> > People make countless posts on what a model rocket, a high power rocket, a
> > mid power rocket, and a experimental rocket are supposed to be and
> > when somebody uses a term "incorrectly." Now, with the legislative action
> > going on and all press involved saying something to the effect of
> > Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry" I see nobody complaining
> > it. I mean, high power and experimental rocketry are in more danger than
> > Estes sized "model rocketry" right?
> > Just something I was pondering.
> > Pax
> I think that evryone that has replied is "too close" to the issue.
> To the general public "model rocket" is all any of us do. If you start
> talking "High Power" and "EX" you're gonna scare the general public and work
> against yourself. Case in point: What is an "*** rifle"? By definition
> it is a firearm that may be switched from semi-automatic fire to fully
> automatic fire by use of a switch. Ask the public though and they'll give
> widely varying answers based on what they saw last on the news.
> If you tell people you do "high power" rocketry they'll start thinking NASA.
> Just something to think about.
> Bill Bahus
Bill, you're absolutely correct. As the author of both the SPACE.com
story and its headline, I could have said Explosive Regulations
Threaten to Kill Large and Dangerous Rockets. Your battle will only be
won if you stay focused on the risk that these regulations could
impact young kids flying little Alpha rockets with A and B engines in
the school athletic field. If this is more about ***s and their
giant toys, no one will care. Personally I have no interest in the
bigger rockets or what they're called, unless they go by the names of
Delta 4 or Atlas 5. But I don't want anything standing in the way of
my 10-year-old catching the rocket bug the way I did many decades ago.
Thanks to those of you who wrote to help with the story...