Exempt Rocket motors Defined

[Steve Shannon]

I have met you (at Red Glare last year) and think you are a great person to be around and a wonderful advocate for the industry and the hobby. I, on average, purchase about $15,000-$20,000 a year worth of Aerotech/RCS motors and equipment. I currently own 133 Aerotech cases, including multiples of all 98mm and 75mm cases. I absolutely love your company and have purchased upwards of $100,000 in Aerotech products through the years - probably more. Clearly, I support your business.

I do not doubt for a single second that you have contributed much over the years to Tripoli and our hobby. Having said all that, if you are human, then there is no way to avoid unconscious bias, even with the greatest of intentions. This has nothing to do with you personally. Anyone in your position would have a conflict of interest, by definition. Whether you are conscious of it or not, you do have an influence over your competitors. Even if you never exercise that power consciously, it is there. It is not a point of whether you do or do not try to exert influence - you have it by the nature of your position, regardless of whether you were elected or not. Saying you have "influence over policies that can harm your competitors" isn't not a qualitative statement - it is just a fact. At the end of the day, Tripoli has the power to say which motors are certified and which ones are not, which materially affects motor manufacturers. As a decision maker with voting power, you do have material influence.

When Gary came back onto the board in 2017 we had a conversation with him. We have had similar conversations with Chris Short. The subject of those conversations was conflict of interest.
In general, here’s how we handle things:
If a board decision affects Gary’s competitors (but not him), he’s left completely out of the discussion and the vote.
If a board decision affects Gary, he might be invited to give input but he has no vote.
If a board vote involves something about motor certification in general, Gary has discussed things with the other manufacturers and presented letters from them to consider their position. That happened the last time we approved the TMT Policies and Procedures manual a few years ago.
The other members of the board are less influenced by Gary than you might imagine. I’ve disagreed strenuously with him in the past and probably will again, but I respect his opinions and I believe that Tripoli is better because of his involvement (even when my position hasn’t prevailed!)
And finally, no manufacturer has any influence over TMT activities or motor certification. Alan runs that pretty much autonomously. I am the only conduit between the board and TMT and I know enough not to inject BoD opinions or biases into the certification process. I mostly make myself available for questions.

 

[mikec]

In my (one of nine) opinion, buying separate parts and doing the necessary design and finishing work in order to assemble them into a working motor is a valid research process.

Thanks, Steve. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that I can buy already-cored grains and all the other pieces for a motor from RCS and simply assemble it without ever cutting any material. (In the case of RCS, I'm not sure how many people ever do this because most such parts seem very similar to certified motors anyway so there's no real reason.)

If this is OK, then it seems like it opens up a business model for selling semi-custom motor parts that still puts some burden of design and assembly on the end user, and be allowed as EX.

 

[mtnmanak]

When Gary came back onto the board in 2017 we had a conversation with him. We have had similar conversations with Chris Short. The subject of those conversations was conflict of interest.
In general, here’s how we handle things:
If a board decision affects Gary’s competitors (but not him), he’s left completely out of the discussion and the vote.
If a board decision affects Gary, he might be invited to give input but he has no vote.
If a board vote involves something about motor certification in general, Gary has discussed things with the other manufacturers and presented letters from them to consider their position. That happened the last time we approved the TMT Policies and Procedures manual a few years ago.
The other members of the board are less influenced by Gary than you might imagine. I’ve disagreed strenuously with him in the past and probably will again, but I respect his opinions and I believe that Tripoli is better because of his involvement (even when my position hasn’t prevailed!)

Then there you go. As I noted in the previous post, the term "conflict of interest" is not a statement about a person's character, it is a statement of fact about a position/role. In the industries I have worked in (military, finance and tech), conflicts of interest are strictly forbidden, regardless of the "value" of the person/role. Obviously, this is not the same level as those industries, but if Tripoli has put policies and procedures in place to mitigate the potential effect of these conflicts of interest, I applaud the board for doing so.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Thanks, Steve. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that I can buy already-cored grains and all the other pieces for a motor from RCS and simply assemble it without ever cutting any material. (In the case of RCS, I'm not sure how many people ever do this because most such parts seem very similar to certified motors anyway so there's no real reason.)

