We did this before, Xyla's at it again
- Thread starter bjphoenix
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
IN the old NAR days, we called this type of thinking "being a pink book lawyer"; it was born out of the Pink book rules of competition and how rules lawyers would make up thing to make them work their way.
I have no offensive to you, just making you aware.
The point I'm arguing is each organization gets to outline the rules of membership for its members. The TRA rules clearly state their safety code applies to all TRA members at any launch. So it doesn't matter what the FAR rules are, if a TRA member flies there TRA expects them to abide by the TRA safety code. So if I (a current TRA member) flew at FAR (or anywhere else) and launched a rocket with no recovery system they could determine that I am not adhering to the standards of safety they have established for TRA members and revoke my membership. I'm not saying they would but it certainly seems like they could. They cannot control what I do but they can control whether or not I am a member of their organization based on what I do.
I'll also back off the NAR argument because their HPR rules are much more ambiguous however they still get to determine who can be a member and it seems in the past people have been kicked out for violating their rules.
\I posted the Wiki link to that TV show above
So how did that work out for the TRA Celebrities on the Master Blasters TV Show? By the way you might search for that here, as all this kind of talk was brought up back then when it first aired on TV...
Ohh, the Huge Ham-manity
Rschub
Well-Known Member
As far as reality shows go, I wonder who right now is auditioning to be the Tiger King of rocketry. That turned out well.
I found it !!!!
Meh, I won't bother. It would be a waste of my time. Just like this thread has become.
A very very far past, that cost them lots of members who left , and I went to the new thing called TRA where I could fly a G , H , I what ever commercial made motor and a rocket over 1 pound with an FAA waiver. My TRA confirmation flight was on an NCR Big Brute on an Aerotech H70 29mm motor at Danville Dare II [1989] launched by Chris Person, who had been one of the ones given the "G" ticket out of NAR. I got TRA #492
I also launched an Enerjet 2250 Clone on 3 FSI F100 motors; another flight that the NAR would not allow at the time. Chris thought the motors would CATO as the latter ones were prone to do, but my stash of F100s was from the Early days when George Roos was making them.
The NAR leadership changed, and so did their hard line. Then they started offering Certs for up to K motors. Then they finally did OK we can do the full L3.
The delay was on safety, as they were mostly low power flyers and had to come up to speed on HPR safety. I am glad they did it that way..
I then rejoined the NAR; kept my TRA for later EX stuff. I no longer do EX now.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
Here's the thing about NAR rules btw: I think they state that you can ONLY use solid-fueled rocket motors at a NAR launch.
I wonder how that worked when Estes sold "Cold-Power" rocket motors, fueled by Freon, or whatever that stuff was.
I was just looking through that stuff in a 1976 catalog, and it got some old memories churning. When they were dumping their old inventory I remember buying some of that stuff to mess around with, but the only memory that sticks is some little white-styrofoam glider rocket that took a cold-power motor... I thought that thing was mega-cool.
I wonder how that worked when Estes sold "Cold-Power" rocket motors, fueled by Freon, or whatever that stuff was.
I was just looking through that stuff in a 1976 catalog, and it got some old memories churning. When they were dumping their old inventory I remember buying some of that stuff to mess around with, but the only memory that sticks is some little white-styrofoam glider rocket that took a cold-power motor... I thought that thing was mega-cool.
Ironically Chris Person who was one of those who got the "G" ticket*, was invited to speak at a few NARCONS in the last several years on the history of High Power Rocketry. He now promotes the NAR as well as TRA.
Last edited:
You can fly hybrid liquid / solid motors at a NAR launch, those are HPR. The rule you site comes from the Model Code.
Looked to me like cars had a chute. Therefore there was an intention to have recovery deploy. You can see it on the first car launch.
Unlike the skeleton launch. That's an issue. But documenting that in the build video is the real issue. Maybe she'll go back to building tiny caravans.....
Last edited:
To you that is the issue, to me it is what things that look like this have been done many times. What happens at an Amateur rocket range with bunkers actually looks pale in comparison to destroyed Mini coopers on the grass ripped to shreds on a national poplar Cable Channel Discovery.
