Exempt Rocket motors Defined

[Loki Research]

I see someone got their way....
This is a first attempt to define something that the TRA should codify in line with 1127 manufacturer exemptions.
The TRA BoD shall ultimately define this.

Exempt rocket motor-
A rocket motor which has been produced by a licensed commercial manufacturer, made for use by any other entity exempt from NFPA 1127 as stated in section 1.3.3(1),(2) & (3).

1.3.3 This code shall not apply to the design, construction,
production, manufacture, fabrication, maintenance, launch,
flight, test, operation, use, or other activity connected with a
rocket or rocket motor where carried out or engaged in by the
following entities:
(1) National, state, or local government
(2) An individual, a firm, a partnership, a joint venture, a
corporation, or other business entity engaged as a licensed
business in the research, development, production,
testing, maintenance, or supply of rockets, rocket
motors, rocket propellant chemicals, or rocket components
or parts
(3) College or university

Exempt motors shall be treated the same as Demonstration motors but they may be sold for profit.
Exempt entities as defined in 1.3.3 must be certified users.
All users must have a Level 2 or higher and may only use motors within their certification level.

 

[Loki Research]

TMT Unified Code
Demonstration Motor: An Uncertified Motor which is under development as a Model Rocket
Motor or High Power Rocket Motor or a Commercial Class 3 Motor which is a commercial product
that falls outside the scope of NFPA 1125. Demonstration motors must be manufactured by a
TMT recognized rocket motor manufacturer.
10-5 Demonstration Motors may be flown or tested by the manufacturer, a vendor, an
employee of the manufacturer, or by a flier, but may not be sold to a flier.

Right now, this is all I can sell that is not certified but still flown and insured at TRA events. How?

I have sold demonstration motors which I have been developing to a university, that are paid for with University funds. The certified user students are the flier, thus I am not selling to the flier as stated in the codes. The university purchaser gives them to the students as part of their class course. Even so, they have only been allowed to fly if the students DO NOT call them or refer to them as Loki Research motors. It's like someone doesn't want me to benefit from the publicity of these many successful demonstration motors. All of them have been flawless burns. I'd like to make and sell different motors too that I am not developing currently, but I'm only "developing" the 98's at this time.

Those different motors I'd like to sell would be called "Exempt motors".

People have asked. Why do I think this will help your business and the hobby?
Why would I want to sell exempt motors to universities, have them insured, and Aerotech would not?
First, does it really matter if Aerotech doesn't want to make Exempt motors for exempt entities? No.

Possible reasons,
They do not make 6" motors and hardware. I do.
I am much more flexible to to make custom motors in our business. It’s what I’ve done for 10 years basically.
AT/CTI have a vast network of dealers that they make propellant for 24/7/351, (they get vacation and holidays) so they likely do not have the same time or a business model to do the same as I can.

I get several inquiries each and every year about making different custom motors for University use, like P motors.

How will this benefit the hobby, the many.
These profits go directly back into the company and the materials use to develop these motors, and because of this, our customers will be benefiting in the future with a new set of 98mm motors of unequaled performance and capability. That is how the needs of the many are fulfilled, by our profitable work. They will get to enjoy new products of all sizes because this would be a more profitable business and we would grow in a time that has never been more difficult for a small business owner.
Yes, custom motors can be profitable when you're the only one who can make what the customer wants for the price they are willing to pay..

Universities who receive government funding are considered government entities by the DOT and are exempt from the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR)
Title 49 §171.1 Applicability of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to persons and functions.
Paragraph (d) Functions not subject to the requirements of the HMR. The following are examples of activities to which the HMR do not apply:
(5) Transportation of a hazardous material in a motor vehicle, aircraft, or vessel operated by a Federal, state, or local government employee solely for noncommercial Federal, state, or local government purposes.
(6) Transportation of a hazardous material by an individual for non-commercial purposes in a private motor vehicle, including a leased or rented motor vehicle.

171.1 (6) is how individuals transport Q motors to BALLS legally.
171.1 (5) is how universities do it legally.

A university employee can drive away from my door step with a 1.3c "P" motor or just about anything else. I don’t have to meet any higher regulatory standard of the DOT because I am not shipping 1.3c in commerce. An exempt entity is transporting it, not a common carrier.

A university can come to me for a pair of custom space shot motors but they could only fly it at BALLS as a "Loki Research motor" if things were changed. They have to go to FAR or elsewhere now, unless it is a motor under development. But still they are not allowed to call them by their rightful name, Loki.

A lot of people seem to thing that all I have to do is acquire more dealers across the country and I'd make tons of profits. Aerotech and CTI are making propellant 24/7, because they have dedicated employees that do nothing but make propellant ALL DAY LONG. I would have to do the same. However, I do not have the financial resources to hire 2-3 employees, unless some very well to do person wants to make an an extremely large investment at low to no interest to my wife and I. I CANNOT emulate the AT or CTI business models or practices because we are on two completely different levels of opperation.

People need to realize that we are the local hole in the wall diner that makes the best food in the entire county.
We are NOT comparable to Red Lobster, Panera Bread Company or McDonald's.

 

[jmasterj]

So this is something that you're asking for, a proposal to the Tripoli BoD?

It sounds like this would also allow you sell exempt motors for profit to individuals with L2 certs, am I reading that correctly?

 

[rharshberger]

So this is something that you're asking for, a proposal to the Tripoli BoD?

It sounds like this would also allow you sell exempt motors for profit to individuals with L2 certs, am I reading that correctly?

Individuals if I understand correctly are not Exempt by and of themselves, they must be representatives of an Exempt entity as described by the regs. So a college buying the motor and a student flying it would be exempt, you or me not so much.

 

[jmasterj]

Individuals if I understand correctly are not Exempt by and of themselves, they must be representatives of an Exempt entity as described by the regs.

Yup, I read it wrong. There are 6 types of entity, any of which would need to be "engaged as a licensed business" in motor research (etc). What kind of license do you need to engage in one of those activities? "testing... of... rocket components" sounds like what I do when I build a rocket.

(2) An individual [1], a firm [2], a partnership [3], a joint venture [4], a
corporation [5], or other business entity [6] engaged as a licensed
business in the research, development, production,
testing, maintenance, or supply of rockets, rocket
motors, rocket propellant chemicals, or rocket components
or parts

 

[jderimig]

What is a "licensed" business? There is no standard US license for a business. States or local governments may require a license for certain businesses, like selling liquor, but that is the exception rather than the rule. I have started businesses in 3 states, none of which required a "license".

 

[StreuB1]

I held an 07 FFL as well as an LEMP and neither required a business license in the state of IL, only a State EIN.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I held an 07 FFL as well as an LEMP and neither required a business license in the state of IL, only a State EIN.

I had an FFL for over 40 years. One time in the early 90s an ATF representative call me after I had submitted my renewal forms and said that he wouldn’t approve the renewal unless I got a business license. So, I registered “Shanguns” as a trade name with the state of Montana and got a business license.
The next time I renewed nobody asked about a license and I never renewed it. I always figured the FFL should be license enough.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I had an FFL for over 40 years. One time in the early 90s an ATF representative call me after I had submitted my renewal forms and said that he wouldn’t approve the renewal unless I got a business license. So, I registered “Shanguns” as a trade name with the state of Montana and got a business license.
The next time I renewed nobody asked about a license and I never renewed it. I always figured the FFL should be license enough.

Sorry to be so specific but can you elaborate what the business license was? Registering a trade name is usually related to certificates or articles of organization. A license is related to an activity. In many states, there is no "license" requirement for most businesses.

 

[Banzai88]

Sorry to be so specific but can you elaborate what the business license was? Registering a trade name is usually related to certificates or articles of organization. A license is related to an activity. In many states, there is no "license" requirement for most businesses.

To further complicate things, while some STATES don't mandate a business license, some CITIES do! Where I live, Virginia as a STATE does not require one, but Virginia Beach as a CITY, does!

Makes for a maze of regulations, to say the least.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

@Loki Research I am getting confused and this is mentally taxing to follow. I am willing to respond and give helpful advice on condition you refrain from negative comments towards any of the Tripoli BOD. It is not nice to publicly bash anyone and especially them. Many of us, including myself, are grateful for their hard work in keeping this hobby safe, well organized, family friendly and fun.

Okay so here is where we agree at least abstractly. You see an unfairness in the rules allowing for unlimited ex flights, many of which are barely tested and meet few standards, when you, a licensed manufacturer with a proven safety record, cannot do the same activity for a profit? The dissenting view is allowing uncertified motors for sale would lead to no certification at all, or open a flood gate of it. You could make another theoretical argument for safety as well. The current rules essentially force anyone who wants a custom motor to do it themselves, which might be dangerous for them. This is a theoretical argument and I suspect people can find volunteers to help with motor making on extreme projects.

I digress. If you really want to sell uncertified motors, I think you need to find a way to limit the scope in your proposal. This is also going to be tough since you will probably circle back to unfairness with having no practical scope limit to the current ex world. Think of something clever to narrow the scope.

I should comment that banning profit is a type of limiter for ex flights. It reduces the overall amount of uncertified motors being flown and statistically that improves overall safety at launches. Your proposal will need to address that.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Sorry to be so specific but can you elaborate what the business license was? Registering a trade name is usually related to certificates or articles of organization. A license is related to an activity. In many states, there is no "license" requirement for most businesses.

Our county simply has business licenses which allow a person to be in business. In my case the business was selling firearms rom my residence. Registering “Shanguns” as tradename was a separate step that allowed me to get the business license in that name.

 

[AeroTech]

A lot of people seem to thing that all I have to do is acquire more dealers across the country and I'd make tons of profits. Aerotech and CTI are making propellant 24/7, because they have dedicated employees that do nothing but make propellant ALL DAY LONG. I would have to do the same. However, I do not have the financial resources to hire 2-3 employees, unless some very well to do person wants to make an an extremely large investment at low to no interest to my wife and I. I CANNOT emulate the AT or CTI business models or practices because we are on two completely different levels of opperation.

Actually it's 8/5. We've never been a 24/7 operation.

And we started pretty small too.


Nobody that I know of is making "tons of profits" in this business, but if they were, good for them. They deserve it.

 

[sharkbait]

Actually it's 8/5. We've never been a 24/7 operation.

And we started pretty small too.

View attachment 553462
Nobody that I know of is making "tons of profits" in this business, but if they were, good for them. They deserve it.

You guys are both missing the boat, screw P motors and college students, the real action would be hitting up the elementary kids for bootleg MicroMax motors, think of all that lunch money you could score under the table.

 

[jsdemar]

Actually it's 8/5. We've never been a 24/7 operation.

And we started pretty small too.

View attachment 553462
Nobody that I know of is making "tons of profits" in this business, but if they were, good for them. They deserve it.

Gary, those shorts look to be "exempt" by many definitions of the term!

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Our county simply has business licenses which allow a person to be in business. In my case the business was selling firearms rom my residence. Registering “Shanguns” as tradename was a separate step that allowed me to get the business license in that name.

I was curious and I reviewed https://www.billingsmt.gov/981/Business-License-Information

Many states/towns do not have this type of license. They often have certificates of good standing. I think @jderimig wants to know if "licensed" could be replaced with "legally operating" when businesses are mentioned in NFPA?

 

[shockie]

To further complicate things, while some STATES don't mandate a business license, some CITIES do! Where I live, Virginia as a STATE does not require one, but Virginia Beach as a CITY, does!