If this is OK, then it seems like it opens up a business model for selling semi-custom motor parts that still puts some burden of design and assembly on the end user, and be allowed as EX.

I agree.
Also, as far as I understand, selling replacement parts for a certified motor is not prohibited. I am no expert on what RCS (or any other manufacturers) sell by way of replacement parts, but duplicating a certified motor using factory replacement parts is beyond the authority or even ability of Tripoli to police.

 

[rharshberger]

Sorry if this was discussed already.

Can I buy all the parts for an uncertified rocket motor from RCS ( https://www.rocketmotorparts.com/ ), assemble them, and fly the result as an EX motor at a TRA event? Or does that violate 1127?

Are you TRA L2? If so the answer is yes, its been done more than once.

 

[sharkbait]

In my (one of nine) opinion, buying separate parts and doing the necessary design and finishing work in order to assemble them into a working motor is a valid research process.
Others may disagree.
However, if parts were sold as a single kit that a person simply assembles and flies, that probably would be considered a commercially manufactured, non-certified reload or motor and not allowed as a research motor.
Of course the problem is (and always has been) how do the launch directors and RSOs know? At some level we have to trust that our members are doing the right things.

Purchasing a stick of propellent does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute buying an un-certified motor. The stick would need cut, cored, or slotted typically unless you were going for an end burner of some type. Buying a case, nozzle, closure and delay grain also does not even come close to buying an un-certified motor either, often time the RCS nozzle throat or throats (medusa) will need bored to the proper size to fit your design
In addition, the sticks you can get from RCS come with the performance test data that you would need to properly design your motor, they are the same formulas from AT’s certified motors

 

[jsdemar]

I restate these things because a person of unquestionable authority on NFPA 1127/1125 within the hobby has confirmed to me that all my statements above and every claim I have made thus far about 1127 or 1125 are 100% accurate. We did not talk about insurance yet.

Nothing new there, Scott! We've gone over this with you here ad nauseam. There's nothing stopping you from selling to organizations who are exempt from 1127. It's all about the insurance secured by Tripoli FOR ITS MEMBERS and the limitations imposed in order to maintain the insurance FOR ITS MEMBERS. A motor manufacturer is not a party to that insurance. An exempt organization is not a party to that insurance. Forget everything else and make that sink in.

It appears that Tripoli already goes out on a limb by allowing manufacturers to do motor demos for the sole purpose of introducing new products TO ITS MEMBERS. If the manufacturer sells the non-certified motor for a demo flight, it's now a commercial transaction and no longer a demo. (Your financial situation is not a factor). This prerogative is at the discretion of Tripoli and may be overruled by the local launch director or RSO. A manufacturer with a convincing and reasoned argument might have their request for an exception approved by the Tripoli BOD and the local launch organizers. From everything you've stated here, you are not willing or capable of doing that. Instead, you want unending attention as a "victim of the system", damaging your own reputation, and pissing off those who have tried to help you.

My final advice to you: get over it, move forward with a positive attitude, make your case to the Tripoli BOD, and get back to work on your products. -The End-

 

[AeroTech]

When Gary came back onto the board in 2017 we had a conversation with him. We have had similar conversations with Chris Short. The subject of those conversations was conflict of interest.
In general, here’s how we handle things:
If a board decision affects Gary’s competitors (but not him), he’s left completely out of the discussion and the vote.
If a board decision affects Gary, he might be invited to give input but he has no vote.
If a board vote involves something about motor certification in general, Gary has discussed things with the other manufacturers and presented letters from them to consider their position. That happened the last time we approved the TMT Policies and Procedures manual a few years ago.
The other members of the board are less influenced by Gary than you might imagine. I’ve disagreed strenuously with him in the past and probably will again, but I respect his opinions and I believe that Tripoli is better because of his involvement (even when my position hasn’t prevailed!)
And finally, no manufacturer has any influence over TMT activities or motor certification. Alan runs that pretty much autonomously. The only conduit between the board and TMT and I know enough not to inject BoD opinions or biases into the certification process. I mostly make myself available for questions.

Thanks Steve, you said it better than I could. I have to wonder why this was even brought up though, as the discussion in this thread is dealing with the production and sale of uncertified motors, not involving TMT, and which would affect any manufacturer.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Thanks Steve, you said it better than I could. I have to wonder why this was even brought up though, as the discussion in this thread is dealing with the production and sale of uncertified motors, not involving TMT, and which would affect any manufacturer.

We live in a world that doesn't encourage faith or trust. It's easy (for me too) to sometimes tend towards suspicion. Scott was accusing the board of various things and I think that made people have doubt.
For years the rumors were that the board of directors were just a bunch of good old boys, rife with cronyism. I found just the opposite to be true. Everyone on the board takes their responsibilities to the hobby and our members very seriously.

 

[NateB]

When Gary came back onto the board in 2017 we had a conversation with him. We have had similar conversations with Chris Short. The subject of those conversations was conflict of interest. ...

Just some thoughts from the back of the room here: I think it would be beneficial for seats on the board to be dedicated to a representative for motor manufactures and vendors. It could be an owner of a company with respect to conflicts of interest or someone else who would represent vendors and manufacturers as a group. TRA rules affect members, manufactures, and vendors in different ways, so each should have a seat at the table. Members would still vote on all board positions and any conflicts of interest should be transparent.

Of course with there only being 3 composite motor manufactures, 2 of which certify though TRA - maybe an olive branch should be extended to Scott to allow him or someone representing Loki to be members and run for the board if he desires. Is anyone from Estes or their BP division involved with TRA?

 

[cbrarick]

Nate:
the TRA board has little to do with who runs for BOD. You just need to be a member and throw your hat in the ring.
Getting voted in, however is a horse of a different color, especially given the rants we get here. Not exactly the thing that makes one want to vote for him.
giving a board seat to him or anyone else as a quota fill is just wrong and violates article 5 section 3 of the bylaws.

 

[Loki Research]

Doubt in the leadership.

For years the rumors were that the board of directors were just a bunch of good old boys, rife with cronyism.

There is a good reasons why there is still the phrase Good'ol Boys club. Here's one from 2005. Who else here is besides me paid for 12 issues of High Power Rocketry Magazine, only got 5 magazines and NEVER received a refund from the club for the other 7 issues they never delivered to you? How much money did Bruce take, dare I say steal, from the membership back then and not ever deliver? Isn't that fraud? There were a LOT of unhappy members when this took place and it was smoothed over by the leadership as I remember.

If you'd had all my experiences getting banned more than once (7yrs apart) for reporting major ON FIELD code and FAA law violations to leadership, doing what is expected of all members, and then watching them actively burying it each time from daylight and hiding any disciplinary action from the entire membership (by TRA policy) that officially never took place, you'd be highly suspicious and untrusting of those same people as I am Steve.

What about the insurance of Demonstration motors?

The question I am having is why won't Tripoli allow Loki to sell a research motor that is going to be flown by a university team at a research launch like BALLS? There's so many EX motors that are not certified there anyway that I don't see how this could be a safety or insurance issue.

It's all about the insurance secured by Tripoli FOR ITS MEMBERS and the limitations imposed in order to maintain the insurance FOR ITS MEMBERS. A motor manufacturer is not a party to that insurance. An exempt organization is not a party to that insurance.

Everyone here that is covered by my thread discussion ARE ALL MEMBERS of TRA. ALL would benefit in the end. What ARE those insurance limitations? Steve I believe said it costs too much. How much more is that exactly per member? Can we charge more for exempt entity representatives to fly so they can cover the additional expense for themselves?
Why aren't we discussing these avenues, at all?
Surely safety is not an issue after seeing that R motor cato, or Clifton's Spool rocket near det on a tion.
Why is it always "end of story, nothing more to see here"?
Why does NO ONE but the guys in the back and myself have any interest in pursuing any of this?

TRA allows non-certified demo motors to be flown so they MUST have insurance to cover any of these non-certified motor flights or they would not allow them, correct?
How did they do that then?

