Thank you all.
To summarize what I've got so far:
1) it is possible, with limited efforts, to obtain reasonable
permits to do some engine testing Not needed for liquids or Hybrids
Solids unless licenced to do so are illegal.
2) for liquid fuel engines and for hybrid engines, it's easier to
get permit Not needed for liquids or Hybrids
3) there are a) precedents (System Solaire) b) explicit exemptions
(ERD) c) "intent" to regulate (mostly) explosives d) practice of
relative ease of obtaining permits (for, e.g., peroxide engines).
4) Relevant agencies are ERD (explosives regulation) and NRC (environment?)
Is it correct and complete enough?
Thank you again,
Alexander
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:17 PM, "qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes your right, usually it's called combustion, but our law makers
are famous for ambiguous laws and although I doubt they are going to
hunt you down if you built a liquid motor, the fact that combustion
is just a slow explosion means if they really wanted to, they could.
The fact that System Solaire was Quebec based shows you just how
interested the government wasn't in going after liquid rocket motor
builders although now you would need a permit for the 50% peroxide. I
was aware that ERD had exempted hybrids from this list but I was
unaware that biprop liquids had been.
.
Robert
At 10:25 PM 11/12/2013, you wrote:
>On 11/13/2013 12:10 AM,
<mailto:qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>At 10:05 PM 11/12/2013, you wrote:
>>>one that said making liquid rocket motors was legal. (Should
>>>read, I never found one that said making liquid rocket motors was legal. )
>>
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>
>We have a legal structure in this country that basically says that
>anything that isn't explicitly *illegal* is legal.
>
>Does there need to be a law on the books that says that clipping
>your toenails is legal? Baking bread? Brushing your teeth?
>
