The Demise of Model Rocketry? 728
Mark Lytle writes "Due to restrictions imposed by the rather broad Homeland Security Act, the hobby I suspect many Slashdotters, being technology buffs, grew up with, the Estes Model Rocket is now firmly on the endangered species list. The little cardboard rockets I learned science with in high school are evidently suspected of being potential weapons of mass destruction. Go figure. Perhaps by getting involved, we can stop this sillyness... Anyway, i hope so...."
That is silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That is silly (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That is silly (Score:5, Funny)
Why? Because nobody is trustworthy anymore! What if my BOFH sysadmin builds a personal submarine and threatens me (the boss)? Can you see it now? We all need peronal submarines, rockets, nuclear reactors and personal 1024-bit encryption to our grey cells. Till then we can't be secure.
Re:That is silly (Score:3, Informative)
(video at http://www.ryankramer.com/planes/se/sefull.avi [ryankramer.com] if you want to see it. inverted flat spin at 6:40 is definitely something a terrorist would do!)
Re:That is silly (Score:2, Interesting)
Good thing you didn't read the article. (Score:3, Informative)
Gasoline and Soap? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait until they realize what happens when you mix those two together and strike a match!
Little chance of gasoline being outlawed (if it were this whole war business would be out the window), so I guess soap has to go.
Re:Gasoline and Soap? (Score:5, Funny)
excellent! a plan with no drawbacks! oh yes i am european.
Re:Gasoline and Soap? (Score:3, Funny)
I'll bite (Score:2)
Re:I'll bite (Score:3, Informative)
It's better known as "napalm".
Re:I'll bite (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gasoline and Soap? (Score:2)
No.
Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Bodies burnt. Water seeped into wood ashes to create lye. This is lye, The crucial ingredient. Once it mixed, with the melted fat of the bodies, a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. Can I see your hand please.
What is this?
This is a chemical burn. It will hurt more than you have ever been burned, and you will have a scar.
What are you doing?
Stay with the pain, don't shut this out.
No, No. Oh, God!
Look at your hand. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space. Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
Wow (Score:3, Informative)
This might be the dumbest argument I've ever seen. Congratulations.
The end of an era (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The end of an era (Score:3, Insightful)
Hobby Lobby = Bin Laden Bazaar =[
That sucks!!!!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
streamers. I've even built a rocket with a strobe
light for a payload, we launch it at night. the strobe light is my design.
Home of the what?? It's supposed to be FREE!
Re:That sucks!!!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
So where is the land of the free? (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse than the UK! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why they do it either, D-class motors aren't exactly likely to propel a warhead any significant distance. Then again, we have had the IRA and friends (and enemies!) on our doorstep for over twenty-five years now...
-Mark
Re:over 75 years, actually (Score:4, Informative)
Northern Ireland is not a province at war these days. Nor has it ever been - there have been serious terrorist problems on the part of both Republican and Loyalist organisations (and no thanks to the support shown by US elements for IRA terrorists), but right now violence is at a low. Unfortunately, it's being supplanted by infighting & organised crime, but it's not now and never has been open warfare. Go and read some bloody history books, ignoramus.
As for "get the hell out of Ireland", talk about a gross oversimplification. Do you honestly believe for one moment that that would solve any problems, bearing in mind that around one million Northern Irish people don't actually want to be part of the Republic?
By the way, what has 1914 got to do with anything? Or do you mean the Easter Rising of 1916, or perhaps the War of Independence of 1919-1922?
Also being banned ... (Score:5, Funny)
Richard Simmons Videos - obviously a terrorist, have you see all those fat people "suffering to the oldies". Excercise is unamerican.
Chess Boards - Obviously the game of chess is nothing more than a war-game simulation with black and white pieces, obviously increasing racial tension.
Linux Operating System and all GNU Products - If I didn't know any better I'd suspect that someone must be funding these "free" projects, obviously since it's not American to give things out for free, it must be terrorism funding.
PokeMon - it's anime, obviously unamerican.
Honorable Mentions Include:
Duke Nuke Um Forever ... silly putty (ain't nothing silly about it)
The Flying/Electric Car
The True OJ Story
And
They should be already (Score:3, Informative)
'Nuff said.
It might sound silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
However that may be, outlawing them seems to be going a bit too far. A determined terrorist doesn't need a kit to build a bomb or even a crude missile.
Not silly at all. (Score:5, Funny)
When I was a teen we got into a war with the local model airplane group. I shot down one plane(it was cool but really it was a damn lucky shot) with my home made missle. Wasn't able to repeat the act as they were able to easily dodge the missles. We were just wasting black power.
