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.

Comments

Hey, whose side are they on?

[Skyshadow]

Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[dirvish]

Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?

Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel, since they have actually been used for terrorist acts.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Rei]

Or they could use slingshots to fire firebombs through building windows. Or they could use bottles of alcohol to molotov coctail police cars and police stations. Or that could burn a fire in a building's air conditioning room without leaving ventilation so that it produces carbon monoxide.

So, hurry up, government: Outlaw slingshots, alcohol, and fire.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[ncurses]

Yeah. There are thousands of things that are totally legal to purchase that can be used to make all kinds of goodies. Check this place out . I used to get all of my stuff from them before I got busted by the polese. One of my friends made the bomb, he said he was just messing around with acetone peroxide when he made it. I think AP was what the shoe bomber guy used. They say that it's really unstable, but it's not. It's cool, it makes a huge fireball w/ very little noise. Ketone Peroxide was what got us into trouble though. I can't tell you how to make that, because I don't want to get into trouble again, but it is a hugeass powerful explosive :) Annnyway, it's ridiculous to outlaw rocketry when such stuff can be made by two 16 year old kids out of household chemicals.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[ncurses]

And that's what I get for forgetting to close my a tag. And for forgetting my formatting tags. God I suck at basic posting stuff :P

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[garcia]

Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel

Unforunately you need fertilizer to grow plants to feed the animals that roam the ranches paid for by oil profits.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[orthogonal]

Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?

From the linked article:

"There is no consistency as to what is acceptable in one region for the ATF that won't be acceptable somewhere else," said Wickman. "The ATF people seem, as a rule, to feel this whole idea of hobby rocketry being regulated by the (government is) a mistake and a waste of time. There's a disconnect between the ATF in Washington and the regional field offices."

What's worse, even though not much has changed about the regulations, they are subject to arbitrary interpretation in the field, said Bundick, of the National Association of Rocketry. "It's a never-ending treadmill to try to pacify the local inspector."

The Justice Department's Nowacki didn't respond to questions about the ATF's perceived inconsistency.

What you model terrorists don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter that model rockets can't be used as weapons of terror.

What's important isn't controlling model rockets, per se; what's important is getting the American public used to a never-ending "war against terror", keeping them keyed-up, ever fearful and ever compliant.

What's important is getting the public resigned to always asking permission from the government, always being afraid that they're at risk of arrest, even for hobbies the government knows full well pose no realistic risk of harm.

And ultimately, what's important is making the people of this nation realize who is boss -- the government and its bureaucrats and its corporate owners --, and who is the servant -- the common taxpayer.

Once you realize that your hobbies "need" to be regulated to "fight terror", you'll docilely let the FBI knock on your door on behalf of the RIAA's searches, and you'll agree to submit your open source code to government inspection to make sure it doesn't "INDUCE" violation of copyright.

Once the formerly free American sheeple resign themselves to arbitrary governmental intrusions into their lives in order to further some ill-defined and ever elusive "war against terror", they'll stop squawking about

• (1st) free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion;
  
• (4th) unreasonable searches and seizures;
  
• (5th) freedom from self-incrimination;
  
• (6th) rights to counsel and to a speedy trial
  
• (8th) freedom from cruel and unusual punishments
  
• (9th) rights retained by the people
  
• (10th ) or rights reserved by the States

Or as our beloved Reichsminister Ashcroft explained, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty ... your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and ... give ammunition to America's enemies."

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[yppiz]

The question I was responding to was not whether home-made rockets have killed people, but instead whether they have ever been used to terrorize people. The Qassam rockets are certainly in the latter category.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[hpavc]

actually the rockets that are fired into israel are pretty much amaeur diy rockets.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[kpansky]

Of course this same argument can be made for anything. I mean making a basic gun is easy -- long tube, black powder, and a projectile. Sure, it'll be inaccurate and the range will be crap, but the same thinking goes. Ultimately nothing can be totally prevented, but it just putting up barriers.

As far as rocketry goes, if these type of regulations were put on other types of explosives (they are) there would be no fuss. It is just because it impacts something near and dear to our hearts that it seems so intolerable.

Think of the complaints people made for sport shooting and hunting when gun restrictions (something most slashdotters seem to embrace) were enacted. Same basic premise, completely different reaction from the slashdot crowd.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[wrf3]

And after all this time, I thought it was Windows!

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your post, but where was the left's outrage on violations of the 10th amendment 30 years ago, (hell, 60 years ago)? It was "progressive" congressmen and pliant Supreme Court justices who changed the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to mean "anything Congress wants to do, Congress can do". I don't like the status quo either, but let's all keep in mind that it was politicians enamored with redistribution and central planning who paved the way for the Federal government to become the leviathan that it is today.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[orthogonal]

Interesting that you left the Second Amendment out of your list at the end.

I don't like guns.

But I'm against gun control precisely because I won't be a hypocrite who fights for the First Amendment and ignores that inconvenient Second one. Indeed, my worries about the injustice of convicting under Federal gun laws recently prevented me from sitting on a jury after I voiced my concerns.

But I don't know of any case where Ashcroft or the current Administration has eroded Second Amendment rights; indeed, when it came to searching for terrorists after 9-11, Ashcroft told the government to search for terrorist suspects' names on all government lists except lists of gun owners.

I'd be glad to add to my list however: if you know of an example where Ashcroft or the Bush administration has abrogated Second, Third, or Seventh Amendment rights, please let me know!

