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.
Re:VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! (Score:2, Informative)
Carl J. Truscott was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to be the 6th Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in the Department of Justice, on April 18, 2004
These guys get appointed, and the ones that aren't appointed get hired. It isn't really a voting issue, more of an issue with appointees.
Silly (Score:2, Informative)
The 9/11 pilots went through flight training (in LICENSED classrooms). The government knew about it, but they did nothing about it.
If the government can't be bothered following up on known terrorist taking flight training in the US, why are they trying to license model rocketry, which is incapable of being used for terrorism the way the governement is implying?
People should use their brains. If you wanted to cause harm with a projectile, it would simpler and cheaper to bring in a shoulder fired missle that is readily available on the international arms black market than it is to engineer a rocket with a guidance system system capable of hitting a plane.
Think for a change instead of assuming a bunch of assinine bureaucrats are actually helping.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:3, Informative)
Protecting themselves from rebels (Score:2, Informative)
Terrorist is to Freedom Fighter as Criminal is to Activist.
Orwell was 20 years too early.
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
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]Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:2, Informative)
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
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
Re:Really? (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a real life example. They can start major fires [go.com], and that wasn't even done on purpose.
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: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!
Re:no need for conspiracy theories (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Home made rockets that can attain altitudes of 10-40,000 feet have some pretty serious potential for misuse if you ask me. How hard could it be to just set up 10 of these a few miles outside some major city center, load them up with crude explosives (or better yet "dirty bomb" stuff like radioactive materials) and send them unguided to land in the heart of the city. Who cares if they land a mile off, or smack into some building? Think of the terror effect of 10 rockets slamming into downtown Manhattan, launched from some abandoned warehouse district in New Jersey, and the shooters are long gone after launch has happened.
I would argue that the exact technologies and equipment used by these amateur rockets are directly useable by terrorists. You can even bet that a certain amount of the technology for the Qassam came from amateur rocket sources, similar to the one at http://www.space-rockets.com/newbook.html [space-rockets.com]. Looks like about everything you need you can get there.
And I love the last line on the page. "Foreign Nationals Welcome To Attend The Class!!"
Re:Yeah Right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually, there is some serious threat ... (Score:3, Informative)
Kerosene and nitric acid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This may sound crazy... (Score:2, Informative)
That argument is moot. As others have pointed out, since the amateur rocketry industry was properly regulated by Tripoli and NAR decades ago there has not been a single accident where anyone has died.
Re:Doesn't affect most rocketeers (Score:1, Informative)
Tripoli # 09990
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:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:2, Informative)
For example, I have a rocket which carries a radio controlled digital camera. Here's what it needs to get to various altitudes:
To get off the launch pad and slowly lumber up 400 feet: G64 reload (62.4 grams propellant)
To leave the launch pad at a safe speed and obtain a resonable altitude(1000 feet): H128 reload (95 grams)
To get somewhere that would yield really cool pictures (3000 feet): I211 reload (251 grams)
Note the much higher altitude from the H128 verses the G64. The rocket is so underpowered with the G64 that most of the fuel is spent just keeping the rocket from falling back down. The H128 gets it moving at a much more efficiant speed. Thus the huge altitude difference with a motor only 50% larger. (I've used both motors, with an altimeter in the rocket to verify altitude and deploy the parachutes).
Most of the really neat payloads need a bunch of power. Such as a tiny computer, wireless lan card, and batteries. Or a video camera.
It used to be legal to purchase and fly any of these motors without a low explosive user permit (LEUP). The largest motor you used to be able to get sans LEUP was the AeroTech J570, which would have put my camera rocket up around 6000 feet. Now, the most powerful easily avaliable motor will be the AT G125, which puts my camera rocket up around 450 feet, although it does leave the launch pad at a safe speed.
The guys launching 30 foot rockets are using motors like the AeroTech N2000, which has 7,770 grams of propellent. These have always required a LEUP.
Seth
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: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 lift off, they go straight up, and come down on a parachute. (If you are lucky) a few blocks away in a high wind. The mechanics and force required for lateral flight is a lot greater than almost any amateur can overcome.
And as for biowar and dirty bombs... I dunno... Heat and unreliablity aren't something I'd want to put my hard-obtained anthrax into. And most the radioactive metals are extremely massive. Combine that with the problems associated with lateral flight, and it's a pretty iffy proposition. I think anyone who obtains and uses radioactivity or biologicial agents is going to scare the pants of the general public reguardless of the delivery method.
I'd be much more concerned about people using balloons. If you're just trying to indiscrimately drop sometime nasty on people, a weather balloon and a tank of helium would reliably put a lot more payload in the air for a lot less money and exposure. The Japanese were able to achieve mild success during WWII using incerdiary devices and similiar devices from halfway across the world to the west coast of the US.
