Slashdot Mirror
Backyard Rocketeers Keep the Solid Fuel Burning
Jamie Clay points out a New York Times article about one sticky wicket faced by
members of the Tripoli Rocketry Association, whose members are some of the private citizens trying to bust into the space-launch business (or just having fun) by financing and building their own rockets.
An excerpt: "On Tuesday, lawyers representing Tripoli and the National Association of Rocketry and officials of the firearms bureau will head to Federal District Court in Washington to resolve the seven-year-old dispute over the hobbyists' use of a flammable propellant, ammonium perchlorate composite, or APCP. The chemical is the main ingredient on the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters. ... The firearms bureau classifies APCP as an explosive and, amid post-Sept. 11 security concerns, requires that anyone who uses more than two ounces of propellant undergo federal background checks."
Most of the people I know gave up at this point, or built small storage sheds that were up to code just to house their fuel which technically, according to the FBI, is not explosive anyway. (it burns rapidly, but does not explode, there IS a big difference actually)
(Disclaimer: I would have RTFA if it wasn't on the NYTimes.)
...when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Nope:
http://skylighter.com/mall/chemicals.asp?Sort=A
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
I know some guys making really big rockets, and they are using ammonium nitrate and aluminum with a binder, mixed in a blender. Doubt this would ever detonate by accident, AN takes a really big hit (more than a blasting cap) to go in this combination. It might be getting harder to get, though.
Yes, the background check is a pain (and in some cases I think you pay for it) but that requirement for a "magazine" is pretty stiff. It can't be in your house anyway, no worries there about being searched (the background check is worse anyway sometimes), but in a non-rural setting you're going to have a hard time finding a place "far enough away from people" to put one, and that is a requirement. I do some of this stuff here, in fairly small quantities, and had occaision to talk to the local BATFE guys about it. When they saw what I was doing they had no problem with it, is all I can say. Doesn't matter what the laws are if the cops are alright. Of course, you'd better have a nice big place to shoot nice big rockets anyway.
Heck, it's legal to have quite a quantity of smokeless powder for reloading, and that is darn powerful stuff, and can be detonated at least in small quantities. This is just one of those silly things about ignorant lawmakers (some of whom are unelected) trying to CoverTheirAxx.
...when you pry it from my cold dead hand.
YOU"RE DOING THAT WRONG
So I suppose they're just kidding about being able to buy pounds of the stuff?
= A&gclid=CInApqjC_IcCFQt7WAodtxE5tw
I love the Internet. You can like, get anything, man...
http://www.cheap-chemicals.com/chemicals.asp?Sort
Laws controlling the building and storing of rockets and their propellants sound like a good idea to me.
But of course it's the details that count, and that determines whether the laws are stupid or not.
I guess we should just ban all mechanised vehicles too, because without them we would definately save just one life and then it would all be worth it.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
For those not familiar with the term "sticky wicket", it is a cricketing term referring to the state of the cricket pitch. A sticky wicket is typically one that contains too much surface moisture, and can cause the ball to deviate unpredictably as it bounces in front of the batsman. A cricket ball is similar in size and mass to a baseball, and can be bowled at a batsman's body (or head :). Batting on a sticky wicket is a lot less fun than bowling (pitching) on it!
Why does someone NEED to build that kind of rocket. If the hobbyist can do it so can a Terrorist. If we can save just one life it will have been worth it.
Terrorists only win when they manage to terrorize people. You sir are a loser.
These restrictions will save no lives. Real terrorists with real funding will still have the freedom to carry out attacks while real people lose their freedom. A terrorist pulls an attack then you find him and buddies and hand out some hurt. The terrorists' paymasters and masterminds use young indoctrinated hotheads as their tools and mostly don't want to die themselves. See to it they die. This is how you fight terrorists. Taking freedoms away from people who aren't terrorists doesn't do a damn thing. Terrorists will just find another unplugged hole and put on another show. How we react determines whether they win or we win.
Terrorists love the likes of you. You give them victory on a silver platter.
9 1 1 changed everything! Not sure what you're complaining about, this is brave new world we're living in. Get used to it, or are you an al-queda sympathizer? Your obstinance raises red flags all over the board!
Why do you NEED to drive a car? There have been a LOT more bombs delivered by automobile in North America than by rockets. We should just outlaw all cars.
Now tell me would you somehow feel safer if it was illegal or these people where banned from using this. The general population as well as the above parent poster just amaze me with their ignorance.
Don't you think there are alot more easier to obtain over the counter ways to obtain what they need? Hell every gun store, walmart etc sell black powder by the pound. Banning this substance does not make me feel any safer. Every welding shop even walmart sells pure oxygen and mapp gas, which can be used in a fashion just as lethal if not more so.
