Slashdot Mirror
Rocket Hobbyists Get Blown Away by Regulations
dogfart writes "Amateur rocket hobbyists are bearing the brunt of Federal anti-terror efforts. Cumbersome regulations (which include extensive background checks) are pushing many to abandon the hobby. Even clubs associated with colleges (such as Kettering) have ended up folding under the pressure. Quoting the article: '"If we're in an environment where the government says you've got to get fingerprinted and background checked, and spend three to four months to do it, (adults are) not going to participate in my hobby," said Mark Bundick, president of the National Association of Rocketry. "We need more kids. It helps them learn technology. It's the technological base here in the country that we need to protect, and this hobby is a good introduction for kids that are interested in technology. If I lose those adults, then I will not be able to train those kids."'" We wrote about these regulations before, and followed it up with a Slashback.
Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The only way we are going to change things is to VOTE and get those ass-heads out of office!
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
Some decent informational content, but some traditional WIRED/media FUD.
The latest explanation about the case progress from Mr. Bundick is at: http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html
Full archive of all NAR articles regarding this and related issues:
http://nar.org/legislative.html
As for "losing" members, last I heard both NAR and Tripoli were maintaining even membership numbers.
Using CP Technologies as a measure is misleading. Their products are for building your own engines. Very few people are interested in that to begin with. Most use either single use motors, or more commonly reloadable motors.
Aerotech, manufacturer of mid-power rocket kits as well as reloadable motors and the reloads for them, is doing fine despite having suffered a fire. They filed bankruptcy, were purchsed by another company to keep them going, and are back in business full tilt, supplying thousands of rocketeers with motors and fuel.
We're supposed to take the word of ATFE that rockets are dangerous? Well, I guess they are in the wrong hands. ATFE burned down a rented van by being stupid while trying to test rockets to prove they were dangerous. See: http://www.maxthrust.net/displayarticle749.html
NAR #28965, 40 years without a rocket related accident or damage.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
for my V-2 reenactment society. Bloody red tape.
Just launch the rockets anyway and run (so you don't get a fine or jail time).....seriously, what are they going to do? Catch the rocket in mid air?
I am totally serious when I say: If a few people may get killed because of this rocketry program which is helping to advance science and understanding, then that's a risk I'm willing to take. If you can't advance knowledge, there's no point in living.
Help! I'm being repressed!
There's a link on the bottom of the page "Homeland Security & Model Rocketry". Basically anything they sell is still legal.
It's just motors with greater than .9 lbs of fuel. That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon.
--Chag
Although I admit that this is a stupid regulation and fairly dictatorial, it shouldn't be that big a deal. If people are interested in rocketry, they can go through the licensing stuff and then go for it. Even if model rockets weren't used on 9/11, that doesn't mean they can't be used for similar purposes. They're basically explosives. Regulations on explosives are generally good things.
In any case, since the federal Safe Explosives Act -- which requires permits for rockets with more than 0.9 pounds of fuel -- went into effect in late 2002, the rocketry industry has been battered.
How big of a rocket engine is that? I assume that is bigger than your typical hobby rocket engine. Not that it justifies the feds regulations, the hobby engines could certainly be next.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Those American passports, Europe is nice, come over here, have some cheese and wine, and be free of your oppressors, huddled masses welcome!
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Why is the gov't bothering to regulate a hobby the countless people have participated it, that unless my memory fails me, has never posed a threat to this so called "national security" myth. Their time and our money could be better spent in other ways. (I've got no clue where, which is why I'm not running for office.) Model rocketry has been one of my favorite hobbies for years, and i have never heard of it being misused in a way that warrants attraction from the federal government.
They're not "blown away"...they're "ablated"...
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
When I was a kid we used to save up our spare change and head to the local variety store to buy a few rockets. I can remember launching them in a playground and even from my backyard. Not the safest thing, but still fun.
I remember one time we were about to launch from the playground and a cop drove up and just sat in his car. We knew we probably shouldn't be launching from the neighborhood so we just waited. About 5 minutes later the cop gets out and asks "When you gonna launch that thing? I want to see it"
Today I suppose that would be a federal offense.
Becuase the terrorists would set up rocket clubs. These regulations are insane. If they (terrorist) wanted to blast rockets or do whatever they do with them, they'll just do it, wether there are regulations for background check of rocket club members or not. What is next, do background checks on LUGs because of cyberterrorism, or perhaps read people's email ... (oh, wait, they already do that...doh!)
The article states this doesnt affect most rocketeers, just those building the 30 foot ones carrying a pound of fuel. In my opinion, those SHOULD be regulated
They think I will take out an airplane, distracting the secret service (the initials happen to be SS), with my 2 stage balsa wood rocket with an egg in the payload section. Then, the egg would drop from the payload compartment onto a speeding car and cause an accident blocking th presidential motorcade so that that Lee Harvey Oswald can shoot Bush from the Clinton Library.
Fight Spammers!
Seriously, though, the model rockets we used to build were cool and all, but they are much less dangerous than the average twelve-gauge shotgun that you can by at your local Walmart.
Still, I have to remember that the government is currently run by people who think that you can be hexed by Harry Potter books, I guess this is sort of the start of the Interregnum (R. A. Heinlein, for those who don't know... he wasn't that far off, except for thinking the First Prophet would be named Nehemiah Scudder...)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing there have been restrictions on pyrotechnicians. I don't know if it is a state law or a federal one but here in Ohio you are not allowed to have your shells for more than 3 days before a scheduled performance and there are a lot of permits to be filled out (this is all coming from a friend of mine).
I don't know if I feel more annoyed by this kind of thing, or more safe. It seems that if someone actually has a permit to buy display scale fireworks, they wouldn't be using them for anything questionable. Plus, once they have that level of expertise it wouldn't be too difficult for them to brew up their own home grown bomb if they really wanted to blow something up.
+++ ATH0 +++
What will "licensing" do? Nothing.
The 9/11 pilots went through flight training (in LICENSED classrooms). The government knew about it, but they did nothing about it.
If the government can't be bothered following up on known terrorist taking flight training in the US, why are they trying to license model rocketry, which is incapable of being used for terrorism the way the governement is implying?
People should use their brains. If you wanted to cause harm with a projectile, it would simpler and cheaper to bring in a shoulder fired missle that is readily available on the international arms black market than it is to engineer a rocket with a guidance system system capable of hitting a plane.
Think for a change instead of assuming a bunch of assinine bureaucrats are actually helping.
The best way to prevent terrorist acts, therefore, is to strip those puppies away as quickly and efficiantly as possible.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Wake up folks.
Have you read the patriot acts?
Every "crime" is "terrorism" now.
http://www.infowars.com/police_state.html
Vote Libertarian..
www.lp.org
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
Sorry rockets and rocket engines are potentially dangerous.
They like fertilizer and diesel fuel could be used in such a was as to have devastating effects.
Think of a 30' rocket, replace some of that with an explosive, or hazardous chemical. You could have a pretty dangerous weapon. It isn't a scud, but the V2 rockets weren't happily received either.
Again, like most potentially dangerous things this legislation will harrass the legitimate law abiding users, and the bad people will still have access to them.
Terrorist #2: Well I got the explosives, but the ATF syas that .9lbs of propellant is illegal.
Terrorist #1: Shucks, we need 1.1 lbs of fuel.
Terrorist #2: Well I guess we have to scrub the mission.
Terrorist #1: Next time America! When you allow more than .9 lbs of propellant, next time!
Although I think that the regulations are a shame, situations like this can sometimes spur innovation. Perhaps, given the constraints at hand, someone will think of a new way to build or use rockets -- or even teach and observe rocketry. In the real world, engineers need to be able to build real rockets that consider safety, the regulatory environment, and viability. Maybe, by making kids think about some of these concepts, we'll inspire them to avoid building space shuttles that blow up.
-- SYS 64738 --
They just want fewer people to learn how to make and use rockets. They say to prevent terrorism, but when they finnaly unvail their police state they don't want rebels to be able to construct missile-type weapons against their choppers and what not.
Terrorist is to Freedom Fighter as Criminal is to Activist.
Orwell was 20 years too early.
1) Arabs with money and contacts
2) Europe, the second most populous and wealthy power block in the world
2) People within 50 miles of major cities with high explosives and a well tested delivery system
4) ???
5) Aliens
Beep beep.
Is this just FUD? Estes says everything is ok.
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
I go to Kettering (about a year now,) and I never knew we had an amateur rocket club. Of course, most clubs don't advertise properly (that, and the main method of advertising is putting posters on public boards, which no one ever reads.)
Maybe they shut down before I got here.
Model rocketry had such a huge influence on me and my ambitions as a child. I remember being fascinated when my first estes rocket took flight and came down safely under a small parachute. To me, it was like my own personal NASA. I remember all the things I learned about the physics of gravity, drag, and newton's laws (however simplistic). Even recently I returned to the hobby armed with years of experience and tried my hand at video rocketry (http://www.blike.com/dmrocket/). I was still dumbfounded with fascination.
It breaks my heart to think that kids might not be able to experience the joy and wonder that rocketry brought me.
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.
When he was 19, Werner von Braun joined a rocketry club, the Verein für Raumschiffahrt (VfR). A few years later, his terror rockets were bombing London. If it hadn't been for the rocket club, the V-2 wouldn't have been built.
They'd have to arrest all members of Congress then.