Makes for a maze of regulations, to say the least.

Same here in Kentucky. Cities issue business permits and licenses.

 

[tsmith1315]

GA has an Occupational Tax Certificate.

 

[shockie]

Since California IS NOT a NFPA 1122/1125/1127 state, and have their own regulations about HPR, does their fire code have these same exemptions? IF NOT, then if you are selling NFPA 1127 exempt HPR motors to business license holders in California, how does that upset the applecart here? Wouldn't you have to abide by California fire code HPR laws as NFPA 1127 does not apply?

 

[charrington]

What I am having trouble understanding is why can't uncertified motors from a commercial manufacturer (that were sold for profit) be flown at Tripoli research launches? If insurance and safety was the primary concern then wouldn't Tripoli also NOT want any experimental motors? BALLS has uncertified motors going well into the 'R' range that were mixed in garages and basements. This seems to me like it is FAR more dangerous than if someone contracted Scott from Loki to do the propellant mixing, case machining, etc. where they can have professional input from Scott about their design throughout the whole process.

I don't see the problem with it and the need for a manufacturer to get certified motors when so many uncertified motors are being flown at research launches that were mixed in a kitchen aid seems maybe just a little out of touch if you are worried about safety.
Here is a R motor cato at balls a few years back:

I am completely for individual research btw. Rocketry has been extremely safe EVEN when things have gone bad! Which is why if a university, private company, or even an individual wants to contract Scott, Aerotech, or CTI to make a one-off cocktail, skidmark, or blue thunder P motor, to me seems safer than said university or individual attempting it themselves. Getting a certification on these motors would be pretty pointless since it will probably be sold once. Since I live in California and as we saw in the last thread that mixing in California is sketchy at best and at worst illegal, I would be interested in a service like this. I could make it out to FAR but that is not always easy to do when it is packed with universities and I have to drive 7 hours. A service like this could allow me to design a custom motor in burnsim and CAD (alongside the professional help of any of the manufacturers) then have it shipped out to Black Rock for the launch.

If Tripoli is worried that this will open the floodgates as said above then I think there is definitely some legislation that can limit this. Some ideas off the top of my head are:
1. Must be L2 to purchase uncertified motors
2. Cannot be used to obtain certifications (already in tripoli code)
3. Must be used at EX launches
4. Cannot use the same propellant formulas, geometries, nozzle, etc. to mass manufacture and sell to researchers. Basically prohibits the manufacturer from coming up with a motor that utilizes all of the same parts and formula which would be essentially skipping the cert process
-4b. Each motor must be somewhat designed by the researcher(s) purchasing the propellant but the manufacturer can give professional input to prevent malfunctions

I really don't see how something like this wouldn't be beneficial to researchers and manufacturers. I definitely don't see how this would affect the certified side of the market. In my case, I could see myself purchasing one of these maybe once a year when I decide to make my way 10+ hours out to BALLS. For most of my flying though, Aerotech at Lucerne and Loki research in Vegas!

 

[FredA]

Worst thing I see in that video are the scars on the playa from the night burn.

 

[rharshberger]

I woul

What I am having trouble understanding is why can't uncertified motors from a commercial manufacturer (that were sold for profit) be flown at Tripoli research launches? If insurance and safety was the primary concern then wouldn't Tripoli also NOT want any experimental motors? BALLS has uncertified motors going well into the 'R' range that were mixed in garages and basements. This seems to me like it is FAR more dangerous than if someone contracted Scott from Loki to do the propellant mixing, case machining, etc. where they can have professional input from Scott about their design throughout the whole process.