Why does a manf who makes a profit on a non-certified exempt motor sold to an exempt entity make that motor un-insurable by TRA, but me giving that same exact motor to someone for free, or selling it at material cost is suddenly insurable all of the sudden again and safe to fly? It's the exact same motor.

Charringon, I and many others do not understand the need for this profit distinction to be made specifically by and prevented by TRA or its insurance. Why do profits on these motors equal no insurance but just about everything else is fair game, insured and safe?

So how are demo motors insured by the TRA and why is any profit on them an issue with leadership?

 

[Loki Research]

Not exactly the thing that makes one want to vote for him.
giving a board seat to him

You have nothing to worry about. Others and myself have already stated why we believe that would be impropped for me to be on the board of any rocket club.

It's not my place to be put..

 

[mikec]

Scott, I've outlined a way that you can sell custom or semi-custom motor components, make a profit, and have them flown at TRA events with TRA insurance. I'm not sure what beyond that you can reasonably expect given the rules as they are.

 

[sharkbait]

Doubt in the leadership.


There is a good reasons why there is still the phrase Good'ol Boys club. Here's one from 2005. Who else here is besides me paid for 12 issues of High Power Rocketry Magazine, only got 5 magazines and NEVER received a refund from the club for the other 7 issues they never delivered to you? How much money did Bruce take, dare I say steal, from the membership back then and not ever deliver? Isn't that fraud? There were a LOT of unhappy members when this took place and it was smoothed over by the leadership as I remember.

If you'd had all my experiences getting banned more than once (7yrs apart) for reporting major ON FIELD code and FAA law violations to leadership, doing what is expected of all members, and then watching them actively burying it each time from daylight and hiding any disciplinary action from the entire membership (by TRA policy) that officially never took place, you'd be highly suspicious and untrusting of those same people as I am Steve.

What about the insurance of Demonstration motors?




Everyone here that is covered by my thread discussion ARE ALL MEMBERS of TRA. ALL would benefit in the end. What ARE those insurance limitations? Steve I believe said it costs too much. How much more is that exactly per member? Can we charge more for exempt entity representatives to fly so they can cover the additional expense for themselves?
Why aren't we discussing these avenues, at all?
Surely safety is not an issue after seeing that R motor cato, or Clifton's Spool rocket near det on a tion.
Why is it always "end of story, nothing more to see here"?
Why does NO ONE but the guys in the back and myself have any interest in pursuing any of this?

TRA allows non-certified demo motors to be flown so they MUST have insurance to cover any of these non-certified motor flights or they would not allow them, correct?
How did they do that then?

Why does a manf who makes a profit on a non-certified exempt motor sold to an exempt entity make that motor un-insurable by TRA, but me giving that same exact motor to someone for free, or selling it at material cost is suddenly insurable all of the sudden again and safe to fly? It's the exact same motor.

Charringon, I and many others do not understand the need for this profit distinction to be made specifically by and prevented by TRA or its insurance. Why do profits on these motors equal no insurance but just about everything else is fair game, insured and safe?

So how are demo motors insured by the TRA and why is any profit on them an issue with leadership?

Dude……..
Demonstration motors are un-certified motors that the manufacturer intends to bring to TMT for certification and made available for sale to the certified membership, being able to fly them at a TRA launch gives the manufacturer a chance to show the motor in action to the flyers and get some interest levels and feedback before going to certification. Insurance carriers can understand and relate to that. A demonstration motor is not a run around for manufacturers to make one off custom motors to sell with no intentions of ever getting certified for sale to the certified public members.

Please take and follow John’s advice, you are going to force me to call and have a whambulance sent to haul you away

 

[Steve Shannon]

Demonstration motors are un-certified motors that the manufacturer intends to bring to TMT for certification and made available for sale to the certified membership, being able to fly them at a TRA launch gives the manufacturer a chance to show the motor in action to the flyers and get some interest levels and feedback before going to certification. Insurance carriers can understand and relate to that. A demonstration motor is not a run around for manufacturers to make one off custom motors to sell with no intentions of ever getting certified for sale to the certified public members.