If were going to be requiring background checks for model frickin rockets, then what do you think we should require for 10000 pound SUV's? An anal probe and psych eval?
Cause they sure as hell have a far greater damage potential. Especially if you compare both vechicles (SUV and the rocket) with their maximum payloads.
(That's not an exageration Hummer H1 GVWR is 10,300lbs)
What about firecrackers? They're frickin rockets that come PRELOADED with explosives!!!
Holy shit, has no one read the story of Chicken Little?
Hasn't the US Gov't seen any of the Dirty Harry movies?
When will RC cars and Aircraft be outlawed?
I seem to remember a scene in a movie where an RC car fitted with a bomb was used to explode a car.
When you take all of the things that could be used in violent acts away, people invent new methods (and generally more efficient) methods for doing the things you planned on preventing.
Case in point; it was too hard to get enough explosives to damage the WTC buildings, but highjack a couple of airplanes fueled to cross the continent and you have the means to do so.
Why not outlaw planes? why not require background checks to fly? I defer to George Carlin on this one, surely a large fist could be used to take control of a plane, will we have strength tests at the gates?
While I rattle on about how stupid we've become, why not just sedate all plane passengers with enough to keep them out cold for the duration of the flight? you fall asleep in the terminal and wake up at your destination? Heck, why not just sedate the entire population?
If you spend all of your time trying to prevent the things that could happen, nothing will happen and no progress will be made.
End of silly rant.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
i'm dense cause you didnt get my joke?
/. mod way of thinking
i love the ass-backward
With all this worry over terrorism and the concern over the resourses taht will be available to terrorists, people seem to forget that almost anything can be used as a "weapon".
Also why even bother making these regulations when even high schoolers can make homemade rockets using gunpowder from fireworks? Hell, you can even make your own gunpowder and solid fuel from readily and unregulated sources.
Terrorists are NOT stupid and if anyone is going to find a way to cause mayhem, they sure will. Beside the guys who hijacked the airplanes on 9/11 were i university and had a pretty good education.
All these new regulations will do is stiffle amature rocketry.
--
Registered .sig quotient : 1337
Oh God I hope they fingerprint you. Then put you in the database of dumb people. Model Rocketry and the NAR have been wonderful and responsible amateur rocketeers for a long time. then we have you idiots. "Hehe, I blowed it up!"
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Gee who you gonna vote for? Republicans or Democrats? Our two party system is too vulnerable to corruption. Seriously does it really matter which party is in government. It amusing to watch all our rights die the death of a thousand cuts. Washington would roll in his grave if he saw what a parody this country has become of the one he helped create. The way things are going, I'm thinking of moving to Canada, the new Land of the Free.
You, I, and the rocketry guy quoted might believe this, but protecting the technological base in this country is not a priority for the American powers-that-be.
More important is keeping labor cheap and the country tied down under a web of Homeland Security minutiae, which will keep the populace cowed and their own grip on power secure.
By contrast the Indian government, which actually seems to have their own national interest in mind, will be happy to run the miniscule "security" risk and let Indian kids play with model rockets-- the better technologically educated they are, the more advanced the tech jobs they can attract from willing American corporations.
You can glean a government's whole philosophy from little issues like this.
next thing you know, they'll be trying to nickle and dime away our right to bear arms on the grounds that people don't kill people, guns do ....
.... oops, uh, nevermind.
I can kind of see why the Justice Department might want to regulate these rocket hobbyists, if it's been determined that a reasonably dangerous payload could be added to the rocket.
Some sort of anthrax aerosol or something that explodes in mid-air over a small area. Maybe in a neighborhood or park. I don't know -- I'm just speculating here. Makes you wonder if it could be done.
However, if THAT is the sort of issue that they're raising with these poor rocketry hobbyists, then when will (if it's not happened already) model airplane/helicopter hobbyists have to start filling out government forms? I mean, strap some sort of acid dispersal system onto the bottom of a remote control helicopter and actually CONTROL where you start spraying people (again -- just wild speculation here). THAT sounds to me like more of a threat than model rockets.
My 2 cents.
IronChefMorimoto
You can still enjoy safe hobbies that involve owning assault rifles. Start an organization called The National Rocket Association (NRA) and write your congressment telling them that the NRA is very disappointed in their actions. That might actually get some results as long as you just use the acronym.
The ilk of Estes is not restricted, these folks of shoot big stuff (1000's of feet).
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Every day obejects being misused with catastropic results? How about pens in the hands of regulators ignorant of the impact they can have on hobbists and every day people? Hell, I thing the most catastropic misuse of anything has been power. Since 9/11, the Feds have grabbed too much power and used it more like a war club than a fine surgical instrument.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
November 18, 2003
Web posted at: 12:21 PM EST
Source: ARSA
(ROL Newswire) -- Kettering University in Michigan has decided to discontinue their on-campus, student-run rocketry club due to the expenses of ATFE licensing and associated liability issues for the University. The decision made earlier in the school year was a major disappointment to students.
Kettering University has its origins in the General Motors Institute. For almost 80 years, it has maintained close ties with General Motors who is a corporate partner with the University. Kettering uses a unique system of co-op education that combines classroom studies with professional work experiences. The university recently opened a $40 million Engineering and Science Center that will house the Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Chemistry.
Ok.
Here's a real life example. They can start major fires, and that wasn't even done on purpose.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
The law only governs engines with no more than 0.9 lbs of propellant, that's an awful lot. If I remember correctly most toy rocket engines contain about 70 grams of fuel. The issue I see only affects those who want to build the big rockets, and I could understand some regulation on who wants to buy the big engines.
but I once heard of the Brits arresting an Irishman for carrying a can of oil. Apparently it 'could have been used to clean guns.'
Drill baby drill - on Mars
From the article
While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."
After reading the comments, I was all set to believe the government was way out of hand. But then I decided to read the article.
The rockets I use to launch used 'B' & 'C' engines, and when I got older the big 'D' engines. The rockets that that are being regulated ARE NOT MODEL ROCKETS.
I realize that commenting without reading the article is a badge of courage here but you gotta read the article sometime.
I think it is time for model rocketry enthusiasts to start developing miniature lightweight engines that run on less restricted liquid or gas fuels, such as gasoline, alcohol, kerosene or propane. Time to "route around" the restrictions. Nobody is going to concern themselves with you filling up a jerry can of gasoline. , as they will assume it would be going into your lawnmower. Since the engines themselves would be more expensive, you would probably want to reuse and recover them. I had no problems buying small O2 cylinders for my welding kit, at least here, (Canada) there isn't draconian restrictions on it.
Ironically, this would probably make for a less safe hobby, as I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a liquid fuelled rocket that ruptured its fuel tank and/or oxidizer on launch.
My rights don't need management.
A model rocket is little more than a retrievable firework. It's made of paper, plastic and a small charge to get it off the ground. The fact that it's shaped like a rocket has no bearing.
The hobby teaches kids about something interesting.
Who proposed the restriction? We should remove him / her from office.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Go to the gunshop and you can buy kegs of gunpowder,even through the mail. The NRA would put Bush out of business if he cracked down on that . So the regs are useless if your going to disallow one and allow the other.
An idea for you high powered rocket guys is to go with a method of fueling rockets with gunpowder.
I wonder what the gov would do then ?
We do not equate private possession of water woth private possession of cesium chloride, which can also be used for beneficial and pernicious purposes. Society finds a balance, and in this case I can say that the potential threat of fires, damage, etc far outweighs someone's need to have a hobby.
Wow! Kettering got on slashdot. pretty good for a tiny school in the most decrepit city in the nation. If anybody ./ers are interested in th A-Section Kettering University Programming Society, contact me at ritt0249@kettering.edu . We are planning some projects this term, and hey... the worst thing that can come out of attending a meeting is some free pizza and pop.
Many of our members are graduating and we need to keep our funding for our pizza damnit.
Thank you.
Well thats different.
[fantasy type="world" class="political:lobbiest"]
The gun regulations have fixed all kinds of problems. Now we don't criminals running around using firearms to commit crimes. Gun deaths have dropped to an all time low and our vision of Utopia on Earth will come about shortly.
[/fantasy]
I was actually attacking the attitude in the origional article.
I might not have been clear in my post.
1. Rocket engines can be dangerous.
2. Many things are dangerous.
3. Harsh laws and regulation mostly harms law abiding citizens.
The article suggested that rocketry isn't dangerous, and these people wouldn't do bad things. I agree proper care can make it safe, and amateur rocketry clubs aren't going to blow up the US.
The problem is that the 'baddies' of whatever stripe don't care about the law, and will still have access to the same materials.
The more prominent or widespread the legitimate use the less likely they will ban it.
Note that air travel, diesel fuel, rental trucks, fertilizer and box cutters are still widely available.
If the legitimate use is limited they are more likley to push it.
P2P, guns near schools, model rocketry.
No this isn't a troll.
or you could just take a couple of gallons of gasoline and your favorite Zippo and generate the same effect, but you don't see Zippos on the list of things you need a fingerprint to get
Um... sorry this last one ended up here. it's my first time posting.
Awww, come on, put your name on that posting yah chicken. You'll make it easier for them to come get you.
The primary purpose of these regulations is to restrict practical knowledge of the subject. If someone wants to use the knowledge to construct an illegal rocket, that is obviously already illegal. It is the restriction of knowledge that crosses the line of what should be allowed in an open society.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
The government's crackdown on Boy Scout hobbies has arguably left the nation a much safer place. Legions of Boy Scout fanatics, armed with model rockets and swiss army knives have been dealt a serious blow and their nefarious activities have been set back days, perhaps even weeks.