My friends and I ended up designing a semi-wire gide missle using fishing line and a hand held launcher. It wasn't easy to guide(sic) the rocket. You had to fire across the path of the plane and if you ran like hell while trying to drag the wire in the path of the plane you could take it out, if you were lucky and fast enough. It wasn't explosive it used the wire to rip the plane in half. Odd enough the guys flying the planes never called the law on us. I think they just took it as a challenge. They only lost 3 more planes, all repaired, while we must of shot off nearly 30 attempts over that summer and lost or destroyed most of the rockets. As "wars" go I'd say we lost.
Re:It might sound silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
A determined terrorist doesn't need bombs and missles either. I'm convinced the threat of terrorism is overstated for one simple reason: if anyone in the US were really keen on causing death and destruction, it would be easy. I don't want to enumerate all the possiblities here, lest someone conclude I spend too much time thinking about this stuff; but really, if you want to kill, maim, and destroy, it wouldn't be that hard - our current police state's silly lockdown tactics notwithstanding. Gasoline and a match, ya know? The fact that we don't see trains derailing all over the place and so forth gives me some confidence that Ashcroft/Ridge/Cheney/Bush et al. have their heads up their butts.
Are there bad people in the world? Yup. Do some of them hate Americans? Yup. Are some of them planning to do bad things to the US? Yup. Is the free world in danger of being destroyed by these yokels? Nope. Should we go get them? Yup. Should we mobilize many many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops and our military's finest and best to isolated whackos dispersed around the globe in various loosely confederated pockets of extremism? Nope. This is a job for CIA snipers, not heavy bombers and tanks. There are other dangers to the homeland besides whacky religious fundamentalists from abroad. Like AIDS. Like social security. Like child welfare. Like the economy. Like our own heavy handed police-state thugs like Ashcroft. The US needs new management badly.
Message from the NRPEWA: (Score:3, Funny)
You know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, before I went into technology, I used to be a research biologist. Hobbies like Model ROcketry are what kept me interested in science as a kid led me to pursue all science.
You know, if we had recuiters for Pharmaceuticals stading outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most in our society?
Re:You know.... (Score:2)
I realize that this is obvious, but it helps set up my next statement:
Each individual gets to decide what they value. Your assigning no value to the contributions of a professional athlete does little to dissuade Joe Football from buying his ticket...
Re:You know.... (Score:2, Insightful)
And athletes get paid tons of money because they can do things most people can't do, even if they wanted to, plus they make up such a small percentage of the population. There are tons of people who make money doing useless things, you just hear about the athletes more often. Plus, I can garauntee that most athletes work harder at their jobs than you ever will.
We get what we celebrate (Score:5, Insightful)
As a culture we celebrate the wrong things. Who has done more to save lives, increase the well being of everyone and increase our standard of living: Micheal Jorden or the inventor of the MRI
can you name the inventor of the MRI without google?
+1 Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly how I feel as well. Science, which often takes more work than sports, should be celebrated.
Teachers at all levels need to be paid better as well. The "Well, I'm only an average programmer, so I'll teach instead" mentality/expectation needs to be reversed.
Re:+1 Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
I think part of the reasons for the differences in payment is just how noticeable the activity is. Someone throwing a Football 100 yards is an impressive, and obvious, feat. It can be seen and any Joe (or Jane) can try to do it. A lot of science on the other hand is so obscure that there is very little obvious change. The concepts of the science isn't understood by the vast majority of the population, and very few people have the ability to reproduce any of it.
Some activities like Dean Kamen's FIRST [usfirst.org] (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) attempt to fix this by introducing children and young adults to some of the more exciting areas of science and technology (namely robotic competition), but it is still much more of a niche audience than most sports. Other things like "BattleBots", "Junkyard Wars"("Scrapheap Challenge"), and "Full Metal Challenge" are also helping. We finally have Science and Technology based social things that may produce heros.
Something like this actually happened (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in india, owning a gun is a nightmare, there are tonnes of documents and it takes ages. If somebody wants to own a gun it is actually a nightmare to do it legally, and guess what terrorists roam with AK-47s.
In my opinion, your adminstration has gone mad.Well... (Score:2)
Not that I'm speaking from experience.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Funny)
is that related to Windows Media Player in any way ?
Previous art (Score:3, Funny)
We need to rename the hobby. (Score:4, Funny)
But really now, you'd need like, 50 Estes E engines to launch a hand grenade a few feet away. I think a terrorist is more likly to use a pickup truck to get a bomb around.
Re:We need to rename the hobby. (Score:3, Funny)
Reasons (Score:5, Funny)
I imagine it's because they might be used to disperse chemical agents, though the best I was ever capable of was dispering little model rocket parts.
