Slashdot Mirror

You mean like the plug that shoots out of the top of the model rocket motor that ejects the nose cone and attached parachute? Or SpaceX rockets? I'm thinking there's a little more nuance to the law than what the GP says.

Well, it's a bit of a stretch to call a recovery streamer or parachute a "control system". I wouldn't even apply that label to the model rockets that Estes actually sold in stores that had a swing-wing that would fold out instead of deploying a parachute. Anyway, it does look as if he is completely full of crap anyway. TL;DR: You can not only build rocket-launched gliders and control them with COTS RC equipment, but you can even air-start rockets! And in that moment, the reader was enlightened. I've been trying to figure out what kind of UAV I want to build next, and the answer is rocket-launch glider. Apparently you are even allowed to launch them at an angle of 45 degrees so long as the model is designed to be controlled during the boost phase. Otherwise it's 30 degrees, like a normal model rocket. Even since I read about sugar rockets, I've had a renewed interest in rocketry. This is a pretty terrible county for model rocketry, because everything is so dry, but building something with control and without an ejection charge would reduce the hazard substantially.

In Model Rocketry, there are active Associations like the National Association of Rocketry that has educational and mentorship programs and they even operate a High Power Rocketry certification program.

In Model Rocketry, there are active Associations like the National Association of Rocketry that has educational and mentorship programs and they even operate a High Power Rocketry certification program.

That said, I don't see how the FAA's rules are enforceable, nor do I see how the FAA can actually claim to have the authority to make rules in an an area that, as far as I can tell, congress has never granted them the power to do.

Enforceability is one thing but a few high profile cases will take the wind out of many peoples rotors. As to whether or not the FAA can regulate UAVs - it's pretty clear that they have broad powers of regulation when it comes to aircraft safety. UAVs that potentially serve as hazards to aircraft in flight or around a runway would easily fall under FAA jurisdiction. Kids flying something in their back yard - that's the big issue. If you look at the one 'hobby' that UAVs most closely resemble, model rocketry, you find a reasonable distinction between activities that are regulated by the FAA and ones that are not. It did take an act of Congress to carve this 'exception' out so the assumption is that, yes, the FAA could do this but the Congress doesn't want them to.

We may need to see something similar.

Anything above the entry-level "model rocket" category certainly does need FAA notification and approval if you're doing it inside US airspace: http://www.nar.org/pdf/FARrockets0209.pdf .

Anything going remotely close to orbit is going to get into the High Power or Advanced High Power categories.

In today's age, if I started messing with liquid fuels, or built rockets over 6 feet tall, I would likely get harassed by local law enforcement (or more likely my neighbors would call for them), assuming I could even get the proper permits to be allowed to build the thing... permits to build something with my own two hands and then test it out on my friend's private property (a farm)? CRAZY, and wrong.

While that may draw some odd looks, there is a regulated process by which you can build that kind of thing. Building a six-foot tall rocket is not illegal (I have done it many a time, the largest I have built was a two-stage 11 foot sounding rocket, staging from a K1100T (about 256 times more powerful than a C) to a J1299L (about 128 times more powerful than a C)), and no permits of any kind are required to build it. You do need a certification (or to know someone with a certification) to buy larger propellants, which basically help you to be less of a hazard to others (because presumably if you have a Level 1 or 2 or 3 certification, you know somewhat what you are doing). You do know about the NAR, right?

In short, rocketry is not illegal, but you do need to know what you are doing so that you don't kill or injure people people.

1. Goto Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log over at MSNBC. He asked and got answered the very same question.

2. My answer to him: Goto model rockets. A starter kit with a launcher and motors. A couple more kits of the same kind. One for the other kid, the other for you (getting you involved will be a recurring theme). Build them and fly them together. The small one in the starter kits can be flown from very small areas. If they enjoy it and want more, buy some more motors (mail order or local hobby shop), locate your closest NAR chapter http://www.nar.org/NARseclist.php find out when their organized launch is, and take the kids. Let them fly with the members and see some of the other rockets and higher powered motors. If they respond positively, join the chapter with them and make it a regular thing. Also, when you and they are ready to commit, you can get a family membership from NAR. BTW, there's not only a lot more manufacturers selling kits now, there are even some selling retro reproductions of some of the oldest kits, just in case you or someone you know was a rocketer back in the day and is feeling nostalgic.

NAR #28965

I hadn't actually heard of model rockets setting off brushfires, but apparently it happens.

However, first up in the google search results was the exact opposite, a brushfire setting off model rockets.

For those who hadn't kept up with it (myself included), in 2000, the Tripoli Rocketry Association and the National Association of Rocketry (rocket hobbyist associations) sued the BATF about their having classified model rocket engines above a certain size as "explosives". Fairly recently, they received a favorable judgement in court, vacating the regulation. It is apparently still up for appeal, so in effect, no change for now. (After all, the government can't admit it was WRONG, now can it? That would undermine Faith In The Goverment.)

This footnote is being moved to a headnote. This is written from a male standpoint and references females. Female geeks, take it to heart, as this activity would put you in with male geeks at a 1:20 or so ratio. Same-gender oriented, do your own math.

I combine my need for a geek social life with my need to work with my hands, workshop style. Contradictory? No. I build and fly rockets. Model rockets, large model rockets, and high powered rockets. As they grow, it requires greater building skill, but also requires things like electronic altimeter controlled dual pyrotechnic ejection, the pyro being hand packed also. In high power rocketry there's also experimental rocketry, which just means making your own fuel, for the chemistry/pyroholic geek.

The social aspect comes from participating in a local rocketry group, in meetings and flying. As you get to high power, you can participate in a sense of competitiveness and go for size and power. (Present record is a 1/10 scale model Saturn V). You can do it like the steely eyed missile men and start with a desired flight profile then build the beast to fit it. I wanted to hear my own sonic boom, so I came up with a design via software that would do the job (there are several available for this, all under $100). I built a 9 foot, 6 pound monster that used very fast burning motors, a vertical dragster. It cracked Mach 1 at about 500 feet, the length helping to make it audible. Don't think that didn't earn me geek points with the folks at the flying field (the same field SpaceX tested early motors at; it's still littered with rusting pieces; more geek relation).

Most rocketry groups fly at least once a month, some as often as 4. Some areas may have more than one group close enough to participate in. You can find them at National Association of Rocketry http://nar.org/ and Tripoli Rocketry Association http://tripoli.org/ .

You can spend as little or as much on this as you want. Some regular, long time rocketers stick with the smaller model rockets (http://yurisnight.net/ . Fairly evenly gender balanced, and very geek-attractive should you find a female that's at least somewhat interested in a geek and geekish things.

Neither the NAR Model Rocket code or the High Power safety code prohibit active guidance syatems.

http://www.nar.org/NARmrsc.html
http://www.nar.org/NARhpsc.html

They both prohibit launching a rocket AT A TARGET.

In fact, a rocket with active guidance (a "sunseeker") won a NAR R+D award a few years ago. George Gassaway built it, but his webpage seems to be down at the moment...

Neither the NAR Model Rocket code or the High Power safety code prohibit active guidance syatems.

http://www.nar.org/NARmrsc.html
http://www.nar.org/NARhpsc.html

They both prohibit launching a rocket AT A TARGET.

In fact, a rocket with active guidance (a "sunseeker") won a NAR R+D award a few years ago. George Gassaway built it, but his webpage seems to be down at the moment...

You must not be too good with math, moron. This suit was filed over actions taken by the CLINTON ADMINSTRATION!! And since the biggest boosters for new legislation to limit model rocketry have been Democrats (Schumer and Lautenberg, to name two), you seem to be a little short on actual facts, too.

http://www.nar.org/2003/07/nar_refutes_inaccurate_claims.php

To recap, you are a foul-mouthed little Nazi who can't read or add simple integers. Congrats! You a PERFECT Democrat.

In the figurative sense certainly, by hiring an 'expert' to do their testing who knew nothing about the field, produced results that were nonsensical and pretty much conducted scientific fraud at the behest of ATFE. Proper expert testimony was provided by rocket motor manufacturers who had worked in the field for the government and/or contractors, still consulted to the government, and worked on other projects like SpaceShip 1. Why ATFE didn't see this coming is a mystery.

They also nearly blew themselves up literally. They 'required' one of the motor manufacturers to sell them motors at market price (he had initially declined). They rented a van, loaded up their rockets and headed to the desert to do some testing. They intended to prove that high powered rockets could be used to bring down an aircraft. They ignored the rules that virtually all rocketers follow regarding distance between launcher and people, rockets and motors. They launched one out of the back of the van. The back blast lit their other motors in the van. Their rented van proceeded to burn merrily to the ground. They denied it, but it was proven otherwise. They started to try to get a gag order but apparently used their one and only Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious on this rather than one the case as a whole.

As for other regulation, high powered rocketry has been well regulated all along, just as its little cousin, model rocketry, is. The rules originated with G. Harry Stine, one time range safety officer at White Sands and pioneer of model rocketry. The high powered rules evolved over time, and have been considered acceptable in development and content by the FAA, the National Fire Protection Association, and similar relevant agencies. We have been trusted for 50 years to develop and follow our own regulations suitable to these agencies. Now we can ignore the arbitrary, stifling, baseless rules concocted by ATFE (put into force without due process) and carry on another 50 years. The regulations we have in place cover all airframes and power systems up through 200,000 newtons, where the FAA's office of space transportation takes over.

The standing regulations for high powered rocketry are available the National Association of Rocketry at http://nar.org/hpcert/NARhprintro.html Only high powered motors were involved in the ruling. Model rockets (including "large model rockets", up to 3.3 pounds loaded and 4 ounces of propellant) were not involved.

As for APCP, although it produces a large amount of exhaust gas which can be channeled through a nozzle to produce thrust (see the space shuttle's boosters for an example), it burns at about the rate of a piece of paper. Thus while it might "conflagerate" it is hardly worth bothering with as an explosive. It is actually more profitable to use small model rocket motors for explosives as they are black powder.

NAR #28965, High Power Certification level 1
Rocketeer since June 1964

I am level 2 certified through the National Association of Rocketry and Tripoli Rocketry Association. I have rockets, built from kits purchased for under $200 and propelled by solid fuel motors for around $200 or hybrid motors for about $100 that can carry a 0.5 pound payload far higher than one kilometer. Anybody on this list who is willing to take a few evenings to build a rocket kit, spend the money to join NAR or TRA, and join the nearest high power rocketry club will be able to launch a small TV transmitter with telemetry over one km and save $18,000 over the Japanese liquid rocket. And if you are really into liquid fuels, you can even find amateurs working with those.

The air traffic is not really an issue, even near a airports. It's hard to hit an airplane with a rocket. That's why military missles are guided and typically use some sort of proximity fuse and explosive warhead. Those guidance systems and warheads with proximity fuses are not generally available to the general public.

Anyway, the regulations recognize three different categories of rockets. If you have a rocket that masses no more than 453 grams and has no more than 113g of grams of propellant, with no more than 62.5 grams in any given engine, then you have what is known as a "model rocket" and you can launch from anywhere that isn't near an airport it without telling anybody you're going to do it.

If you have a rocket that masses no more than 1500 grams and has no more than 125 grams of propellant, with no more than 62.5 grams of propellant in each engine, and a total impulse of no more than 160 NS and an average thrust of no more than 80 Newtons, then you have what's known as a "large model rocket", and you need to notify the FAA before you launch it.

If you have a rocket that masses more than 1500 grams, or has more than 125 grams of propellant or has more than 62.5 grams of propellant in any one engine, has a total impulse of more than 160 NS or an average impulse of more than 80 Newtons, then you have a "high power rocket" which requires that you get the FAA's permission to launch it.

There are two organizations supporting model and amateur rocketry in the USA. The National Association of Rocketry and the Tripoli Rocketry Association. Those web sites have links to local chapters all over the country.

