Upcoming Launch Schedule

ROCC 2024-2025 Launch Schedule:

NO launch in May due to the wheat. We hope to fly in June. 

 

 All launches are at the Midland, NC site unless otherwise stated.*

Here are some other launch opportunities in our area:

ICBM & ROSCO, better known as Rocketry South Carolina, flies near Dalzelle, SC., Just NE of Shaw AFB.  More information can be gotten at their site HERE

The Saturn Rocketry Club in Hendersonville is currently switching their launch field. As soon as we know where they land we will post it. Their FB site is HERE

NC Rocketry flies at Bayboro, NC in the northeast part of the state, information is HERE

 Set-up starts at about 9:30, launches commence about 10:30. Field closes about 60 min. before local dusk so we can clean up. Watch the site front page for specifics. Also visit us on FaceBook. You can also check for the FAA NOTAM at https://notams.aim.faa.gov/notamSearch/nsapp.html#/ and using KCLT (Charlotte) as the location. This will give you the starting and ending times for HP flights. 

* If field is available due to crops, etc.

« Orangeburg launch cancelled this weekend | Main | Launch Report for Saturday July 22 2007 »
Tuesday
Jul312007

Court Hearing Postponed

DateTuesday, July 31, 2007 at 5:44AM

Received from Ken Good, president of TRA.

As many or most may have heard by now, Judge Reggie Walton's office contacted TRA/NAR legal counsel Marty Malsch at about Noon on July 26, to notify him that the hearing of July 27 was canceled, and the court would get back to him on rescheduling. No further information was provided, and it is not always expected that the staff person who called would be able to do so.

Mark Bundick and I were already in transit to Washington when Marty was able to get in touch to let us know. We therefore met with Marty for a dinner meeting, in which we discussed what this may mean and also future strategic steps we may take, depending on the outcome of the case. In brief, Marty could not say for sure why the judge canceled, although it is possible that he recognized that this status hearing (for which date he had previously expressed that he would be able to render the court opinion on the cross motions for summary judgement) was not required, and he has enough documentation to rule from the bench in the very near future. This is speculation on our part at the moment, but Marty (after conferring with our senior counsel, Joe Egan) did express that this could be a positive sign. In any case, Marty's best assessment was that he did not expect the judge to delay for very long whatever he was going to do, whether it is to reschedule a hearing for oral arguments or issue rulings.

I know we were all waiting in great anticipation of an outcome on July 27 or shortly thereafter, and believe me, Mark Bundick and I share everyone's frustration that this has not yet occurred. As soon as we receive any further information from the court, I will pass it along to the membership.

Ken Good

AuthorDOC R. | Comments Off |
in