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[MoneyT]

I believe he was refering to the equal oportunity laws, where the government stepped in and told PRIVATE COMPANIES, who they can and can't hire and how much they can and can't hire them for. Truth be told, anti-discrimination laws in regards to private businesses are unconstitutional, but the courts stratched the definition of the interstate commerce clause to regulate that.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Halo-]

I don't know the specifics of the rockets fired into Israel, but I suspect the damage done (even psychological) is greater when the same effort and material is put into simplier devices.

A rocket is pretty much a controlled bomb. Every joule spent on proplusion is a joule not spent on explosive. An amateur might be able to cobble together a rocket which would fly vaguely where the builder pointed it over a distance of a maybe a few miles, but the "warhead" would likely be only a few pounds. (plus the kinetic energy of the rocket.) If you took the same rocket fuel, and used it to make a big-ass truck bomb, you'd gain several magnitudes of precision and lethality.

Rockets are good for putting a small amount of explosive in a place you can't easily access. Since we're not going to outlaw trucks, fertilizer, and diesel fuel any time soon, the best way to "terrorize" the people remains.

Ultimately I'd much prefer the "evil doers" put their energy into exotic ideas like homemade rockets rather than simple ones like truck bombs and the classic "cheap-assault-rifle-and-a-crowd". The number of victims would be lower.

Someone could make a weapon out of rocketry supplies, but anyone with the skills to build a halfway decent rocket could build a pretty impressive bomb a lot easier.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Long straw (bamboo works nicely), needle like object (can also come from bamboo), feathering (combed bamboo), and poison (from bamboo extract)... viola, blow gun and darts. Deadly short range weapon with medium accuracy, almost totally silent.

So please, think of the children, screw the koala, and ban bamboo!

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Halo-]

The problem is scale. In a lot of places in the US, you can buy small fireworks, but I can't go to a commerical supplier and pick up professional mortars and shells without some sort of license.

I've got no problem with there being limitations of people's ability to build, say, something which uses propellant measured in pounds (or tons). When it's clear the rocket poses a clear threat if accidents occur or it is intentionally misused. But people should still be able to build smaller things without massive hurdles.

I don't want to get much into guns because it is a bit of a charged subject. The issue is where do we set limits between the right to bear a squirt-pistol and the right to bear crew-served artillery? Obviously there needs to be a ceiling somewhere, but quantifying it is hard.

The question is where do you set the ceiling? And what are reasonable requirements for people who wish to exceed it? Model-rocketry is heading towards the squirt-pistol range of the scale...

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[kpansky]

I agree that for most model rocketry restrictions like these are draconian and stupid. But from the article "Today, thousands of people fly model rockets that range in size from about 12 inches to more than 30 feet tall." Now. That covers quite a range there. A 30 foot tall rocket should almost certainly have some restrictions to it, no? Once you get to 2 feet it length you can start thinking of homemade RPGs. A complete stretch, but one illustrating a point that not all model rockets are squirt guns. A 1/100th model is pretty small, but a 1/10 model can be pretty fucking huge.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[heptapod]

Bamboo is a grass not a wood.
Cite. Cite. Cite.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Halo-]

I agree about the notion of terrorism and rockets, after all, one of the first modern rockets with the V2 used by Hilter in WWII.

I'd have to disagree about the delivery mechanism part though. I used to build these things as a kid, and the amount of thrust needed to get just a tiny bit of payload into the air is enormous. The biggest thing I ever saw was an extremely light disposable camera, and the rocket it took to lift it used several of the biggest engines available at the time.

Even when they do lift off, they go straight up, and come down on a parachute. (If you are lucky) a few blocks away in a high wind. The mechanics and force required for lateral flight is a lot greater than almost any amateur can overcome.

And as for biowar and dirty bombs... I dunno... Heat and unreliablity aren't something I'd want to put my hard-obtained anthrax into. And most the radioactive metals are extremely massive. Combine that with the problems associated with lateral flight, and it's a pretty iffy proposition. I think anyone who obtains and uses radioactivity or biologicial agents is going to scare the pants of the general public reguardless of the delivery method.

I'd be much more concerned about people using balloons. If you're just trying to indiscrimately drop sometime nasty on people, a weather balloon and a tank of helium would reliably put a lot more payload in the air for a lot less money and exposure. The Japanese were able to achieve mild success during WWII using incerdiary devices and similiar devices from halfway across the world to the west coast of the US.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Zeriel]

If you'd bother checking history instead of propoganda, the right of return was always open until the suicide bombing started. No one ever forced Arabs OUT in the first place. When the Jews started settling Israel, they bought land legally and settled it, and then had to fight off Arab attacks ANYWAY. In the 1948 War, most of the Arabs who fled did so on the basis of rumor and speculation and fear that the Israelis would attack civilians in repraisals for Arab destructions of Jewish villages--which, I might add, never happened. And many Arabs that started said rumors stayed, and kept their land and that of their neighbors, and made a tidy profit out of being bastards to their brother Arabs.

Look at the Arab population still living in Israel. Full suffrage, full rights, full citizenship. I had an Arab Israeli professor in college, and several friends who visited Israel at various points, who all confirm it.

They'd probably give that to the Palestinians, even now, if asked.

It's this pro-terrorist propoganda I can't stand. The Israeli military is justified in just about every action it's taken against the PLO terrorists and their ilk.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Dizzle]

A tomato is a plant, not an animal.