Re:Reasons (Score:2)
Re:Reasons (Score:3, Informative)
Uh... No. Radar systems aren't really looking for nuclear missiles being launched from continental USA, and besides, the difference between a 20ft long missile that's going intercontinental, and a rocket that's about 12 inches long is enormous, (different radar signatures, different trajectory, different speeds, different...)
I imagine it's because they might be used to disperse chemical agents, though the best I was ever capable of was dispering little model rocket parts.
Yes. I imagine you do imagine that. However, that isn't why these are being banned; it's more the materials that are used to construct the rockets are being clamped down upon; because they can be used to make much bigger rockets than model rocketary. The politicians drafting the laws don't really care whether model rocketry gets destroyed or not. In fact, they don't even care much whether the laws are practical at all; currently the laws are coming into play that preclude foreigners from driving explosives within the USA, which sounds fine, till you start to think about delivery men crossing the border from Canada and so forth; or people with green cards who are living in USA perfectly legitimately etc. etc.
Re:Reasons (Score:5, Informative)
The chances of a model rocket, which is capable of lifting grams, actually becoming a preferred delivery system for any terrorist is nearly nil. To say they are inaccurate is an understatment. To say they have a short range (couple thousand feet at best), is an understatement.
Larger rockets can be created by means of combining many motors together but this is more complex to launch, harder to construct so that it will survive launch, and quickly becomes very expensive. Even if multiple motors are used, it still becomes a tradeoff of payload versus range. If you any sizable payload, your range is significantly going to suffer. These things are just not designed for heavy lifting. They certainly are not military grade and they leave a rather noteworthy exhaust trail behind. Not like you can hide and launch these things.
Long story short, only an idiot would attempt to use these things for any form of terrorism.
Didn't you know? (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mmon. What's the sense in this. Really. Anyone could be as dangerous with a potato gun and be less conspicuous, since you don't have to set it up, aim it and fire. Anyone who wants to make a rocket can make one if they really want to.
Or maybe now we should just restrict banning play stations now that they have technology for guidance systems in them.
Very Sad (Score:5, Interesting)
Basic model rockets (not including the larger amateur rockets) can move fast, but I can't see their immediate danger to the public, as the Estes-type rockets stick to the =1 lb. rule, with very little medal, a plastic or balsa wood nose cone, and limited motor impulse, meaning that it can't lift anything huge. Any kid can tell you that a model rocket self-destructs easily when it strikes anything but air.
Now, I can see some yahoo loading up a Big Bertha payload rocket with a few grams of anthrax and trying to spread it over a neighborhood--that's a sad possibility. Much less likely to use these things as missiles as they just can't hold a lot of explosive charge and would only be dangerous enough in a salvo.
Also, model rockets of the store-bought type have basic aerodynamic stability with fins--no electronic guidance. So, even if the motor could burn long enough (which they can't--about 2-10 sec max), you couldn't guide the thing anywhere. The motors are solid, so there's no way to rig the basic rocket as a liquid-fuel missile, either.
I'd be more worried about R/C planes, which can carry more because they generate lift and can be guided over long distances.
How does this affect fireworks? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or are all these wussy shipping corporations who would rather piss customers off then deal with a regulation even touching fireworks in the first place? (It's not like they're made in the US, so I assume they get shipped to the netherregions of the US somehow...)
In related news... (Score:2)
At this rate, in 2005, kitchen knifes will be banned also.
This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Again the slashdot article bears no reality (Score:5, Insightful)
No argument that the changes may be excessive. But to claim the government is equating model rockets and weapons of mass destruction shows deliberate ignorance or a pure attempt to get reader reaction.
Re:Again the response bears no information (Score:3, Informative)
That fire was caused by an improperly stored oxygen generator, which was also incorrectly marked as inactive. ie: The person shipping it (an internal parts transfer for the airline) screwed up.
There are upwards of fifty of these devices in every commercial airliner flying in the world at this moment (some 2-3000 aircraft over the U.S. alone), with none of THEM going off accidentally.
If someone can properly ship me a steak in dry ice, there should be no problem getting a properly packaged C5 engine to me.
No more road flares either, I take it?
Ahh yes.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"We need ID for you to send this parcel!"
"We're stopping terrorists!"
for great justice! (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to think of the day that my children, or my children's children won't be able to have the glory i had when i made my first 2-stage d-engine rocket... that was a good day...
Risks at the airport (Score:5, Interesting)
We had a vendor come in and replace some equipment at work a while ago, and when we were talking during lunch, he said that one of his hobbies was model rocketry--he'd been doing it for several decades. All his jackets, bags, and shoes are covered in blackpowder residue.