As my friend Stu Barrett says "Bingo! Give that man a cigar!"

 

[jsdemar]

My understanding, based on how commercial liability is directed in general:

Free demo: the manufacturer still owns the product and the company's insurance is primary.
Paid for: the buyer now owns the motor and the buyer's insurance is primary. At that point, the motor needs to be certified.

A reasonable case could be made by a reasonable manufacturer to accept liability under special circumstances in a way that would satisfy all parties involved. I know how *I* would outline the request.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Scott, I've outlined a way that you can sell custom or semi-custom motor components, make a profit, and have them flown at TRA events with TRA insurance. I'm not sure what beyond that you can reasonably expect given the rules as they are.

I had the same suggestion in this thread and @Loki Research was not interested. I don’t get it. Scott is not interested in compromising near as I can tell. He seems more interested in ranting and bashing Tripoli than finding clever solutions that are feasible within the current rules. I am tired of this. I genuinely want Loki and all the other manufacturers to succeed, and I will support all of them when I can. His non-stop attacks on Tripoli make it hard to stay objective but I will do my best. We have a great hobby and we need to work together. I hope he and his wife have a great 2023 and I will buy some certified Loki motors if they are available.

 

[sharkbait]

My understanding, based on how commercial liability is directed in general:

Free demo: the manufacturer still owns the product and the company's insurance is primary.
Paid for: the buyer now owns the motor and the buyer's insurance is primary. At that point, the motor needs to be certified.

A reasonable case could be made by a reasonable manufacturer to accept liability under special circumstances in a way that would satisfy all parties involved. I know how *I* would outline the request.

You haven’t been consulting with JI have you John? He thinks he already has this “exempt motor” licked

 

[AeroTech]

Dude……..
Demonstration motors are un-certified motors that the manufacturer intends to bring to TMT for certification and made available for sale to the certified membership, being able to fly them at a TRA launch gives the manufacturer a chance to show the motor in action to the flyers and get some interest levels and feedback before going to certification. Insurance carriers can understand and relate to that. A demonstration motor is not a run around for manufacturers to make one off custom motors to sell with no intentions of ever getting certified for sale to the certified public members.

Please take and follow John’s advice, you are going to force me to call and have a whambulance sent to haul you away

I’m thankful for the current demo policy. There was a time when demo motors had to be individually approved by TMT and the BoD before being flown. I don’t recall when the change happened. Steve might remember.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I’m thankful for the current demo policy. There was a time when demo motors had to be individually approved by TMT and the BoD before being flown. I don’t recall when the change happened. Steve might remember.

I think we made the change to allow them to fly without individual bod approval in the 2017 revision. But it still required that the manufacturer or manufacturer’s rep be present.
We also had to make a change to the TMT Manual (Alan and I) I believe, because the TMT chair had been somehow required to approve certain demonstration motors and Alan pointed out that it just didn’t make sense.

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

Dude……..
Demonstration motors are un-certified motors that the manufacturer intends to bring to TMT for certification and made available for sale to the certified membership, being able to fly them at a TRA launch gives the manufacturer a chance to show the motor in action to the flyers and get some interest levels and feedback before going to certification.

Dude , say that one more time . You just fully detailed how you KNOW demonstration motors are not certified. The fact that a manufacturer company cannot fly one of their own motors at a TRA experimental event like BALLS is silly. No I'm not talking strickly about Loki , there are more. But then there is another company that can fly uncertified motors at a regular launch , because one day they maybe certified , after months / years of changes or complete redesigns , is Ludacris.
But to top it off , I someone like Loki Research opened another webpage under the name Loki Research X , and sold only incomplete motors ( cases , nozzles , bulkheads , grains cut to length with a core in them just like RCS ) that the end uses simply slide into the case , that's preferred and "legal" and as Steve mentioned "OK". Here's a perfectly legal solution for you Scott . Find a friend who has no stock in Loki , then give their information to the colleges. If you give the motor the colleges need to your friend , then they sell it to the college and the friend makes a donation to Loki , you win . If Loki Research say " this motor will be certified , one day thru TRA " how's that any different then current practices ?
So as a person sitting back reading this thread who has been around TRA for 30 years , and also has seen the muck from above and also been monetarily effected by past TRA issues , I say keep this civil and keep it online. Clearly Scott has tried with the board , maybe more or less then we know. I love how the general response of "just get your stuff certified" is the answer . There have been pages of questions correctly asked here that have not / will not be answered.

