Rocketry Planet

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends!

I don't know, this sounds like a retreat by Gary.

This hardware cannot be used for AMW loads unless AMW submits it for certification no?

Not really astonishing, isn't it? I am personally surprised this didn't come earlier.
AT was bringing back KBA loads. So they also need to have casings. You can't really expect that they send customers to buy elsewhere.

Juerg Thuering
TRA 04981 / TAP
(Switzerland)

I do think it is wrong to call it "Monster Animals", that is clearly provocative and shows little class.

I thought the same.
And then I was starting to wonder if this is the original title by RouseTech or if this is a local (RocketryPlanet) interpretation.
"Rouse-Tech announces KBA / AMW compatible Motor hardware" would be what I'd expect to read.
Darell, can you comment?

There was an update by the manufacturer after the article was posted, and while I edited in the website front end, I forgot to update the one paragraph blurb in the forums. The correct name is Kosdon By Rouse-Tech™, not Monster Animals. That name was probably the code name for the development project and not the retail release. I have updated the initial forum post. Thanks for the heads up.

As for the title, it was originally "Rouse-Tech Announces Kosdon by Rouse-Tech Animal-Compatible Hardware Sets" but it was too long for my content management system, so it got whacked down to a manageable size.

By the way, this should eliminate some of the critic's concerns about warranty issues, at least for the initially offered casing sizes.

1125 has always allowed for the provision that if a reload manufacturer wanted his reloads to be certified for use in another manufacturer's hardware, the reload manufacturer would have to submit the reload along with the other manufacturer's hardware in sufficient numbers to meet testing criteria. This would be the same scenario AeroTech would have used to get their most recent certifications for the KBA reloads. I do not know if there have been any precedential scenarios where the opposite held true, where the hardware manufacturer would submit his hardware and another manufacturer's reloads to have that combination certified as well, but I don't see where that wouldn't be doable. I don't know what 1125 says about this but it would seem to be equally as doable. I am sure time will tell.

NFPA1125 does not say anything about motor 'systems' from mixed sources. But it does say that the manufacturer must be responsible for QC on all components. The revised (still unofficial) NAR S&T policy/manual has a new paragraph for "cross compatibility", requiring each casing manufacturer to have the reloads retested.

-John DeMar
NAR/TRA L3

If NAR does that as you say it would be new NAR nonsense. It would be very bad. I therefore expect you to implement it.

Load manufacturers should specify cases. New cases should be able to be added "by reference" without case specific tests (ie RMS by Dr. Rocket, by AT, by ISP, by LOC, by Rouse, by the boogie man). A specific specification case does not care who it is made by and reloadable cases have massive overhead.

Make certifications never expire. USR motors from 30 years ago are reliably flown still.

Just Jerry

My Dad used to make us burgers on the grill many years ago - two small patties on a single bun with some stuff in between. Guess that makes me an heir to the McDonalds empire!

Did we just jump the shark?

Was Ray Kroc ever hanging out with your Dad in the backyard. Jerry's point is slim but at least arguable.

-John D.