What's your point? He never mentioned wood.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[sneakers563]

This is true - I'm a private pilot (another group targeted after 9/11) and there's an area near my local airport that we're told to avoid because of the very large "model" rockets flown there. I don't know the exact ceilings, but I do know that typical cruising altitudes (3 - 5 thousand feet AGL) are not considered enough. I still think this is a bit of an overreaction, but the mental picture we have of a foot-tall rocket with an egg payload is not necessarily accurate.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Halo-]

Exactly.

The propellent in rocketry is not well suited to explosives. Major truck bombs, like the one used in OKC, were ammonium nitrate and diesel. Technically that's a low power explosive too. Elsewhere in the thread someone was saying that a two foot rocket is starting to sound like an RPG, but they are forgetting that the lethality of an RPG is because they carry very exotic shaped charge high explosive and penetrators which turn into jets of plasma upon impact. Even assuming the rocket is easy to make, the warhead takes a lot more work.

And finally, I totally agree with you about stealing explosives. Without sounding to much like the "when guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" crowd, putting restrictions of materials that an accomplished amateur chemist could make from common ingredients isn't going to stop a serious terrorist. Look at the problem with illegal drugs. Thousands and thousands of less-than-rocket-scientists manage to cook up crystal meth in dilapidated shacks and bathrooms all the time.

Sure, a terrorist would prefer to buy off the shelf, but I don't think it's going to stop them if they can't. And, more to the point, they could always just knock over a quarry for some dynamite.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[susano_otter]

You argue that Israel was never at risk because their military was stronger than their neighbors' military.

Would Israel still have been safe if their military was weaker than their neighbors'?

You say that Israel used overwhelming force to end a conflict as quickly and decisively as possible... as if that's a bad thing.

Would it have been better for Israel to commit no more than 80,000 troops, and limit their tech usage to the obosolete tech level of their opponents?

Did you allow for the possibility that Israel has such a large army because their neighbors insist on massing whatever troops they have on Israel's borders, along with the best weapons technology they can muster?

Did you allow for the possibility that the only hope Israel has of winning a war of agression is to apply overwhelming force immmediately? That perhaps that's why Israel maintains such a large and advanced military?

That Egypt, Syria, et al were unwilling or unable to follow up with a counterattack is hardly an indictment of Israel. Rather, it indicates that Israel struck at the right moment, before the forces massing on its borders were in a position to achieve the victory they sought.

The Geneva convention is opt-in, and applies only to signatories who abide by its rules. Like all other "international law", it is only worth the enforcement that underwrites it. In the case of the Geneva Convention, enforcement comes in the form of "tit for tat"--if you violate the rules, then your enemy is free to also violate the rules. In fact, the retaliation is not against the rules at all.

According to the Geneva Convention, the first entity to use biological weapons is in violation. The second entity is in total compliance when it retaliates with biological weapons of its own.

Before we discuss this further, though, it might be interesting to know which of the parties involved were signatories of the Geneva Convention at the time.

As for the rest of "international law", it is essentially meaningless without enforcement. Israel was bound only by its treaties, and by the ability and willingness of other entities to police Israel (and its neighbors) effectively. Absent a higher power with legitimate authority to dictate policy to nation-states, and with enough force of arms and force of will to enforce that policy, whatever Israel has done may be "unfair" in your opinion, but it cannot be "illegal".

There are many veterans who stand by John Kerry's Vietnam record and support his anti-war sentiments. But there are just as many veterans who repudiate his record and denounce his anti-war sentiments. It never occurred to me that all Israeli generals would think--then or now--that the 1967 war was a good idea. It also never occurred to me that if a general opposed the war, it must therefore have been a bad idea. What about all the generals who supported the war? Do their opinions not count?

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[rjstanford]

But from the article "Today, thousands of people fly model rockets that range in size from about 12 inches to more than 30 feet tall." Now. That covers quite a range there

Exactly. You could have thousands of people flying 12 inch rockets, and one flying a 31 foot rocket, and that sentence would still be just as true. I'd like to see some more breakdown of that personally, purely because its such a vague yet emotionally charged claim.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[mcheu]

We're talking about hobby rockets here. The rockets are fairly small, and can't hold a lot of payload. You can build bigger rocket motors and bigger rockets, but then we're not talking about hobby rockets anymore. For terrorism events to be successful, you need something that can be deployed quickly with a large effect. It has to be something big enough to draw attention. Think national networks, not evening news. If you think a model rocket can do that sort of damage, you need to think bigger. National coverage requires Bond villian level evil. It has to have a higher body count, and greater property damage than your typical drive-by or arson. As for using the components to make "deadly stuff". Check the net and you can find recipes for making your own solid rocket fuel. Some people make their own to save money or add effects like coloured smoke trails. You'll find the ingredients are probably already in your possession or obtainable within 30 minutes. Estes rocket packs, meanwhile are considerably more expensive, and even before 911, they were difficult to buy in any great numbers (the hobby isn't big enough to warrant that sort of production). If that freaks you out, feel free to write your local representative about banning shit and diesel fuel. If you're creative in your wording, you might just do it.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[The AtomicPunk]

Gee, you begin to think that maybe prohibition isn't the solution to every problem we face?

My primary hobby is machine gun collecting and shooting. Let me tell you the fun of throwing down $10-20k, finger printing, filling out forms, then waiting 3 months for a background check for the opportunity to pay a $200 tax so I can own one of a class of firearms by which *ZERO* people have been killed by civilians in the entire 70 year history of NFA firearms.

