factual correction for: Homeland Security Act Affects Amateur High Power Rocketry
The Extreme Rocketry Article NAR Did Not Want You To Read Censored !! Submitted for publication on Dec. 8, 2002 to Extreme Rocketry magazine at their request. Censored from publication on Dec. 12, 2002 by Mark B. Bundick, President of NAR. I posted this information to my rocket club mailing list and these two interesting bits of information popped up Fehskens, Len wrote: Once more with feeling: the NAR did not censor this article. NAR counsel advised the NAR President that they thought publication of the article was inadvisable in the current litigation climate. The NAR President communicated this opinion to the publisher of Extreme Rocketry. The publisher agreed. Tha NAR has no authority whatsoever over the publisher of Extreme Rocketry. len. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric, Jack and the rest of you. As a follow-up to Jack's comments, I think that it is important to realize that 3 separate issues are being addressed as if they were all the same. They are not. 1.) The modification, and/or revocation of existing laws and regulations interfering with HPR by the judicial system intervention. This is a reactive approach and is what the NAR lawsuit is all about. This course of action takes a lot of time and a lot of money. I have personal experience here. I spent 18K$ to overturn a zoning appeals board decision that granted to a neighbor a variance to build a new commercial building in a residentially zone neighborhood. This is explicitly unallowed by the town zoning by-laws. I was countersued by the neighbor on frivolous grounds (his lawyer could have been disbarred for bringing this case to court) which was also ruled in my favor. The whole thing took more than 2 years to reach a conclusion. Our lawsuit may be definitive, but objectively it will take a long time to conclude in spite of what anyone says. 2.) Lobbying the legislature to get a new law enacted. This is a proactive approach and is what John Wickman is doing. The success of lobbying depends greatly on who you know. If you don't know anyone it can be very expensive and ineffective since only numbers count to elected officials. Let's get real and face the facts: There are only several thousand adults involved in HPR out of the more than 100,000,000 potential voters. At most we're a pimple on the butt of the legislature. Collectively we have no political clout. If John has the connections, he should go for it. I don't see any conflict between NAR's lawsuit and John's lobbying. They may accomplish the same end effect but their efforts are totally different. I also don't see what Bunny's concerns were over John submission to Extreme Rocketry. It is a factual representation of what will happen under the new HSA regulations. Anyone following the new regulations already knew everything he stated. I think everyone over reacted. IMHO Bunny should not have said anything and the editor should not have asked. Don't ask, don't tell. Anyway it's over and done with, lay it to rest. 3. UPS and FEDEX's apparent refusal of rocket motor shipments. As private companies, they can pick and choose what they transport. Period. End of story. Shipping rocket motors of any kind and/or size has to be done by ground only, and always required a HAZMAT fee if you use private shippers. The USPS has always been cheaper and faster. The private carrier loss is not a big deal for the model rocket crowd, but it makes it harder for the HPR folks. You still can use common carriers for HP shipping but you will have to have a LEUP for interstate HP motor commerce. For those without a LEUP HPR is less certain. Instate I believe you will need the new Federal permit to buy and transport high power but I'm not clear on this aspect of the new regulations. There's always hybrids. In the proposed new ATF regulations there is a specific exemption for model rocket motors as currently defined, specifically motors with not more than 62.5 grams of any propellant type including APCP, BP etc. Nothing has changed here, and there are no restrictions on the sale and transport of MODEL ROCKET MOTORS. There is no exemption for reloadable motors with more than 62.5 grams of propellant in the new ATF regulations, but I'm not sure there ever was a formal written exemption for easy access reloadable motors. So right now L1 and L2 HP folks appear screwed if they don't have a LEAP. This is really the problem that NIR and John should be addressing. My two cents. Bob Krech So in summary, the NAR is doing all it can to keep model rocketry safe and available here in the states. They have serious education programs for teachers. They have self training programs for hobbyists. They are taking legal action against the BATF. You can't ask much more of an organization. Check out www.nar.org for more information. --- eric
Re: factual correction for: Homeland Security Act Affects Amateur High Power Rocketry
On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 08:07 AM, Eric S. Johansson wrote: The Extreme Rocketry Article NAR Did Not Want You To Read Censored !! Submitted for publication on Dec. 8, 2002 to Extreme Rocketry magazine at their request. Censored from publication on Dec. 12, 2002 by Mark B. Bundick, President of NAR. I posted this information to my rocket club mailing list and these two interesting bits of information popped up Fehskens, Len wrote: Once more with feeling: the NAR did not censor this article. NAR counsel advised the NAR President that they thought publication of the article was inadvisable in the current litigation climate. The NAR President communicated this opinion to the publisher of Extreme Rocketry. The publisher agreed. Tha NAR has no authority whatsoever over the publisher of Extreme Rocketry. len. Censor has a range of meanings, and what the publishers and editors did in this case qualifies as a form of censorship. (Check nearly any dictionary for this range of meanings.) There is the only government can censor meaning of censor: official censors who decide what may and what may not be published. There is, at the other end of the spectrum, the self-censorship any of us may sometimes exhibit. In between, there is the censorship of a corporation not allowing an employee to publish something, or even to speak publicly. And a magazine deciding not to publish something because it might aid the Evil Ones or offend the Pentagon, etc., is certainly doing a form of censorship. Especially when they mention litigation climate in the context of Homeland Security. It would be like The Progressive opting not to publish the H-bomb plans because of the current litigation climate. Or The Baghdad Daily opting not to publish an expose of President Hussein because of the current litigation climate. It is correct in all of these cases to say a speaker or writer was censored. (Note that I am not at all disputing the right of a corporation or publisher or owner of a printing press to decide what to publish. Just using a perfectly descriptive word.) --Tim May
Homeland Security Act Affects Amateur High Power Rocketry
http://www.space-rockets.com/art1.html The Extreme Rocketry Article NAR Did Not Want You To Read Censored !! Submitted for publication on Dec. 8, 2002 to Extreme Rocketry magazine at their request. Censored from publication on Dec. 12, 2002 by Mark B. Bundick, President of NAR. Homeland Security Act Affects Amateur High Power Rocketry The Homeland Security Act signed into law by President Bush on November 25, 2002, will impose new restrictions on amateur and high power rocketry. The restrictions will be primarily in buying powder for ejection charges, buying ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) reloads/single use motors and transporting APCP reloads/single use motors. How did these restrictions get included in the Homeland Security Act? It began early in 2002, when two different versions of a Safe Explosives Act were introduced into the Senate and House of Representatives. Both versions had major restrictions on the purchase and transportation of explosives. The Senate version (S. 1956) came out of committee in June, but never made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The House version (H.R. 4864) was stuck in committee until in mid-September it emerged in a revised form. Still, it never made it to the floor of the House for a vote. In early November, this appeared to be the end of the Safe Explosives Act. However, President Bush was determined to push through the lame duck session of Congress a Homeland Security Act. Senators and Representatives knew that the President would sign any Homeland Security bill passed by the Senate and House. The result was a feeding frenzy of amendments and pork barrel. In the evening hours of November 13th, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Wisconsin) breathed life back into his Safe Explosives Act by tacking it onto the Homeland Security bill as an amendment. Senator Herb Kohl, also representing Wisconsin, assisted him in writing the amendment. Senator Kohl was the author of the failed Senate version of the Safe Explosives Act. The House passed the bill with the amendment, the Senate did not take it out of the bill and President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act into law. High Power Rocketry and Amateur Rocketry will now have to deal with the consequences. Parachute Ejection Charges Black powder is commonly used for parachute ejection charges in high power and amateur rockets. Prior to the Homeland Security Act, you could buy black powder within your state without an ATF permit. If you did not have an ATF permit, ATF Form 5400.4, Explosives Transaction Record, was filled out and signed. On January 24, 2003, you will be required to sign a revised 5400.4 form. The revisions includes an expanded prohibited persons category to include (1) aliens (with limited exceptions), (2) persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the military and (3) persons who have renounced their United States citizenship. The revised form will also require the seller to verify the identity of buyers by removing the option to check the is known to me box on the form in Section B, Item 18. The form has also been revised in Section A, Items 9-14, to facilitate the collection of additional information related to the purchaser's intended use of explosive materials. ATF has also revised the buyer certification statement in Section A, Item 16. On May 24, 2003, you will not be permitted to buy black powder without an ATF license or permit. To buy black powder you will need a Low Explosives User Permit (LEUP) or a new Limited Permit that allows the purchaser to receive explosive materials on no more than six occasions within a year. The cost of the Limited Permit will be $25 with a renewal fee of $12.50. With the Limited Permit you can only buy black powder from a dealer within your State of residence. You also cannot transport the black powder across state lines. This means you could not fly at a launch outside of your state with a Limited Permit since you could not transport the black powder across state lines. People with a LEUP will be able to buy black powder from out of state sources and transport it across state lines as before. The Homeland Security Act requires that applicants for an ATF license or permit provide the ATF with identifying information, fingerprints, and photographs. The ATF is now required by law to conduct a background check on all applicants before granting a permit or license. This process can take up to 90 days. Further, it is now required that all ATF licensees and permittees be inspected at least once every three calendar years for compliance with Federal explosives storage requirements. The ATF will also have authority to conduct inspections of the new Limited Permittees and their places of storage. If you already have black powder, but do not have an ATF permit or license, you cannot transport the black powder off of the property where
Re: Homeland Security Act Affects Amateur High Power Rocketry
Sheesh -- somehow I though Sensenbrenner, at least, was smarter than this (although I knew Kohl wasn't) don't any of these people have a clue as to how ridiculously easy it is to make blackpowder from scratch in 100lb plus quantities? Including making the charcoal and the potassium nitrate? And sulfur, of course, is an extremely common agricultural chemical available literally everywhere, even easy enough to dig your own in some places. Duh! Double duh! All they are accomplishing is making a hassle for muzzleloader and rocketry buffs.
Re: Homeland Security Act Affects Amateur High Power Rocketry
Including making the charcoal and the potassium nitrate? Black powder is rather poor fuel for homemade rocket engines. According to what I know, much better fuel is made from about 60/40 mixture of potassium nitrate and sorbitol. Reportedly it should be possible to manufacture engines of several pounds of weight. All they are accomplishing is making a hassle for muzzleloader and rocketry buffs. Having a brain is apparently a contraindication for going into politics.
Re: Homeland Security Act Affects Amateur High Power Rocketry
At 05:15 AM 2/24/2003 +0100, you wrote: Including making the charcoal and the potassium nitrate? Black powder is rather poor fuel for homemade rocket engines. According to what I know, much better fuel is made from about 60/40 mixture of potassium nitrate and sorbitol. Reportedly it should be possible to manufacture engines of several pounds of weight. Haven't tried that, but my friends and I were making some pretty impressive metal rockets in the mid-60s using stages with either zinc/sulphur or potassium perchlorate/asphalt (Galcit 58). Maximum heights attained for 2-stages in excess of 80k ft. (radar verified) using a Gerald Bull-syle mortar powered by the rocket's exhaust pressure to increase launch velocity and reduce directional dispersion (we cribbed the idea from Atlantic Research, the then leader in meteorological sounding rockets). steve
