Page 45 of 55 - Previous page

I have a piece up on The Space Review on amateur manned suborbital spaceflight, arguing that within a couple of decades homebuilt spacecraft could be within reach for individuals of moderate wealth. The reasoning is by analogy with homebuilders of other vehicle types.

Some links to relevant resources:

Homebuilt manned rockets website - A little odd, but there are some good links.

Rotomotion is selling guidance systems for model helicopters, but the product gives an idea about where guidance systems might be headed in the short term. Something not too different from this could serve as the basis of a guidance system for a homebuilt spacecraft.

Crossbow makes the IMU used by Armadillo Aerospace (expensive, but good)

Jeff Greason of XCOR responded to a post I made on this subject in April on sci.space.policy, in a thread about SpaceCub.

boatbuilding.com is a good central resource for homebuilt boats of various types and sizes, as is

rec.boats.building

The Experimental Aircraft Association is the premier organization in the USA for builders and owners of homebuilt aircraft, and they've had a generally positive attitude towards vehicles like the XCOR EZ Rocket. The EAA magazine also ran a piece on homebuilt rockets written by Mark Russell of Russell Lindbergh Aerospace. There is a link to a spreadsheet for design of a simple homebuilt manned rocket on their website. Unfortunately there isn't a copy of the article available online, though EAA sells back issues. Another good resource on aircraft homebuilding is rec.aviation.homebuilt.

There are some interesting discussions on the Personal Submarines list archives. Some of the life support technologies are clearly relevant to homebuilt spacecraft.

---

Comments

I'm going to attempt to do this again to see if a real time conversation is possible within the community. The freenode project “exists to provide an interactive environment for coordination and support of peer-directed projects, including those relating to free software and open source.” So I'm going to suggest we use the '#arocket' channel for real time conversations. Here is their FAQ for how to go about connecting and using their network.

---

Comments

In his latest Spacefaring Web article , John Carter McKnight goes on a tirade against big corporations taking over space and knocking out all the little guys he loves, with the consequence that “the end of space's era of innovation is visible on the horizon.”

bq. “What was once the American military-industrial complex has become the infrastructure of global empire. Within a lifetime, it could spread through the Solar System, and any future space colony could look an awful lot like occupied Iraq…”

McKnight's argument seems to be based on a sharp distinction between the ominous “big corporations” and the small innovative start-up - but where is this boundary, exactly? If it's at some monetary revenue number, or some number of paid employees, how do you explain all those new entrants who cross every such boundary every year? Is it when you get your first big government contract? Wouldn't that disqualify SpaceDev, LiftPort, and any other company (TransOrbital soon?) that had some revenue from government grants? p. In reality, the worry I have is not that the US military-industrial complex will colonize space and stamp out all innovation there, but that no big corporation will be interested in doing anything new in space at all. Companies with billions in revenue and thousands of employees could, if they so chose, make an enormous difference in space development; just as wealthy private individuals have in the past. I'd much rather have a space colony run by a public company, answerable to shareholders, than one answerable only to a single dictatorial large investor. p. What small companies can do is provide the spark of ideas, the first proof that something might be practical - if a big company chooses to jump in and help out, fine - otherwise the small company that does it first will likely itself become big, just as the Boeing company did in the early days of flight, or Microsoft and Apple in the early days of personal computing. p. There is no monolithic corporate stranglehold on space; that's one thing the X-prize contenders are out to prove. In our capitalist system we have a huge mix of privately-held firms, competing, evolving, growing, shrinking; new companies are born, old ones die every day. Why not try and work WITH the big guys, instead of pretending they don't exist, or making them the boogeymen? Enough excuses guys, space is out there, and it's time for us to make it ours.

---

Comments

To ARSA Members,

I want to bring you up to date on the effort to get an exemption for rocketry from ATFE oversight. We are at a point where I think it will be useful for you to know what we did the first three months of this effort starting in December 2002. It will help put the current situation in perspective. I can reveal this now, as it will not hurt our current and future efforts. I will also fill you in on Hatch-Kohl amendment and what it really means.

In late November 2002, I called Senator Enzi's office after learning about the Safe Explosives Act (SEA) imbedded inside the Homeland Security Act (HSA). I briefed the staffer on the situation and she in turn briefed Senator Enzi. The goal of any potential action was to get rocketry in general out from under the SEA as quickly as possible and certainly before May 24. I cannot emphasize this point enough that the goal was and still is to get rocketry in general out from under the SEA. The goal was never about the process of getting there. We first had to convince the Senator to get involved in what would probably turn out to be a political brawl. He agreed after several days of discussions.