Scout leaders are being urged at this time to encourage scouts of all ages to take up firearms training. Firearms, being readily available and licensed, are a safe recreation. Remember, guns don't kill people, rockets do.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Terrorist #1: I would like to use this rocket to wage holy war against the infidels.
Terrorist #2: You cannot. The infidels have fuel limits. You will not have the range.
Terrorist #1: In that case I will use this assault rife I bought for home defence.
Terrorist #2: You are a most wise servant of Allah.
Terrorist #1: Mwaahahahahah!
Terrorist #2: Mwahahahahaha!
What about Estes? This is surely to impact their bottom line - ie, their profit. Might they put up a fuss? Have they?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Yep. You got it. We know that every self respecting criminal these days goes through the background check and gets fingerprinted and has their records sent to the FBI. Further, up here you have to also be interviewed by the police department. Apparently that is so that they can get to know their objective when its time to put them behind bars.
Last time we had this sort of crud, they were going to put "taggents" in all the explosives and gun powders so that they could trace them. Yeah right.
About all this stuff has done is to be a major pain in the butt to all concerned. Rather than making sure that nobody brings a gun on an airliner, I dare say we would have zero highjackings if everyone were required to be trained in the proper use of firearms and have a gun when they fly. [ok, ok, a bit of byperbole, turn off the flames]. However, if you are a male in Switzerland, you must re-qualify every several years in markmenship or have to go back to boot camp.
Ignoring facts that contradict their preconceived conclusions is a hallmark of the Bush administration. Their tratment of our liberties reminds me of the Vietnam war's famous quote "In order to save the village we had to destroy it".
War on Terror != give up your freedom
Well, you're half right. What's important isn't controlling model rockets. It's controlling explosives, which happen to be used in model rockets. The ATF didn't decide to clamp down on the hobby of model rocketry to pacify the citizerny-- that's an idiotic scenario even for the average conspiracy theorist. Model rocket enthusiasts are catching a side-effect of new explosives regulation because they use explosives in their hobby.
It sounds like the ATF may have been overzealous in creating those new regulations, and that those regulations may have had unintended (or disregarded) side effects, but you're going way out of your way to justify an assumption of maliciousness here.
Yeah you could do that. However, that fact doesn't make a model rocket any safer.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Yeah, I agree. My point was that no one who isn't a licensed pyrotechnician can buy the kind of stuff that is being restricted by these laws. Hence, the laws are solving a non-problem.
McVeigh did not use legal fireworks, nor did he purchase anything with a pyrotechnician's license. Restricting the actions of competent, licensed pyrotechnicians is, therefore, not accomplishing the law's original intention.
Similarly, the people buying these kind of model rocket engines are not terrorists, and it would be trivial to allow exceptions in this law that would make this hobby easier. But as in the case of most beurocratic solutions, laws are applied with a broad brush and often accidentally outlaw or restrict obviously benign activities.
It's a shame, but I can't see a way around it since there is no way that hobbyists could constantly scour every law that is being passed for potential conflicts.
+++ ATH0 +++
or do geeks only care that they can frag aliens online?
i swear, half the kids in my dorm who would be bragging about headshots in CS looked damn near terrified when i asked them if they wanted to go to the range to shoot *gasp* REAL guns.
Was that just a characteristic of my dorm, or the geek cultrue as a whole?
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
the gubmint doesnt have the POWER to REGULATE rockets, actually. The constitution does not outlien our rights, it outlines the government's powers.
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
There are some real similarities between these "extreme" hobby rockets and the Quassam rocket, which is used in the middle east. Here's a description of the Qassam...
Home made rockets that can attain altitudes of 10-40,000 feet have some pretty serious potential for misuse if you ask me. How hard could it be to just set up 10 of these a few miles outside some major city center, load them up with crude explosives (or better yet "dirty bomb" stuff like radioactive materials) and send them unguided to land in the heart of the city. Who cares if they land a mile off, or smack into some building? Think of the terror effect of 10 rockets slamming into downtown Manhattan, launched from some abandoned warehouse district in New Jersey, and the shooters are long gone after launch has happened.
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 good news is that you can still head down to your local Wal-Mart or Jim-bo's Guns 'n Booze emporium and buy yourself enough ammo for even the most psychotic killing rampage.
But of course, these guys aren't terrorists, they're just exercising their constitutional rights. After all, a few thousand people have did at the hands of terrorists, clearly making them the clear & present danger.
When rockets are outlawed, only outlaws will have rockets. You can have my rocket when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. snip snip snip...and yet another hobby enoyed by many is made unavailable because of "safety." "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither." - Thomas Jefferson
Where are those mod points when I need em.
"You've obviously never studied Constitutional law because you have no right to build rockets."
Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.
Unfortunately, it seems to be an often ignored part of the Constitution....
The rockets I use to launch used 'B' & 'C' engines, and when I got older the big 'D' engines. The rockets that that are being regulated ARE NOT MODEL ROCKETS.
So what, in your opinion, constitutes a MODEL ROCKET?
These people seem to have some interesting ideas, should you need some suggestions.
OMG TEH TERRAR!
Unfortunately, it probably will be hard for hobbyists to gain any sort popular sympathy. For every person with a degree of common sense there's two that believe that government initiatives such as these will help keep terrorists at bay...
Further, it seems that some of the powers that be believe this stuff works. For me, that's alarming.
It's MUCH worse than that. Due to new regulations in this same act the largest ~1/3rd of commercial shells are now illegal to produce! That means that for most American's this year will probably be the last fourth of July with really large displays until the country returns to some sense of sanity (probably never in my lifetime). All of this and there is zero chance it will actually stop a terrorist, Nichols and McVeigh built theirs from fuel oil and fertilizer for pete's sake. We live in a free country, let's do the things that might actually gain some safety for us and get rid of these stupid knee jerk reactions that make us less free (therefore accomplishing some small part of the terrorists goals).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Stop all the silly suggestions as if such a rocket will be used to "shoot down a plane".
Is it really so hard to image that using "high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour" can be used as a weapon?
Someone rolls up 15 miles outside of DC, fires a salvo of these rockets with 10 lb. of explosive on each and disappears before the first one even hits?
Sure, they won't do much damage but that is the point of terrorism. Terrorism can't win a war by itself, it requires the other party to lose the will to fight.
It amazes me that people think that building a rocket weighing "hundreds of pounds" or flying over 60 miles is "a hobby.
The really interesting thing is that over 1/2 of the replies to this topic are simply knee jerk anti-Bush rants.
If you can't see that a 30 ft rocket that can fly over 60 miles needs to have some type of regulation then I can't help you.
Wouldn't DoD's missle defense shield protect us against the threat of INBMs (Inter-Neighborhood Ballistic Missles)?
Why the government even tries is beyond me. Amateur rocketry, which is safe, fun, educational and produces the rocket scientists of tommorow is now regulated.
but I can still stop by my local roadside fireworks/adult bookstore/stuckey's and buy as much stuff that goes boom, crackle and sizzle for two for the price of one... all I have to do is join the Fireworks PAC...
Governement idiots.
-- $G
I'd agree with you... if I hadn't spent nine months after 9/11 arguing with my friends that we should too give Bush a chance, that the unintended consequences weren't the result of malicious intent.
I finally gave up the argument during the mid-term elections. Mostly it was the "poison pill" restriction of civil rights for people within the Dept. of Homeland Security. That was nothing, nothing but a low tactic, and it was one they had to go out of their way to carry out. No unintended consequences there. They knew who they were choosing to screw, and that they were doing it to paint guys like Max Cleland as unpatriotic to win their elections.
Look up. You have a President whose administration has argued a)that we're fighting a war whose beginning and end can only be declared by him; and b)that he's got all-but-dictatorial power when we're at war. Sometimes, he grants, he chooses not to exercise that power -- but he says he has it, and puts his signature by that. His legal advisors are set to work justifying that position.
Arbitrary power has arbitrary consequences -- to wit, this example. The cracking end of that whip happens in places like Abu Graib.
I'll judge us by how we correct the unintended consequences, not by how well we rationalize them. And I don't see one shred of effort by those in power right now to do anything but bury stories they think are unfavorable to their staying in power. Bush will try to paint Kerry as a raving lunatic for wanting to restrict the Patriot Act in libraries. He'd do the same if Kerry talked about model rocket hobbyists. There's nothing unintentional about those choices, either. They know what they're doing.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
more power to john carmack so he can spend more time away from doom3 and the next gen engine.
Best Community for Gaming and Gadgets!
What's affecting their bottom line is the unbelieably poorly designed website.
Ugh. Crappy use of Flash aside, the interface and archtecture of that thing is aweful!
He's in socal now? I had him as a professor at UC Santa Cruz in 2000, he had been teaching there one quarter per year. I was under the impression he still lived in MA, even though he wasn't teaching at UCSC anymore.
Great guy, great songs, and an awesome math teacher.
The only thing new in regulations since the bombing and 9/11 is an "Employee Possesser" questionare that needs to be on file with the display company.
You seem to be referencing a "user limited permit" The timelimit you reference is 24 hours WITHOUT an approved explosives magazine to store it. They also require a CDL with hazmat since any quanity of class B (professional display shells) have to be placarded.
