Rocket Hobbyists Prevail Over Feds In Court Case 546
Ellis D. Tripp writes "DC District Court judge Reggie Walton has finally ruled in the 9-year old court case pitting the model rocketry community against the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ruling is a 'slam dunk' for the rocketry community, stating that the BATFE ignored scientific evidence and overstepped its bounds by classifying ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) as an 'explosive.' Effective immediately, the BATFE has no legal jurisdiction over hobby rocket motors, and a federal Low Explosives User's Permit will no longer be needed in order to purchase APCP motors. The full text of the Judge's decision is reproduced at the link."
No Sausage Needed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Today we set to find out, whether we can really build a Quassam rocket [wikipedia.org] on a budget.
I hope they are building them on a budget. 1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me ;)
if we can successfully hit police station with it.
Why am I picturing Adam Savage saying something like "Alright, the way I figure it, we've got a 10% chance of hitting the police station, a 50% chance of it blowing up on the launchpad and a 40% chance of getting arrested! Let's do this thing!"
Re:Build your own Quassam at home! (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, it doesn't. The Israelis do far better... in fact the kill ratio is 100-to-1 in their favor. During the Gaza adventure, IDF killed 1,434 Palestinians, while 13 Israelis were killed (3 by rockets fired.) [reuters.com] 5,303 Palestinians injured.
No wonder the Americans invest in Israel, they're the winning horse...
Good Decision! (Score:5, Insightful)
The National Association of Rocketry argued that ammonium percholorate is not an explosive (it is in fact an oxidizer) and appended massive amounts of technical information to show that it is not.
The BATF replied "we don't give a damn about the facts, we will regulate it and you can't stop us."
And, after nine years, the judge ruled that the facts actually are relevant, and the BATF is allowed to regulate only the things that they are legally allowed to regulate.
Congratulations, NAR.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good luck with hitting anything with an unguided rocket,
We'll make up for that by doing volume!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go look at the Interwebs and see the Bomb Shelter BUS STOPS they have in areas bordering Gaza and the West Bank. It's not just the rockets, its the fact that Isralis are living in a land where when they hear the rocket warning alarms, they have mere seconds to be inside the nearest bomb shelter. These people are as trained in what to do when a rocket is incoming as members of the US Military and they have daily "drills".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually they weren't even told not to do it again. The rule could be recreated provided the BATFE can comply with administrative procedures for classifying APCP as an explosive. As others have noted, that would be very difficult since APCP isn't really explosive.
I guess my point is when citizens break BATFE rules, they go to prison, get fined or get probation(or all 3). When the BATFE violates it's own rules, they're simply told "No." and given another shot to do it the way they were supposed to.
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so important. There's no penalties for passing unconstitutional laws, violating oaths of office, or overstepping legal authority. It kinds defeats the purpose of having limitations on power, if there is no penalty for violating those limitations.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose Marijuana does pose a serious risk of starting fires. It is also a leading cause of obesity among stoners.
Very dangerous indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Congrats! (Score:4, Funny)
Seems to me that the media are the real terrorists, then. Whenever I hear hoopla on the news about "Hamas shooting rockets at Israel," I'm thinking something more like the V2, not a dinky model rocket!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lust for power isn't limited to only Democrats or only Republicans.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Won't someone PLEASE think about the children!
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
You know, the Branch Davidians had a large number of weapons, all LEGAL, and were involved in firearms sales WITH A FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALER PERMIT. The Sheriff knew Koresh personally, and was positive that if ATF had simply asked him to meet with them, he would have shown up. As it was, Koresh was talking to the ATF agents, unarmed, in front of his building when ATF let loose and Koresh was injured.
So don't go blaming the ATF for the suicidal things nutballs do when the cops come to say no you can't have dozens of 12 year old "wives".
ATF has nothing to do with "12 year old wives". They are Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Their search warrant had nothing to do with "12 year old wives", it was based on an allegation already dealt with by the local sheriff that someone had heard "automatic gunfire" coming from the compound. The Sheriff had investigated and determined that nothing illegal was involved. The ATF didn't tell the court this when they got their warrant. In other words, ATF lied.
