LDRS-29. It's gonna be fun! Really!

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
LDRS 29 WAS really fun and it was great seeing US Rockets Social Club out there!!
 
That's U.S. Rockets to you, dude! Don't forget the periods!!

Good to see you at Lucerne where HPR really got its start. In the 70's!!!

Jerry
 
Jerry,

I have to say, it was nice to finally get the chance to meet you in person.

Amazingly, despite your attendance at LDRS 29, we were not visited with plagues of frogs or locusts, and the earth did not open up and swallow us whole. Nor were we hit by a flash of lightning, accompanied by a sharp crack of thunder, and leaving behind nothing but an oily smudge.

Whoda thunkit?

Thanks for keeping it "all about the rockets".

Cheers!
 
I have to say, it was nice to finally get the chance to meet you in person.
Amazingly, despite your attendance at LDRS 29, we were not visited with plagues of frogs or locusts, and the earth did not open up and swallow us whole. Nor were we hit by a flash of lightning, accompanied by a sharp crack of thunder, and leaving behind nothing but an oily smudge.
Yet.

Thank you very much for your hospitality. I took good advantage of it and really enjoyed myself. Thank you for being a good friend. Say hi to Wedge for me. That dude needs an S motor if you ask me.

It really IS all about the rockets.

Just Jerry
 
Jerry,

I have to say, it was nice to finally get the chance to meet you in person.

Amazingly, despite your attendance at LDRS 29, we were not visited with plagues of frogs or locusts, and the earth did not open up and swallow us whole. Nor were we hit by a flash of lightning, accompanied by a sharp crack of thunder, and leaving behind nothing but an oily smudge.

Whoda thunkit?

Thanks for keeping it "all about the rockets".

Cheers!

Geeze, I'd heard some things, but I didn't know that was supposed to happen.
 
I authored some articles for another site. I am not sure how cohesive the presentation is, but the articles themselves are what I hope you read.

Jerry, I was quite pleased to read the articles you authored on RP, a positive and informative tone to all of them. My only question is why did you stop after only 3? Did you not stay for the last couple of days?
 
Jerry, I was quite pleased to read the articles you authored on RP, a positive and informative tone to all of them. My only question is why did you stop after only 3? Did you not stay for the last couple of days?
Darrell was overwhelmed with content. My articles alone had over 3x the image content as most other articles and he was getting stuff from Neil as well. He has a real job and it was impacting it, so he took a few days off after posting my Day 3 and Neil's Day 6. He has since posted my Day 4, and since my interest in the experience was the near real time publishing of articles, so folks at the launch itself could read them, I skipped day 5-6. I have since done an aftermath article and will do an article about the TV show which I appeared on in historical fashion. I was at LDRS-1.

I have run afoul of this site's very strict moderation policy twice already (29 messages) so it is clear to me either it is me or it is them, but it is, so I will now greatly reduce my posting here. At least if I do get banned it should not be for saying making a set of motors that 70% of them CATO simultaneously seems like an "error" to me. I was only unbanned here by an "unfortunate accident."

The last straw at RP was when I said that Pat G, who is respected in both clubs, had launches where he ignored/violated the 100 foot clear space rule at every launch, and replaced it with a wet down the area practice, which everyone knows does not work. They had a practice of chasing down and "stomping out" fires, which everyone knows spreads fires. Pat G. asked RP to censure me and he had superior "clout", but sure as heck virtually never posted "content" to the site. They of course had a fire and blamed the motor. You should read the folks who posted about my banning. The dancing on my grave and attacking in absentia is phun reading.

Serial rule breaking is something I always point out. The political solutions are simple. 1. Change the rule if it is broken, 2. punish or educate a rule breaker, 3. Attack the messenger, chastize him in public till he shuts up or is shunned, and if necessary ban or de-member him. 4. Change the rules depending on who has arrived to achieve political and personal goals.

This hobby and the entities in it more often choose #3 and #4 when the proper answer is almost always #1 and #2. I have spent 3 decades bringing this to the attention of anyone who will listen.

