Slashdot Mirror

What are you on about?

Just one example of the FUD the industry has had to deal with.

Try a radio-controlled model airplane. They've been used as camera drones before. After all, that's all those government/military drones are anyway...just a scaled-up version of Junior's RC model plane.

An RC model plane would also be a likely candidate as an improvised anti-drone weapon. You really wouldn't even need any explosives or weapons onboard. Just fly the RC model into the drone's propeller. To make it even more effective, attach some lengths of relatively high strength piano wire or nickel-steel electric guitar string to trail behind the RC model in order to entangle the drone's prop.

Of course, after the first anti-drone RC plane action the government will then proceed to outlaw RC airplanes in the US as terrorist weapons.

Just look at what's happened to amateur/model rocketry in the age of terrorism.

http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews.html

Drone Wars!

Coming soon to a high-surveillance metropolitan area near you!

Strat

No shit. I built a model rocket with my son. We went up to the park to send it up and did. Then I read a story about the ATF requiring a license for solid fuel model rockets after Sept 11. I'm not sure how that equates to terrorists flying a 747 into a building or why that should have prompted this licensing requirement.

If I wanted to build a rocket-bomb, I wouldn't be getting a license for it. Conversely, if a terrorist wants to build one, he can just get a license.

Had I been caught, at that time, I could have went to jail for doing the same thing my dad did with me when I was a kid. Luckily the NAR subsequently took the ATF to court over this and won last May http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews.html#nolist, getting ACPC solid fuel off of the ATF's list.

All is not lost. Some of this "anti-terrorism" legislation is getting beat down.

fred fleenblat (463628) sez: "Jet engines require oxygen, of which there is very little in the Martian atmosphere."

John Wickman of Wickman Spacecraft and Propulsion has designed, built and tested a jet engine specifically for use on Mars. The fuel is magnesium. The 'oxidizer' is carbon dioxide, which is the major constituent of the Martian atmosphere. http://www.space-rockets.com/marsjet.html

If used as a retro-jet, it'd be more effective at high speed. Most of the deceleration would be taken care of. It's the last bit, where speed drops below that necessary to run the jet, that then becomes the problem. At least it'd get down to more like 15 seconds of terror. A rocket for landing and for taking it back up to jet engine speed, could be very much smaller.

Still, the fuel itself is a problem. Bringing a craft down from orbital speed would take a large amount of energy, hence a large amount (both weight and volume) of magnesium. But using this as a mid-stage, between the aero-braking and the final landing rocket, would solve some of the problems of aero-braking alone.

The government did tests to see if they could hit an airliner with one on November 3rd, 2003, and torched their own van. A rental van at that.

http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews#torch

The BATFE has constantly ignored scientific evidence, and has stalled a seven year long lawsuit at every turn. Even the judge is mad at them. The judge has to report to Congress as to why its taking so long.

And it doesn't look like its going to end anytime soon. So onto year 8 of the fight.

The 5000 odd pounds of oxygen required to combust the propane represents about 12000 cubic meters of atmosphere, a rather large blimp to tether to the chimney out back. If you explosively decompress the propane into the kevlar blimp, you can burn off all that propane rather quickly.

Here are some folks who not only made kerosene/LOX slush, but fired a rocket engine with it. No guts, no glory.

The Qassam (and newer Qassam 2) rocket is a simple, homemade steel rocket filled with explosives, developed by Hamas during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Both models lack a guidance system, and the larger rocket (the Qassam-2)) has a range of only 5 miles with a 20 pound payload. Nonetheless, its use shocked the Israeli military and public, who are used to the Palestinians lacking any method of long-range warfare. Hizbollah, for contrast, has long shelled Israel from Lebanon using the Katyusha rocket. The Qassam rockets have been used to attack various Israeli towns, in some areas such as Sderot in the Negev and some Israeli settlements in Gaza shelling occurs almost daily, causing large scale property damage, serious injury and occasional loss of life.

Israel has tried to stop the development of such rockets by extensive crackdowns on suspected militants, and by the destruction of facilities (such as metal shops) which could be used for their construction.

I would argue that the exact technologies and equipment used by these amateur rockets are directly useable by terrorists. You can even bet that a certain amount of the technology for the Qassam came from amateur rocket sources, similar to the one at http://www.space-rockets.com/newbook.html. Looks like about everything you need you can get there.

And I love the last line on the page. "Foreign Nationals Welcome To Attend The Class!!"

The chances of an unguided, sub-sonic rocket taking out an airplane is very small

While I can agree that some regulation of large quantities of solid propellant is a prudent thing, the thresholds in the current regs are too extreme, I think. Also, the $25 fee for a limited use permit is an unnecessary and excessive tax for an activity that has miminal impact on public assets.

The office of home land paranoia is really doing it's best toshut down this kind of hobby. See here for more details.

URGENT NEWS ABOUT MODEL ROCKETRY!

The new Homeland Security Act has many provisions that threaten rocketry in the United States. Both small rockets and high power models are affected. We need your help to make rocketry legal again. Please write your State's Senator now. Click Here for more information.

