Shipping Model rocket motors & the USPS

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

shockwaveriderz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2002
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
7
G. Harry Stine got the Denver Post Master back as early as 1958 to allow shipment of Rock-A-Chute model rocket motors through the mail.

During that 50 year span, I would take a SWAG that literally millions of modle rocket motors have been shipped to customer without 1 reported case of an accident.

Estes had some tests run on its motors back in 1977 and they follow that the average auto ignition temperature of a typical modle rocket motor is 589 F. This was the average remember, the range was from 562-627 F. There was a 99.7% probability that ALL motors would ignite within 48F of the 589 F value.

In addition , this laboratory also tested the mechnaical or impact force that would be required to auto ignite such a model rocket motor, and they found that it would take a 463 pounds of weight dropped from a distance of 10ft to create enough mechanical energy to get a typical model rocket to auto ignite.


Imagine what force would be required to make it explode.

The point being, these tests have shown and 50 years of experinece has taught as all that estes BP modle rocket motors are probably one the safest items that was ever made when you also take into consideration that literally 100's of millions have been used over 50 years without 1 death or major injury to show for it ( that X-15 don't could as I am talking here about motors not plastic nballistic artciles dropping out of the sky unto your noggin).

So isn't it about time the the NAR leadership showed a little leadership, and considerd the following:


1. NAR members need a legal way to ship, trade and sell small quantities of model rocket motor to one another without having to be a hazmat shipper.

2. The only was this will ever come aboutm, is for the NAR to approach the USPS about getting a "blanket waiver" for its membership.

3. The new USPS waiver would be for NAR members only; and it would be for small quantities. 100 engines at a time is not a small quanity.

4. The NAR also needs to consider the fact that the BATFE has exempted 62.5 propellant slugs from its jurisdiction as an explosive. The CPSC defines modle rocket motors up to 62.5g. The NAR therefore should consider also getting the 30 gram limit raised to at least 62.5g; and If possible go all the way to the 125g FAA limit.

This would allow for a wide range of motors from 1/8A-small H to be shipped to and for by NAR members (and TRA members too!)

Suitable packaging and labeling would be part of the waiver .

Now, this would not happen overnight. And it would not be easy. But I think we have the record and the data to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that allowing a small subset of the NAR to legally ship via the USPS mails would be a good thening for its membership.

The penalty for shipping explosives in the USPS mails is 10 years in Federal prison and a minimum 10K fine. Plus people who illegally ship model rocket motors place the current USPS regulation exemption in jeopardy by shipping ilegally.

Now one potential objection to this is that people would then start shipping even larger motors thru the US mails. I would respond, people already do that.

If you think you might agree with me on this, considr using this post as a petition sign up listing. The more people that say yes, the more the NAR leadership might listen. If you are in the TRA this applies to you to, so I'll also send this petition to the TRA and let them work it out between themselves a they should.

so what do you think?

terry dean
nar 16158
 
G. Harry Stine got the Denver Post Master back as early as 1958 to allow shipment of Rock-A-Chute model rocket motors through the mail.

During that 50 year span, I would take a SWAG that literally millions of modle rocket motors have been shipped to customer without 1 reported case of an accident.

Estes had some tests run on its motors back in 1977 and they follow that the average auto ignition temperature of a typical modle rocket motor is 589 F. This was the average remember, the range was from 562-627 F. There was a 99.7% probability that ALL motors would ignite within 48F of the 589 F value.

In addition , this laboratory also tested the mechnaical or impact force that would be required to auto ignite such a model rocket motor, and they found that it would take a 463 pounds of weight dropped from a distance of 10ft to create enough mechanical energy to get a typical model rocket to auto ignite.


Imagine what force would be required to make it explode.

The point being, these tests have shown and 50 years of experinece has taught as all that estes BP modle rocket motors are probably one the safest items that was ever made when you also take into consideration that literally 100's of millions have been used over 50 years without 1 death or major injury to show for it ( that X-15 don't could as I am talking here about motors not plastic nballistic artciles dropping out of the sky unto your noggin).

So isn't it about time the the NAR leadership showed a little leadership, and considerd the following:


1. NAR members need a legal way to ship, trade and sell small quantities of model rocket motor to one another without having to be a hazmat shipper.

2. The only was this will ever come aboutm, is for the NAR to approach the USPS about getting a "blanket waiver" for its membership.

3. The new USPS waiver would be for NAR members only; and it would be for small quantities. 100 engines at a time is not a small quanity.

4. The NAR also needs to consider the fact that the BATFE has exempted 62.5 propellant slugs from its jurisdiction as an explosive. The CPSC defines modle rocket motors up to 62.5g. The NAR therefore should consider also getting the 30 gram limit raised to at least 62.5g; and If possible go all the way to the 125g FAA limit.

This would allow for a wide range of motors from 1/8A-small H to be shipped to and for by NAR members (and TRA members too!)

Suitable packaging and labeling would be part of the waiver .

Now, this would not happen overnight. And it would not be easy. But I think we have the record and the data to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that allowing a small subset of the NAR to legally ship via the USPS mails would be a good thening for its membership.

The penalty for shipping explosives in the USPS mails is 10 years in Federal prison and a minimum 10K fine. Plus people who illegally ship model rocket motors place the current USPS regulation exemption in jeopardy by shipping ilegally.

Now one potential objection to this is that people would then start shipping even larger motors thru the US mails. I would respond, people already do that.

If you think you might agree with me on this, considr using this post as a petition sign up listing. The more people that say yes, the more the NAR leadership might listen. If you are in the TRA this applies to you to, so I'll also send this petition to the TRA and let them work it out between themselves a they should.

so what do you think?

terry dean
nar 16158

I think its DOT you want to petition, not USPS.
 
It doesn't matter for me who we are petitioning against, as long as we are allowed to ship motors, atleast G's, I am happy. It would make things so much more convenient for not just me, but for others too.

Rocketry is too advanced for idiots who want to ship motors for terroristic or terroristic-like purposes.;)

But seriously, rocketry doesn't have people that want to use motors for illegal things. I know, it's an exaggeration, but I doubt anyone who has uses for rocket motors other than flying would join the NAR and all that. And look at the forum, it's a representation of the rest of the rocketry community and no one I know of on here is like that.
 
That would be nice, but like you say, It would take a lot of effort. If the restriction would only be lifted for smaller numbers of fairly universally available motors, I don't think it's worth it.

But seriously, rocketry doesn't have people that want to use motors for illegal things. I know, it's an exaggeration, but I doubt anyone who has uses for rocket motors other than flying would join the NAR and all that. And look at the forum, it's a representation of the rest of the rocketry community and no one I know of on here is like that.

The restrictions on shipping don't have anything to do with that. It's aimed at ensuring the quality and shipping methods of shippers who put these black powder devices out into the flow of mail. In other words, if they jump through all these hoops for permission to do it legally, they'll almost certainly follow the packing/shipping rules.
 
I think its DOT you want to petition, not USPS.

Its my understanding that the USPS shipping regulations are currently based on existing USDOT regulation

1.4s is the current shipping classification, and 30g is the NA0323 designation for model rockets as defined in current USDOT code.

Basically, what the NAR/TRA would be asking the USPS is to allow at least USDOT 1.4C which is NA0276 Model rocket motors >30g and =< 62.5g.

Thats NOT a big step. If need be, the tests could be done on Estes DE BP grains 1st; then tests could be done on APCP SU and reloads.

I would bet good money that larger Estes and especially APCP are at least as safe as smaller Estes and APCP su and reloads.


And testing might not even have to be done. I'm sure that all of these companies collect data like this on their product.

So it might not even costs the motor manufactueres alot, if they all donated to a pool for this purpose.

I'm not sure there is anything like the old MRDA (model Rocket Dealers Assn), where the manufacturers take stand on issues of common need. This would be beneficial to the entire industry.

This would basically allow legal buy/sale/trade in model rocket and low H HPR rocket motors. Shipped ground parcel post.

I think trade should be restricted to adults(18) only, but if minors have motors they wish to buy,sale,trade they could get a form downloaded from the NAR, for their parents/guardians to sign.

Now remember what we are discussing here: Getting a blanket waiver for NAR or TRA members ONLY for 62.5g propellant grains.

The NAR/TRA could then is they wish, sell special memberships to others who aren't current members but discover and want to sell the motors. Basically this would allow the NAR/TRA to sell "model rocketry business licenses"

This also would make EBAY change there mind perhaps about auctions. If a company or person could buy a NAR/TRA membership for the sole purpose of buying, selling or tradeing or auctioning model rocket and low H motors through the USPS.

Remember: This is a SAFETY measure. If we prove it is safe, then they have no choice but to allow it.

This would not be for the general public.

terry dean
nar 16158
 
I would be for this. Sounds like it's do-able if the proper people get behind the effort. I.E. Both NAR and TRA, Aerotech, Estes, etc. It would have to be an all out effort and not just a lame attempt at getting D.O.T. to change the rules.
 
Why would NAR/TRA want to stick their neck out? Would they want to be responsible for each members actions? NAR/TRA is not in the manufacturing or shipping business?

"And testing might not even have to be done. I'm sure that all of these companies collect data like this on their product."
The testing has already been done, each manufacturer has to have the testing done by an independent lab in order to get DOT approval and their EX Numbers.
See: https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/ApprovalsSearch/
Under Company name enter "QuickBurst" or whatever company you want, next click search. It will pull up all of that companies Exemption information. All of this information is available to the public.

"So it might not even costs the motor manufactures a lot, if they all donated to a pool for this purpose."
The manufacturers have already spent thousands of dollars, just to have the testing done. These dollars are not absorbed by the manufacturers, they are passed on to the consumer, just like all costs are. A better idea is to keep expenses down, this helps keep consumer prices down.

"Remember: This is a SAFETY measure. If we prove it is safe, then they have no choice but to allow it."
How would this improve safety?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Terry

I'm just playing the devils advocate here. I'm not sure where the model rocket motor exemption came from. I also don't know why USPS seems to have an exclusive on it.

FedEx claims it doesn't exist. FYI: UN0454, 1.4S would have to be shipped HazMat if FedEx was the carrier. When I pointed out the DMM, they said they would look into it. I never heard back from them.

For the record, I hate HazMat shipping as much as you do. However sometimes I am forced to use it. It's that or risk the consequences.

Hey, I'm all for it, but I have no idea how it would be accomplished. I seriously doubt that NAR/TRA want to be involved, and in all honesty, I don't blame them.
 
so what do you think?

I think I'd love to see it happen but it won't. You're assuming the USPS decisions were made based on logic and science. I don't think they were.

My memory might be a little fuzzy on this but I seem to recall these restrictions coming about after a plane crash (TWA 800?) when one of the theories was that it was caused by something in the cargo. It wasn't but shipping by air was pretty much eliminated anyway and it went downhill from there.
 
I like the idea (man, it would help me unload a boat load of collectible motors :) ).

It would also add a substantial (in my mind) added value to being a NAR or TRA member. Think about it.
 
1. NAR members need a legal way to ship, trade and sell small quantities of model rocket motor to one another without having to be a hazmat shipper.

2. The only was this will ever come aboutm, is for the NAR to approach the USPS about getting a "blanket waiver" for its membership.

I personally don't see any reason why this would be necessary. You should only buy what you plan to use. And if you buy too many, you're probably a die hard rocketeer anyways and would have access to clubs / events etc... that you could unload the engines.
 
I personally don't see any reason why this would be necessary. You should only buy what you plan to use. And if you buy too many, you're probably a die hard rocketeer anyways and would have access to clubs / events etc... that you could unload the engines.


In 2000 when I got back into rocketry, I made a marathon trip from Ky first to 3 stops in Ohio; then drove to NYPOWER and back to buy/collect several hundred dollars worth of OOP motors. These were primarily Apogee 1/4a-B size motora along with some Apogee composite CD's.
(I don't have any of them anymore as I sold them all).

It would have been much simplier and easy for me to have had these motors mailed to me parcel post.

terry dean
nar 16158
 
I think I'd love to see it happen but it won't. You're assuming the USPS decisions were made based on logic and science. I don't think they were.

My memory might be a little fuzzy on this but I seem to recall these restrictions coming about after a plane crash (TWA 800?) when one of the theories was that it was caused by something in the cargo. It wasn't but shipping by air was pretty much eliminated anyway and it went downhill from there.

The na0323 1.4s <= 30 g model rocket motor and the na0276 1.4c >30g and <= 62.5g model rocket motor definitions are the result of the NAR circa 1992-4, when the ATF first accidently deleted the USDOT exemption that we had. The NA0323/0276 are domestic ONLY USDOT shipping classifications; they used to be shipped as UN0432 and they can be dual labeled as na0323/un0432 or na0276/un0432 for international shipping purposes.

I don't think TWA 800 had anything to do with the new USDOT shipping classes, as NA0323 and NA0276 can both be shippied by both passenger and cargo aircraft if properly packaged and in proper gross weights.

terry dean
nar 16158
 
David, I have no proble with you playing devil's adovocate. :)

Even if the membership overwhelming petitoned the NAR to do this, I'm sure the NAR would say no thanks, just because it was brought forth by me.

Let's face it: the NAR leadership and I don't exactly see eye to eye on a number of issues.





terry dean
nar 16158
 
I don't think Estes or Aerotech would be interested in this either. More competition to their retailers and they already have essentially a blanket exemption. It would be nice if it could be done though.

I would be for this. Sounds like it's do-able if the proper people get behind the effort. I.E. Both NAR and TRA, Aerotech, Estes, etc. It would have to be an all out effort and not just a lame attempt at getting D.O.T. to change the rules.
 
I don't think TWA 800 had anything to do with the new USDOT shipping classes, as NA0323 and NA0276 can both be shippied by both passenger and cargo aircraft if properly packaged and in proper gross weights.

It could easily be a coincidence but I remember thinking at the time what a pain it was that every time a disaster happened we ended with another restriction.
 
I would vote for it.
I think it's a good idea, and realistic. I think that it could be effectively taught and safely performed by 99 percent of the NAR members.




But you are, after all, talking about dealing with our government bureaucrats...
 
It could easily be a coincidence but I remember thinking at the time what a pain it was that every time a disaster happened we ended with another restriction.

Yup, it happens every time. Last year an Ohio college (Findlay) baseball team bus crashed due to a poorly marked exit (and an apparently inattentive driver) in Atlanta. Now rather than fix the exit (which Atlanta is doing) or fine the driver, they are talking about national seat belt laws for commercial buses.

Before someone says this is a good idea, a) take a three day trip on a bus, and b) tell me how you are going to get 32 unruly grade school children to fasten their seat belts.
 
Yup, it happens every time. Last year an Ohio college (Findlay) baseball team bus crashed due to a poorly marked exit (and an apparently inattentive driver) in Atlanta. Now rather than fix the exit (which Atlanta is doing) or fine the driver, they are talking about national seat belt laws for commercial buses.

Before someone says this is a good idea, a) take a three day trip on a bus, and b) tell me how you are going to get 32 unruly grade school children to fasten their seat belts.

Not to mention that seat belts on a bus are a safety hazard to begin with...
 
Back
Top