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."

And what about guidance systems?

[Kell Bengal]

I feel somewhat slighted. I'm a aero-robotics post-grad student, and in my spare time I'm working on my own inertial measurement unit and flight control gear. It seems preposterous to me that rocketeers be permitted to build uncontrolled ballistic systems, but (arguably safer) guided systems are prohibited. Before you flame the hell out of me, please realise that I'm playing the devil's advocate (PTDA) here. Why can people own high-power firearms that have a good chance of killing someone, whereas guided rockets are right out? Lest we forget, guns are guided by the person pulling the trigger. It makes far, far more sense to prohibit rockets from carrying any sort of warhead. That way, you're unlikely to start a war and less likely to kill anyone. I'd say it's far more likely that someone up to no good is going to strap a grenade to a guided RC plane than a rocket. It's much easier, and they're more likely to be accurate and less likely to score an own goal that way. How long until can I expect the fuzz to come bust down my door just because I've got the skills to produce guided weapons?

so dumb...

[OiToTheWorld]

I find it fairly silly that a relatively weak explosive like rocket fuel is monitored, restricted and so on when: A: you can buy black powder and other more powerful explosives without much fuss and B: any moron with half a brain and access to google can manufacture plastic explosives in a bathtub with the stuff under their sinks. If people want to make things go boom, they will find a way. I think the only real way to avoid terrorist bombings is to work to not piss them off to the point where they think its nessecary.

Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS!

[edusmoreira]

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.

You ALL miss the point

[Sooner Boomer]

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.

Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS!

[jsm300]

There is such a thing as reasonable government control as compared to unreasonable government control. We already have to get a waiver from the FAA to launch high power rockets. This isn't a simple process. We have to submit forms explaining where the launch will be held, what the maximum altitude will be of any rockets we will launch, what times the launch(es) will be held, etc. The FAA can then modify and/or refuse our request. Typically, since this takes a fair amount of effort, we get approval for a whole year of scheduled launches. But we still have to call the FAA to "open" the waiver (that was approved ahead of time) when the launch begins, and then call them back to "close" the waiver at the end of the launch.

There are also maximum limits that take the classification of the rocket out of the "high power" range, which require a much higher level of paperwork to get launch approval. However, this type of regulation is reasonable, since we share the airspace with aircraft and other FAA approved uses.

There is also self regulation that is recognized by the organization that writes the national fire code (NFPA -- National Fire Protection Agency) which is used by states and local governments when adopting their own fire codes. This self regulation divides "High Power" rocketry intro three different levels, where at each level a person has to demonstrate competence to build and fly rockets for that power level. No rocket motor retailer will sell a rocket motor to anyone who is not certified for the corresponding high power level by one of the two national rocketry associations (Tripoli Rocketry Assn. or the National Association of Rocketry).

There is also regulation of the commercial rocket motor manufacturers, since some of the raw ingredients are more dangerous than the resulting rocket propellant, i.e. some of the ingredients MAY legitimately be classified as explosives, but the resulting composite propellant is only fast burning, not explosive.

It wouldn't make much sense for a commercial rocket motor manufacturer to manufacture rocket motors if they could not be shipped legally. So another level of regulation is involved where the manufacturers have to have each different propellant formula tested and classified before the Department of Transportation will allow them to be shipped. Because there are different shipping regulations for low explosives vs. flammable solids, there are advantages to getting your propellant classified as a flammable solid, which many rocket propellants are classified as. The ones that are not classified as flammable solids are classified as low explosives because the manufacturer hasn't wanted to invest the money to have the propellant go through the level of testing required to prove it is a flammable solid.

The propellant in question is less dangerous than the five gallon can of gasoline many of you probably have in your garage, yet we have to store it in a container that is approved for storage of explosives, and be subject to random visits by ATFE agents, etc. That is unreasonable regulation. Any propellant that can be shown NOT to be an explosive by laboratory testing should not be regulated as an explosive.

Gasoline

[Mark_MF-WN]

Dear god, peoples' laissez-faire attitude towards gasoline is incredible. Working as I do in petroleum retail to pay for school, I see some appalling things. There was one woman who said that she accidentally spills gas on herself all the time. Aside from the hideous level of incompetence that this implies, what about the fire danger, the very real possibility of her washing machine bursting into flames when she throws the clothes into it later? People will stick a gas can in the back of a pickup truck and try to fill it up, ignoring the fact that they are then allowing gas vapors to pool in a metal basin. Motorcyclists who fill their tank while sitting on the bike. You think a crotch full of gas would be fun? It doesn't even have to ignite to make this unpleasant. Gasoline + skin = bad day.

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.

Paraffin/LOX hybrids

[Josh Triplett]

I work with the Portland State Aerospace Society [pdx.edu]. 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 [pdx.edu] 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.

Re:more then the background check...

[Anonymous Coward]

point, owning firearms is perfectly legal, its a protected right in the constitution.

Of course. If someone is responsible enough to own a gun and store and handle it safely, fine by me. He or she can keep a howitzer for all I care. Same for rocket fuel or anything else.

But there are people who are scared, and they would rather live in Forbiddenland, where everything they don't like or they're afraid of is banned (guns, rocketry, chemistry sets, the internet, videogames, rock climbing, soapbox racing, rock music). Unfortunately, those people who'd like everybody to be put under tutelage are quite vocal and quite useful to most political groups.

Re:more then the background check...

[hypertex]

You appear to be the kind of person that is afraid of their own shadow. So, you don't like the casual use of AP? Gonna legislate it away? Oh darn, among what's left to the rocketeer is hydrogen peroxide and there isn't squat you can do about us using that. As a monopropellant, you'll wish you hadn't voiced such dribble about the small amount of AP contained in a solid-fuelled model rocket engine.

So just go hide away and hope the sun comes out tomorrow.

Re:Paraffin/LOX hybrids

[Josh Triplett]

Salami/GOX? Do you mean you launched a sausage?

No, but we did a static test-fire of one. The propulsion team has a test harness, used to fire an engine and measure the thrust without letting it go anywhere. After test-firing a paraffin/GOX prototype, the propulsion team test-fired a salami/GOX "engine" using the same harness. Both engines basically consist of a cylindrical mass of fuel with a cylindrical hole down the middle through which GOX or LOX can flow, though much more care goes into the construction of the paraffin engine.

Re:more then the background check...

[dpilot]

This should be a little bothersome for pool owners, too.

My late mother-in-law used to chlorinate her pool with calcium hypochlorite granules from a fairly decently-sized bucket that carried caution warnings all over it. She passed away in 1999, before all of this heated up, but as far as I know, you can still buy the buckets with the same warnings, and nothing more. A few years back I was investigating an "oxygen shock," potassium monopersulphate. One of the earlier links I dug up led me to a page on making your own explosives with common household chemicals, which I didn't think was a good place to be shortly after 9/11. For other reasons, namely expense and a reference that suggested that oxygen shocks changed chloramines into hypochlorous + nitrates (essentially fertilizer) I discontinued use. Since then, for "purist" reasons of minimizing in-pool residues, I've simplified my chemistry to a pumped feed of diluted shock. As a positive side-effect, I don't keep any potentially explosive pool chemicals around the house or garage, any more. (Thinking of the house and garage, but post-9/11 may be a bonus.)

A few topics ago, someone's wife was quoted as thinking, "Why should I object to these steps, since they'll only be used against lawbreakers, and I'm not a lawbreaker." My response was that it can be difficult to know if you're really not a lawbreaker, these days. Potentially explosive household chemicals may be one more example of this.