Can HPR survive with $100 J motors?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am sure the hobby will do just fine with $100 J motors.
I always describe the hobby is similar to fishing. You can buy a pole and some bait and sit by a creek, or spend $1M on a boat and fish offshore, and everything in-between. I think that holds true no matter what the prices of motors are.

Our club made a conscious decision to be more inclusive of younger member to get them more involved instead of just the "old guys". When someone is involved, they feel a sense of ownership. That has worked very well. They brought many new ideas and points of view forward. It didn't sit well with all the old guys, but that's OK and actually needed. The future is looking bright.

I think with the huge increase in TARC, IREC, and other college teams and competitions, we are going to see a large growth in the hobby. There might not be a lot of those students joining after the college projects are done, but like a lot of us BARs, many of them will come back when life settles down and things get more stable for them.

I don't think the price of motors is going to make any difference. Look at RV and boat sales. The price of gas hasn't really hurt that much.
 
A destroyed or lost borrowed case should cost them the same as if they owned the case. If I destroyed or lost someone's case, I would go directly to the vender and buy them a new one, or give them the cash to get one. Also, a serious and expensive failure is a great learning experience.
Apparently I didn’t make the point very well. Of course they replace a borrowed case. That’s part of the deal.
But that’s better than buying a full set of hardware, having a bad crash (they eventually happen to all of us) and then quitting the hobby because they’re discouraged. I want to minimize discouraging events when a new rocketeer is starting out especially.
 
The overwhelming majority of people I see at rocket launches are baby boomers. They have time, interest and disposable income.

In 7 years, all of them will be 65 or older.

I recently read that half of them will be gone in 10 years and about 75% will be gone in 15 years.

In my opinion, that's going to be harder on the hobby than $100 J motors.
 
... But that’s better than buying a full set of hardware, having a bad crash (they eventually happen to all of us) and then quitting the hobby because they’re discouraged. I want to minimize discouraging events when a new rocketeer is starting out especially.
Steve, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure that really applies to adults flying HPR. I know kids with LPR can get pretty discouraged, but I think most adults understand the risks and what can happen. It can be an eye opener when they crash or lose a rocket, but I don't think most adults would get discouraged enough to just quit. If they expect to get the rocket back undamaged after every flight, then maybe this isn't the right hobby for them in the first place.

The way I look at it, there's a chance the rocket can be lost on every flight. Getting it back is a plus, not something guaranteed. That is part of the thrill when you push the button on a multi $1000 L3 rocket you spent hundreds of hours building. Will it work, will you get it back, or have to start over? It's like going to the casino, don't risk more than you can afford to lose. Just don't get mad when you lose, it happens.
 
We should do something with cheaper motors. Like a highest altitude competition with an E or F motor, goal is to smash the current record since IIRC it hasn't changed in awhile. Highest recorded altitude gets a 100 dollar J motor. We should all choose a location and date to meet up and see what designs we came up with. Sounds fun to me. Maybe the rules can be a two stage E or a single stage F lol. I can see it in rocket magazine already. "Can these rocketeers go higher than inflation?". We just need a catchy name for the competition now.
A "catchy name" . . . How about "The Return To NAR Competition" ?

Dave F.
 
The overwhelming majority of people I see at rocket launches are baby boomers. They have time, interest and disposable income.

In 7 years, all of them will be 65 or older.

I recently read that half of them will be gone in 10 years and about 75% will be gone in 15 years.

In my opinion, that's going to be harder on the hobby than $100 J motors.

State of the NAR presentation, April 2012: "Not enough age 25 –40 adults to grow into key positions in future."

That was the no BS assessment almost 11 years ago. The many kids flying in TARC 20 years ago are in their 30's. Is their an emerging "returning TARC BAR bump" in the usual bimodal distribution of NAR membership?

I don't believe $100 J motors or other perceived expenses to be the problem. But I also don't see disaster looming on the horizon.
 
Steve, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure that really applies to adults flying HPR. I know kids with LPR can get pretty discouraged, but I think most adults understand the risks and what can happen. It can be an eye opener when they crash or lose a rocket, but I don't think most adults would get discouraged enough to just quit. If they expect to get the rocket back undamaged after every flight, then maybe this isn't the right hobby for them in the first place.

The way I look at it, there's a chance the rocket can be lost on every flight. Getting it back is a plus, not something guaranteed. That is part of the thrill when you push the button on a multi $1000 L3 rocket you spent hundreds of hours building. Will it work, will you get it back, or have to start over? It's like going to the casino, don't risk more than you can afford to lose. Just don't get mad when you lose, it happens.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen it happen first hand. Adults with families who dropped out of the hobby after disappointing flights.
 
Lots of hobbies are expensive, some can be expensive or not so expensive. J motors are likely less expensive than a bass boat, or a motorcycle, and very definitely less expensive than horses or airplanes.
I'm on a limited budget so I am pretty content with black powder motors. I have some midpower rockets and one highpower rocket that I would like to launch again even if it is just one H or I motor a year. Otherwise I'll be launching a lot of B through D motors.
Same here, on a tight budget do to a meager disability settlement, and I haven't even gotten into black powder E's and F's yet so I doubt I'll get to Level 1, if ever.Low power is pretty much all I have, even a G would set me back far too much.Can't stay here and can't travel, so what's someone like me supposed to do?
 
Sure, HPR will survive with $100 J motors; until all the old white men that can afford them , slowly but surely die off. Say 10 to 20 years max?

Now of course by then that $100 J motor will be $250.

This all assumes that people will still be here then. It's 50/50 in my estimation.
$100 J motors? I can just barely afford E's and F's, let alone anything else.I get a very meager disability check every month, so there's hardly anything left after rent and groceries.I haven't flown in over 40 years simply because things were getting too expensive.And you can't get blood out of a stone.
 
Unfortunately, I’ve seen it happen first hand. Adults with families who dropped out of the hobby after disappointing flights.
The rush to failure is a real thing. I see it every month. I try to encourage fliers to enjoy where they are in the motor spectrum and not rush. That go fever is tempting. Savior the time and enjoy the flights.
 
The rush to failure is a real thing. I see it every month. I try to encourage fliers to enjoy where they are in the motor spectrum and not rush. That go fever is tempting. Savior the time and enjoy the flights.
Yes.

I'm likely going to try for L1 this spring, mostly for bragging rights, but I will still spend most of my time in the foreseeable future in my current "comfort zone" of D to F motors. OK, 18mm too in our local park. I suppose eventually I'll migrate up the scale, but that day isn't now.

My cert rocket is a bit heavy, but flies very well on F and G. And that's what it will be flying on 99% of the time.

Hans.
 
The rush to failure is a real thing. I see it every month. I try to encourage fliers to enjoy where they are in the motor spectrum and not rush. That go fever is tempting. Savior the time and enjoy the flights.

I agree completely. I'd say in the mid-2000's, I'd see a new person show up at a club launch one month, next month he'd show up with 2-3 big/expensive rockets and go for L1, crash all 3 rockets and you'd never see him again. It would happen a couple of times a year, so I'm not talking about a specific person at all, just a generic occurrence.

Rocket launches are exciting for someone who has never been to one and there is a wow factor of large motors, so the new person with lots of extra cash wants to fly big motors. They find out too late that it does take a little skill and if they aren't familiar with building things, it goes south quickly. Some of those people wouldn't ever really get it, but others would have done great if they went slowly instead of getting outside of their skill-set too quickly.

Sandy.
 
They find out too late that it does take a little skill and if they aren't familiar with building things, it goes south quickly. Some of those people wouldn't ever really get it, but others would have done great if they went slowly instead of getting outside of their skill-set too quickly.

The rush to failure is a real thing. I see it every month.

Yet we allow it. We see it, and think, well... it doesn't feel right, but what the hec... go for it.
 
Yet we allow it. We see it, and think, well... it doesn't feel right, but what the hec... go for it.
My failures, so far, have been relatively inexpensive. And I learned quite a bit from all of them.

The Executioner flight mentioned above had a rather lukewarm inspection from the RSO. I suspected he knew it would be a learning experience.

Hans,
 
HPR is additive. Yes the majority of frequent flyers I see are Boomers, but I think that is because we are at a point in our lives where we can enjoy it. As other generations age and (in theory) have a little more disposable income, they will become the flyers of tomorrow.
I see large groups of university students at our launches who obviously thoroughly enjoy rocketry. Yes they are currently on the flight line for class, but I believe some will remember the thrill later in life and return when they have the opportunity.
The last launch I was parked next to a gentleman in his late 20's/early 30's who was out with his son enjoying a day with black powder. In the future they may move up to APCP. Maybe not the son, but I believe surely the father.

Solid rocket motors are still in commercial use, the market will not dry up completely. I believe prices will rise to a new 'normal' and reach a plateau. Hobby rocket flyers will adjust accordingly. Fewer HPR motors will be in the budget but will still be occasionally flown.

Let's face it, us old folks complain about the price of just about everything because we remember what is cost "back in the day". But we also need to look at our incomes "back in the day". My father and I were discussing my income one day, he made the comment, "I never made $20 an hour".
 
Last edited:
I thought that was part of the lawsuit. Judge Walton required the BATFE to define the difference between a low explosive and a deflagrating substance. IIRC they said anything with a burn rate slower than the slowest fuse that is listed in the original law. Of course they then tried to measure the length of 3 38mm grains and divide by burn time and say that was APCP burn rate. Fortunately Judge Walton was smarter than that.

In any case, wouldn't he explosives definition they used in the lawsuit have to be applied to any other propellant being made since it is now legal precedence?
Well, our legal team DID point that out to him, after all.
 
State of the NAR presentation, April 2012: "Not enough age 25 –40 adults to grow into key positions in future."
Not only do you need young blood to keep the hobby going, but you NEED make those "key positions" look attractive.
IMHO they are far from that.
 
Here you go. Potassium and ammonium nitrates are both on the list (note that "explosive mixtures" seems to mean "burns fast under pressure" as far as the ATF is concerned, with the exception of AP, and that only due to the lawsuit, so pretty much any useful solid rocket fuel is going to be considered explosive if the oxidizer makes the list, at least unless ATF is sued again).
A bit of background:

BATFE's legal team argued "due deference" several times, both early on and later on. Essentially it means "we are the experts, we have decided that this stuff is an explosive, therefore we're going to regulate it." <blows raspberry at TRA/NAR>

There is no way for them to test every mixture/compound on the list, and due deference means they don't have to. Whether a mixture burned fast or slow was irrelevant unless the reaction rate through the material was greater than the speed of sound (that being HE not LE).

TRA/NAR pointed out that BATFE had no lower limit on "low explosive" burn rate. When the appeals court returned the case to Judge Walton, BATFE had to essentially define that limit. The burn rate of safety fuse (Visco or cannon fuse) was used as that lower limit. BATFE was then tasked to demonstrate that APCP actually burned faster than that.

That resulted in a 1000+ page pile-o-crap, in which (as mentioned elsewhere) they claimed that (I think) a J350 with 12" of propellant burned in less than one second, therefore the burn rate was greater than 12" per second. (I seem to recall that at least one tested motor was strapped with hose clamps to a metal rod so tightly that the case cracked. But I'm sure that was accidental.:rolleyes:)

Walton apparently took that with a grain of salt when TRA/NAR submitted affidavits that included references to HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed articles, showing burn rates that never even got to an inch per second. As well as a video of a stick of propellant burning more slowly than a tube of ordinary paper of the same size.

Anyway, Walton's opinion was that BATFE had not demonstrated their claim. Hence his ruling.<blows raspberry at BATFE:p>
 
A bit of background:

BATFE's legal team argued "due deference" several times, both early on and later on. Essentially it means "we are the experts, we have decided that this stuff is an explosive, therefore we're going to regulate it." <blows raspberry at TRA/NAR>

There is no way for them to test every mixture/compound on the list, and due deference means they don't have to. Whether a mixture burned fast or slow was irrelevant unless the reaction rate through the material was greater than the speed of sound (that being HE not LE).

TRA/NAR pointed out that BATFE had no lower limit on "low explosive" burn rate. When the appeals court returned the case to Judge Walton, BATFE had to essentially define that limit. The burn rate of safety fuse (Visco or cannon fuse) was used as that lower limit. BATFE was then tasked to demonstrate that APCP actually burned faster than that.

That resulted in a 1000+ page pile-o-crap, in which (as mentioned elsewhere) they claimed that (I think) a J350 with 12" of propellant burned in less than one second, therefore the burn rate was greater than 12" per second. (I seem to recall that at least one tested motor was strapped with hose clamps to a metal rod so tightly that the case cracked. But I'm sure that was accidental.:rolleyes:)

Walton apparently took that with a grain of salt when TRA/NAR submitted affidavits that included references to HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed articles, showing burn rates that never even got to an inch per second. As well as a video of a stick of propellant burning more slowly than a tube of ordinary paper of the same size.

Anyway, Walton's opinion was that BATFE had not demonstrated their claim. Hence his ruling.<blows raspberry at BATFE:p>
You think if I had a cold pack (AN) and a can if aluminum roof paint (AL) in the same Walmart bag in my truck, they could bust me…..???
 
State of the NAR presentation, April 2012: "Not enough age 25 –40 adults to grow into key positions in future
I see the problem. Just let the age 16-25 rocketeers into the key positions. Anyone remember the LAC?

I never saw the need for the LAC myself. Sometimes I am amazed recalling the outstanding job I did as Hawkeye Section President. Yes, we did always need a senior member, on paper, to be our senior advisor, but we were always totally run by minors. It broke my heart when I left for college and nobody was willing to serve as president and keep it going. We literally transferred the flag to a small group of rocketeers 60 miles away that we had been nurturing for a couple years, but they could never reach critical mass.

But yes, at the national level it helps to have leadership with a more credible recognition such as a college professor or a bank VP.
 
$100 IS a problem for some folks that just want to fly rockets. You reminding them that you have more money than them isn't exactly beneficial to anyone lol.
Happy for you, but as a European car enthusiast, I'd take the Audis. ;)

Braden
You could make $100 in a few hours on a Friday night by wearing fishnets and working 5th street after 1am.
Just a thought.
 
Back
Top