ok, before i even start. lets try not to turn this into a rant about all the things that went wrong or havent been done inthe past to keep rocketry out of the regulators hands. you got the whole of RMR ro do that.
lets try to work out a bill.
First off, the ATF seems bound and determined to regulate model rocketry. either by declassifying motors as PADs or trying to regulate propellants such as APCP.
what we need is a bill (or number of bills) that we can introduce to our heads of rocketry organizations so they can pass them allong to the bill committee.
I suggest we find bills already introduced that are similar and adapt them to our needs (why re-invent the wheel?)
anyone got any ideas? or maybe some places to point to so we can see how we can proceed?
Why not? It is HIGHLY instructive of what to expect in the future! The obstructionism of the clubs against the Wickman/Enzi bill (which helped everyone), was a fact and cannot be ignored.
So simply reintroduce that bill. It was perfect.
Your predisposition to ignore the pink elephant in the room is telling.
Introducing a bill will do nothing. the bill must get through a committee and that is where it will be CHANGED to be used against everyone. Just like the last ultra-expensive bill disaster (that we were warned QUITE clearly about in advance, but folks went off and did it anyway).
The Sentaor from NY - using fear of terrorism - was determined to not let the bill pass as it was.
Ack. It is a tough ride which seems to elicit defeat among many. Very many will balk. Already many have walked. I truly wish I had faith that such a measure could be undertaken successfully.
I remember how I first felt when I saw HP. Besides the deep gutteral "whaaaahaahaa!" that escaped my lungs, I felt a tremendous and deep appreciation for the freedom we then had to enjoy such a thing. Now those freedoms are being contested by some both inside and outside the organization.
Right regulation is being attempted from the explosives front. If hybrids become popular, then what?
A little clarification... in the sentence "Right regulation..." I meant that corrective legislation from the perspective of whether APCP is an explosive, was attempted / has been attempted / is being attempted... to seemingly no avail. I was in a bit of a hurry when I pounded out that last sentence.
If hybrids become mainstream (thereby reducing the TCO overall; increasing supply) how is it to be kept free? Will not the same terroristic fears attack this also? Remember, certain of our legislators hyped the terror of the rocket, not the explosiveness of the propellant. There appeared to be very little concern from those certain legislators about APCP actually being used as an explosive. The explosive angle was the easiest way to control the issue... the propaganda FUD was the rocketry. Their angle was/is similar to, "If it is shaped and painted to look like an elephant, then we must apply the rules of elephanteering."
I think it's prefab, off-the-shelf solid propulsion products that scare the Regulators the most, and are the least defensible on the "looks like a potential weapon-enabling product that could be adapted to deliver some sort of destructive device" issue.
Hybrids, with all the plumbing and stuff, aren't going to look as much like "something that people might think a terroist would want to use".
I keep seeing this statement. It overlooks the pesky little issue of ejection charges. BP is not permit free. In the state where I live, even to buy pyrodex you need a gun permit.
So this statement is true only if you are planning on a very expensive lawn-dart.
Then the problem is not the status of APCP but the status of the ejection charge. Even if APCP where 100% permit free you would still have an ejection charge problem. Even if the ejection charge is considered a PAD, BP is on the explosives list and NFPA has rules about its storage (called sporting powder). My Fire Department requires a magazine for over 1lb and limits the total stored to 2lbs in an non-sprinklered building.
CO2 solutions do exist. Not ideal, but as I said the problem isn't unique to hybrids.
Luckily I live >> Hybrids are already popular. 100% permit free.
Alas, the BATFE's job is not to regulate delivery devices. If it were, they'd ahve to ground all commercial airliners, Ryder trucks, etc.
I doubt that will cross their minds, or stop them from trying to regulate the devices.
But they won't be able to regulate hybrids, or for that matter liquids or new formulation solids as explosives. It's only that the listing of APCP as an explosive occured 35 years ago that is really keeping us from forcing it off the list.
Say, what else besides APCP can be used to make rocket motors that is NOT currently on "the list"? A simple propellant change might solve our problems.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
I guess that all depends on what one's definition of "popular" is. I don't think they are anywhere near mainstream, even inside the hobby... yet. I do believe interest is increasing. By far and large, however, the masses are still on solids.
You don't have to convince me though. The musings are about the future. Neither hybrids, nor any other burning-propellant type rockets are "permit free". But I guess that also depends on your definition of "permit". Hybrids are only "free" of the current crop of propellant scrutiny via explosive interpretation. Other standard rocketry parameters still apply for waivers, et al. It would not take much for all to be limited with more restrictions and "permits".
I have little to no faith in a few select law-makers who think rocketry in general is scary-bad. I don't think Estes will ever get a company-killing impact, as small models do not engender the same fear-of-the-unknown factor in the ignorant, regardless of track records and historical proof.
What is needed is an education of the public, to move from, "HOLY COW DID YOU SEE THAT ROCKET!!!", to, "Wow! Did you see that PAINT JOB... SO SWEET!"
Until the class of the item is considered benign, only those who care to look deeper will see the real value of it.
We need more images, sound bytes, and themes in peoples minds, such as like the one Shrox did with the young person holding up a rocket with a space launch vehicle in the background. More people need to make those kinds of associations with the hobby... not the associations that certain law makers would have them believe.
Good idea, but not a guarantee of success. I could see ATF, Schumer and Lautenberg holding a press conference about how the Evil Republicans are Exploiting Innocent Tsunami Victims and Selling Out America To The Terrorists.
You're forgetting the ATF's wonderful catch-all that says that just because something isn't on the list of regulated explosives, doesn't mean it's not a regulated explosive.
I think we're already there. When ever people see my garage they ask what I'm doing and are always impressed when I explain the hobby. They talk about how cool it is and how they'd love to come to a launch. But if my hobby was eliminated by the stroke of a pen, none of them would lose much sleep.
I'd be willing to bet that more people are concerned about the future of Professional Hockey than hobby rocketry.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.