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."
Yes, it is. This is a new restriction being placed on an existing use of a material. The risks haven't changed since the 1960's, yet now these people need to have a federal background check just to partisipate in there hobby?
Its wrong, and its an abuse of power by our federal government.
By the way, what happens when someone fails the check? They can't launch a model rocket because they did something stupid in collage?
Its wrong, it goes against the principals the USA was founded on, and that someone is invoking the word terrorism doesn't change that.
It's amazing the way things have changed in this country.
One used to be able to ride their horse down to the general store and buy whole sticks of dynamite.
What happened to personal responsibility? Land of the free?
We're all a bunch of scared little babies. In my state, you can't even buy sparklers anymore!
These regulations should be relaxed by at least a factor of ten. Model rocketry is a great hobby. It is something the state should promote.
There are entirely too many people willing to treat every citizen as a potential terrorist in response to a threat that is much more remote than even a simple traffic accident.
Sure, there's a risk associated with every freedom, but let's be realistic. Being terrified because someone has three ounces of explosives does no one any good.
Life is too short to proofread.
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.
"What happened to personal responsibility? Land of the free?"
Same thing that happens in every successful liberal democracy. Most people get lazy and complacent, expecting all their needs to be taken care of with no effort, while others become hostile to the status quo and dedicate their lives to creating havoc.
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.
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.
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.
(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)