Got Code?
its not about need is about
1 having fun
2 knowledge
Personally i think that within reason it would be a good thing to have some kind of regs on storage but it should stop at
1 are you storing it safely
2 do you transport it safely
3 how much do you have EXACTLY
4 is 3 correct right now
heck if you are stocking up for a show i would think that the local PD should drive you in convoy to your house ie PD PD You PD PD (depends on how much Bang you have)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I feel somewhat slighted. I'm a aero-robotics post-grad student, and in my spare time I'm working on my own inertial measurement unit and flight control gear. It seems preposterous to me that rocketeers be permitted to build uncontrolled ballistic systems, but (arguably safer) guided systems are prohibited. Before you flame the hell out of me, please realise that I'm playing the devil's advocate (PTDA) here. Why can people own high-power firearms that have a good chance of killing someone, whereas guided rockets are right out? Lest we forget, guns are guided by the person pulling the trigger. It makes far, far more sense to prohibit rockets from carrying any sort of warhead. That way, you're unlikely to start a war and less likely to kill anyone. I'd say it's far more likely that someone up to no good is going to strap a grenade to a guided RC plane than a rocket. It's much easier, and they're more likely to be accurate and less likely to score an own goal that way. How long until can I expect the fuzz to come bust down my door just because I've got the skills to produce guided weapons?
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I just wonder why the $5,000 Cruise Missile hasn't been replicated yet, since it doesn't require any milspec or export controlled guidance systems.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You are an ignorant sheep. Your car, that you would probably whine and cry about if it was taken from you, has more explosive potential than anypropellant in current use by HPR and experimentalists. Why don't you call for banning cars, you hypocritical waste of oxygen.
Bob Brashear
The summary says that officials are concerned because these hobbyists are using a "flammable propellant" to launch their rockets. Isn't that the whole point? I mean, come on now, what good would it be to use a nonflammable propellant?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
No.
Human knowledge, as a whole, grows much more rapidly when our society encourages learning and exploration. Why did Robert Goddard need to launch his rockets? Why did Ben Franklin or Thomas Edison need to be playing with all that dangerous electricity? Why did Wilbur and Orville need to try to build something as silly and frivolous as a heavier-than-air, powered flying machine? But can you imaging living in a world where they hadn't? It is, to some degree, human nature to fear and disapprove of things we don't enjoy and don't understand, but the truth is that the quest for knowledge is a great and noble thing.
You are right, to a degree, that "if the hobbyist can do it, so can a terrorist" but name a single invention or scientific breakthrough that someone hasn't found a way to corrupt for evil purposes. Does that mean we should immediately cease all innovation? Should we put an end to the study of science because we might learn something that might one day end in the loss of someone's life? What if that same breakthrough could save hundreds of lives in a peaceful application?
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with your conclusion. I think following your logic to its conclusion is a dead-end solution.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
and just as a swing of a cluebyfour the first hit for ||wikipedia black powder|| was a full bingo on wikipedia quoting here
"The current standard for black powder manufactured by pyrotechnicians today is 75% potassium nitrate, 15% softwood charcoal and 10% sulfur." and then gives the method used (ball mill or some other way of grinding it with out igniting it) so all somebody would have to do is buy
1 Willow rods or chunks
2 potassium nitrate
3 sulfur
4 a ball mill and lead or brass grinding media
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
In Australia it's an excuse to get out in the sun for a day and drink, while playing a sport that isn't too strenuous for the hot weather. If you live in Melbourne for a summer and you'll probably get it, or at least become obsessed with it, even if you don't get it :).
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
Interesting that you used that phrase. You should look up where it came from.
I find it fairly silly that a relatively weak explosive like rocket fuel is monitored, restricted and so on when: A: you can buy black powder and other more powerful explosives without much fuss and B: any moron with half a brain and access to google can manufacture plastic explosives in a bathtub with the stuff under their sinks. If people want to make things go boom, they will find a way. I think the only real way to avoid terrorist bombings is to work to not piss them off to the point where they think its nessecary.
The general population is far too lazy to make their own explosives, apart from those really crazy ones. How about banning guns? Bar recreation use and promoting hobby rockets :) That sounds like a fine compromise. That would make me feel 10x safer when traveling in the US, I don't actually live there.
If you do not read the contents of a link before you click it, start. This asshat's sig will log you out.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I want to say Thank You. This is precisely what I tell people when they start talking about the 'war on terror'. I appreciate that there are others out there who understand what Terrorism is. Hopefully, people will start to understand that terrorism is just about creating fear, and if you live afraid, then you have lost.
"Thermobaric Urban Destruction" is the title of the "users manual" for the latest weapon being deployed by US Marines against "urban targets". Basically it is a cheap, highly portable building leveler that mixes "fuel" with air and then sparks it. This could backfire. Seriously backfire. As in "Burning Down the Civilization" backfire. Thermobarics, as a kind of fuel-air explosive technology, use air for the oxydizer, into which a fuel is sprayed--sort of the way coal mine dust, grain elevator dust and natural gas leak explosions do. Unlike Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO), you can't lock onto a substance like ammonium nitrate for detection and control, anymore than you can control access to, uhm, air. That means you can't use a substance-control strategy against them without getting rid of gasoline, diesel, natural gas--you know--fuel. Since everyone drives around in vehicles with tanks filled with the chemical energy equivalent of 500lbs of explosives just waiting for a technology to disperse it efficiently into an aerosol near an enemy's real estate assets (and/or the enemy himself), it is rather easy to imagine things getting out of hand if the right aerosol technology gets developed. And with the critical materials so redily available, experimentation with techniques for dispersal--techniques that don't require a lot in the way of special equipment or materials--will evolve Improvised Explosive Devices terribly rapidly.