There have always been "a lot of permits to be filled out" (That's why there is usually a firetruck and ambulance there). Most of the issues revolve around insurance, 1e6 is generally the minimum that most municipalities want, and it is slowly increasing. I somehow doubt that is a result of terrorism or any other political issue, probably just the result of judjements.
You can see the actual forms for yourself at the ATF website
The people currently in charge think that knowledge is dangerous, so they seek to keep people from obtaining it.
If they only learned that making people appreciate what you're doing makes them not hate you, then they'll find a way to live in peace in a world where an ounce of chemicals can kill millions.
Try water rockets. Yes, it's basically air pressure. Admittedly, they can explode, but the risk is a bit less and I don't think the ATF has caught on to them yet.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I think that's the cheapest fuel + oxidizer combination. The problem is that liquid fuel is harder to handle, need pumps, injectors, etc. Perhaps the easiest would be to make your own nitrocellulose (cotton, nitric acid, sulfuric acid), and dissolve in acetone and mix with some filler (would sawdust work?) to make it burn slower.
I've seen the single best reason for this.
See, an associate of an associate, I won't name names, built rockets with me and my father. He thought it would be cool to build a really big one. So he did. And launched it. Now, we had a nice big field, but it was only a mile from a big highway. This isn't a problem with those cheap Estes things, but this was a missile. And there was a good wind that day.
Long story short, he nearly took out a Coca Cola bottling plant.
Can't be used for terrorism my ass. Though I wouldn't be worried, as giant rockets are really hard to sneak in and out of anywhere. You too can learn this if you try to drive around with a 6 foot model rocket in your car.
~Anonymous and Cowardly
As Iraq is showing us, anyone can make an IED, and they don't need rocket engines to do it. With the recent success of SpaceShipOne, I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering what kind of power old tires and laughing gas can provide when they fall into the wrong hands.
Hey wait, can we hit two birds with one stone and sell the ingredients and instructions on mixing rubber particles and N2O to MAKE model rocket engines, thereby skirting the legal restriction? hmmm. Like a website where you can order both ingredients and a reusable mixing chamber + exhaust for them to combust within. It might make model rocketry a little more complicated (hey, this isn't rocket science! oh, wait..) but all things considered, I'm curious what kind of altitude a model rocket can achieve with a propulsion system similar to SpaceShipOne's.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
If that's the case, then balloons should be outlawed. Just tie a few together with the payload and a simple trigger and badda bing, handy dandy delivery method! Any rational person can come up with THOUSANDS of delivery methods!!
Fritz
___________
Huh?
Article 1 section 8 doesn't seem to mention the congress's power to regulate rocketry...
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
Actually it does affect more than just the 30 foot rockets. Any motor with more than 62.5 grams of propellant, is affected. An H motor, which is where the regulations start, can be used to launch a rocket up to around 5 pounds. That sized of a rocket isn't going to go very high on an H. The whole thing boils down to how the ATF is classing aluminum perchlorate. They class it as a low explosive, even though it can't explode. It just burns. Where they are regulating it is that you need a low explosive user permit to keep regulated motors. Try and get one of these and you will see where the problem is. The FAA already has plenty of regulations to handle rocketry. A rocket one to 3.3 pounds, needs 48 to 72 hours notice prior to launch. Anything over 3.3 pounds needs an approved waiver, and 30 to 45 days notice depending on where you look for the regulations.
Tripoli # 09990
Wasn't it just last week that NASA said it has to collaborate with the private sector? OK...where are we going to get those people, India? We NEED hobbies like rocketry and model airplanes to train the next generation of scientists. If you belong to AMA, you can fly up to and including G size motors. There is a program called ARLISS that takes high school and university Coke (or beer) can sized payloads aloft on these bigger rockets being talked about in the wired article. There are your own personal goals, like going higher and faster, and there's the community of like minded individuals you can share beer with. Without this, we could become a 2nd class country ... we don't even spend enough on research and development anymore.
and where do you think that hybred rocket engine in spaceshipone came from in the first place? From the model community, that's where.(google hypertek). Even Estes USED to make an E motor, and for a while made F motors as well. Take anything you read on the Estes site with a big grain of salt.
Let's outlaw those model jet motors too, after all, thise could be used to make pilotless drones. How about outlawing trucks and cars, those can be made into bombs too. People overseas do it every day.
Cracking down on your own citizens is NOT what is needed here.
We need an X-Prize like contest for model rocketry. Anyone capable of putting a mini-satellite that orbits the earth a few times would win it. Of course, with the way things are now, you'd have to ship it down to south america to not get in trouble...
If you have anthrax aerosol (much harder to get than model rockets) that you want to disperse over some area, then get a crop duster. That's an airplane *designed* by professional engineers to spray aerosols precisely over a chosen area. Why risk something going wrong with a jury-rigged contraption when you can easily rent a machine built for it?
People often look at their vote as the only way to have their voices heard.
Do not overlook these other ways:
1) write/email/phone your representatives
2) donate money to candidates/PACS/NGOs
3) volunteer time for candidates/PACS/NGOs
4) get involved in discussions with regular people
If you have some money to spare, use 2. If you have time to spare, use 3.
NGOs can take the government to court for not doing what they are supposed to.
You can contribute time or money to that, if you feel strongly enough.
In the eighties and nineties, the Replicans/conservatives got really organized doing all of these things.
Now, the presidency of George W. Bush has stirred the Democrats/Progressives or Liberals (you pick) to do the same.
If you really think that you can't make a difference, go ahead and sit on your ass and compain and you won't make a difference.
Moneyed interests have always had a lot of influence. But maybe the fincial contributions of 1 wealthy equals the influence of 1000 outraged average people.
But right now it can't be that hard to find 1000 outraged average people.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Yiippeee!!! I can fianlly realize my life long dream to strip down to my birthday suit, paint myself yellow and run down Main Street while playing Yankee Doodle Danady on a Kazoo!!
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
So what, in your opinion, constitutes a MODEL ROCKET?
A MODEL rocket is a scale or semi scale model of a real rocket. It is NOT a research vechile, does not carry a payload (some larger model rockets DO carry small cameras, or transmitters. Some hobbiest launch raw eggs to prove they can bring them back alive). Weight of the propellant is limited to 4oz or less, and the rockets at liftoff must weight less than 1lb. THAT is a MODEL rocket. Anything outside of those parameters
is an AMATEUR rocket and falls under FAA regulations before it can legally fly. Past a new threshold, it now appears to fall under even more strict regulations regarding explosives. Other than limitations on shipment, MODEL ROCKET engines do NOT fall under government regulations. These are the 1/4A through F engine sizes with less than 4oz of fuel. Such engines can still power a well designed rocket past the speed of sound and to altitudes of several thousand feet. (far enough away to loose it!)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Gun owners have been putting up with this ATF crap for generations.
Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.
The problem may be more of understanding than reading. How else do you get interpretations that the "Commerce Clause" supercedes the 10th Amendment. When the only part of the US Constitution which can (logically) supercede the 10th Amendment is a later amendment.
It amazes me that people think that building a rocket weighing "hundreds of pounds" or flying over 60 miles is "a hobby.
Does it amaze you that some people think pistol shooting, motorcycle racing, skydiving, rock climbing, etc. are hobbies, too?
It would probably amaze you even more to hear that many people don't don't want to live in a perfectly safe but utterly boring world, nor do they appreciate being restricted by people who think they can make that world a reality.
0 1 - just my two bits
Why aren't the anti govt red tape repulicans getting after this? First its the Internet over Powerlines that will screw up HF radio and now this. If you can't practice, you can't get good, and when show time comes, you won't be ready. If we ruin HF radio, then when the hurricane comes and HF is all that gets out of Miami, don't be knocking on my door whining about the lack of comm from the disaster zone as I won't be investing in HF. When we look at our engineering schools and see them half full of non-resident aliens on J-1 visas, and we wonder why little Timmy and little Johnny don't grow up to be engineers, we look back at the bubble wrapped world they grew up in and we see why. No challenges, no opportunities for growth, no chance to see something they think is really cool and start thinking about doing it for a living. These regs and the mindsets that set these regs need to be dealt with. If the govt really wants to deal with model rocketry, a better way to do it is to co-opt it. Think about how many military bases there are, add the Natl Guard, and the Coast Guard and there are a ton of people around this country that the govt could use to "host" or "sponsor" these groups. The "host" would be able to keep tabs on the members of the group and would be able to get the group surplus goodies to make cooler rockets. The kids would care less that the govt was in effect spying on them and the adults wouldn't have to go through the hassles of getting finger prints and security screens just to buy and Estes engine.
Over the past few years(6-7ish?) the regs have gotten tighter because even without 9/11 happening
you can have serious accidents if you're not trained, careful and follow safe procedures.
Recently, you needed a LEUP and a class 3 pyrotechnics licence and a BATF approved storage
facility to store more than a certain amount of propellants(I forget how much.) As mentioned before,
it is hard enough to get any decent sized hobby rocket to get off the ground without any problems let
alone have it be guided to an airborne target. The worst a terrorist could do with a hobby rocket is
try to ballistcally drop something on a target and even then, without any guidance there are no guarantees
it'll go where you want it.
Here's a link to the Rocketry FAQ on rocketryonline.com, and a quick paragraph from it:
1.1 What, exactly, is a 'model rocket' versus a 'high power' rocket? Where do liquid fueled and
homemade rocket motors fit in? What about amateur rockets?