My solution is guidelines, safety codes and exemptions, not densely codified rules, procedures, and enforcement practices. The model rocketry hobby achieved a 45 year 500,000,000 launching safety record as a result of a "safety code" published by vendors and put in product packaging. No club, or enforcer, or rule was needed. None. They stalked the successful product, people, and efforts. More often than not, partially wrecked things too, killing the fun and the participation and adding "gatekeeper functions", managed by simpletons, morons, and politically motivated "leaders" (aka volunteers).

Jerry

"Let freedom ring." This season more than any other we should at least be open to the idea that it is at least an option, even if it is a dim memory, and the light at the end of that tunnel is distant and fading.
 
Last edited:
Pat G. asked RP to censure me and he had superior "clout", but sure as heck virtually never posted "content" to the site.
Jerry, this is untrue. Pat never contacted me regarding this issue as it pertains to you.

Serial rule breaking is something I always point out.
This is the reason you were banned. You like to point it out when others break the rules, even if it means you break rules in the process. Forum rules. They are there for a reason.

Participate. An active verb, requiring operation in the here and now.
 
Jerry, this is untrue. Pat never contacted me regarding this issue as it pertains to you.

Thank you, Darrell. Knowing Pat, I was certain that the claim was, at best, pure garbage. Now, we know the truth, as you were party to any discussions that did, or did not, take place regarding this topic.

-Kevin
 
Thank you, Darrell. Knowing Pat, I was certain that the claim was, at best, pure garbage. Now, we know the truth, as you were party to any discussions that did, or did not, take place regarding this topic.

-Kevin

https://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160305&postcount=59

Jerry:

"Let's assume the current clear area rule is fine for the moment. The instance we are discussing did not clear the area at all but substituted water. The rule does not allow that. The instance we are discussing had a no sparky rule at the site which was not followed. So this is not a case where the rules were broken, but simply where they were not followed. That is very easy to fix."

https://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160323&postcount=60

John Chandler:

"The USIL team bought sparky motors even though I specifically asked them not to"

"The range conditions were excellent. Almost dead calm, with maybe 3-4mph gusts. We wet down the pad area prior to launch, and there were three of us standing by with buckets of water near the pad. The grass was dry, but not very high because they had cattle on the field. Barre', Fred Schneider, and I weren't happy about launching a sparky, but we made a judgment call that turned around and bit us. We also weren't aware that sparkys were prohibited...I'd seen them launched at Wayside before. We were at the pad and had contained the fire that we were expecting there as soon as the rocket cleared the tower. It was the little spots of fire 20-30 feet out that got away from us. Barre' immediately called the volunteer fire department, and everyone on site began stomping."

https://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160447&postcount=97

Pat G:

"Forgive me Jerry. I always thot you were the mean one. Heck, I'm wrong. You ain't mean. Yore a friggin comedian...

No wonder the people who "really own land, not BLM, not folks who *have* to allow access to folks like you", when "you" fill out permits and "demand" your right as a taxpayer, but landowners that grant access to folks all over America, as a favor, where you ain't got no rights when you are demanding, think you are a hoot, if not an idiot.

You want me to share some of their quotes concerning you, when they read your bloody invective? I know you dearly love "quotes". I promise, they are funny.

Pat G

You all know what I have done for you. What has Jerry done for YOU lately? Besides piss off landowners.

PS. Landowners. Pay JI no mind. He is NOT one of us. We tried to drown him as a pup when it was evident he was gonna be just as ugly all grown up, but we messed up not knowing he could hold his breath that long.

Guess we shoulda stuck the other end under water at the same time....

That was derived from a quote btw. From a landowner clear across the country. Jerry, YOU are finally FAMOUS!!

PPS Yes, I'm mean. I ain't got time to be nice to folks who won't be nice.

PPPS I like sparkies. In their place. I have made sparkies that make other sparkies look like a Blue Match.

God bless ya Paul R. Miss ya Bro.

https://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160450&postcount=99

Pat G:

"FOLLOW THE ... RULE, or change it.

Just always right and I told you so Jerry

****

Whoohoo! Ain't had this much fun since the dawgs ate my brother!

Jerry is pissed. But Retta just called me to bed. Dang.

Jerry, I don't mind, cause you don't matter. Get it? Its mind over matter. Hee hee. I figure, being a comedian and all, you could appreciate that.

Yawn. Nite.

But before I go.
BTW Being rather new to RP, I looked up and saw there was a "private email" feature. When I opened it up, there was about 30 folks telling me atta boy, most of em not even being TRA members.

Maybe I ought to spend more time wrestling pigs. Appears folks like hearing the truth for a change.

Been a hoot. Later. I promise, Jerry. There is a new sheriff in town. Albiet an old cranky geezer. Who won't take ... from you. Sleep tite buddy ;-)

Pat G

PS Years ago Jerry, you told the world "you were going to make me a "poster child". Bad move Bro.

https://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160707&postcount=137

Here Pat supports banning: (5-16-10)

I myself have avoided participating in this forum. Not because it was lacking, because the folks inputting assistance and ideas, to the layout, to the ease of navigation, has made this site one of my favorites. But I knew, just because I was a leader in 2 orgs, regardless of whether I had carnal information of anything that happened *in the past*, made me a target if I participated, regardless of what I said or was trying to convey. As the song says, "I have better things to do".

But thanks to you Darrell, and your moderators, my list of "better things to do", now includes contributing to this list.

Thanks buddy,

Gotta git, have a redeye bound for Germany to board.

Evening friends

Pat G


Jerry's summary:

I posted factual observations. The principal confirmed the facts. Pat "called me out" and "circled the wagons", all while disregarding he was not following the rule he HELPED WRITE and as a BOD member and club leader pledged to follow! He postured but in no way addressed the original point. He bragged about what he has done as if the misdirection was on-topic for a field fire that was completely avoidable by following the published NFPA field clearance rule.

If the moderators here wish to edit "profanity" he used, fine, but for factual clarity I left it in. It is certainly language heard in every high school I am aware of, one the standards for this site.

BTW after I was banned on RP, he was attracted to the site to make two (2) posts since.
6-18-10 LDRS burn incident
7-3-10 David Hailey Sr killed

Just Jerry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That still doesn't add up to your claim that he asked me or the other moderators to ban you. Stating stuff like that about any of the parties involved is not endearing them to you in any manner.
 
I would ask, both Jerry and Darrel, that you please leave the extra-forum politics and squabbles elsewhere and not bring them into TRF. I know you have been in the hobby a very long time and have a lot of good info to bring to the table and would love to hear more about that. But what happens on RP should stay on RP and not be dragged over here. Let's stay on topic and just have fun talking about the rockets, guys.

I should point out here that I have absolutely no standing here on TRF other than being a longtime member in good standing. I am not a moderator nor have any other official capacity here. I simply ask this as a regular member.

Thank you for letting me have my say in this.
 
Geeze, I'd heard some things, but I didn't know that was supposed to happen.

Given some of the "warnings" I received via PM and email, it wasn't too much of an exaggeration. A few folks seemed to think that treating Jerry just like any other person at LDRS would somehow immanentize the eschaton, destroy the known universe, and cause the destruction of all that we hold dear and holy.

Somehow, none of that actually happened....

:pop:
 
I would ask, both Jerry and Darrel, that you please leave the extra-forum politics and squabbles elsewhere and not bring them into TRF. I know you have been in the hobby a very long time and have a lot of good info to bring to the table and would love to hear more about that. But what happens on RP should stay on RP and not be dragged over here. Let's stay on topic and just have fun talking about the rockets, guys.
I appreciate your comments. I simply corrected a mistruth that was posted here, not on RP. It isn't fair to Pat G to not respond to what was said. He is a find gentleman and didn't deserve that. Unless (or until) it happens again, we can go back to the discussion of rockets and having fun.
 
Given some of the "warnings" I received via PM and email, it wasn't too much of an exaggeration. A few folks seemed to think that treating Jerry just like any other person at LDRS would somehow immanentize the eschaton, destroy the known universe, and cause the destruction of all that we hold dear and holy.

Somehow, none of that actually happened....

