 |
 | 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 / July 2005ROL NEWS--AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors
AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors July 20, 2005 Web posted at: 5:37 PM EDT (ROL Newswire) -- AeroTech is re-releasing its 18mm D21T single-use model rocket motors, which have not been manufactured since October 2001. These motors are the same physical size (diameter and length) as a black powder 'C' motor, but produce over twice the total impulse. The D21T also delivers more power than a black powder 'D' motor in a much smaller and lighter form factor. They are perfect for rockets of lightweight construction as well as oversize models that need more impulse than a 'C' motor can provide. The D21T will be available in 4 and 7 second delays. The D21T is defined as a "model rocket motor" and while no user certification is required, they are recommended for consumers 16 years of age or older. The D21T can be shipped via U.S. Postal Service Parcel Post with no hazmat fee, due to the fact that the motor contains less than 30 grams of propellant. A copy of the D21T instructions (including a thrust curve and other motor data) in PDF format may be downloaded from the AeroTech Resource Library at http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com. Source: RCS Rocket Motor Components (RCS), Inc. >AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors >July 20, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Source: RCS Rocket Motor Components (RCS), Inc. Hope Gary will answer the important questions - barcode & bag thickness. >> AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors >> July 20, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Hope Gary will answer the important questions - barcode & bag > thickness. Barcode- of course. Bag thickness- 0.004" Gary  SignatureGary Rosenfield President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace Division of RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc. 2113 W. 850 N. St. Cedar City, UT 84720 http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com >>> AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors >>> July 20, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Gary Thanks for your speedy reply to this critical question. I'm surprised ROL doesn't provide this info for everything. 8-) > >>> AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors > >>> July 20, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Thanks for your speedy reply to this critical question. I'm surprised > ROL doesn't provide this info for everything. 8-) Actually, another real question. Must, or have, these been rectified? They've been out of production for about 4 years, and are now made in a much different facility. We all know that there might be a problem... Just look at the Ellis J350s! >> >>> AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors >> >>> July 20, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >different facility. We all know that there might be a problem... Just look >at the Ellis J350s! Just use Kevlar to build the fin can & you 'shouldn't' have a problem. 8-) > They've been out of production for about 4 years, and are now made in a much > different facility. We all know that there might be a problem... Just look > at the Ellis J350s! Made at Ellis Mountain (explod-o-jets). Cedar City, UT is "blessed". :) 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 > Actually, another real question. Must, or have, these been rectified? Rectified 'm? Hell, damn near killified 'm! (I think you meant "recertified", no?) ;-) >>>>> AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors >>>>> July 20, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > different facility. We all know that there might be a problem... Just look > at the Ellis J350s! The D21T is still NAR "rectified": http://nar.org/SandT/pdf/Aerotech/D21.pdf The "Ellis J350s" were made in eastern Texas in a facility that did not have temperature and humidity control. AeroTech actually had the same problem in Las Vegas during the summer "monsoon season". The manufacturing facility was cooled with "swamps" which raised the humidity to similar levels for a few months of each year. Current production is in Utah in a temperature and humidity controlled environment. The facility was examined by a DOT-approved lab and was found to be acceptable by the DOT. If you read our DOT approvals you will see the Cedar City, UT address listed at the top. Gary SignatureGary Rosenfield President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace Division of RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc. 2113 W. 850 N. St. Cedar City, UT 84720 http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com > Current production is in Utah in a temperature and humidity controlled > environment. The facility was examined by a DOT-approved lab and was found [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gary For over $2.4m in capital cost, Iwould hope so. What was Ellis, about $50k in capital cost or so? 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 > The D21T is still NAR "rectified": Darn spell checkers! You know what was meant! Seems the page at NAR you reference says the motor was last certified 9/3/95, and as it's been not made in almost 4 years, and clearly seems to be out of the "three year rule" for S&T and TMT! Come on Gary.. Do you have some deal where S&T doesn't follow their own rules for your motors? Per the NAR documentation you provided, it's been almost 10 years since they tested this motor! The Ellis J350 "problem" might not have occurred if S&T/TMT had re-certed the motor based on the change of manufacturer, the location, etc... RCS (the current manufacturer) is not the same company as Aerotech (the company that had the certification). You bought the AT IP in a fire sale, from your self, but the change in manufacturing location/environment means a big change which needs to be tested! RCS is a different company, making motors at a different location (state) than AT. Everything needs to be recertified! (a prime example is the d21 which has not been tested in 10 years!), or S&T and TMT are clearly not performing their function... Does anybody else remember the "red delay liner" problem? Yet another case where Gary got by with changes that were ignored by the testing orgs, but turned into a real problem..... Gary, spend $20 and send S&T a new set of reloads for the D21 and get it tested. Heck, it's been 10 years! I hope the RCS motors test out the same as the AT motors, in all cases, but then again we won't know unless they are tested! > > The D21T is still NAR "rectified": > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I hope the RCS motors test out the same as the AT motors, in all cases, but > then again we won't know unless they are tested! May I pay your renewal fees for you Gary? Then I can have certified motors again :) 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 D21T is still NAR "rectified": >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > May I pay your renewal fees for you Gary? Then I can have certified > motors again :) jerry, Better stick to worrying about your own financial "position". > Seems the page at NAR you reference says the motor was last certified > 9/3/95, and as it's been not made in almost 4 years, and clearly seems to be > out of the "three year rule" for S&T and TMT! NAR has been lax in updating the "last tested date" on the PDF files. I've asked them to fix this, and been told that they would do so. > RCS is a different company, making motors at a different location (state) > than AT. Everything needs to be recertified! (a prime example is the d21 > which has not been tested in 10 years!), or S&T and TMT are clearly not > performing their function... Agreed. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org People who exercise their embryonic freedom day after day, little by little, expand that freedom. People who do not will find that it withers until they are literally "being lived." They are acting out scripts written by parents, associates, and society. --Stephen R. Covey Again: Is the pdf showing the "last tested date" or the "last date we tested this motor and found out it's performance changed"? In other words, if the retest shows the same performance withing acceptable limits, they don't re-generate the same data sheet. true, but his new d21 also uses a new molded casing that the old D21 didin't....I would consider that a major change.. shockie B) > Again: Is the pdf showing the "last tested date" or the "last date we > tested this motor and found out it's performance changed"? In other > words, if the retest shows the same performance withing acceptable > limits, they don't re-generate the same data sheet. > true, but his new d21 also uses a new molded casing that the old D21 > didin't....I would consider that a major change.. > > shockie B) Ignore the man behind the curtain. Hey on a non-adversarial note, this seems to indicate we are closer indeed to the "Quest" D20 as well. 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 yeah I asked over on TRF why in the world we need an AT/RCS D21 and a Quest D20, when both are probably made by the same people..... shockie B) >> true, but his new d21 also uses a new molded casing that the old D21 >> didin't....I would consider that a major change.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jerry > true, but his new d21 also uses a new molded casing that the old D21 > didin't....I would consider that a major change.. > > shockie B) Yup. I'd say this was enough to trigger a new cert. I notice that Gary hasn't chimed in on this thread... He got caught with his shorts down (again) and just wants it to go away. > > true, but his new d21 also uses a new molded casing that the old D21 > > didin't....I would consider that a major change.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hasn't chimed in on this thread... He got caught with his shorts down > (again) and just wants it to go away. When you are the "favorite son" of two member associations, he gets some special consideration. I am not so firmly opposed to that as the negative special attention others get as well. A level AND FAIR playing field is all I have ever advocated at Tripoli but that is a distant dream. 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 >>>true, but his new d21 also uses a new molded casing that the old D21 >>>didin't....I would consider that a major change.. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jerry Felons are not allowed to play. >>>> true, but his new d21 also uses a new molded casing that the old D21 >>>> didin't....I would consider that a major change.. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Felons are not allowed to play. Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993. Gary SignatureGary Rosenfield President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace Division of RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc. 2113 W. 850 N. St. Cedar City, UT 84720 http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com > Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993. > > Gary So, was the current case design ever passed thru S&T or TMT for testing? Based on the S&T doc you provided, the motor was last tested by S&T 10 years ago, by a different company (AT) and made in a different state/facility, and was OOP for 4 years! RCS bought the IP of AT in a chapter 11 firesale. If USR had bought these same resources, would S&T and TMT have been as "forgiving"? Gary.. you got to play by the rules. Send d21's to S&T and have them tested! You avoided it with the Ellis J350's and the "red delay liner", and we all know what happened! (Gary dances, but keeps stepping on his own feet!) > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Let me start off by saying I believe the Ellis J350s should have been decertified -- but based on the field reports of failures, not on anything else. IIRC, I believe there was a statement from S&T stating that they accepted the transfer of the certifications from Aerotech to RCS. Given that, the rest of your claims are hot air. The wording of the rules allows for some changes in manufacturing process -- and it's sufficiently clear/unclear that realistically S&T will not 'jump in' unless necessary/requested (for legitimate reasons, not because someone has a bug in their tail). If they have been using a molded case for years, minor changes in the method/design of the molding won't automatically trigger a recertification -- it really isn't in ANYONE'S interest to do that -- especially since there is no track record of consumer problems in this regard. David Erbas-White >(Gary dances, but keeps stepping on his own feet!) > > > >>Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993. > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > decertified -- but based on the field reports of failures, not on > anything else. You weren't around for the red delay liner issue, I'd guess.... > IIRC, I believe there was a statement from S&T stating that they > accepted the transfer of the certifications from Aerotech to RCS. Given > that, the rest of your claims are hot air. Not quite.. In that S&T has the re-cert every three years thing... Based on the S&T doc (provided by Gary), it's been 10. > The wording of the rules allows for some changes in manufacturing > process -- and it's sufficiently clear/unclear that realistically S&T > will not 'jump in' unless necessary/requested (for legitimate reasons, > not because someone has a bug in their tail). Red delay liners, Ellis J350. That's two strikes. "non minor change" is like "porn"... Hard to define, but easy to ID. Was it a "minor change" in the molded case of the D21? I don't know! Was the nozzle redesigned, or the fore end? We won't know unless the motor is tested! Why doesn't RCS resubmit stuff that's been OOP for over 3 years? Don't get me wrong, I fly RCS/AT stuff and have RMS HW for 18-75mm. But, given the changes, I think that RCS should not be given a rubber stamp for shiiping