hmmmmm

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
perfect example of the kind of book that we should do our best to stop. If you see it (at amazon or a brick-n-mortar store), ask them to not carry it and explain why.

Now, don't get me wrong, i'm a big beleiver in freedom of speach and if this person wants to make bombs from model rocket motors and if he wants to write a book about how to do it, that is his right.

however...

1) he could have called it something else

2) while he has the right to write that book, i have the right to give my views to the owner of the store where i am contemplating spending my money

just my 2cents
 
Top Gear a BBC TV program went out last Sunday night and they had a section where they were trying to make a James Bond car for £300 using suggestions from veiwers. It featured two PVC drainpipes attached to the side of a car and they then launched rockets horizontally out of them.

It wouldn't take much for someone to see the program then purchase a rocket set from a model shop and try to make one of these, if it injured or worse killed someone it would have diasterous effects on the hobby.
 
In all honesty, I don't think either occurrence is that big a deal as far as the hobby is concerned.

As for the book, hey. I'd wager that everyone here could figure out a way to do as the book suggests, if you were so inclined. For those who can't, the book is probably just like any of the other manuals of destruction out there: go ahead, follow the instructions. Let me know before you start, though, because I want my 15 minutes of fame to be for writing your epitaph for the Darwin Awards website. ;) Everyone knows it could be done with the proper materials. What people don't know is that yeah, it's easy to make one blow up, but it's almost impossible for Joe Blow down the street on a budget (even a BIG budget) to make one go where he wants it to. Rather than try to get someone to stop selling the book, if you run across someone who's heard of it, use it as an opportunity to educate. Explain that the cameraderie and group waivers is only half the reason we form clubs. Explain that the other half is to get our hands on the kids' minds before idiots like the guy who wrote the book do. Asking that a book not be sold, regardless of the quality of reasoning provided, inherently carries the implication that we're trying to hide the fact that this can be done.

I think the TV program is even less harmful. Any kid who needed the TV show to put that idea in his head isn't imaginative enough to make the idea work anyway. Any kid who didn't need the show and has the drive to do something like this has already made himself a spud cannon out of either PVC pipe or soup cans. It's cheaper (dozens of shots on a single can of Lysol), easier (no batteries, no electrics) and you can buy a kit and/or plans on Ebay. Every year kids get hurt doing stupid things, and yes, it's happened as a result of rocketry too.

Every year, at *least* one person in Wisconsin gets shot during the one week of deer hunting season (most die because they're light years from civilization) and a few more die of heart attacks. It makes the front page of every newspaper in the state. There's no public outcry to ban hunting, but there is always pressure to educate those who are doing it.

What was far more worrisome to me is the video I just saw the other day of the Chinese guy who got hit in the chest at the World Spacemodeling Championchips by a rocket that went unstable. Another one is the Blazing Rockets video that is put out by (i believe) Rocketman or RocketVision. These send the message that the sport IS inherently dangerous, not just in the hands of the morons who wrote the book or want to copy the TV show, but also when practiced by some of the best in the hobby.

Morons will make anything dangerous, and the world knows it. It's when we show that none of us can make the hobby completely safe that we're going to scare people.

Hope I'm not getting too RMR on you guys. Not my intention. :D
 
Yep...
Give anything enough attention, good or bad, and we as human beings will undoubtingly become interested. There are times when it would be advantageous to not let certain information available to the public at large. But, as Kermie states, the key is to educate our youngsters on how to handle the good and the bad info and react accordingly.

My .02 cents
 
Originally posted by KermieD

Morons will make anything dangerous, and the world knows it. It's when we show that none of us can make the hobby completely safe that we're going to scare people.

It may not be good publicity, but I'd have to say that virtually *nothing* we do as human beings is *completely* safe. Skiing is not completely safe. Nor sailing. Nor driving a car. Nor plugging in a toaster.

What is important is to show that 1) our intentions are to maximize safety, 2) that the benefits outweigh the potential dangers, and 3) that our aim is NOT to cause harm to others.

I don't think its critical that we *hide* all possible negative occurances. Rather, that we point out that it is an uncommon occurance, and that it was the result of some materials/practice failure rather than intent.

Opinions only!

-Nathan
 
Dase,

I agree wholeheartedly, and that was largely my point, BUT, I was at a Boy Scout encampment where one of the members saw fit to show the Blazing Rockets video. Over and over again, because that's what was bringing the kids to our booth (we had other videos, but the kids are drawn to the fireballs). It was more trouble explaining to the kids that this is the LAST thing you want to happen than it was worth bringing the extra kids over. It's the perception of the masses that count. I was just saying that it's much easier to discredit the moron writing a book about turning rockets into unguided missiles than it is to explain that while yes, there's a whole 45 minute video (made by one of our own, no less) full of fireballs and huge crashes, this really isn't the norm and it doesn't happen all the time. Not to mention that it's not very easy to explain that rocket motors don't function by explosion when they're looking at a huge fireball created by a spectacular M CATO.
 
The same principle holds true for Hockey. Why do you go to a Hockey game? To see the fights!
 
Kermie:

Agreed! I guess we were really saying the same thing, weren't we?

Mark:

That's why I don't watch hockey! The hockey part is great, but it often isn't the focus. Isn't there enough roughness in the game with all the checking etc? I'd like to see it more like football (american, not soccer...) in that sense. Football's a rough game, but *the game* continues to be the focus, not fighting.

Which brings us back to Kermie's comments, and why I agree! hehe!

Cheers!
Nathan
 
Not to disagree exactly, but my concern with books and/or media like this is not that it will entice someone to do something dangerous.

Whether it does or not is moot. If it isn't a book or a tv show it's their imagination getting them into trouble.

The problem, however, is that such books and media examples are what are brought to the table when objections are raised. The NAR and TRA are going through that now. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this book weren't brought into play to "show the atf's justification for their concern", valid or not. It raises eyebrows.
 
The first amendment *is* a double edged sword.

Personally, though, I'll take the bad aspects in stride, rather than the alternative!

Nathan
 
Books like this one if they're brought up by the ATF, etc. are exactly the tools that make it easier to argue with them. They make it easier to mock by making the laughable argument that fertilizer should be banned as well as agriculture machinery (how many people lose arms to harvesters and combines?...and every time it happens the machinery is functioning exactly how it was designed to). They make the arguments against rocketry easier to ridicule, by showing with reasoned argument that the ATF is being excessively opressive by using things like that to support their point.
 
Back
Top