Help Support RocketryForum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 76
  1. #31
    Join Date
    17th December 2013
    Location
    Slagle, La
    Posts
    1,317
    Other than the amount of propellant and total impulse, also consider the type of propellant. Blue Thunder vs White Lightning.

    You saw a White Lightning fly today in my Big Daddy, the E20W. Nice smoke and flame. Blue Thunder loads in 24mm, 29mm, and maybe even 38mm have nearly no smoke or flame. They generally have more kick at the beginning to get heavier birds moving, higher thrust and shorter burns.

    My first mid power was a F42T, 29mm single use. It was kinda like opening a can of coke. A little fizz and a pop. That was it. The Estes D12 puts on more of a show. And that motor has kept me away from Blue Thunders all together. I will fly a larger one someday, but after I work through the other propellants first and/or get tired of seeing the smoke and flames...likely never. LOL


    Big Daddy on a D12Click image for larger version. 

Name:	big daddy d12.jpg 
Views:	52 
Size:	33.2 KB 
ID:	331495 Big Daddy on an E20WClick image for larger version. 

Name:	big daddy E20w.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	49.0 KB 
ID:	331494 Wildman on an F42TClick image for larger version. 

Name:	wildman f42T.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	21.2 KB 
ID:	331493

    Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
    TRA #16513
    Level 1: Danger Close ---AT H123W to 1240'--- 29 OCT 2016
    Level 2: Binder Design Tyrannosaur ---AT J315R to 2148'--- 30 SEP 2017

  2. #32
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Like usual, no one in the cert organizations will tell members anything, and aerotech is cryptic with its comments on the next loads.

    Were all just too stupid to deal with with open info. Maybe we should all elect people who don’t think we’re morons

    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  3. #33
    Join Date
    30th January 2016
    Location
    US > OK > NE
    Posts
    3,477
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    Like usual, no one in the cert organizations will tell members anything, and aerotech is cryptic with its comments on the next loads.

    Were all just too stupid to deal with with open info. Maybe we should all elect people who donít think weíre morons
    I'll happily vote for you to join a board of your choice. Then you can show us all How It's Done.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    18th March 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,611
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    Like usual, no one in the cert organizations will tell members anything, and aerotech is cryptic with its comments on the next loads.

    Were all just too stupid to deal with with open info. Maybe we should all elect people who donít think weíre morons
    David, cert orgs? The motors were given to NAR S&T to cert. They are having some issues- see Steve Shannons post. TRA TMT is not setup to certify motors of that size yet.

    You are really a very reactionary person. You accuse a lot of people of things with no basis. If you really think you can do better than the elected representatives then run.


    Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
    Mark Koelsch
    Tripoli 6155 L3
    Owner of http://www.rocketryfiles.com/
    Editor of http://www.thrustcurve.org/
    Member of the Tripoli Motor Test Committee, and keeper of the motor file

  5. #35
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    Like usual, no one in the cert organizations will tell members anything, and aerotech is cryptic with its comments on the next loads.

    Were all just too stupid to deal with with open info. Maybe we should all elect people who donít think weíre morons
    I donít believe you or anybody else here is stupid, but certification is a service that we offer to commercial organizations which necessarily requires us to protect some information. Similarly, we may be discussing various issues that affect our respective organizations. Those discussions must also remain behind closed doors for various reasons. Some of them may include strategies we might use to respond to or possibly sway a regulatory agency, a proposed insurance issue, or issues or questions with a local club. In other words, even though you seem to consider it a personal affront that you are not privy to every discussion held at either the certification organization level or board of directors level, we will continue holding some things back while they are being discussed.
    Also, although I attempted to help people here understand the delay in S&T in a more personal manner, using information from before I held any kind of position within Tripoli, Iím not privy to NARĎs inside information, but even if I did know more it wouldnít be my place to divulge such information.
    Itís obvious that you believe that we should make public every communication and every issue, even while theyíre under discussion. Itís simply not wise and not practical. I participate here and on Facebook in order to make myself accessible to members and to help overcome the image that TRA has had of being a ďgood old boysĒ organization. I can only do that by being professional and respectful. I donít believe you or anybody else here is a moron, but neither is our board the intensely secretive organization that you wish to ascribe. We publish most of our discussions in the Tripoli Report as the minutes of our meetings. The few things we donít publish are usually sensitive and ongoing and could easily be jeopardized by publication.
    Iíve worked with people over the years who simply placed nothing in the public eye, for fear of it being misinterpreted, misquoted, or leading to some other failure. I choose not to be that way, but when you attack us for doing our jobs, I can understand their choice.


    Steve Shannon
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  6. #36
    Join Date
    13th October 2014
    Location
    SouthEastern, WA
    Posts
    5,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Shannon View Post
    I donít believe you or anybody else here is stupid, but certification is a service that we offer to commercial organizations which necessarily requires us to protect some information. Similarly, we may be discussing various issues that affect our respective organizations. Those discussions must also remain behind closed doors for various reasons. Some of them may include strategies we might use to respond to or possibly sway a regulatory agency, a proposed insurance issue, or issues or questions with a local club. In other words, even though you seem to consider it a personal affront that you are not privy to every discussion held at either the certification organization level or board of directors level, we will continue holding some things back while they are being discussed.
    Also, although I attempted to help people here understand the delay in S&T in a more personal manner, using information from before I held any kind of position within Tripoli, Iím not privy to NARĎs inside information, but even if I did know more it wouldnít be my place to divulge such information.
    Itís obvious that you believe that we should make public every communication and every issue, even while theyíre under discussion. Itís simply not wise and not practical. I participate here and on Facebook in order to make myself accessible to members and to help overcome the image that TRA has had of being a ďgood old boysĒ organization. I can only do that by being professional and respectful. I donít believe you or anybody else here is a moron, but neither is our board the intensely secretive organization that you wish to ascribe. We publish most of our discussions in the Tripoli Report as the minutes of our meetings. The few things we donít publish are usually sensitive and ongoing and could easily be jeopardized by publication.
    Iíve worked with people over the years who simply placed nothing in the public eye, for fear of it being misinterpreted, misquoted, or leading to some other failure. I choose not to be that way, but when you attack us for doing our jobs, I can understand their choice.


    Steve Shannon
    Steve what I do believe is an issue here is the turn around time for motor certs. The financial well being of our motor manufacturers is dependant on them getting products to production and distribution, while the larger manufacturers have commercial/military contracts and we are a small part of that business, smaller companies like Loki most likely cannot afford extended wait times. My opinion is that the length of time from submittal to cert testing should not exceed 90 days NAR or TRA. The new loads for the 24/60 have been well over that, in my mind that is unacceptable. As rocketry enthusiasts variety is a great thing to have.
    Rich

    NAR# 99154

    L3-4x upscale Estes Cherokee-D- AT M1297W 5/28/2016 http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...r-rharshberger

    TriCities Rocketeers NAR section# 736 http://www.tricitiesrocketeers.org/

  7. #37
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by rharshberger View Post
    Steve what I do believe is an issue here is the turn around time for motor certs. The financial well being of our motor manufacturers is dependant on them getting products to production and distribution, while the larger manufacturers have commercial/military contracts and we are a small part of that business, smaller companies like Loki most likely cannot afford extended wait times. My opinion is that the length of time from submittal to cert testing should not exceed 90 days NAR or TRA. The new loads for the 24/60 have been well over that, in my mind that is unacceptable. As rocketry enthusiasts variety is a great thing to have.
    I absolutely agree with you, on every point, and without exception. Tripoli TMT is open for business and currently able to process motors using our existing load cells that range from 29-98 mm. 0-250 to 0-2000 lbs. Because the smallest motors require more sensitive load cells we cannot do them yet but we have ordered them. Lead time and fabrication time of course can throw a wrench into schedules, but we expect to be able to test 18 mm to 98 mm with load cells ranging from 0-25 lbs. through 0-2000 lbs by the end of the year.
    Currently we have no motors that are waiting to be tested or processed in our queue.


