Loki Research
Motor Manufacturer
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,407
- Reaction score
- 580
I’m not interested in arguing with you either Steve. I would like to discuss several items with you and everyone else. However, in my experience TRA’s business practices are off limits for open public discussion, only my business practices are allowed to be discussed and openly criticized on this platform without so much as an open warning to its members or to Jim Scarpine in this thread for violating rules #2 & #15 with his posts towards myself and Loki Research. The only way I can overcome how Jim has lied about me and Loki is to stoop down to his level and throw others under the bus, and be in violation of the same rules myself, which I would surely be held to account for most swiftly indeed.
I’ll proceed with caution as I have been unfairly targeted for my open TRA discussions in the past, so I will try to focus more on NFPA instead. As with most big picture politics in the US, we seem to only be allowed to openly discuss in a public forum the minor issues and differences we all face. Major issues that fundamentaly affect us all, are not open to discussion in public forums. They must take place in private TRA forums that are largely ignored by the vast majority of people.
Perhaps some of the misunderstanding here is with the statement I made in bold above. It is hard for me to be precise in my speech, as precise and honest speech has got me banned from more than just a major launch site venue. I am afraid to be too specific about such things out of fear of more continued retribution from the leadership. I was vague, but since you brought up NFPA, maybe I can clarify my statements above. Also, I never mentioned any issues or complaints with the awesome TMT chairman and his excellent volunteer staff. I have never had a complaint with any of them or their performance.
Here are some excerpts from NFPA 1127. (bold/italics or underline is mine)
NFPA clearly states its purpose at the very beginning in section 1.2.2 by outlining what actions the code is intended to discourage.
In plain language, it states the following.
1.2.2 The purpose of this code shall be to discourage the following to minimize deaths and injuries:
1.2.2 (1) Experiments with explosive or highly energetic rocket propellants
1.2.2 (2) Construction of homemade rocket propulsion motors.
1.2.2 (3) Attempted launch or operation of homemade rocket devices.
It goes on to state what items and what entities this code and the discouragements above shall not apply to.
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
In section 6.1 Prohibited Acts subpart (5) of the code is a passage which the TRA claims exempts any TRA Level 2 or 3 member from this section, section 6.1(8), as well as the opening statements and purpose of the entire code in section 1.2.2, and maybe even other sections too. This seems very contrary to the other entries in 1127.
Section 6, Prohibited Acts
6.1 (5) Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating, discharging, or otherwise experimenting with high power rocket motors, motor reloading kits, or pyrotechnic modules that have not been certified in accordance with NFPA1125, other than for the purpose of evaluation of new high power rocket motor technology by a recognized national user organization or an authority having jurisdiction, provided that all other requirements of this code are met and all activities are in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances.
I would argue with you here Steve, that this portion of the code is meant to allow manufacturers such as myself to do such things, not club members. It is not written clearly enough, or else the NAR would also allow for research activities for the same reasons. Has the TRA ever asked the NFPA for clarification on this section? Why does the NAR interpret this section’s bold type face (mine) as referring to the manufacturers of “new high power rocket motor technology” and not a research motor enthusiast as the TRA interprets it? If you remove every word I put into bold type face, the sentence would make clear, perfect sense and it would read like so.
Prohibited Activities
“Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating, discharging, or otherwise experimenting with high power rocket motors, motor reloading kits, or pyrotechnic modules that have not been certified in accordance with NFPA1125 by a recognized national user organization or an authority having jurisdiction….....”
Read in context with other portions of section 6, if you add the bold face words back into the sentence, “other than for the purpose of evaluation of new high power rocket motor technology,” it does not indicate that the evaluation of new technology is to be performed by an amateur user with zero to good experience. It indicates to me that this passage is meant for those in the commercial motor making business of “evaluating new high power motor technology.” If it is in fact the TRA L2/L3 flier it refers too, then what and where is this new technology or the evaluation reports thereof?
Again, 3 sub sections later, taken in context with 1.2.2 (2) & (3) and 6.1(5), section 6.1(8) clearly states the following is prohibited, yet it is green-lighted by the TRA leadership and somehow allowed for only L2/L3 members, and only because of TRA’s interpretation of portion of section 6.1(5) above.
6.1 (8) Reloading or reusing of any expendable, disposable, solid- or hybrid-propellant high power rocket motor with any material once the motor has been operated, or reloading of any reloadable, solid- or hybrid-propellant high power rocket motor with any material or by any means not specifically certified
Now let me be crystal clear with readers. I personally and professionally have zero issue with anyone, who wants to do anything they want, with any kind of rocket motor, provided they are being safe and smart about it. I may not even be here typing this if I didn’t get into EX years ago. I’m also not trying to pick on Tony A. here for being an expert in doing the above and posting how-to threads on it. I love him and think he’s one of the very best guys we have to look up to in this hobby. Tony A. for TRA President.