To sum up, with the US deploying thermobarics in Iraq for demolishing buildings and killing their occupants, I can easily imagine two things happening:
- The Iraqi resistance will start to use it in an "open source" developed Improvised Explosive Device.
- US soldiers will acquire this "open source" technology while in Iraq and do a "technology transfer" to urban gangs as they have already done with other technology acquired during military service in Iraq.
Once that happends the days of Timothy McVeigh will seem like "the good old days".Seastead this.
How about my cow-launching catapult?
Start launching cows into sensitive/protected airspace and see how fast we can get even more stupid laws passed? I'm pro-flying-cow control, and I vote.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Cops at 2AM. Otherwise they are not going to like the reception...
So its illegal to talk about explosives...makes chemistry classes a lot easier, no?
A dedicated individual can make a wMD out of practically anything, and its a hell of a lot easier than making meth...
Sliced bread. Silly putty. Eyeglasses. Key chain tags. Clothes buttons. Pocket protectors. Toupees. Leather Waterproofing Wax. Shoe Polish. Artificial flowers. Bookmarks. Deodorant. Velcro. Food preservatives. Picture frames. Food scales. Dustbusters. Plush Carpeting. *nix accounts w/out write privileges. Pencil/Pen gel grips. Change purses.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
..of a headshot. (FEAR, of course)
If you are so stupid to think that banning everything is the answer, ask the Jews how the whole firearm regulations thing worked out in Nazi Germany.
Try the Ham sandwitches, they're delicious...
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Agreed!!!!!
Does the top poster think Terrorists are gonna take the time to 'Register' their rocket hobby or intent with explosives to the Federal Government?? No, only CITIZENS PLAYING BY THE RULES ARE!
By top posters logic, or lack there of, we should be making ALCOHOL, DRIVING, SMOKING and ANY OTHER act one personally takes intitiative in, ILLEGAL!!!
Not only would terrorists find a way to do it anyway, they probably wouldn't do it at all. It takes enough effort, time, and money that they can get far more "bang for their buck" (awful pun) with other means. You don't see them building guided missiles to fire at US embassies and bases, you see them using dumb, cheap mortars and rockets - and trucks full of cheap explosives.
Banning AP because terrorists might build a rocket is like banning $10,000 Beretta single-shot shotguns because a terrorist might choose one instead of a $100 AK knock-off.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Die, Bitch, Die!
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
The point of the lawsuit against the BATFE is not whether they should regulate explosives or conduct background checks. The point is that APCP is NOT AN EXPLOSIVE and SHOULD NOTT BE REGULATED AS SUCH.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
These ridiculous restrictions on chemicals sounds familiar, I've run into the same thing in my trade, photographic printing.
I work in antique photochemistry processes, and the chemicals I've used are now subject to regulation by the Department of Homeland Security and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Just last month, I was checking prices at the same supplier I've used for 30 years, and to reorder the same old chemicals, now I have to file DHS forms with the vendor, including a copy of my photo ID, the location where I will store the chemicals, a detailed description of the chemical formula I use, and a waiver allowing the DHS and DEA to inspect the records at will. I phoned the supplier and asked about these forms, and they said, "oh don't worry about it, we've only had DHS inspect the records 2 or 3 times." Oh I feel so much better after hearing that.
So now I know why the processes I use have almost completely disappeared in the last few years. Nobody wants to subject themselves to scrutiny by the DHS just to make a few prints. The really stupid thing about this is, the chemicals on the restricted list aren't really the most dangerous ones, you can buy stuff from the same supplier that's way more hazardous without filing any paperwork.
The trick is to do the same implosion thing that makes nukes go bang...too bad its so easy to do...
An lysol can sized bomd is a big deal...
Yeah, my spelling sux, but its not searcabl...
must be very hard to out that batsman
While I can understand saefguarding and protecting Amerian citizens against "all threats foreign and domestic" - this does cross a line somewhat. Anything over 2 ounces? That sounds like about the amount of fluid in a common cigarette lighter. Does this mean smokers are next? What about ex-smokers? As an ex-smoker, am I now a subversive since I once used these volatile fluids in such amounts? (I easily lost a lighter a day in college - do the math, and over 4 years and 2 of grad school - that's a lotta lighter fluid!). Don't even mention my Zippo, either...
Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
I have it on good authority that the 9-11 terrorists were wearing deodorant that day, thus allowing them their calm and cool (and fresh smelling) exterior to belie their true, nefarious, intent.
The bil actually enhanced gun owner's rights, except for that...
Talk about doublespeak...
Amazing how Florida's crime rate dropped, while Canada's increased, after radically different legislation...
Taking guns away from the people makes them victims...
Of course, my observation doesn't follow the PC standard, so it's bad, even if true...
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Just because "it" *could* be dangerous in teh *wrong* situation ... "it" should be illegal. Except it doesn't apply when, maybe, it SHOULD.
There's no rational thought process to any of it. If you want to take it to an extreme, almost anything can be dangerous if used in the wrong way/situation. You could kill someone with a plastic spoon - convicts turn them into knives.