Yes, I think it is quite reasonable to blame ATF for shooting someone who is unarmed and standing on their front porch talking to them. It is also reasonable to blame ATF for trying to entrap someone into building them a cut-off shotgun, and to then shoot that person's wife for no cause. (Ruby Ridge)
Because if you think we should just let people willing to kill themselves be a law unto themselves,
If you call following federal regulations regarding gun ownership and sales to be "a law unto themselves" because you don't like someone, pretty soon we'll have a society run by your wants and fears instead of the one run by rule of law. I'd say that you were "a law unto yourself" in that case. I know which one I prefer.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
no, the Waco Siege pretty much proved that lies and unsubstantiated rumors about non-existent full-automatic weapons and underage brides can summon a mass-murderer like Janet Reno with homicidal goons to use incendiaries to start fires and gun down those that try to flee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
second amendment rights (Score:5, Interesting)
Let the toy soldiers wear their camouflage underwear and play with their guns. Those of us in the know see the key in chemistry, physics, and the willingness to build a gadget that will solve the problem. For better or worse.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country. .... The Israeli's depend on missiles
Take away the Israel's rifles, and I guarantee that the terrorists will stop resorting to bombs. They'll just get the rifles, and make sort work of anyone who gets in their way.
A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Informative)
No. Read up on Thailand and Israel, where either teachers have guns or armed guards patrol the schools.
The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Funny)
"The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns."
And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Well here, let me use a few more catchphrases for you:
"An armed society is a polite society."
"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
And what is wrong with this?
2nd amendment + heller decision = The [individual] right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If you want to ensure the security of the States and the Union without giving up essential liberty, logic dicates that you educate citizens in the way of the modern warrior and arm them accordingly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
YM: "An armed society is a police society."
arm them accordingly.
I really, honestly think bazookas are the best "tool" for modern warrior.
Actually, I bet the citizens of Grand Lake, CO probably would agree with you after watching Killdozer [wikipedia.org] blow through their town a few years ago.
Extremes aside, if every citizen was trained with handgun, shotgun, and rifle proficiencies (and allowed to carry where they wished to), just about any violent crime issues could be quickly solved by the local populace. Eventually you run out of criminals or the criminals decide to seek new business opportunities.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Interesting)
>The law of unintended consequences strikes again. If you tell criminals that everyone is armed and dangerous then they will shoot first. Instead of getting mugged or robbed you will get murdered and looted. Guns will be easier to steal. More crimes of passion will result in death.
Bullshit. Look at states that have enacted shall issue conceal carry permit laws. Violent crime goes down. Look at Illinois, which has the highest "gun control" laws in the nation, and has one of the highest if not the highest rate of gun crime in the USA. This statement of yours was made by the gun control activists in every state where shall issue CC laws were passed. This unintended consequence everyone feared NEVER HAPPENED.
>Furthermore, I wonder why it's so important to score the kill. Why can't you arm yourself with a nonlethal weapon? Is the additional security of a gun really worth the added risk? I suspect that hormones are playing a larger role than reason in the minds of those who feel they need their gun for protection.
Non-lethal weapons have a tendency to not work on everyone. Bullets work on everyone. People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit and those people overall have a very good record of only using lethal force when appropriate.
If you create a non-lethal weapon that does work on everyone with a higher success rate than small arms do, give the police and military a phone call, they'd all be very interested, as would gun owners that carry for self defense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit..."
Depends on the state. In Washington all I have to do is answer ten or so questions (are you crazy, are you a felon, etc.), get fingerprinted and pay the fee. If I pass the background check, I get the permit.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.
And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings. For all the gun control in Russia they still have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are you kidding? Russia is run by the Mob, and they're not big on gun control.
That's kind of the point isn't it? Regular citizens aren't arm themselves at all in Russia (handguns are outlawed, rifles/shotguns are hard to get and useless for self-defense outside the home in any case) so they are at the mercy of criminal elements that don't give two shits that handgun they are carrying is illegal.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:4, Informative)
It so happens that a lot of fatal accidents with guns in the US are caused by guns kept 'under the pillow' as well
Citation?
