HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: FAA response update
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:00:20 GMT
Distribution: us
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

The response file at FAA as of the December 9 deadline contains 83 items.
One is the NAR response, and 78 of these are from modelers (we assume),
in support of the NAR's response.

Three negative responses were received.  Two of them were from the Air
Line Pilots' Association and the Air Transport Association -- not a great
sign.  Aside from the Arizona Pilots' Association, who wrote in support,
they were the only responses received from the aviation industry -- in
fact, from anywhere outside the hobby.

The last is best described as a six-page polemic from a disgruntled member
who accuses NAR of "flagrant disregard for the truth" and NAR and Tripoli
of "sell[ing] qualifications that allegedly allow their members to purchase
these engines legally but [which] in truth, do not" and of "flying 'High
Power (their terminology for illegal rockets.)" It further states there "is
currently an illegal trade going on with the buying, selling, and possession 
of these high order explosives" and claims that Lots of Crafts (LOC) "was
raided by the BATF and the FBI for trafficking in Explosives... and the 
exportation of same."

It continues, "no other country in the world would allow the citizens of
their respective nations to be in possession of motors containing more 
than 50 to sixty grams of propellant which can be used for other purposes."
"What the NAR is really asking the FAA for is the pseudo-legalization of 
a rocket motor that contains the same explosive energy as 3/4 of a pound
of black powder without consideration or benefit of an explosives permit."

It ends, "This comment made publicly by those senior NAR members who were
not consulted for their opinion prior to the NAR's re-submission of this
HIGH POWER proposal who believe that the future of the model rocket hobby
is better served by a total change in the trusteeship of the National
Association of Rocketry."  There is no signature.

When I get a chance to OCR all the negative comments in, I will post
them here.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tec
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:15:24 GMT

jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
: 
: >
: >Rule 5.5 - Momentum
: >
: >A launcher must not impart to the model any velocity or change of momemtum
: >except that caused by the model rocket motor(s) contained in the model.
: >
: .....................
: Then, .... that makes it sound like 'linear' momentum and not
: angular momentum. Anyway one could not gain any advantage by
: imparting angular momentum about the roll axis, except stability.
: Would there be less drag on a spinning finless rocket?

Yep. Much less than on a rocket with fins. 

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu  (Roger Wilfong)
Subject: Re: Other reloadables besides Aerotech? (Re: Info. about solid rocket-
Organization: UofM Hospitals
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:47:00 GMT

In Article <15DEC199208171538@vx.cis.umn.edu> "soc1070                         " says:
> In article <1gj5tpINN8q3@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes...
> >In article <1992Dec14.214737.3742@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com>, buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott) writes:
> > 
> >> I took the announcement to mean that Aerotech was simply going to re-label
> >> what currently says 'ISP' to say 'Aerotech'. 
> > 
> >Right, that's how I understand it.
> 
> I hope they do some sort of additional labeling instead of just slapping
> an aerotech logo on the old ISP casings. I think doing this will create
> a lot of confusion over which reloads will fit in which case. I know that
> when I was buying my first reloadable (RMS 3-in-1), I was confused at the
> fact that ISP reloads wouldn't fit in the Aerotech casing. I figured all
> the casings would be the same, just marketed different (we do the same with
> our products all the time - different brand loyality and recognition)
> 
> I think it will create tons of confusion over reloads if there are two
> compleatly different systems both with the Aerotech brand on them - I
> would drop the ISP cases (labeled aerotech) under H or drop the RMS 40/240
> (not likely) so there isn't any crossover. 
 
I don't see the labeling issue as a big problem.  Currently within the 
Aerotech product line there are several similar impulse reloads that fit 
different cases (i.e. E16 and E18 in 24mm and 29mm, E27, E28 and E23 in 
18mm, 24mm and 29mm respectively).  These reloads are clearly labeled on 
the package which Aerotech RMS motor each is used in.
 
Aerotech should take the opportunity of the name change to clean up their 
act with labeling of the ISP reloads.  From the labeling, it is difficult to 
determine that an H128 fits an ISP RMS-29/180 and an H97 needs an ISP 
RMS-29/240.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Other reloadables besides Aerotech? (Re: Info. about solid rocket-
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:37:20 GMT

j.cook@primerd.prime.com (C. James Cook) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: > 
: > I hope they use the ISP version of the reloadable, and not the Aerotech
: > version used in their model rocket reloadables.
: > 
: > Bill
: 
: I would be very interested to hear why you say this.

Because, from the experiences of the people who have used both, the
Aerotech version is not as good a design. Apparently, it has problems.
I have never used one, so cannot say myself. However, there a couple
of people who have had a lot of reloadable experience have told me
to avoid the Aerotech reloadable.

Anyone else out there who has used both? Any comments?

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Goddard Rocket (was Club Projects)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:43:47 GMT

In article <Mf9TzSq00YUnE3T4t5@andrew.cmu.edu> Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>According to Willie Ley (_Rockets, Missiles, and Men in Space_), the
>pump used in the V2 was a virtually unmodified fireman's pump. All the
>requirements except the cryogenic capability were met: light weight and
>power in particular. Don't know if it's true, but if it is, then those
>pumps have been around long before the Germans or Goddard.

Then that part in 2010 about the Chinese using firemen's pumps on the 
Tsien wasn't too far fetched then? Remember they were pumping water, and
those were fireman's pumps from the 2003 or so...






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: barrett@add.itg.ti.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: CPRESS Vocabulary
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:50:24 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: powder.add.itg.ti.com

  I just FTP'd the CPRESS program off of the sunsite.unc.edu machine.

  I have a few questions wrt vocabulary.  Can anyone define these terms
that the program needs values for:


        "FIN ROOT CHORD"
        "FIN TIP CHORD"
        "SPAN RIGHT ANGLE"
        "FIN SWEEPBACK"
        "LENGTH, NOSE TIP TO ROOT TIP"

These all deal with Fin attributes, I beleive.

Stu Barrett  barrett@add.itg.ti.com
TRA#1277  NAR#4341
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tech!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:36:22 GMT

In article <1fjeodINNkid@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>Let's put it this way.  The Pink Book is now carefully worded to say that
>the launcher shall impart no MOMENTUM to the model.

Not even angular momentum?




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Other reloadables besides Aerotech? (Re: Info. about solid rocket-
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:13:37 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS

Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu (Roger Wilfong) writes:
>More directly, Aerotech has two product lines; their 'consumer' or Aerotech 
>line and their ISP line.  For the most part the ISP line and the other 
>manufacturers' lines are high impulse motors.  However, at least ISP and 
>Kosdon (I'm not sure about others) offer reloads and/or versions of their 
>'non-consumer' motors down into the 'F' range.  But, generally the market 
>these manufacturers are after is the high power group.
>  

Aerotech/ISP has announced that all their 'consumer' motors will henceforth
be sold under the Aerotech nameplate. Those above 160 nt-sec, including
H-M reloadables now sold as ISP, will carry the 'Aerotech High Power'
trademark. [I'm not sure it's been 'officially announced' yet, but they
were talking about this at NARAM last summer.]

This is apparently a result of a government customer for ISP product that
had some reservations about buying motors that carried a trade name which
was available to the consumer market.

Still no news on the reloadable situation from Aerotech, except a short 
announcement on Compu$erve Modelnet from Bob Sanford that effectively 
said "We're continuing to work with the government agencies and other
regulators, and we aren't going to talk about it until we have a definite
resolution." I think they wanted everyone to understand that any tales 
they hear are rumors, leaks, etc. at present.
-- 
Mark Johnson                          USnail: NCR Peripheral Products Division
E-mail:  Mark.Johnson@WichitaKS.NCR.COM       3718 N. Rock Rd.
Voice: (316) 636-8189 [V+ 654-8189]           Wichita, KS  67226
[Non-business email: 76670.1775@compuserve.com]
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu  (Roger Wilfong)
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tech!
Organization: UofM Hospitals
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:03:00 GMT

In Article <BzFuxK.B2I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)" says:
> 
> >You might also consider an Aerotech C4 18mm reload - an even longer burn.  
> >Another motor would be an old Centuri 13mm B3 - if you can find any. 
> 
> >Speaking of which, I wonder if we could talk Apogee and/or Quest into 
> >bringing this one back from the grave (a $1-2 black powder mini B would be 
> >a lot more attractive than the $8 composite B's).
> 
> I think the R/C RG people use E6 composites.
> 
 
Yup, they do.  They are a modified end burner with a short core burn at the 
beginning of the burn to get the model moving.  They have something like a 
10 sec. burn time but most of the thrust is in the early spike - the 
sustainer is only about a pound of thrust.  If you're going to fly one in a 
rocket (as opposed to a glider), the rocket needs to be fairly light 
(6 oz max).  I've flown an E6-2 in an LOC Aura at about 10 oz lift off 
weight.  At this weight and with the addition of drag, the rocket is slowing 
down during most of the sustainer and is really straining to keep going up 
during the last second or two of the burn.
 
Actually this has got me thinking.  One of the reasons that the E6 is so 
expensive (besides being a 'non-standard' Aerotech motor) is that they 
require a lot of hand work to cast the grain.  If the reload situation ever 
gets straightened out, the reload technology offers attractive alternatives 
for making custom grain configurations.  For example, an E6 shaped curve 
could be produced using a two part reload - a short core or slot burn grain 
and a pure end burn grain.  You'd assemble the reload with the slot grain to 
the nozzle and the end burn grain towards the ejection charge.  If the motor 
were intended for a glider and didn't need an ejection charge, the delay 
train could consist of a non-flammable plug.
 
The 32mm R/C reloads get an slight core burn through a slot cut across the 
nozzle end face of the propellant grain (it also gives a place for the 
ignitor to fit).
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Other reloadables besides Aerotech? (Re: Info. about solid rocket-
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:24:21 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <1992Dec14.210329.2663@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>As might be expected, the ISP reloads are just bigger versions of
>the RMS Aerotech reloads. Some details are different. 

Well some are the same size but have different case styles and slightly
different ways to attach the delay (you just slip the red delay container
over the end of the motor.

>My only beef, because, I would like to fly altitude is the
>short burn times on all the ISP motors. This is a lousy
>thrust program if you are going for height, the v**2
>drag kills you at low altitudes. 

I think that this is part of 'reloadable' technology - in order to keep
the casing temp. down they have to burn fast. An end-burning reload
would get really hot down the bottom and the case might deform before
it burned out, the motor mount might catch fire too.

>It makes for a fun 'hard rocket flight'. If we had drag
>racing against the clock (with accelerometers?) in high power
>model rocketry, it would be great to see what people could do.
>What mach numbers they could get. The high acceleration of the
>ISP motors would be great for this.'

A great idea but ....

>(I have seen 'drag' racing with these motors, but people just
>kind of eyeball the results. This is a case were not having accuracy
>sort of kills the fun, for me at least.)

Well I was one of the judges in the 7 Magnum drag race at LDRS (sure I was a
participant but me ? biased? ... I didn't win  :-) our rules were first
off the pad wins - all the skill here is in motor/ignitor prep. Judging was
done by video tape - after the launch everyone was just looking at the sky
saying 'wow!' - the RSO/LCO (me) couldn't see the sky because of the big
cloud of smoke blowing past us. I suspect that a drag race that's more like
a car drag race (say first past 1000') would be very limited by motor ignition
time - that extra 1-2 seconds while it builds chamber pressure is everything.

	Paul
-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
Use up your Quayle jokes now while they're still good "Quayle for Pres. in '94"
     Q: Why is Marilyn Quayle like Marion Barry?
     A: They both suck a little dope.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tech!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:53:44 GMT

In article <19921208172047.Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu> Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu  (Roger Wilfong) writes:
>In Article <1992Dec8.145521.23200@cs.hw.ac.uk> "adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt)" says:

>> The C5 does indeed have a high initial thrust.  It also has a reputation for
>> not living long enough to achieve its long, slow burn. :-)

>> So my recommendation would be a C6.  This has a longer burn than a B4, but
>> not the high thrust associated with a D class motor.


>You might also consider an Aerotech C4 18mm reload - an even longer burn.  
>Another motor would be an old Centuri 13mm B3 - if you can find any. 

>Speaking of which, I wonder if we could talk Apogee and/or Quest into 
>bringing this one back from the grave (a $1-2 black powder mini B would be 
>a lot more attractive than the $8 composite B's).

I think the R/C RG people use E6 composites.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tech!
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:16 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <19921210070604.Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu>, Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu (Roger Wilfong) writes:
> > >>     There are also the FSI E5 and F7 blackpowder motors.

> Wasn't it Tripp Barber who asked about 15-20 years ago why S&T was certifying 
> fire crackers?

I hope not.  15-20 years ago, Trip was IN CHARGE of S&T!

Well, 15 anyway.  20 years ago it was Jerry Gregorek.  But 20 years ago,
FSI engines weren't going kaboom.  (D13's were.)
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: barrett@add.itg.ti.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: RE: Piston Ejection
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:56:00 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: powder.add.itg.ti.com

>>Mike McMullen writes:
>>
>>  Has anyone built and used rockets with piston ejection for parachutes?
>>I'm building a Public Missiles Phobos and have concerns about residue
>>forming on the inside tube from the ejection charge.  It seems to me
>>that residue buildup could cause too much friction on the piston unless
>>you clean well after each use.  Has anyone run into problems with this?

  Yeah Mike, I built a PMI model once.  I think the piston mechanism is
a poor design.  Not only is there a cleaning problem, but there is also
a construction problem because it is VERY difficult not to get epoxy on
the piston mechanism when you slide the motor mount in the rocket.

  Ejection sounded like a LARGE firecracker due to the sudden realse of
pressure when the piston leaves the body tube.  I suspect that there is
a large over pressure condition that would tend to spit out the engine
until the piston clears the body tube.

  I would suggest that you do not use the piston.

Stu Barrett  barrett@add.itg.ti.com
TRA#1277  NAR#4341
Xref: sparky rec.models.rockets:3289 rec.models.scale:679 rec.models.railroad:2683 rec.models.rc:5049
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,rec.models.scale,rec.models.railroad,rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Decals via Laser Printer
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:22:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <Bz9GuK.EwF@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

> The big problem is getting the knife to rotate. This is how the 
> plotter knife thing works.

But you can buy such knives at any graphic arts shop.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Subject: Re: Other reloadables besides Aerotech? (Re: Info. about solid rocket-
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:47:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.133410@primerd.Prime.COM>, j.cook@primerd.prime.com (C. James Cook) writes:
|> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
|> > msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) writes:
|> > : 
|> > : Aerotech/ISP has announced that all their 'consumer' motors will henceforth
|> > : be sold under the Aerotech nameplate. Those above 160 nt-sec, including
|> > : H-M reloadables now sold as ISP, will carry the 'Aerotech High Power'
|> > : trademark. [I'm not sure it's been 'officially announced' yet, but they
|> > : were talking about this at NARAM last summer.]
|> > 
|> > I hope they use the ISP version of the reloadable, and not the Aerotech
|> > version used in their model rocket reloadables.
|> > 
|> > Bill
|> 
|> I would be very interested to hear why you say this.
|> 
|> Jim

Not to be putting words into Bill's mouth (these are MY opinions)....

The black and gold 'Aerotech' RMS systems (18, 24/20-40, and 29/40-120) use
much smaller and lighter closures.  There a fewer turns on the threads.
All the materials are much lighter.  I've had failures, and seen many others,
where the closure on the nozzle end of the casing was not screwed ABSOLUTELY
ALL THE WAY IN AND TIGHT.  The closure blows off.  This doesn't happen with 
the old black and silver ISP design.  It's much sturdier, heavier, and more
forgiving.  Some people like to buy and use the ISP 29/60 and 29/100 hardware
sets rather than the Aerotech 29/40-120 for just this reason.  The 29/60
gets you a 'light' F, the 29/100 gets you a 'light' G, and the 29/180
Blackjack reload gets you a full, 160NS G.

I took the announcement to mean that Aerotech was simply going to re-label
what currently says 'ISP' to say 'Aerotech'.  This would be consistent with
their recent announcement that Aerotech had completely separated from ISP.
Their current reloads would not fit if they changed the design of the current 
ISP hardware.

================================================================================
= Buzz McDermott                Disclaimer: I speak for no one but myself, and =
= buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com                       anyone who listens to anything I   =
= NAR   13559                               have to say deserves whatever they =
= TRA    1785                               get!!                              =
================================================================================
From: massey@travis.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Exhaust Deflector Material Question
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:19:11 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Greetings,

	I'm looking for someone who has had first-hand experience, either good
	or bad, with using 1/8-inch aluminum plate (6061) as a launch-stand 
	exhaust deflector. For the launchers that I'm building, the planned 
	deflectors are about 10 inches square and perpendicular to the launch
	rod. Will there be a problem with burn-through or melting? At what 
	engine size does this begin to be a problem?

	Remember, I'm looking for first-hand experiences, not opinions.

Thanks

Warren N. Massey                                      Massey@Travis.LLNL.Gov
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory                   P.O. Box 808, L-495
Livermore, Calif. 94550  <<<My opinions are mine alone>>>      (510)422-1958
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets