High power/ATF questions

Anthony,

You are the expert. Educate me here. (Please I do not mean that as sarcasm at all as I respect that you would be one who would know.) Can APCP grains out in the open explode by themselves? I don't mean with doctoring. I mean if they can, I don't know why Tripoli/NAR is pursuing the lawsuit as it would be doomed to failure. (I did donate BTW) I take it if there was some liberalization of the rules, you and other manufacturers could benefit from purchases from more casual modelers and there might be some encouragement for more participation in HPR. Develop a launch range and they will come sort of thing. My contention is it would be perfectly safe for one to store a reasonable amount of propellant grains on hand with a modicum of caution. Most modelers can't afford to hold large amounts anyways. Yes, I know there are real serious folks who store grains on a grand scale and I have no issue for control there. Please go ahead and change my mind here. Again, I mean no disrespect as I do not want to have my facts wrong.

Kurt

Anth> Ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizer yes, but the molecule has it's own fuel

The PAD exemption, such as it is, is based on the 1994 letter to Aerotech. That letter placed further restrictions on what qualified for the PAD exemption. Alas, they used the CPSC definition of a rocket motor so nothing bigger than an F motor can qualify.

You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the ATF does not believe it and the judge pointedly did not rule on it.

1) You cannot "buy" a copy of the Orange Book. The ATF gives them away not to mention that it is available in a much better form than the court filing on the ATF web site: Last published in 2000. 2) A much more up to date version of the law and regulations is available online.

law:

regulations:

But I thought the Judge DID rule that the ATF was improperly making rules when it said Rocket Motors are not PADs. IIRC there were statements about assembled motors being PADs. That's why the latest NPRM was published, to eliminate that.

Interestingly the NPRM said rocket motors are the merely the propellant that actuates the rocket. Seems to imply that fully assembled rockets are PADs.

The judge ruled that the ATF's changing from saying some motors were exempt under the PAD exemption to not being PADs ("inartfully drafted") was done without proper notice and comment. A footnote in the opinion notes that because of this, he didn't have to decide if rocket motors were or were not PADs.

See page 20 of:

In spite of the ATF invoking the word "logic" in the NPRM, they displayed a striking lack of it.

Hello David,

I went to what I thought was a "govermint" site to try to download or see how I could get a copy but they wanted money. If they're free for the asking then I do indeed stand corrected. I don't remember the site address as I don't have the prospect of passing an inspection and there are not enough LEUP holders around that could provide for contingency for myself. It's not the money involved that irks me. It's the issue that the propellant is treated as some super dangerous high explosive when it's not. I did download the ATF filing that has a copy in there. Thanks.

Kurt

Well, the 1990 orange book, question #13 said that all rocket motors were not regulated because they were PADs. to date, the BATFE has not formally changed that statement. This is yet another attempt to clean up what they didn't do, and to ramrod it through regardless of what comments might be made. Which makes it just as illegal as enforcing an illegally produced rule.

Not quite.

"13. Is the rocket propellant in model rocket kits considered to be an explosive?

No. [55.141]"

The question was only about _model_ rockets and the reference was to the entire exemption section of the regulations rather than to any one part.

Is the propellant considered to be an explosive? The answer was no. The proper way to answer the question would have been (if they had been of a mind to), "Yes, but it is exempt from regulation."

Since they didn't do that, their statement is that the propellant is not explosive -- and note that it is the same propellant used in the model rockets as in the high-power rockets (just more of it).

David Erbas-White

Use your propellant and rocket motors as intended. The DDT issue in this tread is moot in that regard. I simply take issue with statements and claims that get made that aren't based on facts or good science.

Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Thanks,

Hope we win the suit so I could by a grain or two from your company without a bunch of rigamarole.

Kurt

Anth> Use your propellant and rocket motors as intended. The DDT issue in this

If you decide to buy a grain, buy a casing for it too. 8-)

Phil

But black powder and APCP aren't the same thing.

-- David

But if I have an F25 model rocket motor, isn't it then just a matter of how much and not the composition?

I think you're confusing "detonation" with "failure" of the motor casing. If you were to take the same amount of APCP used in those motor tests, place it in a parking lot and light it, the effect would be MUCH different than if you put it in a casing that allows the pressure to increase.

Also, the explosion video you cited was an explosion of pure AP, which has different characteristics than APCP.

P.S. Flour can also cause a flour plant to "det> >

can't be made to explode. That depends on the

This is what I understand right now, and I do not have the details of rules and regs like many do. This is how my permit experience went and what I have.

1) In order for you to buy a motor with more than 62.5g of propellant in the motor or reload kit, you need a LEUP.

2) In order to get a LEUP, you have to have provisions to store what you do not use, but still own at the end of a launch. This does not have to be your storage, but it has to be documented to be someone who can legally posess and store the material. A club member or vendor can perform this for you.

3) The local guys hold the keys to the first door. ATF will grant a variance for storage, even in an attached garage. If you do have an attached garage (like me) you will need a separate magazine to store igniters/e-matches. Yes, it sucks. I bought two of the commercial Type 4 mags from US Explosive, then four of the 5 tumbler, 7/16" hasp Master locks. From my perspective, it was not worth my time to fab my own mags.

My town, just outside of Buffalo, NY, required a Hazmat permit ($25/year) but does allow storage. NY State does not have any restrictions. Apart from my own application change (contingency to local storage) my experience was only painful in the pocketbook because of the two mags. I reminded my wife and my self that this is still waaaaayyy cheaper than a boat or classic cars. The expensive part is feeding the HPR rockets.

My motor magazine is empty, I've burned all that I bought. I did have at one time two motors for a few weeks. My igniter mag has some e-matches in it. I intend to stock up via mail order early next year. Hazmat charges apply to packages, not motors, so you can spread the charge across a few reloads to minimize the cost impact.

One of our members (quark) runs a business selling motors at various launches in the area. As the "Club LEUP" holder, He is able to store our motors for us that exceed the limit. One does not need a LEUP to use them, only store them. You must be attempting or have attained NAR-TRA certification to use the motors, nothing else, according to our club rules.

To buy the motors, we must order them in advance. He is not allowed to transport multiple motors for 'possible' or provisional purchase.

His magazine is a simple red metal box, much like a tool box, with two built in key locks. It is very small.

...and is available for sale on merlinmissiles.com .