In other words, the rest of us is comparing civilized countries where the rule of law is upheld to other civilized countries and the conclusion can only be: liberal gun laws get a lot more people killed than strict gun laws, if properly upheld
That's an interesting conclusion. How do you explain how Norway and Finland (two European countries with a lot of civilian guns) have a lower murder rate than Luxembourg (virtually no civilian firearms to speak of) or Poland (very few)? How do you explain how Wyoming and Montana have lower murder rates than New York or California? Could it just be that crime is caused by socio-economic factors and the access to firearms has very little to do with it? I find it interesting how "correlation is not causation" is a standard refrain around here in every argument except those put forth by the gun control crowd.
The anti-social behaviour of people wanting to be able to 'defend themselves', at great cost to society at large, is despicable.
A) You haven't demonstrated any "great cost" to society, B) This statement borders on trolling and I'm surprised nobody with mod points caught it. If you are interested in looking at a real study here [harvard.edu] is an interesting one from Harvard of all places. They set out to disprove the notion that more guns = more violence. It's a pretty compelling read.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Funny)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Funny)
As a mad scientist, I wholeheartedly agree!
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.
Actually, that was all but explicitly understood until fairly recently when anti-gun crazies took power. People are all too much in a hurry to forget, not so many years ago, your neighbour might have a CANNON in his garage for the local militia. His neighbour, in turn, might have a mortar...so on and so on. Let's not also forget many powerful warships were actually privately held, and in many cases, owned by private merchant consortiums. Please keep in mind, warships were the strategic arm of their day.
Even as recently after WWII, it was common for soldiers to retire with their weapon - which include BAR machine guns, .45 cal "Tommy Guns", and .45 cal pistols. Additionally, during WWII, civilians living on strategic coast lines were trained and ISSUED artillery to be used against any enemy ships or submarines found off the coast. And let's not forget CAP pilots, flying privately owned aircraft, dropped military issued bombs on U-boats off the coast, inside US waters.
The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia. Its only been in fairly recent times anti-gun, anti-Constitution, anti-second amendment nuts have been empowered enough to spit on our forefathers with the ignorant applause of the majority. Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
And to clarify, many, many different types of weapons are categorized as "strategic arms" - which even includes air planes. Simple fact is, according to our forefathers and the US Constitution, militias have this right. And up until not so many years ago, this right was implicitly understood.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Informative)
NO. THE PEOPLE HAVE THIS RIGHT. The militia aspect of the 2nd Am is a subordinate inclusive clause, whose presence or absence does not change a RIGHT of the PEOPLE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What good is your right to collect semiautomatic weapons against a tank or jet fighter?
You need to learn some basic history. Bolt action rifles shot down jets during Vietnam. Afghanistan shows us semiautomatic weapons work wonders against tank crews; they all have to eat, sleep, go to the restroom, and refuel. Just ask the Russians. In fact, it took helicopters to turn the tide back in Russia's favour - to wit the US provided AA-missiles to shift things back the other way.
And in the end, your point is exact
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.
This has always been one of my least favorite lines of defense. Why not base your arguments on what we find to be right at the current time? The founding father's certainly don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and they never had to fit them into conditions that exist in the present.
Re: (Score:2)
Rockets don't end wars. Soldiers storming into a Hezbollah or Hamas stronghold will. Rockets are great for starting wars, but only soldiers on the ground can end them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure; after we disbanded their military, restructured their government, and engineered a retrovirus to genetically alter their genome to rechannel all their aggression into a bizarre pop culture.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Informative)
Because of snipers using these weapons, they have to essentially 'corral' their strykers, and shoot smoke in the air when they 'mount and dismount.' The main personal hatch is at the rear. Without these tactics, they're picked off one-by-one when exiting. He said they only made that mistake once.
I'm not downplaying the dangers of IED's but don't disregard the danger of one quality shooter, with a 60 year-old weapon.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean to say, don't underestimate the dangers of the native population using guerrilla tactics against an invading force.
They get a bonus for knowing the land. They get a bonus for not identifying themselves as combatants. They get a bonus for being able to accurately identify their enemies, who are loud and obvious. They get a bonus for being sneaky.
The odds are stacked against us, even with all of our equipment and training.
We can take care of any traditional army in the world without much trouble, barring larger countries like China and Russia. We cannot, however, easily quash a pissed off and unorganized army in a small shit hole of a country. Russia learned this years ago, as they made the same mistake, and they were better prepared than we were!