Christ on a stick, you make it sound like these are neighborhood terrorists cooking nitroglycerin to blow up your local elementary school.
These are model rockets, not nuclear weapons. They go up. They go down. The only real danger is getting hit on the head when one fails to open its parachute. The sole purpose of rocket propellant is to generate thrust. Think about it: if this stuff was that prone to explosion, would someone intentionally put it inside a rocket it took him 20 hours to build? Yes, sometimes the motors rupture on launch, and it can look pretty spectacular, but we're talking about destroying a paper and wood rocket, not leveling a neighborhood. I've seen more damage done from dry ice in pop bottles.
Do want to worry about something? Worry about that can of gasoline your idiot neighbor has stored next to his water heater. Worry about the meth labs in your city. Hell, worry about golf balls smashing your windows. But quit worrying about rocket geeks. They're not a "clear and present danger."
God, what a moron.
>>APCP. The chemical is the main ingredient on the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters. ... The firearms bureau classifies APCP as an explosive and, amid post-Sept. 11 security concerns, requires that anyone who uses more than two ounces of propellant undergo federal background checks."
Sounds to me like the Feds want to maintain a monopoly on orbital entry. I can see why they might want to. Space junk would pile up pretty fast if every geek launched his own satellite. Unscheduled launches in a world that is becoming nuclear paranoid again might be... misunderstood.
Jo Bob from Lubbock, TX launches his homemade Titan missile to hang his own nude-beach spycam and 24-hour porn satellite...
Somewhere in a bunker in France: "Sheet, Sheet! Texas is nuking us! Fire the le missiles AND SMOKE MANY CIGARETTES!"
Is that a SCSI connector or are you just glad to see me?
Not so fast. the launching of cows was a form of biowarfare in the Middle Ages, using the cows themselves as bioweapons. Better knock off that rhetoric or you and your cows may end up on a no-fly list.
:(
BTW, a buddy of mine has a letter from the ATF specifying that 'spud guns' are not firearms, but cationed that local regulations may confiscate them because they can be quite dangerous if used improperly and are pretty damn loud.
Also, in reality, it is a lot more efficient to use compressed air than flammable vapor. Listening to the 'bang' shockwave bounce off of mountain ranges is fun, but I get alot more distance and higher impact velocities using compressed air than by using standard spark-ignition, although the band isn't there.
Does this new ruling apply to the cruise missile I use as a conversation piece?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
(South Carolina is an interesting place to live, if you like conspiracy theories.)
To argue that a few ounces of rocket fuel - which, if correctly stored, is not prone to spontaneous combustion - is more dangerous than a huge stockpile of explosives that are liable to turn a sizable area into a smoking crater is plainly laughable. This has nothing to do with it being "residential". What an area is labelled is of no consequence. It is how the area is used that matters. A "residential" hilltop that's a hundred miles from the next house would still require these restrictions, but it is still perfectly legal to place hundreds of lives at risk when people find loopholes that allow them to make more money. THAT is what I object to.
I would certainly not want more than a few ounces of potentially explosive OR high-temp incendiary material anywhere near a highly populated area, unless emergency crews are damn certain of where it is and experts in such matters are absolutely convinced that all the proper precautions are being taken, WHATEVER the area may be designated as. Designations that mean nothing are worth nothing. Equally, if someone is reasonably isolated (given the total mass of material stored), then I don't see that it's anybody's business how it is kept. That is strictly between them and their insurance agency.
The maximum mass, however, should not be some random amount, no matter what the circumstances. That sort of regulation is way too easy for abuse all around. Rather, I would say that the maximum mass of explosive or incendiary material should be strictly determined by how much mass would be required to place the nearest uninvolved person at an unreasonable extra risk. In the case of incendiary material, this might be how much would be required to make a reasonable evacuation of an ajoining building or apartment (if there is one) impossible within an accepted timeframe. If there's nothing that could catch fire directly from the material, then it is utterly irrelevent as to how much there is, from a safety standpoint.
With explosive material, it's slightly tougher, but the same basic standards should apply. If an explosion occured, what would this ACTUALLY mean to those in the vicinity? It takes far more force to propell a solid stone wall outwards with significant momentum than, say, for vinyl or chipboard walls. As stone doesn't generally burn very well, the risk of a fire spreading is also much less. It should be simple enough to calculate the force that the outside wall could take before being a safety hazard and then derive the maximum safe mass of any explosive you liked from that.
The practical upshot, however, is that regulations are required to keep people safe but excess regulations actually keep people unsafe by promoting abuses. The easiest way to resolve this, in my humble(ish) opinion, would be to have State-run storage facilities and launch facilities for amateur rocketeers, where those facilities are guaranteed to be isolated enough to not impact the population at large, but where anyone can carry out high-power rocketry with no further intervention. By "no further", I mean that. No surveilance, no special permits, no unlawful searches, no harassment of any kind whatsoever, and no compulsion whatsoever for amateur rocketeers to use them. Such a location should merely be a site that all and sundry could be absolutely and unconditionally assured were absolutely at own-risk where the only thi
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
A rocket is not an effective weapon without having a bomb as a payload. If the terrorist can get the materials to make the bomb (where regulation DOES make sense), they are not going to have any problems getting the materials to make the propellant, regardless of whether or not the propellant is regulated.
Second, a rocket with a bomb as a payload is not likely to hit a desired target unless it has guidance. Rocket guidance, especially guidance to a target (rather than guidance to go straight up), even if the target is not moving, is not an easy problem to solve. Sure, it has been solved by many arms manufacturers, etc. but again, if a terrorist has the expertise and determination to build reliable guidance for a rocket, they aren't likely to be impeded by regulation of rocket propellant.
Third, it would probably be much better from the desired targets perspective if a terrorist chose to use a rocket to deliver a bomb rather than a Ryder truck, car or even a Cessna. That would severely limit the size of the bomb he could deliver, and it would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce his chances of success.
I have flown these rockets.
I have dismantled motors and lit the propellant grain material for fun.
It does very little.
It is not dangerous any more than other flammable materials such as cigarette lighters, paper, wood, duraflame logs, etc.
The bottle of rubbing alcohol in your bathroom is more of a danger.
These stupid knee-jerk reactions without the facts are amazing.
Don't believe me?
Go to the hobby shop, and by a reloadable motor reload kit and try it yourself.
If the ATF insist on Bush(shit) sciense, then switch to hybrid rockets.
It's a bit more complex to build, but you can have as much of the rocket fuel materials as you want. Best of all, you can transport those legally in unlimited quanity. All you need is an oxydizer mixed with a fuel when igniting.
check out: http://www.intertlan.com/cohetes/hybrids/ for examples on how to build one.
Is the background check the same as that required for a FFL, for a personal firearm transfer, or something else?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Apparently one of the PITA jobs given to police officers who have incurred the wrath of those higher up is to go round farms in quiet rural parts and get notes of who is holding how much diesel and how much nitrate fertiliser. Up here in the north-west of Scotland, nearly everyone has literally tonnes of potassium nitrate, and a few hundred litres of diesel. That's enough to make a few bombs...
I feel MUCH better about letting a rocket hobbyist have some regulated propellants than I do about letting random jackasses buy a considerably more energetic and unregulated one. Particularly given that most rocket fuels are designed to NOT detonate, something gasoline is more than happy to do under even the slightest confinement.
I work with the Portland State Aerospace Society. We build open source rockets, in every sense of the term: you can find all the details of our work on our site, including software, avionics designs, airframe schematics, and engine/propulsion work. We currently use ammonium perchlorate engines, and we do indeed have to deal with these issues, which prove quite onerous. For this reason, our propulsion team currently has as their primary project the development of a hybrid paraffin and liquid oxygen motor. Both of these components have no regulatory issues whatsoever: the paraffin wax came from a craft store, and the liquid oxygen came from a welding supply store (or with the right equipment, you could make it yourself). Their test-fires have gone quite well; in addition to testing paraffin/GOX, they've also test-fired salami/GOX, which actually provided more thrust than the paraffin prototype tested that particular day. :)
That just leaves us having to deal with any restrictions on active guidance that get thrown our way, which we'll deal with when we finish our active-guidance prototype.
Use Sliced bread with some poisonous butter and give it to someone to eat.
Use silly putty to steal someones fingerprint to later frame them for a crime.
Use Shoe polish to vandalize someone's car windows.
Use the *nix account and exploit a local vulnerability and take over the machine and send spam.
Don't get me started on Artificial flowers.
Then and than are two completely different words with completly different meanings.
Does anyone know how many amateur rocketeers besides Michaelson that has successfully launched a rocket in space? Those who don't know, space begins at 62 miles. I bet someone like Michaelson could launch themselves into space and become astronaut.
We only know of two Tripoli's: One in Libya and another in Lebanon...
Which one is all this about again?
Challenge accepted
I can hardly see the scientific, educational, or recreational potential of a machine gun.
Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me that Americans who consider themselves conservative -- ie, they oppose wasteful government spending and excessive taxation, they want the troops well supported rather than simply dumped in a ghetto once they're injured, they want leaders who weren't coke-snorting frat boys from New England that lie and pretend to be from Texas, they want guns and blasting caps legal and available for accidents involving children, etc -- vote for a party that goes against everything that conservative ethics calls for. And then they bitch about the Democrats who are actually DOING those things (Clinton having cut government spending, having been genuinely from the south, having increased support for veterans, having NOT been a coker). Don't get me wrong -- I'd hit Clinton with a rock if I saw him. But anyone with basic reasoning could tell that was the conservative, not Dubya.
How is this guy flaming?
Ammonium Perchlorate is one of the most dangerous chemicals I can think of, not only is it an incredibly powerful explosive, but it is extremely toxic too, giving out large amounts of chlorine gas if allowed to decompose. Imagine if this stuff got into the hands of some drunken, bored rednecks looking for some fun, or some teenager who wants to impress his friends or a normally good natured hobbyist who's emotionally unstable because of a messy custody dispute. The repercussions could be enormous.
This chemical MUST NOT be allowed into urban or sub-urban areas for any reason. Nomatter what someone's hobbys might be, he has no right to fill his garage with this stuff at the risk of the lives of people in the explosive radius. This stuff can and HAS levelled entire blocks, it is not safe, if you want to play with it: buy some open land like the government does, if you cannot: then perhaps find a new hobby.
The slashdot libertarian slant is normally all well and good, but when someone is chastised for advocating keeping this dangerous industrial oxidizer away from family homes it has become clear that much of slashdot has lost touch with the needs of the community in favour of supporting their own ability to live like mad scientists whenever they feel like it.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Worrying about what people will do with things is an exercise in stupidity. A creative maniac WILL kill lots of people (although thankfully, creativity is rather rare). I mean, think about this: shotguns are legal, fully automatic machine pistols are not. Which weapon is more lethal? Every piece of research suggests that shotguns are vastly more lethal and practical under nearly any conceivable set of circumstances (just ask a soldier which they'd rather carry -- a pump-action shotgun or a tec-9). Gasoline is legal for unregulated use, while much more stable and less energetic explosives like C4 are not. Automobiles are legal, while firecrackers are not.
Everything not officially allowed is prohibited.
'Cause you probably never fired one. It's friggin' RADICAL, dude.
Everything not officially prohibited is allowed.
It appears that model rocket fuel has been arbitrarily singled out since there are so many other chemicals with greater destructive potential.
But it doesn't really matter that their rocket fuel is a low-explosive: it's a darn-good low-explosive, and could make an enormous bomb if contained.
But hell: low/high explosives don't kill people, people kill people. The government should not be able to prevent people engaging in a productive, fun, and technologically exciting hobby.
People killed by cars - about 40,000 + or - People killed by model rockets - about 0, + or - Hmmm, which one should be illegal?
50 cal vs. watermelons is all three!
As long as you require anyone purchasing explosives to register in a database, we should definitely be able to keep the CIA from imploding buildings on national public television (AKA PRAVDA). I for one welcome our new false flag terrorist rocket builders. Tell me, can APCP melt steel at temperatures lower than where jet fuel burns, or did somebody buy a grip of thermite pre 9/11? Does anybody on /. sell enough thermite to remember any odd receipts in July of 2001?
http://www.mininova.org/tor/432225
Enjoy!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Thats the problem I have a constitutional right to own a gun, yes even a machine gun yet the BATFE won't stop harassing legal gun owners and no one wants to stand up and fight other then a couple corrupted lobbying groups. People stand around and say, guns who needs them, this kind of thing won't happen to me and the things I like to do. Well guess what, the BATFE is now going after the rocket hobbyists and the group is looking around say why isn't anyone standing up against the BATFE and its crazy interpretations of the law. Gun owners have been trying and no one gave a dam. Well its your turn now Mr. rocket man, call me 20 years when you get tired of fighting or when they ban civilian rocketry altogether and maybe we can compare notes.
No seriously, ban this stuff before it's too late.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Telling people you don't agree with to shut up is what slashdot is all about. This guy has been modded down to oblivion even though he has posted quite reasonable arguments, just because many people don't like the fact that he advocates the government control of a chemical deemed as fun by the slashdot community. He has been modded him down 5 times calling his arguments "troll" and "flamebait" when clearly they are his opinion that he believes is in the best interest of those who live around rocket nerds whether he is correct or not. Whether this is censorship or not, using down moderation is certainly telling people to shut up that you don't agree with. Fishbowl even lost his status (karma bonus) just because people disagreed with him, I don't want to loose mine so I'm posting anonymous.
You don't face a sticky wicket. You are on one.
Just FYI.
There is a facility that manufactures Sodium Chlorate (Swimming pool chlorine) in Tennessee about 40 miles north east of Chattanooga near Interstate 75. This substance is not considered an explosive. It is merely an oxidizer. The company handles the stuff in good standards in a good location if an accident occurs. About 15 years ago they had a major accident. A fire led to an explosion. The explosion produced a massive mushroom cloud that was shimmering white in color. The weather at the time was extremely hot and very still for several days. The mushroom cloud went up about 4 miles and was about that big around. The base of the column from it was about 1/2 mile across. It looked for all in the world like a nuclear blast but it hung there for about 2 days. Traffic on Interstate 75 was blocked for about a day. A large area was evacuated for nearly 3 days for fear of fumes and the obvious danger of this cloud.
I found the whole situation quite entertaining because it was an entirely idiotic reaction of the public safety people. There were no hazardous fumes. The cloud that arose was made of pure salt and was a microscopic dust. It did no damage. The original detonation while being most spectacular was entirely contained and didn't even hurt anyone at the plant. I saw the plant site 2 days after the blast and honestly you couldn't tell it was hurt at all.
There are several points here about the handling of substances for propellants. The first and foremost is that in quantity items that are not particularly explosives normally may well behave in that way. The next point is that the rocket fuel in question really should be treated as an explosive. The community really should regulate where it is and where it is transported. Their lives are at risk. This isn't a free enterprise or freedom issue. Big accidents do happen with big amounts of explosive or chemicals.
