Quickburst shut down by BATFE

------------------------ The last time I heard the word 'winky(ies)', my son was 3.

He was referring to 'his' rocket. ;)

Reply to
K Cornelius
Loading thread data ...

A less polite synonym of the word "winky" provides a pretty accurate appoximation of who's in the ATF administration.

Reply to
Brian McDermott

As I recall from ancient rocket history, Estes avoided the problematic legalities of "igniters" by selling them packaged together with the motors as part of the "motor assembly" in the package. And by keeping the amount of pyrogen below 50(or was it 20?)milligrams. Of course, Estes also sells these non-igniters separately but that is allowed as "replacement parts" for malfuncting units which is legally distinct from simply selling igniters.

It's all horse puckey legalism of course, but that's the ONLY thing that matters to bureaucracies.

Estes igniters have two leads, a resistive bridge, and pyrogen just like any other igniter. Their intended function is to *ignite* rocket motors. But they are *not* igniters BECAUSE ATF SAYS SO!

Now, go to the blackboard and write the phrase, "BECAUSE ATF SAYS SO!"

500 times. +McG+
Reply to
kmcgrmr

The only party that would help our cause is the libertarians.

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

NOT to be confused with liberals!

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Reply to
tdstr

Or the Librarians.

Reply to
Fred Shecter

Good one :)

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Reply to
tdstr

How? Which Libertarian Senators (or candidates for that matter) will "out" the members of the Judiciary Committee for blocking attempts to exempt hobby rocketry from regulation?

Are those crickets I hear?

Reply to
Alex Mericas

HERE HERE! I too vote Libertarian....they are the only party we can trust to keep sensible regulations in place and to throw out the silly ones. I truly think if more people heard the message the Libertarians would begin to win major political offices. Unfortunately, the dominant parties have written the rules so as to squelch any real threat from another party.

Craig

Reply to
Craig

What about the Libertine?

Reply to
Alan Jones

Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? Were they just the first to get harassed or was there a technicality of some sort? Does this mean that we should all stock up now?

Reply to
lizardqueen

But the libs are a meaningless voice in getting things done. There are two parties right now in the real world.

The Repubs have been backing Bush on really stupid stuff, as they control the house and Senate, though there seems to be a bit of a revolt with "redefine the Geneva conventions" thing.

Getting Dems into place will help in getting the congress back to the state where they don't do something too stupid on their own.

Right now, a vote for the libs, is a vote thrown away....

Craig wrote:

Reply to
AZ Woody

They probably just "came to their attention" in some way.. Think about the motor vendor in DC that also got hit by the BATFE... Quickburst isn't the first, by any means...

You advertise on the web (as a vendor) and a simple google search for "ignitors" gives customers a link, but also gives one to the BATFE!

You try to sell stuff on the web in a manner that the BATFE can't find you, and that even looks worse..

Reply to
AZ Woody

We need a new term...

From now on, anyone who wants to sell things like this should call them "rocket-makeit-go'ers"!!!

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

I don't know why Quickburst was singled out.

I also don't know if "stocking up" might be a red flag to your friendly local JBGT or not.

I do know that it won't stop with Quickburst (or the pyro outfits, or the motor makers, or the ________________.)

I think the comment made in another thread is pertinent:

Innovation is the answer.

If we can adapt faster than they can regulate, there may be a chance. If rocketry depends upon any single, critical item, those opposed to it can simply clamp down on that one item. We see the problem with APCP right now. I understand that sport rocket motor makers cannot simply change to non- regulated propellants. But maybe adding some other propellant formulations to their lines could prove useful.

Electrical initiation does not have to mean a regulated pyrogen based "igniter".

I certainly have no specific ideas. But I do know there exists, for instance, hypergolic fuels.

There's been a lot of work on nitrate based propellants with different binders/fuel (epoxies) in the last few years. Yes, I know the ISP is lower. I also know a good sugar motor can loft about anything we need to loft. And you can put properly designed sugar/dextrin/sorbitol grains in RMS cases.

I wish I knew more chemistry. Any chemists or pyrotechs out there with a comment?

Reply to
Gary

That's easy -- everytime anyone online asks about igniters, Quickburst gets mentioned. We already know that the ATF has moles reading the rocketry forums and the TRA list. For a manufacturer, this is the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. They can only get business by advertising and through customer recommendations. But the minute that happens, they're on the ATF's radar.

Probably both. Quickburst is a small manufacturer (just a one-man outfit, as far as I know), they lack deep pockets, and they're well known in the rocketry community. So they're an easy target. I expect there will be others, especially if the ATF loses control of APCP via the court. When that happens, fully expect them to start a crackdown on igniters, BP, etc.

BTW, if anyone wonders why the ATF didn't go after Quickburst (and other igniter manufacturers/dealers) sooner, I think it was a strategic move. Early on, they were confident they'd beat us in court. No need to waste time and resources on such "small fish" when they could put a stranglehold on the motor supply. And if they had brought up the igniter issue sooner, we might have added it to our lawsuit (as it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable). Now that they are losing the APCP battle, they can switch to Plan B and screw with our support materials. Not quite as effective as regulating motors, but (from ATF's point of view) hurting us a little is better than not hurting us at all

Seems like a wise move to me.

s
Reply to
raydunakin

The technical reason: Technically, the compound used in the igniters made by Quickburst are, more than likely, a class 1 hazardous material, (explosive). Class 1 hazmat is regulated by the ATFE because ATFE regulates all hazmat that is an explosive by classification. Also, there is the DOT, another issue altogether for someone manufacturing hazardous material for commerce, just ask JI.

Fred

lizard queen wrote:

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Hypergolics? How sad and ironic that, in the interest of one kind of "safety," the nannystate may drive us to things that present a real and immediate, rather than theoretical and imagined, danger.

Most of the materials we use are the best and safest that could be developed at reasonable cost. Almost any change is a step backward in that respect.

The worst part is that I still can't really grasp the motivation. It seems clear that the authorities simply want to restrict the hobby into oblivion. But WHY? It's scary to think that they truly believe the stuff we use is a threat - they can't really be that stupid. My first thought was to at least appear to be doing something to make us "safer"

- but I think on the whole people are more annoyed by airline restrictions than clamoring to be made safer. What's left?

Reply to
Scott Schuckert

Manufacturing an explosive for commerce requires an ATF manufacturing permit. Do the igniters contain a regulated explosive? Does Quickburst have a manufacturing permit? Most parties shut down by the ATF are making illegal fireworks rather than rocket motor igniters.

Many pyrotechnic devices are available for purchase without the requirement of a user permit even though they contain a regulated explosive. A manufacturing permit is required to make them.

Reply to
Nobody

I'll quit before I mess with those.

>
Reply to
Tweak

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.