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.

22 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 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."
    3. 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
    4. 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.

  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. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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!)

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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!

  12. 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."

  13. 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

  14. 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!

  15. 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
  16. 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....

  17. 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