He allots a good hour on top of the airlines' recommendations to get through security.
ACLU (Score:4, Insightful)
www.aclu.org [aclu.org]
They are not outlawing the hobby... (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes me wonder what is happening with fireworks then. I know there are a lot of fireworks out there that have quite a bit more explosive force, and potental to be used in other ways. I'd bet on fireworks being banned long before the Estes Rockets.
But, Guess if they do ban the rockets, that means a lot less rocket geeks, and more computer geeks or game programmers. I also wonder how many kids will turn to biology since bugs can be found anywhere and extracting body parts hasn't been outlawed yet.
I just hope they don't outlaw these hobbys for kids, since as you know, Saddam does like to dismember his victims.
The terrorists..... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, for real. Now we live in fear, now we are taking liberties away.
Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.
you're supposed to notify the FAA also (Score:5, Interesting)
For years, people have been launching them on the beach north of Chicago, and some of them can pop up on radar in curious ways. Rather than scrambling a few jets to investigate, they ask that you report launches in advance.
How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anybody know how understanding the post 9/11 government is to private sector rocketry and what hoops you have to go through to get clearance for high altitude flights?
Re:How does this affect X-Prize class rocketry ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to launch small amateur rockets and I remember having to organize things with the FAA for the window of time I would be in the comercial air space. Basically it's like filing a flight plan with a flight controller. They verify that is a safe window when you are not as likely to shoot down a plane.
Once you go above a certain altitude, however, you enter military air space and you have a whole other animal to deal with. They ask the tough questions like "why do you want to launch this missile?"
All in all, I only built about 3 rockets that went higher than commercial airspace. These flew to about 100-200 thousand feet above sea level. (100,000; 120,000; 180,000 to be exact) It took me more time getting all the permissions I needed to launch the darn things than it did to engineer them.
Other hurdles are the handling of the propellants, the little tasty bit of info about solid rocket propellants is that it is difficult to design a solid fuel motor that doesn't explode on the launch pad. Also, there is the fact that in a lot of counties you have to have a fire marshall present when you are handling the explosives.
It's a tough hobby from a legal sense, and probably rightly so. Even from behind a bunker of sand bags, I have been knocked flat on my back from the concussion of a solid rocket explosion that was 300 yards away from me. In my earliest attempt at making a high performance rocket I actually had one explode and later found pieces of shrapnel ebedded in asphalt farther DOWNRANGE of my position. So it is rought with danger, failures are catastrophic, and if you aren't very very careful you will die if you try to build one of these.
Also, I had built rockets with a useful payload of up to 3 kg, more than enough to load up enough explosives to blow up a building, not that I would of course.
how do democracies die? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bad enough that 3000 innocents were killed, but the real legacy of the attacks may well be the ongoing erosion of our civil rights by those in power, e.g. the Patriot Act and its forthcoming descendents (Patriot II, TIA, etc.).
What I've been worrying about lately is: how do democracies die? I think using some emergency to convince voters to give up their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights is a great start. It's like the Communist hysteria of the 50's, only potentially worse because of all the technology that can be brought to bear.
The intersection of technology and surveillance was something that needed to be looked at before 9/11 ever happened, but now... I just hope people come to their senses by the time the next election rolls around.
Irrational (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine a society where citizens are not allowed knives, guns, explosives, anything sharp or slightly dangerous. Now imagine someone manages to sneak a gun/knife through the defenses. How much more damage could he cause because the citizens are undefended?
My point is basically that if you increase defense it will keep the amount of damage a terrorist can do around the same - the weapons they have at their disposal will be less, but they will need less to do lots of damage. The way to defeat terrorism is to understand your enemy - find out why they hate you. If you have no fault then God will testify on your behalf whether you die or not. If you have a fault - well, then you know what you need to do. Don't get me wrong, murdering defenseless people is evil, but the question is whether the terrorist hate for good reason. Stop their mouths by being without blame - then when they murder ask why. They will stand condemned by their own words.
only a problem with shipping (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously model rocketry needs engines so that the hobbyist can test their designs, or check if they glued together the prefab cutouts properly. Because there is demand, this restriction opens up some business opportunities. Certain less popular shippers, like Airborne, could hire employees with proper security clearance and advertise the fact. A small surcharge could be added to help defray the added employee cost. Local rocketry enthusiast could work part time building model rocket engines for their friends. There are companies that supply kit that allow you to construct model rocket engines. These could be shipped without the propellent, which could be then be obtained locally. This would allow the individual to build the engines.
