New motorcato.org site preview

[JohnCoker]

Steve Shannon and I have been working on a replacement for the current motorcato.org site. The main benefit of the new site is that it allows people to view submitted failures.

If you want to take it for a spin, try out this temporary location:
https://motorcato.herokuapp.com/

Note that data entered here will be lost once the site goes live, so feel free to enter reports to test things out. If you have any suggestions, feel free to post them in this thread.

To enter a real failure report, please continue to use the official site:
https://motorcato.org/

 

[Worsaer]

John, I’m trying to submit a test report, but it keeps telling me “Please check "I'm not a robot" and resubmit.”, even though I did the recaptcha test several times.

 

[JohnCoker]

John, I’m trying to submit a test report, but it keeps telling me “Please check "I'm not a robot" and resubmit.”, even though I did the recaptcha test several times.

Hmm. I guess it isn't set up properly for that domain name. I'll see if I can add it to the account.

 

[JohnCoker]

John, I’m trying to submit a test report, but it keeps telling me “Please check "I'm not a robot" and resubmit.”, even though I did the recaptcha test several times.

Sorry about that; I figured out the problem and it appears to be fixed.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I want to publicly thank John Coker for this. He did all the work and I know that this will be an improvement both in the way it works as well as the value all rocketeers get from it.

 

[Worsaer]

Nicely done John. It now works great. Thanks for your efforts!

 

[kjohnson]

Looks great! Is the date code field available for inclusion on the search results list? That would make it easy to tell if a certain batch of a particular motor has been prone to issues, without having to open multiple reports.

kj

 

[JohnCoker]

Looks great! Is the date code field available for inclusion on the search results list? That would make it easy to tell if a certain batch of a particular motor has been prone to issues, without having to open multiple reports.

That's a great idea.

 

[crossfire]

John not to change subject but has anyone taken over Thrust Curve since Mark's death?
Sat. at the Bong launch we are flying some of his ashes in his honor.

 

[Bat-mite]

From what I understand, John Coker owns Thrustcurve, and Mark was a motor file contributor. A few years ago, John started working on an improved site, but thst seems to have stalled. John?

https://thrustcurve.herokuapp.com/

 

[JohnCoker]

From what I understand, John Coker owns Thrustcurve, and Mark was a motor file contributor. A few years ago, John started working on an improved site, but thst seems to have stalled. John?

Yes, that is all correct. Mark was the editor (primarily responsible for adding entries as new motors were released) and contributed many thrust curves.

The new site is pretty much done, except I have to add support for the API. I'll get to it eventually.

 

[Bat-mite]

Excited.

 

[JohnCoker]

Looks great! Is the date code field available for inclusion on the search results list? That would make it easy to tell if a certain batch of a particular motor has been prone to issues, without having to open multiple reports.

I have added search on the "date code", but renamed it "serial #". That makes more sense to me me, and hopefully it's not confusingly similar to the "date".

 

[kuririn]

Thank you John and Steve.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Thank you John and Steve.

You’re welcome, but John really deserves the credit. I made a few suggestions and asked him if he was interested and he ran with it. This is a direct result of input here on TRF and in private emails to me, the meetings NAR, TRA, and CAR have had, and a bunch of work by John Coker.

 

[doug_kosty]

Might want to require at least minimal contact information - I am not sure that anonymous reporting of failures is necessary and having at least the possibility of contacting the reporter for more information would seem useful. Probably do not need to require all of the information that is listed as optional, but name and email address would seem potentially helpful. You are already keeping the reporter information confidential ( probably a good idea) so there should be little hesitation from people to state who they are and how they can be contacted.

Overall this is a nice clean design and I really like the ability to see the reports. Nice job!

 

[JohnCoker]

Might want to require at least minimal contact information

Good point. I'll defer to the cert. orgs on this.

One problem is that we don't want to require account creation, so I'm not really able to validate email addresses collected. I guess there still is the social pressure if you have to enter a name and email address.

 

[Alan Whitmore]

This is a fine piece of work by John Coker. Thank you!!
I was one of the people who were initially opposed to the publication of this data, because, even though it is thorough and carefully compiled, it is still only the numerator of a very important fraction. The data we don't have is how many motors of that type were actually flown during the relevant time period. Now, I have worked my way around to the realization that perhaps the users of this resource are sophisticated enough to know that more C6's are flown in a given year that M1297's. Some people will misinterpret the information, but there is really nothing we can do about that.

I am however, opposed to publishing any personal contact information about the people who submit this information. That could only inhibit people from making full descriptions about motor failures that they have experienced. One of the reasons is that careful reading of the MESS reports reveals quite a lot of motors that were assembled incorrectly. A person making such a mistake might be inhibited from exposing their error, when, in fact, it is the clarity of the instructions, both text and pictures, that might need to be examined. There are other reasons, too.

I also like the idea of including a date code/serial number field. This information would help the manufacturers as well as our flyers.

Thanks again, John!

Alan Whitmore
Chair, TMT

 

[JohnCoker]

This is a fine piece of work by John Coker. Thank you!!
I was one of the people who were initially opposed to the publication of this data, because, even though it is thorough and carefully compiled, it is still only the numerator of a very important fraction.

I worry about that too. I think being able to point to frequently-failing motors is a good way to put pressure on manufacturers, but it would be ideal if we knew the numbers produced and could provide failure rates instead of anecdotes.

I am however, opposed to publishing any personal contact information about the people who submit this information. That could only inhibit people from making full descriptions about motor failures that they have experienced. One of the reasons is that careful reading of the MESS reports reveals quite a lot of motors that were assembled incorrectly. A person making such a mistake might be inhibited from exposing their error, when, in fact, it is the clarity of the instructions, both text and pictures, that might need to be examined. There are other reasons, too.

Agreed; the new site keeps all reporter data private. The question is whether we should make the name and email address fields required (even if they are still not shown). As it currently stands, you can submit a failure report anonymously.

I also like the idea of including a date code/serial number field. This information would help the manufacturers as well as our flyers.

The old site collected this info too and it is now searchable as kjohnson suggested.

 

[scsager]

Submitted a test mess with photo - entered a lot of data - all fields seem to work as expected.
Was also able to review other mess reports (limit 50)

This is a nice improvement!

 

[tim cubbedge]

I have added search on the "date code", but renamed it "serial #". That makes more sense to me me, and hopefully it's not confusingly similar to the "date".

I filed a MESS report earlier this month and I still don't see the failure in the search results database. Think I filed it on or about 9/3/2019. Anyone have the ability to confirm it has actually been recognized in the MESS system?

 

[JohnCoker]

I filed a MESS report earlier this month and I still don't see the failure in the search results database. Think I filed it on or about 9/3/2019. Anyone have the ability to confirm it has actually been recognized in the MESS system?

The old system is still in place, but it is recording reports. The preview I posted has not been brought live yet (we're still making sure it meets the needs of the cert. orgs.)

 

[tim cubbedge]

The old system is still in place, but it is recording reports. The preview I posted has not been brought live yet (we're still making sure it meets the needs of the cert. orgs.)

Thanks