After more discussions, we had two basic approaches. The first was to go directly to the White House and seek an executive order to exempt rocketry from the SEA. This could be done in a few weeks. I can tell that this was a very realistic option. I will leave it at that. The second option was to stick an exemption for rocketry on a technical corrections bill for the HSA. Senator Lott, who was going to be the new Senate majority leader, had planned to introduce this bill early in the January 2003 session of the Senate. This was a bill that would be signed by President Bush and we could be buried in this thick document. The bill would be on a fast track and probably signed into law in February.

Senator Enzi and his staff had a meeting and decided to go with the technical corrections bill. They rejected the White House route as they felt it would receive a low priority by the White House staffer assigned to carry it out. At the time, the White House staff was completely consumed with the details of planning for the invasion of Iraq. It was believed that the technical corrections bill would be a faster and more reliable method of getting to the goal.

As you may remember, Senator Lott made public remarks that cost him the leadership of the Senate. With that loss, came the loss of his priorities as well, including the technical corrections bill. You may recall a letter campaign to the new majority leader, Senator Frist, promoting a technical corrections bill and asking that it be moved up on the calendar. He did not see the importance of the bill and had scheduled it for consideration in the summer. Consequently, the option of riding the technical corrections bill had to be dropped.

Now, we were left with the option we had wanted the least, a stand-alone bill going for a rocketry exemption in the SEA. Everybody knew that this bill standing “naked” by itself would be hit and hit hard by the ATFE and those sympathetic to the ATFE. We knew it would be attacked from all directions and that the ATFE would try to put weight limits on it as well as try to kill it outright. Plans of action were laid out for the various eventualities such as killed in committee, a “wounded duck” coming out of committee, and so on. After several drafts of what would become S724, Senator Enzi introduced the bill to the Senate.

Now, lets skip a couple of months and get to more recent events. What happened in the Judiciary committee? Essentially, Senators Kohl and Hatch gave Senator Enzi what amounted to an ultimatum, “either accept what we give you or we will kill the bill in committee”. A contingency plan to minimize damage was implemented, which called for the general definition for non-detonable propellant to be taken out of the bill. If that could not be achieved, then the goal would be for a complete kill in the committee. Even with that change to the bill, it would have a lot of problems and would be damaging. Now, balanced against that damage were other political options if the bill came out of committee as a “wounded duck”. These options would permit the bill to get back on track towards it original goal. However, there was danger in pursuing those options. If the amendment passed by unanimous consent, it could be put it on the fast track for a full Senate vote by unanimous consent. That would close off a lot of potential political options to recover the bill. So, it was important that if the Hatch-Kohl amendment was passed by the committee that it not be by unanimous consent. There was also the choice for a kill on what would be the Hatch-Kohl amendment. It was a pretty loaded deck and the decision on what to attempt was Senator Enzi's. He decided to let it go forward to keep political options open. Senator Craig made sure it was not a unanimous vote.

I have no idea who actually wrote the Hatch-Kohl amendment. Besides, Senator Kohl, nobody seems ready to “belly up to the bar” on that one. I do know we had nothing to do with it. Various numbers had been floated around, but that was all we knew. I wish I could convey to you the frustration of Senator Enzi's staff. They knew nothing about what was really going on with the bill or even when it was going to be voted on in the committee.

Now, let's talk about the Hatch-Kohl amendment to S724. You can read an analysis of the amendment on the ARSA web page. It is important to note that this amendment was written with the approval and participation of the ATFE. That should tell you a lot. Let me point out three little goodies in the amendment. The first is that the exemption only applies if the APCP is used in model rocket motors. Nowhere are they defined in the bill. Guess who defines them? The ATFE. Will it be defined as “rocket motors made of cardboard tubes and clay nozzles” or “with an impulse not to exceed 160 Newton-seconds” or “single use applications only”. We don't know. The second goodie is the term “recreational model rockets”. Again, it is not defined in the bill and will be defined by the ATFE. Will that definition be “made of cardboard tubes, wood fins and plastic nosecones” or “not to exceed a lift off weight of 3 lbs” or “not to exceed a diameter of 3 inches and length of 48 inches”? We do not know. I would not expect the ATFE to write definitions for us that will be favorable to the future of rocketry.