Opinions from a rocket scientist (Score:2, Informative)
For a terror weapon, no--accuracy doesn't matter all that much. The V2 rockets Germany fired into Britain, for example, could generally hit pretty close to London. Firing an unguided rocket into an urban area, however, would be a little trickier. First off, any solid-fueled rocket I've seen of decent size leaves a visible trail of smoke (at least the larger ones; amateur rocket guys--correct me if I'm wrong), so it's fairly easy to trace it back to its launch point (not that the launcher would necessarily care).
Also, it would be pretty difficult to launch one of these from an urban area and not be noticed--you'll need a fairly large open field, especially if you're going for a longer range. Yeah, you could launch one straight up from your backyard, but it would come basically straight back down.
Finally, as to guidance--good luck. Even the old V2 was gyro-stabilized, and it did well to hit inside the city it was aimed at. GPS won't do you any good at all. Sure, it will give you a decent position and groundspeed, but it's updated at most at a 1-Hz rate.
To guide a missile, you need high-rate dynamic outputs (I'd say at least 100-Hz for a crude rocket), and good attitude (pitch/roll/yaw) outputs--GPS gives neither. You need an inertial navigation system, or at least an inertial attitude reference system, and those are very, very hard to make. I can think of three companies that sell these systems--two in the US, one in the UK, and I work for one of them (my opinions are my own, not my company's, etc.). They're on the State Department's Significant Military Technology List, which makes them hard to get, even if you've got the $50k-$200k to buy a nav-grade one.
Sure, if you had space to launch one from, and had the math/engineering background necessary to stabilize the rocket, compute its ballistic trajectory (you can do a decent numerical integration of this in Excel, even accounting for decreasing mass and thrust effects pretty easily and quickly, BTW), and had calm (or at least known, steady) winds...
Yeah, you could send a rocket with a small payload on a (pretty flat) trajectory for a few miles and probably manage to hit a (large) building or park-size area. But you're not going to shoot a rocket off at 80 from horizontal from 30 miles away and take out the president's car.
And actually making it explode...that's a whole new matter! Not my field, but I think constructing a fuzing device capable of detonating the warhead in a proximity fashion is beyond the scope of your 'common' terrorist. Likewise, if you wait for the impact to set it off, anything easily constructed to accomplish that would likely be destroyed before it managed to initiate the detonation. Putting in an unstable explosive won't work, either--it would explode on take off (we're talking, what--upwards of 30g's?). That leaves you commanded detonation, so you have to be close enough to see the rocket and detonate it before it smashed into something and broke, which is tricky at those speeds.
So basically, that leaves a short range rocket with a small payload that can't be too volatile, and is probably going to not blow up in the first place, or make a harmless fireball (and it's not heavy enough to make significant shrapnel). I'll admit, you could fill it with scary Chemical X, but I think the best you're going to accomplish is knocking out a window--like that kid who flew a Cessna into the Bank of America building in Tampa, taking out a few windows and half a cubicle.
I don't fear terrorist rockets--it would be a lot simpler to take the money and rent a truck, and fill it with any nasty number of things. Any idiot can do that.
But it's like with anything else. You want to stop people from doing things you don't want with computers? To the jail with them all. Don't want anyone to be able to make anything that might turn into a scary weapon? Throw all us engineers in there, too.
--Ribald
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Water rockets = non-explosive (sort of) (Score:1, Informative)
IIRC, a scuba tank stores more energy than its weight in chemical explosives.
Umm.... (Score:2, Informative)
Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, you can buy a high-power rocket motor at a launch without any permit *if you use it at the launch*. Not the easiest way, but it does work.
Contact your local high-power rocket club. In our area, one of the local vendors got their permits to sell motors, so you can show up at a launch, buy a motor, and fly. Again, not necessarily the easiest or best, but it does work.
Or, you could just use the nitrous-oxide hybrids. No permits required. If your club fronts the money for the initial charging equipment, it's not a bad way to go.
steve
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].
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
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.
Re:One flaw in your argument... (Score:2, Informative)
All about APCP (Score:2, Informative)
I will attempt to straighten some of your views out.
Ok, first off... APCP does NOT EXPLODE.
At atmospheric pressure, most APCP burns at a rate of 1.5mm (0.059 inches) per second. That is very slow, no?
Now, there is a value called "n" which is used in the equation R=a*P^n... for most APCP formulations, this value will be around 0.4. What the mentioned equation does is deterimine the regression rate (burn rate) at elevated pressure by substituting the pressure (P) into the equation (in PSI). A common "a" value to use would be around 0.017 (the "a" and "n" values can be determined by burning "strands" of propellant under pressure and measure how long it takes to burn a certain length strand).
