Thanks for the offer. Still probably won't happen, but I'll keep it in mind.
TARC frustration: advice needed
- Thread starter neil_w
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
That entire rocket design is an utter failure . . . Inefficient Fin Planform, Component choice, etc.
If it were me, I'd scrap the whole thing and start fresh.
Most of the TARC rockets, over the years, have been real "clunkers" in their designs . . . These kids deserve better instruction than they have been getting in the past !
The rules say that an adult can't design or work on the actual rocket . . .
QUOTE :
"Each student member must make a significant contribution to the designing, building, and/or launching of the team's entry. No part of any of these activities for a rocket used in a qualification flight or at the Finals may be done by any adult, by a company (except by the sale of standard off-the-shelf components available to the general public, but not kits or designs for the event), or by any person not a student on that team."
END QUOTE :
However, it does not specifically disallow allowing the Team to view drawn designs, photographs, and inspect actual models built by their Mentor as "reference materials" for building their own rocket. That is what a knowledgeable teacher should be capable of doing ( unfortunately they are few and far between ) . . . The concepts must be taught, practiced, and understood, before they can be safely employed by the kids !
Dave F.
If it were me, I'd scrap the whole thing and start fresh.
Most of the TARC rockets, over the years, have been real "clunkers" in their designs . . . These kids deserve better instruction than they have been getting in the past !
The rules say that an adult can't design or work on the actual rocket . . .
QUOTE :
"Each student member must make a significant contribution to the designing, building, and/or launching of the team's entry. No part of any of these activities for a rocket used in a qualification flight or at the Finals may be done by any adult, by a company (except by the sale of standard off-the-shelf components available to the general public, but not kits or designs for the event), or by any person not a student on that team."
END QUOTE :
However, it does not specifically disallow allowing the Team to view drawn designs, photographs, and inspect actual models built by their Mentor as "reference materials" for building their own rocket. That is what a knowledgeable teacher should be capable of doing ( unfortunately they are few and far between ) . . . The concepts must be taught, practiced, and understood, before they can be safely employed by the kids !
Dave F.
As an aside, I think the NAR should develop a program for the Teachers, before they ever attempt to teach skills that they, themselves, do not possess.
For local rocket clubs, I would have "fun" competitions, every month, for the kids, mirroring the TARC requirements for that given year. Send invitations out to the local schools and churches, too !
There would also be "build sessions" at regular club meetings, where necessary skills are taught "hands-on".
If you start kids, as early as possible, they will be "experts" by the time they reach TARC age . . . Have an Event for Adults in the club, as well !
Frankly, I'd like to see an Event at the TARC Finals, where the Teachers & Mentors "square-off" and fly their own designs against each other, under the TARC rules . . . The kids would LOVE it !
Dave F.
For local rocket clubs, I would have "fun" competitions, every month, for the kids, mirroring the TARC requirements for that given year. Send invitations out to the local schools and churches, too !
There would also be "build sessions" at regular club meetings, where necessary skills are taught "hands-on".
If you start kids, as early as possible, they will be "experts" by the time they reach TARC age . . . Have an Event for Adults in the club, as well !
Frankly, I'd like to see an Event at the TARC Finals, where the Teachers & Mentors "square-off" and fly their own designs against each other, under the TARC rules . . . The kids would LOVE it !
Dave F.
mikec
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,027
- Reaction score
- 838
TARC is really hard. Most of the teams I see are never going to have a shot at nationals, and I've seen some really dedicated mentors and talented teams.
I agree that an example of typical build techniques could be useful and within the rules, but you have to stay well clear of providing a design that can just be copied. Just reading through some of the NAR Member Handbook would be a good start, there is a lot of good build info in that.
I agree that an example of typical build techniques could be useful and within the rules, but you have to stay well clear of providing a design that can just be copied. Just reading through some of the NAR Member Handbook would be a good start, there is a lot of good build info in that.
I know that the Museum of Flight is doing work like this....I need to see if there's a national NAR teacher development program right now.
It's a real challenge just to get all 125+ flights in on the Finals day. But the kids might well enjoy something like that.
Rex R
LV2
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 384
I should think it would be interesting if the 'local' hotshots from NAR/TRA were involved in a 'friendly competition' to build/fly rockets to TARC requirements* 
, just so everyone could see what is involved.
*okay so maybe the 'adults' should build to meet a previous set of rules, 2015 perhaps.
Rex
, just so everyone could see what is involved.*okay so maybe the 'adults' should build to meet a previous set of rules, 2015 perhaps.
Rex
Tim Van Milligan of Apogee Rocketry put together an interesting article on designing TARC rockets.
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter392.pdf
ALSO, the NAR has this publication . . .
https://www.nar.org/pdf/STEM-TARC Model Rocketry Curriculum (Sarradet).pdf
Dave F.
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter392.pdf
ALSO, the NAR has this publication . . .
https://www.nar.org/pdf/STEM-TARC Model Rocketry Curriculum (Sarradet).pdf
Dave F.
Last edited:
Knuckledragger
TLAR Engineering hack
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 65
You can't build their rocket but you can build a rocket with your daughter in parallel to teach her technique, tools, glue joints, discuss ideas, and let her teach her team mates. Thats how we're learning here...
I should think it would be interesting if the 'local' hotshots from NAR/TRA were involved in a 'friendly competition' to build/fly rockets to TARC requirements*
*okay so maybe the 'adults' should build to meet a previous set of rules, 2015 perhaps.
Rex
Rex,
I really LIKE that idea !
Dave F.
how to clear the meeting of rocketeers(well most of them) fire up a rocket design software and challenge the 'old timers' to design a rocket w/o using paper and pencil...
Rex
You might be very surprised at the outcome . . . I started flying rockets in 1967, at age 6 . . . Joined the NAR in early 1975, flying competition w/ my "specialty" being boost gliders and egglofters . . . Joined Tripoli in 1988 ( #517 ) Certified Level 1 in 1995 & Level 2 in 1996 . . . I have not built a single "kit", since 1981 . . . I design everything myself and hate using programs like Rocksim ( Programs are only as good as the data you put in them ). I'm currently designing my L3 Cert rocket. I am very "old school" .
Dave F.
cbrarick
Wildman CT
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,151
- Reaction score
- 1,015
I don't know about the oldtimer crack. I rocksim EVERYTHING probably because I fly up thru Os and you can't just guess with that impulse.
Our local club has a pumpkin chunk - 5-6 ounce ones - and my dual G rocket does well.
My son and I started with a sim, used Rocksim to even give us fin cut patterns.
Guarentee it's stable and still meets all the class 1 requirements, old and new
Our local club has a pumpkin chunk - 5-6 ounce ones - and my dual G rocket does well.
My son and I started with a sim, used Rocksim to even give us fin cut patterns.
Guarentee it's stable and still meets all the class 1 requirements, old and new
I don’t know if I qualify as oldtimer (I’m 54, first built rockets in the early 70s) but I sim the crap out of everything.
I'm 57, my Dad, who is 90 now, was an Aeronautical Engineer in the early 1950's and became an Aerospace Engineer in the early 1960's , long before calculators, computers, CAD, and Sims. I learned to do the calculations manually and how to verify the answers. I've never strayed from that philosophy.
We went to the Moon 10 times in those days . . . Since the advent of modern computers, we have remained stuck in LEO and, at present, we have no manned capability of our own, at all.
Computers merely run the equations for us, making them faster and more convenient. A computer is only as good as its programming / programmer. I'm not saying that computers and sims are a bad thing, but I am saying that the have made us lazy and that we have become dependent on them, to our detriment.
When I do my Level 3, I know that Sims will be required . . . I've already lined up a "Rocksim Guru" to enter the data I supply. It will be interesting to see whose predictions are more accurate !
Dave F.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,535
- Reaction score
- 1,664
Meaningless comparison. No correlation.
Utterly ridiculous comment. Computers and simulations made us smarter, safer, and cost-effective. Life is better.
Please share your differential equations solved by hand. Sorry, Rocksim will always be more accurate.
For a guy who has a tag line of "Adapt and Overcome," you are sure stuck in the past.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,400
- Reaction score
- 7,936
I was where you were about 4 years ago with the HS team my student was on. Another parent and I stepped in to help the teacher who didn't have the skills needed. We made that decision two days before scores were due as students were trying to get 5-minute epoxy to cure in a 40-degree rainstorm. Much of this stuff may not be super-helpful for this year (though there is still time!) but will help for next year. That said, there is still time for them to get lucky.
Above all, if the team is going to be successful, they need to have fun. If they're not having fun, it doesn't matter if they make Finals, they'll drop out before next year.
TARC rockets need to fly ~10 times minimum to get dialed in on altitude. The biggest way teams can be successful is to make their rockets bombproof and launching them repeatable. Once that goal is met and you have a safe flight, very little of the rest of the design actually matters. Tube fins, triangular fins, upswept, 3, 4, doesn't matter. Yes, you can optimize for something perfect, but there are many, many ways to get to good enough. BSI 5-min and wood glue are fine. It helps to reinforce bare edges of LPR tubing (CA or thin epoxy) so they don't start mushrooming.
One of the best innovations we made was the synthetic egg. If the rocket parts land in the time window, the eggs will be fine in a foam case. That's not your hardest issue to deal with. Therefore, our team made up plastic Easter eggs with enough Silly Putty and washers in them to come up to competition weight. Then you can leave your eggs in there without having to worry about lawn omelets if the parachute doesn't deploy or finding something nasty if an egg gets forgotten for a week. You switch to real eggs a flight or two before your first scored flight.
At TARC Finals, you will get a 2m 1010 rail. For that very reason, our team has a 2m 1010 rail launch pad that I built. Don't worry about towers or the like--you can get repeatable results from a rail as long as you keep it reasonably clean.
Electrical tape on painted surfaces is a great way to hold nose cones on and transitions together if they need to be removable. Especially this year, the eggs are heavy enough that they will want to push the nose cone off when the chutes deploy. You need a really good securing method to keep that from happening.
And now, it's time for me to go to a TARC team build...
[edit] One last thing--single use Aerotech and reloadable CTI are good motor choices. If the team makes finals, there will be no adult supervision from your team while they are building motors or doing any other part of the rocket prep. Unless they are REALLY confident, it's probably best to minimize chances of error.
Above all, if the team is going to be successful, they need to have fun. If they're not having fun, it doesn't matter if they make Finals, they'll drop out before next year.
TARC rockets need to fly ~10 times minimum to get dialed in on altitude. The biggest way teams can be successful is to make their rockets bombproof and launching them repeatable. Once that goal is met and you have a safe flight, very little of the rest of the design actually matters. Tube fins, triangular fins, upswept, 3, 4, doesn't matter. Yes, you can optimize for something perfect, but there are many, many ways to get to good enough. BSI 5-min and wood glue are fine. It helps to reinforce bare edges of LPR tubing (CA or thin epoxy) so they don't start mushrooming.
One of the best innovations we made was the synthetic egg. If the rocket parts land in the time window, the eggs will be fine in a foam case. That's not your hardest issue to deal with. Therefore, our team made up plastic Easter eggs with enough Silly Putty and washers in them to come up to competition weight. Then you can leave your eggs in there without having to worry about lawn omelets if the parachute doesn't deploy or finding something nasty if an egg gets forgotten for a week. You switch to real eggs a flight or two before your first scored flight.
At TARC Finals, you will get a 2m 1010 rail. For that very reason, our team has a 2m 1010 rail launch pad that I built. Don't worry about towers or the like--you can get repeatable results from a rail as long as you keep it reasonably clean.
Electrical tape on painted surfaces is a great way to hold nose cones on and transitions together if they need to be removable. Especially this year, the eggs are heavy enough that they will want to push the nose cone off when the chutes deploy. You need a really good securing method to keep that from happening.
And now, it's time for me to go to a TARC team build...
[edit] One last thing--single use Aerotech and reloadable CTI are good motor choices. If the team makes finals, there will be no adult supervision from your team while they are building motors or doing any other part of the rocket prep. Unless they are REALLY confident, it's probably best to minimize chances of error.
Last edited:
Buckeye,
Unlike you, I am unwilling to "blow up" the OP's thread . . .
Did you ever stop to think how equations were solved before the advent of calculators and computers ?
Dave F.
Last edited:
Cool! This is how I "Sim" my rockets also!!! I find the correct equations, work with them by hand and fully understand them. Then use something simple like Excel, because once you have the math, you have it.
Blindly putting numbers into some simulation program offers no insight and thus really doesn't teach me anything. I have also seen lots of people making flight after flight to get the sim to match their flights by adjusting sim numbers!!!
I always figured that if someone doesn't understand the math behind rocket science, then they are not rocket scientist and just hobby flyers looking for the easy way out...
Yes it's an awesome hobby that has all kinds of people in it and something for everyone!!! Do you think the people that do it for fun actually gather flight data, analyze the heck out of it, and run countless sims trying to get to an exact flight altitude are looking at it from the "Hobby" stand point?
I was just replying to all who say, "Computers make us smarter and math is useless" Even though it may be underlying; Math is a big part of the hobby and can be a hobby in itself.
However one gets the answers or if they even care, I say "Build a rocket and push the button!!!"
However one gets the answers or if they even care, I say "Build a rocket and push the button!!!"
Neil,
Sorry to "butt-in", but the only "disparaging"remarks were made by "Buckeye", not "BLH" or myself.
Personally, I enjoy the mental challenge, as I feel "BLH" does also, of doing the calculations manually. In my case, it does not stem from a "distrust" of technology but, rather, from the position of being thankful that I am not a "slave to technology", relying on it, rather than my own abilities.
I have three teenage grandchildren who, thanks to today's public "school" system, cannot do even simple mathematics without a calculator or counting on their fingers. They are unable to tell time on an analog clock with hands and are totally reliant on "technology" to give them answers to virtually everything. I frequently ask them, "what would you do if the batteries die" ? Their response is, typically shrugging their shoulders or muttering "I dunno", and their being "content" with that . . . Frustrating !
Dave F.
That's fine, you do you. However, complaining that computers or calculators have made us lazy and stupid is tiresome. The same could be said (and has been, pretty much) about every automation and/or productivity-enhancing tool that's ever been invented. Society evolves.
In any case, this discussion has zip squat to do with TARC teams, unless you expect middle-schoolers to solve those equations before they fly a rocket. Let's move on.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,535
- Reaction score
- 1,664
Of course not. You were merely ranting off-topic in post #44 that them there fancy new-fangled computer thingamajigs killed the space program and made us all dumb.
Great work on your Math 201 homework! Professor Buckeye gives you an A+! Now, for the final exam, please solve the realistic equations of rocket motion, in multiple degrees of freedom, with varying mass, thrust, drag, and air density. Take all the time, paper, and pencils you need....
Sometimes, the truth can be "tiresome" but, without it, all is vanity.
I never said that TARC members or anyone must solve equations manually.
Calculators "teach" nothing, they are merely tools to speed up the process, once it is learned. Mathematics is not just about "getting the answer", but about "understanding the process". Unless the mathematical process involved is understood first, merely "getting the answer" means nothing and allows for nothing to be further built upon prior knowledge. There is a good reason that "show your work" appears on so many Math lessons and tests !
Back to TARC . . .
This team of kids got screwed, in many ways. Their teacher has no expertise in Rocketry. The design is terrible. They are out of time. I feel sorry for them . . . They deserved better than this !
Dave F.
Buckeye,
I can, have done, and do all of those things, whenever there is a need for it. Flying three eggs in a cardboard TARC rocket on an F motor hardly justifies the effort. You are not my "professor", nor will I "jump through any more hoops" for you.
BTW - As you should already know thrust, drag, and air density are never "constant" and are highly variable. Solving for them is never valid, in terms of absolute accuracy. It makes no difference whether the solutions are generated by a computer or manual computation.
So, with that said, why don't you come up with something constructive to try to help these kids ?
Dave F.
They did indeed. However, they only got 3/4 screwed... they did after all get to build rockets, to get a little taste. My friend's daughter might yet have a chance to fly hers and try to qualify. A trip to the nationals is obviously not gonna be happening, but that's OK.
Also, although the design is not optimized for this competition (it was copied off a previous year's rocket from another team I think), it should at least fly once the major construction problems are corrected. After visiting with her yesterday, I discovered that job #1 is to clean out excess epoxy from the motor mount, which is there in sufficient quantity to prevent a motor from getting in there. Is there a trick to removing generic 5-minute epoxy other than sanding? I don't know of one.
What I am personally most sore about is the apparent lack of attention to proper safety protocols.
One other note: this advisor has 3 teams: a team of boys and two teams of girls. The girls teams started off with 4 and 3 people (the latter team is now down to two). Wouldn't that normally be an appropriate number for one team?