The last goodie in the amendment is that the 0.9 lb of propellant applies to both non-detonable 1.3 APCP and detonable 1.1 APCP as the phrase “ammonium perchlorate composite propellant” is used with no distinction between classes. You will notice that the same phrase is used in the ATFE proposed rocketry regulation with no distinction in classes. So what is the big deal? Why is it important in one and not the other? The difference is that in one case the phrase is used in a federal regulation and in the other United States Code. The federal regulation can be changed at will by the ATFE, but only Congress can change the United States Code. If you do not make a distinction between classes of APCP in the US code and 1.1 class APCP 0.9 lb motors start floating around out there, the ATFE can only revoke the exemption by going to Congress and having the law changed, which is a time consuming process.

If you don't think Senator Kohl would have pointed this out on the floor of the Senate, you are kidding yourself. Of course, these things could be fixed with additional amendments on the floor, but something very interesting will happen if you do. Add definitions for “model rocket motor” and “recreational model rockets” and Senator Kohl will oppose it along with others. If you are successful in getting that added, and that is a very big if, you will need to fix the last item with wording defining what APCP is exempt. If you get by that hurdle, Senator Kohl and the ATFE have one last bombshell to drop on you and it is a beauty. If you hated the letter from the ATFE, I guarantee you are going absolutely detest what they are going to show on the floor of the Senate. I can assure you they will play this card when they feel it is necessary.

The amended S724 is an empty bag and political ploy to make you thing the Judiciary committee did something for you when in fact you got nothing. It is a political illusion. I know some people are satisfied with the amendment. If you are one of them, ask the ATFE to give it to you now. You don't need an act of Congress to get it. The ATFE approved it so they should have no problem taking that amendment and simply writing it into regulation along with their definitions.

In a few days, I will be sending you another email on where we go from here and why.

If you are receiving duplicate emails or what to be off the list, let me know.

This may be reposted.

John Wickman

ARSA

---

Comments

in response to requests for extension from the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), the International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE) and a third unnamed commentor the response period to NPRM 968 has been extended to July 7th

click here or visit http://tinyurl.com/f3ir for the official notice of extension

• iz

---

Comments

Gwynne Dyer's commentary in the Salt Lake Tribune (quoted by slashdot this past weekend) makes an interesting case; the main discussion is on the stated plans by India and China to develop manned space flight, and what sounds like the start of a race between them to the Moon. But one quote I thought in particular stood out: bq. What may be emerging here, indeed, is the next major era of manned space exploration – something that will annoy those who believe that space is a primarily scientific enterprise, and delight those who think it is about something larger. These unashamed romantics use historical analogies about the discovery of new lands and wax eloquent about humanity's destiny when asked exactly what that larger thing is, because the very nature of exploration is that you don't know what is there before you find it. But they don't want to be ruled by the accountants and they don't want to leave it all to the robots – and in the industrialized world, they have been losing most of the arguments for a long time now. When they were winning them, back in the '60s and early '70s it was thanks to the acute rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, which was just as much about prestige as it was about military power. Men in orbit and on the moon translated into prestige then, and it would do so all the more for Asia's great rivals, China and India, because they would essentially be supplanting the first-generation space powers of the industrialized world.

What's exciting to me about this article is that Dyer (who happens to come from Newfoundland, where I grew up) usually writes about war and high-level international politics - and yet he seems to have caught in a few words the essence of what captivates so many otherwise “normal” people who have become space enthusiasts. Maybe he hasn't got it all exactly right (I don't personally have a problem with accountants, as long as they're working for me) but he's got the right idea. Let's hope we've just hit a low point, and the romance and adventure of space travel will join with the commercial capabilities of the West to go far beyond what we've done before. And maybe a little competition from Asia won't hurt.

---

Comments

From: “Enzi, press office (Enzi)”

Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:27 PM

Subject: Enzi-rocket bill

Washington, D.C. - The Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation today sponsored by U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., that would shield some model rocket enthusiasts from Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulations that have threatened the hobby.

Under the measure passed by the committee, rocketeers would be able to transport and purchase rocket motors that contain less than .9 pounds (409.5 grams) of APCP rocket propellant without being required to obtain a permit from the ATF. APCP, or Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, has been classified as an explosive by the ATF. Rocketeers contend that APCP is not an explosive and have taken the matter to court. The case is pending.

“Our country's law enforcement resources would be better utilized by seeking out real threats to our national security and safety instead of processing permits for kids who want to launch model rockets. ATF agents have better things to do. My bill as introduced, would have provided a complete exemption for model rocket hobbyists and that's what I prefer, but we are gaining ground by increasing the exemption to more than six times what the limit is now,” said Enzi. “I hope the House will build and improve on what we've started in the Senate.”

Before 1997, the ATF exempted APCP used for consumer rocket motors from the permits required for other substances on the explosives list. Since that time, only rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of APCP have been exempt. Handlers of rocket motors that contained more than 62.5 grams of APCP were required to get permits to purchase and transport the motors between states. Now, with the passage of the Homeland Security Act, the permits are being applied to those who purchase and transport the motors greater than 62.5 grams within a state.

Enzi's bill as amended would also allow a person to store up to 25 pounds of APCP without a permit as long as each individual motor did not contain more than .9 pounds of APCP.

The committee voted 16-2 in favor of the amended S. 724. Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, voted against the bill. The bill will now be placed on the Senate calender and subject to consideration by the Senate as a whole on the Senate floor.

-end-

**

Statement of Chairman Orrin G. Hatch

Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Executive Business Meeting on

S. 724, A BILL TO EXEMPT CERTAIN

ROCKET PROPELLANTS FROM EXPLOSIVES PROHIBITIONS

**

As I mentioned at last week's mark-up, we have been diligently working on a

substitute to S. 724 that strikes an appropriate balance between the

legitimate concerns of all parties. I will be offering a substitute on

behalf of myself and Senator Kohl that I believe does just that. The

original bill sponsored by Senator Enzi, and cosponsored by Senators Craig,

Sessions and Durbin, provided a blanket exemption for non-detonable rocket

propellant. Some Members of the Committee, along with the Department of

Justice, have expressed concerns with the blanket exemption. In drafting

this substitute language Senator Kohl and I - and I want to commend Senator

Kohl for working so diligently to craft this compromise - have very

carefully considered those concerns. I believe the compromise legislation I

offer today appropriately balances the interests of the rocket hobby with

those of our law enforcement community. In my view, it minimizes the burdens

on law-abiding citizens without jeopardizing the safety and security of our

nation.

Very briefly, the compromise places a limit at just under one pound on the

amount of the rocket propellant, APCP, one may purchase without a permit.

Further, it requires those who legally possess more than 25 pounds of the

propellant to store the material in a locked metal container. This storage

requirement comports with the International Fire Code - which has already

been or will soon be adopted by 33 states, including my own state of Utah.

**

---

Comments

Eric Raymond has an item on his blog on Hacking and Refactoring that's relevant to anyone who wants to apply open source principles to anything (including rocketry). The item is rather software-oriented but has lots of links to material that is must-read for understanding why open source works (and why so many attempts at applying open source approaches to other areas fail).

The central insight that's relevant to rocketry is that hacking starts with the first thing that works and then munges it into better and better shape until the final product bears little resemblance to the original. This is obviously very hard to do with physical objects (as opposed to software), but the essential mindset can be carried over to a certain extent. It's also important to bear in mind that many of the problems facing people designing and building hardware have to do with access to reliable information, and information is the essential substrate on which hackers work their craft.

This suggests that much of the open source methodology can be carried over directly to the information part of the hardware problem.

---

Comments

Please read the progress report on S724 at www.space-rockets.com/congress

Essentially, we have two Senators blocking the bill from passing without weight limits. Senator Hatch is the chairman of the committee and carries alot of weight with the other undecided Republicans. Senator Hatch's position on this is not cast into concrete. I believe his position could be changed with a strong letter and phone campaign. Senator Kohl's position, I believe, is cast into concrete and not going to change. Right now, the other Democrats on the committee are going to follow Kohl's lead as he was one of the authors on the Safe Explosive Act. Only Sen. Durbin (Democrat is not going to follow Kohl, as Durbin is a cosponsor of S724.

The purpose of a new letter campaign is to convince Senator Hatch that unrestricted access to APCP is not going cause Homeland security problems. The campaign will also focus on getting the Democratic Senators to vote independently and not just follow Senator Kohl's lead. More importantly, they will not impose weight limitations on S724. We do not have to get out of committee with a unanimous vote, just a simple majority.

There has been a lot of discussion this last week about weight limits. I'm sure many of you would accept various levels of weight limits. Believe it or not, the real battle on this bill is going to be in the House. If you think this committee is bad, wait to you see the House. What many people do not realize is that S724 with a weight limit will cause us to lose support from people we are going to need in the House battle. Without those “troops” S724 is not going to go the distance, even with a weight limit. The unsung heroes of this legislative effort are those who have worked behind the scenes to turn negative news stories around before they got published or aired, written technical reports on the true hazards of APCP for Senate staffers, got out the letters and phone calls, made presentations to staffers and would not take no from a Senator or his staff. With weight limits, the rag tag army we have assembled begins to come apart. What works for the mid power guy, doesn't work for the high power guy. What works for the high power guy, doesn't work for the amateur. What works for the amateur, doesn't work for the dealer or manufacturer and so on. Who do we abandon along the way for a quick deal?

