Model Forum / General / Rockets / August 2006

Mike,

You are SO correct.  Modern day rocketry really is re-inventing the
wheel in so many areas.  The best sources of information are the old
journals, magazines, and reports.  The MIT reports of the 1960/1970s
are some of the BEST reading for information.  The Model Rocketeer
magazine, and old Centuri/Estes reports are great also.

You have to realize that MOST of the people who fly model rockets (LPR
- HPR) are NOT rocket scientists.  Yes they are well meaning and
motivated people, but they don't have letters in front of their names
from Cal Tech, MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, ect..  Most of the hobbyists
come from well grounded back grounds that lend themselves to
non-scientific pursuits.  This isn't a bad thing, I just point it out
because you have realized what many have realized and caused them to
subsequently leave the hobby all together: There are REAL limits to
what can be done in model rocketry.  The next logical progression is to
REAL space flight systems.

One of the major model rocketry selling points to the consumers,
military, and government, was that model rocketry gave young boys a
head start on the careers of tomorrow (circa 1960 something).  In many
cases this was true and did result in kids who flew model rockets in
1965, then sitting in a Space Shuttle seat and launched in 1990
something.

Early rocketry was taken far more serious in its educational and
scientific importance, and less about colored-sparkly exhaust flames.
Times have changed.

Yes, there is TARC, but face it, there was a time, when 'TARC' like
meets, clubs and organizations existed all over the country (circa
1950s/1960s).  Young minds were designing, and building rockets that
today either wouldn't be allowed to fly or require special permits; and
yes they were dying too!  Frankly, I just asked the reader of this
posting to go over to the ninfinger.org site and view the MR magazines
of the late 1960s.  In these, there are calculus differential
equations, log-log graphs, Computational Fluid Dynamics studies, and
more scattered throughout the issues.  Also, try and get a hold of the
Popular Mechanics magazines of the 1950s and 60s to see teenagers
designing and SUCCESSFULLY flying ZnS, LOX, and solid propellant
rockets.   It was a different time.  Some feel it was bad for personal
safety, while others feel that it was a time of great learning and
discovery that had benefits in hobby, military and scientific rocketry.

Today, all you need is a credit card and you too can launch your 'heart
out'; that's not a bad thing, just an observation.  You can by GPS
Flight Computers.  You can buy Hybrid systems.  You can be active in
the hobby without having to be 'brainy' with rocketry.  This is a good
thing, as it opens the excitement and fun of rocketry to the masses.

So then when you see the magazines of today as 'social photographic
commentaries' between the hobbyists, you are correct.  It's more
about being seen or having your prized project recognized and
appreciated, then it is about finding out something new about
aerodynamic flight, stability, or fuel efficiency.  Now that is NOT to
say that these things aren't going on, its just that those types of
scientific endeavors have been pushed to the back ground, and
'recreational rocketry' has been pushed to the foreground.  It's
still a good thing as more people enter the hobby; this will lead to
spin-offs into profession rocketry and technology for our citizens.

And yes, the Krushnick Effect has to do with the mass flow and how it
behaves as it moves out of the nozzle and into the atmosphere. A rule
in motor design is that the reactants down stream must not know what is
happening upstream.  You actually can embed the motor well into the
rocket and still get good performance.  You just have to know what you
are doing and understand what is going on.  If you design the rocket
correctly, you can actually... well I will leave that up to someone who
might want to use it as a science project, or research thesis to do.
Jetex planes have their motors recessed several calibers up into their
'tubes/airframes', now how do they get they models to fly?  Well I know
how, but I think someone might want to do the research and find out :P

Sure I can imagine it.  Well, maybe a small section of today's youth,
but probably the most significant section.

True, but let's not short change the social issue.  The most important
thing that goes on at a model rocket contest is not the competition,
but the exchange of ideas and discussions that happen when people come
together.  In this regard, large sport launches may have overtaken
contests.  Many people still say that what they like about this hobby
is the people that they meet.  Now it would be great if the magazine
had the picture captioned, "So and so explaining the Krushnick
Effect", and if the text presented the main points of the discussion.
The sad fact is, professional journalists are not drawn to rocketry
events and if they were, they would not be "working".  So  basically
some rocket geek takes a few pictures, that he can't remember much
about, and sends them into the magazine, and the editor does what he
can with them.

The magazine content is reflection of the submitters, and editors, and
it is not a reflection of a generation of youth.  I suspect the new
generation of whiz kids are familiar with the content (or lack
thereof) of sport rocketry magazines and walk right past that flashy
cover to grab the latest issue of Make.

I feel your pain.  

Alan

While I agree that there has been a general decline in the quality of
education over the years, I don't think kids are all that much different
now than we were then. We didn't fly RTF crap but no RTF crap was
available. Besides, what percentage of the youth in the 60's were
reading the articles in Model Rocketry Magazine? I guarantee you that
there was a much higher percentage that were dumb jocks or were out
getting stoned. Face it, we represented a very small minority then just
as we do now.

Times and interests change. I didn't know a single teenager in the 60's
who was an accomplished computer programmer; there are lots of them
today. Kids are doing computer mods like we did car mods. Stop assuming
that kids are deficient because they do different things than we did.
You're all starting to sound like my parents did!

Mario

Mike,

Your remarks spur contradictory reactions in these old bones.

The first is.... MY GOD! Don't get me started! YESSSSSS.
I'm sitting here trying to write an article on off-vertical
accelerometer analysis that would never find an audience,
because no one would be interested in the science.

The second is that science itself is not as neat and publishable as
it used to be. Before the computer, the thrust of science was to
reduce things to formulas. Alas, not everything can be reduced to
formulas; most things have to be explored numerically. The computer
makes that possible, and it has changed the very face of science. In
1969 an article could be about scientific formulas. Today it's going to
involve a computer program. On the one hand, many more problems
can be addressed this way. On the other hand, we tend to solve all
problems way. The connection here? The technological emphasis gets
larger as the presumed scientific background of the audience gets smaller.

Finally, this seems to be the way of all hobbies. They start with
fundamentals and end with ready-made products.

Your car article is an example.

Amateur astronomy started with science and optics. Now it's
expensive GoTo telescopes. The better your scope, the greater
your status.

Home computers started with IC's, boards, and teletypes. Now...
it ain't even a hobby, it's bloody work! Few people who use home
computers understand anything about them. Instead of getting more
work done, we consume every extra CPU cycle in the process of
dumbing the machine down.

The entire magazine, _Popular Science_ started with baking
soda and vinegar chemistry in the thirties. Now it's all the new
products that science is going to give us someday.

The funny thing is that if this doesn't happen... well hobbyists don't
make many advances by themselves, so they start going over the
same tired territory. Take Zinc and Sulfur rockets, for example. They
were once considered cutting edge for hobbyists. Now they are
grotesque relics, still pursued by purists. Pre-packaged AP composites
are a splendid alternative, when you think about it.

Nevertheless, you have my sympathies,
-Larry C.