Meanwhile, John Q. Gangbanger buys a MAC-10 on the corner for $50 and hoses down whoever.

It makes you think maybe we should outlaw killing people.

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

[dnahelix]

The only way we are going to change things is to VOTE and get those ass-heads out of office!

Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

[marnargulus]

From the ATF site:
Carl J. Truscott was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to be the 6th Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in the Department of Justice, on April 18, 2004
These guys get appointed, and the ones that aren't appointed get hired. It isn't really a voting issue, more of an issue with appointees.

Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

[JojoLinkyBob]

I believe the appropriate term is asshat...and I certainly hope I don't come across as one in bringing this up :)

Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

[Brandybuck]

While I can understand your anger, it still puzzles me as to where you were when other ass-heads started fingerprinting other people. This stuff didn't get invented under the Bush administration, but has been around for decades. I've been fingerprinted twice by the FBI under two prior administrations, and neither was related to rocketry.

I have no problems with people protesting bad laws and corrupt administrations. But where the fsck were you during the Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford years? This selective protesting reeks of hypocracy.

Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

[jfengel]

As a bit of political gamesmanship, it's just brilliant. Declare your "bipartisanship", then nominate the most extreme candidates you can think of. When the other side objects, accuse them of being partisan.

For extra flavor, keep the country in a state of continual national emergency, then accuse the other side of treason when they object to anything you do.

Seriously, I despise the game, but, they've done an exceptional job of slapping their opponents both ways. I don't hold the Democrats in any higher regard; if they refrain from this behavior it's because they're not as good at it, not because of some higher moral ground they stand on.

This is coming from a registered Democrat. I'm used to voting for the lesser of two evils.

Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

[bizard]

I would imagine that many of the people you are ranting at weren't alive in the Ford and Carter years, were a tad to young to vote in the Reagan and Bush years, and hadn't yet had their own rights trampled upon in the Clinton years.

Why is it hypocrytical to wake up and want to affect political change? Selective protesting is exactly what people should do...focus all of their effort on something that matters to them rather than generally complaining about all injustices.

Some good, some FUD

[DynaSoar]

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.

Re:Some good, some FUD

[shotfeel]

I'm still trying to separate the fact fromt the FUD. At first I thought this was covering things like the little Estes model rockets my sons' Cub Scouts Pack built and fired, but these rockets are a whole different class.

"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."

We're talking real rockets here! And even if you ignore potential terrorist use, it does seem reasonable to have limitations on how much rocket fuel can be stored by a hobbiest (or anyone) in a residential neighborhood.

So it does seem like the regulations are over the top (story hype doesn't help), but I'm still trying to figure out it they are really all that unreasonable.

Re:Some good, some FUD

[JKarp]

This article was head and shoulders above ANY other that's been done on high power rocketry as of late, and the FUD is nearly nil IMO. NAR is holding membership because it's focus is model rocketry and competition, not HPR. Tripoli is withering away. The local Tripoli prefecture is down from a high of 120 members to less than a dozen, and I'm one of the ones who's out of the hobby. I used to spend $200 - $400 / month on motors & supplies, and had a storage LEUP. But when the Homeland Security Act was signed and the ATF showed up at my house with pictures of Osama and his cronies and asked if I'd seen any of them (I'm NOT kidding about this), I knew it was time to get out. CP Technologies IS an interesting data point in that their sales are down 50% and their PSAN motor technology isn't even ATF regulated! People are fed up. It shouldn't be this hard to have a hobby throwing cardboard rockets into the air. JKarp. NAR #80737 TRA #5515 L2

This has been a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

for my V-2 reenactment society. Bloody red tape.

Launch the rockets anyway

[rwrife]

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?

Re:Launch the rockets anyway

[irokitt]

Believe it or not, I've seen people do precisely that all the time. People have to really hunt to find launch sites around here (San Diego), and it's gotten worse since the fires (which is completely understandable). So every once in a while, you see somebody shoot a rocket up and then leave. They don't even collect the things

What I've always done is launch my rockets out in the desert (BLM property, which is state-owned and open to everyone for anything). I have a handy dry-lake launch site where there isn't anything flammable, or any people either for that matter.

These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[l810c]

Estes

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.

Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[gr8_phk]

"It's just motors with greater than .9 lbs of fuel. That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon"

It's people with that attitude that are causing the problem with the ATF. If you've ever been to a launch you'd know the ability to aim these things at a target is nonexistant. They basically go up, but you couldn't deliberately hit something if you tried without a miracle. The fuel itself is not actually explosive - outside the motor tube it burns really slow. You could attach some other explosive, but you still couldn't deliver it accurately and that would be a different substance so no need to regulate the fuel.

Rocket fuel is no more dangerous than gasoline which is available on every corner in America. Probably less dangerous, as it's not a liquid.

Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[Citizen of Earth]

Estes [estesrockets.com]

I think we're safe from these guys -- their web site is unusable!

Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[chadjg]

"That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon"

Sure, I see two possibilities. First, you could bludgeon someone to death with the motor. Put it in a sock for extra leverage. Second. some knucklehead might want to rig up a remote fired "Katyusha" type of assembly. Guess which one I think is more likely?

I did the small model rockets as a kid and always thought it would be fun to get into the big ones if I ever got into a big enough paycheck. Now, it seems like a colossal pain. Oh well. Now I'll have to get a safe hobby like motorcycles, skydiving or street racing.