I hold no stock in any company mentioned above , and simply are stating the facts as others can see .

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Dude , say that one more time . You just fully detailed how you KNOW demonstration motors are not certified. The fact that a manufacturer company cannot fly one of their own motors at a TRA experimental event like BALLS is silly. No I'm not talking strickly about Loki , there are more. But then there is another company that can fly uncertified motors at a regular launch , because one day they maybe certified , after months / years of changes or complete redesigns , is Ludacris.
But to top it off , I someone like Loki Research opened another webpage under the name Loki Research X , and sold only incomplete motors ( cases , nozzles , bulkheads , grains cut to length with a core in them just like RCS ) that the end uses simply slide into the case , that's preferred and "legal" and as Steve mentioned "OK". Here's a perfectly legal solution for you Scott . Find a friend who has no stock in Loki , then give their information to the colleges. If you give the motor the colleges need to your friend , then they sell it to the college and the friend makes a donation to Loki , you win . If Loki Research say " this motor will be certified , one day thru TRA " how's that any different then current practices ?
So as a person sitting back reading this thread who has been around TRA for 30 years , and also has seen the muck from above and also been monetarily effected by past TRA issues , I say keep this civil and keep it online. Clearly Scott has tried with the board , maybe more or less then we know. I love how the general response of "just get your stuff certified" is the answer . There have been pages of questions correctly asked here that have not / will not be answered.

I hold no stock in any company mentioned above , and simply are stating the facts as others can see .

I think people need to stop lawyering the rules. If you push the compromised solution and bend it, you will jeopardize everything. If Loki sells components he is fine. If he offers testing services, he is fine. If he starts getting involved in the design, he is not. This is also best for students who are supposed to be learning.

 

[user 30299]

I think people need to stop lawyering the rules. If you push the compromised solution and bend it, you will jeopardize everything. If Loki sells components he is fine. If he offers testing services, he is fine. If he starts getting involved in the design, he is not. This is also best for students who are supposed to be learning.

Amen Brother!

 

[Steve Shannon]

Dude , say that one more time . You just fully detailed how you KNOW demonstration motors are not certified. The fact that a manufacturer company cannot fly one of their own motors at a TRA experimental event like BALLS is silly. No I'm not talking strickly about Loki , there are more. But then there is another company that can fly uncertified motors at a regular launch , because one day they maybe certified , after months / years of changes or complete redesigns , is Ludacris.

But that is simply not true. Scott can come to BALLS or any other Tripoli launch that allows Research motor and fly his own non-certified motors all day long.

 

[Frederocket]

I think people need to stop lawyering the rules. If you push the compromised solution and bend it, you will jeopardize everything. If Loki sells components he is fine. If he offers testing services, he is fine. If he starts getting involved in the design, he is not. This is also best for students who are supposed to be learning.

"If he starts getting involved in the design, he is not". Perhaps I don't understand. Why would getting involved in the design be an issue? IMO, that could be called mentoring.

 

[Steve Shannon]

"If he starts getting involved in the design, he is not". Perhaps I don't understand. Why would getting involved in the design be an issue? IMO, that could be called mentoring.

Correct. There’s no prohibition on anyone designing, helping design, or teaching design.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Correct. There’s no prohibition on anyone designing, helping design, or teaching design.

If Scott can offer those services for money, more power to him then. That line seems blurry and maybe it is best if you review this issue with the other Tripoli BOD, insurance, and provide some guidelines. Maybe provide a few example cases for clarity.

 

[Steve Shannon]

If Scott can offer those services for money, more power to him then. That line seems blurry and maybe it is best if you review this issue with the other Tripoli BOD, insurance, and provide some guidelines. Maybe provide a few example cases for clarity.

No

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

No

No in regards to the services cannot be done for money?