Of course, some of the above solutions my be worse than the problem, resulting in kids blowing off fingers and damaging eyes, but it is all in the name of fear based legislation!
Whoops! (Score:2)
Not very surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the many, well-understood, and readily-available ways of the creating the means for blowing up--hint: *never* apply heat or spark to vaporized gasoline--a legal dragnet that impedes access to things as innocuous as model rocket moters is pure irony.
You've got to laugh imagining some bearded guy shouting at another, 'put away that fertilizer and help me scrape out nine-thousand number threes!'
We have proof positive that our government is run by people who were expected to make laws for Disneyland.
Model rockets, but not Ammunition?! (Score:3, Funny)
[sarcasm]
Outlawing boxcutters I could understand, but this?
[\sarcasm]
The 4th of July is about to get boring... (Score:3, Informative)
Bush, the killer of the 4th of July...
-Chris
Cardboard tubes (Score:3, Funny)
I just went out and bought some estes engines, I guess I should go buy some more quick.
Fewer places to fly them, too (Score:3, Interesting)
First this, and then other sciences (Score:5, Insightful)
Got Botulism? [hc-sc.gc.ca] It might take a while to isolate and identify the proper strain, but terrorists don't have the marketing department breathing down their necks to meet a shipping date. They're patient if they have to be. Once identified, it's just a matter of culturing and refining the toxin.
Got Ricin? [state.tx.us] Yes, the lovely castor bean plant (ricinus communis) produces a rather nice toxin. Readily available through many plant stores. A bit of applied organic chemistry lab work, and you too can get the desired organic compound.
Got GB Nerve gas? [uky.edu] Malathion (an readily available and highly used insecticide) and the first component of the binary nerve gas GB are very similar. Any organic chemist worth his money would be able to do some work to make it exactly similar. The other component is isopropol alcohol. You can find that in any drugstore.
Got FAE? [fas.org] Why bother with ANFO (ammonium-nitrate fuel-oil, the fertilizer bomb that has been used in many, many places) truck bombs? A little bit of applied mechanical engineering and you to can have explosives on par with low-yield nuclear weapons. Sure, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide may be a bit hard to source, but you can use others to get a similar result.
Or, as was demonstrated by one nutcase in South Korea, all it takes is a determined individual with gasoline to kill many people on a subway.
Model rockets? Give me a break. Next on the list: slingshots.
Radio Controlled Cars/planes are next... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess hobby's are dangerous..
Information is dangerous, independent thought must be abolished too.
If there is a demand, UPS will find a way... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) comply with the law
b) cover the costs of complying with that law
c) make a profit on the ironic side effects of that law
So just think - soon, the UPS will be offering a special "hazmat" transport service that transports items like these. The downside - it'll cost more...and thus the items transported will cost more. The question is, are there enough people doing model rocketry (and other similarly affected cargo) to make a profit?
Lawmakers think they have good intentions at heart - and while I think the laws they are recently proposing/passing are extreme reactions to an extreme event, some of them do make sense to respond to the demands of increased security. It's a tough balance - and sometimes, rather than making the laws more specific, it's better for ingenious Americans to find a way to make a profit...and provide a valuable service - while allowing the Government to do their job - protect us.
That being said - I oppose many parts of the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts - simply because there's no way to bypass an individual's privacy and liberties...something both of these acts threaten to do....
If you like model rockets... (Score:3, Interesting)
About 4 years ago, though, I got into remote control (RC) airplanes. That hobby kicks ass. It's not all that expensive, as far as hobbies go. You can get into it for less than $500, then your additional costs are minor if you don't wreck your plane much.
It's absolutely amazing what a good RC pilot can do with his airplane. The thrust to weight ratio of these planes is well over 1, so it's possible to hover the airplanes in midair.
Having flown both standard sized and model aircraft, I can tell you that the skills you need to develop for both are roughly the same. Flying model airplanes is a shitload cheaper and less likely to get you killed, though.
My biggest regret is that I didn't get into the hobby sooner. As with most things, the younger you are when you start, the better you'll be.
If you're interested, go by any good airplane hobby shop, and there will be some airplane geek there who can tell you how to get started. Better yet, just go to the hobby shop to look around, then ask them where the local model airplane fields are. An airfield will be run by a club that has people who can give you good advice on how to get started and train you how to fly. Plus, you'll get a really good chance to see what you're getting into, if there are some decent pilots showing off.
One word of advice regarding flying: It's a crapload harder than it looks. Everyone thinks that they'll be flying their first time out. In reality, you'll likely not be flying by yourself for your first 5 outings. Take things slowly, and you won't have to do a lot of plane rebuilding.
How much *security* is enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break. Why not show a picture of a Chevy Cavalier? The odds are far greater that the car will run your ass over in the parking lot, than that any terrorist-related act will impact you.
Does anyone actually take Tom Ridge seriously? Tape up your windows and keep a first aid kit at hand? That reminds me of the "nuclear attack" drill in the Army: Lie down in the the lowest spot you can find and cover your eyes.
Canada has more guns per person than the United States, but they have less than 50 gun-related deaths per year. Why is that? It's because the Canadians don't live in fear. Yoda had it right, fear *does* lead to hate, and to violence as well.
The European countries, primarily Britain, Germany, and Italy, have faced their share of terrorism over the years. None of those countries became police states.
We're all blissfully driving our SUVs around, fat, dumb and happy, and wondering why so many people think of us as spoiled, scared, pathetic, naiive idiots. In a similar fashion, our children will grow up and wonder why everyone else around the world laughs at us when we call ourselves the "land of the free and the home of the brave."
Before you jump to conclusions, I was an infantry officer in the US Army, I'm not a liberal, and I don't eat granola for breakfast. I'm just sick of watching this country slide further into slack-jawed idiocy.
Forget Delivery.. (Score:3, Insightful)
-enigmabomb-
Other hobbies, too (Score:5, Funny)
Many railfans are being harassed by police who have a lot of pointed questions when they see a sixty-year old man in a Casey Jones hat pointing binoculars at empty boxcars.
Re:Not very inconvenient - (Score:4, Informative)
How are you going to build the motors?
Re:Not very inconvenient - (Score:3, Informative)
Amateurs who make their own ammonium perchlorate composite propellants will also need an ATF permit to move ammonium perchlorate composite propellant within the state it is made.
Re:Not very inconvenient - (Score:5, Insightful)
1. If you live in an urban / suburban area, such activities are likely to be outright banned.
2. If you live in a rural area, you will likely require some sort of explosives permit. The training, filing time will probably require you become a professional at building rocket engines. You then get the headaches Estes is running into now.
3. In any event, your activities will probably get you "good neighbor" visits from the local sheriff, county police, state troopers, even the ATF or EPA (you are working with environmentally hazardous materials, remember!)
If you decide to go "full steam ahead" in spite of all the above, eventually expect a visit from the people mentioned in #3 above. In these post 9/11 times, expect to receive a long "all expenses-paid" stay in a state or federal prison!
Re:Not very inconvenient - (Score:2, Funny)
a.k.a.: Pound me in the ass prison.
Re:Not very inconvenient - (Score:3, Interesting)
The notion that a free citizen can have a harmless hobby like model rocketry effectively destroyed by a not-very-well-thought-out law certainly should indicate something about the treatment the government dishes out.
A politician (or a group of them) passed a knee-jerk law to make it appear as though they were doing something relevant and productive in order to glean votes, and the citizens pay the price.
Look at most of the post 911 "security" legislation to see what I mean.
A politician is perfectly happy to shaft citizens to further his career... Haven't you ever heard of "screwing your way to the top"?
Maybe I needed to elaborate more in my post, but the connection I was trying to show is certainly not "flamebait". Sheesh.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
I for one am glad to see the US government taking such a positive stance on potential problem substances and technologies.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about BIC lighters? Each one containes enough butane to make a nice little bomb! Carry a few on board with you... Well I do not want to give anyone any ideas. The restrictions placed on airline travelers are moronic, because they will only catch morons. So now it seems that the moronic restrictions are going to expand to everyday life. I guess cigarettes should now be deemed a weapon of mass destruction too. Just think of the cancer/children/humanity/whatever...
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
First off.. not nearly enough butane to do any damage. Second they are already restricted. You maye carry up to two (2) butane style lighters on board an aircraft. The complete list of what is/isnt allowed can be found here
http://cryptome.org/tsa021403.txt
The relevant text is:
(9) Lighters (maximum of two, fueled with non-refillable liquefied gas (Bic-type) or absorbed liquid (Zippo-type).
(10) Matches (maximum of four books, strike on cover, book type).
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
But then again it would be far easier to get a ceramic knife through.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
it was great to see the way the nation reacted by coming together and helping each other out in the days following the attack, but everything more recent than about two weeks after has just been getting worse. we have been dishonoring the memories of those who lost their lives for no good reason by slowly whittling away the freedoms that made the usa something we could be proud of, and by breeding fears of another attack.
the plain simple truth is: terrorism most likely will not affect you! certainly the entire country mourns for the losses families suffered, but how many people were really directly effected by either knowing well someone who died, or witnessing the event? i think that it's well and good for americans to be upset by such events, and to help each other out when they happen, but until it happens again, remember that most of the threats we're supposed to be cowering in fear over aren't really that bad, don't affect a very large area, and are very unlikely to affect you directly.
thank you.