It really is too bad.

Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[l810c]

These things are not going to kill a lot of people, but given their size and range there are numerous ways they could be used to terrorize people and allow the attackers to quickly get away.

Fire one of these from a mile away over a packed stadium or large crowd and have it explode with a cloud of chemical agent.

You wouldn't even need a chemical, flour would probably cause such a panic that several people would die in the ensuing stampede.

I live in the flight pattern of Atlanta's aiport. If I fired one of these at a plane(even if I didn't hit it), it would shut down the whole airport and maybe the entire US.

Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[ChuckleBug]

If you've ever been to a launch you'd know the ability to aim these things at a target is nonexistant. They basically go up, but you couldn't deliberately hit something if you tried without a miracle.

Just to play devil's advocate here - I don't think this matters. A terrorist's goal could just be indiscriminate mayhem, so it wouldn't matter where it ended up. Also, I don't think you're quite right. If you put some effort into it, you could hit a large target, like a building. It's also possible for someone to design some sort of guidance system. Of course, I don't see terrorists doing this - it's a big production and there are much easier ways of being destructive.

I'm a rocket enthusiast myself, and I don't like seeing unwarranted restrictions on the hobby, but I don't have a problem with a certain amount of regulation, especially for the big ones. Rockets are ballistic projectiles, and can be damned dangerous, even if they aren't explosive. Even a small rocket, which can be simply demonstrated: Set up a rocket with a C or D motor, stand with your chin resting atop the launch rod, and push the button. :) However, making it into a Homeland Security (I hate that term) issue is over the top.

Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[sethlong]

There's been a lot of people saying how motors larger then 62.5 grams are huge, used to launch 30 foot high rockets, unneeded, etc. This isn't the case.

For example, I have a rocket which carries a radio controlled digital camera. Here's what it needs to get to various altitudes:

To get off the launch pad and slowly lumber up 400 feet: G64 reload (62.4 grams propellant)
To leave the launch pad at a safe speed and obtain a resonable altitude(1000 feet): H128 reload (95 grams)
To get somewhere that would yield really cool pictures (3000 feet): I211 reload (251 grams)

Note the much higher altitude from the H128 verses the G64. The rocket is so underpowered with the G64 that most of the fuel is spent just keeping the rocket from falling back down. The H128 gets it moving at a much more efficiant speed. Thus the huge altitude difference with a motor only 50% larger. (I've used both motors, with an altimeter in the rocket to verify altitude and deploy the parachutes).

Most of the really neat payloads need a bunch of power. Such as a tiny computer, wireless lan card, and batteries. Or a video camera.

It used to be legal to purchase and fly any of these motors without a low explosive user permit (LEUP). The largest motor you used to be able to get sans LEUP was the AeroTech J570, which would have put my camera rocket up around 6000 feet. Now, the most powerful easily avaliable motor will be the AT G125, which puts my camera rocket up around 450 feet, although it does leave the launch pad at a safe speed.

The guys launching 30 foot rockets are using motors like the AeroTech N2000, which has 7,770 grams of propellent. These have always required a LEUP.

Seth

Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with

[radish]

I live in the flight pattern of Atlanta's aiport. If I fired one of these at a plane(even if I didn't hit it), it would shut down the whole airport and maybe the entire US.



You could get the same effect by calling in a well timed and worded series of bomb threats. Which is a lot easier than messing around with rockets.

Look, pretty much anything you can think of could be used by a terrorist. Poison the water supply, or some food factory, throw green dye into a river and call into the local tv news with a middle-east accent, let off a smoke grenade on the subway. If you want to cause chaos it's easy and always will be.

Perspective...

[Chagatai]

From the government's perspective, anyone who engages in model rocketry could be capable of doing something more dangerous. Then again, this logic is so logically flawed, it's kind of like saying, "Citizens should not have water, as it could lead to drowning deaths".

Time to trade in

[xmedar]

Those American passports, Europe is nice, come over here, have some cheese and wine, and be free of your oppressors, huddled masses welcome!

Re:Time to trade in

[MyNameIsFred]

...Those American passports, Europe is nice, come over here,...

I did a quick google, and it is not like Europe is free of regulation for model rocketry. It seems that things are very similar:

Engines can be shipped via postal services or for larger parcels via special postal services because you can only buy A,B,C and D. Shops can sell motors but only A,B,C and sometimes D.

I assume the A, B, C, and D engines sizes are the same as easily bought in the U.S.

My 2 cents

[Osgyth]

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.

Back in the Day...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yeah Right

[drgonzo59]

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!)

Re:Yeah Right

[terrymr]

So ... you can buy 50lbs of black powder without any permits at all ... that makes a good general purpose bomb too.

Doesnt affect most rocketeers

[kevin_conaway]

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

Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers

[k31bang]

First they came for the big ass rockets and I did not speak out because I don't use them Then they came for the bla bla bla, you know the rest.

Nah.

[www.sorehands.com]

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.

Oooh, model rockets, scaaary....

[ronfar]

One of the many activities I was involved in as a child was a model rocketry class. I spent my summer vactaion painting and building my rocket and at the end we were supposed to go out and fire the rocket. Unfortunately, I had to miss the last class so I still have this *chortle* *snicker* deadly terrorist weapon hanging around, as yet unfired, I'll just wait and *giggle* sell this oh-so-*snort* deadly device to my local al-Quaida cell and live on easy street (well, until easy street gets blown up, I guess.)