'Model', 'high power', 'advanced', and 'amateur' are all terms which have many definitions, depending
to whom you are speaking. In r.m.r., and in the FAQ documents, the definitions (if any) accepted by the NFPA,
National Association of Rocketry, and Tripoli High Power Rocketry Association are used. If these
definitions conflict the NAR definition is used.
'Model rockets' are rockets that conform to the guidelines and restrictions defined in the NFPA 1122 document. These rockets weigh less than 1500 grams, contain less than 125 grams of total fuel, have no motor with more than 62.5 grams of fuel or more than 160 NS of total impulse, use only pre-manufactured, solid propellant motors, and do not use metal body tubes, nose cones or fins. One inconsistancy with this is the CPSC definition of a model rocket motor, which by their definition must contain no more than 80NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-94 contains the most complete definition of a model rocket and the model rocket safety code. This is the same safety code as adopted by the NAR.
'Large Model Rockets' is a term used in the FAA FAR 101 regulations. It refers to NAR/NFPA model rockets that are between 454 and 1500 grams (1 to 3.3 pounds) total liftoff weight and contain more than 113 grams but less than 125 grams of total fuel.
'High power rockets' are rockets that exceed the total weight, total propellant or single motor total impulse restrictions of model rockets, but otherwise conform to the same guidelines for construction materials and pre-manufactured, commericially made rocket motors. High power rockets also allow the use of metal structural components where such a material is necessary to insure structural integrity of the rocket. High power rockets have no total weight limits, but do have a single motor limit of no more than O power (40,960NS maximum total impulse) and have a total power limitation of 81,920NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-1985 contains the most complete definition of a high power rocket and also the high power rocketry safety code. This safety code has been adopted by both the NAR and TRA. Metal bodied rockets are allowed by NFPA 1127 where metal is required to insure structural integrity of the rocket over all of its anticipated flight.
'Amateur' rockets covers all other non-professional rockets that do not meet the criteria for model or high power rockets. This includes metal bodied rockets, liquid or hybrid fueled rockets, and rockets with any type of homemade rocket motor.
'Experimental' rockets is an ambiguous term. In the early 1980's it was used (reportedly coined by the magazine 'California Rocketry') to describe rockets that exceeded the model rocket limit at that time (1 pound total liftoff weigh
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
I really dont think it's because they think they will be used for terrorism, I think it's because they can be easily mistaken as a terrorist's weapon, and therefore should be outlawed.
Sweet Jebus, what are you smoking?
"This thing is not dangerous, but someone might think it's dangerous, so you're not allowed to have it"
Yeah, great logic there.
Model rocket propellants are much less dangerous than gasoline -- which, by the way, actually IS an explosive.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I hate the way the government has perverted the interstate commerce clause. To my mind that has been the biggest erosion of rights this country has ever had. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand the intent of the clause, "to regulate commerce between the states". Now it has become a catch-all for any federal law, and a judicial test is no longer required.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Once upon a time, in grade school, we made model rockets, spread all the students over the very large land area surrounding the school, and shot off the rockets one by one (with the scattered kids doing their best to catch the rockets as they parachuted down so that they wouldn't hit the ground and get damaged.)
My rocket went up, but never came back down, at least that we could tell. I was disappointed to lose the rocket, but all the "cool" kids were trying to get their rocket to go the highest, so my disappearing rocket was a celebrity.
Now, at the time, my parent's house was a block from the school. YEARS later, a neighbor across the street (about a block and a half away from the school) was cleaning his gutters, and found a rocket. He gave it to my mother, in case I wanted to "play around with it". Sure enough, it was MY rocket from that day in eigth grade.
Anyway, just relating a fond memory of rocketry hijinks. And, for what it's worth, I never blew anything up, never hurt myself or others, and didn't develop into a pyromaniac.
Yet.
(Mwahahahha)
... but since you can't make APCP *explode*, why is the government attempting to regulate it as an explosive? There is a fundamental difference between deflagration and explosion. Even the BATF tried to make a "training video" of the "dangers" of APCP by making it explode. I heard they couldn't do it, and even got one of their agents hurt when they tried to fake the explosion with a blasting cap...
Amateur rocketry involves 95% science, 4% craftsmanship, and 1% fuel. For run-of-the-mill amateur rocketry, these reglations are pointless. Besides, it's easier to build a nitrous-based rocket anyway, and you can skip all the government BS.
Since it is pretty easy to electrolyze it into hydrogen and oxygen and use the hydrogen to lift a balloon over a populated area with [insert mode of destruction here].
Ask me about my vow of silence!
Last time I checked, 2nd Amendment didn't mention hunting.
Ask me about my vow of silence!
To all the people saying that accuracy doesn't matter, or a guidance system could be created easily, let me throw in my impressions.
For a terror weapon, no--accuracy doesn't matter all that much. The V2 rockets Germany fired into Britain, for example, could generally hit pretty close to London. Firing an unguided rocket into an urban area, however, would be a little trickier. First off, any solid-fueled rocket I've seen of decent size leaves a visible trail of smoke (at least the larger ones; amateur rocket guys--correct me if I'm wrong), so it's fairly easy to trace it back to its launch point (not that the launcher would necessarily care).
Also, it would be pretty difficult to launch one of these from an urban area and not be noticed--you'll need a fairly large open field, especially if you're going for a longer range. Yeah, you could launch one straight up from your backyard, but it would come basically straight back down.
Finally, as to guidance--good luck. Even the old V2 was gyro-stabilized, and it did well to hit inside the city it was aimed at. GPS won't do you any good at all. Sure, it will give you a decent position and groundspeed, but it's updated at most at a 1-Hz rate.
To guide a missile, you need high-rate dynamic outputs (I'd say at least 100-Hz for a crude rocket), and good attitude (pitch/roll/yaw) outputs--GPS gives neither. You need an inertial navigation system, or at least an inertial attitude reference system, and those are very, very hard to make. I can think of three companies that sell these systems--two in the US, one in the UK, and I work for one of them (my opinions are my own, not my company's, etc.). They're on the State Department's Significant Military Technology List, which makes them hard to get, even if you've got the $50k-$200k to buy a nav-grade one.
Sure, if you had space to launch one from, and had the math/engineering background necessary to stabilize the rocket, compute its ballistic trajectory (you can do a decent numerical integration of this in Excel, even accounting for decreasing mass and thrust effects pretty easily and quickly, BTW), and had calm (or at least known, steady) winds...
Yeah, you could send a rocket with a small payload on a (pretty flat) trajectory for a few miles and probably manage to hit a (large) building or park-size area. But you're not going to shoot a rocket off at 80 from horizontal from 30 miles away and take out the president's car.
And actually making it explode...that's a whole new matter! Not my field, but I think constructing a fuzing device capable of detonating the warhead in a proximity fashion is beyond the scope of your 'common' terrorist. Likewise, if you wait for the impact to set it off, anything easily constructed to accomplish that would likely be destroyed before it managed to initiate the detonation. Putting in an unstable explosive won't work, either--it would explode on take off (we're talking, what--upwards of 30g's?). That leaves you commanded detonation, so you have to be close enough to see the rocket and detonate it before it smashed into something and broke, which is tricky at those speeds.
So basically, that leaves a short range rocket with a small payload that can't be too volatile, and is probably going to not blow up in the first place, or make a harmless fireball (and it's not heavy enough to make significant shrapnel). I'll admit, you could fill it with scary Chemical X, but I think the best you're going to accomplish is knocking out a window--like that kid who flew a Cessna into the Bank of America building in Tampa, taking out a few windows and half a cubicle.
I don't fear terrorist rockets--it would be a lot simpler to take the money and rent a truck, and fill it with any nasty number of things. Any idiot can do that.
But it's like with anything else. You want to stop people from doing things you don't want with computers? To the jail with them all. Don't want anyone to be able to make anything that might turn into a scary weapon? Throw all us engineers in there, too.
--Ribald
I'm sure their intentions in these rules are good but anyone who's going to build SRBMs in their own house probably has the money and connections to buy shoulder fired missiles. I'm sure for $50,000 you could find a Russian SA-18 Grouse with a HE warhead and a 5.2Km range.
And in the end, propellants to build such a homebuilt SRBM are pretty tightly controlled.
Low tech alternatives like Palestinian Katyushas (BM-21 based) are actually pretty ineffective even with a 20Km range.
I saw on the History channel that the Panama Canal would not be possible today due to the environmental groups and issues. Many of yesterday's engineering feats would be stymied today because of all the environmental litigation and resistance by environmental groups. Consider, as well, the rhetoric stating that our inability to improve our energy production (i.e., electricity power plants) over the past couple of decades is for similar reasons. Even 'clean' means of producing electricity has fallen into the angst of some groups (e.g. wind-generated electricity now bad because it kills birds).
How is that any different than the issue we have at hand? The government is imposing regulations that are making a hobby more difficult, so people are leaving the hobby. I see this as a similar issue, so I don't see why we complain about one but not the other.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
And rockets aren't the only way to deploy those other payloads. I'd think they're actually a rather bothersome way to deploy anything - Low capacity and low accuracy. The big ones are rather conspicuous to launch too - you'd be identified or at least noticed.
We need to not worry so much about what COULD be done. Or at least consider the cost/benefit to a terrorist vs other things they could do. You could cause damage/death/mayhem with all sorts of stuff.
And that of course was one of the arguments against the Bill of Rights: that it would be taken by some to be an exhaustive list of the rights of the people. Which, as you correctly point out, has happened.
