Haven't seen the article yet but it sounds like we need to flood them with letters to the editor. I'll probably write one myself after reading the mag, and will be sure to post it here for all to see. Some points immediately come to mind:
1) Giant "model" rockets may be loud and look impressive, but they are still just cardboard, wood, and fiberglass. Try to make one robust enough to carry a guidance package, control surfaces, and a meaningful warhead (bowling balls don't count), and you'll be lucky to move the thing a few hundred feet. The old saying is that rockets are easy, but guidance and warheads are HARD.
2) Some of you true rocket scientists can answer this one: yes, our propellant of choice is identical to the stuff used in the shuttle SRBs and some military missiles - but just as an oxidizer. Aren't there some high-energy additives they use as well? Otherwise I don't see how one could fashion a homemade Stinger out of a J350.
3) In light of our current legal struggle, reckless comments like this in a respected national magazine are NOT helpful. I hope the bulk of the story is positive. Air & Space's readership could be full of potential new rocketeers.