For the model rocketeers, I am an old model rocketeer. I think that as your engines get much past the little toy size it is fair that you follow regulations for public safety. You probably are right that your particular stash isn't a problem. The problem is if we don't regulate it, shortly somebody will have a warehouse full of the stuff and an accident will happen.
Gasoline is really dangerous and your are right that it is more dangerous than model rocket stuff. Honestly I wonder why we don't at least alter the filling of tanks rules to prohibit the "self serve" system as it really is pretty dangerous. Somehow automotive systems get away with being very dangerous and everyone accepts that and yet they pay attention to rare incidents from other problems.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Congralutions for failing to recognize parody; especially a well-worn one.
The grand-parent post was satirizing the arguments used by anti-gunners.
Since many independent-minded corrrect-thinking Slashdotters also also anti-choice when it comes to the private ownership of firearms, it is no wonder the grand-parent post was modded as "-1 Flame-Bait." Because some people hate having their own hypocrisy pointed out to them.
This is just one more circumstance where the gov't exploits the ignorance of citizens with simple "rocket bad - go boom" arguements akin to Orwell's "Four legs good, two legs bad". Other posters have pointed out how other household chemicals and (of course) gasoline can make nice booms too. What hasn't been mentioned, is how EVERYTHING is a chemical! Ever seen a silo explode? Ever tossed flour into a fire? (Don't DO this - it's dangerous) You can level buildings with little more than it takes to bake a cake. It doesn't take a lot of brains or education to kill someone or wreak havoc in a "civilized" but panicky society. No amount of regulation is going to stop people from coming up with ways to make explosions. All these regulations accomplish is the generation of irrational fears and the erosion of innocuous but "related" civil rights. They merely make people more fearful, and more irrational so that the next time someone says "boo" more regulations and restrictions can be placed upon each of us "for our own protection from ourselves".
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Don't you mean cattlepult?
It's about the desire for Tripoli/NAR to be exempt from the regulations on principle. And it probably won't work.
The firework hobbiests have similar issues (though the rocket folks will always try to maintain maximum separation from them). They have mostly worked out the proper contingencies and such, but the BATFE is not really much into the exceptions game. Well, unless you're a memebr of the NRA. In which case they've carved out an exception so that you can store 50lbs of black powder in your home (no license, no storage requirements) for your "antique" or "replica" firearms.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I believe that up to 60kg (65?) of the old class B - now 1.3g - material may be transported for personal use in personal automobiles, though I'm pretty certain you must have a manufacturers permit, and you may need to have built the material yourself (not sure on that last point).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's been so long I can't remember if its 3 inches per second or 3 seconds per inch (the latter is the rate of common gree visco, which is a black powder fuse).
The problem is when the composition is (a) confined and (b) has too much surface area. This is exactly the case when you get a crack in the comp within the motor. This is usually described as resulting in rapid acceleration in all directions simultaneously.
Rcoket motors are gas generators you don't need rapidly burning propellent to generate gasses.
True, but one of the easist (and lightest) ways to do so is to burn a solid to produce those gasses. The quicker they burn the faster they generate the gasses. There's really no magic. Take some APCP powder, put it in a loose pile and ignite it. I guarantee it will burn very quickly. I've built these motors from scratch, and have tested the comp in various forms and under different compression. The danger is that you have a fuel and an oxidizer mixed in the proper proportions for self sustained combustion.
The fact is that there is no well-funded lobby for hobby rocketry, nor is there a "need" by most of the citizens for it for daily convenience. If you had one of those two (NRA for the former, Gasoline for the latter), you could be excepted from all this silly regulation.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
So perhaps gunpowder is under-regulated rather than rocket fuel being over-regulated?
You are missing the point. If gunpowder is more dangerous and was a problem, there would be stories all over the place. The fact that there aren't any of these stories, shows that gunpowder is NOT under-regulated. Since gunpowder is more dangerous than the rocket fuel and is not causing a problem, it indicates that the attempt to regulate the rocket fuel is the usual power grab by the BATFE.
I work for the company that makes the Space Shuttle's solid booster rockets (in a different area of the same plant). Shortly after I was hired I attended a demonstration where they lit some AP. It just fizzled and barely burned. Then they brought out an old boot that they had soaked in AP and lit it. The boot exploded. AP by itself usually doesn't do much. AP contaminating flammable material like sawdust, wood, paper, clothing can be really nasty. AP will also detonate if contained or prepared a certain way. It's also true that some material burns very nicely, but will detonate when exposed to static or impact.
If you think that AP is harmless, you should check out this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
AP is easy to disrespect because there's a lot of evidense that it doesn't do much, but a stupid mistake with it can be deadly.
Isn't Black Rock where they host The Burning Man as well? I find that a interesting tidbit.
Gorkman
I am not convinced that the NYT needs my personal information, so I have not read the article. But my first reaction to this submission was WOW! How could this used at the local level, say communications platforms, or with ion-thrust second stage to a lunar orbit?, or maybe in conjunction with a spool of a special thread... Just some thoughts.
You'd also probably have a hell of a time getting pure Potassium Nitrate to do much of anything by itself, but mix it with suitable fuels, and you have black powder.
Note that the article is about APCP, Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, not AP, Ammonium Perchlorate. The former is a propellant manufactured by a handful of motor makers for use by rocket flyers. It is by design very stable and difficult to ignite unintentionally, and it simply does not explode. The latter is a strong oxidizer, and, in contact with suitable fuels in sufficient quantities, can produce a explosion, as you witnessed.
In summary, APCP is not the same thing as AP even though a lot of people use the two terms interchangeably.
meh, i don't really want my tax dollars being spent on the purchase, upkeep, and security of some state-run rocket fuel storage facility.
I agree with the gist of your comment, but you've got a few weak spots to address.
.
> shotguns are legal, fully automatic machine pistols are not. Which weapon is more lethal? Every piece of research suggests that shotguns are vastly more lethal and practical under nearly any conceivable set of circumstances (just ask a soldier which they'd rather carry -- a pump-action shotgun or a tec-9).
The machine pistol is far more concealable than a shotgun, even when you saw it off. Also, the pistol goes against "assumed threat" in a way that a shotgun doesn't. If a bank robber pulled out a shotgun, the cops nearby would dive for cover. With a machine pistol, they'd be more likely to stand and shoot since handguns are much less accurate, and they're not expecting a hail of bullets.
> Automobiles are legal, while firecrackers are not.
Automobiles have a primary use that doesn't involve direct endangerment. Firecrackers exist solely to be exploded.
Virg
There's an effort underway, and making good progress, to design and fly a sugar-powered rocket to the edge of space. Amateurs have made space shots before, but always using "professional" propellants. If SugarShot makes it, they'll be the first to do it using such a benign power source.
Insert joke about porno endings, or hyperenergetic breakfast cereals, but not both, please.
Second, a rocket with a bomb as a payload is not likely to hit a desired target unless it has guidance.
They tended to use them eight or so at a time, but unguided air-to-ground rockets were used quite effectively in late World War II.
Who's going to admit to building one in the current political climate?
Tech Public Policy stuff
It is kinda hard to see parody when craven little soccer mommies actually talk that way.......
Gas takes a lot longer to evaporate than people think, particularly when it has soaked into cloth. That's why keeping oily rags in one's garage is such a danger.
Really, this is just typical driver insanity. Drivers always assume that gas stations have these rules about getting off of the bike, turning off your car's engine, not smoking, etc, for the sole purpose of annoying drivers. It ain't so. Every single one of these rules is in place because it produces a substantial statistical reduction in the odds of a serious accident -- enough so that the money saved in not making lawsuit-payouts exceeds the revenue lost when impatient crybabies refuse to gas up at any service station that might take safety into consideration.
Firecrackers have a primary use that doesn't involve endangering people -- entertainment. Unless you're refering to the fact that using firecrackers is always dangerous (which is true), in which case -- look at the automobile! I'm not aware of any usage of the automobile that would qualify as "safe". Even a second's distraction can turn ordinary driving into a fatal accident. Car batteries can explode with disastrous results. Exhaust fumes are actually a very efficient means of asphyxiating someone. I suppose if you consider sleeping in one's car to be a primary use, that would qualify as not directly endangering anything (other than perhaps the sleeper's spine).
Even in light of the fact that operating an automobile isn't as safe as one would think, you're still really reaching to say that the danger in operating a vehicle is approaching the danger in using fireworks. To take your argument, a moment's distraction can result in a fatal crash, but only in a small number of seconds operating the car (inattention in a parking lot, for example, is very unlikely to result in death, nor a second's inattention in most driving circumstances). Batteries explode, but it's extraordinarily rare and can be labelled a malfunction. Virtually no automobiles are operated in enclosed spaces, so while exhaust fumes are dangerous it's hardly a large percentage of the danger involved in operating a car. More to the point, however, is utility. We tolerate a certain level of danger in automobiles because transportation is a necessity for most people. You'd have a very hard time convincing me that entertainment via explosives is a requirement for very many people. Comparing cars and firecrackers is therefore a rather ludicrous hyperextension.
Virg
Yes, I know it is more APC than any individual would ever store but it was stored in accordance with code by professionals who did not want this to happen yet it did.
You're still overreaching, because you miss the point of utility. While it's comfortable to say that most people's cars are a luxury, it's simply not true for a large majority of the population of the U.S. no matter how much you say it is. Excepting major cities, most of the U.S. doesn't have a workable mass transit system. Sure, it's easy to say (and rather accurate) that ownership of cars is the reason, but the simple fact is that most commuters drive because it's not reasonable not to drive. For myself, I live nine miles from my job, but I can't walk (nine miles is too far to walk in inclement weather, and takes almost two hours in good weather), I can't bike (the roadways between my house and my work don't have shoulders) and can't use mass transit (there is none). For me, a car is necessary to keep my job. More than half of the U.S. is in my position. Now, explain how many people in the U.S. need fireworks. See the point now? People accept danger in necessary utility much more readily than in unnecessary entertainment. By comparing cars to fireworks just because of the danger level, you fail to acknowledge that cars serve a much more useful purpose than fireworks, so the tolerance level is much higher. Sure, cars kill, and they kill a lot more than fireworks. That doesn't make them comparable because despite your commentary to the contrary, people generally need their cars.
Virg