Whether or not you can legally buy the propellant (premanufactured "single use" engines are recognized by everyone as legal to buy, sell, and use) is a matter of opinion, and there are lawsuits pending on that subject right now. If you have an interest in these matters, please donate the NAR legal fund or the TRA legal fund.

The guys I know who do high-power (I'm starting to do LMR's now) made a great deal of fun of these Camui rockets because the high-power guys build rockets that go a great deal higher for a lot less money. A $300 investment can get you a completely reusable rocket that goes up a couple of kilometers as well as the propellant for one flight.

My high power rocket will never carry live animals (except insects) or a payload that is intended to be flammable, explosive, or harmful.

They'll lose their certification for SURE!

The space.com article cited was posted March 6; this posting from the National Association of Rocketry points out the BATF hasn't made it clear whether the regulations will apply to materials already on hand.

Also, this is part of a dispute that's been going on for years then be BATF decided to designate Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (the same fuel used in the Space Shuttle's SRBs) as an "explosive". The 62.5 gram limit was proposed as a compromise measure by the NAR to a flat-out banning of all APCP engines. This way, people could still enter into the higher-power forms of rocketry without dealing with the BATF's arcane regulations and uneven enforcement.

Then came the Homeland Security act and black powder (gunpowder, a/k/a "BP") engines were added to that list of "explosives", causing FedEx and UPS to ultimately refuse to carry them. There's still a bill pending in Congress to make a "technical correction" to remove black powder motors from that list. It's the subject of a phone and FAX compaign to garner support.

Would removing black powder from the 62.5 gram limit mean we see huge BP motors? Not likely, as the thrust/weight efficiency of BP is low enough not to make that a viable trade-off.

I think this would really potentially affect the hobby shops. If all rocket engines are going to be classified as explosives, then they would need to get the ATF permits, build proper storage facilities a certain distance from inhabited structures, and run background checks on their customers. Therefore, I assume that if what you say is true this would put an incredible burden on retailers, and we would see some significant backlash. While big box retail stores may have some facilites set up to handle explosives, I think most hobby shops do not.

I've done simular things in my past, but to do what you did you had to go beyound what a simple model rocket engine can do. Adding black power to the nose of a rocket isn't in NAR regs last time I checked.

8. Flight Safety. I will not launch my rocket at targets, into clouds, or near airplanes, and will not put any flammable or explosive payload in my rocket.

By definition, if it weights over 1500 grams, it is NOT a model rocket. Their web server is /.'d, so I can't read their details. Assuming their rocket really has a lift off weight of 200 lbs., it is going to require a substantial motor of that would clearly put it into the high power class.

So, anyone have any links for someone looking to get into amature rockets?

I'm not sure what you classify as amatuer, but the two biggest "consumer" (essentially for stuff you can buy commercially) organizations for model and high-power rocketry are

National Association of Rocketry

Tripoli Rocketry Association

• A rocket under 1lb and with up to a "G" motor can be launched with no altitude restriction.
  
• A rocket under 3.3lbs and with up to a G motor is only a large model rocket; it requires no approval from the FAA, but it does require a LMR notification prior to the flight
  
• A rocket over 3.3lbs of rocket or over 125g of propellant requires an FAA waiver to allow the launch.
  

Because we are a university we have to have our own safety procedures and are not required to follow NAR rules ... As a university we are immune of the laws regarding model rocketry when used for experimentation

You've obviously been away from 'hobby' engines for awhile. Both Aerotech and Hypertech make hybrid rocket engines and many kit manufacturers make kits designed specifically for them. Current designs are for large ('I' and up) engines, but some people are working on smaller hybrids.

They're all cool and aren't regulated by the BATF like large solid engines.

some links:
Rocketry Online -- excellent rocketry site
Aerotech -- Motor (solid & hybrid) manuf.
R.A.T.T. Works -- Smaller Hybrids
Public Missiles -- Kit manuf.
NAR -- National Association of Rocketry