Is it true?

I was at my club rocket launch and a fellow rocketeer was talking about how the NAR is going to allow the use of EX motors, is it true? Because if it is then that will be swell :grin:

Until there is any sort of official statement made by NAR, I would take it as an unsubstantiated rumor.

-Kevin

troj said:

Until there is any sort of official statement made by NAR, I would take it as an unsubstantiated rumor.

-Kevin

Click to expand...

And a highly unlikely one. I asked Trip about this a few years ago and he pointed out that the major increase in insurance cost for a relatively small amount of members didn't make it worthwhile to duplicate something that Tripoli has covered. Ted may have a different position on this but I'd be really surprised.

Without getting into a heated discussion over this; where or how would they even base their risk assessment on Research motors vs commercial motors? I attened the URRG launch was Research based and it was about as normal as any other launch.


JD

billspad said:

And a highly unlikely one. I asked Trip about this a few years ago and he pointed out that the major increase in insurance cost for a relatively small amount of members didn't make it worthwhile to duplicate something that Tripoli has covered. Ted may have a different position on this but I'd be really surprised.

Click to expand...

JDcluster said:

Without getting into a heated discussion over this; where or how would they even base their risk assessment on Research motors vs commercial motors? I attened the URRG launch was Research based and it was about as normal as any other launch.


JD

Click to expand...

I believe you get less insurance for more money with research because there's no motor manufacturer to sue. I agree that when research is done properly the additional risk is minimal. However, with a safety record that's built on 60 years of commercial motors, I wouldn't want to try to sell that to an insurance company.

NAR fought HPR for many years, but eventually accepted it. However, I think it's unlikely that they will accept research rocketry since the number of participants is small and subject to easy vilification as "basement bombers".

JohnCoker said:

NAR fought HPR for many years, but eventually accepted it. However, I think it's unlikely that they will accept research rocketry since the number of participants is small and subject to easy vilification as "basement bombers".

Click to expand...

I'll bet it's only us old timers who know the reference to "basement bombers". Considering the propellants available 50 years ago, it was a little over dramatic but essentially accurate. Research has proven itself to be safe but, as you said, the numbers are too small to make it worthwhile for two organizations to support it.

As an interesting aside, did you know that a really old NAR safety code supported making your own motors? There was some condition attached to it like you had to be in college studying chemistry.

billspad said:

As an interesting aside, did you know that a really old NAR safety code supported making your own motors? There was some condition attached to it like you had to be in college studying chemistry.

Click to expand...

Then, as the 60s went on, college chemisty students found more interesting things to produce in the lab. I would guess; I wasn't in college until the 70s and I don't remember a chemistry lab course in the Engineering curriculum.

To the point of the thread, as stated above, not enough interest to support EX in both organizations and the insurance penalty wouldn't be worth it.

The biggest hazard when flying is recovery not propellant (based on modern observation). The biggest hazard with EX is not launching but away from the field.

jderimig said:

The biggest hazard when flying is recovery not propellant (based on modern observation). The biggest hazard with EX is not launching but away from the field.

Click to expand...

And I think that's what would make the NAR insurance expensive. It covers "the NAR member from liabilities arising out of NAR sport rocketry activities, including both model and high power rockets". So if you burn your garage down making propellant the insurance company would have to pay. They're going to see that as an added risk and charge more. The NAR would have to add all kinds of restrictions to motor making (and we know how popular that would be) to minimize the potential risk.

KennB said:

I would guess; I wasn't in college until the 70s and I don't remember a chemistry lab course in the Engineering curriculum..

Click to expand...

Did you go to a liberal arts school? I was in college in the late 60's and early 70's and I had a couple of chemistry courses and I'm sure I didn't take them because I wanted to. The only thing I remember about the class is that the lab overlooked a girls dorm where the girls sun bathed topless on the roof in the good weather.

billspad said:

....the lab overlooked a girls dorm where the girls sun bathed topless on the roof in the good weather.

Click to expand...

[In a John Houseman voice] "Mr. Spadafora, you have taken my chemistry class twice now. You passed the lecture component but have failed the lab. Are you daydreaming?"

i recall Nar issuing a survey a while back, and one of the question was allowing research. Apparently not enough people wanted it.

If you want to do research, join Tripoli.

Personal opinion? There's no reason for NAR to get into Research motors, just like there's no reason for Tripoli to get into competitions. We have two organizations here in the US, for a small hobby. The organizations need to cooperate with one another (which I think they do), not compete with one another.

-Kevin (NAR & Tripoli member)

billspad said:

Did you go to a liberal arts school? I was in college in the late 60's and early 70's and I had a couple of chemistry courses and I'm sure I didn't take them because I wanted to. The only thing I remember about the class is that the lab overlooked a girls dorm where the girls sun bathed topless on the roof in the good weather.

Click to expand...

Nope, full blown university. We had a freshman chem class in a lecture hall (look to your left, look to your right - one of you won't be here by mid-term), I just don't recall a lab section. Envirochem was lecture only. The Engineering courses had labs; fluid, materials, gas dynamic, etc.

Had to wait for spring break in Ft. Lauderdale to see any coeds from my school topless - it was worth the wait. :wink::wink:

RandyT0001 said:

[In a John Houseman voice] "Mr. Spadafora, you have taken my chemisrty class twice now. You passed the lecture component but have failed the lab. Are you daydreaming?"

Click to expand...

Well would you take a look at that! After the fuss you made regarding a recent typing error, I knew you had to have a skeleton in your closet. I think you need to retract your comments because EVERYBODY makes typos...even you! "chemisrty" indeed!

KennB said:

Then, as the 60s went on, college chemisty students found more interesting things to produce in the lab. I would guess; I wasn't in college until the 70s and I don't remember a chemistry lab course in the Engineering curriculum.

Click to expand...

In the 90s we had a guy trying to quitely recruit chemistry majors into "independant pharmaceutical manufacturing", he was particularly interested in ecstasy production.

To the point of the OP: With Tripoli members allowed to fly commercial at NAR launches, and NAR members allowed to fly commercial at Tripoli launches. It would appear there is very little incentive for an individual to need to fly EX at a NAR launch. If you want to fly with NAR and do EX, just join Tripoli...the only gap that remains is EX at NAR launches, but the two groups playing nice with each other really seems to have provided a very flexible environment already. Why invest sparse, as evident by membership numbers, resources on providing more overlap?

This is of course easy for me to say, as I am NAR only, and am forbidden from home chemistry by the otherwise very tolerent of rocketry wife.