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.
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.
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.
"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.
whereas guided rockets are right out?
You are supposed to use your "dumb" rocket in rural areas far away from people and buildings. Who cares if you kill yourself, your fellow nerds, or a cow with it? Guided rockets on the other hand just might give people silly ideas about being able to deliver "payloads" with specific PK50's to "targets"...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Well that depends, some of those college art classes are havens for subversive types. I mean, all those girls with dark clothing and piercings, you know they're up to something. Probably just creating more body cavities in which to hide rocket fuel for the terrorists.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
I disagree. Perhaps this is nonsense, so excuse me in advance. I am not american. I've been hostilized in airports when I needed to visit some relatives in the US. I don't endorse the so-called "war on terror", nor the suppresion of civil rights and liberties that I believe is happening there. But if paranoia is now the standard, one should understand that the government is being at least coherent. Better than having bad rules, is to have no rule at all, as this would be institutional schizophrenia. The last thing you want is to undertake thorough investigations that violate your privacy, to have your phonecalls tapped, to board a plane with your essential belongings in a plastic bag, and all that to have in the end a "rocketeer" blowing up your kid's school bus.
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
I dunno. It's easy to get whipped up into believing that, but don't forget that in the 1960s, we had missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, owned by a sworn enemy of the United States, on the soil of a sworn enemy of the United States, all within range of very large population centers.
Sure, there is a very real threat of terrorism right now - but most folks don't realize just how close we came to all-out nuclear war - or just how often we came that close. Considering the difference in consequences between a terrorist blowing up a building, using a "dirty bomb", or even setting off one (or a few) warheads, it really pales in comparison to the entire arsenal of Soviet nuclear missiles and bombers. We're still a lot safer than we were then.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
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.
(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)
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.