(no offense meant to the parent)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
> why is it that so many people believe that we need to be
> any more careful now than we needed to be a year and a
> half ago? i most certainly say that we do not!
There is nothing wrong with ordinary people being reasonably careful and observant. If everyone drove like that, it would save a lot of lives. The problem is being fearful. People who build a plastic bubble around their homes out of plastic sheeting and duct tape are being fearful, not careful.
Being fearful only helps a terrorist control you. Please note that "terrorist" has nothing to do with blowing up things, but rather using terror to control people (either blowing things up, or telling people some evil "terrorist" might blow them up). Oppressive governments almost always rule by fear.
> it was great to see the way the nation reacted by coming
> together and helping each other out in the days following
> the attack,
America is great not because of its bombs or military, but because of the compassion and courage of its people. On September 11, 2001, terrorists killed thousands, but compassion and courage saved tens of thousands.
> we have been dishonoring the memories of those who
> lost their lives for no good reason
And the lives lost for the best of reasons, to save others. Don't forget Flight 93. Or the firefighters.
> by slowly whittling away the freedoms that made the usa
> something we could be proud of, and by breeding fears
> of another attack.
There *was* another terror attack, just this weekend, in Chicago. Only no Al Qaeda members were involved. Yes, the moronic security guard that sprayed the crowd with pepper spray is responsible, as is the owner of the club that violated every fire code in the book. But the government and the media are also responsible for the fear they have been breeding with their stupid terror alerts (based on lies to begin with). Terror and panic killed those poor people, and turned that club into the same horror that the World Trade Center became. Department of Homeland Insecurity: this is the fruit of your color-coded crying of "Wolf!".
> the plain simple truth is: terrorism most likely will not
> affect you!
As long as you define "terrorism" as a real Al Qaeda attack (blowing up stuff, hijacking planes, assassinations, etc.) you are quite right. The average American is far more likely to die from auto accidents or medical malpractice.
Al Qaeda are at heart bullies and thugs. Bullies don't bother those who stand up to them, and ever since Flight 93 and the capture of the shoe-bomber, Al Qaeda has seemed reluctant, even too chicken, to bother with airborne attacks in the US itself. Airplane hijacking has ceased to work with Flight 93, so Al Qaeda appears (from my personal observations of the news) to have moved on to other kinds of attacks outside the US.
The fear of terrorist attacks is a concern for the average American. If fear is getting to you (you feel an irrational desire to buy lots of duct tape and/or have nightmares about attacks), you need to do something about it. Start by turning off CNN (or whatever sensationalist news source you watch) and get your news from places that are less sensationalist, and more balanced. Combat your fear with facts. And if you still have problems, you might want to get some professional help. Living in constant fear is not good for you, even if it never gets to the point of giving you a heart attack.
> remember that most of the threats we're supposed to be
> cowering in fear over aren't really that bad, don't affect a
> very large area, and are very unlikely to affect you
> directly.
>
> thank you.
No, thank you for doing your part to calm people.
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was under the impression that it was because we valued freedom above all, and they stood for the antithesis of this. Perhaps someone could explain to me exactly how we can fight them by restricting our own freedom? If we allow our freedom to be taken in the name of freedom, then the terrorists have won already.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Funny, are these things more dangerous than the guns you americans are so fond of?
My, what an "insightful" remark. I'm simply overwhelmed.
I shot off Estes model rockets in my youth. I think the primary danger of these things is to the operator, not to any site they might be targetting. The range is in the hundreds of feet. A slightly larger scale missile might be dangerous if it could be fitted with a payload and launched in the direction of a school, police HQ or the like. I don't think it's appropriate to ban Estes models however. Actually, how many people even use those things anymore? I thought model rocketry was pretty much dead.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and No.
Yes because in the hands of the right (or in this case wrong) person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents over a broader area than might otherwise be possible. They are (or at least have been) more inconspicuous than say a crop duster which has also come under scrutiny as a possible delivery method.
No because it is people that kill, not guns. Guns (be they fully automatic assault rifles, handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles), automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives, and many other implements/tools can be and are used to kill people. Do we outlaw automobiles, rockets, baseball bats, hammers, knives? No, of course not. We regulate their use and punish those who use them wrongly. The key is to punish and punish effectively. We Americans have plenty of laws to punish the law breakers, it is just that they are often not enforced or the sentencing is too light thus causing recidivism (IMHO).