motors without testing (in a new facility with new procedures). And the examples are the Ellis j350's and the red delay liner! Woody, I'm responding in this thread because you pose some legitimate comments (my responses are in-line) -- but frankly, I had second thoughts upon reading some of your other comments in this thread that are nothing more than ad-hominem attacks on Gary. David Erbas-White > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > I vaguely remember it, but as I was doing solely modrocs at the time, didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it. Feel free to refresh my memory, or point me to a couple of pertinent threads. I'll state in advance that if it's similar to the J350 fiasco, I would support corrective action (not necessarily decertification, by the way). >>IIRC, I believe there was a statement from S&T stating that they >>accepted the transfer of the certifications from Aerotech to RCS. Given [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > IIRC, there have been a couple of comments in the past few weeks stating that S&T doesn't always update the PDF files correctly, but that they apparently were tested more recently than 1995. >>The wording of the rules allows for some changes in manufacturing >>process -- and it's sufficiently clear/unclear that realistically S&T [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I didn't know we were talking baseball here, I thought it was rocketry? And if we're going to talk about non-de-certified motors, where do things such as the Estes 'poopy clay' D12 motors that had all sorts of failures come in? >"non minor change" is like "porn"... Hard to define, but easy to ID. > > Except that everyone has a different 'line'. My line may/may not be a bit different than yours... In my mind, the entire point of the certifications are 1) safety, and 2) user confidence (in that order). There have never been (to the best of my memory) any safety problems arising out of use of any certified motors, so essentially that part of certification is 'working'. The J350 problems were more along the lines of 'user confidence' (and the associated loss of rocket/hardware). In thinking this through, here's my thought process: A) A manufacturer takes resources to R&D a new engine. They then submit the 'design' for certification. B) The certification authority then either certifies the motor (or not). Occasionally, they may offer feedback based on their tests that cause the manufacturer to either alter their product, or the packaging. C) Once certified, as long as the manufacturer is properly following regulations (i.e., dating lots appropriately, shipping appropriately, having appropriate state/federal permits), there is no other real 'trigger' to de-certify a motor, unless... D) A motor may be decertified if the testing authority finds either a 1) safety, or 2) user confidence issue. Which brings me back to something that seems sorely lacking -- it would seem that if/when users have a problem with a motor, it is up to them to 'complain' to the proper authorities (i.e., the certification agency) if they are experiencing these problems. For the NAR, this would mean filing a MESS form. It would further appear appropriate that review of a certification should come about from USER request, not just simply because S&T 'feels like it'. If there are established criteria (i.e., more than 10% of J350s CATO'ing, for example--as a hypothetical), then it's appropriate for S&T to step in -- but barring that, S&T could arbitrarily put someone out of business by continously requiring re-certification just for the heck of it. It should take several, repeated, similar failures by different end users to 'trigger' an investigation into de-certification. The only exception to this would be if something was SO dangerous/catostrophic that it posed an immediate threat -- and I would put forth that even in that case, it's something that the BOT ought to vote on in an official manner. >Was it a "minor change" in the molded case of the D21? I don't know! Was >the nozzle redesigned, or the fore end? We won't know unless the motor is >tested! > > See above. Manfacturers (of MANY products) make changes all the time. There is no 'clean' line as to what requires re-certification, unless you want to raise this HOBBY up to the level of military specification. Barring any clear problems, and/or user complaints, there is no real need to do this, ESPECIALLY for a HOBBY product. >Why doesn't RCS resubmit stuff that's been OOP for over 3 years? > > Don't know. If you truly believe that they are out of certification, have you asked S&T about this? There could be many possible answers -- and here's a hypothetical (that may even be real, I don't know). It could be that the NAR BOT voted that during the time that Aerotech was out of business due to the fire and reconstruction, that there was a 'moratoriam' on recertification of their motors. In my opinion, (and obviously IANAL), this would at the very least be 'reasonable' enough to survive a court challenge, as I've seen several other types of things occur like this over the years. >Don't get me wrong, I fly RCS/AT stuff and have RMS HW for 18-75mm. But, >given the changes, I think that RCS should not be given a rubber stamp for >shiiping motors without testing (in a new facility with new procedures). >And the examples are the Ellis j350's and the red delay liner! > > And I don't think that is necessary if the manufacturer states that they are using substantially the same design, with substantially the same procedures, to produce substantially the same product. What you fail to realize is that the manufacturer is the one that has the most to lose if they have a defective product -- even if it's not a safety issue. Let's take a hypothetical 45mm product line -- if a manufacturer tooled up and made inventory in this 45mm line, and then it was found to be unreliable, they would (best case) be stuck with product they couldn't sell, and (worst case) have to pay out for liability problems, such as damaged hardware/rockets, or even property damage. Again, lacking user reports of problems, it is not up to (IMHO) the certifying organization to 'ride herd' over every single aspect of the industry. Here's what would happen in a court case -- it would be up to the manufacturer to 'prove' that the design that was being reviewed in court was the same one that was certified -- and again, if the manufacturer makes a substantial enough change, it is IN THEIR BEST INTEREST to recertify it, for the simple 'exposure' coverage it would grant. But, for minor changes, it becomes too costly/complex to do this -- and you simply wouldn't be able to get motors for hobby use if they did. > > In thinking this through, here's my thought process: > > A) A manufacturer takes resources to R&D a new engine. They then submit > the 'design' for certification. > B) The certification authority then either certifies the motor (or > not). or refuses to even test a compliant motor from a previously (then currently) recognized and approved