What I’d like to know is this. After the TRA granted it’s L2 and L3 members exemption from the discouraged and prohibited activities stated in 1127 above, how many different entities did Tripoli leadership, thru official policy, recognize in its membership as being exempt from NFPA1127 provisions, entities that manufacturers like myself can sell non-certified motors to, which can also then be flown and insured at a TRA sanctioned launch, the same as any homemade motor can?
Answer that question for me, and perhaps my bold faced statements above will make more sense to everyone.
I’ll proceed with caution as I have been unfairly targeted for my open TRA discussions in the past, so I will try to focus more on NFPA instead. As with most big picture politics in the US, we seem to only be allowed to openly discuss in a public forum the minor issues and differences we all face. Major issues that fundamentaly affect us all, are not open to discussion in public forums. They must take place in private TRA forums that are largely ignored by the vast majority of people.
Perhaps some of the misunderstanding here is with the statement I made in bold above. It is hard for me to be precise in my speech, as precise and honest speech has got me banned from more than just a major launch site venue. I am afraid to be too specific about such things out of fear of more continued retribution from the leadership. I was vague, but since you brought up NFPA, maybe I can clarify my statements above. Also, I never mentioned any issues or complaints with the awesome TMT chairman and his excellent volunteer staff. I have never had a complaint with any of them or their performance.
Here are some excerpts from NFPA 1127. (bold/italics or underline is mine)
NFPA clearly states its purpose at the very beginning in section 1.2.2 by outlining what actions the code is intended to discourage.
In plain language, it states the following.
1.2.2 The purpose of this code shall be to discourage the following to minimize deaths and injuries:
1.2.2 (1) Experiments with explosive or highly energetic rocket propellants
1.2.2 (2) Construction of homemade rocket propulsion motors.
1.2.2 (3) Attempted launch or operation of homemade rocket devices.
It goes on to state what items and what entities this code and the discouragements above shall not apply to.
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
In section 6.1 Prohibited Acts subpart (5) of the code is a passage which the TRA claims exempts any TRA Level 2 or 3 member from this section, section 6.1(8), as well as the opening statements and purpose of the entire code in section 1.2.2, and maybe even other sections too. This seems very contrary to the other entries in 1127.
Section 6, Prohibited Acts
6.1 (5) Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating, discharging, or otherwise experimenting with high power rocket motors, motor reloading kits, or pyrotechnic modules that have not been certified in accordance with NFPA1125, other than for the purpose of evaluation of new high power rocket motor technology by a recognized national user organization or an authority having jurisdiction, provided that all other requirements of this code are met and all activities are in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances.
I would argue with you here Steve, that this portion of the code is meant to allow manufacturers such as myself to do such things, not club members. It is not written clearly enough, or else the NAR would also allow for research activities for the same reasons. Has the TRA ever asked the NFPA for clarification on this section? Why does the NAR interpret this section’s bold type face (mine) as referring to the manufacturers of “new high power rocket motor technology” and not a research motor enthusiast as the TRA interprets it? If you remove every word I put into bold type face, the sentence would make clear, perfect sense and it would read like so.
Prohibited Activities
“Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating, discharging, or otherwise experimenting with high power rocket motors, motor reloading kits, or pyrotechnic modules that have not been certified in accordance with NFPA1125 by a recognized national user organization or an authority having jurisdiction….....”
Read in context with other portions of section 6, if you add the bold face words back into the sentence, “other than for the purpose of evaluation of new high power rocket motor technology,” it does not indicate that the evaluation of new technology is to be performed by an amateur user with zero to good experience. It indicates to me that this passage is meant for those in the commercial motor making business of “evaluating new high power motor technology.” If it is in fact the TRA L2/L3 flier it refers too, then what and where is this new technology or the evaluation reports thereof?
Again, 3 sub sections later, taken in context with 1.2.2 (2) & (3) and 6.1(5), section 6.1(8) clearly states the following is prohibited, yet it is green-lighted by the TRA leadership and somehow allowed for only L2/L3 members, and only because of TRA’s interpretation of portion of section 6.1(5) above.
6.1 (8) Reloading or reusing of any expendable, disposable, solid- or hybrid-propellant high power rocket motor with any material once the motor has been operated, or reloading of any reloadable, solid- or hybrid-propellant high power rocket motor with any material or by any means not specifically certified
Now let me be crystal clear with readers. I personally and professionally have zero issue with anyone, who wants to do anything they want, with any kind of rocket motor, provided they are being safe and smart about it. I may not even be here typing this if I didn’t get into EX years ago. I’m also not trying to pick on Tony A. here for being an expert in doing the above and posting how-to threads on it. I love him and think he’s one of the very best guys we have to look up to in this hobby. Tony A. for TRA President.
What I’d like to know is this. After the TRA granted it’s L2 and L3 members exemption from the discouraged and prohibited activities stated in 1127 above, how many different entities did Tripoli leadership, thru official policy, recognize in its membership as being exempt from NFPA1127 provisions, entities that manufacturers like myself can sell non-certified motors to, which can also then be flown and insured at a TRA sanctioned launch, the same as any homemade motor can?
Answer that question for me, and perhaps my bold faced statements above will make more sense to everyone.