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
I hate to be the one to point this out, but if you have produced chemical or biological agents and you are still using a 12-year-old's toy as a weapons delivery system, you are such an incompetent terrorist that you deserve the misfire your under-powered, chemical-agent-laden hobby rocket is going to produce shortly before those chemical agents are sitributed to a very small area surrounding your person.
Re:Model Rockets and Am241 Smoke Detectors (Score:3, Insightful)
I would hope that you'd call the FBI regardless of whether the guy was of Arab descent.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Heston
You have the wrong guy; I work for a living.
please tell us what many guns "aren't designed for killing at all"
Go do your own research.
I will give you a couple of hints, though. There are many other examples, but I'll let you find them yourself. Look up target rifles and you'll find that they have numerous characteristics that make them far from ideal as weapons, both the styles used in shooting competitions and the styles used in athletic competitions, such as biathlons. Do some reading on the design features incorporated into common .22 caliber sport rifles and you'll see that their ability to kill anything is not on the list of design criteria.
On the flip side, do some research into what features are desirable for guns intended to be used as weapons, particularly anti-personnel weapons, and then take a look at which firearms incorporate those features. What you'll find is that very few of them do.
Like any other piece of technological equipment, guns are designed for specific applications, and they're most effective when used as intended. And, the point here is, *many* of those applications don't include killing people, so blanket statements that "a gun's sole purpose is to kill" are simply ill-informed.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here We Go... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Department of Homeland Security has quickly begun to erode your rights. Next thing you know, they'll be measuring the amount of methane gas you expell after a trip to Taco Bell. Those who expell too much will be considered a threat to National Security and incarcerated without legal representation.
Wake up you sheep!
When the going gets tough, the average get conservative - Henry Rollins
Re:More info? (Score:2)
Re:More info? (Score:5, Informative)
The real risk isn't to Estes-sized motors. Estes will be able to afford private shipping to deliver items to bigger stores. However, availability will suffer and prices will increase. The real danger to the hobby is the motors at the next tier up: E-J composite-propellant motors. Ironically, these motors, which uses a "composite" of ammonium perchlorate and rubber, are much safer than black powder. The fuel is much less dangerous than black powder, requiring much more than just a stray spark to ignite. These larger motors would typically be up to 38mm diameter and several inches long. These are mostly obtained by mail-order from small rocketry-supply distributors. These people won't be able to obtain the necessary permits, and I don't know how people will obtain these motors.
This is only the most recent salvo in the BATFEs expanding regulation of this hobby. The National Organization of Rocketry [nar.org] (NAR) and the Tripoli Rocketry Association [tripoli.org] are currently representing the hobby community in an attempt to obtain judicial relief. A decision on that is expected at some point this spring, I think.
In theory, one could do dangerous things with commercial rocket motors. However, it is an extremely expensive way to obtain these materials, and they don't make very good explosives anyway. Fertilizer and kerosene is a much better way to blow something up, but the government can't control that, so they'll go after a small community that can't defend itself as well.
PS. Hobby rocketry does use motors even bigger than J's but those have other shipping problems, so probably aren't affected by this most recent regulation.
Re:ARSA has bigger problems than shipping rockets (Score:5, Insightful)
I just see it as:
"Okay, you see these engines... and now you see this flame. Don't put the engines near flame. Fire Bad."
It's like duh! It's not that hard to transport model rocket engines. But apparently we need to train them to Defcon 5 level Top Secret Marine training so they can drive those engines around without someone fearing a terrorist attack by the amazing Axis of Evil.
Man, the news in the states is reading more and more like a comicbook everyday. With Weapons of Mass Destruction, Axis of Evil, Terrorist attacks, etc. It's just a big farce now.
Er, sorry about that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:To tell the truth .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, cedar shake shingle roofs are/were quite fashionable in certain high-dollar housing developments in the southern and western US. Unfortunately, if they are not re-treated with fire retardants on a regular basis (and, tell me, just how fire safety conscious do you think your average yuppie homeowner is?) they quickly become little better than palm frond thatching at resisting fire.
I think it was in 1983 that a mixture of shake shingles (not maintained), freezing temperatures (for SOME reason, people here in South Texas think that if you drip your faucets, the uninsulated pipes won't freeze, of course the Fire Dept won't be able to get adequate flow to fight fires either) and New Year's Eve (Bubba's kids just HAVE to shoot fireworks, weather AND County Ordinances be damned) resulted in a fire that I witnessed. It burned about 50% of a relatively new suburban subdivision to the ground (estimated average home price in the range of $85-95,000 for a "tract home").
Never discount the stupidity of "normal" people living in large metropolitan areas.