manufacturer. Examples: USR Hybrids USR renewal certs USR new certs about the time TRA decerted all USR motors ACS exanples Kosdon examples others. All well discussed on rmr back in the day. > Occasionally, they may offer feedback based on their tests that > cause the manufacturer to either alter their product, or the packaging. Almost never. > C) Once certified, as long as the manufacturer is properly following > regulations (i.e., dating lots appropriately, shipping appropriately, > having appropriate state/federal permits), there is no other real > 'trigger' to de-certify a motor, unless... "C" is not a stated basis for decert. ONLY "D" is. Once a motor is certed it is "in". The reason for this is so consumers are not left holding the bag with sudden un-pre-announced decerts. The only exception Mark Bundick has ever proffered was Prodyne motors (John Rahkonen) which were failing left and right and were decertified as a safety measure. He does not cite the example but that MIGHT have also happened to MPC motors after a large stash of improperly sotred (or made) motors were placed on the secondary market (several pallets). > D) A motor may be decertified if the testing authority finds either a 1) > safety, or 2) user confidence issue. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a certification should come about from USER request, not just simply > because S&T 'feels like it'. That would certainly have saved USR from decert had that philosophy or even the existing rules been followed. > If there are established criteria (i.e., > more than 10% of J350s CATO'ing, for example--as a hypothetical), then > it's appropriate for S&T to step in -- but barring that, S&T could > arbitrarily put someone out of business by continously requiring > re-certification just for the heck of it. That would certainly have saved USR from decert had that philosophy or even the existing rules been followed. > It should take several, > repeated, similar failures by different end users to 'trigger' an > investigation into de-certification. The only exception to this would > be if something was SO dangerous/catostrophic that it posed an immediate > threat -- and I would put forth that even in that case, it's something > that the BOT ought to vote on in an official manner. And there is provision for that in the rules anyway. > There could be many possible answers -- and here's a hypothetical (that > may even be real, I don't know). "There's nothing to apologize for. Apparently you are STILL incapable of understanding the difference between making a statement of fact, and the listing of possible scenarios." - Ray Dunakin 5-10-05, ultimate TRA apologist Congrats. You have devolved into Ray Dunakin like behavior. > Again, lacking user reports of problems, it is not up to (IMHO) the > certifying organization to 'ride herd' over every single aspect of the > industry. Live the lifestyle. You are now a proud TRA member :) 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 scum bag irvine wrote: > Live the lifestyle. > > You are now a proud TRA member :) > > scum bag > scum bag irvine wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > scum bag Your "conclusion" is clear. But YOU were the one that posted a "judgement" (over and over) that you could neither read or understand, even the most obvious words, and cannot comprehend that it only applies to the names on it. 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 lying, thieving, scum bag irvine wrote: > But YOU were the one that posted a "judgement" (over and over) that you > could neither read or understand, even the most obvious words, and > cannot comprehend that it only applies to the names on it. > > Jerry Words of a scum bag. > > In thinking this through, here's my thought process: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or refuses to even test a compliant motor from a previously (then > currently) recognized and approved manufacturer. Would you like some cheese with that whine? > Examples: > USR Hybrids When did you send them to TMT? Did you include all the required legal documents? > USR renewal certs > USR new certs about the time TRA decerted all USR motors Not applicable, since your motors aren't legally manufactured or shippable, and thus can't be certified or recertified. > All well discussed on rmr back in the day. Yes, so quit rehashing it. > Once a motor is certed it is "in". The reason for this is so consumers > are not left holding the bag with sudden un-pre-announced decerts. If manufacturers fail to get their motors recertified, or fail to meet the current requirements for certification, the consumers are not left "holding the bag". They have a three year grace period to use up old motors. Unless of course the manufacturer is a scumbag who backdates new motors, thus causing the grace period to be yanked. In that case, it is the manufacturer who has left the consumer holding the bag. > > Which brings me back to something that seems sorely lacking -- it would > > seem that if/when users have a problem with a motor, it is up to them to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That would certainly have saved USR from decert had that philosophy or > even the existing rules been followed. He's not talking about manufacturers who refuse to meet the cert/recert requirements. > > There could be many possible answers -- and here's a hypothetical (that > > may even be real, I don't know). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Congrats. You have devolved into Ray Dunakin like behavior. I feel honored by that distinction, since it is a mark of intelligence and maturity to be able to accept the possibility of solutions and viewpoints other than one's own. That is something you clearly lack, and even disdain. > > Again, lacking user reports of problems, it is not up t o (IMHO) the > > certifying organization to 'ride herd' over every single aspect of the > > industry. > > Live the lifestyle. Which lifestyle? The one that got you a $40k DOT fine and a felony conviction for possession of a destructive device? > > > In thinking this through, here's my thought process: > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Would you like some cheese with that whine? No. I would like you to concede the point. > Once a motor is certed it is "in". The reason for this is so consumers > > are not left holding the bag with sudden un-pre-announced decerts. 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 >> >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> >> What you said. Who is this "AZ Woody" anyway? Gary SignatureGary Rosenfield President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace Division of RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc. 2113 W. 850 N. St. Cedar City, UT 84720 http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com > Who is this "AZ Woody" anyway? The guy standing less than 5' from you at the springfest where Frank was told his motors were beinging decertified. (for cause) and you were right there telling Frank that he wasn't playing by the rules! Keep dancing Gary. You don't address the issue, But the poster! The D21 has been OOP for 3+ years, and per the RECORDS YOU PROVIDED has not been tested in 10 years! Dance, Gary, Dance! Seems RCS motors get blessed by Gary and not S&T or TMT! Spend $50 and send the new D21's in for testing! Why are you resisting this? The only reason you resist is that you know something is different, as they are at out out of the 3 year re-test! Keep dancing Gary.. Can you do the two step? >> Who is this "AZ Woody" anyway? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Keep dancing Gary.. Can you do the two step? Tell you what, I'll make this a "one-step". Reveal your true identity and I will submit some motors, just for you! Gary SignatureGary Rosenfield President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace Division of RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc. 2113 W. 850 N. St. Cedar City, UT 84720 http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com > >> Who is this "AZ Woody" anyway? > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Gary Have him certify them in your name too :) 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 you what, I'll make this a "one-step". Reveal your true identity and I > will submit some motors, just for you! > > Gary I must have really gotten under your skin! Same kind of offer that JI made to me.. "I'll send you a kit, if you stop making me look a fool on newsgroups" Gary, How's the dancing going? So the D21's are not available to vendors, and S&T nor TMT bypassed their own "3 year recert" or OOP rule.. So why did you bother with your PR? Seems you wanted to sneak this under the radar! (need I mention the Ellis J350's or the red delay liner, yet again?) Gary - you dance so well, you should try out for either "American Idol" or the US congress! >Wrote some more smack that does not help anyone out but AZ-Woodies ego Well, have you seen the doctor yet about your persistence over four hours ? > > Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If USR had bought these same resources, would S&T and TMT have been as > "forgiving"? They informed me they would not be, so buying the assets was undesireable. > Gary.. you got to play by the rules. Send d21's to S&T and have them > tested! You avoided it with the Ellis J350's and the "red delay liner", and > we all know what happened! > > (Gary dances, but keeps stepping on his own feet!) Gary got a "step-up" of about $2.4-3.1m in in-hand asset value as a result of the BK and fire sale. Shrewd. 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 >some stuff at 11:15pm 7/24 >Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993. Neglecting of course the motors first sold at NARAM 12. ;) The question remains, is the newly Re-released AT D21T measurably different than the AT D21 previously certified? Alan >Gary >>Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Alan Are you saying the Enerjet D21's were molded and not fiberglass/graphite like the E's and F's were? >>Gary >>>Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Are you saying the Enerjet D21's were molded and not fiberglass/graphite >like the E's and F's were? Yes. In fact, it's, (looking closely), "It's green." Alan > The question remains, is the newly Re-released AT D21T measurably > different than the AT D21 previously certified? > > Alan > > >Gary More correctly, "is the newly Released RCS D21T measurably different than the AT D21 previously certified?" Gary - ship it off to S&T or TMT for testing! Why is this an odd concept for a motor vendor? Or is there a reason you don't want to re-test it? (it's been OOP for 4 years and made in a new facility, after all!) It's simple.. Gary has already sent the motor to vendors and has cash in hand.... >> The question remains, is the newly Re-released AT D21T measurably >> different than the AT D21 previously certified? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It's simple.. Gary has already sent the motor to vendors and has cash in > hand.... The D21s are not yet in production, so they could not have been sent to vendors. Also, I doubt that we have any "cash in hand" for D21s. The D21s that will be manufactured will be IDENTICAL in design and process to the ones that were last made in Las Vegas. The D21s will be retested in accordance with the NAR's own recertification schedule, as are all AeroTech motors and reloads that are NAR certified. If you don't like the way the NAR performs its recertifications, I suggest you take it up with them. Recertification is a NAR policy that is subject to schedule and implementation at the sole discretion of the NAR, and is not an NFPA or other legal requirement. Just who is "AZ Woody" anyway? Gary SignatureGary Rosenfield President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace Division of RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc. 2113 W. 850 N. St. Cedar City, UT 84720 http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com > The D21s are not yet in production, so they could not have been sent to > vendors. Also, I doubt that we have any "cash in hand" for D21s. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accordance with the NAR's own recertification schedule, as are all AeroTech > motors and reloads that are NAR certified. Uh, Dancing Gary, didn't you yourself, claim that the reason for the Ellis J350 problem was a differnece in the environment (humidity), and how that was differnt from Vegas to Utah too? Seems you mentioned the "monsoon season"! Face it dancing Gary.. There has been a change~ > If you don't like the way the NAR performs its recertifications, I suggest > you take it up with them. Recertification is a NAR policy that is subject to > schedule and implementation at the sole discretion of the NAR, and is not an > NFPA or other legal requirement. I must have really hit a sore spot here, Dancing Gary! The recert is 3 years, and for a motor OOP for 4, made in a different facility, by a different company, using what may be a different case, seems to require the question: So why the heck are you announcing the D21 if you don't know that it will pass the cert? You yourself said it must first pass the S&T/TMT requirements (in your post), and being OOP for almost 4 years, seems to retrigger a recert. Dance, Gary, Dance.... I't not an issue of taking it up with S&T or TMT - it's a vendor that is anouncing the release of a new motor WITHOUT the buy in of S&T or TMT! Dance Gary, Dance.. This is a JI tactic..... Spend the $50 and get them certified before announcing them! (and Gary steps on his own foot again during dance practice!) > > The D21s are not yet in production, so they could not have been sent to > > vendors. Also, I doubt that we have any "cash in hand" for D21s. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > was differnt from Vegas to Utah too? Seems you mentioned the "monsoon > season"! Face it dancing Gary.. There has been a change~ The reason for the dancing is a conflict of two entities each making "rulings" favorable to Gary and contrary to the rules and past practice. While it is true any NFPA-1125 testing firm has considerable lattitude in manufacturing changes so long as they are notified of them, so they can request additional testing if needed, there are other factors at work here. The testing firms ("TF") have typically in the past considered a "major change" such things as: - A change in raw materials molded vs tubular cases, fiberglass vs phenolic, unglassined red tubes vs glassined white vs plastic for delays). - Change in ownership - Change in location - Change in mechanical design - Change in propellant (ie AT E6) - Change in performance - Change in grain geometry (ie cores to C-slots) and ruled disfavorably to other manufacturers regularly. Several of the above examples have also been ruled in favor of Aerotech with no new testing. The problem being the inconsistent treatment of differing suppliers and the resulting "monopoly" of Aerotech motors on the market in several power ranges and motor styles, even during a 3 year major shortage!!! Then you have the J350 issue which simply highlighted the extremety of the pro-Aerotech bias. Here there was a CLEAR example of a batch problem affecting "all" motors of a particular type. EXACTLY what the rules state SHOULD be decertified. And were they? Nope. They were given an emergency rush field modification order (no such rule or jurisdiction exists and it conflicts with the existing rules). CONSUMERS and DEALERS were asked to field core out existing grains (voiding the EX numbers, the certifications, violating a wide variety of regs and rules). Why? Because it was LDRS and so many people were counting on the J350 to certify. Too bad so sad dude. They are defective and besides once cored the darn thing is no longer even a J! The real problem at its root is one series of treatment for errortech and yet another widely variable set of standards for everybody else. One more example. CTI submitted motors for TRA cert with infinitely variable delays (with a METERED TOOL). They refused and forced CTI to make a tool mod thus delaying the product to market by many months (major financial impact) during the motor AT fire related shortage (benefiting Aerotech since it gave them time to get back online). THEN Aerotech wanted to allow infinitely variable delays. It was approved almost immediately. Of course. Jerry Have you read the TRIPOLI rules for motor RECERTIFICATIONS? ALL that is needed is money and motors. I would like to recertify all previously certified USR motors forthwith. GFL. USR is not errortech. > > If you don't like the way the NAR performs its recertifications, I suggest > > you take it up with them. Recertification is a NAR policy that is subject [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > (and Gary steps on his own foot again during dance practice!) 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 scum bag irvine wrote: > GFL. USR is not errortech. scum bag is as scum bag does. > The testing firms ("TF") have typically in the past considered a "major > change" such things as: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > - Change in performance > - Change in grain geometry (ie cores to C-slots) Cites please. Where is the specific, verifiable proof for each of these claims? > and ruled disfavorably to other manufacturers regularly. Meaning you and your illegal motors. > The problem being the inconsistent treatment of differing suppliers... If anyone is being given preferential treatment, that should be remedied. Throwing out the rules so Jerry can cert his illegal motors is not the solution. > One more example. CTI submitted motors for TRA cert with infinitely > variable delays (with a METERED TOOL). They refused and forced CTI to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > THEN Aerotech wanted to allow infinitely variable delays. It was > approved almost immediately. By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay certified for their Pro54 stuff, so it was a moot point. > By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay > certified for their Pro54 stuff, so it was a moot point. In Canada!! 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 > > By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay > > certified for their Pro54 stuff, so i t was a moot point. > > In Canada!! They are available here too due to the reciprocal agreement. The way I see it, since CAR has already approved motors using infinitely variable delays, there's no longer any point in TRA refusing to accept the same thing. h > > > By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay > > > certified for their Pro54 stuff, so i t was a moot point. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > delays, there's no longer any point in TRA refusing to accept the same > thing. On this point we agree 100%. They already delayed CTI to market by several months to "help Aerotech", so the deed is done and serves no further purpose. 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 > They already delayed CTI to market by several months to "help Aerotech", That statement is totally unsubstantiated and utterly false. It's like saying that the "several months" it took to get the LUR motors certified was to "help CTI, AMW and Ellis". Gary > > They already delayed CTI to market by several months to "help Aerotech", > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gary The differences may elude you, but they do not elude me. Besides, it is a done deal now, right? :) 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 >>> They already delayed CTI to market by several months to "help Aerotech", >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > :) There are no "differences" to elude anyone. Gary > > > > By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay > > > > certified for their Pro54 stuff, so i t was a moot point. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > On this point we agree 100%. It's about time. Let's see how long your new-found rationality lasts.... > They already delayed CTI to market by several months to "help Aerotech", > so the deed is done and serves no further purpose. Oops, there it goes, out the window already. TMT does not "delay" anyone to "help" another manufacturer. n Nobody at TMT ever refused to accept adjustable delays at any time; however, the original concept for the Pro38 delay system was "infinite" adjustment (vernier scale) like the 54's. That was shut down by the TMT of that time period as being too much of a paradigm shift. Instead they asked if we could provide finite stops, so we agreed to do so, which required some expensive retooling and some time. When the Pro38's were certified, 3 samples of each delay time were required to be provided, so while the tool is quite convenient for the end user, it sure didn't save us anything with regards to certification requirements. When the 54's were being developed, two things had happened; (1) there was a track record of Pro38 adjustable delay usage and thereby an increased "comfort factor", and (2) TMT had changed helm and appeared to be more comfortable with new or newer concepts. With the 54 system we had to test three at full delay, three at minimum delay, plus intermediate spot checks. And it is true that the first Pro54 certified was the J210 and it was done as a joint CAR/NAR certification session with Jack Kane in attendance, with NAR issuing the certification document. The requirements for delay testing were hashed out on the spot [as per above]. The rest of the 54's were certified by CAR using the same requirements. TMT was happy with the procedures. However, had we known we could simply "endorse" the adjustment of our delays we could have saved a lot of trouble during certification over the last few years. But apparently providing a tool with preset stops/vernier scale plus instructions for use, and testing the system thoroughly prior to certification is not enough in comparison. ;-) Mike D CTI > > > > > By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay > > > > > certified for their Pro54 stuff, so i t was a moot point. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > n > Nobody at TMT ever refused to accept adjustable delays at any time; however, > the original concept for the Pro38 delay system was "infinite" adjustment > (vernier scale) like the 54's. > That was shut down by the TMT > of that time > period as being too much of a paradigm shift. Excuse. > Instead they asked if we could > provide finite stops, At the PEAK in the AeroTech shortage. Notably with an uncertain future at the time. > so we agreed to do so, which required some expensive > retooling and some time. Showing you "tried to cooperate". > When the Pro38's were certified, 3 samples of each > delay time were required to be provided, so while the tool is quite > convenient for the end user, it sure didn't save us anything with regards to > certification requirements. PROOF. > When the 54's were being developed, two things had happened; (1) there was a > track record of Pro38 adjustable delay usage and thereby an increased > "comfort factor", The prior 15+ year track record with USR, AT and others was somehow insufficient? > and (2) TMT had changed helm and appeared to be more > comfortable with new or newer concepts. TMT newbies have not "drank the Kool-Aid yet". > With the 54 system we had to test > three at full delay, three at minimum delay, plus intermediate spot checks. There is no NFPA reg for that! :) > And it is true that the first Pro54 certified was the J210 and it was done > as a joint CAR/NAR certification session with Jack Kane in attendance, with > NAR issuing the certification document. The requirements for delay testing > were hashed out on the spot [as per above]. > The rest of the 54's were > certified by CAR using the same requirements. <snipped text> > > TMT does not "delay" anyone to "help" another manufacturer. 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 > > Instead they asked if we could > > provide finite stops, > > At the PEAK in the AeroTech shortage. > Notably with an uncertain future at the time. Jerry, take off the blinders of hate. The Pro38 motors were available for nearly a year prior to the Aerotech fire. In fact they received their CSFM approvals in January of 2001 (something your motors never had). The AT fire happened in October 2001. A They were in fact first released at LDRS19 in Orangeburg, SC, June 2000. The first customer was Jeff Taylor. I was actually the first to cert on one, finally getting my L1 on a G60 in a converted AT Astrobee D kit ;-) . It was announced as an "irony flight". Nice kit actually. . > > > Instead they asked if we could > > > provide finite stops, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A Actually Jack Kane of NAR participated in the certification session and data review, signing off on it as well. Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (410) 571-8292 Annapolis >> > By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay >> > certified for their Pro54 stuff, so i t was a moot point. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > h > So why the heck are you announcing the D21 if you don't know that it will > pass the cert? What makes you think it wouldn't pass the cert?? > I't not an issue of taking it up with S&T or TMT - it's a vendor that is > anouncing the release of a new motor WITHOUT the buy in of S&T or TMT! Huh? Since when does a manufacturer have to wait for S&T's blessing before making an announcement? Sure, they must pass the cert before they can be sold, but an announcement is not a sale. Also, if you believe any vendor is trying to get away with selling motors that haven't been properly certified, then you SHOULD take it up with the certifying authority. It's their jurisdiction. d > Also, if you believe any vendor is trying to get away with selling > motors that haven't been properly certified, then you SHOULD take it up > with the certifying authority. It's their jurisdiction. Well? Oh wait you meant HIM not YOU. 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 > > Also, if you believe any vendor is trying to get away with selling > > motors that haven't been properly certified, then you SHOULD take it up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh wait you meant HIM not YOU. Yes, dummy. What made you think I was talking to myself? He's the one who think's there's a problem, so he's the one who should take it up with the certifying authority. deleted AZ whacko's wild musings... > Also, if you believe any vendor is trying to get away with selling > motors that haven't been properly certified, then you SHOULD take it up > with the certifying authority. It's their jurisdiction. I can just see it now. AZ woody, like a Kaplowian hall monitor yelling at the top of his lungs: "Hey Jack Kane, hey Jack Kane! Aerotech says they're going to produce the D21 again! Have they got the okay from you to do that? Are you going to just let them manufacture those motors without your blessing?" You're really barking up the wrong tree with this, Woody. Not that you were high on my radar before, but now these ramblings give you definition. steve > I can just see it now. AZ woody, like a Kaplowian hall monitor yelling > at the top of his lungs: "Hey Jack Kane, hey Jack Kane! Aerotech says [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > were high on my radar before, but now these ramblings give you > definition. Whatever you say, Steve... SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the principles of a democratic society, accountable government and international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner consistent with the Constitution. >Some stuff But he is getting close to the 4 hour limit doctors place on his persistence ;-) > > Seems the page at NAR you reference says the motor was last certified > > 9/3/95, and as it's been not made in almost 4 years, and clearly seems to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NAR has been lax in updating the "last tested date" on the PDF files. I've > asked them to fix this, and been told that they would do so. Couldn't that simply be