Isn't this why the US Government wants to outlaw model planes and high power rocketry? Shouldn't model bombs only be worrisome to the Malibu Barbies of the world?

http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

The amateur rocketry scene is in danger because of idiots like Ashcroft and Sen Hatch. read this They think somehow that amateur rocketry clubs are breeding grounds for terrorists to make homemade SAMs and man-pads. The only problem w/ that ass-umption is that amateur rocketry societies and rules *exists* to make rocketry safer. If you want terrorist training in making rockets from metal, etc... you're probably going to go to Hamas, Al-qaida, etc.: you're not going to go to an amateur rocketry club meeting in podunk, ohio. Our nimrods at the doj, atf, etc. just want to outlaw a hobby because of the remote possibility that some lonely crazy is going to build rockets for some artillery strike or something. Let's outlaw guns, gasoline and matches while we're at it then. Shit, you can't even get rocket motors via UPS anymore, and you need a license to do anything. It sounds like raising the bar in an erosive way like 2nd ammendment, prohibition, abortion rights, etc. I wonder if any of the X-Prize peeps had the ATFE breathing down their necks.

It is propellant. The solid part is the fuel, and the nitrous oxide is the oxidizer. Now, it's true that N20 is a decent monopropellant as well, and these motors have been described as "fuel-assisted monopropellant rockets". The good thing about them is that both propellants are inert, and hence fairly unregulated.

But hybrids require infrastructure, which is expensive, and solids are clearly the way to enter the hobby. We really need Enzi's exemption to pass!

If you're in the US, call or fax your senator!

The hybrids are prefered for 2nd or 3rd stage int he realyl high power areana.

I wouldn't say so, hybrids are a PITA for second stages, because they need to be filled from somewhere. The only system that's half-way usable for that is probably the little-used Aerotech hybrids with their pre-filled tanks. And maybe micro-hybrids, but they don't really count...

/August.

It is propellant. The solid part is the fuel, and the nitrous oxide is the oxidizer. Now, it's true that N20 is a decent monopropellant as well, and these motors have been described as "fuel-assisted monopropellant rockets". The good thing about them is that both propellants are inert, and hence fairly unregulated.

But hybrids require infrastructure, which is expensive, and solids are clearly the way to enter the hobby. We really need Enzi's exemption to pass!

If you're in the US, call or fax your senator!

The hybrids are prefered for 2nd or 3rd stage int he realyl high power areana.

I wouldn't say so, hybrids are a PITA for second stages, because they need to be filled from somewhere. The only system that's half-way usable for that is probably the little-used Aerotech hybrids with their pre-filled tanks. And maybe micro-hybrids, but they don't really count...

/August.

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.

While I understand that selecting a successor to the Space Shuttle is an important task, there is a much more important issue at hand: where will NASA get its next generation of visionary rocket scientists, to take us to Mars and beyond?

Many current NASA astronauts, scientists, and technicians first became interested in space exploration as a result of the "Space Race" in the 60s, and, later, grew and maintained their interest thoughout their adolescence by participating in the hobby of model rocketry.

After the space race ended, model rocketry started to decline, but the emergence of high power rocketry in the 80s and 90s revitalized the hobby, and brought back many "Born Again Rocketeers", or BARs, into the hobby; these are people who flew model rockets as kids, and rediscovered the hobby later in life. Many of these BARs are now introducing the hobby to a new generation, and passing on their inspiration.

Now, in the middle of a resurgence of interest, the hobby is in danger of being killed by overzealous overregulation. Due to a combination of misclassification of the most common hobby rocket propellant (Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant) as an explosive (instead of a flammable solid) by ATF, and background checks being mandated by the Homeland Security Act for any employees of companies that ship explosives, shippers like UPS have decided to stop carrying "explosives" altogether, meaning that rocket motors are now virtually impossible to ship, even by UPS ground.

Bottom line, this, and other similar regulations, are leading to the demise of rocketry as a safe, educational hobby. The next generation of rocket scientists will simply not exist.

However, there is hope. Efforts are underway to push a bill through Congress to explicitly exempt the materials used in the hobby of rocketry, when they are used for rocketry (i.e.: non-weapon) uses.

What is needed is a groundswell of support from concerned citizens, supporting this effort. There are complete details on this effort at http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html, along with a number of talking points you may wish to incorporate into faxed letters to your Senators.

The bill hasn't been introduced yet, but should be this week some time. If you decide to join in, and send a letter, please wait until the notice is posted on http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html before doing so. That way, the messages will have the most effect (and your senator may have some idea what you're talking about, as there will be a bill on the subject up for debate...).

If you want to help keep the dream alive, I encourage you to read the background info at that site, and join in this worthy effort.

Thanks,

- Rick "Rocket Geek" Dickinson

While I understand that selecting a successor to the Space Shuttle is an important task, there is a much more important issue at hand: where will NASA get its next generation of visionary rocket scientists, to take us to Mars and beyond?

