kallend 2,162 #1 August 25, 2003 In a recent letter to all US Senators, the Department of Justice (DOJ) claims that hobby rockets can be used to make "light anti-tank" weapons with a range of up to five miles, and anti aircraft weapons capable of bring down an airliner. DOJ Letter: "These large rocket motors could potentially be adapted by terrorists for use in surface-to-air missiles capable of intercepting commercial and military airplanes at cruise altitude and for use in “light anti-tank” weapons capable of hitting targets from a range of nearly five miles." Now the Department of Defense's best anti tank missile has a range less than 4 miles and it cost millions to develop. And the cost to develop Stingers was also astronomical and it can only reach 10,000ft (way short of airliner cruise altitude). Why has DoD been wasting taxpayer money all these years lining the pockets of defense contractors, when apparently they could just have bought off-the-shelf hobby rockets at the local hobby store; rockets that appear to outperform the DoDs own? Or could it be that DoJ is lying to the Senate? Could Ashcroft be capable of such a thing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #2 August 25, 2003 Becaus they can!My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #3 August 25, 2003 QuoteOr could it be that DoJ is lying to the Senate? Could Ashcroft be capable of such a thing? Noooo, not Ashcroft. Someone in the US government lying, that is unheard of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #4 August 25, 2003 Heh....I don't think that you have a grasp on what size you are actually talking about. The ones that you can buy "in the store" have a range of about 2000 ft.(That is a very liberal estimate too) That is being equipt with the biggest engine that is sold without a special liscense.("K" I think)I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #5 August 25, 2003 Pssst... Kallend builds bigger ones then the K's Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #6 August 25, 2003 >Now the Department of Defense's best anti tank missile has a range > less than 4 miles and it cost millions to develop. And the cost to > develop Stingers was also astronomical and it can only reach > 10,000ft (way short of airliner cruise altitude). Cause it's the military. ROV's cost millions to develop; you can buy off-the-shelf ROV's that can fly autonomously, drop bombs and send back video for a few thousand. (see here for one experimenter's version of an ROV.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 August 25, 2003 QuoteCause it's the military. ROV's cost millions to develop; you can buy off-the-shelf ROV's that can fly autonomously, drop bombs and send back video for a few thousand. (see here for one experimenter's version of an ROV.) And this great experimenter's kit is quite impressive. However, you've failed to mention a couple small details, the ROV is about 1/100th the size of a Predator Drone, uses a four stroke engine and likely does not have GPS uplinks for telemetry, navigation and weapon targeting. Not to mention the circuitry of this great kit that is so affordable likely offers no sheilding against EMP or Radio Jamming or encryption ad infinitum... Yep, it's so easy to make this stuff. That's why we see them everywhere... right? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #8 August 25, 2003 >And this great experimenter's kit is quite impressive. However, > you've failed to mention a couple small details, the ROV is about > 1/100th the size of a Predator Drone, uses a four stroke engine and > likely does not have GPS uplinks for telemetry, navigation and > weapon targeting. Not to mention the circuitry of this great kit that is > so affordable likely offers no sheilding against EMP or Radio > Jamming or encryption ad infinitum... Well, that was sorta my point. It also can't be operated by your typical Air Force dude. Since it's the military, you need manuals and TEMPEST testing and you have to meet the MIL-HDBK-251 Derating Criteria for Electrical and Electronic Assemblies, the MIL-M-38510H General Specifications for Microchips Supplement, and the MIL-STD-490A Flight Crew Safety Requirements, and it takes a month and a team of four lawyers to get them to remove the MIL-STD-490A requirements because there's no flight crew, and then another two months for everyone to re-bid on the program per the Uniform Subcontractor Selection Program requirements. But if you want to load a plane with 20 pounds of C4 and fly it into a refinery a few miles away, and you're a terrorist, the $1000+ option's looking pretty good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #9 August 25, 2003 Gawain, I don't know why you waste your time arguing with them over stuff like this. They obviously believe everyone in the government is an idiot and is no match for their intellectual prowess. Your arguments make way too much sense. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 August 25, 2003 Give 'em hell. Now you're sounding like a fiscal conservative. Here's the basic idea, let's streamline spending in the DoD and - what the hell, while we are at it, how about Social Security, treasury, DoE, DoI, and so on and so forth. Let's also get unnecessary laws off the books, (Didn't Clinton try to enact gun control laws instead of enforcing existing laws?) When you add a law, you can point to it and say "See, I did something". When you reestablish enforcement of existing law you say "Sorry, we weren't doing our jobs so now we will in the future". Let's hear some examples from the current administration too. And let's delete some social programs and let the local governments handle that too? And let's delete environmental laws enacted without data but only on one example or just arguments and shrill screeching. and so on and so forth ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #11 August 25, 2003 builds, yes, but you have to have a special license to fly them. Or to even order the engines.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,162 #12 August 25, 2003 QuoteHeh....I don't think that you have a grasp on what size you are actually talking about. The ones that you can buy "in the store" have a range of about 2000 ft.(That is a very liberal estimate too) That is being equipt with the biggest engine that is sold without a special liscense.("K" I think) You don't go to the right store, obviously.