:pop:

Love the popcorn... and look were it's going now. Mr. Irvine, I agree with Greg, it seems you've come here with an agenda. My momma always told me" if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all." I don't care if you post (I am no moderator either), but just play nice, dude.
 
Given some of the "warnings" I received via PM and email, it wasn't too much of an exaggeration. A few folks seemed to think that treating Jerry just like any other person at LDRS would somehow immanentize the eschaton, destroy the known universe, and cause the destruction of all that we hold dear and holy.

Somehow, none of that actually happened....

:pop:

I am betting most of those warnings would be off-topic for this and other sites, but a web page . . . . .

Thanks again. See you soon. I'll bring a rocket. The one I had planned for LDRS-29 was canceled when the O motor controversy made it unlikely to get the right propulsion. N and O motors were unapproved in the state as a direct result of the TRA-EX deal with CSFM. I hope they reverse that. The motors were already approved and were available at Pyro Op I and II launches.

Why pay less?

Jerry
 
Last edited:
That still doesn't add up to your claim that he asked me or the other moderators to ban you. Stating stuff like that about any of the parties involved is not endearing them to you in any manner.

*sigh*
 
Last edited:
I am betting most of those warnings would be off-topic for this and other sites, but a web page . . . . .

I take privacy seriously. If someone says or emails something to me in private, I don't name names, and I don't make it public without their consent to do so. I may make general statements about the sorts of messages I've received from multiple sources, but I'm not going to violate anyone's trust -- even people I disagree with -- by making public their private communications.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do usually cc: the rest of the ROC Board when I answer email queries about ROC launch procedures, policies, or other ROC business. I do this for two reasons: first, to make sure I've got other eyes making sure I didn't mis-state anything, or leave anything important out, and second, to make sure that the rest of the Board is aware of what types of questions I'm answering on their behalf, and how I'm doing it.

I'm fairly confident that nobody will see that as a breach of confidence, but I figured I should mention it, since it is an exception to my general "don't share private communications" rule (and I don't want to set myself up to be called a hypocrite unnecessarily).

Thanks again. See you soon. I'll bring a rocket. The one I had planned for LDRS-29 was canceled when the O motor controversy made it unlikely to get the right propulsion.

As stated on multiple occasions, you are welcome to come and fly with us on the same terms as everyone else. That offer still stands for you, and for everyone else. ROC is an inclusive organization, and we welcome the participation of anyone willing to observe the rules and fly with us.

As I understand things, you're not currently a member of either NAR or TRA. I'm quite curious to hear how your flight plans were affected by an "O motor controversy", as non-members are by definition not certified, and therefore not allowed to fly anything over a "G".

N and O motors were unapproved in the state as a direct result of the TRA-EX deal with CSFM. I hope they reverse that. The motors were already approved and were available at Pyro Op I and II launches.

Why pay less?

Jerry

This is a false statement, and has been refuted several times. Please don't continue to spread this misinformation.

N and O motors were most definitely not "unapproved" in California as a result of any deal with the CA OSFM.

A few months ago, when the rocketry public finally noticed that Cesaroni had received CA OSFM classification letters for several of their N and larger motors (a situation that had been going on for several years, as I understand it), a Cesaroni spokesman explained (in a thread on RP, IIRC) the reasoning behind those motors' submission.

CTI had requested CA OSFM classification of those motors to ensure that it was legal for CA vendors who also transact business out of state to import, export, buy, sell, and transport those motors, despite there being provisions in the California Code of Regulations prohibiting their use within California. It was done to remove some ambiguity for their motor dealers, making it clear that they were allowed to keep the motors in their inventories when they weren't out of state, selling at AZ or NV launches.

Unfortunately, the CA OSFM used their standard form letter to communicate the motors' classifications, and many rocketeers made the understandable, but erroneous, conclusion that the CA OSFM had actually issued a blanket waiver of the provision in the California Code of Regulations prohibiting the use of motors above 10,240 Newton-seconds. When the CA OSFM realized that their classifications had been misconstrued as a regulatory waiver of some sort, they rescinded the classifications.