Actually, it would be reserved for the states, since private citizens would not be making laws against rocketry...
And I think the relevant amendment would be the ninth, the one that says the rights listed in the constitution are not the only ones that exist.
ah, nevermind :)
Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, you can buy a high-power rocket motor at a launch without any permit *if you use it at the launch*. Not the easiest way, but it does work.
Contact your local high-power rocket club. In our area, one of the local vendors got their permits to sell motors, so you can show up at a launch, buy a motor, and fly. Again, not necessarily the easiest or best, but it does work.
Or, you could just use the nitrous-oxide hybrids. No permits required. If your club fronts the money for the initial charging equipment, it's not a bad way to go.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Despite aggressive attacks by Israel on suspected Qassam manufacture workshops, they still have a supply of the rockets and launch them even now from the Gaza Strip. I won't claim to do a rigorous study of this, but here's my thoughts.
Hamas more or less is the effective Palestinian-side government of the Gaza Strip. They were able to manufacture some number of these rockets under the noses of the Israeli army, which is backed with a great intelligence service. So here's some observations. First, Hamas is a "terrorist group" with unusually serious resources and manpower. Second, Hamas chose to make and launch their own rockets rather than solely use military surplus. Perhaps they can't smuggle in much of the weaponry they want, or they're hoarding what they have.
Their workshops are vulnerable to Israeli raids and have been hit occasionally over the past few years (including recently due to the above attack). I thought earlier this year that perhaps the manufacture of these weapons had stopped (due to losses suffered from previous Israeli raids), but apparently that's not so. The requirements to manufacture these weapons seem very simple, namely a machine shop, explosives for the payload, and the fuel mixture above.
The current Qassams aren't particularly effective. The missiles are very inaccurate and unguided. Their range and payload are quite limited. But Hamas does have a ranged weapon which appears to have some value in psychological warfare. Future generations of Qassam rockets may be more effective.
The point here is that a group with sufficent resources should be able to manufacture a number of crude missiles without major investments, fancy technology, or purchases of equipment and chemicals that would draw law enforcement attention. Those missiles probably wouldn't be effective. However, in a similar fashion to missiles designed to damage ships, one could with a lot of experimentation devise a missile designed for penetrating and damaging hardened buildings.
So I can see legitimate scary scenarios for rockets killing people in terrorist attacks. But I don't see how current restrictions will keep this sort of development from occuring. Valuable information and experience will be withheld from lawful citizens while the villians will still break the law. It's another case where we impose restrictions on all citizens because someone could hypothetically do something dangerous.
Regardless, rocketeers are hoping they will have legal relief in the future. Groups like Bundick's NAR, as well as the Tripoli Rocketry Association, have filed a lawsuit against the ATF that seeks to limit the regulation. But that suit has been slow to progress.
c gi ?setup_file=News&submit_search=yes&db_id=1 140
The Judge ruled on this case back in March.
He ruled that: "Rocket motors don't fit the literal definition of a PAD (Propellant Actuated Device), and are not exempt from regulation. However, the BATFE was wrong in classifying them as non-compliant, because they didn't follow the rules in filing a NPRM first."
This did give us temporary relief from regulation, but the ATF is already pushing through another NPRM. So it's just a matter of time.
http://www.rocketryonline.com/Search/db_search.
I believe you have an inalienable right to do just that.
However, we don't really believe in inalienable rights around here anymore. Unfortunately.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Ok this is a bit off topic, but I don't understand why the poster linked to Kettering's website. During my five years there (graduated March '04, so that includes time both before and after September 11, 2001), I was never aware of any type of rocket club or rocket related research. If there was such an organization, it probably died from lack of interest rather than new laws and regulations!
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
HUAC (House Un-American Activites Committy) was formed in 1937. It was created out of fear of communism, and accused thousands of innocent people of being radical communists. This in the end caused thousands of dollars in damage, not to mention the cost to run the committy, and the damage caused by people trying to stay out of their way (for example: literature and theater that seemed unamerican would not have been published or preformed).
Fast forward to today
Now, the US is scared of terrorists. The US now has tightened security on all fronts. Now, amateur rocket hobbyists are being targeted as terrorists because they have rockets. So this is how this is going to work: Thoughs who register will be under a microscope; thoughs who dont will be criminals; and terrorists will get off scott free.
You are confusing me with someone who cares.
There's been increasing regulation in the US in the area of model airplanes as well. The Dept. of Transportation and the FAA issued a notice N8700.25 in Oct. last year that regulated "Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles" (link here). Reading through this document a lot of model airplane hobbyists are becoming increasingly alarmed about goverment regulation of their (my) hobby. The notice specifically states that it does not affect model airplanes but then states that model airplanes are flown at an altitude of less than 400 feet - which, if you have been to any model airplane flying field is about 400 feet less than reality.
If model airplanes that fly above 400 feet (which a high percentage of them) are no longer considered model airplanes, but are now UAV's, then they may fall under new regulations.
There are plenty of threads on the RC websites where hobbyists are trying to figure out what to do to try to limit the impact of new regulations on their hobby. One good example is This one.
Strange. I realised immediately that it was a joke, and also think that it was quite funny.
Some say the Second Amendment Protects the First Amendment
"Reichsminister Ashcroft"??? ... you may have violated Godwin's Law
I believe Juanita
And you'll have free license to use it as you wish. The workings of rockets and guns are fair similar.
It's called the interstate commerce clause. Please pick up a textbook on Constitutional Law. It really is an interesting subject.
There were also reports that some of the best, most experiences anti-avalanche techs at ski resorts have experienced difficulty. The guys who winter here and summer on the upside-down part of the globe (who are often Aussies or Kiwis) suddenly found that since they were not US residents/citizens they were no longer allowed to blast ski slopes safe because even the ski patrol suddenly needed several additional layers of federal clearance to use the same avalanche rockets they've been using for years.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Read it closely and you'll see your question doesn't make any sense.
There is a lot of FUD out there on this subject. Some promulgated by the government, some by people who aren't fully aware of what is happening.
Here is some data I hope folks will consider. This comes from my time as a hobby rocketeer and my knowledge of the current regulations.
Rocket fuel is not an explosive. Multiple independent laboratories, including the New Hampshire State Police have tried to make APCP (standard solid rocket fuel) explode and have been unable to do so. It burns, and, it has it's own oxidizer, but, it does not explode.
The BATFE and the UN have classified it as an explosive under a definition of the term which encompasses anything which burns and includes it's own oxidizer (can't be extinguished by smothering). As such, this definition would also cover road flares.
Prior to the safe explosives act, I could buy rocket fuel, which, as others have pointed out is less dangerous (and less explosive) than gasoline or fertilizer and diesel in the form of pre-made motors and store it in my house without need for any federal permit. As a result of the regulations, I cannot store rocket motors in my house, and, I have had to get a federal permit which cost me $100, required me to submit an FBI fingerprint card to be kept on file by DOJ, sumit to a DOJ background check, virtually waive my 4th amendment rights (that's right, BATFE can inspect my house anytime they choose even though I have a non-storage permit), and, requires substantial record keeping for all motors I buy, store, expend, or sell.
Used to be if I went to a launch and someone had a motor I needed and I had a motor they needed, we'd trade. Under the new regulations, he and I need to record returning it to a vendor who then sells them to us. We aren't allowed to trade or sell the motors to each other without an explosives dealer permit.
The problem is the BATFE has no procedures for regulating hobbies. The regulations are all written to cover people that blow up buildings for a living or blast tunnels for railroads and the
like.
While most of us in the hobby don't think any regulation is warranted and that the hobbies own process of self regulation has demonstrated a long history of excellent safety, we are mainly objecting to the fact that these regulations are so overly burdensome that they are eliminating participants from the hobby.
As to the memberships in NAR and TRA, yes, many people who used to fly rockets are continuing to pay their dues to these organizations to help them continue the fight against these unreasonable regulations. But, if you go to launches, you will see fewer flyers and fewer rockets being launched on less power. The regulations are putting a damper on the hobby. Vendors are feeling the crunch, including Aerotech. Yes, they're doing better now than immediately after the fire, but, they're nowhere near their pre-fire business levels.
Finally, even without the federal regulations, there are requirements to gain access to high power motors. TRA and NAR both have procedures and checkouts required for people to attain certifications for various levels of motors. Up to a G motor, there are few limitations. H and I motors require a level 1 certification. J, K, and L motors are level 2 which requires not only building, flying, and successfully recovering a level 2 rocket, but, requires a written test on rocket regulations and safety procedures. To fly an M, N, or O motor requires a level 3 certification which involves significant review and substantial expense to achieve.
Further, to launch rockets over a certain amount, one must first obtain permission from the FAA in the form of a waiver. The FAA will not grant a waiver to launch a 300 pound rocket downtown or next to the local airport. General public safety is adequately addrsesed by the regulations prior to the Safe Explosives Act.
Another consequence of the SEA is that most shippers are no longer able to transport rocket motors (it would require them to get every
The Constitution doesn't contain language about any inalienable right.
With Constitutional law the SC balances the interests of the state versus those of he individual. Depending on the nature of the issue the threshold for permissibility varies. It is referred to as the level of scrutiny. Generaly there has been standard, intermediate, and strict scrutiny. These are by no means set in stone and justices are happy to pervert them when it suits their intellectual bias.
The moral of the story is that in the real world absolutes like your "inalienable right" aren't paticularly practical and aren't protected without exception.
I am both enraged and impressed after reading all the links.
No, the Constitution doesn't talk about any rights, as such. Except to outline particular rights that the Government is not allowed to infringe. I don't think the language is terribly difficult to understand.
The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights were absolutely right. They feared that some idiot would think that only the rights mentioned in the Constitution are rights. Unfortunately, we seem to keep electing those morons to the Legislative and Executive branches, who in turn appoint additional morons to Federal benches.
But hey! It's a living document, right? It's good that it changes, to restrict our rights more and more. Yay!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Maybe the DIY Cruise Missle project from New Zealand had something to do this this. It was covered on /.
here and here
The notion of a living constion that you find distatseful has generaly been used in conjunction with the expansion of protected rights, so I'm not sure what your objection is. (e.g. right to privacy , Grisworld)
Anyway, regulating the trade of rocket engines clearly falls within Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. So this discussion has been moot.
I guess it is more of a liability issue. If something does happen, the politicians have covered their butts and cannot be blamed.
You can still shoot your giant rockets. You can't store giant rocket engines or fuel in residential areas. You have to undergo a comprehensive background check, and the rockets have to be registered, not unlike other restricted weapons (ie silencers, automatic weapons). Make no mistake, a rocket is a weapon whether that's what it's used for or not. No amount of hyperbole can change that simple fact.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Leaving aside the problem that trying to get any accuracy out of a 30' rocket is like trying to fly an elephant, many hobbyists build their own engines.
It's not hard to do, and the materials are quite readily available. If a terrorist wanted to build an I or even a K type engine (about 2,560 N-s max impulse), they could do so quite easily.
Maybe not so strange when you put those ideas close to one another.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Considering the numerous gun laws in the US, defining a rocket as a gun would invite even further regulation.
This situation is why the constitution was written not to allow people to vote for a President. The idea was the people (throught their state) vote for a few people that would get together and then decide who would make a good president and then elect them. The system worked once and its been getting more manipulated ever since.
"Personally, I think that large asssault rifles/fully automatic weapons etc. should be banned, however the second amendment is very very clear on this matter. If such things are to be regulated, it should be done with a constitutional amendment."
r yR iflesCA.html
http://www.rmsg.us/textfiles/nfa34.htm
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulates very closely the ability to get an "assault weapon" which is defined as the ability to fire shots continuously by depressing the trigger (i.e. a "machine gun"). In order to own one the ATF must conduct an extensive background check and approve you for it. The number of folks authorized for this is probably in the hundreds.
TRUE assault weapons like the AK-47, the M-16, the Galil, the FAL, etc rifles capable of firing continuously in automatic mode (the M-16 fires a three round burst) are limited to ONLY those who've passed the ATF vetting process. No gun shop carries these or will sell them to the general public in any state.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/nfab/
If you mean the "evil, black looking rifles" like the AR-15 and AK clones, those are SEMI-AUTOMATIC. One pull of the trigger will fire ONE bullet. They are functionally no different from the World War Two Garands (Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, etc) or even some hunting rifles from Browning, Ruger, etc. They're just equiped with black plastic stocks and painted black.
As per the Clinton ban, production and importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is prohibited. Some states like California go further and prevent individuals from buying existing "hi-cap" magazines.
California bans these "assault weapons" which "look evil" but function just like rifles say sold by Ruger:
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/P-Catego
So you can buy say the Mini-14; since it doesn't "look evil" cause it has a walnut stock etc; but the AR-15 which functions exactly the same way is banned in California because it has a. a pistol grip, b. a flash hider.
You can't legislate your way to safety, some lunatic somewhere is always ready to shoot it out or blow some one up (like McVeigh). Your friendly representative in the State Legislature or Congress however can point to another useless regulation whether it's outlawing "evil" guns that "look scary" or model rocketry and assure those voters they've done their bit to defend the nation.
As oppossed say to properly funding the police force (and raising taxes).
Make no mistake about it, this country, and the world, will regulate itself into oblivion. We are well on our way. Who needs anthrax and nuclear weapons when we have do-gooder politicians and bureaucrats?
What exactly does a person building an amateur rocket engine in his garage have to do with interstate commerce?
I mean, you might argue that the fact that said amateur eats food and uses gasoline that comes through different states gives the Fed the right to tell this person to do whatever they want him to, but I think you'd be, like, really wrong.
The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Interesting stuff. Have you read Bamford's Body of Secrets? He devotes many pages to the destruction of the Liberty by Israeli jets, and tries to connect this with the overall Israeli strategy.
to rockets that uses kerosene and liquid oxygen? OR perhaps alcohol and hydrazine? Better yet, time to start work on those personal railguns ...
(BTW: anyone have a good source for 100 Kgs
of mallable superconductor?)
From the rec.models.rockets FAQ Part 01 - General Information:
BATF Restrictions: Any rocket motor or reloadable fuel grain containing more than 62.5 grams of propellant is now classified by the ATF as a Class B Low Explosive.
DOT Shipping Restrictions: Any single use rocket motor containing more than 62.5 grams of fuel, and any reloadable motor fuel grain weighing more than 62.5 grams are classified as UN 1.3c, or Class B, explosives.
Been that way for a LONG TIME now. Shipping container bears "Class B Explosives" markings. These are the high-power rocket motors, from G thru P. They can "explode", your knowledge of physics notwithstanding (see sec. 1.7 - CATO).
Hmm, yes, if we are talking about rights, then the ninth would be more appropriate.
Of course, the power to make laws comes from the people... And undelegated powers are reserved to the States "or to the people" according to the Constitution.
Oh, well, in any case, I don't think the feds should be getting in the way of this hobby-it was already regulated-one can hardly launch these types of rockets in your backyard.
Yes, the great clause that has been used to justify anything and everything. Look, I believe the Constitution has to be interpreted to some extent. But I really doubt that was the intent of the original clause. Granted, ultimately the Constitution is what the courts say it is, but unfortunately, they don't seem to read it much :)
Ultimately, I think it is best that individuals can do what they want without government interference as long as they don't bother/harm anyone else. I think that was the original intent of the Constitution. The ICC has been used to subvert that intent, even though it has been done for the public good. The end result however, has been the government's good.
There is no reason to fingerprint these people and run background checks on them. That is unwarranted government intrusion. The materials used in these rockets can't be any worse than the materials that I can store in any garage (gasoline). They already had to get clearance to launch the rockets anyway.
Constitutional law is an interesting subject. And like sausages, one might not want to see how it is made or applied for that matter. Remember, just because it is Constitutional does not make it right (slavery used to be legal...) I would submit that those who are involved in the process are not any better at it or more correct than your basic educated person who can read the primary sources. Those in the system are beholden to it and restricted by it (precedent-even if it is "bad" or "wrong"). Granted, the details are hard to work out-they always are-especially when you have conflicting "rights". But the overall concepts put forth in the Constitution are not hard.
They may not have use the words 'inalienable right' within the constitution But the founders certainly believed in inalienable rights as can be seen in thier writings and a certain other famous document they wrote.
The fact that scotus has seen fit to allow errosion of our rights in many cases doesn't make it right or contitutionaly correct except in a purely pragmatic sense.
The whole concept of the 'interest of the state' having any value when said value would erode the rights of the individual would almost certainly be seen repugnant, or at least suspicious in the extreem, by the founding fathers. I would tend to agree.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
"Anyway, regulating the trade of rocket engines clearly falls within Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. So this discussion has been moot."
Eh only if there is interstate commerce involved.
If I build and test a model rocket with local (my state only) suplies. It's no longer within federal jurisdiction and does NOT fall under the INTERSTATE commerce clause.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
If, as seems to be the case, successive administrations from both major parties favor increasingly-expanding police powers, what is the point of the protest? It only makes sense if there is evidence John Kerry will oppose new police powers or support rolling back existing ones. Thus far, the only evidence available shows that Mr. Kerry supports increased police powers at the expense of civil liberties; for example, with his vote in favor of the Patriot Act.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There are two major candidates for the next election: George W. Bush and John Kerry. Both support the expansion of police powers at the expense of civil liberty so we can fight a "war on terror". Most notably, both strongly supported the Patriot Act and worked towards its passage (and in the end, Kerry voted for it and Bush signed it).
Unless, of course, you were implying we ought to vote for Nader, in which case I'd say go for it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Ok... some people here have the completely wrong idea about high-power rocketry.
t .jpg).
I will attempt to straighten some of your views out.
Ok, first off... APCP does NOT EXPLODE.
At atmospheric pressure, most APCP burns at a rate of 1.5mm (0.059 inches) per second. That is very slow, no?
Now, there is a value called "n" which is used in the equation R=a*P^n... for most APCP formulations, this value will be around 0.4. What the mentioned equation does is deterimine the regression rate (burn rate) at elevated pressure by substituting the pressure (P) into the equation (in PSI). A common "a" value to use would be around 0.017 (the "a" and "n" values can be determined by burning "strands" of propellant under pressure and measure how long it takes to burn a certain length strand).
If you work out this equation, you will find that at even 1000psi, the burn rate is still quite slow.
There are differences between gasoline and APCP. APCP contains it's own oxygen source so it can burn in the absence of oxygen in the form of an oxidizer - gasoline is does not.
Yes, gasoline can be very explosive... only when dispersed in a "mist" so the surface-area avaliable for combustion with the air is very high - even FLOUR can explode when "dusted"!
