact that it was already ruled that rocket motors are PADS is in > no way superceeded. In fact it is now a given. No it's not, because in that most recent ruling the judge said the issue of whether or not rocket motors are PADs was not properly before the court. We had to file a NEW motion to get it placed before the court, and until he rules on it, that issue is NOT settled. Yeah, it contradicts what he said in his previous ruling, but those are the facts whether you like it or not. - > > > Too bad that ruling was superceded by the later ruling I just > quoted, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Correct, and until then we're stuck with the ATF's position and > enforcement. And since there is no enforcement, we are stuck with nothing. Oh, and your fear and loathing in the mean time. > > BUT the fact that it was already ruled that rocket motors are PADS is > in > > no way superceeded. In fact it is now a given. Finding: "In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA." SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > > Relief must wait till the end. > > > > Correct, and until then we're stuck with the ATF's position and > > enforcement. > > And since there is no enforcement... Prove there is no enforcement. Openly manufacture and sell motors without ATF permits. > ...we are stuck with nothing. "Nothing" is not a win. > Oh, and your fear and loathing in the mean time. Random, meaningless insults don't change the facts. r > Prove there is no enforcement. Openly manufacture and sell motors > without ATF permits. Okay. Have TRA simply follow the rules (NFPA-1125) and RENEW motors that were previously certified, and then, I'll do the above, and as an added bonus, you guys can really have fun calling ATF and DOT almost daily. And I can demonstrate how "living the lifestyle" overcomes you a.sholes in actual practice. :) I await TRA to follow the rules. I have been waiting since 1992. 13 years and counting . . . SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > > Too bad that ruling was superceded by the later ruling I just > quoted, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Correct, and until then we're stuck with the ATF's position and > enforcement. And since there is no enforcement, we are stuck with nothing. Oh, and your fear and loathing in the mean time. > > BUT the fact that it was already ruled that rocket motors are PADS is > in > > no way superceeded. In fact it is now a given. Finding: "In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA." Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > > <raydunakin@aol.com> wrote in message > > > news:1114629929.269274.143660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.c om... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Ummm, your Jerry bashing opinion doesn't matter, nor Jerry's nor the ATFs. > What the JUDGE says is what matters and he's ruled the pad exemption exists. That's not what he said in his most recent ruling: "ORDERED, that the plantiffs' request for the Court to (1) order the ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices and (2) order that the Question and Answer sheet currently posted on the ATF's website either be removed or revised are DENIED. It is further ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this case as previously scheduled by the court." > It is sad that being right over Jerry is all that does matter. No, the truth matters. Ignoring any facts that get in the way of what you want is not the truth. > > "Unfortunately, our system of laws is set up so that an agency's own > > interpretation of its regulations is valid unless you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > law. I'd go to the NAR web page and get the statement, but that would be a > waste of my time. Try reading everything on the case, not just the parts you like. > > > > <raydunakin@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1114629929.269274.143660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.c om... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "ORDERED, that the plantiffs' request for the Court to (1) order the > ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices and A form of RELIEF, he said wait till later, not NO. > (2) order that the Question and Answer sheet currently posted on the > ATF's website either be removed or revised are DENIED. A form of RELIEF, he said wait till later, not NO. > It is further > ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this > case as previously scheduled by the court." A form of RELIEF, he said wait till later, not NO. > > It is sad that being right over Jerry is all that does matter. READ THIS!!!!! > No, the truth matters. Ignoring any facts that get in the way of what > you want is not the truth. That applies to you and what YOU said!!!!!! > Try reading everything on the case, not just the parts you like. Try understanding the legal meaning of what you read. Have a LAWYER read and explain it to you Ray. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > > <raydunakin@aol.com> wrote in message > > > news:1114708971.655482.277660@g14g200 0cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > A form of RELIEF, he said wait till later, not NO. It is not a "form of relief". He allowed the ATF to continue enforcing their published interpretation of the law, which is that there is no PAD exemption for sport rocket motors. He did say we could take it up later, but until then we're stuck with the ATF's position. "Wait until later" is not "yes". > > > > <raydunakin@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1114629929.269274.143660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.c om... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this > case as previously scheduled by the court." It's interesting the phrase "However, this challenge is not properly before the Court.". > > It is sad that being right over Jerry is all that does matter. > > No, the truth matters. Ignoring any facts that get in the way of what > you want is not the truth. Yes, to be more right than Jerry no matter how deep it takes rmr. Previous statement from NAR/TRA legal (not a bunch of on-line Don Quixotes) and unchanged/corrected: "This means that unless and until BATFE properly promulgates a rule rescinding the 1994 PADs exemption, fully assembled rocket motors are propellant actuated devices under the law and are exempt from regulation by BATFE." And in the 11/2/04 and 12/22/04 statements from legal: "Also, we again strongly recommend that members in the field report in detail any actions taking by ATF personnel in the field, particularly if they use the ATF's "Questions and Answers" as the basis for their action" But,.. you win (and rmr loses). I'm going to hit the filter thread shower to see if I can get rid of the stench. Please continue bickering with and quoting Jerry. It leaves those who filter him and his club but one choice. P.S. If anyone {else} is still reading, please donate to the legal fund https://secure.consumersinterest.com/nar/NARfrompres9911.html#donorform and if you want to actually discuss rocketry: www.rocketryforum.com > > > "Unfortunately, our system of laws is set up so that an agency's > own [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Try reading everything on the case, not just the parts you like. I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think this is purely NAR/TRA propaganda that is used by the major orgs to continue their lawsuit.... Over in the UK they have much stricter controls on APCP motors then even the BATFE wants over here: in the UK ANY APCP motor is considered an explosive with the requiste licenses and magazines required. Even with that heavy burden, if you talk to any of the UK rocketeers they will tell you that over the past 10-15 years or so, HPR has actualy grown: and the deciding factor that has stunted growth somewhat has been the lack of available motors due not to their overly restrictive explosives laws, but due to the fact of their EU CE marking requirements( you can think of CE marking as the equivalent of our DOT requirements for testing and classification-EX numbers) and the fact that major UK HPR companies just haven't put in any order lately for AT/RCS motors due to this CE marking requirement. Once the CE marking gets sorted out, they will have a plenthora of APCP motors to use. Theres no doubt the future holds price increase but thats more a function of the marketplace than any onerous manufacturing requirements. I will suggest that those people who have LEUP will continue to get LEUP.....I will also suggest that those that refuse to get LEUP will still refuse and will go on to alternate forms of rocketry: whether it be Hybrids(my bet) or AR....although the CPSC seems to have started a push to tighten the AR market as of lately...and if the laws become so onerous for HPR that people will just not hassle with it all, theres always model rocketry to fall back on......HPR may be eventually banned in this country but Model Rocketry will live forever.... And I hope I don't live to see the day when people decide to break the laws to use black market motors, but I think we have already gone there and done that..... If the HPr market dries up here in the USA sue to over-regulation you can always move to Canada or the UK, Switzerland or the Netherlands where HPR seems to more welcome and I would submit is actually growing.... shockie B) Jerry Irvine wrote: > The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, > Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a > revolutionary change in consumer rocket safety, access, use in schools > and use in local parks. > > The second era of model rocketry was pioneered by Kline, Irvine, > Rosenfield and others whereby increased rocket size, power, technology, > and variety motivated increased toleration by NAR and FAA. > > The third era has not yet been defined. But so far it is looking to be > radically increased regulation and radically reduced participation. Depends on the outcome of the court case. If we win, it'll be a whole new era of growth for the hobby. If we lose, it'll drastically alter the hobby and radically reduce participation. If HPR survives at all it will only be at a few locations, hosted by clubs with large on-site magazines. The reduced market will kill off some manufacturers and dealers, and force massive price increases on those who remain. Anyone who can't get storage, or can't/won't get a LEUP, will either be forced out of the hobby or be driven underground, dependent on homemade and/or black market motors. > I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think this is > purely NAR/TRA propaganda that is used by the major orgs to continue their > lawsuit.... Membership figures are not propoganda. They are real. > Over in the UK they have much stricter controls on APCP motors then even the > BATFE wants over here: in