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."
(Disclaimer: I would have RTFA if it wasn't on the NYTimes.)
I came here to point out the same thing. Most rocketeers don't mind the background checks, in fact, I don't know anyone that oposes them. They are no more invasive than employers require these days.
It's the storage requirements that basically block anyone from keeping any of the stuff. Not only are the storage requirements strict, so is the transport. Don't really expect to transport it in the back of your SUV. Obviously there are strict guidelines for storing it near high population areas, but that doesn't really affect hobbyists since they need wide open spaces anyway.
Really, I don't think the strict rules are that bad. At least you can get the stuff, as it is rather dangerous, even if it just burns fast and hot.
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.
Well, if my neighbor's house catches on fire, it would be kinda nice if the fire department knew that x amount of explosives were stored in the house, so they could evacuate surrounding homes, etc. At the very least it could save a firefighter's life.
Perhaps what is needed is an additional tier to the regulations, so a typical rocketeer could keep a "normal" amount of APCP on hand without quite as many requirements.
Dan Erast
Better known as 318230.
That said, cast into a dense fuel grain, I don't think rocket motors using Ammonium Perchlorate composites are any more dangerous than scaled-up Estes motors
The problem is that some asshat could buy a hundred motors and grind them back into a powder to make a bomb with.
The thing is if they are that determined they could build a bomb out of anything (which probably would be easier), not just rocket motors, aka Timothy McVeigh. Not to mention smuggling stuff into the US to get around regulations. Which makes much regulation senseless in the first place.
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?
The problem is that the composite propellant they regulate isn't an explosive. It just burns hot and fast. Homes have all kinds of items more dangerous to firefighters in them and no permit is needed, including: gasoline in cans, aerosol cans, propane bottles (I have 6 for my grill), insecticides, ammo for guns, etc.
This is about a government agency that did something wrong and won't back down.
Yep. I live in Houston, TX and the city has decided that you need an explosive storage permit to keep any. And they won't give a permit to anyone in a residential area. (A club member found out after paying the non-refundable permit fee of over $200.
So where do you keep it if not at home? Look, the ATF people have refused to discuss any kind of compromise on this. They want it treated like all other low explosives, even though lab tests show that it's not an explosive.
If you would work to keep that position maintained, then you either have nothing but free time to waste, or don't put your energy in the right direction.
Solid rocket fuel is expensive, and the people who buy it go to great lengths to store and use it safely. People who aren't so responsible use things that are (a) far cheaper, (b) far more plentiful, and (c) far more dangerous to themselves and the community. And that's not even getting into people who *want* to cause problems.
Shoot, if you wanted to protect your community ("Please, won't someone please think of the children!"), you'd spend your time convincing people to safely store substances like gasoline with explosive vapors. You'd save at least 10,000 times more lives and homes - and that's not an exageration.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Hmm. You do understand the difference between a law and a policy? So we should now treat policies as laws? Maddox would say you were a facist. I question why you think it is an individuals responsibilty to do the government agency's work - if they knew that the application would automatically be denied then taking the money is technically constructive fraud.
Just because you have an interest in local fire codes doens't mean that your interest in AP is going to do any good for anyone.
We're *not* talking about someone handling dangerous materials in violation of the law. We're talking about someone handling something far less dangerous than gasoline, *IN ACCORDANCE* with the law.
Since you brought up fireworks as well, I'll point out that we are not talking about fireworks. In fact, AP is pretty much useless for fireworks. The fact that you equate AP with firworks means that for all of your good intentions, your lack of knowledge probably makes all of your effort even less useless in bringing to pass something which would harm and kill.
If you want to talk about someone handling dangerous substances when they shouldn't, again, act on gasoline. 10,000 times more people are burned playing with gasoline (intentionally playing with it, not an accident) than solid rocket fuel.
