Page 53 of 55 - Previous page

Andrew Case is building a small nitrous & propane based igniter. He is also planning on using it as a gas generator for a turbine.

---

Comments

It appears that both Fedex and UPS will simply stop shipping Class 1 hazardous materials. This leaves motor shipment with very few and very expensive options.

Update: rumors are also around that Union Pacific Railroad will do the same and that other railroads will follow suit. __

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:41:25 -0500

From: Anthony Cesaroni

Subject: Re: [AR] AP & AN Motors vs. ATF

To: AROCKET

We have at least one report now from a dealer in the U.S. that has been

told by UPS that this is in fact the case.

—–Original Message—–

From: Amateur rocketry discussion list

[mailto:AROCKET@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Anthony Cesaroni

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:52 PM

To: AROCKET@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Subject: Re: [AR] AP & AN Motors vs. ATF

I just received a very disturbing bit of information regarding more

fallout from the Safe Explosives Act. I'm hoping that this is a rumor

but it came from one of our expediters so it has me concerned.

Apparently UPS and FedEx are seriously considering dropping all class 1

hazmat material shipments in the U.S. The word is that the cost and

complications of having all of their handlers licensed under the new

regulations are not practical. Furthermore, employees who are not

eligible for licensing would have to be displaced or restricted within

the companies shipping network. No word on if the USPO will follow but I

would expect so. This means that anyone wishing to purchase a rocket

motor or materials on the ATF list, will have to pick it up from the

dealer or have it delivered to the site. That's assuming that the

manufacturer can arrange to have the wholesale shipment to the dealer in

the first place. I don't think that is an issue yet as long as carriers

such as Yellow Freight etc. get licensed.

We don't have any official word from these carriers at this point but we

are trying to contact them for any information they are willing to

release.

Anthony J. Cesaroni

President/CEO

Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

http://www.cesaronitech.com/ http://www.cesaronitech.com/

—–Original Message—–

From: Amateur rocketry discussion list

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 12:08 PM

To: AROCKET

Subject: Re: [AR] AP & AN Motors vs. ATF

Dave,

That is exactly where the absurd logic of the ATF would lead them, but

don't expect that to happen. Too many drivers compared to rocket

people. Of course, the White House will probably propose legislation

requiring people to get permits to travel within the United States with

check points on highways, “May I see your papers, please?”.

John Wickman

—–Original Message—–

From: Amateur rocketry discussion list

[mailto:AROCKET

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 9:55 AM

To: AROCKET

Subject: Re: [AR] AP & AN Motors vs. ATF

I guess the ATF will also have to regulate internal combustion engines

since they also are powered by controlled explosions.

Dave

This would

include hybrids as well. Field agents have informed several people that

this is in the wind.

————————–aRocket—————————- Archives

http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/arocket.html

Archives/Uploads http://blastzone.com/arocket/default.asp

Unsubscribe from aRocket

Problems? Contact owner-arocket@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

————————–/aRocket—————————

__

---

Comments

On Saturday, February 1st, 2003, seven steely eyed missile men and women gave their lives to the dream of “exploring space”. Their names were added to the list of other heroes who died attempting what most think is still unbelievably impossible. But the true tragedy of their loss is that their mission did almost nothing to advance humanity's presence in space. In truth, their mission served to reinforce a mythos that has done more to keep man out of space than any perceived lack of technology or human limitation.

In the weeks that have followed the fiery re-entry of Columbia, there has been a great deal of debate about exactly what is wrong with the Shuttle program, the space program in general and why we seemed to have “lost our way” after the wonders of the Apollo space program. Some suggest scaling back manned missions in favor of robotic missions, while others support the Orbital Space Plane and some combination of Big Dumb Boosters (some even suggest Shuttle C!). There have been calls for investments in new technology in order to bring down launch costs. Others argue that a simple re-organization of governmental programs (i.e. NACA vs NASA) would solve the problem. Private space advocates put their faith in the XPrize to spur Cheap Access To Space.

It is useful to step back and look at the entire discussion from a demographic point of view. Nearly all of the participants are geeks who are either professional or 'amateur' engineers. We grew up reading Heinlein and Asimov and can usually point to those stories as our inspiration for wanting to go into space. For many of us, the Apollo program and Star Trek molded our dreams of what life in space would be like. Our view of space was one of “just build it and go”. And this is the legacy of the “Golden Age” of the American space program: a population that has grown up believing that the future of man in space is the combination of cutting edge technology, a heroic “steely eyed missile man” at the controls, and the urge to “just go”.

Its time for a little dose of reality: none of those silver bullets alone will ever get us (you and I) anywhere closer to space. America's true manifest destiny in space will not be possible until that Apollo era legacy is forgotten and the “space advocacy” community realizes that missile-men will not open up that new frontier. Instead it will be the “steely eyed business man”.

And that is because those business men understand the underlying economics that any sustainable program is built on. They understand, at a gut level, concepts such as net present value and the time cost of money. They understand that payoff for investment must be in reasonable time frames and directly correlated to the amount of risk involved.

The challenge to those in space advocacy is to learn those business practices and apply them to the space market. Learn basic finance. Find out what the best and brightest in business are saying. Read books such as The Innovator's Dilemma, Good to Great, and any of the Pocket MBA books. By simply reading business best sellers instead of science fiction best sellers, space advocates can begin to understand what it really takes to build something that is sustainable and profitable.

To do otherwise is to stick our head back in the sand of the Apollo era and refuse to admit that the world just doesn't work that way.

---

Comments

John Carmack just posted the latest Armadillo Update.

---

Comments

If you follow Rand Simberg's Transterrestrial Musings you'll know he's been threatening to post his vision for what our purpose in space should be and this seems to be it. Its a good vision but like most visions, they're easy to state. What's harder is figuring how to get from here to there. Still, worth a read.

---

Comments

John Wickman is asking for anyone interested in rocketry to call and write Bill Frist using the information here: http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html.

---

Comments

Randall Parker (FuturePundit) responds to myself and Rand's suggestions that lost cost vehicles and business practices are solutions to establishing a space economy. His thesis is that the things that will enable such a space economy will come from outside the industry (materials science being driven by other requirements such as military, consumer sports, etc). I definitely agree but I point out that just proves my point: those other industries based those products and the technology used to develop them on real business requirements, not simple technological fetishism.

---

Comments

The truth can hurt when its directed at you and points out the fact that you might be able to talk the talk but you sure aren't walking the walk. If you're involved in space advocacy at all you need to read this.

---

Comments

It looks like The Space Frontier Foundation has gotten into the blog thing. I have a question into them about an RSS feed but so far no response. Apparently Scoop doesn't do one automatically.

---

Comments

It looks like someone on the WSJ editorial board gets it. It being the difference between libertarian and conservative and why conservatism is simply a haphazard collection of “cause daddy did it that way” preferences based more on personal taste than any rigorously philosophical system tying it all together.

---

Comments

Next page