I don't see the problem with it and the need for a manufacturer to get certified motors when so many uncertified motors are being flown at research launches that were mixed in a kitchen aid seems maybe just a little out of touch if you are worried about safety.
Here is a R motor cato at balls a few years back:

I am completely for individual research btw. Rocketry has been extremely safe EVEN when things have gone bad! Which is why if a university, private company, or even an individual wants to contract Scott, Aerotech, or CTI to make a one-off cocktail, skidmark, or blue thunder P motor, to me seems safer than said university or individual attempting it themselves. Getting a certification on these motors would be pretty pointless since it will probably be sold once. Since I live in California and as we saw in the last thread that mixing in California is sketchy at best and at worst illegal, I would be interested in a service like this. I could make it out to FAR but that is not always easy to do when it is packed with universities and I have to drive 7 hours. A service like this could allow me to design a custom motor in burnsim and CAD (alongside the professional help of any of the manufacturers) then have it shipped out to Black Rock for the launch.

If Tripoli is worried that this will open the floodgates as said above then I think there is definitely some legislation that can limit this. Some ideas off the top of my head are:
1. Must be L2 to purchase uncertified motors
2. Cannot be used to obtain certifications (already in tripoli code)
3. Must be used at EX launches
4. Cannot use the same propellant formulas, geometries, nozzle, etc. to mass manufacture and sell to researchers. Basically prohibits the manufacturer from coming up with a motor that utilizes all of the same parts and formula which would be essentially skipping the cert process
-4b. Each motor must be somewhat designed by the researcher(s) purchasing the propellant but the manufacturer can give professional input to prevent malfunctions

I really don't see how something like this wouldn't be beneficial to researchers and manufacturers. I definitely don't see how this would affect the certified side of the market. In my case, I could see myself purchasing one of these maybe once a year when I decide to make my way 10+ hours out to BALLS. For most of my flying though, Aerotech at Lucerne and Loki research in Vegas!

I would add to the post, the motor maker can be acknowledged publicly, as long as the fliers/buyers are allowed to buy and fly exempt motors. I believe this is part of Scott's issue, he can make the motor..sell it to an exempt...the exempt flies it...but he gets no brand recognition for the work put into the product. The motor is simply announced as a Nxxxx research motor.

 

[charrington]

I woul

I would add to the post, the motor maker can be acknowledged publicly, as long as the fliers/buyers are allowed to buy and fly exempt motors. I believe this is part of Scott's issue, he can make the motor..sell it to an exempt...the exempt flies it...but he gets no brand recognition for the work put into the product. The motor is simply announced as a Nxxxx research motor.

I agree and think this is something that should be added too. I also want to say that I think this should be allowed for public sales too not just for an exempt entity. That is conflicting with 1127 but I think that with the right discussion (which should be a very lengthy and tedious discussion) there can be some form of legislation change to allow more freedom with EX propellant sales. Reiterating what I said above, this is not a sit down once for a few hours and either deny the proposal or accept it and write up something half-*ss which leaves us still arguing on an internet forum.

This should be treated like real law and include many meetings over extended periods of time. Statistics for the rate of Catos among EX researchers and manufacturers (empirical evidence), the effects on insurance policies.
Manufacturer protections: Protections against decertification (right to a fair hearing, unanimous decision, the cases for decertification clearly outlined). Also, in case of CATO (It is still EX after all).
Consumer protections: We can't allow someone to take advantage of individuals/university teams who may be unfamiliar with a new market - I think a good way to combat this is to give the manufacturers themselves a 'tripoli certification' to allow commercial EX motors to be used at EX launches. Basically as of right now Loki, Aerotech, CTI. If someone shows up saying "I bought this motor from hillbilly highpower out of socal from charrington" then that's a no go lol. Maybe this certification can be awarded if the manufacturer has produced X amount of certified commercial motors and is shown to be a trusted business. It should also be clearly marketed as EX along with a very thorough explanation on what that means to the consumer purchasing.
Legality: This should not be a gray/black market -under-the-table deal. Taxes apply, etc.

A good place to start would be to first see if there is a market or need for this service: interview and take polls of researchers, prefects, TAPs, manufacturers, L2 certified flyers, and universities. See what they think!

So, lets work through this. I am interested, others are interested. How do we (researchers, board members, and rocketeers) actually move forward? It isn't going to be arguing. I would say lets start with the questionnaires, polls, and safety statistics. Lets stay objective (no loaded language). I guess the main question would be "Would you ever be interested in a service that allows commercial manufacturers of propellant to manufacture EX motors of your design." My answer is yes to this. I've always wanted to build a 1:1 Loki Dart but cannot justify mixing it at my California apartment complex lmao! It would be really great if I could contract it out to a company that has the proper facilities and safety practices.

Another thing I want to bring up which I have been seeing a lot of on these last two threads. Name calling and getting angry will get this nowhere. We aren't talking about getting 9/11 responders healthcare here. I know this involves peoples lively hood and times are really hard for everyone in this country at the moment. I understand how this can get very heated quickly, but I can't justify creating a boogieman out of any of the manufacturers or TRA members. Scott, you have my attention along with others on possibly creating/adjusting legislation to address this. You have been very helpful and communicative with helping me get a K627 along with amazing hardware. Everyone on this forum that I've seen discuss your products have said nothing but positive things including Aerotech. Please refrain from lashing out at others because it doesn't help.

Earlier this year I saw a thread of people complaining about Aerotech's prices and quitting rocketry because of that. People forget that all manufacturers are getting hit hard and Aerotech, CTI, Loki are not some S&P 500 corporations that are making record breaking profits off of greed. Most, if not all, manufacturers in this industry are more than fair and probably doing it out of the love for the hobby and their work rather than acquiring capital. I think we can all agree that hobby rocketry is not some ludicrous business venture and hobbies will always be directly affected by the current economical situation and the ability of consumers to dispose income on them.

 

[AeroTech]

We’re coming full circle. When the high power hobby was being established, and for several years after, there were no motor certification requirements. Motor certification happened for a reason.

Seriously, why is it so difficult to submit a couple of motors to TMT or S&T? If a manufacturer can’t afford to provide the certification motors, how are they going to be able to resolve the eventual warranties (and they will happen, even if you’re the “best in the county”)?

The real killer hurdle is DOT approval for shipment, if the motor configuration isn’t approved it cannot be transported except by an exempt entity. Is that the real reason people are pushing for this?

What about insurance? There have been injuries at launches and motor manufacturers have had to pay claims. Without manufacturer product liability insurance, the financial hit will fall squarely on Tripoli’s coverage.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

We’re coming full circle. When the high power hobby was being established, and for several years after, there were no motor certification requirements. Motor certification happened for a reason.

Seriously, why is it so difficult to submit a couple of motors to TMT or S&T? If a manufacturer can’t afford to provide the certification motors, how are they going to be able to resolve the eventual warranties (and they will happen, even if you’re the “best in the county”)?

The real killer hurdle is DOT approval for shipment, if the motor configuration isn’t approved it cannot be transported except by an exempt entity. Is that the real reason people are pushing for this?

What about insurance? There have been injuries at launches and motor manufacturers have had to pay claims. Without manufacturer product liability insurance, the financial hit will fall squarely on Tripoli’s coverage.

Thanks for sharing. In theory I agree with @charrington but you (Gary) are literally the reason any of us are here even discussing this. Your points are always backed by experience in the real world and much appreciated. While I am okay in theory with @Loki Research selling ex motors, you ultimately know what is practical. I really prefer he talk to you offline to see what makes sense and then write a coherent proposal IF he can convince you on these matters.

 

[Banzai88]

Newb Question: Where does all this fit in with someone with the know how but without the materials buying grains from RCS and a flyer rolling their own that way? Would that be another way for Loki to achieve what he's looking for, or is that a bird of another feather?

 

[rcktnut]

I see a little carry over here from the thread that got unjustly locked. I had a question to ask and now can. Could a motor manufacturer make components like RCS is doing now which are EX and then have a list/ suggestion of components to make such and such a motor? In other words instead of selling an uncertified reload kit just have a list of components needed to make such a motor and just sell the components separately to make that motor.

