NASA Lunar Lander Competition -- Go Build Yourself a Missile
OK, there are numerous competitions for aerial robotics. Usually they are winged or rotary (helicopter). Well, now NASA has launched the Lunar Lander Competition (Engadget discussion), where you can vie for a $2 Million prize.
A description of the task from the NASA website.
To win the prize, teams must demonstrate a rocket-propelled vehicle and payload that takes off vertically, climbs to a defined altitude, flies for a pre-determined amount of time, and then land vertically on a target that is a fixed distance from the launch pad. After landing, the vehicle must take off again within a predetermined time, fly for a certain amount of time and then land back on its original launch pad. There are two levels of difficulty, with awards for first and second place at each level.
OK, that sounds much like other aerial robot competitions, except... "rocket-propelled." At this point, bells, whistles, and alarms were going off in my head. From my model rocket days I recall it being illegal to add guidance systems to rockets, less they become missiles. While there are no direct laws affecting model rocket guidance systems, the National Rocketry Association (and the FBI that watches them closely, and several states' court rulings) essentially say that they are illegal.
So my question is... assuming I had the time and desire to participate, doesn't this give me legal, free-range to develop a "guided missile?" It's a good thing I have little of either, as I'd hate to explain to the "man" that "NASA told me I could build a missile."
Comments
Travis:
Hey Roger, I appreciate your response. I actually was unaware of the restrictions you mention, namely,
This year they've been able to fly untethered for as long as they want, *if* they do it at one of the newly certified space ports, *and* they have FAA certification, which required numerous safety systems and a fortune in legal paperwork.
I absolutely agree that designing, building, and testing short range missiles is of little-to-no use to a terrorist, especially since other easier methods are available (none of which I care to elaborate on).
The point of my post was to rant about the logic fallacies of the post-9/11 government. On one hand they try to block hobby-rocketry enthusiasts from purchasing solid rocket engines and adding guidance systems (which would be nice for graceful takeoffs and landings), citing "National Security concerns." Then at the same time, they post competitions sponsoring guided missiles.
Thanks for your input. It was enlightening.
Roger Strong (not verified):
Several of the teams were building rockets anyway, *before* the lunar lander challenge was announced. None have received any money from NASA. The likely winner, Armadillo Aerospace, will get some money for winning, but they're fully funded anyway.
The teams DO have strict limits on what they can do. Armadillo would have won the prize last year, except that their landing gear collapsed on landing. *That* happenned because they weren't able to do an untethered flight until the event. Thier other rockets had untethered flights, but law limited them to something like 15 seconds of engine burn. This year they've been able to fly untethered for as long as they want, *if* they do it at one of the newly certified space ports, *and* they have FAA certification, which required numerous safety systems and a fortune in legal paperwork.
Short range rockets like that are useless to a terrorist. They're far too complicated, too expensive and require too much skill to use. On 9/11 their weapon was simple packing knives, which weren't even illegal to bring on a plane in the U.S.
If they wanted to use rockets, they'd use something like what's already in used in Lebanon when Syrian and Iranian help isn't available - simple home-made solid-fuel rockets made from cans welded end-to-end.
If they want a high-tech attack, they can take one of those radio-controlled hobby aircraft, add a Pocket PC cell phone with GPS, and get an instant cruise missile. One of these, TAM-5, built by a legally blind and mostly deaf guy, flew across the Atlantic in 2003. It was tiny, but there's no upper limit on size. When the U.S. invaded Iraq they found a Cessna equipped the same way - possibly used to train others how to build one. These aircraft could be launched from much further away, be much more controllable and be far easier to develop, test and operate than guided rocket.
Hovering, guided rockets are cool, but of no use to a terrorist.