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.
Some good, some FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
The latest explanation about the case progress from Mr. Bundick is at: http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html
Full archive of all NAR articles regarding this and related issues:
http://nar.org/legislative.html
As for "losing" members, last I heard both NAR and Tripoli were maintaining even membership numbers.
Using CP Technologies as a measure is misleading. Their products are for building your own engines. Very few people are interested in that to begin with. Most use either single use motors, or more commonly reloadable motors.
Aerotech, manufacturer of mid-power rocket kits as well as reloadable motors and the reloads for them, is doing fine despite having suffered a fire. They filed bankruptcy, were purchsed by another company to keep them going, and are back in business full tilt, supplying thousands of rocketeers with motors and fuel.
We're supposed to take the word of ATFE that rockets are dangerous? Well, I guess they are in the wrong hands. ATFE burned down a rented van by being stupid while trying to test rockets to prove they were dangerous. See: http://www.maxthrust.net/displayarticle749.html
NAR #28965, 40 years without a rocket related accident or damage.
These aren't the rocket's I used to play with (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a link on the bottom of the page "Homeland Security & Model Rocketry". Basically anything they sell is still legal.
It's just motors with greater than .9 lbs of fuel. That's Huge and could very well be used as a weapon.
Perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah Right (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesnt affect most rocketeers (Score:5, Interesting)
Oooh, model rockets, scaaary.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, though, the model rockets we used to build were cool and all, but they are much less dangerous than the average twelve-gauge shotgun that you can by at your local Walmart.
Still, I have to remember that the government is currently run by people who think that you can be hexed by Harry Potter books, I guess this is sort of the start of the Interregnum (R. A. Heinlein, for those who don't know... he wasn't that far off, except for thinking the First Prophet would be named Nehemiah Scudder...)
This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians too (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if I feel more annoyed by this kind of thing, or more safe. It seems that if someone actually has a permit to buy display scale fireworks, they wouldn't be using them for anything questionable. Plus, once they have that level of expertise it wouldn't be too difficult for them to brew up their own home grown bomb if they really wanted to blow something up.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:1, Interesting)
Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
It breaks my heart to think that kids might not be able to experience the joy and wonder that rocketry brought me.
next on the a$$cr0ft list (Score:3, Interesting)
When will RC cars and Aircraft be outlawed?
I seem to remember a scene in a movie where an RC car fitted with a bomb was used to explode a car.
When you take all of the things that could be used in violent acts away, people invent new methods (and generally more efficient) methods for doing the things you planned on preventing.
Case in point; it was too hard to get enough explosives to damage the WTC buildings, but highjack a couple of airplanes fueled to cross the continent and you have the means to do so.
Why not outlaw planes? why not require background checks to fly? I defer to George Carlin on this one, surely a large fist could be used to take control of a plane, will we have strength tests at the gates?
While I rattle on about how stupid we've become, why not just sedate all plane passengers with enough to keep them out cold for the duration of the flight? you fall asleep in the terminal and wake up at your destination? Heck, why not just sedate the entire population?
If you spend all of your time trying to prevent the things that could happen, nothing will happen and no progress will be made.
End of silly rant.
Perhaps the potential for payload is an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Some sort of anthrax aerosol or something that explodes in mid-air over a small area. Maybe in a neighborhood or park. I don't know -- I'm just speculating here. Makes you wonder if it could be done.
However, if THAT is the sort of issue that they're raising with these poor rocketry hobbyists, then when will (if it's not happened already) model airplane/helicopter hobbyists have to start filling out government forms? I mean, strap some sort of acid dispersal system onto the bottom of a remote control helicopter and actually CONTROL where you start spraying people (again -- just wild speculation here). THAT sounds to me like more of a threat than model rockets.
My 2 cents.
IronChefMorimoto
Link to Kettering info (Score:1, Interesting)
November 18, 2003
Web posted at: 12:21 PM EST
Source: ARSA
(ROL Newswire) -- Kettering University in Michigan has decided to discontinue their on-campus, student-run rocketry club due to the expenses of ATFE licensing and associated liability issues for the University. The decision made earlier in the school year was a major disappointment to students.
Kettering University has its origins in the General Motors Institute. For almost 80 years, it has maintained close ties with General Motors who is a corporate partner with the University. Kettering uses a unique system of co-op education that combines classroom studies with professional work experiences. The university recently opened a $40 million Engineering and Science Center that will house the Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Chemistry.
Time to adapt? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironically, this would probably make for a less safe hobby, as I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a liquid fuelled rocket that ruptured its fuel tank and/or oxidizer on launch.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:1, Interesting)
Ok then.
Re:Some good, some FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
"While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."
We're talking real rockets here! And even if you ignore potential terrorist use, it does seem reasonable to have limitations on how much rocket fuel can be stored by a hobbiest (or anyone) in a residential neighborhood.
So it does seem like the regulations are over the top (story hype doesn't help), but I'm still trying to figure out it they are really all that unreasonable.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't like guns.
But I'm against gun control precisely because I won't be a hypocrite who fights for the First Amendment and ignores that inconvenient Second one. Indeed, my worries about the injustice of convicting under Federal gun laws recently prevented me from sitting on a jury after I voiced my concerns.
But I don't know of any case where Ashcroft or the current Administration has eroded Second Amendment rights; indeed, when it came to searching for terrorists after 9-11, Ashcroft told the government to search for terrorist suspects' names on all government lists except lists of gun owners [msnbc.com].
I'd be glad to add to my list however: if you know of an example where Ashcroft or the Bush administration has abrogated Second, Third, or Seventh Amendment rights, please let me know!
Re:Retreivable fireworks -- no reason to restrict (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.
Unfortunately, it seems to be an often ignored part of the Constitution....
Re:What about gun rights (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why let truth get in the way of an anti-govt ra (Score:3, Interesting)
So what, in your opinion, constitutes a MODEL ROCKET?
These people [portalofevil.com] seem to have some interesting ideas, should you need some suggestions.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:1, Interesting)
UN Resolution 194
UN Resolution 242
UN Resolution 446
Where does incompetence cross over to malice? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd agree with you... if I hadn't spent nine months after 9/11 arguing with my friends that we should too give Bush a chance, that the unintended consequences weren't the result of malicious intent.
I finally gave up the argument during the mid-term elections. Mostly it was the "poison pill" restriction of civil rights for people within the Dept. of Homeland Security. That was nothing, nothing but a low tactic, and it was one they had to go out of their way to carry out. No unintended consequences there. They knew who they were choosing to screw, and that they were doing it to paint guys like Max Cleland as unpatriotic to win their elections.
Look up. You have a President whose administration has argued a)that we're fighting a war whose beginning and end can only be declared by him; and b)that he's got all-but-dictatorial power when we're at war. Sometimes, he grants, he chooses not to exercise that power -- but he says he has it, and puts his signature by that. His legal advisors are set to work justifying that position.
Arbitrary power has arbitrary consequences -- to wit, this example. The cracking end of that whip happens in places like Abu Graib.
I'll judge us by how we correct the unintended consequences, not by how well we rationalize them. And I don't see one shred of effort by those in power right now to do anything but bury stories they think are unfavorable to their staying in power. Bush will try to paint Kerry as a raving lunatic for wanting to restrict the Patriot Act in libraries. He'd do the same if Kerry talked about model rocket hobbyists. There's nothing unintentional about those choices, either. They know what they're doing.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually..... (Score:1, Interesting)
See, an associate of an associate, I won't name names, built rockets with me and my father. He thought it would be cool to build a really big one. So he did. And launched it. Now, we had a nice big field, but it was only a mile from a big highway. This isn't a problem with those cheap Estes things, but this was a missile. And there was a good wind that day.
Long story short, he nearly took out a Coca Cola bottling plant.
Can't be used for terrorism my ass. Though I wouldn't be worried, as giant rockets are really hard to sneak in and out of anywhere. You too can learn this if you try to drive around with a 6 foot model rocket in your car.
~Anonymous and Cowardly
As Iraq is showing us... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey wait, can we hit two birds with one stone and sell the ingredients and instructions on mixing rubber particles and N2O to MAKE model rocket engines, thereby skirting the legal restriction? hmmm. Like a website where you can order both ingredients and a reusable mixing chamber + exhaust for them to combust within. It might make model rocketry a little more complicated (hey, this isn't rocket science! oh, wait..) but all things considered, I'm curious what kind of altitude a model rocket can achieve with a propulsion system similar to SpaceShipOne's.
Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine a quick salvo being built and fired off perfectly. During the launches I have seen, more than a few failed on the pad, many failed mid-flight. I have seen video of launches that exploded on the pad (without the help of explosive tips). Lastly, none of the rockets I saw went 60 miles - hell, none broke 20,000 feet, nor went out of the flying envelope secured for the days (pretty large volume, too).
That isn't to say that these things couldn't have been made to be missles - but the expense and expertise required to do so is huge, so huge it hasn't happenned yet, despite high-powered model rocketry being around for well over a decade (and model/experimental rocketry being around for much, much longer).
Finally, for the people that do this - it is a hobby. These are guys (most are grown adult men with maxed out credit cards or other funding) who instead of buying a motorcycle or a boat, build large and expensive rockets to fly and amaze their peers with. As a spectator, I have found it to be an incredible and exciting hobby. It tempts me to get involved in it - I just can't afford it (either monetarily or time-wise)...
Re:Time to adapt? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am wondering if an inversion of this could be done - compressed gasoline or kerosene (or some other flammable liquid - methonol or something), "pumped" (the pressurization of the liquid would do this - pressurize it with an air compressor or hand pump) through a solid-fuel oxidizer core (perhaps ammonia nitrate fertilizer-based?)...
Not sure if this would work - and I am not crazy nor experienced enough to try it out...
Re:Some good, some FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Fond memories (Score:3, Interesting)
My rocket went up, but never came back down, at least that we could tell. I was disappointed to lose the rocket, but all the "cool" kids were trying to get their rocket to go the highest, so my disappearing rocket was a celebrity.
Now, at the time, my parent's house was a block from the school. YEARS later, a neighbor across the street (about a block and a half away from the school) was cleaning his gutters, and found a rocket. He gave it to my mother, in case I wanted to "play around with it". Sure enough, it was MY rocket from that day in eigth grade.
Anyway, just relating a fond memory of rocketry hijinks. And, for what it's worth, I never blew anything up, never hurt myself or others, and didn't develop into a pyromaniac.
Yet.
(Mwahahahha)
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:2, Interesting)
Look at the Arab population still living in Israel. Full suffrage, full rights, full citizenship. I had an Arab Israeli professor in college, and several friends who visited Israel at various points, who all confirm it.
They'd probably give that to the Palestinians, even now, if asked.
It's this pro-terrorist propoganda I can't stand. The Israeli military is justified in just about every action it's taken against the PLO terrorists and their ilk.
Re:Is this really so hard to fathom? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone can invent a fearful scenario: A 747 full of pasengers and fuel, parked at the gate waiting for, what, 20 or 30 minutes for everyone to settle down and the last passengers to make it on board is a pretty static, and explosive, target. Hit the wing with a small charge delivered by a rocket or plane and kaboom! It's a bad day at the airport all around.
The government is trying to scare us into giving up all our freedoms. Convince us that the enemy is all around us. Everywhere. And can strike at any time. We'll willingly give up our freedoms so the government can protect us. Because we want to live. That's 1984.
War on Terror? Please. Who, specifically, are we fighting again? It's like the war on drugs. Spend lots of money. No discernable targets. Lots of media. No actual change.
Shortly after 9/11 there was an add on TV. The add said, "The terrorists thought they would change America"... then you see a street were every house has an American flag flying. The text says, "They were right".
The intent of the add is to show how the terrorists somehow failed because the country united.
Actually the terrorists succeeded because we're living in fear and giving up the very freedoms that make this country great.
You can't fight terrorism by repressing your own people. You can't fight terrorism by bombing foreign lands. Other parts of the world have lived with terrorism for years without freaking out. The key bit there is "lived with". You begin by understanding that there's no "win", there is only dialog and patience and change.
How can you ban an extreme hobby, that has never been used to murder, and keep guns. That's just going after the easy political victories. Look at what we've done to make you safer.
End of rant.
On Other News . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
How is that any different than the issue we have at hand? The government is imposing regulations that are making a hobby more difficult, so people are leaving the hobby. I see this as a similar issue, so I don't see why we complain about one but not the other.
Re:Take your cryin' ass to your mommy. (Score:3, Interesting)
And I think the relevant amendment would be the ninth, the one that says the rights listed in the constitution are not the only ones that exist.
Re:Hey, whose side are they on? (Score:2, Interesting)