Tripoli vs NAR

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The only meaningful difference between NAR and TRA is that TRA allows research motors. NAR allows commercial only. However, for a cert flight, both only allow commercial. NAR requires single L3CC; TRA requires two TAPs. Beyond that, it is semantics.

+1
As long as you only fly commercial motors I don't think it makes any difference.
 
The only other difference I can think of is that if the launch is under TRA rules, people under 18 at high power pads need to be TRA members in the mentoring program. I believe NAR allows people under 18 at the HPR pads as long as they are involved in the project. I've had a few kids in the rocketry club be disappointed in not being able to be at the pad when their Junior L1 cert was flying. This is a really minor difference and probably only matters if you have a kid or grandkid that wants to do HPR before turning 18.
 
This place gets a little brutal.lol. For those of you who questioned my support. I do belong to both Washington Aeronautics and Tricities and NAR and I do support local vendors when they are available. The original question really wasn't about money it was if I needed to use Tripoli to avoid what I thought was the switch issue. I guess I need to spend more time searching and less posting. That being said many of you were a lot of help and I thank you!
 
Best thing to do is contact your closest NAR L3CC and discuss the switch issue with them. In the end they will sign off on your L3.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
Flip a coin if you want one, don't if you want two. I am Tripoli because I generally like Tripoli launches more than NAR launches.
 
I also think with NAR you cannot use an already built rocket to cert L3. You might want to check with a NAR L3CC person. With Tripoli, you can use a older already built rocket, with your TAP's approval.
AmIright guys???
 
Depends on the L3CC, as long as the build was sufficiently documented there really shouldnt be much issue. Personally, who cares when you built the rocket as long as it was fully documented, the proposal is accepted, and the rocket approved. Typically though L3 candidates, choose, propose, build & document, get final approval/inspection, then fly the rocket for cert.
 
I also think with NAR you cannot use an already built rocket to cert L3. You might want to check with a NAR L3CC person. With Tripoli, you can use a older already built rocket, with your TAP's approval.
AmIright guys???


The rule at NAR is "An individual may not submit a design for a Level 3 Certification project review to the L3CC
until Level 2 certification has been successfully accomplished"

I'm thinking what you could do is build the rocket with the idea that you might use it for L3 (after getting your L2), document the build as you do it, and then ask your L3CC person if it's ok to use it. Obviously you run the risk of them rejecting an already finished rocket for an L3 cert flight or finding your documentation is inadequate.

I'm not an L3CC though, so I might be wrong.

FWIW- I'm both NAR and Tripoli, and will be doing my L3 with NAR at Midwest Power, if all goes well.

 
Actually I did get a L2 with this rocket and I am only reusing AV bay and nose cone that has been documented when I built it and I have been using dual altimeters with complete redundant systems all along. The only issue with the original build is the 54mm motor mount and I need 75mm for M motor. I can't really see where this would be an issue as I believe at one time this kit was offered with a that as an option. But if it is an issue after I contact L3 I will just continue with the build and fly with L motors. This is not a I have to project but I thought I would be a good way to go and much different than buying a complete Agm 33 Pike kit or whatever and certing L3.
 
This is a neat thread; highlighted perks of both and good discussions on the details of the L3 Process!:)

One thing that I didn't read yet is the history of the two orgs. For some that means a lot, for others it means very little. NAR came first, they're the pioneers of early model rocketry and the remnants/resulting organization from the very first organized rocketry group(s). Tripoli are the pioneers of High Power Rocketry; really the result of those that were removed from NAR for pushing the limits of rocket and motor size in the 80's and early 90's. Who flew the G?:shock:

As a child who did Model Rocketry locally, safely, and independently I saw little need to join NAR because I was content with my personal state of Model Rocketry at the time. However upon discovery of High Power Rocketry, I saw the need to join an organization that supported my desire for Mo' Power. At the time, there was only one org that supported High Power, that was Tripoli, so it was a no brainer. Plus as a teen, I could only afford one.

Times have changed, after years (decade(s)?) NAR hopped on the High Power train. I have since joined NAR; ironically for different reasons, but will always see Tripoli as "the" high power organization and NAR as primarily low-mid power. I realize that's no longer truly representative....just my personal historical tainted perspective.

As I stated earlier, the history matters to some, and doesn't to others. The two organizations are both great; I support them both! They are different, and the culture of the organizations remain unique, though more similar than indifferent than in the past....the barriers are being broken!:cheers:

Great to have two good choices!!!
 
Last edited:
This is a neat thread; highlighted perks of both and good discussions on the details of the L3 Process!:)

One thing that I didn't read yet is the history of the two orgs. For some that means a lot, for others it means very little. NAR came first, they're the pioneers of early model rocketry and the remnants/resulting organization from the very first organized rocketry group(s). Tripoli are the pioneers of High Power Rocketry; really the result of those that were removed from NAR for pushing the limits of rocket and motor size in the 80's and early 90's. Who flew the G?:shock:

As a child who did Model Rocketry locally, safely, and independently I saw little need to join NAR because I was content with my personal state of Model Rocketry at the time. However upon discovery of High Power Rocketry, I saw the need to join an organization that supported my desire for Mo' Power. At the time, there was only one org that supported High Power, that was Tripoli, so it was a no brainer. Plus as a teen, I could only afford one.

Times have changed, after years (decade(s)?) NAR hopped on the High Power train. I have since joined NAR; ironically for different reasons, but will always see Tripoli as "the" high power organization and NAR as primarily low-mid power. I realize that's no longer truly representative....just my personal historical tainted perspective.

As I stated earlier, the history matters to some, and doesn't to others. The two organizations are both great; I support them both! They are different, and the culture of the organizations remain unique, though more similar than indifferent than in the past....the barriers are being broken!:cheers:

Great to have two good choices!!!

Very nice. I think this is a good summary. Tripoli members continue to engage in projects designed to fly greater impulse motors and to higher altitudes. We’re seeing a greater number of really interesting projects at BALLS every year. It’s thrilling to see the bright young rocket scientists of tomorrow.


Steve Shannon
 
Well I just my Tripoli membership check in and I have a couple of months before my NAR comes due. In the mean time I will decide which one I want to pursue my L3 with if at all. It kinda looks like maybe my project is too simple for most people's L3 tastes and that's fine too.
Thanks for all the input.
Gary
 
... It kinda looks like maybe my project is too simple for most people's L3 tastes and that's fine too....
Gary

Simple can be a good thing. My L3 was a Rocketry Warehouse 5" Terminator kit with a conventional redundant DD set-up. Nothing fancy. No telemetry. No GPS. It had a Mobius camera with 3D shroud stuck to the outside and I tossed an AT-2B tracker in it. I chose the kit partly because of it's modest size and weight. I wanted the future ability fly it on a full K motor to a target altitude of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. That way, I can enjoy a post cert flight for under $100.
 
Well I just my Tripoli membership check in and I have a couple of months before my NAR comes due. In the mean time I will decide which one I want to pursue my L3 with if at all. It kinda looks like maybe my project is too simple for most people's L3 tastes and that's fine too.
Thanks for all the input.
Gary

No such thing as too simple. Just has to meet the requirements. Mine was a canvas phenolic 4" 3FNC with a baby M. Used hobby store epoxy and TFR parachutes. RRC2+ and StratologgerCF. You really can't get simpler than that. You can find my document in the L3 documents thread.
 
Loki has a 54mm M motor.. just saying :)

I gotta "Stretched" 3" Wildman rocket built 10 years ago that fits a 54mm Loki case for the M. Built with Duralco 4525B adhesive and would just need to update the ebay for two altimeters and a new nosecone to mount a tracker in.
Only problem is, it would bust every waiver in the Midwest except maybe Kloudbusters. Kurt
 
I like it when people concentrate on certifying rather than trying to be the fastest, highest, or whatever other superlative might be attached to s flight. If that’s “simple” then I applaud you.
 
I like it when people concentrate on certifying rather than trying to be the fastest, highest, or whatever other superlative might be attached to s flight. If that’s “simple” then I applaud you.

Agreed, I posted the above as an example of I just wanted a long neck rocket and it turns out it can handle something more than I expected. I do have an L2050 for it for kicks.

Another thing is one might not be able to easily store a large L3 project and 4 to 6 inch diameter is the only thing practical (for them) For them they have to really consider tracking and the proper venue for the attempt as opposed to large, low and slow.
If somebody wants to do a kick a-- L3 attempt that's something really far out of their comfort zone, they need to be prepared for a "do not finish" result. Kurt
 
Well I just my Tripoli membership check in and I have a couple of months before my NAR comes due. In the mean time I will decide which one I want to pursue my L3 with if at all. It kinda looks like maybe my project is too simple for most people's L3 tastes and that's fine too.
Thanks for all the input.
Gary
It is about you, the rules, and your TAPs. If those three are happy, don't care about what others' have done, or are going to say. Make it YOUR L3 and enjoy the journey :) .

Good luck for your L3 flight!
 
It may be worth pointing out that the two have fairly different approaches internationally. If you want to compete in FAI spacemodelling that's NAR. TRA seems more amenable to starting national organizations, but that could just be my perception.
 
Time to merge ? The NFL and the the AFL did it. United We Stand !

I don’t believe we should. Tripoli’s emphasis is on high power, including Class 3 rockets, and research. We’re not going to give those up. NAR is extremely effective at low power and Class 2 commercial rocketry. Tripoli allows low power, but we don’t drive it like the NAR. We’re each good in our own way but we don’t overlap enough to even consider merging.


Steve Shannon
 
I joined TRA from experiences with a university SEDS project. (Multistage L-1 motors).
TRA opens the doors to nozzle design, casing design, metal airframe design, fuel grain and core design, and metal fin design by allowing research launch dates dedicated to flight testing.
TRA approves night launches.
NAR approves cardboard boxes to fly on L-2 motors without sim files yet calls externally ignition wired L-1 multistage a complex rocket (because you've met their weird rules on wiring not at head ignition) at best and they generally don't know how to classify it. LOL. That uhhhhh we've never had anyone try 22,500ft on a L-1 multistage, uhhhhhh stick it 1000ft away from the crowd in middle of nowhere UTAH. Makes up a rule when can't find one.
NAR has a massive community of flyers for sport and a long list of launch sites.
TRA RSO's generally ask for a sim file and attempt to educate you so you learn more out of the hobby BEFORE mistakes are made.
TRA launch sites are less crowded which is a nice feature if you just want to launch.
TRA allows designers and flyers the freedom of testing metal components in flight or adding a few pounds of lead for stability on scale kits.
TRA doesn't freak out as much when you need to wire a certified motor from the forward closure for a minimum diameter sustainer stage, its then a research launch, you simply accept the risk it could explode in a controlled test environment, and its no big deal. With NAR we had to slot a booster airframe and compromise its structural integrity by running a wire externally.
I joined TRA. Prof joined NAR. There's no wrong answers it just what do you want to do with HPR.
 
I don’t believe we should. Tripoli’s emphasis is on high power, including Class 3 rockets, and research. We’re not going to give those up. NAR is extremely effective at low power and Class 2 commercial rocketry. Tripoli allows low power, but we don’t drive it like the NAR. We’re each good in our own way but we don’t overlap enough to even consider merging.


Steve Shannon

Details. Both groups represent non-commercial (hobby) rocketry. As Eric pointed out the historical imperative for the formation of Tripoli was certainly real and valid back in the day. I agree with Bat-mite and Nathan, the "real" difference today is research motors and, I'm guessing, the insurance policies that cover those activities. Maybe that's reason enough to keep them separate IDK. I'm just spitballin' here. :)
 
If you need to drop out of the hobby for more than a year, NAR allows you to rejoin with certs reinstated. TRA requires re-certifying. Another big difference, but only if you can't afford your club dues for a year or more.
 
Back
Top