The moral of the story is that snipers, IEDs, and guerrilla warfare, are all coming together in places like Iraq and Afganistan. A single civilian with a rifle or a 150mm shell can take out an entire squad of Marines and still make it home for lunch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure we can. If we decided so, we have a number of options which can easily quash all resistance in Iraq. Exercising those options would require anywhere from about 20 minutes to a few weeks, depending on which option is used.
If we showed exactly the same level of care for innocent bystanders as the insurgents in Iraq do, we could end this as quickly as we desired.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just think about that. Janet Reno said that the Department of the Treasury would have its grubby hands all over something that w
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:4, Insightful)
"Rifle" is the general term for a longarm that has a rifled barrel. Hunting has never had anything to do with classifying something as a rifle. Rifles have been standard military issue for longer than the NRA has been around. At the time of their founding the the issued weapon for a US soldier was a singleshot breachloaded rifle (the springfield). It was popular for those with the funds to replace this weapon with a 16 shot, Lever Action, Henry Rifle. This was the state of the art, medium range, antipersonnel weapon of its day and it was a civilian weapon. Today it would be like being able to buy a SAW machinegun compared to an issue M-16. In 1871 there were no restrictions. Put a canon in the front yard? No prob. Mount a Gatling gun on your coach? Good idea. But we were coming out of the Civil War and there was a strong push to increase Federal powers over individual freedoms and the NRA was formed to oppose this.
So I don't think the NRA has expanded the scope of their purview. If they were to have lobbied for a citizen's 2nd amendment rights to equal what we had when they were founded in 1871, we could all own our own Abrams tanks and Apache helecopters for the daily commute. They stuck to lobbying pro infantry weapons, because what you want in a militia are people that know how to shoot infantry weapons. Frankly, given their charter I think they're way behind in what they should be pushing for.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me
This is the main reason I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.... American Civil Liberties Union, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.
Actually, no, they don't bother with the 2nd amendment because in their own words [aclu.org]: "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
Thanks for playing though. Next time trying actually reading their position on the issue before opening your mouth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you've answered your question. Why should the ACLU lift a flying finger to protect the 2nd Amendment? The NRA has a laserlike focus on the 2nd, has more resources, and doesn't give a damn about the rest of the Bill of Rights.
They're actually very complementary organizations, but don't tell that to an NRA member, because he'll probably go for the rifle in his pickup's gun rack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, actually, I don't think that's the reason. (Of course, my question was rhetorical as I know the answer).
It's because they disagree [aclu.org] with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right -- preferring to embrace a modern notion, never endorsed by the Supreme Court, that it's some sort of "collective" right. It's odd that an organization which so vigorously (usually rightfully) defends individual rights would choose to read the word people as state in one, and only one, place in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
O RLY? [aclu.org]
I think what you meant to say was that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment differs from yours and is therefore invalid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACLU doesn't pretend the second amendment doesn't exist; they are neutral in regard to it, and take the interpretation that it's a collective right and not an individual one (more details [aclu.org]). I also think they stay off second amendment cases because other groups (I can think of two of the top of my head) are much more well funded and hyper focused on it.
The ACLU will generally help those who ask for it when they t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ACLU doesn't pretend the second amendment doesn't exist; they are neutral in regard to it
As your own post seems to point out (and as I did [slashdot.org] a few posts up), they are NOT neutral with regard to Second Amendment. In fact, they openly and specifically state that they disagree with the SCOTUS interpretation in Heller -- which is, I believe, the only SCOTUS precedent that addresses the bogus "collective rights" position that the ACLU takes. Because they take a discredited position to support the claim that "neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue", the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just think about that. Janet Reno said that the Department of the Treasury would have its grubby hands all over something that was classified as a munition, and the NRA didn't utter a word, even on general "we hate the Clinton administration" principal. It is undeniably the case that guns are very effective tools; but the 2nd amendment lobby is, I think, rather myopic. They get admirably worked up about specifically gun related stuff; but are oddly passive on relevant ancillary issues. Without encryption, that "well regulated militia" isn't going to last long against the Feds.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/504/ [xkcd.com]
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't believe this was ever actually up for debate.
Seriously.... model rocket engines..... ya know lets just ban shoes since they could be used for terrorist acts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of the motors are 6" in diameter and 5 feet long and weigh a couple hundred pounds and have a thousand pounds of thrust. I generally agree that APCP is not explosive but it's not silly to at least think of some sort of regulation. These aren't black powder 1/2A6-2s from Estes.
