Funny take on rocketry terms

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Paxto » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:08:43



People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and complain
when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of "Explosive
Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining about
it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

Just something I was pondering.

Pax

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by David Weinshenke » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:30:25


Quote:

> People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and complain
> when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of "Explosive
> Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining about
> it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> Just something I was pondering.

> Pax

The irony of course is that in general terms "high power rockets" are the second
smallest category... they're the ones that are just barely too large to be
properly called "model" rockets (by the hobby-internal definition) - in my notes
to my Senators I'll probably refer to "sport and experimental rockets, ranging
from the small Estes models to larger versions which are capable of carrying
payloads such as cameras and electronic measuring systems".

-dave w

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Jerry Irvin » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:23:47



Quote:

> People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and complain
> when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of "Explosive
> Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining about
> it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> Just something I was pondering.

> Pax

Not really.  The current problem is one of shipping.  Model Rockets (as
defined by NAR and its self-destructive NFPA-1122 document) is impacted
"the most" by the recent series of events.

After all, it is Estes model rockets in particular that are classified
as explosives, shipped as explosives, sent to EVERY hobby,
mass-merchandising and school outlet in the country.  It is Estes that
is doing some $40m a year or so in sales, mostly in motors.

I would clearly say model rocketry has the most to lose and is most
impacted by this madness.

Amateur and HPR rocketeers can always resort to the old days of a
physical distribution network.  Model rocketry cannot.

It is motivated amateur rockketeers that, as usual, are going to save
Estes' and MR's ass.  Against the will of the NAR.

Jerry

Your local expert.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Jerry Irvin » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:25:22




Quote:

> > People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> > mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and complain
> > when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> > going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of
> > "Explosive
> > Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining about
> > it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> > Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> > Just something I was pondering.

> > Pax

> The irony of course is that in general terms "high power rockets" are the
> second
> smallest category... they're the ones that are just barely too large to be
> properly called "model" rockets (by the hobby-internal definition) - in my
> notes
> to my Senators I'll probably refer to "sport and experimental rockets,
> ranging
> from the small Estes models to larger versions which are capable of carrying
> payloads such as cameras and electronic measuring systems".

> -dave w

Terms I recommend:

Amateur rocketry (what is actually being addressed)
Consumer rockets (covera all MR, LMR, HPR)
Reuseable aeromodels (state law term)

Please take special note this list does NOT include model rocketry or
high power rocketry.

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by defaul » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:07:50


Well Pax,  To pick the nits for ya, I see it like this:  An Estes V2 model
rocket can use a 24mm D reload and those propellant slugs can be used in a
Binford or Jerry G or H motor so therefore they are regulated by the Federal
Gov.  Also, didn't the BATF say they were going to enforce their shipping
regulations for security reasons and not safety reasons?  Therefore, any DOT
exemptions will be over ruled by BATF and even Estes A motors could be
refused by the post office and other private shippers.

steve


Quote:
> People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and
complain
> when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of
"Explosive
> Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining
about
> it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> Just something I was pondering.

> Pax

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Bill Bahu » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:55:44



Quote:
> People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and
complain
> when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of
"Explosive
> Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining
about
> it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> Just something I was pondering.

> Pax

 I think that evryone that has replied is "too close" to the issue.
To the general public "model rocket" is all any of us do. If you start
talking "High Power" and "EX" you're gonna scare the general public and work
against yourself. Case in point: What is an "*** rifle"? By definition
it is a firearm that may be switched from semi-automatic fire to fully
automatic fire by use of a switch. Ask the public though and they'll give
widely varying answers based on what they saw last on the news.
If you tell people you do "high power" rocketry they'll start thinking NASA.
Just something to think about.
Bill Bahus
 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Greg » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:57:02




Quote:
>People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
>mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and complain
>when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
>going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of "Explosive
>Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining about
>it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
>Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

>Just something I was pondering.

>Pax

In the letter I wrote, I used "consumer rockets" and "consumer
rocketry".  I figured that would cover everything.  Although I don't
participate in experimental rocketry - I think those guys should be
included (esp. considering that Wickman is into it and he started this
ball a rollin')
 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Jerry Irvin » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:11:00



Quote:



> >People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> >mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and complain
> >when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> >going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of "Explosive
> >Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining about
> >it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> >Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> >Just something I was pondering.

> >Pax

> In the letter I wrote, I used "consumer rockets" and "consumer
> rocketry".  I figured that would cover everything.  Although I don't
> participate in experimental rocketry - I think those guys should be
> included (esp. considering that Wickman is into it and he started this
> ball a rollin')

NAR disagrees :)

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Jerry Irvin » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:13:07




Quote:


> > People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> > mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and
> complain
> > when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> > going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of
> "Explosive
> > Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining
> about
> > it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> > Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> > Just something I was pondering.