No conspiracy. No back-room dealings. Just the CA OSFM's initial failure to foresee the likely misunderstandings caused by their use of a form letter, followed by a correction to make their original intent clear once those misunderstandings took place.

The CA OSFM's approval for ROC to hold a "trial run" of a launch under the TRA Research rules at LDRS 29 was a completely separate issue, and had absolutely nothing to do with the N and O motor classification kerfluffle.

Back to flying rockets.... Any chance of you coming out to the ROC launch on Saturday? I'm hoping to actually have time to fly a rocket or two, myself.

Cheers!
 
Now, Rick! How can you let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

-Kevin
 
Now, Rick! How can you let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

Agreed! But what's up with this?

https://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=162659&postcount=26
https://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=162667&postcount=32

:confused2:

Somehow I ended up looking like the fool in that conversation. I figured actually having *flown* rockets in California made me somewhat qualified to speak on the regulations surrounding the flying of rockets there. Oh well, one can only try. Rick, you guys done good. Any updates on how the OSFM liked the event?
 
A few months ago, when the rocketry public finally noticed that Cesaroni had received CA OSFM classification letters for several of their N and larger motors (a situation that had been going on for several years, as I understand it), a Cesaroni spokesman explained (in a thread on RP, IIRC) the reasoning behind those motors' submission.

CTI had requested CA OSFM classification of those motors to ensure that it was legal for CA vendors who also transact business out of state to import, export, buy, sell, and transport those motors, despite there being provisions in the California Code of Regulations prohibiting their use within California.

It was done to remove some ambiguity for their motor dealers, making it clear that they were allowed to keep the motors in their inventories when they weren't out of state, selling at AZ or NV launches.

Unfortunately, the CA OSFM used their standard form letter to communicate the motors' classifications, and many rocketeers made the understandable, but erroneous, conclusion that the CA OSFM had actually issued a blanket waiver of the provision in the California Code of Regulations prohibiting the use of motors above 10,240 Newton-seconds. When the CA OSFM realized that their classifications had been misconstrued as a regulatory waiver of some sort, they rescinded the classifications.

When the motors were CSFM listed, it did not allow a POIII purchase and discharge them because they are restricted to M power. But A POII or POI or the folks directly flying with them for non-takwaway or sales, were allowed to, without making their own motor.

That is what was lost by this confusion caused by HPR consumers and how they interacted with CSFM over it.

So we seemed to have been talking past each other on the topic, but the series of events is unfortunate because now both AT and CTI who had such motors listed no longer do. That could be reversed with the stroke of the pen by clarifying that a POIII (HPR end user) permit does not apply to motors above an M.

I have suggested eliminating all the HPR consumer rocket language in Title 19 entirely as unique to California and fully broken. All that is really needed if those regulations disappear is FAA approval and local AHJ notification.

That's how it used to be done before the CA HPR regs even existed and the CSFM office was in that loop. It worked great. We should return to that.

I am talking about regulatory reform and compliance. I would appreciate it if the replies, especially by moderators, had less stuff aimed at me.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, in this day and age, no matter who or what is involved, if it is regulated, it stays regulated. It costs too much time and money to get things changed, for good or bad. I will not get political, but it is politics that get in the way of progress, sometimes.
 
Unfortunately, in this day and age, no matter who or what is involved, if it is regulated, it stays regulated. It costs too much time and money to get things changed, for good or bad. I will not get political, but it is politics that get in the way of progress, sometimes.

I agree politics gets in the way of progress, but not that what's regulated stays regulated. It is difficult to change, but once you convince the regulator or a judge with jurisdiction over the regulator, or an entire legislature with jurisdiction over the regulator, it is possible.

The recent ATF thing was a judge.

I have cited regulations and rules at CSFM that supports changing the regulation because their own rule suggests it. So far the infighting among different rocketeer factions has prevented that from working, but go there with one voice and one vision and it is a slam dunk.

I know. I was there before TRA got involved, and added too many voices. Now that theirs and NAR and RRS and other stakeholders all have similar interests, it may work now.

Really.

Jerry

CSFM2.jpg
 
Seeing as the OP is gone I am locking this thread..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top