Brett
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the people who will buy them are the people who can afford them. Being able to afford them is no guarantor of knowledge or common sense. Consider the number of people able to afford GPS navigators - and follow them off into la la land as has been reported here repeatedly on Slashdot. Consider the a
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Because something is potentially dangerous it needs to be regulated?
God, I hate that mentality.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In all fairness, model rocket engines (above the Estes A-D types) are seriously nothing to play around with. A poorly-made engine could easily explode, and licensing the larger ones in the interest of public safety isn't a bad thing. But still, I think the government has far bigger problems to deal with than mis-labeling a rocket propellant and ruining hobbies.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
The large 5 five foot long 6" in diameter rocket motors that you are talking about are only done by professionalsm, are extremely rare, and are generally not for sale to the public. Before launching something of that size, there are other agencies that have to be coordinated with such as the FAA who require distances, maps, trajectories and all sorts of information. I am not up to that level yet, but I'm close to that level. The biggest concern for the rocketry community with this lawsuit is that people were not able to aquire a rocket motor because of the paperwork involved in getting the license. Many people simply couldn't because they lived within 75 feet of a neighbor.
My biggest thrill was watching us give a demonstration to the ATF when they visited us, we lit the rocket motor (or explosive as they refer to it) and then watched all these agents lean forward to look at this thing on the ground that was burning like a road flare.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Those are not being used by professionals and certainly ARE available for sale to the public. I have been to plenty of HPR launches and "professional" is not part of the equation.
I am not arguing the BATFE case because I think they were wrong. But with this decision, the only policing to be done will be self-policing by Tripoli and NAR. And my actual point is that the original poster trivialized the entire issue. It's arguable point, but it's not trivial.
After having seen numerous LMR and HPR models shot through civilian roofs, carports, leave large divots in blacktop, and generally shot into uncontrolled areas and over crowds, with full oversight from the NAR and Tripoli, I really don't think self-policing is viable. I mentioned this on rec.models.rockets a few years ago and nearly got lynched, I briefly exchanged emails with Mark Bundick on the topic, but while several people saw the issue, the LMR/HPR crowd seems bound and determined to keep going until they kill someone, and I wasn't about to tilt at that windmill.
Brett
BATFE is redundant (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The BATF (when did they add the E anyway?) was never supposed to be a law enforcement agency. They were created as revenuers, all they were originally supposed to do is make sure the moonshiner's were paying their booze tax.
Re:BATFE is redundant (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, as somebody once mentioned, it's much more reasonable to have it as the name of a store rather than the name of a government agency. I'd go there...
Re:BATFE is redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
If only the UK were more sensible (Score:3, Informative)
Great. Cmmon sense prevails.. (Score:2)
I've been dreaming of this day (Score:4, Interesting)
This was a smackdown (Score:4, Interesting)
Next up on the ATF list of banned substances: (Score:5, Funny)
Mentos and Pepsi.
-Sean
ATFE Blows Itself Up (Score:5, Informative)
In the figurative sense certainly, by hiring an 'expert' to do their testing who knew nothing about the field, produced results that were nonsensical and pretty much conducted scientific fraud at the behest of ATFE. Proper expert testimony was provided by rocket motor manufacturers who had worked in the field for the government and/or contractors, still consulted to the government, and worked on other projects like SpaceShip 1. Why ATFE didn't see this coming is a mystery.
They also nearly blew themselves up literally. They 'required' one of the motor manufacturers to sell them motors at market price (he had initially declined). They rented a van, loaded up their rockets and headed to the desert to do some testing. They intended to prove that high powered rockets could be used to bring down an aircraft. They ignored the rules that virtually all rocketers follow regarding distance between launcher and people, rockets and motors. They launched one out of the back of the van. The back blast lit their other motors in the van. Their rented van proceeded to burn merrily to the ground. They denied it, but it was proven otherwise. They started to try to get a gag order but apparently used their one and only Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious on this rather than one the case as a whole.
