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)
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.
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
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 yes, there is a law that prevents me from aiming a rocket anywhere but straight up in my local jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that I could aim a little sideways and it would fall harmlessly in the water. It strikes me that that's moronic, but the police didn't agree. I think they just wanted an excuse to shutdown my rocketry exercise. Yes, I know the difference between the aiming and guidance, thank you. Yes, I appreciate this difference. I stand by my comments.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
And how would a background check and some storage requirements change anything? If I pass a background check today, who's to say I won't go crazy tomorrow? And what about people looking to get into rocketry? They won't exactly have proof that they're going into rocketry.
Give me a break. You're more likely to die from a mosquito bite than you are from either a terrorst attack or improperly stored explosives.
If nothing else, it's a stupid law because it won't do anything except inconvenience innocent people. Can you honestly see this law stopping a determined criminal? Do you think they'd just walk into the store and ask for 500 pounds of APCP? Even before this?
Maybe not
"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.
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.
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."
Oddly enough the FAA regulates what we're launching into the air and also sets limits on the rocket motors (specifically a burn time of 15 seconds or less, weight of rocket, materials etc. check out FAR 101) to minimize the risks. Any deviation from FAA limits requires a pre-approved awaiver of the restriction. So why do we need another government agency regulating us on top of that.
There *is* a difference however. Solid rocket fuel by itself contains enough oxygen to sustain combustion, whereas the bottle of alcohol in my bathroom doesn't. Rocket fuel will burn fine under water, alcohol won't. Which is kinda troublesome if you want to extinguish it.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
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.
It kills me that people try to use the factoid about the temp at which jet fuel burns to try and prove something about the towers collapsing.
Hint: Steel doesn't need to "melt" to lose almost all of its structural strength. "Melt" means to go from a solid to a liquid. All the girders needed to do was soften a little bit, at a temperature far below the burning temp of the jet fuel. Anyone who's worked steel knows this, and it isn't exactly hard to look up. Ask ANY engineer.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas