[IP] more on more on anti-terror laws may kill rocketry hobby

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ 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

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/