If you're that big of a fire-code man, look at where the real problems are, and solve those. Don't run around like a chicken with its head cut off, getting involved in every emotional, knee-jerk situation that you can think up.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
And some fire marshals won't permit any explosives storage in their area at all so those rocketeers are hosed.
You can legally posess 50lbs of gunpowder without any permit or inspections according to ATF regulations. 50lbs of gunpowder is a heck of a lot more dangerous than a few rocket motors.
That asshat could find far cheaper and easier ways of doing it, than buying a material thats plainly not suited to make a bomb and then grinding it to a powder and adding other ingredients. Of course somebody intent on doing this could buy thousands of smaller unregulated motors.
What if your house is made of combustible material? Can I have a surety bond from you? Oh, whats that, you don't want me up your ass? Get out of mine. Can I have a surety bond for the entire block because you choose to have Windex AND Bleach in your house. What if you have Drano AND Tinfoil? etc etc etc. You just happen to be a moron who doesn't realize all the bad reactions that can happen from common ingredients in your house.
(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)
Not really ... I can't personally see a need for 50lbs but then I don't use an antique cannon in historical re-enactments and such.
The premise of the explosives act is that it should not be unduly burdonsome to law abiding citizens.
exactly, most of the "bombmaking" stuff can be found in most garages of anybody that works on cars, furnature, gardening at the same time. The rules are left open to a huge amount of indiviual officer (in)descression. I've often wondered what would happen if I went to Walmart for the harmless household items like peanut butter, shortening, draino, ammonia, bleach, leangh of copper tubing, solder, etc all on the same ticket? The BIGGER question is why isn't the NRA backing them up also!!! The 2nd amendment isn't just about GUNS, it's about the ability to have weapons... and anything that might be a weapon.. something the courts have neatly side stepped but making rules only about guns.. while severely limiting billy clubs, knives, swords, and the like.. "Arms" aren't just guns.
If he HAD arguments, I would see it as unfair for him to lose his karma. However, when he posts without arguments and instead just throw out feelings, I find it reasonable for him to lose his bonus. His posts are a net negative contribution.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
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
I'm sure that someone at PEPCON probably thought it might be funny to start a fire, or didn't quite realise how rare/expensive it was or was from a racial minority or something.
Yeah, those damned racial minorities, always starting fires. ???
It was 8.5 million pounds of the stuff in 55 gallon drums. The fact that only 2 people died is fairly impressive, actually.
BTW, you can create explosions of equally impressive and deadly magnitude in grain silos. Should we ban the purchase of flour because you can make a bomb with it?
Or blacksmith. Forging would be impossible if steel didn't soften at a temperature significantly below that of its melting point.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Unfortunately, out of the manufacturing stage, mixed, ready AP doesn't really explode, it just sits there and burns. You can contain it and make it explode with a very strong container (like you can with anything flammable with an oxidizer), but the large hobby rocket motors are "bare grains". *In a house fire, they WILL NOT cause an explosion*. Having a magnesium engine in a VW is far more dangerous than these things - not only will it burn just as badly, water from the fire department will INTENSIFY the burning.
Accidents with the stuff happen, and the track record speaks for itself, people with rocket motors just don't burn down houses like fear-mongers imagine. As for malicious intent, it doesn't happen either, because the substance is really ill-suited to malicious things that people want to do.
Again, I have nothing against keeping folks safe. If I thought for a second that rocket motors were a danger in any significant way, I'd be all for this sort of thing. I've used them, and I've known a very large number of people who use them, and there just isn't any significant danger.
The people who do represent a bit more of a danger are the folks who make them themselves. That, however, is a different matter.
One of the non-legislated alternatives is NO2-based motors. Having a large, compressed canister of NO2 in a house fire is going to be worse. Even knocking it over or opening it, without any detonation, can asphyxiate you far faster than most folks realize - because it actively displaces the O2 in your blood, you're out cold incredibly fast, often before you can even leave the room. The recreational possibilities are a plus or a negative, depending on your viewpoint.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.