    Steve Shannon
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  8. #38
    Join Date
    21st September 2017
    Location
    NY/NJ
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by rharshberger View Post
    Steve what I do believe is an issue here is the turn around time for motor certs. [...] My opinion is that the length of time from submittal to cert testing should not exceed 90 days NAR or TRA. The new loads for the 24/60 have been well over that, in my mind that is unacceptable.
    I think you are missing the point - the people who are doing the certification are volunteers.
    I also recall reading in another thread that their linchpin certification person had passed away.

    There is no such thing as "unacceptable" when discussing the work of volunteers.
    If you think you you can do better, do step up and carry the load!

    If you can't volunteer your time / money / effort for the common good, than the most productive thing you can do is politely "thank" those who do. Blaming them for not volunteering enough of their time / money /effort while the rest of us are sitting on our buts and doing nothing, is just poisonous.

    I'm pretty sure you did not meant it that way, but this thread is taking a pretty negative turn, so I wanted to take a moment to state the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    Like usual, no one in the cert organizations will tell members anything, and aerotech is cryptic with its comments on the next loads.
    Were all just too stupid to deal with with open info. Maybe we should all elect people who donít think weíre morons
    I trust you can state your point with even greater clearity in ways that will not be construed as being rude.
    Please tell me I'm right?


    a
    __
    Radrocketeers.org NAR L2

  9. #39
    Join Date
    13th October 2014
    Location
    SouthEastern, WA
    Posts
    5,708
    Quote Originally Posted by afadeev View Post
    I think you are missing the point - the people who are doing the certification are volunteers.
    I also recall reading in another thread that their linchpin certification person had passed away.

    There is no such thing as "unacceptable" when discussing the work of volunteers.
    If you think you you can do better, do step up and carry the load!

    If you can't volunteer your time / money / effort for the common good, than the most productive thing you can do is politely "thank" those who do. Blaming them for not volunteering enough of their time / money /effort while the rest of us are sitting on our buts and doing nothing, is just poisonous.

    I'm pretty sure you did not meant it that way, but this thread is taking a pretty negative turn, so I wanted to take a moment to state the obvious.



    I trust you can state your point with even greater clearity in ways that will not be construed as being rude.
    Please tell me I'm right?


    a
    I have neither time, money, nor a location for testing, therefore much of my VOLUNTEER time goes to rocketry outreach, build nights, and being on the BoD for TriCities Rocketeers there are many launches where I have chosen not to fly so that we could spread the work load around, so I do what I can in other ways like many others here.
    Rich

    NAR# 99154

    L3-4x upscale Estes Cherokee-D- AT M1297W 5/28/2016 http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...r-rharshberger

    TriCities Rocketeers NAR section# 736 http://www.tricitiesrocketeers.org/

  10. #40
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by afadeev View Post
    There is no such thing as "unacceptable" when discussing the work of volunteers.
    If you think you you can do better, do step up and carry the load!

    a
    Incorrect. If you say you're going to do a job- do it.

    Being a Volunteer does not relieve you of responsibility of the job taken. And questioning the work of a volunteer does not mean the work is not appricated.
    Last edited by DavidMcCann; 5th November 2017 at 11:12 PM.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  11. #41
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Shannon View Post
    Those discussions must also remain behind closed doors for various reasons.

    ....we will continue holding some things back while they are being discussed.

    I disagree with this in its entirety.

    We're not talking about some short term thing here..... And I don't think it's too much to ask why the loads aren't ready.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  12. #42
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by afadeev View Post
    I trust you can state your point with even greater clearity in ways that will not be construed as being rude.
    Please tell me I'm right?

    a
    Sure- the testing of these motors should be explained, they're high profile, everyone wants them, and it's been a long enough time that "do not look at the man behind the curtain" is no longer a suitable response.