the UK ANY APCP motor is considered an explosive > with the requiste licenses and magazines required. Not exactly. There are exempt classes by UN number where there are no storage requirements or posession limits at all. The only caveat is they have to be 100% pre-manufactured. No TRA-EX, no major modifications. > Even with that heavy > burden, if you talk to any of the UK rocketeers they will tell you that over > the past 10-15 years or so, HPR has actualy grown: and the deciding factor > that has stunted growth somewhat has been the lack of available motors due > not to their overly restrictive explosives laws, but due to the fact of > their EU CE marking requirements Yes. ( you can think of CE marking as the > equivalent of our DOT requirements for testing and classification-EX > numbers) NO!! That is their HSE. This message is repleat with examples of what I said in email to you. You speak before vetting ANYTHING at all. Your posts cannot be trusted. That is not a personal attack, but a fact. Jerry massive clueless rants left in for the amusement of experts. > and the fact that major UK HPR companies just haven't put in any > order lately for AT/RCS motors due to this CE marking requirement. Once the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > shockie B) > > The third era has not yet been defined. But so far it is looking to > be > > radically increased regulation and radically reduced participation. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think this >> is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Membership figures are not propoganda. They are real. Last membership figures I saw for the NAR at least shows a steady number.... >> Over in the UK they have much stricter controls on APCP motors then even >> the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There are exempt classes by UN number where there are no storage > requirements or posession limits at all. thats not what HSE tells me... HSE tells me that ALL APCP motors are explosives..... > The only caveat is they have to be 100% pre-manufactured. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That is their HSE. what do you mean by No here? I was making an analogy..... DOT farms out its testing to 4 entities here in the USA for UN number classification, .... CE marking for civil explosives is the essentially the exact same thing in the UK by the HSE.... The HSE does the testing (or other CA does the testing ) and the CE marking results in UN numbers assignment... The test done for Ce marking is essentially the same tetst the DOt require per the UN tests manual..... > This message is repleat with examples of what I said in email to you. > You speak before vetting ANYTHING at all. You're the person that doens't know what he talking about.... I am in contact with HSE about certain issues and thats what they tell me...I have also done extensive study and research on CE marking..... > Your posts cannot be trusted. That is not a personal attack, but a fact. > > Jerry > > massive clueless rants left in for the amusement of experts. At least I know better than to ship rocket motors as model aircraft parts....what does that say about you vetting anything? dohhhh shockie B) >>I am in contact with HSE about certain issues and thats what they tell >>me... What ever for ? >>>I am in contact with HSE about certain issues and thats what they tell >>>me... > >What ever for ? He's 'helping' Big Fine get everything straighened out. 8-) > >>I am in contact with HSE about certain issues and thats what they tell > >>me... > > What ever for ? Good question. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>> I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think this >>> is [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > >shockie B) I think Big Fine should have been an expert by the time he earned his name. He'd really have to be stupid if he didn't - but then again his name should tell you something. 8-) > >> I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think this > >> is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Last membership figures I saw for the NAR at least shows a steady number.... Apple Computer grew something like 400%. Perhaps NAR could manage 20? Jerry > testing ) and the CE marking results in UN numbers assignment No. ... The test > done for Ce marking is essentially the same tetst the DOt require per the UN > tests manual..... No. > > This message is repleat with examples of what I said in email to you. > > You speak before vetting ANYTHING at all. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >Apple Computer grew something like 400%. Was 399 of that from the iPod? > >Apple Computer grew something like 400%. > > Was 399 of that from the iPod? 80/20 SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 ok jerry whatever.. I have the HSE application guide sitting here in front of me and that's what it says.... perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives results in? shockie B) >> >> I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think >> >> this [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> > This message is repleat with examples of what I said in email to you. >> > You speak before vetting ANYTHING at all. >perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives >results in? >shockie B) I bet it begins with Big and ends with Fine. > >perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives > >results in? > >shockie B) > > I bet it begins with Big and ends with Fine. Fixated. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives >>>results in? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Fixated. Poor jerry doesn't like the reputation that he cultivated for himself. > >>>perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives > >>>results in? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Poor jerry doesn't like the reputation that he cultivated for himself. Fixated. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>>perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives >>>>>results in? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Fixated. Maybe it's all that money that you owe Me. >>>>perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives >>>>results in? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Poor jerry doesn't like the reputation that he cultivated for himself. Shite happens when you 'Live the Life.' Right 'Big FIne?' > ok jerry whatever.. I have the HSE application guide sitting here in front > of me and that's what it says.... > > perhaps you will inform me as to what CE marking for civil explosives > results in? Permission to imprint the product with CE indicia and offer for consumer sale in europe and other areas. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 I stand corrected.....for some odd reason some AT/RCS reloads in the 54mm range are indeed exempt from explosives licenses.... but they still require a registered explosives store (ie magazine) and require the UK RCA certificate...... http://www.hpr.org.uk/hprhome.htm?hpr/legal/certificates-hdr.htm&hpr/legal/certi fic.htm shockie B) >> I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think this >> is [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >> be >> > radically increased regulation and radically reduced participation. > I'm not sure I agree with your doom and gloom predictions... I think this is > purely NAR/TRA propaganda that is used by the major orgs to continue their > lawsuit.... No propaganda, just my own reasoned judgement. > Over in the UK they have much stricter controls on APC P motors then even the > BATFE wants over here: in the UK ANY APCP motor is considered an explosive > with the requiste licenses and magazines required. As bad as their regs are, in some ways they have it better than we do. As I understand, the permits are cheaper and easier to obtain, and the storage regs are much less harsh. > and if the laws become so onerous for > HPR that people will just not hassle with it all, theres always model > rocketry to fall back on......HPR may be eventually banned in this country > but Model Rocketry will live forever.... So what? Model rocketry is kid stuff. It's no replacement for high power. > And I hope I don't live to see the day when people decide to break the laws > to use black market motors, but I think we have already gone there and done > that..... That's how the hobby started. > If the HPr market dries up here in the USA sue to over-regulation you can > always move to Canada or the UK, Switzerland or the Netherlands Or we could throw the facists out and take back our government. ray: you gonna have to explain this one to me: "That's how the hobby started." How did this hobby start with black market motors? lets see.. orville carlise hand made the first "commerical motors".... and then when supply could not keep up with demand, they were made 1st by Brown Manufacturing and then Estes.... shockie B) > ray: > you gonna have to explain this one to me: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and then when supply could not keep up with demand, they were made 1st by > Brown Manufacturing and then Estes.... Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant High Power Rocketry, not modrocs. In the beginning, HPR was largely a renegade activity. If everyone had waited for it to become completely legal, we'd still be waiting today and HPR would not exist. > ray: > you gonna have to explain this one to me: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > shockie B) Where is Brown Manufacturing today? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 I don't know where Brown Mfg. is today..they probably do not exist as they were actually a fireworks manufacturer. and its my understanding that the rocket motors they were producing were prone to "cato" so G.Harry approached estes or vice versa and the rest is history as they say... shockie B) >> ray: >> you gonna have to explain this one to me: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Where is Brown Manufacturing today? > ray: > you gonna have to explain this one to me: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and then when supply could not keep up with demand, they were made 1st by > Brown Manufacturing and then Estes.... No, adults made their rocket motors mostly legally and flew rockets before MR. Like you saw on october sky by the way. problem was kids did too, like you saw on october sky, and many blew up causing problems. Model Rocketry (tm) was a business started to keep kids from blowing them selves up and worked real well, even to this day. Adults still built un regulated and generaly in most places legal rockets, known as armature rocketry (tm) they got heads butting with MR due to MR advertising AR as bad and evil causing AR to get looked at as bad. most AR went and ignored the MR so they could do as they pleased. Some MR folks made