If you work out this equation, you will find that at even 1000psi, the burn rate is still quite slow.
There are differences between gasoline and APCP. APCP contains it's own oxygen source so it can burn in the absence of oxygen in the form of an oxidizer - gasoline is does not.
Yes, gasoline can be very explosive... only when dispersed in a "mist" so the surface-area avaliable for combustion with the air is very high - even FLOUR can explode when "dusted"!
I have been doing experimental rocketry for about 3 years now. Yes, that means I make my own rocket motors - (http://nzex.aorangi-gardens.co.nz/silicone-fligh
I have never seen an accident come close to happening at my local rocket club. Most people who take part in rocketry don't build their own motors anyway - this takes away a large amount of PERCIEVED RISK. In fact, the MOST serious injury I have recieved from my taking part in rocketry is a CUT FINGER from trimming my cast propellant "grains" for use in a motor to get them to fit properly.
You are always going to get the odd stupid, ignorant person who thinks they can take a bunch of chemicals, mix them up like they would a cake recipie and then shove the stuff down a pipe and expect results. These type of people get themselves burnt beyond belief/killed - Fortunately, these type of people handily remove themselves from the gene pool very effectively.
To all of you who think guidance systems are easy to implement - think again. Hey hey, just where are you going to get a MIL-SPEC GPS system from? How are you going to control those servos with the utmost accuracy required for guidance? Got the software skills to program it all to work?
I don't think so... think about what you are saying.
- Matt
- (www.nzex.tk)
Re:i feel this is a whiner article ...sorry guys.. (Score:2, Informative)
The problem here is the combination of truly burdensome regulation (more on this later) _AND_ it's complete lack of effectiveness. While the BATFE has people focused on hobby rocketry, real terrorists are laughing their ass off making real bombs that really explode out of things that still aren't regulated (ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, gasoline, alcohol just to name a few of the unregulated materials). Further, the raw materials for APCP are not regulated, and, it is quite easy to learn to make your own motors. It requires some machining resources, and, the mixing process is nowhere near as safe as the final product. As such, most hobbyists prefer to buy their motors rather than build them. I'm betting that the obstacle of building your own motor would not be a significant hurdle to a terrorist. Just so you know, the basic ingredients of APCP are Ammonium Perchlorate (this is the only item that takes some searching to find a place you can buy it, but, it is readily available, and, if you were desperate you could substitute Ammonium Nitrate, although it is not as safe and the mixture becomes more critical), Rubber, Metal (usually iron if you want a red flame, copper for a blue flame, aluminum for a white flame, but, also affects the rate of combustion), a small amount of black powder, and
a plasticizer (essentially an epoxy or resin). All of these things are
easily purchased annonymously.
Now about how burdensome the regulation is... Prior to this regulation, I could go to a launch, buy motors, launch them in rockets at the launch, and I didn't need to worry about federal paperwork, regulation, etc. Now, I have to present my LEUP, provide a copy of my LEUP and clearance letter to each dealer (a signed copy), maintain records of each and every motor I buy, burn, return, destroy, store (wait, I'm not allowed to store any more), or otherwise dispose of for a period of at least 3 years. I have to allow the BATFE to inspect my home at any time of their choosing (even though I have a non-storage permit and don't store any explosives), had
to submit an FBI fingerprint card, and had to be subjected to a federal background check. For this privilege, I also have to pay the BATFE $100 and go through the whole process all over again every three years. I can no longer trade motors or sell them to other rocketeers at launches (instead, sometimes we'll loan rockets -- he'll fly his motor in my rocket and I'll fly my motor in his rocket), but, usually, we both have to find a friendly dealer, then, we both "return" our motors to the dealer who then sellse them back to us. All because to sell to each other, under the new regulations, at least one of us would have to have a Dealer permit instead of a User permit.
This is not the inconvenience of having to deal with DMV to get a drivers license. This is a much more burdensome regulation. Imagine if gasoline (which is far more explosive than APCP) were regulated in this manner. I bet you wouldn't be saying "it's a small price and smaller burden for the greater good of automotive regulations".
Finally, kids come into this in that alot of launches have kids present. They fly low power stuff (A-G) and have a great time doing it, but, one of the things that inspires them to fly the low power stuff and learn about rocketry is watching the higher power stuff. Also, kids like to hang around and learn from the adults that are flying the higher power stuff. They get not only theoretical lessons, but, they actually get to see lessons in applied physics, mathematics, structural engineering. They
actually start to see the application of what they're being taught, and,
that makes them much more interested. Kids at launches start actually asking questions and listening to answers about gravity, acceleration,
mass, Newton's laws of motion, etc. They see what happe