![Space Space](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/space_64.png)
![Toys Toys](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/toy_64.png)
![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
Rocket Hobbyists Get Blown Away by Regulations 752
dogfart writes "Amateur rocket hobbyists are bearing the brunt of Federal anti-terror efforts. Cumbersome regulations (which include extensive background checks) are pushing many to abandon the hobby. Even clubs associated with colleges (such as Kettering) have ended up folding under the pressure. Quoting the article: '"If we're in an environment where the government says you've got to get fingerprinted and background checked, and spend three to four months to do it, (adults are) not going to participate in my hobby," said Mark Bundick, president of the National Association of Rocketry. "We need more kids. It helps them learn technology. It's the technological base here in the country that we need to protect, and this hobby is a good introduction for kids that are interested in technology. If I lose those adults, then I will not be able to train those kids."'" We wrote about these regulations before, and followed it up with a Slashback.
Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we should outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel, since they have actually been used for terrorist acts.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Funny)
Unforunately you need fertilizer to grow plants to feed the animals that roam the ranches paid for by oil profits.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the linked article:
What you model terrorists don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter that model rockets can't be used as weapons of terror.
What's important isn't controlling model rockets, per se; what's important is getting the American public used to a never-ending "war against terror", keeping them keyed-up, ever fearful and ever compliant.
What's important is getting the public resigned to always asking permission from the government, always being afraid that they're at risk of arrest, even for hobbies the government knows full well pose no realistic risk of harm.
And ultimately, what's important is making the people of this nation realize who is boss -- the government and its bureaucrats and its corporate owners --, and who is the servant -- the common taxpayer.
Once you realize that your hobbies "need" to be regulated to "fight terror", you'll docilely let the FBI knock on your door on behalf of the RIAA's searches, and you'll agree to submit your open source code to government inspection to make sure it doesn't "INDUCE" violation of copyright [arstechnica.com].
Once the formerly free American sheeple resign themselves to arbitrary governmental intrusions into their lives in order to further some ill-defined and ever elusive "war against terror", they'll stop squawking about
Or as our beloved Reichsminister Ashcroft explained, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Funny)
you didn't use them to mod +1 funny to a soviet russia joke, did you?
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:4, Interesting)
no need for conspiracy theories (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you're half right. What's important isn't controlling model rockets. It's controlling explosives, which happen to be used in model rockets. The ATF didn't decide to clamp down on the hobby of model rocketry to pacify the citizerny-- that's an idiotic scenario even for the average conspiracy theorist. Model rocket enthusiasts are catching a side-effect of new explosives regulation because they use explosives in their hobby.
It sounds like the ATF may have been overzealous in creating those new regulations, and that those regulations may have had unintended (or disregarded) side effects, but you're going way out of your way to justify an assumption of maliciousness here.
Re:no need for conspiracy theories (Score:3, Informative)
Where does incompetence cross over to malice? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd agree with you... if I hadn't spent nine months after 9/11 arguing with my friends that we should too give Bush a chance, that the unintended consequences weren't the result of malicious intent.
I finally gave up the argument during the mid-term elections. Mostly it was the "poison pill" restriction of civil rights for people within the Dept. of Homeland Security. That was nothing, nothing but a low tactic, and it was one they had to go out of their way to carry out. No unintended consequences there. They knew who they were choosing to screw, and that they were doing it to paint guys like Max Cleland as unpatriotic to win their elections.
Look up. You have a President whose administration has argued a)that we're fighting a war whose beginning and end can only be declared by him; and b)that he's got all-but-dictatorial power when we're at war. Sometimes, he grants, he chooses not to exercise that power -- but he says he has it, and puts his signature by that. His legal advisors are set to work justifying that position.
Arbitrary power has arbitrary consequences -- to wit, this example. The cracking end of that whip happens in places like Abu Graib.
I'll judge us by how we correct the unintended consequences, not by how well we rationalize them. And I don't see one shred of effort by those in power right now to do anything but bury stories they think are unfavorable to their staying in power. Bush will try to paint Kerry as a raving lunatic for wanting to restrict the Patriot Act in libraries. He'd do the same if Kerry talked about model rocket hobbyists. There's nothing unintentional about those choices, either. They know what they're doing.
One flaw in your argument... (Score:4, Informative)
Model rocket propellants are much less dangerous than gasoline -- which, by the way, actually IS an explosive.
Re:One flaw in your argument... (Score:4, Informative)
An explosive is nothing more than a thing that burns so fast that
it can expand quickly.
Not that this excuses the stupid legislation, mind you. It just means that the difference between, say, a rocket engine and a steam engine is just a matter of degree, rather than of type. Both can explode if used improperly.
What about (2nd): right to bare arms? (Score:3, Insightful)
i swear, half the kids in my dorm who would be bragging about headshots in CS looked damn near terrified when i asked them if they wanted to go to the range to shoot *gasp* REAL guns.
Was that just a characteristic of my dorm, or the geek cultrue as a whole?
Re:What about (2nd): right to bare arms? (Score:3, Informative)
You might wanna have a look at this [catb.org] site..
And I don't usually have bare arms when I bear arms...
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't like guns.
But I'm against gun control precisely because I won't be a hypocrite who fights for the First Amendment and ignores that inconvenient Second one. Indeed, my worries about the injustice of convicting under Federal gun laws recently prevented me from sitting on a jury after I voiced my concerns.
But I don't know of any case where Ashcroft or the current Administration has eroded Second Amendment rights; indeed, when it came to searching for terrorists after 9-11, Ashcroft told the government to search for terrorist suspects' names on all government lists except lists of gun owners [msnbc.com].
I'd be glad to add to my list however: if you know of an example where Ashcroft or the Bush administration has abrogated Second, Third, or Seventh Amendment rights, please let me know!
Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.
Unfortunately, it seems to be an often ignored part of the Constitution....
Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:3, Interesting)
And I think the relevant amendment would be the ninth, the one that says the rights listed in the constitution are not the only ones that exist.
You may laugh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Insightful)
A rocket is pretty much a controlled bomb. Every joule spent on proplusion is a joule not spent on explosive. An amateur might be able to cobble together a rocket which would fly vaguely where the builder pointed it over a distance of a maybe a few miles, but the "warhead" would likely be only a few pounds. (plus the kinetic energy of the rocket.) If you took the same rocket fuel, and used it to make a big-ass truck bomb, you'd gain several magnitudes of precision and lethality.
Rockets are good for putting a small amount of explosive in a place you can't easily access. Since we're not going to outlaw trucks, fertilizer, and diesel fuel any time soon, the best way to "terrorize" the people remains.
Ultimately I'd much prefer the "evil doers" put their energy into exotic ideas like homemade rockets rather than simple ones like truck bombs and the classic "cheap-assault-rifle-and-a-crowd". The number of victims would be lower.
Someone could make a weapon out of rocketry supplies, but anyone with the skills to build a halfway decent rocket could build a pretty impressive bomb a lot easier.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Informative)
I'd have to disagree about the delivery mechanism part though. I used to build these things as a kid, and the amount of thrust needed to get just a tiny bit of payload into the air is enormous. The biggest thing I ever saw was an extremely light disposable camera, and the rocket it took to lift it used several of the biggest engines available at the time.
Even when they do li
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Insightful)
The propellent in rocketry is not well suited to explosives. Major truck bombs, like the one used in OKC, were ammonium nitrate and diesel. Technically that's a low power explosive too. Elsewhere in the thread someone was saying that a two foot rocket is starting to sound like an RPG, but they are forgetting that the lethality of an RPG is because they carry very exotic shaped charge high explosive and penetrators which turn into jets of plasma upon impact. Even assuming the rocket is easy to
Actually, there is some serious threat ... (Score:3, Informative)
There are some real similarities between these "extreme" hobby rockets and the Quassam rocket, which is used in the middle east. Here's a description of the Qassam...
Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, hurry up, government: Outlaw slingshots, alcohol, and fire.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as rocketry goes, if these type of regulations were put on other types of explosives (they are) there would be no fuss. It is just because it impacts something near and dear to our hearts that it seems so intolerable.
Think of the complaints people made for sport shooting and hunting when gun restrictions (something most slashdotters seem to embrace) were enacted. Same basic premise, completely different reaction from the slashdot crowd.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Funny)
So please, think of the children, screw the koala, and ban bamboo!
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got no problem with there being limitations of people's ability to build, say, something which uses propellant measured in pounds (or tons). When it's clear the rocket poses a clear threat if accidents occur or it is intentionally misused. But people should still be able to build smaller things without massive hurdles.
I don't want to get much into guns because it is a bit of a charged subject. The issue is where do we set limits between the right to bear a squirt-pistol and the right to bear crew-served artillery? Obviously there needs to be a ceiling somewhere, but quantifying it is hard.
The question is where do you set the ceiling? And what are reasonable requirements for people who wish to exceed it? Model-rocketry is heading towards the squirt-pistol range of the scale...
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. You could have thousands of people flying 12 inch rockets, and one flying a 31 foot rocket, and that sentence would still be just as true. I'd like to see some more breakdown of that personally, purely because its such a vague yet emotionally charged claim.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:4, Insightful)
My primary hobby is machine gun collecting and shooting. Let me tell you the fun of throwing down $10-20k, finger printing, filling out forms, then waiting 3 months for a background check for the opportunity to pay a $200 tax so I can own one of a class of firearms by which *ZERO* people have been killed by civilians in the entire 70 year history of NFA firearms.
Meanwhile, John Q. Gangbanger buys a MAC-10 on the corner for $50 and hoses down whoever.
It makes you think maybe we should outlaw killing people.
Re:Outlaw fertilizer? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would Israel still have been safe if their military was weaker than their neighbors'?
You say that Israel used overwhelming force to end a conflict as quickly and decisively as possible... as if that's a bad thing.
Would it have been better for Israel to commit no more than 80,000 troops, and limit their tech usage to the obosolete tech level of their opponents?
Did you allow for the possibility that
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no problems with people protesting bad laws and corrupt administrations. But where the fsck were you during the Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford years? This selective protesting reeks of hypocracy.
Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! (Score:5, Insightful)
For extra flavor, keep the country in a state of continual national emergency, then accuse the other side of treason when they object to anything you do.
Seriously, I despise the game, but, they've done an exceptional job of slapping their opponents both ways. I don't hold the Democrats in any higher regard; if they refrain from this behavior it's because they're not as good at it, not because of some higher moral ground they stand on.
This is coming from a registered Democrat. I'm used to voting for the lesser of two evils.
Some good, some FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
The latest explanation about the case progress from Mr. Bundick is at: http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html
Full archive of all NAR articles regarding this and related issues:
http://nar.org/legislative.html
As for "losing" members, last I heard both NAR and Tripoli were maintaining even membership numbers.
Using CP Technologies as a measure is misleading. Their products are for building your own engines. Very few people are interested in that to begin with. Most use either single use motors, or more commonly reloadable motors.
Aerotech, manufacturer of mid-power rocket kits as well as reloadable motors and the reloads for them, is doing fine despite having suffered a fire. They filed bankruptcy, were purchsed by another company to keep them going, and are back in business full tilt, supplying thousands of rocketeers with motors and fuel.
We're supposed to take the word of ATFE that rockets are dangerous? Well, I guess they are in the wrong hands. ATFE burned down a rented van by being stupid while trying to test rockets to prove they were dangerous. See: http://www.maxthrust.net/displayarticle749.html
NAR #28965, 40 years without a rocket related accident or damage.
Re:Some good, some FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
"While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."
We're talking real rockets here! And even if you ignore potential terrorist use, it does seem reasonable to have limitations on how much rocket fuel can be stored by a hobbiest (or anyone) in a residential neighborhood.
So it does seem like the regulations are over the top (story hype doesn't help), but I'm still trying to figure out it they are really all that unreasonable.
Re:Some good, some FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
This has been a huge problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This has been a huge problem (Score:2)
Launch the rockets anyway (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Launch the rockets anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
What I've always done is launch my rockets out in the desert (BLM property, which is state-owned and open to everyone for anything). I have a handy dry-lake launch site where there isn't anything flammable, or any people either for that matter.
These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a link on the bottom of the page "Homeland Security & Model Rocketry". Basically anything they sell is still legal.
It's just motors with greater than .9 lbs of fuel. That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon.
Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:5, Insightful)
It's people with that attitude that are causing the problem with the ATF. If you've ever been to a launch you'd know the ability to aim these things at a target is nonexistant. They basically go up, but you couldn't deliberately hit something if you tried without a miracle. The fuel itself is not actually explosive - outside the motor tube it burns really slow. You could attach some other explosive, but you still couldn't deliver it accurately and that would be a different substance so no need to regulate the fuel.
Rocket fuel is no more dangerous than gasoline which is available on every corner in America. Probably less dangerous, as it's not a liquid.
Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, I see two possibilities. First, you could bludgeon someone to death with the motor. Put it in a sock for extra leverage. Second. some knucklehead might want to rig up a remote fired "Katyusha" type of assembly. Guess which one I think is more likely?
I did the small model rockets as a kid and always thought it would be fun to get into the big ones if I ever got into a big enough paycheck. Now, it seems like a colossal pain. Oh well. Now I'll have t
Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:3, Insightful)
Fire one of these from a mile away over a packed stadium or large crowd and have it explode with a cloud of chemical agent.
You wouldn't even need a chemical, flour would probably cause such a panic that several people would die in the ensuing stampede.
I live in the flight pattern of Atlanta's aiport. If I fired one o
Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:3, Insightful)
You could get the same effect by calling in a well timed and worded series of bomb threats. Which is a lot easier than messing around with rockets.
Look, pretty much anything you can think of could be used by a terrorist. Poison the water supply, or some food factory, throw green dye into a river and call into the local tv news with a
Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to play devil's advocate here - I don't think this matters. A terrorist's goal could just be indiscriminate mayhem, so it wouldn't matter where it ended up. Also, I don't think you're quite right. If you put some effort into it, you could hit a large target, like a building. It's also possible for someon
Kerosene and nitric acid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:5, Informative)
I think we're safe from these guys -- their web site is unusable!
Perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
0.9 pounds of fuel (Score:2)
How big of a rocket engine is that? I assume that is bigger than your typical hobby rocket engine. Not that it justifies the feds regulations, the hobby engines could certainly be next.
Time to trade in (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time to trade in (Score:5, Informative)
I did a quick google, and it is not like Europe is free of regulation for model rocketry. [europerocketry.com] It seems that things are very similar:
I assume the A, B, C, and D engines sizes are the same as easily bought in the U.S. [estesrockets.com]My 2 cents (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah Right (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're forgetting... (Score:5, Funny)
The best way to prevent terrorist acts, therefore, is to strip those puppies away as quickly and efficiantly as possible.
Re:Yeah Right (Score:3, Informative)
Doesnt affect most rocketeers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesnt affect most rocketeers (Score:3, Insightful)
This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians too (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if I feel more annoyed by this kind of thing, or more safe. It seems that if someone actually has a permit to buy display scale fireworks, they wouldn't be using them for anything questionable. Plus, once they have that level of expertise it wouldn't be too difficult for them to brew up their own home grown bomb if they really wanted to blow something up.
Terrorist's converse (Score:5, Funny)
Terrorist #2: Well I got the explosives, but the ATF syas that .9lbs of propellant is illegal.
Terrorist #1: Shucks, we need 1.1 lbs of fuel.
Terrorist #2: Well I guess we have to scrub the mission.
Terrorist #1: Next time America! When you allow more than .9 lbs of propellant, next time!
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
It breaks my heart to think that kids might not be able to experience the joy and wonder that rocketry brought me.
Hobby rocket != Terrorist weapon (Score:4, Insightful)
While I can agree that some regulation of large quantities of solid propellant is a prudent thing, the thresholds in the current regs [atf.gov] are too extreme, I think. Also, the $25 fee for a limited use permit is an unnecessary and excessive tax for an activity that has miminal impact on public assets.
Rocketry turns kids into terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rocketry turns kids into terrorists (Score:3, Informative)
(If you're too young to have listened to Tom Lehrer, find $30 and go buy his CDs. It's a hilarious view of the world in the 1960s, by a singing mathemetician/professor from MIT. Right up the
next on the a$$cr0ft list (Score:3, Interesting)
When will RC cars and Aircraft be outlawed?
I seem to remember a scene in a movie where an RC car fitted with a bomb was used to explode a car.
When you take all of the things that could be used in violent acts away, people invent new methods (and generally more efficient) methods for doing the things you planned on preventing.
Case in point; it was too hard to get enough explosives to damage the WTC buildings, but highjack a couple of airplanes fueled to cross the continent and you have the means to do so.
Why not outlaw planes? why not require background checks to fly? I defer to George Carlin on this one, surely a large fist could be used to take control of a plane, will we have strength tests at the gates?
While I rattle on about how stupid we've become, why not just sedate all plane passengers with enough to keep them out cold for the duration of the flight? you fall asleep in the terminal and wake up at your destination? Heck, why not just sedate the entire population?
If you spend all of your time trying to prevent the things that could happen, nothing will happen and no progress will be made.
End of silly rant.
Re:next on the a$$cr0ft list (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this would be great for the airlines. They could fit alot more people on the plane that way! I remember a lot of road trips were like this too. I'd go to sleep about 10 mins. after traveling on interstate then just wake up 4 hours later at where ever we were going. Traveling is
Why the Feds don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
You, I, and the rocketry guy quoted might believe this, but protecting the technological base in this country is not a priority for the American powers-that-be.
More important is keeping labor cheap and the country tied down under a web of Homeland Security minutiae, which will keep the populace cowed and their own grip on power secure.
By contrast the Indian government, which actually seems to have their own national interest in mind, will be happy to run the miniscule "security" risk and let Indian kids play with model rockets-- the better technologically educated they are, the more advanced the tech jobs they can attract from willing American corporations.
You can glean a government's whole philosophy from little issues like this.
What about gun rights (Score:4, Insightful)
.... oops, uh, nevermind.
Re:What about gun rights (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Some sort of anthrax aerosol or something that explodes in mid-air over a small area. Maybe in a neighborhood or park. I don't know -- I'm just speculating here. Makes you wonder if it could be done.
However, if THAT is the sort of issue that they're raising with these poor rocketry hobbyists, then when will (if it's not happened already) model airplane/helicopter hobbyists have to start filling out government forms? I mean, strap some sort of acid dispersal system onto the bottom of a remote control helicopter and actually CONTROL where you start spraying people (again -- just wild speculation here). THAT sounds to me like more of a threat than model rockets.
My 2 cents.
IronChefMorimoto
Re:Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
The most fundamental, substantial reason is this: It's too complicated. Terrorists do not use complex methods, because they don't have to. They can achieve very large impacts, with very small attacks.
Why are you guys whining? (Score:3, Funny)
Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt rant? (Score:5, Informative)
While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."
After reading the comments, I was all set to believe the government was way out of hand. But then I decided to read the article.
The rockets I use to launch used 'B' & 'C' engines, and when I got older the big 'D' engines. The rockets that that are being regulated ARE NOT MODEL ROCKETS.
I realize that commenting without reading the article is a badge of courage here but you gotta read the article sometime.
Re:Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt ra (Score:3, Interesting)
So what, in your opinion, constitutes a MODEL ROCKET?
These people [portalofevil.com] seem to have some interesting ideas, should you need some suggestions.
Time to adapt? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironically, this would probably make for a less safe hobby, as I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a liquid fuelled rocket that ruptured its fuel tank and/or oxidizer on launch.
Re:Time to adapt? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am wondering if an inversion of this could be done - comp
Anyone notice that buying gun powder is legal ? (Score:3, Insightful)
An idea for you high powered rocket guys is to go with a method of fueling rockets with gunpowder.
I wonder what the gov would do then ?
Model rockets: NO. Guns: YES. (Score:5, Funny)
Scout leaders are being urged at this time to encourage scouts of all ages to take up firearms training. Firearms, being readily available and licensed, are a safe recreation. Remember, guns don't kill people, rockets do.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Terrorist #1: I would like to use this rocket to wage holy war against the infidels.
Terrorist #2: You cannot. The infidels have fuel limits. You will not have the range.
Terrorist #1: In that case I will use this assault rife I bought for home defence.
Terrorist #2: You are a most wise servant of Allah.
Terrorist #1: Mwaahahahahah!
Terrorist #2: Mwahahahahaha!
Is this really so hard to fathom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it really so hard to image that using "high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour" can be used as a weapon?
Someone rolls up 15 miles outside of DC, fires a salvo of these rockets with 10 lb. of explosive on each and disappears before the first one even hits?
Sure, they won't do much damage but that is the point of terrorism. Terrorism can't win a war by itself, it requires the other party to lose the will to fight.
It amazes me that people think that building a rocket weighing "hundreds of pounds" or flying over 60 miles is "a hobby.
The really interesting thing is that over 1/2 of the replies to this topic are simply knee jerk anti-Bush rants.
If you can't see that a 30 ft rocket that can fly over 60 miles needs to have some type of regulation then I can't help you.
Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine a quick salvo being built and fired off perfectly. During the launches I have seen, more than a few failed on the pad, many failed mid-flight. I have seen video of launches that exploded on the pad (without the help of explosive tips). Lastly, none of the rockets I saw went 60 miles - hell, none broke 20,000 feet, nor went out of the flying envelope secured for the days (pretty large volume, too).
That isn't to say that these things couldn't have been made to be missles - but the expense and expertise required to do so is huge, so huge it hasn't happenned yet, despite high-powered model rocketry being around for well over a decade (and model/experimental rocketry being around for much, much longer).
Finally, for the people that do this - it is a hobby. These are guys (most are grown adult men with maxed out credit cards or other funding) who instead of buying a motorcycle or a boat, build large and expensive rockets to fly and amaze their peers with. As a spectator, I have found it to be an incredible and exciting hobby. It tempts me to get involved in it - I just can't afford it (either monetarily or time-wise)...
Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? (Score:4, Insightful)
<sarcasm>
It amazes me that people think that writing your own operating system is "a hobby".
</sarcasm>
What about mountain climbing? What about amateur astronomers that make [atmob.org] their own 30 to 40" telscopes including computerized tracking systems [bbastrodesigns.com] accurate to less than 1/2 arc second? What about amateur robotics?
Now it may be the case that there needs to be some type of regulations for serious hobbies, but there is such a thing as overkill.
Re:Total safety and security are a myth (Score:3, Insightful)
High-power rocketry may have a higher level of hazard to bystanders, but it's probably less useful in terrorism than knowing how to shoot and drive fast. A stolen car can deliver a much bigger warhead much more accurately than a homemade rocket. The rocket builders are being singled out because they are a small enough group to regulate without causing an u
LOL - I can still buy fireworks at CraZy L00iE's (Score:3, Insightful)
but I can still stop by my local roadside fireworks/adult bookstore/stuckey's and buy as much stuff that goes boom, crackle and sizzle for two for the price of one... all I have to do is join the Fireworks PAC...
Governement idiots.
As Iraq is showing us... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey wait, can we hit two birds with one stone and sell the ingredients and instructions on mixing rubber particles and N2O to MAKE model rocket engines, thereby skirting the legal restriction? hmmm. Like a website where you can order both ingredients and a reusable mixing chamber + exhaust for them to combust within. It might make model rocketry a little more complicated (hey, this isn't rocket science! oh, wait..) but all things considered, I'm curious what kind of altitude a model rocket can achieve with a propulsion system similar to SpaceShipOne's.
Fond memories (Score:3, Interesting)
My rocket went up, but never came back down, at least that we could tell. I was disappointed to lose the rocket, but all the "cool" kids were trying to get their rocket to go the highest, so my disappearing rocket was a celebrity.
Now, at the time, my parent's house was a block from the school. YEARS later, a neighbor across the street (about a block and a half away from the school) was cleaning his gutters, and found a rocket. He gave it to my mother, in case I wanted to "play around with it". Sure enough, it was MY rocket from that day in eigth grade.
Anyway, just relating a fond memory of rocketry hijinks. And, for what it's worth, I never blew anything up, never hurt myself or others, and didn't develop into a pyromaniac.
Yet.
(Mwahahahha)
On Other News . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
How is that any different than the issue we have at hand? The government is imposing regulations that are making a hobby more difficult, so people are leaving the hobby. I see this as a similar issue, so I don't see why we complain about one but not the other.
Model airplane hobbyists are concerned too (Score:5, Informative)
If model airplanes that fly above 400 feet (which a high percentage of them) are no longer considered model airplanes, but are now UAV's, then they may fall under new regulations.
There are plenty of threads on the RC websites where hobbyists are trying to figure out what to do to try to limit the impact of new regulations on their hobby. One good example is This one [rcgroups.com].
define the rocket as a type of "gun" (Score:3, Insightful)
FUD -- And the reality of current regulation (Score:5, Informative)
Here is some data I hope folks will consider. This comes from my time as a hobby rocketeer and my knowledge of the current regulations.
Rocket fuel is not an explosive. Multiple independent laboratories, including the New Hampshire State Police have tried to make APCP (standard solid rocket fuel) explode and have been unable to do so. It burns, and, it has it's own oxidizer, but, it does not explode.
The BATFE and the UN have classified it as an explosive under a definition of the term which encompasses anything which burns and includes it's own oxidizer (can't be extinguished by smothering). As such, this definition would also cover road flares.
Prior to the safe explosives act, I could buy rocket fuel, which, as others have pointed out is less dangerous (and less explosive) than gasoline or fertilizer and diesel in the form of pre-made motors and store it in my house without need for any federal permit. As a result of the regulations, I cannot store rocket motors in my house, and, I have had to get a federal permit which cost me $100, required me to submit an FBI fingerprint card to be kept on file by DOJ, sumit to a DOJ background check, virtually waive my 4th amendment rights (that's right, BATFE can inspect my house anytime they choose even though I have a non-storage permit), and, requires substantial record keeping for all motors I buy, store, expend, or sell.
Used to be if I went to a launch and someone had a motor I needed and I had a motor they needed, we'd trade. Under the new regulations, he and I need to record returning it to a vendor who then sells them to us. We aren't allowed to trade or sell the motors to each other without an explosives dealer permit.
The problem is the BATFE has no procedures for regulating hobbies. The regulations are all written to cover people that blow up buildings for a living or blast tunnels for railroads and the
like.
While most of us in the hobby don't think any regulation is warranted and that the hobbies own process of self regulation has demonstrated a long history of excellent safety, we are mainly objecting to the fact that these regulations are so overly burdensome that they are eliminating participants from the hobby.
As to the memberships in NAR and TRA, yes, many people who used to fly rockets are continuing to pay their dues to these organizations to help them continue the fight against these unreasonable regulations. But, if you go to launches, you will see fewer flyers and fewer rockets being launched on less power. The regulations are putting a damper on the hobby. Vendors are feeling the crunch, including Aerotech. Yes, they're doing better now than immediately after the fire, but, they're nowhere near their pre-fire business levels.
Finally, even without the federal regulations, there are requirements to gain access to high power motors. TRA and NAR both have procedures and checkouts required for people to attain certifications for various levels of motors. Up to a G motor, there are few limitations. H and I motors require a level 1 certification. J, K, and L motors are level 2 which requires not only building, flying, and successfully recovering a level 2 rocket, but, requires a written test on rocket regulations and safety procedures. To fly an M, N, or O motor requires a level 3 certification which involves significant review and substantial expense to achieve.
Further, to launch rockets over a certain amount, one must first obtain permission from the FAA in the form of a waiver. The FAA will not grant a waiver to launch a 300 pound rocket downtown or next to the local airport. General public safety is adequately addrsesed by the regulations prior to the Safe Explosives Act.
Another consequence of the SEA is that most shippers are no longer able to transport rocket motors (it would require them to get every
A big step backward for mankind (Score:3, Insightful)
Model rocketry is fun, and a good way to get kids away from computers into the sun. It develops an interst in science, engineering, and using computers to design and test. Competitions are good ways to meet people and make friends for life.
It'l be a shame if teh government kills our hobby.
JLC NAR 21573
Nah. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:rocketry: dangerous? (Score:3, Funny)