    Quote Originally Posted by afadeev View Post
    If you can't volunteer your time / money / effort for the common good, than the most productive thing you can do is politely "thank" those who do. Blaming them for not volunteering enough of their time / money /effort while the rest of us are sitting on our buts and doing nothing, is just poisonous.
    When part of an organization isn't working, pointing that out is not poisonous, it's required to maintain health.
    Last edited by DavidMcCann; 5th November 2017 at 11:17 PM.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  13. #43
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Shannon View Post
    I absolutely agree with you, on every point, and without exception. Tripoli TMT is open for business and currently able to process motors using our existing load cells that range from 29-98 mm. 0-250 to 0-2000 lbs. Because the smallest motors require more sensitive load cells we cannot do them yet but we have ordered them. Lead time and fabrication time of course can throw a wrench into schedules, but we expect to be able to test 18 mm to 98 mm with load cells ranging from 0-25 lbs. through 0-2000 lbs by the end of the year.
    Currently we have no motors that are waiting to be tested or processed in our queue.
    Once again, My issue here is obviously not with TMT, as the motors were not submitted to them
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  14. #44
    Join Date
    18th March 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,611
    Quote Originally Posted by rharshberger View Post
    I have neither time, money, nor a location for testing, therefore much of my VOLUNTEER time goes to rocketry outreach, build nights, and being on the BoD for TriCities Rocketeers there are many launches where I have chosen not to fly so that we could spread the work load around, so I do what I can in other ways like many others here.
    And all effort is important. Your efforts are appreciated- at least by most. I think outreach and recruitment are really important- I believe that if it does not happen we will see this hobby dwindle and die over time.

    Work at launches, and planning launches is important. Obviously the hobby need this.

    There are a lot of ways to help out. All are important. Those who like to talk smack- it is easy to be a member of the peanut gallery- it is a whole other thing to dig in and help.

    As to the testing situation. TRA TMT, as Steve mentioned, is working to expand capacity. As far as I know, TMT does not have any motors pending testing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
    Mark Koelsch
    Tripoli 6155 L3
    Owner of http://www.rocketryfiles.com/
    Editor of http://www.thrustcurve.org/
    Member of the Tripoli Motor Test Committee, and keeper of the motor file

  15. #45
    Join Date
    30th January 2016
    Location
    US > OK > NE
    Posts
    3,477
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    Sure- the testing of these motors should be explained, they're high profile, everyone wants them, and it's been a long enough time that "do not look at the man behind the curtain" is no longer a suitable response.
    TRA can't test anything this small yet, no gear. NAR can't test 'em, team has to reform. I believe I gleaned those facts from this thread, with which I am done.

    Actually, a proposal to NAR, TRA, and CAR that they each post a twice-yearly testing summary, including a broad overview of readiness / capability might be useful.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by dhbarr View Post
    TRA can't test anything this small yet, no gear. NAR can't test 'em, team has to reform. I believe I gleaned those facts from this thread, with which I am done.

    Actually, a proposal to NAR, TRA, and CAR that they each post a twice-yearly testing summary, including a broad overview of readiness / capability might be useful.
    Not being an ass here... I want to be very clear on that. If no one is setup to test them currently... perhaps a way of using the testing gear the manufacturer has to test them may work. Also, they have the money and time to invest in doing these tests.....and likely do them anyways.... if the data can be verified by some means.... It seems like a solution that would take pressure off everyone else.

    I mean this all in the most constructive of ways.... all frustration leading up to this post aside.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  17. #47
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,266
    For those of you who really appreciate the minutiae, a 0-10,000 lbs canister type load cell has a 14 week lead time.
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  18. #48
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by dhbarr View Post
    TRA can't test anything this small yet, no gear. NAR can't test 'em, team has to reform. I believe I gleaned those facts from this thread, with which I am done.

    Actually, a proposal to NAR, TRA, and CAR that they each post a twice-yearly testing summary, including a broad overview of readiness / capability might be useful.
    Iíll pass that along. The readiness and capabilities could possibly even be kept continuously on our website.
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  19. #49
    Join Date
    30th January 2016
    Location
    US > OK > NE
    Posts
    3,477
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    Not being an ass here... I want to be very clear on that. If no one is setup to test them currently... perhaps a way of using the testing gear the manufacturer has to test them may work. Also, they have the money and time to invest in doing these tests.....and likely do them anyways.... if the data can be verified by some means.... It seems like a solution that would take pressure off everyone else.

