Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Rocketry Assoc. beats ATF in court: APCP not an explosive
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Oooh! Shiny!

[*] posted on 16-3-2009 at 18:18
Rocketry Assoc. beats ATF in court: APCP not an explosive


Quote:
WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton for the District of Columbia today issued an order finding in favor of the Tripoli Rocketry Association and National Association of Rocketry vs. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The decision followed a status hearing this past Friday in Washington.

Walton's order granted a summary judgment motion in favor of the plaintiffs TRA and NAR, denied the summary judgment motion of BATFE, and vacated the classification of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) as an explosive.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/2788/30/

A small victory of liberty! I saw this article and thought of Sciencemadness.
I havent been here a while because of college classes, but maybe I can find
the time to hang around more.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAkm/HvEACgkQ2GSt2Y9gf6jS8QCeIFZk4rTCFMzUk/dwHX+HyY7B
XB8AnRTwzrQJfVJGHcudvUKr8gQvFxJh
=KXa0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Edited on 16-3-2009 by CyrusGrey]




Check out the Home Chemistry Society

My public key: C800 4A08 A3F6 81F7 7187 A1D5 D864 ADD9 8F60 7FA8
I posted my public key block here:
https://sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=11960
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 16-3-2009 at 18:46


Yes, Cyrus, this is a small but wonderful victory for reason. It's inspiring to see such a court decision after 8 years of eroding personal liberties. Let's hope the tide is turning.



[Edited on 16-3-2009 by Magpie]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
kclo4
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 915
Registered: 11-12-2004
Location:
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 16-3-2009 at 21:31


Sweet! :)

CyrusGrey I didn't notice you were in charge of the Home Chemistry society until today.. Nice job! :D




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 04:03


Quote:
Originally posted by Magpie
Yes, Cyrus, this is a small but wonderful victory for reason. It's inspiring to see such a court decision after 8 years of eroding personal liberties. Let's hope the tide is turning.



[Edited on 16-3-2009 by Magpie]


LOL.. It is a victory - ushered in by George W. Bush.
Joe

[Edited on 17-3-2009 by joeflsts]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 04:57


Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
LOL.. It is a victory - ushered in by George W. Bush.
In order to be effective, it's vital to understand that most individual restrictions of administrative origin are non-partisan. This lawsuit was filed in 2000, when Clinton was still in office. The rule making that predicated the suit happened even before that. Bush did nothing to vacate these rules, though, and he took more direct control of his administration than anybody in recent memory.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 05:27


That cretin would have had trouble pronouncing the acronym, never mind the entire phrase.
It is, though, one small step for (a) judge; one giant. . .etc!
Does this mean a similar ruling on double-base propellants is in the offing. . .?

[Edited on 17-3-2009 by hissingnoise]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 08:56


Oh oh... we are already paying the price for such poor decisions. Cheney is saying "we are less safe now."
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 09:15


A personal take on Cheney---he should be more locked-up than listened to. . .
And Obama is already dispelling the toxic aura of Cheney paranoia people had gotten used to!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 10:05


It was Bush that appointed the judge that rendered the opinion...

Joe
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 12:37


I can't see how he deserves any plaudits for that action. . .
But this ruling on propellants may not stand for long---AP/fuel mixtures are just a bit too borderline, IMO.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-3-2009 at 18:05


Quote:
Originally posted by hissingnoise
Does this mean a similar ruling on double-base propellants is in the offing. . .?
No. The technical fact at issue was speed of deflagration, not composition.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 18-3-2009 at 04:05


That's what I thought, and I expect the ruling will be overturned, I regret to say, on the grounds that CPs can be made to detonate.
They'll cite Challenger's "Major Malfunction", for one thing. . .
And the Pepcon blast!

[Edited on 18-3-2009 by hissingnoise]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Oooh! Shiny!

[*] posted on 19-3-2009 at 17:26


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eeek. How did this get turned political?

I hope this kind of ruling gets repeated, however, I think its probably just an isolated
event. Or maybe I'm just cynical.

IIRC Challenger didn't explode per-say. Rather it disintegrated from aerodynamic
forces followed by a deflagaration of part of the fuel.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAknC8O4ACgkQ2GSt2Y9gf6gi2wCggPlccMEW/2nGIxCdaax84S71
T2IAnjPmJrNBxwhbQCSdAYQicDKhViOT
=GTz7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Check out the Home Chemistry Society

My public key: C800 4A08 A3F6 81F7 7187 A1D5 D864 ADD9 8F60 7FA8
I posted my public key block here:
https://sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=11960
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 18 years of madness
*********




Posts: 3164
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: Waiting for spring

[*] posted on 19-3-2009 at 17:42


No more presidential discussion in this thread, please.



PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
MadHatter
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1244
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline

Mood: Enjoying retirement

[*] posted on 20-3-2009 at 01:13
Definitions


This is a victory of sorts because BATFE used to differentiate high explosives from low explosives
in the following manner:

1) High explosives - explodes unconfined
2) Low explosives - explodes when confined

Definition #2, when changed to "deflagration" really loosed up the rules in favor of BATFE.
Think about it. Under such loose restrictions matches, road flares, and propellants
defined as "explosives" with the potential for abuse that BATFE has been notorious
for. As it is matches and propellants are usually designated as flammable solids.
Even slow-burning thermites could be classified this way. The potential for BATFE abuse
is extremely high !

This is a licensing issue more than anything else. The rocketeers objected to the
requirement for a low explosives license for their high performance rocketry.

I'll bet CPSC, the biggest enemy of amateur pyrotechics and rocketry lost their minds
upon learning of the ruling. Give them some valium ! :D




From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
View user's profile View All Posts By User
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Oooh! Shiny!

[*] posted on 23-3-2009 at 19:50


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

kclo4: I'm not really the leader of the HCS. There isn't really any leader to the HCS.
Woelen is probably the most influential member though. I was one of the founding
members/fathers.

MadHatter: I suppose this means that a whole class of things is no longer under their
licensing scheme? Or would that require another ruling? I never understand all these
legal and political mechanations...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAknIWH8ACgkQ2GSt2Y9gf6gSsACfVhng31CSMsKYZcTvkZrmZrrF
AMkAnRwIZ/G+yFEugSANTk7Laqk69dn1
=JlsG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Check out the Home Chemistry Society

My public key: C800 4A08 A3F6 81F7 7187 A1D5 D864 ADD9 8F60 7FA8
I posted my public key block here:
https://sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=11960
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suspicious

[*] posted on 24-5-2009 at 21:00


No, it just means that they can't do anything else stupid--with this particular substance and only until a rocket loaded with ammonium perchlorate "explodes" in some infant's face. Because that's what explosives do. They kill babies!

Come on guys. You should be rooting for the ATF here! I mean, after all, it's for the children!




"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 25-5-2009 at 04:45


Come on MagicJigPipe, the chances of infants getting their little hands on high powered rockets are rather remote. . .
Quote: Originally posted by MagicJigPipe  
Because that's what explosives do. They kill babies!

Yes, they do kill, unfortunately, but why would you think babies are more vulnerable than anyone else?
Babies should be kept out of harm's way as much as possible, obviously, and a launch pad is no place for a baby or a toddler, but babies are in more danger of injury falling out of their prams than they are from rockets exploding in their faces. . .



[Edited on 25-5-2009 by hissingnoise]
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top