Slashdot Mirror


Rocket Hobbyists Get Blown Away by Regulations

dogfart writes "Amateur rocket hobbyists are bearing the brunt of Federal anti-terror efforts. Cumbersome regulations (which include extensive background checks) are pushing many to abandon the hobby. Even clubs associated with colleges (such as Kettering) have ended up folding under the pressure. Quoting the article: '"If we're in an environment where the government says you've got to get fingerprinted and background checked, and spend three to four months to do it, (adults are) not going to participate in my hobby," said Mark Bundick, president of the National Association of Rocketry. "We need more kids. It helps them learn technology. It's the technological base here in the country that we need to protect, and this hobby is a good introduction for kids that are interested in technology. If I lose those adults, then I will not be able to train those kids."'" We wrote about these regulations before, and followed it up with a Slashback.

43 of 752 comments (clear)

  1. Hey, whose side are they on? by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by dirvish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by garcia · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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
      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."
    4. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by kpansky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      --Kevin
    5. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!

    7. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Halo- · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    8. Re:Hey, whose side are they on? by Halo- · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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...

  2. VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by dnahelix · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
    1. Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Some good, some FUD by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some decent informational content, but some traditional WIRED/media FUD.

    The latest explanation about the case progress from Mr. Bundick is at: http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html

    Full archive of all NAR articles regarding this and related issues:
    http://nar.org/legislative.html

    As for "losing" members, last I heard both NAR and Tripoli were maintaining even membership numbers.

    Using CP Technologies as a measure is misleading. Their products are for building your own engines. Very few people are interested in that to begin with. Most use either single use motors, or more commonly reloadable motors.

    Aerotech, manufacturer of mid-power rocket kits as well as reloadable motors and the reloads for them, is doing fine despite having suffered a fire. They filed bankruptcy, were purchsed by another company to keep them going, and are back in business full tilt, supplying thousands of rocketeers with motors and fuel.

    We're supposed to take the word of ATFE that rockets are dangerous? Well, I guess they are in the wrong hands. ATFE burned down a rented van by being stupid while trying to test rockets to prove they were dangerous. See: http://www.maxthrust.net/displayarticle749.html

    NAR #28965, 40 years without a rocket related accident or damage.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  4. This has been a huge problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  5. Launch the rockets anyway by rwrife · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Launch the rockets anyway by irokitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  6. These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by l810c · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "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.

    2. Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Estes [estesrockets.com]

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

  7. Time to trade in by xmedar · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    1. Re:Time to trade in by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Informative
      ...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.
  8. Yeah Right by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!)

  9. Doesnt affect most rocketeers by kevin_conaway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  10. Nah. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  11. This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians too by caffeineboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing there have been restrictions on pyrotechnicians. I don't know if it is a state law or a federal one but here in Ohio you are not allowed to have your shells for more than 3 days before a scheduled performance and there are a lot of permits to be filled out (this is all coming from a friend of mine).

    I don't know if I feel more annoyed by this kind of thing, or more safe. It seems that if someone actually has a permit to buy display scale fireworks, they wouldn't be using them for anything questionable. Plus, once they have that level of expertise it wouldn't be too difficult for them to brew up their own home grown bomb if they really wanted to blow something up.

    --
    +++ ATH0 +++
  12. What you're forgetting... by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  13. Terrorist's converse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    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!

  14. FUD by thpdg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is this just FUD? Estes says everything is ok.

    --

    -Patrick

    "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

  15. Rocketry turns kids into terrorists by Animats · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  16. Re:Outlaw fertilizer? by dirvish · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you implying that they are all full of shit?

  17. Why the Feds don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  18. Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  19. Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt rant? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  20. Model rockets: NO. Guns: YES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  21. no need for conspiracy theories by dangermouse · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  22. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by darth_zeth · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
  23. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by winwar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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....

  24. Re:MOD PARENT UP by darth_zeth · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --
    "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
  25. Is this really so hard to fathom? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  26. Where does incompetence cross over to malice? by ianscot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  27. Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. by Tassach · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  28. Amen! by isotope23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate the way the government has perverted the interstate commerce clause. To my mind that has been the biggest erosion of rights this country has ever had. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand the intent of the clause, "to regulate commerce between the states". Now it has become a catch-all for any federal law, and a judicial test is no longer required.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  29. Model airplane hobbyists are concerned too by pm · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  30. FUD -- And the reality of current regulation by owendelong · · Score: 5, Informative

    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