 

[charrington]

We’re coming full circle. When the high power hobby was being established, and for several years after, there were no motor certification requirements. Motor certification happened for a reason.

Seriously, why is it so difficult to submit a couple of motors to TMT or S&T? If a manufacturer can’t afford to provide the certification motors, how are they going to be able to resolve the eventual warranties (and they will happen, even if you’re the “best in the county”)?

The real killer hurdle is DOT approval for shipment, if the motor configuration isn’t approved it cannot be transported except by an exempt entity. Is that the real reason people are pushing for this?

What about insurance? There have been injuries at launches and motor manufacturers have had to pay claims. Without manufacturer product liability insurance, the financial hit will fall squarely on Tripoli’s coverage.

I think the place where something like this would be beneficial is very large motors for researchers and universities. There are countless ways to make a motor (I know out of anyone you already know that!) but I believe most companies would not want to even attempt to certify one-off motors like a 6 inch moon grain dark matter. The cost to certify is just not feasible since you will probably only ever make one of them. By cost I mean creating two of these motors to burn for certification, the actual certification fee of 50USD is more than fair IMO. I think a service which is restricted to EX launches wouldn't be an issue. Most people who fly commercial EX motors are only allowed to do so at FAR which is an amazing launch site but I think most researchers would also like to be able to fly these at BALLS which always has EX motors manufactured by the public.

Anecdotally, I am pushing for this because I live in a small apartment in California and would appreciate being able to design a research motor to be used out of state that I can outsource the mixing to a trusted manufacturer.

Regarding insurance these should only be allowed to fly at EX launches such as BALLS where there are already plenty of EX motors manufactured by the public.

 

[sharkbait]

I think the place where something like this would be beneficial is very large motors for researchers and universities. There are countless ways to make a motor (I know out of anyone you already know that!) but I believe most companies would not want to even attempt to certify one-off motors like a 6 inch moon grain dark matter. The cost to certify is just not feasible since you will probably only ever make one of them. By cost I mean creating two of these motors to burn for certification, the actual certification fee of 50USD is more than fair IMO. I think a service which is restricted to EX launches wouldn't be an issue. Most people who fly commercial EX motors are only allowed to do so at FAR which is an amazing launch site but I think most researchers would also like to be able to fly these at BALLS which always has EX motors manufactured by the public.

Anecdotally, I am pushing for this because I live in a small apartment in California and would appreciate being able to design a research motor to be used out of state that I can outsource the mixing to a trusted manufacturer.

Regarding insurance these should only be allowed to fly at EX launches such as BALLS where there are already plenty of EX motors manufactured by the public.

First step in creating a design is to have a well characterized formula that has been static tested and been tested to scale up to your flight motor size. When you say “I want to design a motor and have Scott build it for me” do you mean have Scott use a formula of yours? That would require that you have tested and characterized it and could give Scott the data to then design the motor and possibly need to do more testing depending on the scale up magnitude, ie a formula that has been characterized in 38mm 2 grain test motors probably won’t scale up to a P motor. Or are you trying to design a motor with one of Scott’s formulas like say Loki Red, which would be impossible without Scott giving you the data for it and advising you on the limits of scaling. Designing in ProPep or similar only gets you so far in the theoretical world. I think things could be worked out but you would also have to consider your constituent sources also if this was your tested formula, different AP sources, different metals sources and particle shape, ect ect ect

 

[shockie]

I woul

I would add to the post, the motor maker can be acknowledged publicly, as long as the fliers/buyers are allowed to buy and fly exempt motors. I believe this is part of Scott's issue, he can make the motor..sell it to an exempt...the exempt flies it...but he gets no brand recognition for the work put into the product. The motor is simply announced as a Nxxxx research motor.

Yeah,but everybody really knows who made the motor. Wink wink.nid nod.