Also note everything done with the mini coopers is not to any TRA or other codes, in a few other shows like the lawn dart episode they were targeting ground paper bullseye targets.
Last edited:
Realize long ago most Amateur rockets empolyed crash into the ground recovery.
OK, I think I understand your position better now. Before reading the above, I took your meaning to be that joining NAR or TRA creates a moral obligation to follow their rules at all times and in all things rocketry. And a moral obligation that should somehow be enforceable, thus an obligation that is more than a moral one.
Now I think I see your point in a different light, that if one wants to be in a club, and violated the club's rules, the club has the power to throw you out. Which I would agree they do. And it then seems that your disagreement is less with Xyla (remember Xyla? This is a thread about Xyla) than with the NAR for failing to throw her out. (Except apparently her membership is lapsed anyhow.) Is that it? If that's it then I still don't agree, but I would like to understand.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
What wait? Is this still the rocketry forum??
Of course. But we now know it's better to have the rockets land safely. And that's what we're trying to promote these days by codifying it.
Do the state laws where FAR is located codify NFPA1127?
I note that the rocket safety review document doesn't seem to be on their site. Although it is referenced in other documents on the site.
Seems that's still the case for model rocketry in some countries, including India from what I have seen on YouTube.
Californians can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that California has not adopted NFPA directly, and while some regulations are based on NFPA codes, the California Fire Marshall often does their own thing.
Correct on CFM does their own thing and why it costs AeroTech so much extra money to certify new motors to CFM standards.
An Old Story on G. Harry talking to CFM was interesting dialog about his motor rocket motors at the time and fireworks...
1127 does not cover ammeter rocketry [pun intended] , it covers HPR. What horse do you have in this race?
All rules have to be complied with for the location you launch at.
Organisation.
Club.
State.
Federal.
Fire.
Police.
etc
While that's what the eg. Tripoli Rules, try to cover, they cannot cover all rules, especially local rules. So unfortunately to be able to launch, you have to be able to ride multiple horses at the same time. Like a circus act........ And not fall off......
All rules have to be complied with for the location you launch at.
Organisation.
Club.
State.
Federal.
Fire.
Police.
etc
While that's what the eg. Tripoli Rules, try to cover, they cannot cover all rules, especially local rules. So unfortunately to be able to launch, you have to be able to ride multiple horses at the same time. Like a circus act........ And not fall off......
Wrong Pony Show, FAR has been at it long before TRA and even NFPA who has no rule in that state, the CFM does.
Cal Tech, Jack Parson's Laboratory [JPL] also shot desert rockets for his propellent he was making in those deserts.
Yeah I was always under the impression that FAR was the place to go when you wanted to fly outside of the area of responsibility of NAR/Tripoli. In other words, amateur rocketry. That said I'm not FARs lawyer and I've never physically been there. Like I said in post #47, they're well established and the FAA and the guys in the black helicopters (allegedly) out of Edwards know all about what happens there.
I understand WHAT you are saying. What I don't understand is HOW the exemption is granted. Historically?
I have no issue with any specific person. I'm using this particular issue to highlight how the "rules" say members will only do x-y-z but it's highly likely that some members are doing g-h-i. (I have not seen it confirmed that any NAR/TRA members were part of the launch.) One part of this is me trying to understand what the rules actually say. I'm arguing that NAR/TRA should either enforce their own rules or change them to be inline with the behavior they accept or at least allow. I don't think anyone should be kicked out. I have little doubt that what happened at FAR was done in a safe manner but the problem is the rules of TRA and NAR both clearly say what happened is unsafe and won't be something their members do. Maybe their rules don't apply at FAR. That could be the case for NAR but definitely not for TRA. TRA explicitly says their members will follow their safety code at all launches.
There is no exemption needed, None of the things you listed matter except what the CFM has Accepted.
Think Zinc Sulphur rockets in the 50s... with the Universities and others...
So what rules is the California Fire Marshall required to comply with?
TRA and NAR are fine with the rules they have already in place. I know this.