> > Pax

>  I think that evryone that has replied is "too close" to the issue.
> To the general public "model rocket" is all any of us do.

I think that is true.  Problem is the technicians who write the law can
use the "legal term" to turn support of amateur rocketry of any weight
or propellant with black powder charges and fuse and igniters, to
allowing 30g 1.4s consumer model rockets again, and nothing else.

Jerry

Quote:
> If you start
> talking "High Power" and "EX" you're gonna scare the general public and work
> against yourself. Case in point: What is an "*** rifle"? By definition
> it is a firearm that may be switched from semi-automatic fire to fully
> automatic fire by use of a switch. Ask the public though and they'll give
> widely varying answers based on what they saw last on the news.
> If you tell people you do "high power" rocketry they'll start thinking NASA.
> Just something to think about.
> Bill Bahus

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.FoundCollection.com/
 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Jim Ban » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:37:30



Quote:


> > People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> > mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and
>  complain
> > when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> > going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of
>  "Explosive
> > Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining
>  about
> > it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> > Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> > Just something I was pondering.

> > Pax

>  I think that evryone that has replied is "too close" to the issue.
> To the general public "model rocket" is all any of us do. If you start
> talking "High Power" and "EX" you're gonna scare the general public and work
> against yourself. Case in point: What is an "*** rifle"? By definition
> it is a firearm that may be switched from semi-automatic fire to fully
> automatic fire by use of a switch. Ask the public though and they'll give
> widely varying answers based on what they saw last on the news.
> If you tell people you do "high power" rocketry they'll start thinking NASA.
> Just something to think about.
> Bill Bahus

Bill, you're absolutely correct. As the author of both the SPACE.com
story and its headline, I could have said Explosive Regulations
Threaten to Kill Large and Dangerous Rockets. Your battle will only be
won if you stay focused on the risk that these regulations could
impact young kids flying little Alpha rockets with A and B engines in
the school athletic field. If this is more about ***s and their
giant toys, no one will care. Personally I have no interest in the
bigger rockets or what they're called, unless they go by the names of
Delta 4 or Atlas 5. But I don't want anything standing in the way of
my 10-year-old catching the rocket bug the way I did many decades ago.
Thanks to those of you who wrote to help with the story...

Jim Banke

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by HDS » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:26:53


"Paxton"

Quote:
>Now, with the legislative action
> going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of
"Explosive
> Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining
about
> it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> Estes sized "model rocketry" right?

> Just something I was pondering.

> Pax

The Headlines have it right. Despite the various "power" levels (low, mid,
high),
they are ALL still MODEL rockets. This doesn't mean they aren't REAL
rockets.
Much the same way that a "fresbie" is the blanket name for all "flying
disk".

Well, at least that's how I look at it.

HDS

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Kurt Kesle » Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:27:40



says...

Quote:

> The Headlines have it right. Despite the various "power" levels (low, mid,
> high),
> they are ALL still MODEL rockets. This doesn't mean they aren't REAL
> rockets.
> Much the same way that a "fresbie" is the blanket name for all "flying
> disk".

> Well, at least that's how I look at it.

> HDS

<Foghorn Leghorn mode>

Boy, I say boy, now you have gone and done it.  

</FLM>

--
Kurt Kesler

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Paxto » Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:38:48


That was exactly what I was talking about. People *** and moan if somebody
calls as experimental rocket a model rocket, but everybody is taking
advantage of the fact that the term model rocket is used for the public.

I don't give at rats ass any which way. I mean, Every experimental rocket is
just as much of a model as an Estes mosquito, but some people get their
knickers in a twist over anything.

Pax

Quote:
>  I think that evryone that has replied is "too close" to the issue.
> To the general public "model rocket" is all any of us do. If you start
> talking "High Power" and "EX" you're gonna scare the general public and
work
> against yourself. Case in point: What is an "*** rifle"? By definition
> it is a firearm that may be switched from semi-automatic fire to fully
> automatic fire by use of a switch. Ask the public though and they'll give
> widely varying answers based on what they saw last on the news.
> If you tell people you do "high power" rocketry they'll start thinking
NASA.
> Just something to think about.
> Bill Bahus

 
 
 

Funny take on rocketry terms

Post by Paxto » Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:41:00


Agreed 100%. My point is that some rocket folk like to *** and moan and
complain about EVERYTHING.

Pax

Quote:
> The Headlines have it right. Despite the various "power" levels (low, mid,
> high),
> they are ALL still MODEL rockets. This doesn't mean they aren't REAL
> rockets.
> Much the same way that a "fresbie" is the blanket name for all "flying
> disk".

> Well, at least that's how I look at it.

> HDS