NAR President's TARC 2004 Report - Fun Stuff
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mark B. Bundick - 26 May 2004 01:44 GMT First, hats off and three cheers to Trip Barber and his merry band of 70 NAR members who wonderfully executed the 2004 TARC Finals. These committed NAR volunteers came from all over the country to spend their weekend on a rocket range but did no flying. I again this year heard the VIP's speak glowingly of the quality and smoothness of the range operation. Having run two NARAM's myself, I know what it takes to pull a team together to do this stuff, and I stand in awe of the organizational display Trip and his team put on at Great Meadow.
Barb and I flew out on Thursday afternoon, and then had dinner in Old Town Manassas. NAR members attending NARAM and looking for places above chain or fast food should check this part of town out.
Friday, Barb and Jo Ann Rachor toured three different Smithsonian museums while NAR Secretary George Rachor and I had two separate business meetings. When we were done with our work, we met Barb and Jo Ann at the National Building Museum. The structure is itself is a marvel -- 15 stories high, made from 15 million + bricks, and open all the way to the roof. There are giant Greek columns holding up the roof, and smaller ones along each other gallery. The exhibits were a bit dull and Spartan, so we cut back to the Metro and back out to the Vienna Metro stop (10-12 miles from our Manassas hotel.) and got a quick rest before the contestant's briefing at Osborne Park High School.
Trip briefed the range crew first, going over critical elements of the operation, and making sure everyone had their standard issue NAR "uniforms"; NAR shirt and hat with khaki pants or shorts.
102 teams with about 600-700 kids and supporters showed up, and could hardly contain themselves. When Trip asked "Anybody here ready to fly some rockets?" they about took the roof off the place. John Douglas, the AIA Executive Director, then proceeded to ratchet up the crowd more by asking "Who's going to win tomorrow?" It took him the better part of a couple of minutes to get the crowd quiet enough to finish his remarks. Vern Estes also addressed the contestants, and I suspect was warmed by both the reception and the bright future seated before him. The Rachors, Bundicks and Estes' then went off for a nice dinner.
Saturday dawned bright, with high ceilings and dead flat calm winds. Barb and I got to the field before 8 AM. While she ran off to get pictures, I hung around the VIP area, chatted with JP Stevens of the AIA and the rest of the AIA staff. I watched JP coordinate the F-18 flyover with a forward air controller radio. Demonstrating why this man's such a class act, he invited the pilot's sister who had shown up to see him perform the flyover, to join us in the VIP area, and also let her chat with her brother via radio.
After an appropriate introduction, a volunteer choir of TARC contestants joined the color guard, sang the National Anthem, and then the F18's flew over. As they got immediately over the launch site, they went off in 15 deg. separate paths, with both of them in full afterburner. The thunder over the launch site was stunningly loud, sweet music. After they blew out of town, a salvo of 8 HPR models lifted off in rapid succession. Barb got a great photo of the residual smoke trails, which persisted nicely in the non-existent winds. PA announcer Alan Williams roared "Ladies and gentlemen, start your rocket engines!", and the contest was on!
The first bird off the pad worked fine, as did roughly 70% of the entries in total, a much better track record than last year. Lowering the altitude helped, as did a year's experience on which to draw. 85 teams who made the finals last year tried to qualify again this year, but only 38 of them succeeded. Average 2003 qualifying score was 99 vs. 2004's 38. The flyers on the field were the cream of the crop, for sure.
I'm hoping Ted Cochran does his wonderful analysis of the flight permutations again (hint, hint). But it looked to me as if most kids gave up on composites and complexity. They went simpler and (hopefully) more reliable. I did notice a lot more deliberately spun models this TARC than last. Nearly every one of those went up darned straight. There also appeared to me to be more consistency from rail launched birds, even though the winds never picked up.
NASA Marshall (which deals with a lot of NASA's educational outreach stuff) sent up a huge trailer with an exhibit. They also had a giant 3 story inflated space shuttle. Other groups on displays included Louisiana University (which gave out Mardi Gras beads), NASA's Wallops Flight Center, several other educational groups, and a simulator for flying the 1911 Wright Model B Flyer. Even the Central Intelligence Agency was there, handing out pins and pencils to the crowd.
CNN again provided live coverage. VIP's included Sen. Mike Enzi (whose 8 month old grandson was a hit, along with J. P. Steven's 11 month old son), Homer Hickam, Jim Pruitt (NASA Marshall's education director), Dr. Adena Lotson, NASA's Associate Administrator for Education, Craig Stetle, head of the Moon-Mars project, a huge contingent of aerospace executives, and astronauts Jay Apt and Charlie Walker.