Many current NASA astronauts, scientists, and technicians first became interested in space exploration as a result of the "Space Race" in the 60s, and, later, grew and maintained their interest thoughout their adolescence by participating in the hobby of model rocketry.

After the space race ended, model rocketry started to decline, but the emergence of high power rocketry in the 80s and 90s revitalized the hobby, and brought back many "Born Again Rocketeers", or BARs, into the hobby; these are people who flew model rockets as kids, and rediscovered the hobby later in life. Many of these BARs are now introducing the hobby to a new generation, and passing on their inspiration.

Now, in the middle of a resurgence of interest, the hobby is in danger of being killed by overzealous overregulation. Due to a combination of misclassification of the most common hobby rocket propellant (Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant) as an explosive (instead of a flammable solid) by ATF, and background checks being mandated by the Homeland Security Act for any employees of companies that ship explosives, shippers like UPS have decided to stop carrying "explosives" altogether, meaning that rocket motors are now virtually impossible to ship, even by UPS ground.

Bottom line, this, and other similar regulations, are leading to the demise of rocketry as a safe, educational hobby. The next generation of rocket scientists will simply not exist.

However, there is hope. Efforts are underway to push a bill through Congress to explicitly exempt the materials used in the hobby of rocketry, when they are used for rocketry (i.e.: non-weapon) uses.

What is needed is a groundswell of support from concerned citizens, supporting this effort. There are complete details on this effort at http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html, along with a number of talking points you may wish to incorporate into faxed letters to your Senators.

The bill hasn't been introduced yet, but should be this week some time. If you decide to join in, and send a letter, please wait until the notice is posted on http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html before doing so. That way, the messages will have the most effect (and your senator may have some idea what you're talking about, as there will be a bill on the subject up for debate...).

If you want to help keep the dream alive, I encourage you to read the background info at that site, and join in this worthy effort.

Thanks,

- Rick "Rocket Geek" Dickinson

How the Homeland Security Act Affects You!

----snip----
Question 22: Will model rocket engines like those sold by Estes require ATF permits to buy?

Answer: No. The ATF plans to exempt all solid rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant.
----snip----

The PROBLEM is that UPS, for now, is not shipping the engines, because apparently it's too much of a grey area for them; they'd rather just ban them than read the law and _realize_ that these engines don't apply. Fine. There aren't other shipping companies in the US? UPS isn't even the major international shipper, methinks. That honor would be either FedEx or DHL. Regardless, these engines can still be had.

So OK, as a result of the new law, after May 31, 2004, you can't teach Timmy how to build his own APCP (Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant) rocket motor without having an ATF permit (or more specifically, you COULD teach him how to build one, but you'd need the permit to launch it anywhere but in your backyard.) This does suck, I agree. But I can still go out to a farm field and cook off a paper tube rocket with a B6-4 engine and show anyone who cares to watch how everything works, just like I've been doing on occasion since I was seven.

Walk into your local hobby shop (the people bitching about all this DO actually buy these engines, right?) and tell him that you'll support him with your business, and if he needs to bump the prices of engines up a bit to cover having them shipped to him by FedEx or whatever until all this blows over, you'll support him. If his stock levels are high, buy a few there. If they're not, order a few and prepay. They're not that expensive, guys, and last time I checked they last for years.

Yes, the law needs to be changed so any sort of the rocket engines that _were_ OK to build/possess _remain_ OK to build/possess. This means that many of you, instead of being apathetic toward the political process, spend time writing, calling, or E-mailing your congressman or senator and make a good case for why these engines should be exempt. And don't do the "rockets are safe because I could do even more damage with an airplane!" because that'll just get RC airplanes banned. Keep it in the family, as it were. Use anecdotes without hyperbole, about how there are x number of launches per year and how there are next to no accidents, maimings, or death as a result. (Don't have "x" right now, but I'm going to try to look it up.) Maybe be even more nebulous, about how playing with model rockets when you were a kid inspired you to go to work for an aerospace company. I don't care, just use something that they'll read and possibly remember, rather than a negative attack that'll just get round-filed.

Back to lurking...

If a /.er were to read the rest of the webpage, including a few of the links, they would have eventually seen this page:

http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

Sure, on the surface it is a guide for the Tennessee constituency to write to their senators. However, the section titled "Points to include in your letter and Phone call," lists 11 items of contention that are the crux of the matter, and go farther than just saying, "UPS will stop shipping solid rocket motors."

What the eleven points say in a nutshell:

1.] Homeland Security Act places undue restrictions on model rocketry

2.] The ATF has listed the main chemical ingredient in most model solid rocket motors on its explosives list.

3.] Even though solid rocket motors are flammable and thrustworthy, they are not explosives.

4.] A hobbyist would have to obtain an ATF permit to buy the motors, and would not allow transport of homemade motors, even from home to field. This allows the ATF inspection access to those permits, which are ususally kept at home.

5.] All this is bad, Mmmkay?

I can envision ATF midnight raids on rocket geeks' houses already....