As for other regulation, high powered rocketry has been well regulated all along, just as its little cousin, model rocketry, is. The rules originated with G. Harry Stine, one time range safety officer at White Sands and pioneer of model rocketry. The high powered rules evolved over time, and have been considered acceptable in development and content by the FAA, the National Fire Protection Association, and similar relevant agencies. We have been trusted for 50 years to develop and follow our own regulations suitable to these agencies. Now we can ignore the arbitrary, stifling, baseless rules concocted by ATFE (put into force without due process) and carry on another 50 years. The regulations we have in place cover all airframes and power systems up through 200,000 newtons, where the FAA's office of space transportation takes over.
The standing regulations for high powered rocketry are available the National Association of Rocketry at http://nar.org/hpcert/NARhprintro.html [nar.org] Only high powered motors were involved in the ruling. Model rockets (including "large model rockets", up to 3.3 pounds loaded and 4 ounces of propellant) were not involved.
As for APCP, although it produces a large amount of exhaust gas which can be channeled through a nozzle to produce thrust (see the space shuttle's boosters for an example), it burns at about the rate of a piece of paper. Thus while it might "conflagerate" it is hardly worth bothering with as an explosive. It is actually more profitable to use small model rocket motors for explosives as they are black powder.
NAR #28965, High Power Certification level 1
Rocketeer since June 1964
Re:terrorists? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we just realize that life is dangerous and grow the fuck up.
Otherwise we should ban cars, liquor, cigarettes, saturated fat, and the jonas brothers... cause these have caused far more strife, suffering, and death, than the terrorists could ever hope for.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses. Heck, even if someone just wants to see a rocket shoot up into the air very fast, let them. Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".
It's also how most Darwin Awards happen.
Also a worthwhile human endeavor.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people really need cigarettes and liquor just for kicks? Or is it just "haha lookit me do drugs!"?
Most of the model rocketeers that would be using these engines would send up scientific payloads (temperature and pressure data, video telemetry, etc). Sure, they aren't doing the latest and most breaking scientific discoveries, but you'd be hard pressed to find people building model rockets with warheads in them, although I'm
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why in the world is "haha lookit my rockit go!" not a valid purpose? I would wager that for many a future engineer, physicist, astronomer, etc model rocketry is what set the hook of their interest in their future profession. I guess if we want everyone to be writers (and not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one) we don't need to encourage private experimentation and exploration and the sciences. But if we ever aspire to be more than that, we sure better encourage more kids to "haha lookit my rocki
Re:terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, do we really need to allow you to drive beyond the city limits? I mean, if freedoms are defined as "what you really need to get along", why I bet I could deprive you of pretty much all your freedoms.
Freedom means having to put up with things that may be inherently dangerous. There's an old saying by a guy named Benjamin Franklin about that, but then again, since I'm thinking of removing your freedom to use the Internet or look at books, I don't suppose you'll ever know about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My girlfriend (cue +5 Funny reply) told me about her home state of Virginia moving the fences along the freeways back to 50 feet, because they were concerned about kids climbing over them on a dare. Since they didn't figure they could stop this behavior, they decided to make it safe ("over the fence" is no longer a traffic zone).
Then and now, I don't see why they have fences in the first place. Without fences, a kid will die... and then everyone will know the story about the kid who died, and the idiocy wil
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While APCP is the best choice, common table sugar and potassium nitrate makes a decent propellant as well in a pinch.
If absolutely necessary, potassium nitrate can be had by peeing into straw bales and letting it ferment for a while. Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.
APCP is used in rocketry primarily because it is a decent propellant that is safe to ship, store, and use with simple precautions. Plenty of other propellant options are available as well without a license
Re:terrorists? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.
Don't be too sure about that... Never underestimate the stupidity of a government agency.
Re:terrorists? (Score:4, Interesting)
In addition to not being a trivial exercise, the Feds tend to view building a guidance system as going beyond model rocketry to building a guided a missile, which they frown on. You might be able to get away with very small ones, but I don't really have a good feel for what the minimum weight you could get for servos, control computer and sensors would be, and what size rocket that would indicate.
We build ~150-lbf thrust hybrid rockets for our senior design projects, and in the past few years its become more and more difficult to do anything interesting because of increased restrictions, from the school administration, the FAA, and Department of Homeland Security. Having a launch site that was pretty near Crawford, TX also made things difficult, had to find a new launch site.
Re:terrorists? (Score:5, Informative)
This is simply not true.
