Interesting People mailing list archives
more on more on anti-terror laws may kill rocketry hobby
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:42:52 -0400
------ Forwarded Message From: Scott Alexander <salex () dsl cis upenn edu> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:35:11 -0400 To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Subject: Re: [IP] more on anti-terror laws may kill rocketry hobby On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 18:59, Dave Farber wrote:
------ Forwarded Message From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:00:56 -0400 To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com> Subject: Re: [IP] anti-terror laws may kill rocketry hobby
[snip]
2) that said, certain types of amateur rockets are capable of exploding much as do pipe bombs. The kinds Hickham and I built (with steel cases, zinc and sulfur solid fuel) are quite different than the Estes hobbyist rockets. But each kind teaches interesting things. A sensible response is to regulate the different types of rockets differently. But in fact there are such regulations, today. LE (low explosives, a technical term to differentiate rocket engines from HE such as dynamite) are regulated, their transport is regulated, etc.
The issue is that ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) is on ATF's list of explosives and so is treated as a low explosive. This is the same stuff used in the shuttle's solid rocket boosters. I'm told that in the Challenger disaster footage, one can see it continue to burn (rather than explode). APCP was put on the explosives list before it was widely used in hobby rocketry and the court has said it is now too late to challenge that decision. APCP can cause its container to overpressurize, but does not meet the definition of explosive (burns at a rate of kilometers per second) or even a material that deflagrates (burns at meters per second). Moreover, the legislation which authorizes the explosives list says that ATF is to regulate materials whose common function is by explosion which is clearly not the case for APCP.
And if you really want to get scared, radio controlled model aircraft are capable of carrying both anti-personnel bombs and bio/chemical weapons. Should we get excited and ban hobby model aircraft? Perhaps banning the radios that operate them?
One wonders. I have heard rumor that ATF is actually concerned about hobby rockets being used to deliver a payload. Given the difficulty I have in finding my rockets, I would think that model aircraft would be much more effective.
Perhaps we should ban nailguns because they can be used to shoot bullet-like projectiles, if misused.
These have an exemption as "propellant-actuated devices." There are those who argue that hobby rockets are also propellant-actuated devices. This same exclusion keeps airbags off the regulated list. Best, Scott Alexander salex () dsl cis upenn edu ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on more on anti-terror laws may kill rocketry hobby Dave Farber (Jun 13)