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...)

Re:rocketry: dangerous?

[rwrife]

They're not dangerous....I once built a shoulder mounted rocket launcher out of a small estes rocket and I'm sure it would have been cool to watch slam into my parent's house had my face and eyes not been burned by the exhaust.

This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians too

[caffeineboy]

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.

Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What you're forgetting...

[Skyshadow]

Despite the constant reminders from the Bush Administration, you've obviously forgotten: The sole reason that terrorists hate Americans because of our freedom and liberties.

The best way to prevent terrorist acts, therefore, is to strip those puppies away as quickly and efficiantly as possible.

Re:What you're forgetting...

[to_kallon]

"The best way to prevent terrorist acts, therefore, is to strip those puppies away as quickly and efficiantly as possible." yes, maybe so, but isn't the point of terror to make people change by scaring them? and if we start losing rights from one attack, horrific as it may have been, do we really think they, terrorists, are going to be discouraged by their success?

Terrorist's converse

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorist #1: Did you bring the stuff?

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!

Protecting themselves from rebels

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

FUD

[thpdg]

Is this just FUD? Estes says everything is ok.

Sad

[blike]

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.

Hobby rocket != Terrorist weapon

[prgrmr]

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.

Rocketry turns kids into terrorists

[Animats]

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.

Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists

[Overzeetop]

And America wouldn't have had a space program. To quote Tom Lehrer's song on WvB's life, "'Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department.' says Werner von Braun"

(If you're too young to have listened to Tom Lehrer, find $30 and go buy his CDs. It's a hilarious view of the world in the 1960s, by a singing mathemetician/professor from MIT. Right up the /. demographic's alley. TL, for those who don't know, is still alive and living in SoCal, but he's got that old man bitterness that spoils the old sarcasm of his songs.)

Outlaw fertilizer?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd have to arrest all members of Congress then.

Re:Outlaw fertilizer?

[dirvish]

Are you implying that they are all full of shit?

next on the a$$cr0ft list

[Roskolnikov]

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.

Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list

[kabocox]

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?

Actually, this would be great for the airlines. They could fit alot more people on the plane that way! I remember a lot of road trips were like this too. I'd go to sleep about 10 mins. after traveling on interstate then just wake up 4 hours later at where ever we were going. Traveling is so much faster that way.

Weapons for terrorists

[Invalid Character]

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.

Democracy is Dead in America

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why the Feds don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

What about gun rights

[argoff]

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.

Re:What about gun rights

[Dirtside]

Guns don't kill people -- people kill people. On the other hand, a lot more people kill people when there are guns everywhere and there's no societal desire to train people how to properly use and respect guns. I'm perfectly happy to allow everyone in the U.S. to own as many guns of any caliber as they want, as long as everyone is required to take a mandatory gun safety and training class before they can own one.

Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue

[IronChefMorimoto]

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

Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue

[nick13245]

Then why don't the outlaw private aircraft? I believe they could deliver a much larger payload...

Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue

[driftingwalrus]

Couple problems there. For one, these rockets go straight *up*. Meaning anything they disperse over an area, the person launching it gets hit with as well. Secondly, a proper aerosol of something like anthrax is *extremely* hard to build, not considering the general difficulty of growing anthrax anyway.

The most fundamental, substantial reason is this: It's too complicated. Terrorists do not use complex methods, because they don't have to. They can achieve very large impacts, with very small attacks. It's not about the amount of damage, it's about the ability to demonstrate that it can't be *prevented*. Once you do that, people will be scared out of their wits because they never do know when something is going to happen. The US government needs to get rid of this beleif that terrorists are going to behave like foreign governments. These aren't governments, they're guerillas. If one looks at the Vietnam war, a classic example of what guerilla warfare can accomplish, one finds constant use of the most rudimentary weapons and jury-rigged equipment. The simple reason is that they didn't need anything much fancier. The US can afford to hire a team of engineers to develop a missile, Al Qaeda can't.

Why are you guys whining?

[Cheirdal]

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.

Re:Really?

[shepd]

Ok.

Here's a real life example. They can start major fires, and that wasn't even done on purpose.

You may laugh...

[fiannaFailMan]

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.'

Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt rant?

[SensitiveMale]

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.

Time to adapt?

[earthforce_1]

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.

Re:Time to adapt?

[cr0sh]

Hybrid rockets are a start - the problem with the current crop (NOX + "plastic" fuel) is getting the NOX (not super-easy to get, nor cheap), plus the whole setup actually seems pretty dangerous (I have seen a high-power hybrid launch - the guy launching it stood next to the rocket, filled it up - when the countdown was ready he waved, turned the valves off, removed the hoses, then ran like hell - to get clear of the rocket before the ignighter hit).

I am wondering if an inversion of this could be done - compressed gasoline or kerosene (or some other flammable liquid - methonol or something), "pumped" (the pressurization of the liquid would do this - pressurize it with an air compressor or hand pump) through a solid-fuel oxidizer core (perhaps ammonia nitrate fertilizer-based?)...

Not sure if this would work - and I am not crazy nor experienced enough to try it out...

Anyone notice that buying gun powder is legal ?

[DRWHOISME]

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 ?

Re:Gun Control

[DnsZero]

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]

Model rockets: NO. Guns: YES.

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

no need for conspiracy theories

[dangermouse]

What's important isn't controlling model rockets, per se; what's important is getting the American public used to a never-ending "war against terror", keeping them keyed-up, ever fearful and ever compliant.

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.

Re:no need for conspiracy theories

[ibpooks]

You're exactly right. I'm a fireworks and pyrotechnics hobbiest, and we are governed by the same restrictions on explosives.

What about (2nd): right to bare arms?

[darth_zeth]

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?

Re:What about (2nd): right to bare arms?

[Penguinshit]

You might wanna have a look at this site..

And I don't usually have bare arms when I bear arms...

Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy.

[darth_zeth]

the gubmint doesnt have the POWER to REGULATE rockets, actually. The constitution does not outlien our rights, it outlines the government's powers.

Actually, there is some serious threat ...

[Pvt_Waldo]

> Yeah, when have you ever heard of an amateur rocket being used for terrorism?

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...

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

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

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!!"

Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ...

[Pvt_Waldo]

Tell Hezbollah that. They've fired over 140 of them into Israel.

Re:Retreivable fireworks -- no reason to restrict

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

We really need a new moderation category..Like one that says "Clearly did not bother to read the actual article" How the hell is a moderator supposed to moderate these except perhaps for "overrated" but then of course the meta-moderators will see that and the text and assume I just dont agree with the political background of the post. Using the original posters logic I should be able to have Stinger missiles in my yard...After all..they are little more than a few snips of metal, a palm pilot and a IR detector for turning the lights off in the bathroom after you leave. Now of course one could argue that a free people should be able to have Stingers..Though I strongly suspect the "jump on the patriot act bashing" group does not believe this en-mass. Yes..The government is out of control..Yes the patriot act has gone too far in some places..Lets find those places, point to them, and fix them (note that a battle like this will and should rage through the end of civilization)..There are enough areas the government and "we the people" mess up on our own that we do not need to make up stuff like this.

Look at the bright side!

[barthrh2]

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.

Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy.

[winwar]

"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....

Re:Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt ra

[prgrmr]

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.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[darth_zeth]

Where are those mod points when I need em

you didn't use them to mod +1 funny to a soviet russia joke, did you?

Is this really so hard to fathom?

[SensitiveMale]

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.

Re:Is this really so hard to fathom?

[cr0sh]

Have you ever been to a high-power rocket launching? These aren't "slap-together" missles. Many of these rockets take several 10's to hundreds of hours to put together - spending anywhere from $500.00 to several thousand per rocket is not unheard of. Many of the people involved are rocket scientists and engineers in their day jobs - others are involved in other highly technical disciplines, and got their rocketeering chops from flying their own stuff. These guys know how to build big and safe engines from simple sugar (so-called sucrose or candy loads). The people involved know each other as a group, and work out trading skills and such - this guy needs and engine built (candy fuel in a PVC or alluminum tube), so he trades that for his skill at machining a nozzle from graphite or alluminum on a lathe. The launch pads themselves use pieces of alluminum rail that is pretty expensive (most of it is 80/20 style extruded alluminum). Transport, setup, and takedown is a relatively long process. None of this is cheap - not the materials, not the rockets, not the knowledge.

I can't imagine a quick salvo being built and fired off perfectly. During the launches I have seen, more than a few failed on the pad, many failed mid-flight. I have seen video of launches that exploded on the pad (without the help of explosive tips). Lastly, none of the rockets I saw went 60 miles - hell, none broke 20,000 feet, nor went out of the flying envelope secured for the days (pretty large volume, too).

That isn't to say that these things couldn't have been made to be missles - but the expense and expertise required to do so is huge, so huge it hasn't happenned yet, despite high-powered model rocketry being around for well over a decade (and model/experimental rocketry being around for much, much longer).

Finally, for the people that do this - it is a hobby. These are guys (most are grown adult men with maxed out credit cards or other funding) who instead of buying a motorcycle or a boat, build large and expensive rockets to fly and amaze their peers with. As a spectator, I have found it to be an incredible and exciting hobby. It tempts me to get involved in it - I just can't afford it (either monetarily or time-wise)...

Re:Is this really so hard to fathom?

[codegen]

It amazes me that people think that building a rocket weighing "hundreds of pounds" or flying over 60 miles is "a hobby.

<sarcasm>
It amazes me that people think that writing your own operating system is "a hobby".
</sarcasm>

What about mountain climbing? What about amateur astronomers that make their own 30 to 40" telscopes including computerized tracking systems accurate to less than 1/2 arc second? What about amateur robotics?

Now it may be the case that there needs to be some type of regulations for serious hobbies, but there is such a thing as overkill.

Re:Is this really so hard to fathom?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Anyone can invent a fearful scenario: A 747 full of pasengers and fuel, parked at the gate waiting for, what, 20 or 30 minutes for everyone to settle down and the last passengers to make it on board is a pretty static, and explosive, target. Hit the wing with a small charge delivered by a rocket or plane and kaboom! It's a bad day at the airport all around.

The government is trying to scare us into giving up all our freedoms. Convince us that the enemy is all around us. Everywhere. And can strike at any time. We'll willingly give up our freedoms so the government can protect us. Because we want to live. That's 1984.

War on Terror? Please. Who, specifically, are we fighting again? It's like the war on drugs. Spend lots of money. No discernable targets. Lots of media. No actual change.

Shortly after 9/11 there was an add on TV. The add said, "The terrorists thought they would change America"... then you see a street were every house has an American flag flying. The text says, "They were right".

The intent of the add is to show how the terrorists somehow failed because the country united.

Actually the terrorists succeeded because we're living in fear and giving up the very freedoms that make this country great.

You can't fight terrorism by repressing your own people. You can't fight terrorism by bombing foreign lands. Other parts of the world have lived with terrorism for years without freaking out. The key bit there is "lived with". You begin by understanding that there's no "win", there is only dialog and patience and change.

How can you ban an extreme hobby, that has never been used to murder, and keep guns. That's just going after the easy political victories. Look at what we've done to make you safer.

End of rant.

Missle Defense Shield

[mbowles]

Wouldn't DoD's missle defense shield protect us against the threat of INBMs (Inter-Neighborhood Ballistic Missles)?

LOL - I can still buy fireworks at CraZy L00iE's

[salesgeek]

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.

Where does incompetence cross over to malice?

[ianscot]

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.

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.

Kerosene and nitric acid

[mangu]

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.

Re:Kerosene and nitric acid

[kfg]

You have just posited becoming a manufacturer of solid fuel rocket engines/explosives and would be subject to all the laws pertaining thereto, or a criminal if you ignored them.

They weren't so silly as to leave a loophole that would just allow us to take care of our own percieved needs.

However, your post is a good example of why the law is pretty silly. It only really restricts legitimate use. Terrorists will simply ignore the law, as that is what terrorists do. They'll make their own or just steal what they want.

None of these "anti-terrorist" laws restrict terrorists. They just keep your grandmother from being able to crochet while she's on a long flight.

KFG

As Iraq is showing us...

[syukton]

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.

Re:This may sound crazy...

[ravenspear]

If a few people may get killed because of this rocketry program

That argument is moot. As others have pointed out, since the amateur rocketry industry was properly regulated by Tripoli and NAR decades ago there has not been a single accident where anyone has died.

Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy.

[Tassach]

The constitution does not outline our rights, it outlines the government's powers.

Moderate parent up -- he actually understands what the Constitution does, unlike the majority of slashdotters (or the majority of senators, for that matter). The Constitution grants a limited (and specifically enumerated) set of powers to the various branches of the government, and lists specific things that the government is FORBIDDEN to do. The Constitution does not CREATE rights -- we already have them. What it is supposed to do is to prevent the Government from infringing on the rights we already have.

Total safety and security are a myth

[Cid Highwind]

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.

Re:Total safety and security are a myth

[Cid Highwind]

But I don't consider storing explosives and building a 30 foot rocket that can travel 60 miles to be the equivalent of "rock climbing" or "skydiving".

High-power rocketry may have a higher level of hazard to bystanders, but it's probably less useful in terrorism than knowing how to shoot and drive fast. A stolen car can deliver a much bigger warhead much more accurately than a homemade rocket. The rocket builders are being singled out because they are a small enough group to regulate without causing an uproar, not because their rockets are especially useful to terrorists.

Back to what I was trying to say in my previous post, making society absolutely safe and secure is impossible. Every increase in security and safety comes with an equal and opposite loss of convenience and freedom. Our elected leaders will never say anything about that, presidents and congresspeople don't get re-elected by telling the voters they can't be safe. So, the BATFE is under a lot of pressure from political leaders pushing this "myth of security" to do something about terrorism and this is apparently the best they could come up with.

Govt regs

[bigredmed]

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.

One flaw in your argument...

[Tassach]

The chemicals used as model rocket propellants are not explosives. This is probably because THEY DON'T FUCKING EXPLODE. Just because the ATF wants to CALL them "explosives" does not magically alter the laws of physics.

Model rocket propellants are much less dangerous than gasoline -- which, by the way, actually IS an explosive.

Re:One flaw in your argument...

[DunbarTheInept]

The fuel in a solid model rocket engine burns quickly and expands fast. So does Gasoline. Whether they are "explosives" or not is entirely a function of what kind of container you try to contain that expansion in. Allow the quick expansion to be released in a controlled manner, either out the rocket exhaust hole, or by moving a piston head, and it's a propellant. Try to contain the expansion until it bursts, and it's an explosive.

An explosive is nothing more than a thing that burns so fast that
it can expand quickly.

Not that this excuses the stupid legislation, mind you. It just means that the difference between, say, a rocket engine and a steam engine is just a matter of degree, rather than of type. Both can explode if used improperly.

Re:One flaw in your argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. There are technical definitions for explosives and combustibles. Combustion, which is what a rocket does, has a flame rate of 10 feet per second or slower. Detonation, which is what an explosive does, is defined as supersonic flame travel.

Amen!

[isotope23]

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.

Fond memories

[DaveJay]

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)

Opinions from a rocket scientist

[Ribald]

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

On Other News . . .

[Dausha]

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.

Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy.

[identity0]

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.

This kind of thing happend in the 1940's-50's

[infonick]

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.

Model airplane hobbyists are concerned too

[pm]

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.

define the rocket as a type of "gun"

[peter303]

And you'll have free license to use it as you wish. The workings of rockets and guns are fair similar.

FUD -- And the reality of current regulation

[owendelong]

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

They already are ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

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-Categor yR iflesCA.html

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).

All about APCP

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok... some people here have the completely wrong idea about high-power rocketry.
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-flight .jpg).
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)

A big step backward for mankind

[Registered Coward v2]

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

Re:i feel this is a whiner article ...sorry guys..

[owendelong]

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