First, the FAA (Office of Commercial Spaceflight, or AST) regulates rocketry unless it's intended to be a weapon. I.e., don't load it with explosives or flash powder, or fire it horizontally from a tube, and it's fine.
Second, guided rockets are fairly ok now.
The old FAA regulations for rockets treated guided rockets as needing permits or waivers for flights. Now, if you're under certain altitude thresholds and far enough from an airport, it's fine - hovering flight under guidance out on a ranch for example just requires calling the nearest airport and notifying them.
A flight out of one of the (few) unregulated airspace locations in the US (Black Rock desert, for example) to any altitude, with a rocket with less than 200,000 pound thrust-seconds of impulse (up to about a thousand pounds of propellant, give or take some performance normalizing) also requires no permitting or waiver, other than notifying the nearest airport a day ahead of time.
Larger rockets, or rockets flown near airports, or not far from innocent bystanders, are subject to increasing scrutiny for safety (of the general public and overflying aircraft).
Even if you do reach the size or performance that requires a waiver or permit, doing the paperwork is being found by experience to be less burdensome than doing a decent job of designing the rocket and testing it. It just isn't the hardest part of it. If you're spending six months to a year building it, what's a month or two's part time effort on the paperwork?
If you're in that performance regime and flying near where you could conceivably kill someone, the FAA will quite reasonably give you plenty of free advice on how not to do that, as will plenty of other amateur and semi-professional and professional rocketry people... John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace has helped other companies and groups out a lot with advice and moral support, and he's far from the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Bang, zoom, straight to the moon of Omicron Persei eight!
Re:In defense of the BATF? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize you can buy black powder, by the pound, in cash, with no identification, right?
Tannerite anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
You can buy binary explosives off the internet in 50 pound lots. You just have to mix it at the point of use on private property and not store it over 24 hours.
Google for boomer shoots and tannerite. Look at the National Firearms Act of 1934 for the definition of what fun stuff is legal with the right tax payment.
Re:In defense of the BATF? (Score:4, Informative)
You can also buy ammonium nitrate and diesel, by the truckload. Black powder is for pikers.
Field and Stream, the hunting and fishing magazine, once published an article showing how to build duck ponds to support duck populations. There, in black and white and color, in the library of my junior freaking high, was an article teaching you how to build bombs. It was great.
Re:In defense of the BATF? (Score:5, Informative)
How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP?
Pretty difficult. APCP consists of AP and a powdered metal (Al or Mg) locked in a matrix of synthetic rubber. The material has about the consistency of a pencil eraser. Anything that would dissolve away the rubber binder would most likely react with the AP.
Besides, AP itself was not regulated by the BATFE, except for a VERY finely granulated (If it is not overly difficult, the BATF has every reason to be worried that mass distribution of this without licensing could open a channel for acquiring explosives materials domestically and in bulk under the guise of "hobbyist".
First of all, this whole court decision was based on the fact that APCP is NOT an explosive. Even contained in a sealed metal pipe, it is pretty worthless for building a bomb. And second, these motors will not exactly be "mass distribution" type items you will find on the shelves at Walmart or whatever. Purchase will STILL require certification through one of the 2 national rocketry organizations (NAR or Tripoli), HAZMAT shipping (which can only go to a valid address, not a PO box) and legally using them still requires airspace waivers from the FAA.
It wouldn't be the first time -- pseudoephedrine can be readily broken down to ephedrine, which is one of the components needed for methanphetamine production (and derivatives).
Which makes for a major PITA for law-abiding citizens who now have to get the 3rd degree from a pharmacist to get a pack of allergy pills. Meanwhile, the meth keeps pouring in from the "superlabs" south of the border. At least we're all safe from those evil packages of Sudafed, though!
Re:In defense of the BATF? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I think you're missing the point here. APCP is not an explosive. That is the issue. The BATFE does not control chemicals that can be used to make explosives. In fact, binary explosives, ammonium nitrate, and black powder in quantities of less than 50 pounds are all supposed to be out of their jurisdiction. Why then, should they be investigating a mixture that doesn't even detonate?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP?
Makes about as much sense as buying 4 cases of soda because you need 2 cups of sugar for a recipe.
All kinds of chemicals you can make explosives out of are mostly unregulated, why goof around trying separate AP out of commercial rocket propellent.
Re:These have to be said.... (Score:4, Funny)