I have been doing experimental rocketry for about 3 years now. Yes, that means I make my own rocket motors - (http://nzex.aorangi-gardens.co.nz/silicone-fligh
I have never seen an accident come close to happening at my local rocket club. Most people who take part in rocketry don't build their own motors anyway - this takes away a large amount of PERCIEVED RISK. In fact, the MOST serious injury I have recieved from my taking part in rocketry is a CUT FINGER from trimming my cast propellant "grains" for use in a motor to get them to fit properly.
You are always going to get the odd stupid, ignorant person who thinks they can take a bunch of chemicals, mix them up like they would a cake recipie and then shove the stuff down a pipe and expect results. These type of people get themselves burnt beyond belief/killed - Fortunately, these type of people handily remove themselves from the gene pool very effectively.
To all of you who think guidance systems are easy to implement - think again. Hey hey, just where are you going to get a MIL-SPEC GPS system from? How are you going to control those servos with the utmost accuracy required for guidance? Got the software skills to program it all to work?
I don't think so... think about what you are saying.
- Matt
- (www.nzex.tk)
I've been a model rocketeer for a long time, and my concern is this will push kids back to the homebrew engine days - with the resultant injuries and damage that was the reason G Harry Stine, George Estes and others created the hobby.
Model rocketry is fun, and a good way to get kids away from computers into the sun. It develops an interst in science, engineering, and using computers to design and test. Competitions are good ways to meet people and make friends for life.
It'l be a shame if teh government kills our hobby.
JLC NAR 21573
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The fact that scotus has seen fit to allow errosion of our rights
One side thinks the SC is eroding rights, the other thinks they are inventing them. That must mean they are pretty much down the middle.
Detonation, which is what an explosive does, is defined as supersonic flame travel.
large segments of society feel they should be freaking free to avoid the responsibilities of life. i mean, in real life, we have these issues and if kids and groups think a background check is a burden, i say 'tough'. someone else will see it as a small price and a smaller burden for the greater good of chemical / propellant and explosives regulations. it is not aimed at the kids, it is aimed at those pretending to be kids and them blowing society up. welcome to adult life class 101.
which is the range of a lot of mid size artillery and motar shells dude. this is serious distance.
correct.
It's clarified here in a 8 hour class on the US Constitution.
The first hour should cover it.
or.. just read the thing yourself.
-metric
Sure they know a few of their "government granted" rights
The government doesn't grant us rights! We, the people, have rights. We grant the government privileges to do certain things enumerated in the Constitution. What the hell is the point in enumerating anything if the ICC grants the government any privilege they can think of?
Understanding the purpose of the Constitution takes a bit more than just reading it.
Michael Badnarik's 8 hour course on the Constitution
enjoy,
-metric
Gee, the only thing I learned from having my Estes rocket was in my bedroom--I learned that having the safety key in made it so that the rocket could launch; not that it couldn't, and I learned that the hard way, see, that was after my kid brother pressed the button.
I love NetHack.
It's not just the background check, and, it's not about pretending to be a kid. Many of the rocketeers that I have encountered work in the aerospace field in their real life.
The problem here is the combination of truly burdensome regulation (more on this later) _AND_ it's complete lack of effectiveness. While the BATFE has people focused on hobby rocketry, real terrorists are laughing their ass off making real bombs that really explode out of things that still aren't regulated (ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, gasoline, alcohol just to name a few of the unregulated materials). Further, the raw materials for APCP are not regulated, and, it is quite easy to learn to make your own motors. It requires some machining resources, and, the mixing process is nowhere near as safe as the final product. As such, most hobbyists prefer to buy their motors rather than build them. I'm betting that the obstacle of building your own motor would not be a significant hurdle to a terrorist. Just so you know, the basic ingredients of APCP are Ammonium Perchlorate (this is the only item that takes some searching to find a place you can buy it, but, it is readily available, and, if you were desperate you could substitute Ammonium Nitrate, although it is not as safe and the mixture becomes more critical), Rubber, Metal (usually iron if you want a red flame, copper for a blue flame, aluminum for a white flame, but, also affects the rate of combustion), a small amount of black powder, and
a plasticizer (essentially an epoxy or resin). All of these things are
easily purchased annonymously.
Now about how burdensome the regulation is... Prior to this regulation, I could go to a launch, buy motors, launch them in rockets at the launch, and I didn't need to worry about federal paperwork, regulation, etc. Now, I have to present my LEUP, provide a copy of my LEUP and clearance letter to each dealer (a signed copy), maintain records of each and every motor I buy, burn, return, destroy, store (wait, I'm not allowed to store any more), or otherwise dispose of for a period of at least 3 years. I have to allow the BATFE to inspect my home at any time of their choosing (even though I have a non-storage permit and don't store any explosives), had
to submit an FBI fingerprint card, and had to be subjected to a federal background check. For this privilege, I also have to pay the BATFE $100 and go through the whole process all over again every three years. I can no longer trade motors or sell them to other rocketeers at launches (instead, sometimes we'll loan rockets -- he'll fly his motor in my rocket and I'll fly my motor in his rocket), but, usually, we both have to find a friendly dealer, then, we both "return" our motors to the dealer who then sellse them back to us. All because to sell to each other, under the new regulations, at least one of us would have to have a Dealer permit instead of a User permit.
This is not the inconvenience of having to deal with DMV to get a drivers license. This is a much more burdensome regulation. Imagine if gasoline (which is far more explosive than APCP) were regulated in this manner. I bet you wouldn't be saying "it's a small price and smaller burden for the greater good of automotive regulations".
Finally, kids come into this in that alot of launches have kids present. They fly low power stuff (A-G) and have a great time doing it, but, one of the things that inspires them to fly the low power stuff and learn about rocketry is watching the higher power stuff. Also, kids like to hang around and learn from the adults that are flying the higher power stuff. They get not only theoretical lessons, but, they actually get to see lessons in applied physics, mathematics, structural engineering. They
actually start to see the application of what they're being taught, and,
that makes them much more interested. Kids at launches start actually asking questions and listening to answers about gravity, acceleration,
mass, Newton's laws of motion, etc. They see what happe
It seems there's still some areas where the US Government hasn't passed regulations to "protect" the public/people from themselves. One is the requirement to brush our teeth (I remember when this was compared to then-proposed laws requiring wearing of seat belts in cars). Here's another: http://www.houseofscience.com/ouch/ouch.html
Tag lost or not installed.
Not necesarily. It just means the two 'sides' have differing spins. All it realy implies is that both sides are, at times, unhappy they're not getting it all thier way.
All I know is if the constitution says A, the founding fathers say in thier dialogs at the time discussing what they wrote, that yes indeed A is A and scotus asserts !a, then scotus is wrong.
A clear example might be the first amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<b> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press</b>; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [emphasis mine]
Note the emphasized portion. Yet SCOTUS has held, iirc, a compelling intrest or some such, in allowing 'obscenity' laws. And even said they couldn't define obscenity. My response is: so , the first says nothing about obscenity, just no law.
I use this example because it's a fairly black and white case, not because I think we should have billboards with graphic sex on them to advertise strip bars or some such nonsense.
And there are other examples. The point behind such strict and absolute restriction on the federal government is not because the founders were so absolute minded, or because they were lazy.
The simple matter is they understood the slow encroachment that would happen without very strong restraint on a government and a watchfull, intelligent, citizenry. Unfortunately for all they gave us the first we are often failing to be the second.
They also used such blunt uncomplicated language to lower the bar so that the common man could see plainly when thier government was breaking the rules. Many of them were very well educated, some in law, and could have quite easily wrote a nicely complicated piece of leagalize that would require a degree to decipher.
Remember these men had just succesfully tossed one bad government and had no desire to replace it with another.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to interpret it as some of the founding fathers said?
Also note that many of the founding fathers passed the Alien and Sedition acts.
Take a law class some time. Flexible interpretation has been the case since the begining of time. The reason we have human judges is to allow for human judgement. Everyone that's ever begged a judge to make their speeding ticket a non-moving violation understands the value of having human judgement involoved in jurisprudence.
There is a difference between interpretation and claiming a=!a. Interpretation means taking the original meaning and aplying it to a new situation.
There has to be a reasonable limit. For example, you can't get some guns and rifles under strict limits out of the second amendment, what the founding fathers said on the issue only makes it MORE obvious than the amendment itself.
You can't get alot of things SCOTUS and the courts has said out the constitution, but they do it anyway.
And I never said the founding fathers were perfect, heck some of them owned slaves, but they were pretty smart and carefull about the constitution. You know they even left in a clear methode to fix anything in it we later decided was wrong. The courts are not that method, thier job with regards the constitution is to deal with the grey areas and to apply it to things and situations that did not exist when the constitution was framed. Not to decide the words mean somthing they very clearly did not.
And btw it's not the judge you normaly ask to reduce a charge in a speeding ticket, it's the prossecuting attorney. The judge generaly has to accept the change in charges and plea, but that's mostly a formality at that point.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
They might make you sit in the emergency room for many hours, but they can't kick you out. It is illegal for the hospital to kick you out without treating you. If you don't pay, it is the hospital and the doctor who don't get paid, they can't come repossess your healthcare, the worst that they can do is bugger up your credit report which might not matter if you are extremely ill.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
By the way, a 2-litre water rocket already has an impressive range (up to 300 feet if aimed well) which makes it an interesting weapon for junkyard wars.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.