From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Where did my rocket go??
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:45:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.180248.28056@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com
(bill nelson) writes:
>msjohnso@daisy.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) writes:
>: In article <1992Aug18.223722.23955@primerd.prime.com> <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM>
writes:
>: >Estes did demonstrate some of their composite motors at NARAM-34.
>: >Mary Roberts of Estes said although they had the correct propellant
>: >formulations, they were not the final casings, etc.
>: >
>: >I don't remember any official promised date for their release.
>: 
>: Mike Hellmund of Estes told me they expected to be shipping by about
>: March 31, 1993. I'm not certain whether this is initial quantities or 
>: volume shipments. Given the state of the industry, it had better mean
>: volume delivery into the distributor pipeline, but who knows.
>
>I don't really care when they are available. Until the bit with the CPSC
>etc are cleared up - I will not buy any Estes products. If I believe that
>the trick that was pulled by Vulcan (which appeared to have backing by
>Estes) did permanent harm to the hobby, then I will never buy another 
>product produced by Estes. I have blackballed Vulcan for life - I will
>never purposely purchase anything in which they were involved in producing.
>
>Now, if my perceptions are wrong - someone please clear them up. Otherwise,
>I will retain them.
>
>Bill
>
>
While I am inclined to agree with your position (and am as prone to flaming as
the next guy - my wife would say more so), never is a long time.
 
From the messages that have appeared, it is apparent that neither Estes nor
Vulcan started the current situation.  I am inclined to think that their
actions may have added fuel to the fire (pun intended); however, this situation
has been a pile of fertilizer that was sitting awfully close to the ventilation
system to begin with.  

As far as scaring the NFPA, DOT and/or the CPSC - 

The NPFA is made up of people that KNOW that the world is not (and never will
be) a safe place.  They know that things burn.  The DOT was already suspicious
that the placard regulations were being violated (on this issue, Aerotech is
probably more at fault for not contacting DOT about reloads).  The CPSC are
just being bureaucrats and want all of the forms filled out and red tape
wrapped around the product.

That's not to say Estes and Vulcan are blameless.  From the reports of the NFPA
meeting, their actions placed the entire hobby/industry in a bad light.  It's
one thing to have concerns and objections (for either safety or competition
reasons) that are made clear to the caucus, and another to hide that position
and spring it on the NFPA.  I think that does the hobby a disservice.  For that
reason a boycott may be justified.

Flame on -

My beef against Aerotech.
 
1)  What give these turkeys the right to jeopardize the hobby by selling
products to the unsuspecting public with instructions that 'interpert' the
federal law differently from the interpertation that has been commonly accepted
for 25-30 years?  I'm refering specifically to the insert that came in my
Initiator kit that said in so many words that when flown with an F or G, the
rocket was too heavy to fly without a waiver. Basicall what the insert says is:
'Even though the rocket is too heavy for the FAA to consider it a model rocket
covered under FAR 101, don't worry about it.  You're only going to be breaking
the law for a few seconds, until the propellant is burned up - then the
Initiator will again be a model rocket.'  BULL.  FAR 101 say: '16 oz lift-off
weight' - if it ain't a model rocket when it lifts off, it ain't a model
rocket!  The ethics of this insert are questionable.  If Aerotech wants to work
to change the FARs, great.  I'm all for it.  But, encouraging the unsuspecting
to ignore the FARs is deliberately risking bringing the FAA down on the entire
hobby!

2)  Aerotech is not blameless with regards to the reload situation.  Either
through ignorance or the rush to get product to the market, they neglected to
clear the shipment of reloads with DOT.  They hit CPSC but they assumed that by
repackaging the propellant into chunks smaller than 62.5 grams they would be
legal.  Rule #1 with bureaucrats - 'Don't assume anything.'  The latest reports
on the CA situation make it look like this is the result of the same
short-cuts.

Flame off -

No having said that, I'll make my position on reloads clear.  In my limited
experience with them, they appear to be the single biggest improvement in the
hobby in 20 years (perhaps since Carlson invented the hobby).  At the bare
minimum, they rank up there with the invention of 'Mabel' (I hope I got the
name right) and the introduction of composites.  Again from my limited
experience, they seem to be at least as safe as conventional single use motors.
 I'm all making them 'legal', but I'm not the guy that pounds the gavel - we
need to line up our ducks so that the guys would do pound it are comforatble
with the technology.

BTW - I have noticed a strange phenomenom as regards reloadable motors.  While
a couple years ago, it seemed a couple of years ago, HP rockets were almost
treated as throwaways - blast them out of sight and if we never see it again...
well so goes the war.  Suddenly with reloads, this attitude seems to be
changing.  Add a $60 motor casing to a $100 rocket and people are crying - not
about loosing the rocket (that took them a lot of time to build and finish) -
but about loosing the casing.

Is this a real phenomenom?  Has any one else noticed it?  or am I just nuts? 
(My wife will tell you that I crazy, but not dangerous.  I've never denied
the former, only the later.)