Slashdot Log In
Backyard Rocketeers Keep the Solid Fuel Burning
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Oct 15, 2006 09:01 PM
from the bureaucratic-nincompoop-idiot-handwringers dept.
from the bureaucratic-nincompoop-idiot-handwringers dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
more then the background check... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:more then the background check... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:more then the background check... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:more then the background check... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Gasoline (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:more then the background check... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:more then the background check... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Oblig... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:more then the background check... (Score:4, Informative)
Why ?
Homeowners insurance covers most of the likely problems under the liability sections for damage you do to others. Why do my neighbors need to have a say in everything I do on my own property ?
Parent
It's only sane if residential means residential (Score:5, Insightful)
(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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:more then the background check... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:more then the background check... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:more then the background check... (Score:4, Informative)
steve
Parent
Re:more then the background check... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The premise of the explosives act is that it should not be unduly burdonsome to law abiding citizens.
Re:more then the background check... (Score:5, Informative)
It used to be that certain exceptions in limited quantities were able to bypass the placarding rules. After the oklahoma city bombing, It became neccesary to placard any amounts of explosives reguardless of thier amounts. The only way you can transport explosive material (as defined by the DOT and UN regulations [environmen...mistry.com] legaly is with a CLD and Hazmat endorsment. Even If just 1/4 stick of dynamite going down the street. Seeing how the lawsuite is 7 years old and 911 was about 5 years ago, it might be something with the transportation requiremts or even storage requirment. A little known fact comming from the oklohoma city bombing is that if you have enough materials sitting around that someone could make a bomb from them, you can be charged with possesion of bombmaking materials even if they happen to be some liguid drano, a can of galoine, some twine and a pipe in the same room, Maybe some ductape and some types of glue, you could be guilty of it. Alot of households have enough stuff to construc weak bombs acording to the guidlines for this.
More likley though, It is involving this law [cornell.edu] look all the way to the bottom and see section P. This seems a little disturbing if the rocketeer shows anyone how ot make the stuff, sells it to the wrong person and so on.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:3, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: I would have RTFA if it wasn't on the NYTimes.)
Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Parent
Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Well, they *are* making ROCKETS! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Use another propellant! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As far as smokeless powder, it's been quite some time since I checked, but I think that you can't have very much of it before you fall under the same requirements, although since it doesn't take a permit to buy, most folks either don't obey or are unaware of the law.
steve
"Sticky Wicket" (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if I have to get a license for a spud gun (Score:3, Funny)
You ALL miss the point (Score:4, Interesting)
One more thing that needs to be noted... (Score:4, Informative)
Photography is now a terrorist act. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Paraffin/LOX hybrids (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 construct
Re:Shut them down! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And what about guidance systems? (Score:4, Funny)
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"...
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
People were making these chemicals in home labratories for years and years. It's just
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hint: Steel doesn't need to "melt" to lose almost all of its structural strength. "Melt" means to go from a solid to a liquid. All the girders needed to do was soften a little bit, at a temperature far below the burning temp of the jet fuel. Anyone who's worked steel knows this, and it isn't exactly hard to look up. Ask ANY engineer.
m-