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,162 #13 August 25, 2003 Quote>And this great experimenter's kit is quite impressive. However, > you've failed to mention a couple small details, the ROV is about > 1/100th the size of a Predator Drone, uses a four stroke engine and > likely does not have GPS uplinks for telemetry, navigation and > weapon targeting. Not to mention the circuitry of this great kit that is > so affordable likely offers no sheilding against EMP or Radio > Jamming or encryption ad infinitum... Well, that was sorta my point. It also can't be operated by your typical Air Force dude. Since it's the military, you need manuals and TEMPEST testing and you have to meet the MIL-HDBK-251 Derating Criteria for Electrical and Electronic Assemblies, the MIL-M-38510H General Specifications for Microchips Supplement, and the MIL-STD-490A Flight Crew Safety Requirements, and it takes a month and a team of four lawyers to get them to remove the MIL-STD-490A requirements because there's no flight crew, and then another two months for everyone to re-bid on the program per the Uniform Subcontractor Selection Program requirements. But if you want to load a plane with 20 pounds of C4 and fly it into a refinery a few miles away, and you're a terrorist, the $1000+ option's looking pretty good. Sorry, I don't know enough MARKUP to put a big flashing IRONY by the post. What I am getting at is the sheer absurdity of the DoJ letter to the US Senate. What have these guys been smoking?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,162 #14 August 25, 2003 Quotebuilds, yes, but you have to have a special license to fly them. Or to even order the engines. No you don't (although most suppliers will ask for a LEUP because of BATF harrassment, but strictly there's no legal obligation). No license needed to fly them. Anyway, why would anyone think that terrorists would refrain from using them 'cos they don't have a license? More to the point, what moron in DoJ thinks that a terrorist could hit a tank at 5 miles or an airliner at 37,000ft using anything off the shelf from a hobby rocket supplier?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #15 August 25, 2003 >Sorry, I don't know enough MARKUP to put a big flashing IRONY by the post. Although you did figure out the color thing . . . (sorry) My point is that there are a lot of technologies out there that can be used by terrorists. Airliners are one. Simple bombs with simple fuses are another. General aviation is yet a third; hence new GA restrictions. ROV's are a fourth, and homemade ballistic delivery systems are a fifth. Homemade delivery systems need propulsion, and rocket motors (especially rather reliable and powerful ones) are useful in that regard. I don't think that "they can't possibly be used in terrorist weapons!" is the right approach - because they can be. Perhaps "we're overreacting to the threat" is a better approach. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,162 #16 August 25, 2003 Quote>Sorry, I don't know enough MARKUP to put a big flashing IRONY by the post. Although you did figure out the color thing . . . (sorry) My point is that there are a lot of technologies out there that can be used by terrorists. Airliners are one. Simple bombs with simple fuses are another. General aviation is yet a third; hence new GA restrictions. ROV's are a fourth, and homemade ballistic delivery systems are a fifth. Homemade delivery systems need propulsion, and rocket motors (especially rather reliable and powerful ones) are useful in that regard. I don't think that "they can't possibly be used in terrorist weapons!" is the right approach - because they can be. Perhaps "we're overreacting to the threat" is a better approach. Trucks and cars and fertilizer work too, and have a proven track record (remember Beirut, Oklahoma City...).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #17 August 25, 2003 You realize we could all be arrested for talking about this, under the PATRIOT act? This is kind of like how they tell you to turn off your cell phones and laptops while a plane takes off, because it could interfere with the navigation or something. How insecure is their stuff if consumer electronics can mess with it?__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #18 August 25, 2003 Shit Kallend - you want to see DOD wasting money, come to work on a SuperFund site - namely Rocky Flats. Talk about wasted cash. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #19 August 25, 2003 Random thought for today but have you challenged them to see if this can happen? Isn't there a Special Forces School or CIA farm that teaches counter revolutionary warfare? I would hope that there would be people looking at possible scenarios and checking them for feasibility. If this is warrants legislation shouldn't there be something to back it up other than paranoia? David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #20 August 25, 2003 For an explanation, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525934189/qid=1061844280/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/102-4529420-9590525 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 August 25, 2003 QuoteIf this is warrants legislation shouldn't there be something to back it up other than paranoia? I guess you haven't been paying much attention to how things are being done in Washington these days.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #22 August 25, 2003 QuoteQuoteIf this is warrants legislation shouldn't there be something to back it up other than paranoia? I guess you haven't been paying much attention to how things are being done in Washington these days. there are lots of ways to herd sheep, fear is the method of choice in the current environment. Keep them frightened and they will agree to whatever you wish them too...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #23 August 25, 2003 Very true which is why I'd like someone to start asking questions so that knowledge can dispell the fear. Given Kallends background he would seem a good candidate to do just that. I've seen how things are being done in Washington Quade but as I can't vote here it's not my place to change it. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #24 August 26, 2003 QuoteHeh....I don't think that you have a grasp on what size you are actually talking about. The ones that you can buy "in the store" have a range of about 2000 ft.(That is a very liberal estimate too) That is being equipt with the biggest engine that is sold without a special liscense.("K" I think) I recently built a recovery system for 2 brothers in Ca. Their toy stood 23 ft. tall and was 18 in. in dia. It was 2 stage and I recovered it with 2 26 ft. Con. and a 18 ft. cross form. I do not know what size the motors where but the first stage had 6 of them. If I knew how to attach it I would include a video.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