We do not have to start throwing people over the side to make a deal in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee is only one battle, not the war. If we lose there, we can still revive the bill in the Senate. There are ways to do that. We also have the House and Rep. Calvert's bill, yet to be introduced. This is not over by a long shot, no matter what happens this week.

Tomorrow, I will be asking for people to write and call Senators on the committee that can make a difference and help us get S724 out of committee without limits. The information will be on the congress web page. I don't know whether NAR or TRA will join in this, they will have to decide for themselves, as will you. Is this authorized by anyone in Washington? Well, I was told a few days ago that Senator Enzi would understand if I used “leverage” to get S724 passed as we both had written it, no weight limits. It is time to apply some “leverage”.

This can be reposted.

John Wickman

ARSA

P.S. Many have emailed that they are not yet on the mailing list. For this I apologize as we have been swamped with requests. Within the next 7 days, we are going to try and get everyone on the list who has sent in a request.

---

Comments

June 14, 2003 - It is time to give you a picture of the situation as best we know it. Senate bill S724 has been scheduled to be “marked up” two times and both times it has been postponed. The “mark up” is to permit members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to make changes to S724. Senator Enzi is not a committee member and has no direct input on how the bill will be changed by the committee.

Senator Enzi's staff have been working to get S724 through the committee. Some progress was made. Senate Judiciary staffers were talking to House Judiciary staffers where opposition to the bill was strong. Senator Enzi had persuaded Senator Hatch to give the bill a higher priority in the calendar. However, Senator Hatch did not see any point in passing a bill out of his committee that the House would not approve. Senate Judiciary staffers thought the ATFE storage requirements for the motors were extreme. It looked like that issue could be resolved with only the elimination of permitting left to be overcome. Senator Kohl was opposed to the bill and went on the record with his constituents that rocketeers could simply get ATFE permits for motors over 62.5 grams. While Kohl was strongly opposed to the bill many other Democrats had indicated to their constituents that they would support S724.

At some point during May, the situation in the committee started to spin out of control and degenerated into a discussion of weight limits. Up until this time, the answer to Senators asking for a weight limit was no. Someone in the process either said yes or gave the impression that weight limits were now on the table. ARSA was repeatedly asked by Senate staff about weight limits and our answer was not only no, but that such a discussion would sink the bill. The last week of May, ARSA was informed by staffers that key Senators on the committee were determined to only pass the bill with a weight limit. We said that was not acceptable and we needed to educate these Senators so that they could see weight limits were not necessary. We had tentatively scheduled a new letter and phone campaign for these Senators the week after the ATFE and House letter campaign.

Unexpectedly, the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled S724 for “mark up” on June 5th. It was initially believed that this “mark up” would be minor technical corrections submitted weeks earlier. However, it soon became clear that something bigger was in the wind. Candice Cotton, Senator Enzi's legislative assistant assigned to S724 was on vacation during that week and had no knowledge the committee planned to take action on the bill. Fortunately, the committee delayed action on the bill. It was clear to ARSA at this point, the future of the bill was in serious doubt.

This last week we have tried to determine what is the status of the bill and what happened. As feared the bill got on the slippery slope of weight limits, which caused support for the bill to fragment. Here is the situation as best we know it comprised from staffers and other sources involved in the process. Senator Kohl is opposed to the bill and all Democrats on the committee, except Senator Durbin, will vote for whatever Kohl tells them to vote for. If Kohl says no, they vote no. If he says vote yes with this limit, they will vote that way. They will simply follow his instructions. Senator Durbin supports the original S724 and is a cosponsor. It is our understanding that the two Republican cosponsors, Sessions and Craig are not for weight limits. Senator Hatch wants weight limits. What the remaining Republicans will do is unknown.

We have been told that the weight limits being discussed within the committee are extremely low and not anywhere near 50 pounds as many people assume. It is ARSA's position that weight limits are not acceptable. We do not feel this is unreasonable when congress permits the unlimited purchase of smokeless powder without ATFE permits. An average of almost 2,200 bombings occur in the United States each year with smokeless power used in 10% of them. Over 300 Americans are killed or injured each year from bombings. Not a single rocket propellant has been used in any bombing in the United States.

from the ARSA congress page

---

Comments

Next page