done on the link that refers to the pdf file? Please pass along to the NAR webmaster. Low labor solutions since 1980. > > RCS is a different company, making motors at a different location (state) > > than AT. Everything needs to be recertified! (a prime example is the d21 > > which has not been tested in 10 years!), or S&T and TMT are clearly not > > performing their function... > > Agreed. Finally a clear point of agreement. So doesn't this pretty much verify out loud what we already know, that AT is selling a lot of "uncertified" motors? Jerry > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! > <<< [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They are acting out scripts written by parents, associates, and > society. --Stephen R. Covey 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 > Low labor solutions since 1980. > Jerry Is that how long it's been? > Low labor solutions since 1980. > > Jerry Ah, so then you DID have marginally skilled illegal aliens building your motors. No WONDER they were so cheap .... and blew up so regularly! > > Low labor solutions since 1980. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > motors. > No WONDER they were so cheap .... and blew up so regularly! Teeling says he built them 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 >>>Low labor solutions since 1980. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Teeling says he built them all. So where is My money, scum bag? > >>>Low labor solutions since 1980. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So where is My money, scum bag? So where are the motors you were ordered to return "actual" scum bag? I ask. 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 scum bag irvine wrote: >>>>>Low labor solutions since 1980. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I ask. I don't take orders from scum bags. By the way, no such order exists. >NAR has been lax in updating the "last tested date" on the PDF files. I've >asked them to fix this, and been told that they would do so. Good thing that didn't happen with TRA, I'd hate to see what you would say if it did. > >NAR has been lax in updating the "last tested date" on the PDF files. I've > >asked them to fix this, and been told that they would do so. > > Good thing that didn't happen with TRA, I'd hate to see what you > would say if it did. It this had happened with TRA, Kaplow would be spewing about it for the next 10 years on RMR. Seem's Bob is a bit biased! Didn't we all just see a long spew from Bob about delay times and TMT! Yet on this, it's "I talked to NAR, and they tell me they will try to be better, and that ok with the KraplowMaster!" > Yet on this, it's "I talked to NAR, and they tell me they will try to be > better, and that ok with the KraplowMaster!" I think the difference is the NAR actually has and tends to publish the test data, so when they get behind on the website, it is noticed real-time. However NAR S&T has always responded in a timely manner to physical requests for copies of recent test data. Furthermore NAR makes formal notices each and every time there is a change of status to the certified motor group. 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 > NAR has been lax in updating the "last tested date" on the PDF files. I've > asked them to fix this, and been told that they would do so. They "told" you they would? WHERE'S the PROOF?!?!?! WHERE'S THE GOD DAMN PROOF THEY EVEN HAVE THE FILES?!?!? SINCE THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT YET, THEY DON'T HAVE THEM AND THEY'VE LIED!?!?! Isn't it obvious, Bob? NAR S&T is in ka-hoots with TMT. They're BOTH out to get ya!!! steve >> NAR has been lax in updating the "last tested date" on the PDF files. I've >> asked them to fix this, and been told that they would do so. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >steve No. It's more like it must be ok since it's NAR but TRA is automatically lying. Right Bob? > >> NAR has been lax in updating the "last tested date" on the PDF files. I've > >> asked them to fix this, and been told that they would do so. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No. It's more like it must be ok since it's NAR but TRA is > automatically lying. Right Bob? I don't think that's it. If you contact NAR they reply to you and WITH the recent data if you ask. They are actually slower on the uptake on the web than TRA in some ways, but they DO publish a WRITTEN certified motor list updated twice a year. Timely and consistent too. If you find errors on THAT I'll give you a buck each. NAR will also correct them the next iteration if you do. TRA by contrast if you contact them or ask them for information, they tell you to take a flying f.ck and review you for membership revocation. They then communicate to their internet trolls to target you for perpetual ad hominem attacks. All while leaving the errors in place and using the big cash slush fund to pay for travel of the leaders to the launches. NAR leaders pay their own way. There are some cultural differences :) Jerry I propose NAR pay a small stipend, say $300 per board member per trip for expenses. Those who decline, put it in the endowment fund. 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 > If you contact NAR they reply to you and WITH the recent data if you > ask. They are actually slower on the uptake on the web than TRA in some > ways, but they DO publish a WRITTEN certified motor list updated twice a > year. Who cares? > TRA by contrast if you contact them or ask them for information, they > tell you to take a flying f.ck and review you for membership revocation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All while leaving the errors in place and using the big cash slush fund > to pay for travel of the leaders to the launches. What a load of crap. Who do you think you're fooling, Jerry? >If you contact NAR they reply to you and WITH the recent data if you >ask. They are actually slower on the uptake on the web than TRA in some >ways, but they DO publish a WRITTEN certified motor list updated twice a >year. Timely and consistent too. TMT also updates theirs regularly. In fact I think it's more often than twice a year. >If you find errors on THAT I'll give you a buck each. Use the list I posted a few weeks ago. Give the money to Dave Gravis - wait I'm Dave -send me the money. >NAR will also correct them the next iteration if you do. > >TRA by contrast if you contact them or ask them for information, they >tell you to take a flying f.ck and review you for membership revocation. That has not been my experience. Maybe you experienced that because you are constanly busting on them. >They then communicate to their internet trolls to target you for >perpetual ad hominem attacks. Attention all trolls - ATTACK ATTACK!!! >All while leaving the errors in place and using the big cash slush fund >to pay for travel of the leaders to the launches. > >NAR leaders pay their own way. > >There are some cultural differences :) Say it say it!! >Jerry |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message