Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Rocketry, Pythonation, Scoffing

Slashback tonight brings a few followups to recent Slashdot postings on the fate of model rocketry in the new, hypercautious America; a few Python gatherings for those who prefer that language to Perl; and a response from Los Alamos to recent claims of lax security. Enjoy!

Besides which, it's the hidden cameras that matter. An anonymous reader adds this followup to the story posted last month about Wired reporter Noah Shachtman's account of sneaking into classified areas at Los Alamos national Laboratory.

"In an email message to all Los Alamos National Laboratory employees, Pete Nanos, the current Director of LANL, responded with information suggesting that the Wired reporter who thought he had broken in to a 'top secret area' had in fact just crossed a cattle fence:

'The Wired reporter clearly did not enter a Laboratory security area. The Laboratory encompasses more than 40 square miles. The security force protects important assets within those boundaries but cannot -- and does not -- protect every square foot of property. Based on the article, it appears the reporter crossed a barbed-wire cattle fence, not a fence that protects a Los Alamos security area.
There is a small security area with several buildings (roughly 400 feet by 400 feet) near the driveway entrance to TA-33. That area is surrounded by a seven-foot-high chain-link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. A security guard is stationed inside that area seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Clearly, the reporter did not climb that fence.
There are several other buildings outside the security area that are locked for property protection interests. They have no security interests. There are several gates and fenced areas on the TA-33 site, which are there for safety access control, not security.
It's unlikely the reporter would be prosecuted for trespassing; the Laboratory does not have law enforcement authority to prosecute, and none of the proper authorities witnessed the trespass.'"

Perhaps we can have a celebrity deathmatch. hfastedge writes "Ok, now that 2 perl conferences have been mentioned, I've been brought over the edge. Python is a language that is just as old, and arguably better from: most importantly a uniform standard of readability (enforced by using whitespace to delimit blocks (instead of {}), by avoiding overuse of cryptic symbols, and by a culture that strives to keep innovations as "pythonic"), and a rich development community. Anyway, normally, there are Python events in Europe, and a trail at O'Reilly's OSCON. But now, there is a far cheaper event taking place on March 24-28 in Washington DC: http://python.org/pycon/.

Examples of Python in action: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7"

Fly up go phhhhhwwwtttpffffff .... MyNameIsFred writes "Slashdot recently discussed whether anti-terrorism laws would destroy model rocketry. The government has ruled, and the message is clear, "When it comes to the hobby of model rocketry, size does matter. And in this case, the magic number is 62.5 grams. That's the largest amount of propellant a single model rocket engine can have in it and still be exempt from a new set of federal rules that will go into effect May 24." What does this mean for the the big guys in model rocketry, who use engines larger than this?"

3 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture by elflet · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      re: Model rocketry

      1 - 62.5 grams doesn't lift a lot.

      2 - this limit is for shipping to your home

      from Rocketryonline.com:

      "Emergency Revision to DOT-E 10996 Exemption Granted

      The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has just granted AeroTech an emergency revision
      to DOT exemption DOT- E 10996 that allows the shipment of articles covered by the exemption
      (certain rocket motors and reload kits normally classified as division 1.3C explosives) by cargo
      aircraft, in addition to the previous authorized modes of transportation (motor vehicle and rail freight).
      This revision gives manufacturers and dealers one more option of transportation in light of the
      recent shipping consequences of the Homeland Security Act.

      Eleven other entities are currently parties to DOT-E 10996.

      An unexpected bonus of the revision is the DOT's decision to eliminate the 99 lb. net propellant
      weight per vehicle restriction placed on previous versions of the exemption!

      Many thanks to the DOT Exemptions Branch for granting the revision in a most expeditious manner!"


      3 - storing or shipping larger quanitities of propellants( >62.5gms ) require(at least, there's likely more, but I never wanted to be a distributor, so...):

      a - certification from the NAR or TRA(class 1, 2, 3)
      this is simimilar to the pyrotechnic licence; you must pass a written test
      and fly a "model" with propellant appropriate for that class under supervision, test/fly to gain each class
      b - BATF LEUP(Low Explosive Users Permit)
      c - BATF approved(inspected) Explosives Magazine


      4 - AP is incorrectly classified as an explosive, AP burns(smokes) at normal(ground level or higher)
      pressures; it is a propellant when you burn it in an enclosed space and build chamber pressure.

      5 - there are more details to be found at:

      http://www.nar.org
      http://www.tripoli.org
      http ://www.rrs.org
      http://www.asesur.com/prs/
      http:/ /www.rocketryonline.com
      http://www.space-rockets. com/congress.html

  2. Re:Oh... the loopholes.... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 5, Informative

    The restrictions are for *specific* chemicals - Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) and Black Powder. The propellants are combinations of fuel and oxidizers. The restrictions are limits for ONE engine. Engines may be clustered or staged for greater combined impulse. There are still alternatives such as hybrid systems (which use nitrous oxide and a solid material such as cellulose).

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.