Rocketry Planet

ONE THING that seems clear from the rather fruitless "HPR Summit" that took place recently in Washinton is that, be it a case of governmental buck-passing by BATF, or a legitimate conflict between what they'd like to do and what the Congress has mandated they do, changes in legislation will eventually (probably sooner rather than later) be a necessary part of lightening the crushing load of current hobby regulation. As for what those changes shall be, and therefore what we must ask of our representatives in Congress (albeit with a minimum of "ranting"), I will defer, for the moment, to our hobby organization's leadership for the word-and-number crunching needed to produce some sort of consensus position on what changes must be sought.

Despite my skepticism that high power rocketry will ever know a regulatory environment that is anything but progressively more restrictive, I will add my voice to the rest of the hobby in what now seems the inevitable "step to the next level" with the presentation of a legislative agenda for regulatory relief. As one with no special "connection" or "influence" in political circles, I'm afraid I can contribute little else on the political front.

As a means to ensure that such a legislative agenda is in fact drafted, however, I will also continue to advocate, within public discussion forums, undying opposition to such irrational, baseless, and suffocating regulation as we currently find imposed upon us. It is unfathomable to me the number of "aw, shucks" responses I see here and elsewhere on this issue. As I've said before, I think far too many among us, even those with the means of complying with the regulations as they stand, fail to appreciate the massive web of subtle but powerful legal-ese that the "Safety Nazis" are spinning. Some have even gone so far as to welcome increased regulatory obstacles as a means of "squeezing" the high power rocketry community to rid it of its "baser elements." Ironic that our country paid a dear price 55 years ago to conquer a police state committed to weeding out "undesirables."

If the regulatory juggernaut, currently marching unfettered, is allowed to continue, high power rocketry, along with a great deal else, will eventually be "driven underground." As the impact of even the current regulations is felt, I believe the high power rocketry community will trifurcate into those who: 

1. Have the means and the willingness to comply with BATF, DOT, CPSC, FAA, XYZ, etc. regulations. This group will continue "business as usual" for the time being, but will inevitably shrink with each new round of restrictions.
2. Deem the hobby to have become "more trouble than it's worth." Whether lacking in means or simply disgusted and embittered with the tightening stranglehold of government intrusion, they will divide their newfound leisure time between Monday Night Football and Jerry Springer, and their kids will hone their Nintendo skills.
3. Decide to become outlaws.

Those who either lack the means or the desire to achieve compliance with BATF's current position will opt for defiance of what is, even at present, the effective outlawing of high power rocketry in many places (I recall one post on rec.models.rockets that outlined how "...in Washington state, HPR is dead.") The spectrum of defiance will range from simply illegally possessing, using, and trafficking existing stockpiles of commercial HPR motors, to the home-brewing of composite propellant (AP and others) to the construction of motors fueled by readily available materials (alcohol and NOX, for instance). High power rocketry as we know it may be dead, but the hobby of flying fin-stabilized cylinders vertically upward will continue. The grassroots development of unregulated, and unregulatable, motors will exact a price, in life and limbs, but the government doesn't care -- they've made life more difficult and painful for thousands of peaceful, law-abiding citizens trying to pursue an entertaining, educational, and, I dare say, inspirational hobby, and for what do governments exist, ladies and gentlemen, but to impose unnecessary suffering upon their subjects and offer no compensatory benefit in return?