It was also fun to bump into VIP's unexpectedly. One I was personally happy to see was Ken Hyde, the head of the Wright Experience. I chatted with him about my Kitty Hawk visit on December 17, 2003, and his plans for the third Wright Flyer his team is building. I also finally got to meet the Wallops Public Affairs Officer, Keith Kohler.
The HPR demo was a great success. Sen. Enzi spent time chatting with the flyers and clearly enjoyed his time out there. He was invited to launch several of the birds, including Bill Schorwer's TV rocket. A bit of disappointment was the failure to ignite the K550 Nike-Smoke scale bird. After failing on the third attempt due to schedule constraints, Sen. Enzi remarked "Well, I guess that's the last time they'll let me try to launch it."
Another Kodak moment occurred for Doug Pratt, who flew a hybrid bird. After Doug's successful flight, Sen. Enzi wandered over to George Rachor and I and said, "I've never seen one of those before. That was kind of neat!" I don't think Doug's stopped beaming ever since I related that story to him at the range crew reception that night.
You should visit the rocketcontest.org site for complete results. On top of the regular contest, a number of special awards were given this year to keep things interesting.
The Northrop Grumman Corporation Award went to the "Team With the Best Team Uniform". Lots of teams has special shirts, and we had one that would have made Harry proud as they wore flight suits. Some went even farther. One team with a mythology theme for their group wore togas. But Hickory High School took the top slot with their red and white "Cat in the Hat" stovepipe hats and red bowties.
The Parker Aerospace Award for "Best Rocket Recovery Effort" brought back competition flight memories. The team from Shelburne Community School won for recovering theirs from a 60 foot tree. They arrived at the awards stage complete with rocket entangled in a branch. Nice showmanship, guys.
The Aerojet Award for the "Lightest Rocket That Worked" contrasted Heuvelton Central School at 293 grams against the Alliant Techsystems Award for "Heaviest Rocket That Worked" going to East Central High School at 1,400 grams. You do the math.
Finally, I think all NAR rocketeers would have appreciated winning either the BAE SYSTEMS North America Inc. Award for "Most Complex Rocket That Worked", or Honeywell's Award for the "Team With the Most Sophisticated Control Strategy". Way to go, Shelby Junior High, and Claymore High School; we're all jealous.
NAR members looking to get in on TARC 2005 should check out the rocketcontest.org website, and ping Trip Barber to see if you can claim a slot on the range crew. You'll get a uniform shirt not available for sale, and the rocketry experience of a lifetime.
As hard as it might be to believe, TARC 2004 was better than TARC 2003. I had more fun, met a lot more people, and saw great rockets, big and small, all day long. The hobby's future is brighter with us supporting these kids, and so is aerospace's. If one day, I can look at some astronaut getting ready to go to the moon or Mars and hearing them say "Team America started me down this path", I'll certainly be a proud and happy NAR president.
Personal aside: I had way too much fun at this event. I go there, I do nothing but schmoze, and everyone who meets me is interested in the hobby, the kids, our mission and our organization. By far and away, it's turned into the absolutely the best perk of being NAR president (grin).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."
Jerry Irvine - 26 May 2004 02:05 GMT > pull a team together to do this stuff, and I stand in awe of the > organizational display Trip and his team put on at Great Meadow.
> Personal aside: I had way too much fun at this event. I go there, I > do nothing but schmoze, and everyone who meets me is interested in the > hobby, the kids, our mission and our organization. By far and away, > it's turned into the absolutely the best perk of being NAR president > (grin). Kudos sir. TARC is far and away an unqualified success for NAR and model rocketry generally.
Jerry
 Signature Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv
Gene - 26 May 2004 23:02 GMT Wow... we never get celebs at METRA launches... except a triennial visit from Neil Tarasoff. Alas and alack...
Alan Jones - 27 May 2004 00:13 GMT >The first bird off the pad worked fine, as did roughly 70% of the >entries in total, a much better track record than last year. I'm sure the weather, the motor rule change, and the fact that 38/102 teams were veterans vs. the all rookie field in 2003 were all contributing factors.
> Lowering >the altitude helped, as did a year's experience on which to draw. 85 >teams who made the finals last year tried to qualify again this year, >but only 38 of them succeeded. Average 2003 qualifying score was 99 >vs. 2004's 38. The flyers on the field were the cream of the crop, >for sure. 38 sounds good, but only 12 of those 102 qualifying teams managed to score below 40 in the finals. I'd guess the ability to take a Mulligan in qualifying really skews the comparative results. OTOH, half the finalists scored within 145, and 46 within 10% of the desired altitude. It looks like maybe 40% had problems, e.g. low performance from non vertical flight, or cluster ignition failure, or broken egg, unstable, etc.
>I'm hoping Ted Cochran does his wonderful analysis of the flight >permutations again (hint, hint). But it looked to me as if most kids [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >straight. There also appeared to me to be more consistency from rail >launched birds, even though the winds never picked up. The spinning rocket issue is one that interests me. Were more models spun this year simply because more clusters were flown? Were more models spun because the veteran teams remembered flying in bad weather in TARC 2003? Where did they get the idea to spin models? Was it from individual research and experience, or on-line open discussion lists, or taught from the mentors and coaches? They certainly did not learn it from running Rocsim. More generally, I'd like to read articles written by student participants about the technical, operational, and tactical lessons learned.
There was also a quiet discursion of flights on RMR about non vertical flights due to a cluster motor failing to ignite. I thought about doing an R&D project to determine optimal fins size and fin cant angle for a TARC like model with one cluster motor ignition failure. However, this is project best left to the TARCians and NARAM B division competitors.
>Finally, I think all NAR rocketeers would have appreciated winning >either the BAE SYSTEMS North America Inc. Award for "Most Complex >Rocket That Worked", or Honeywell's Award for the "Team With the Most >Sophisticated Control Strategy". Way to go, Shelby Junior High, and >Claymore High School; we're all jealous. The team winning the Honeywell control award was DQ'd. Ouch! I wonder what they did to earn the award?
While I was looking that up, I noticed that Clayton High from MO had three teams, all with closely grouped low scores. I'm wondering if they functioned independently, or more like a motor sports team fielding three cars in the same race, sharing knowledge. Did they all use the same batch of under performing motors? Did the third team to fly not think that maybe they should remove some ballast or something? I'm sure that there are at least 100 good stories and lessons learned coming out of TARC 2004. I hope we get to read about some of them?
Alan
>Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net >NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org Ted Cochran - 27 May 2004 03:54 GMT > >Finally, I think all NAR rocketeers would have appreciated winning > >either the BAE SYSTEMS North America Inc. Award for "Most Complex [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The team winning the Honeywell control award was DQ'd. Ouch! I > wonder what they did to earn the award? The award write-up allows DQs to win (best laid plans....)
They eliminated a lot of variability by using a nice tower launcher, and had a fairly sophisticated weight adjustment system based on a simulator-derived table that took into account temperature, humidity, etc.
I think the DQ was because they didn't get a motor lit...
--tc
Andy Eng - 27 May 2004 15:01 GMT >I'm sure the weather, the motor rule change, and the fact that 38/102 >teams were veterans vs. the all rookie field in 2003 were all >contributing factors. Like yeah... Wasn't the team a group of freshman? :-)
>38 sounds good, but only 12 of those 102 qualifying teams managed to >score below 40 in the finals. I'd guess the ability to take a >Mulligan in qualifying really skews the comparative results. I see what you're probing at (if I got it right) with TARC is more in-line with the NCAA basketball tourney where every year is fairly wide open.
> OTOH, half the finalists scored within 145, and 46 within 10% of the desired >altitude. It looks like maybe 40% had problems, e.g. low performance >from non vertical flight, or cluster ignition failure, or broken egg, >unstable, etc. I've got this database of some NAR/FAI contest flights and did some comparisons...
1/2ASRA 27% DQ Rate BELA 28% CELD 28% BHD 28% BSD 28% 1/4ASRD 28% 1/4ASD 32% FSD 33% 1/4ARG 33% 1/2AFW 33% DBG 33%
The DQ percent of this years TARC was what, about 29%? Looking at the Cumulative Distribution of scores, the shape of the curve looks very similar to FAI B-PD and maybe FAI A-PD where they were going for Maxes. Good stuff...
Regards, Andy
Alan Jones - 27 May 2004 16:38 GMT >>38 sounds good, but only 12 of those 102 qualifying teams managed to >>score below 40 in the finals. I'd guess the ability to take a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in-line with the NCAA basketball tourney where every year is fairly >wide open. I don't follow NCAA basketball, but are you suggesting that high performing teams make it to the NCAA tourney, but few of them display that same high perfomance in the pressure if a NCAA tourney, and that TARCians just crack under the pressure of the finals competition? I'm not probing at anything. I'm just musing the posted results and Mark's commemts. I'm sure people who were actualy there can provide a better assement. Bunny suggested that the competitors were MUCH better this year because the average qualifying score went from 99 to 38 in an easier contest. I'm suggesting that the real improvement in contestant skill may not be as great as Mark and his chosen metric suggests.
>Regards, >Andy Alan
Andy Eng - 28 May 2004 14:41 GMT >>>38 sounds good, but only 12 of those 102 qualifying teams managed to >>>score below 40 in the finals. I'd guess the ability to take a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >performing teams make it to the NCAA tourney, but few of them display >that same high perfomance in the pressure if a NCAA tourney, and that March Madness is an interesting time of the year. It's a single elimination tournament and in the end, everybody but one school will suffer a loss.
>TARCians just crack under the pressure of the finals competition? I'm It would be too obvious to say that some teams handle the distractions of being on the road better than others. For all I know, some may prefer the distractions (?!?)
Based on simply two years of watching , I'm happy to claim that the DQ rate from our area teams is about half of the national average yet puzzled that for two years in a row, have consistently flown to lower altitudes than expected. This year, their models were flying straight as a laser so I'm wondering if it's either the local weather or motor variability. Oh well... I understand everybody had a good time.
>not probing at anything. I'm just musing the posted results and >Mark's commemts. I'm sure people who were actualy there can provide a Ahhh... Cut him some slack. After all, he's hobnobbin with the big boys now and may have lost touch for the moment... :-)
>better assement. Bunny suggested that the competitors were MUCH >better this year because the average qualifying score went from 99 to >38 in an easier contest. I'm suggesting that the real improvement in >contestant skill may not be as great as Mark and his chosen metric >suggests. When I inspected the cumulative performance distribution (CPD) curves from the two years, I see two distributions within each year. Those in the pack and the other pack of those who were probably like me in college. Last year, the curves indicate 30% of the teams were in the hunt and this year 56%. For discussion, NAR contests typically has only a fraction of contestants in the head pack. As I mentioned in the prior post, the shape of the TARC CPD's resememble that of the FAI B-PD events. Whatever, I guess the gist is if the event coordinators wants a tightly contested event or one where the pack gets spread out.
>>Regards, >>Andy > >Alan Just yapping, Andy
Alan Jones - 29 May 2004 02:32 GMT >>not probing at anything. I'm just musing the posted results and >>Mark's commemts. I'm sure people who were actualy there can provide a > >Ahhh... Cut him some slack. After all, he's hobnobbin with the big >boys now and may have lost touch for the moment... :-) I don't think Mark has lost touch. He is doing a great job, along with Trip, the volunteers and contestants. I'd rather keep him engaged than let him slack off...
>When I inspected the cumulative performance distribution (CPD) curves >from the two years, I see two distributions within each year. Those >in the pack and the other pack of those who were probably like me in >college. Last year, the curves indicate 30% of the teams were in the >hunt and this year 56%. I agree that that is a better metric. However, EVERY team in the finals is qualified and should be in competitive pack. The altitude is lower, and the weather was much nicer, which certainly helped, but I don't know how much. The fact that 38 teams returned from the first year also allows for more statistical analysis. Did the verteran teams do significantly better in thier second year, or did they randomly rise and fall in relative demonstrated skill? The allowable motors also chnged, in a way that should be expected to show better results.
>For discussion, NAR contests typically has >only a fraction of contestants in the head pack. As I mentioned in the >prior post, the shape of the TARC CPD's resememble that of the FAI >B-PD events. Whatever, Agreed. While interesting, I don't see the relevance to comparison with FAI B-PD, or even NAR contests.
> I guess the gist is if the event coordinators >wants a tightly contested event or one where the pack gets spread out. I'd guess they like to see every team make a qualified flight within 15% or so of the desired altitude. But the fact is randomness dominates the determination of the top money winners. Requiring teams to say make three flights and average the altitudes would help reduce the randomness, helping the highest skilled teams to actualy finish in the prize money. Likewise, making the event more difficult, would help insure that the highest skilled teams actualy finish higher in the rankings than lower skilled teams. Of course the other idea is to not pay out the prise money based solely on rank, but on actual performance. Say, $100 - $1/foot of error. Of course you would still have to make it worthwile to participate. And yes, like T ball, they are all winners.
>>>Regards, >>>Andy >> >>Alan > >Just yapping, Exactly. We should talk this up more, but I'd like to hold off until more reports are written and published.
>Andy Alan
|
|
|