Mixed feelings about a rocket candy article on Make

[mjennings]

Not sure how to feel about this. I follow Make on Google+, and they often have neat stuff and being in a "craftsmen" hobby, I'm all for the maker movement. Also it isn't hard to find rocket candy information, but at the same time there are many good reasons for not playing with the stuff unless you know what you are doing. And they are basically making bottle rockets. I don't have a Make log in but this is what I left in Google+, and if anyone wants to chime in on the thread on Make it might be a good idea, to give some experienced voices, especial those with EX forum access/experience.

https://makezine.com/2013/11/22/sugar-rockets-in-philly/#rockets

https://makezine.com/projects/make-35/homemade-sugar-rocket/

What I said on Google+
"Making rocket candy (Sugar propellent) is all well and good, but one must still be extremely careful with it, especial using burning fuses (which under NAFTA fire codes and local laws may not be legal in all areas, both the fuse and propellent). Electronically started is much safer. At the 5/8" diameter called out, this is in between the commercially available Estes and Quest 13 mm and 18 mm (1/4 A - C) motors, readily available at most hobby stores and the occasional big box. Other than Hobby Town USA, most hobby stores are local mom and pop stores. Please support local merchants (something I think most Makers agree with). There are good reasons why the National Association of Rocketry (https://www.nar.org/) does not allow home made motors that fall outside of legal/insurance reasons, mainly safety, fire prevention, proper recovery system deployment (your rockets have parachutes don't they?) etc. and Tripoli Rocketry Association (https://www.tripoli.org/) only allows level 2 certified fliers and above to make home made motors. Model rocketry is a fantastic hobby one I love, and support, and am proud of in many ways. Within the last few years, the NAR and TRA successfully blocked over-regulation of Ammonium Perchlorate motors by the ATF. A few accidents with sugar propellant by well meaning and careful people who got in over their heads could damage the hobby in many ways. Please be responsible with this information.

Also, the instructions are just making bottle rockets, which don't fall under the laws governing rocketry and likely would be legal classified as homemade fireworks, with the associated legal ramifications.

There are many excellent rocketry resources online, NAR and Tripoli (see links above), https://www.rocketryforum.com, https://forums.rocketshoppe.com/, and https://www.rocketreviews.com/ to name a few for more information on model rocketry."

 

[fyrwrxz]

Well said and well done, sir! Thanks for defending our pride, honour, and safety record. Yeah-pyrotechs take a hit every time some bozo decides his 4th grade chemistry class qualifies him to make 'fireworks'. That just irritates us fifth graders immensely......

 

[mjennings]

I try, I don't get to fly or build much these days, but I want to be able to fly again when I can.

 

[Winston]

Not sure how to feel about this.

I am and I sent an email to the Make editor as soon as that article appeared on their web site (which I visit daily) explaining in detail with BATFE links how he was potentially exposing everyone who played with their "sugar rockets" to felony explosives manufacturing charges. I received no reply, so who knows if he/they even read it. I believe the article I commented to them about was written by the Make editor.

Now I see from one of the links you provided that they've published another, later article by the associate editor on the same topic. If they did something stupid like ask a local BATFE field agent about it and got something like a "Gee, we'd never actually prosecute for something like that!" response, they are showing their ignorance and definitely shouldn't be counting on it.

Part of my previous commenting here about the reasons behind the illegality of "sugar rockets" vs the far more powerful but BATFE explosives list exempted (thanks to the NAR/Tripoli lawsuit) ammonium perchlorate composite propellants:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ful-for-commercial-motors&p=601588#post601588

 

[mjennings]

Winston, I was considering writing to Make myself, thanks for the further info.

 

[Winston]

Winston, I was considering writing to Make myself, thanks for the further info.

In all of my talk of illegality, I failed to even mention the potential danger. Anyone just using Make's formula but not their method or potentially even using their method could end up with ignition of the molten propellant and since the burn rate of solid propellants increase with temperature, it would probably be a quick burn with burning propellant probably being thrown out of the burning, molten mix. Frankly, even if it wasn't illegal, it amazes me that they'd publish this for that reason alone although there is so much on the Internet about sugar propellants and so many videos on YouTube about same that they could probably successfully claim in court that it's basically public domain info.

Don't get the idea that I'm some kind of fuddy duddy who believes everything that's illegal should be. If what you do potentially hurts or affects no one but yourself, it should be legal for you to do it. However, the BATFE's "explosives" listing is so ridiculously broad that it could be applied to nearly any fuel/oxidizer mix no matter what its actual burn rate. That's why NAR/Tripoli could sue and win. However, any substance where that court-ordered level of reason hasn't been applied, as is the case with the sugar propellants, is still on that "explosives" list and could be enforced at their whim. At that point, if you don't have enough money to successfully defend yourself in court and prove to the court's satisfaction that sugar propellant mixes aren't "explosives," you're a convicted felon. If you do have enough money to prove your case, and if I recall correctly the NAR/Tripoli case cost ~$50K, then that was a really expensive batch of rocket propellant you made.

 

[GuyNoir]

If you do have enough money to prove your case, and if I recall correctly the NAR/Tripoli case cost ~$50K

Try $750K.

 

[Cory]

Just replied on Goggle+, and hope anyone who reads the cited article and has a G+ account goes and warns people not to try this without proper experience and supervision.

 

[TopRamen]

In my opinion, it's not worth the Risks and possible Dangers to make sugar rockets the way that you see most folks doing it on the Net. If you're going to do it, ask or pay a qualified Pyrotechnician to teach you to do it in a controlled setting with proper safe measures and equipment. Atleast use a "Double Boiler". I've seen videos of Folks doing it on their Stove tops. It's inevitable that some idiot is going to screw this up sometime and win a Darwin Award.
If I wanted to make my own Motors they'de be AP, and I would seek Professional Instruction before doing anything. I'de also find out what was required as far as any required Permits or Licensing, to avoid BATFE Visits. Back in early 2002, I recieved one of those visits, but since I was already friendly with the regional BATF Agent from selling Guns, he just wanted to make sure I was not making explosives with the Chemicals I'de ordered from Pyrotec, and that my Fuels were store separately from my Oxidizers and that I was not making or storing Flashpowder. I was actually just doing some small time Experiments that were taught to me be one of my Customers, who was infact, a Licensed Pyrotecnician.
Nowadays, they'de have likely sent in a SWAT Team and a Bomb Squad. After 9-11-01, they keep a very close eye on were Chemical Companies send their Goodies.
Bottom line is don't do it just because you saw it on the Internet and think you can. Also, it's only a "Matter of Time" til' someone screws this up big time.
Sad really. With great knowledge comes great Power, and with that Power comes great Responsibility.
I don't think "Make" should have printed that information.