larger MR motors, like Irv and FSI etc.. That got many young MR safe and sane scientists getting the taste for needing even larger motors for their experiments. FSI and Enerjets were not large enough. Green motors appeared at gatherings and conventions and those in the know got them. Experiments continued and larger rocket built on MR techniques rather then AR techniques appeared. Really this was still AR, but using MR style AP motors and Rockets. MR folks didn't like it and Who flew the ""G" started. To keep that from getting branded as evil, a group got together and formed a corporation that had legal exemption on the then current and only NFPA 1122 and used the name of an old 1964 science club. It was legal and working. Soon, this band of folks were being called "biker rocketry" by some hand wringers. many in the NAR went to the new club to fly large rockets and motors and have access to larger payloads. the NAR saw this and understood they too must embrace larger motors, or they would be left with just the contest rocket base for adult memberships. this is the cliff notes of the first three chapters in the triolgy. > > ray: > > you gonna have to explain this one to me: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > this is the cliff notes of the first three chapters in the triolgy. A lot of details left out and a strong regional bias (North central), but this should be in the FAQ. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >known as armature rocketry (tm) Is that when you use spin stabilization? - Rick "Amateur pedant" Dickinson Signature"I've always been taught that if you code an arbitrary limit, try to make it a power of two, or at least avoid powers of ten, so people think there's a good technical reason for it." -- Good advice from Peter Corlett > in some ways they have it better than we do. > As I understand, the permits are cheaper and easier to obtain, and the > storage regs are much less harsh. agreed. It is akin to getting an overnight parking permit from the police. (Suburban CA areas sometimes ban overnight parking). SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > can't/won't get a LEUP, will either be forced out of the hobby or be > driven underground, dependent on homemade and/or black market motors. Wanting to grow a bit in the hobby at least to level one. I explored the prospect of being able to acquire some 4F BP for possible use in the future, for a mini dual deployment system. Mini due to the fact that I would incorporate it in a G or less model so I could fly it locally. I appreciate the privilege to travel and see M sized models go up. Really neat but I'd like to be able to enjoy the hobby locally without the special requirements. It looks like in my state, Illinois, I simply have to get a Firearm Owners ID card. Fair enough. Fill out the form, send in the $15.00 (I think) and then I would be able to legally hold BP. I also could acquire a rifle, handgun or shotgun (Getting fingerprinted for a pistol.) and would be able to directly blast away at any or everything, man or beast until arrested, shot or killed. (sarcasm here) Now if I wish to store a few of the larger APCP motors, I have to pay $100.00 a year, get interviewed by the BATF to make sure I have no evil intents and then renew at $100.00 a year to boot. Really makes sense doesn't it. I Damn sure hope the lawsuit is won. I talked to a rocketeer who says he lives in a residential area about the LEUP issue and he said he got his and the agent said he didn't consider it a problem to store K engines in his house. That certainly goes against the grain although I believe the modeler and the agent are right that it is no big deal. Kurt Savegnago > >>The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > at any or everything, man or beast until arrested, shot or killed. > (sarcasm here) The vision of Vern Estes was to DIFFERENTIATE rocketry from firearms and fireworks. Until the most recent spate of TRA/NAR/Quest/Estes/AT leaders forwarded the NFPA process, it was working too. Most states had "aeromodel" exemptions. ATF had a wide exemption. Federal Firearms regs allowed recreational use of BP. CPSC only wanted to protect children. FAA increased their exempt limits "the exact amount asked". ALL new restrictions have been added by NAR/TRA/Quest/Estes/AT via the NFPA process and by the respective BOD's of NAR and TRA by internal rule additions, none of which are motivated or mandated by safety, field practice, or experienced events. In fact most have been political, bureaucratic, proactive against a problem that does not exist, revenge, or pure ego. > Now if I wish to store a few of the larger APCP motors, I have to pay > $100.00 a year, get interviewed by the BATF to make sure I have no evil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I talked to a rocketeer who says he lives in a residential area about > the > LEUP issue and he said he got his and the agent said he didn't > consider it a problem to store K engines in his house. I TOLD YOU SO. > That certainly > goes against the grain although I believe the modeler and the agent > are right that it is no big deal. > > Kurt Savegnago SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > ATF had a wide exemption. Which they now say does not apply. > Federal Firearms regs allowed recreational use of BP. IF you parse the sentence that way, maybe. ATF doesn't. > CPSC only wanted to protect children. And now they're just as out of control and power-mad as the ATF. > ALL new restrictions have been added by NAR/TRA/Quest/Estes/AT via the > NFPA process and by the respective BOD's of NAR and TRA by internal rule > additions... Bull! TRA/NAR do not make ATF policy. They do not make CPSC policy. Internal organizational rules of TRA/NAR did not create ATF's policy to regulate rocket motors, nor can those orgs reverse ATF policy simply by changing their internal rules. E > > ATF had a wide exemption. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bull! TRA/NAR do not make ATF policy. Yes TRA does. I have posted the proof (which you REPEATEDLY ignore). Hence moron. > They do not make CPSC policy. > Internal organizational rules of TRA/NAR did not create ATF's policy to > regulate rocket motors, nor can those orgs reverse ATF policy simply by > changing their internal rules. > > E SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>ATF had a wide exemption. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Yes TRA does. I have posted the proof (which you REPEATEDLY ignore). You have never posted such information, so apparently, you're the moron. Tell us now, just how NAR and TRA control the Federal government. > Tell us now, just how NAR and TRA control the Federal government. One obvious way is a lawsuit. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>Tell us now, just how NAR and TRA control the Federal government. > > > > One obvious way is a lawsuit. The ATF could ignore the final outcome of the trial, just like you ignore the fact that there is a fraud judgment against you to the tune of over $60,000. The ATF could ignore the final outcome or the trial, just like you ignore the fact that the DOT fined you $40,000 for fraudulently shipping HazMat as inert materials. The ATF could ignore the final outcome of the trial, just like you ignore the ATF. Courtrooms and Judges don't administer enforcement, They only administer judgments. > > Tell us now, just how NAR and TRA control the Federal government. > > One obvious way is a lawsuit. Jerry, that's the stupidest thing you've said in a long history of saying stupid things! If TRA/NAR could control the Federal government and make ATF policy, they wouldn't NEED a lawsuit! >> > Tell us now, just how NAR and TRA control the Federal government. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >saying stupid things! If TRA/NAR could control the Federal government >and make ATF policy, they wouldn't NEED a lawsuit! Ray, You are trying to have an intellectual dual with an unarmed man. > You are trying to have an intellectual dual Ironic SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > I talked to a rocketeer who says he lives in a residential area about > the LEUP issue and he said he got his and the agent said he didn't > consider it a problem to store K engines in his house. That certainly > goes against the grain although I believe the modeler and the agent > are right that it is no big deal. Did the agent allow the rocketeer to store motors in his house, without a magazine? Or did he simply agree with the rocketeer that such storage was regulatory overkill? Many local agents freely admit that regulating HPR is unnecessary and a waste of their time -- but they still must enforce it. Local agents don't make policy. F > > I talked to a rocketeer who says he lives in a residential area > about [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > F F must be for false. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>> I talked to a rocketeer who says he lives in a residential area >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > F must be for false. In your case jerry, F stands for fraud. when are you going to pay Me the money that you owe Me? are you going to be a deadbeat all your life? > > Did the agent allow the rocketeer to store motors in his house, without > > a magazine? Or did he simply agree with the rocketeer that such storage > > was regulatory overkill? Many local agents freely admit that regulating > > HPR is unnecessa ry and a waste of their time -- but they still must > > enforce it. Local agents don't make policy. > > > > F > > F must be for false. So you are now claiming that local agents are in control of ATF policy, and that they do not follow the dictates of ATF headquarters? Not only is that assertion ridiculous on its face, but it is provably false. Many ATF agents have told people they disagree with the rocketry-regulation policies set by ATF HQ but they are bound to enforce it. ¿ > Did the agent allow the rocketeer to store motors in his house, without > a magazine? Or did he simply agree with the rocketeer that such storage > was regulatory overkill? Many local agents freely admit that regulating > HPR is unnecessary and a waste of their time -- but they still must > enforce it. Local agents don't make policy. Correct, they don't make the policy. They do violate the law and my rights, which is a federal offense. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > > Did the agent allow the rocketeer to store motors in his house, without > > a magazine? Or did he simply agree with the rocketeer that such storage [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Correct, they don't make the policy. They do violate the law and my rights, > which is a federal offense. Under what code section? > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the > struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.