    I mean this all in the most constructive of ways.... all frustration leading up to this post aside.
    Self-certifying seems like a dangerous game to play. The whole point of third-party results is to address unknown unknowns, revealing blind spots and potential bias the tester may not even know they have. Many eyeballs, and all that.

    Would developing a process & procedure to inspect test gear and results at manuf. facilities take more or less time & effort & money than what our orgs are doing? I don't know, but I do trust they've been doing this a while & also want what's good for flyers & vendors both.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by dhbarr View Post
    Self-certifying seems like a dangerous game to play. The whole point of third-party results is to address unknown unknowns, revealing blind spots and potential bias the tester may not even know they have. Many eyeballs, and all that.

    Would developing a process & procedure to inspect test gear and results at manuf. facilities take more or less time & effort & money than what our orgs are doing? I don't know, but I do trust they've been doing this a while & also want what's good for flyers & vendors both.
    I'm not typically the trusting type (go figure right?). Third party testing is a great value, and there is plenty of evidence of loads needing to be modified or failing. (G138 as an example) So I don't think eliminating it is a good idea.

    But, with the current situation, an interim solution may be nice to have. Of course it'd likely take longer to change the rules than to get testing up and going, it's food for thought.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  21. #51
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Tucson, Az
    Posts
    2,348
    As I recall, Self-certifying was proposed and voted down during the last review process.
    more rockets then cents

  22. #52
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by terryg View Post
    As I recall, Self-certifying was proposed and voted down during the last review process.
    capability has changed, therefore so would the discussion. If it hadn't been such a long time already, and no clear indication of when anyone would be able to test....
    I think it's worth talking about other options to get those motors out of purgatory.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  23. #53
    Join Date
    26th October 2009
    Location
    Sheboygan WI
    Posts
    1,255
    I say let the manufactures self certify. I'm confident they will release the product as advertised, why would they want to do otherwise. No matter who certifies the product, the consumer is the ultimate tester. There have been plenty of ideas/new items certified through our organizations that have been proven to not work so great through us, the users. RMS Easy, problems with thrust rings, problems with certain motors etc. all corrected or "shot down" because of us.
    _______________________
    Jeff - NAR #76531 -L2

  24. #54
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by rcktnut View Post
    I say let the manufactures self certify. I'm confident they will release the product as advertised, why would they want to do otherwise. No matter who certifies the product, the consumer is the ultimate tester. There have been plenty of ideas/new items certified through our organizations that have been proven to not work so great through us, the users. RMS Easy, problems with thrust rings, problems with certain motors etc. all corrected or "shot down" because of us.
    Another point I’m hesitant to bring up, there is no random batch testing. In reality, after testing, they could be shipping anything. So we already are trusting them Personally I’d love to see random testing from user supplies. I think that would show more issues like Estes E motor failures. But please let’s not open that can of worms here or now.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  25. #55
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,266
    None of us can enjoy this hobby without motors. Thatís uppermost in our testing organizations minds.
    The manufacturers already have the option of sending their test apparatus to us or making it available to one of our volunteers. For unusual motors that is sometimes the only way it can be done. We ensure its calibration satisfies us before testing.
    Likewise, the manufacturers can pay expenses for one of our testers to test at their facility. But we cannot just witness the test. Our certification means the instructions are correct, the package has the correct parts, that the loads are truly a product that can be sold commercially rather than a prototype, and that we believe the manufacturer will provide support to its customers.
    Many have wondered about the long time since the videos of new motors were posted. Please remember it only takes a prototype to make a YouTube video.
    Finally, any motor thatís not plugged requires that its delays be certified also and per NFPA 1125 at sea level or adjusted to sea level. Nobody knows how to adjust the empirical data to sea level from the elevation of Cedar City (for example). For that reason we must test those loads at or near sea level. NAR does theirs at MIT in Boston. That also makes it more difficult to slide in replacement volunteers. The pool becomes more limited.
    Our new TMT chair is very near sea level so his testing will be compliant.
    Self certification would remove the requirement to have tests witnessed and validated by a third party (NAR, CAR, or TRA). I donít believe thatís the solution. I believe that our motor testing agencies represent the interests of our members.
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  26. #56
    Join Date
    26th October 2009
    Location
    Sheboygan WI
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Shannon View Post
    Our certification means the instructions are correct, the package has the correct parts,

    I wish that were true, see lots of confusion posted here, not only with newcomers to the hobby, but with longtime BARS as well. I trust the manufactures, and in a case like this, the reason for this thread, an exception could be made to let the manufacture self certify and when things are in order with the testing committees, let them confirm.
    _______________________
    Jeff - NAR #76531 -L2

  27. #57
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by rcktnut View Post
    I wish that were true, see lots of confusion posted here, not only with newcomers to the hobby, but with longtime BARS as well. I trust the manufactures, and in a case like this, the reason for this thread, an exception could be made to let the manufacture self certify and when things are in order with the testing committees, let them confirm.
    Please report things (to us and the manufacturer) like confusing directions, parts that donít fit, incorrectly packaged propellant grains, etc. We need that feedback so we can make improvements, yet almost nobody turns in anything other than catos and even then only a few.
    Without a significant change to NFPA 1125, self certification canít be done. It was suggested once and voted down. I wasnít on the NFPA Committee at that time but I did speak out against it. Iím convinced I did the right thing, especially now that Iím more familiar with the problem.
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  28. #58
    Join Date
    18th March 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,611
    As Steve mentioned, self certification
    does not fit within NFPA 1125.

    As to reasons against it other than 1125. There were some motors put forth years ago that were very over rated versus manufacturer claim. Not saying it was a current manufacturer ( it was not), but there is some history there.




    Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
    Mark Koelsch
    Tripoli 6155 L3
    Owner of http://www.rocketryfiles.com/
    Editor of http://www.thrustcurve.org/
    Member of the Tripoli Motor Test Committee, and keeper of the motor file

  29. #59
    Join Date
    9th October 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    90
    Wow, lots of good information now in this post, and I now feel like I have a better understanding of the problem. Thanks. I guess I'm left feeling NAR as an organization needs to step up. Things do happen in life and allowing one person to be the "Kingpin" of something sets an organization up for a single point of failure should some thing happen to that person.

    Here all the time I was thinking the 24-60 casing was the main stay of the North Korean missile program and not certifying new loads would save us all.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    6th January 2016
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    107
    For me, this is turning out to be a communications problem with NAR. I support NAR. I send them money every year. When certifications of new motors fell behind, if NAR had put out information as to why they were were falling behind, they would have had my sympathy, support, and patience. But when no information was released (that I could find), Iím left to come up with my own speculative reasons as to why theyíre not doing the job.


    In this age where the expectation is instant news, 2 day delivery, numerous time stamped updates per day on web pages, NAR might need to up their PR game. I think the buzz word Iím looking for is transparency.

    NAR 101529
    Tripoli 17153
    L1 LOC Cyclotron 7/2/16
    L2 Madcow X-Celerator 1/7/17

Similar Threads

  1. H97J - Does it exist?
    By bigone5500 in forum Propulsion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 5th May 2008, 04:34 AM
  2. C11-0 Does It Still Exist?
    By Commanche3 in forum Propulsion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 6th February 2008, 05:11 AM
  3. Do moderators really exist on TRF?
    By Sheri in forum Rocketry Forum Feedback & Announcements
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 14th June 2006, 10:13 PM
  4. They *do* exist
    By NewEntity1 in forum Propulsion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th January 2004, 11:05 PM
  5. Do 24mm G's still exist?
    By sproksch in forum Propulsion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 1st October 2002, 04:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •