A little levity on discussions about university teams

[DAllen]

So as a USLI mentor I get a little frustrated with all the negative talk about university teams and their "antics." Some of it is possibly warranted and most of it clearly is not. We can sit here and sift through countless hours of anecdotal, "well my experience has been," non sense but lets face the reality, numbers don't lie. Here's some numbers for you from the 2018 NASA USLI Launch in Tooney, AL that I got directly from NASA:

Of the 44 flights (which includes, collegiate, high school and middle school teams):
- 31 were nominal. Drogue at apogee, main at altitude
- O catos
- 7 early main deployments
- 5 tangled main
- 1 no main - no drogue

How many club launches have we been to that have a better record than that? Not many I'll wager if any at all. Go do the numbers sometime among us "experienced" fliers and you'll see what I am talking about. You know as well as I do there are very few club launches that have anywhere near that kind of success rate and we are usually flying much simpler projects that are not carrying horrendously complicated engineering payloads like they do.

My point of all this is, while I recognize criticism of some of these University programs is definitely justified, please do NOT paint all of these programs with the same brush. For every poorly run program I'll bet there are at least 10 well run and successful programs. I am concerned that some of the attitudes displayed here in TRF and in other places are going to drive this hobby to have a, "Get off my lawn" type of mentality when we really need to be helping these teams instead. You see a team struggling instead of snubbing a nose - offer help. Who knows, a lot of these folks might want to start dabbling in our crazy hobby after college.

And I'll say this, if any of you ever come to a Three Oaks launch and have an issue with the Notre Dame team LET ME KNOW. I will happily address any and all issues with their captain or the entire team. This years captain has no problem cracking the whip as it were. They might be a little loud and boisterous but they are all great students. Heck, they even volunteer to help setup the club equipment on the days they fly.

-Dave

 

[Steve Shannon]

So as a USLI mentor I get a little frustrated with all the negative talk about university teams and their "antics." Some of it is possibly warranted and most of it clearly is not. We can sit here and sift through countless hours of anecdotal, "well my experience has been," non sense but lets face the reality, numbers don't lie. Here's some numbers for you from the 2018 NASA USLI Launch in Tooney, AL that I got directly from NASA:

Of the 44 flights (which includes, collegiate, high school and middle school teams):
- 31 were nominal. Drogue at apogee, main at altitude
- O catos
- 7 early main deployments
- 5 tangled main
- 1 no main - no drogue

How many club launches have we been to that have a better record than that? Not many I'll wager if any at all. Go do the numbers sometime among us "experienced" fliers and you'll see what I am talking about. You know as well as I do there are very few club launches that have anywhere near that kind of success rate and we are usually flying much simpler projects that are not carrying horrendously complicated engineering payloads like they do.

My point of all this is, while I recognize criticism of some of these University programs is definitely justified, please do NOT paint all of these programs with the same brush. For every poorly run program I'll bet there are at least 10 well run and successful programs. I am concerned that some of the attitudes displayed here in TRF and in other places are going to drive this hobby to have a, "Get off my lawn" type of mentality when we really need to be helping these teams instead. You see a team struggling instead of snubbing a nose - offer help. Who knows, a lot of these folks might want to start dabbling in our crazy hobby after college.

And I'll say this, if any of you ever come to a Three Oaks launch and have an issue with the Notre Dame team LET ME KNOW. I will happily address any and all issues with their captain or the entire team. This years captain has no problem cracking the whip as it were. They might be a little loud and boisterous but they are all great students. Heck, they even volunteer to help setup the club equipment on the days they fly.

-Dave

Great post! Would you mind if I copy it to the Tripoli Forum?

 

[DAllen]

Great post! Would you mind if I copy it to the Tripoli Forum?

It would actually mean a lot to me if you did that...so no I don't mind at all.

 

[Steve Shannon]

It would actually mean a lot to me if you did that...so no I don't mind at all.

Great! Thanks!
We (humans) tend to focus on the few problems. Your letter is a good counterpoint.

 

[cwbullet]

Great points.

I think the key with all successfully run launches, with or without college and high school teams, is communication. You cannot assume they understand your rules and expectations. We have has some groups show up and expect to walk out to the pad and load their rockets without a preflight signature and inspection. It is our club’s expectation that all members of a team come the the RSO prior to going to the pads. We communicate that clearly when they sign up for the days flights. It works for us 99% of the time. If they chronically abuse our rules or expectations (rare and I have only seen it happen one with a solo flier), they warned and maybe asked to leave.

 

[DAllen]

Great points.

I think the key with all successfully run launches, with or without college and high school teams, is communication. You cannot assume they understand your rules and expectations. We have has some groups show up and expect to walk out to the pad and load their rockets without a preflight signature and inspection. It is our club’s expectation that all members of a team come the the RSO prior to going to the pads. We communicate that clearly when they sign up for the days flights. It works for us 99% of the time. If they chronically abuse our rules or expectations (rare and I have only seen it happen one with a solo flier), they warned and maybe asked to leave.

EXACTLY.

It's easy to forget that a lot of those students showing up at a launch have never been to a launch before and are probably seeing a HPR launch for the first time.

-Dave

 

[cwbullet]

EXACTLY.

It's easy to forget that a lot of those students showing up at a launch have never been to a launch before and are probably seeing a HPR launch for the first time.

-Dave

Dave,

The other thing is that some launches run things differently and interpret the rules more laxly. It is easy for a club or team to think all sites do it the same because are TRA and NAR. Confusion and/or assumptions are contributing factors to many accidents and injuries.

 

[jsdemar]

The NASA SLP program requires significant mentor involvement and NASA reviews over many months. Each rocket is reviewed for 3 days before launch by experienced L3 volunteers. All rockets had to have been flown successfully on the same motor before being allowed at the competition. Altitude target is one mile.

This event can't be used as an example of how college teams are prepared for other competitions with less mentoring, higher altitudes, and student-built motors.

 

[Zeus-cat]

Great points.

I think the key with all successfully run launches, with or without college and high school teams, is communication. You cannot assume they understand your rules and expectations...

I agree cw. Most of the issues we have had in the past with students disappeared once we made expectations known on our web page and at the flyer's meeting prior to starting launch operations.

 

[DAllen]

The NASA SLP program requires significant mentor involvement and NASA reviews over many months. Each rocket is reviewed for 3 days before launch by experienced L3 volunteers. All rockets had to have been flown successfully on the same motor before being allowed at the competition. Altitude target is one mile.

This event can't be used as an example of how college teams are prepared for other competitions with less mentoring, higher altitudes, and student-built motors.

Right. But still, it's being lumped into the collective, "these college teams suck" mentality which is exactly why I posted what I did...

 

[cwbullet]

I think the other key is in the word: "mentorship". Mentoring is an active process that require input from both sides. A mentor is not a guy or gal that sits there and holds court with a group of friends. They need to provide guidance to ensure the team is being safe and they stand with the team when things go wrong. They stand with the team and determine what went wrong and what can they improve on next time.

This is a much better discussion than "college teams suck".

 

[boatgeek]

The time I went to SL, there were about 60 flights. There was one CATO, one shred, and one or two dangerous recovery failures (I think one lawn dart, one with no separation at apogee so the main shredded at 700'). Pretty similar ratios.

It would be really easy to make a "mentors are important" case by comparing the SL results to the IREC results. Granted, IREC is using L through O motors (vs. K and L for SL) because of the higher altitude requirements, but that doesn't change the recovery results.

 

[OverTheTop]

Teams can be successful with some mentoring. We all learn along the way and stay safe then .

Here is a link to the University of Sydney team launch that I am helping out with:
https://forum.ausrocketry.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6246



Getting out in the field for a launch was a bit of a reality check for them. We now know what they need to do to improve . Up is easy, down is hard. Flight was a success.

 

[tfish]

University teams came up a week or so ago in the Research forum...below is a cut and past from a post I did there. I think it's appropriate to this thread.

__________________________________________________________________________
Joe, I've not been a "judge" for a couple of years now. But I think that each team is competing against other teams using similar motors. ie. Teams using COTS motors and teams using Research motors. I know you and others know the history of this competition. I've been involved for four years now. Why? Because I can only make it better. Over the last couple of years, I've had the good fortune of having some of the best TRA and NAR people come help me out. Over the past couple of years, I've seen more "teams" come into The Rocketry Forum" asking questions. This, to me is a good sign. I hear and see more teams going to NAR and TRA launches. This is good too! We also see more teams becoming certified. That's good for all of us! We encourage teams to mentor their underclassmen. Teams flying Research motors are required to static fire their "flight motor".

As for the "teams" that come in here asking questions. I don't jump up and start answering questions. I do watch the thread and see what's being asked and the replies that are given. Sometimes I see questions, or the "teams" answers to TRF members questions that bother me. I'll PM them first if no reply then I can always contact the team via their contact info on their Spaceport America Cup application.
Each teams initial application gets reviewed by a "rocketry person" There are also 2 progress reports that are reviewed by a "rocketry person". At anytime the "rocketry person" can reach out to teams with concerns or comments. If they have major concerns they forward the info to me and I can deal with it as needed.

At the actual event, every rocket gets and inside out "Flight Safety Review". Each team has an opportunity to fix items found during this review. Some issues are not fixable and these teams do not receive a flight card. Once a rocket passes the Flight Safety Review the team is given a flight card. Before teams are allowed on to the Range, they must then pass a normal RSO'ing prior to heading out to the pad.

Sorry for the rambling wanted let everyone know what takes place prior to a team pushes the button.

Joe, Did that answer your questions?

You gonna come help me this year?

Tony Alcocer
Spaceport Amerrica Cup - Range Safety Officer
[email protected]

__________________________________________________________________________-

I've been part of the SLI NAR Range safety Crew for 3 or 4 years now. They have a very good track record! I've borrowed some of their methods and added some things that SPA needed.
The bottom line is teams are/get better with a rocketry mentor. Events are better when we have rocketry people helping run them.

Tony

 

[MattJL]

I hope I'm allowed to chip my two cents in to this thread.

Our on-campus rocketry association just concluded a very successful L1 certification program. I think 10 people had a successful flight, with only one person having an ejection charge failure (motor defect?) on the way down. We're now setting up to do an L2 cert program in order to compete at the Spaceport America Cup.

That being said, I've been a firsthand witness to how relentless ambition can result in people making very, very stupid mistakes. We've been very lucky, in that we have enough common sense and enough guidance from enthusiasts (with more years flying rockets under their belts than years we've been alive) to avoid making a lot of those poor decisions. I don't think that other university teams are as safety-conscious, though, and many do suffer from the hubris-inflicted blind spot that college students tend to have.

Do I think that university teams deserve the contempt that some direct at them? Probably not all of it. As someone else on this forum put it, "they don't know what they don't know." A lack of mentorship, as cw and others have observed, is probably the main reason why college teams get a bad rap. Is it necessarily those teams' own faults for not seeking guidance? I'm not sure. I do wish that the "race to space" had been discussed with TRA and NAR before it became A Thing, but that's drifting away from the main topic.

As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.

 

[DAllen]

As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.

Very very true. I wish more people would realize this.

 

[cbrarick]

I mentor several college teams, with varying levels of participation, mostly at the request of the team. I have no problem with a safe failure - especially if I'm doing a private launch for them. Failures are learning opportunities. Issues with L1 really isn't a big deal. It might hurt the ego a little to have to rebuild, but it's part of the learning process. It's fine they had a problem and little hands-on, there was no one else there.
NOW, having said that large L2 and L3 projects are an entirely different deal. Someone who's L3 should be intimately involved with the project. I sent one team to IREC after discussing the design, watching the build (done by a L2 flyer on the club), doing ground tests with them and a test flight. I was also involved with motor design and was there to help pack the motor (EX) and the person making the motor I've mentored for quite a while doing EX. Direct mentorship and involvement in the entire project should be a requirement. I'd even be good having to go there to mentor final preps to satisfy stringent mentorship requirements. So, I own my own business and am putting my money where my mouth is. Of course, it would be nice if mentors could fly one, too :>

Just my opinion. For those that hate, sorry but that's where I'm at. We need to encourage college teams within the bounds of having a expectation of safe flights and need to do whatever it takes to prevent another year like this one rolled out. I don't blame the Tripoli pause on college teams, we need to figure this out before someone gets hurt or killed and third parties come in and regulate us, which would be a disaster in my book.

 

[boatgeek]

One thing that has really struck me in a few years mentoring high school teams is how difficult it is for team members to pass knowledge on to the next generation in a 4-year membership cycle. When you see teams that consistently do well at TARC/SL/IREC, it's because they've either figured that out or they have great mentors who can provide continuity.