New Sub Forum Suggestion

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Hospital_Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
1
Just wondering,

Would the moderators consider forming a sub forum entitled "Advanced Rocketry"

In here we would discuss subjects like aerodynamics. This would be pure theory discussions that are not easily categorized into low/med/high power. I'm thinking this would be an area where we could discuss subjects that are less focused than the other forums yet more technical than the coffee house.

Other subjects might be

RF propagation
Acoustics
Structural dynamics

Does this tickle anybody else's fancy?

A
 

MarkABrown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
1
When we first discussed the origin of TRF, our goal was to make sure that the forums did not become cluttered with navigation heirarchy. We, therefore, decided that we wouldn't create sub-forums. However, TRF has grown past our wildest expectations and we constantly need to reevaluate our initial preconceptions. With that said, I'll bring it up for discussion among the moderators.
 

Hospital_Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
1
Mark

I just want to clarify what I was suggesting. I was thinking of a forum at the same hierarichal level as any of the others. I did not mean to ask for a forum within a forum.

My point is that as our community has grown, the Coffee House has become a playground, that while moderated, seems to lean more toward community chatter. I'd like to let that continue and have a place for things that are purely technical in nature and don't really fit anywhere else.

A
 

DJ Delorie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
221
Reaction score
1
I'd think a "Rocket Science" forum under "Modeling" would be cool.
 

shinbone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Does it make sense to have a separate entry for hybrids?
 

MarkABrown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
1
The moderators have been discussing this for the last 2 days. When we thought that the request was to create a sub-forum heirarchy, the vote was a unanimous "no". However, after rereading the request and finding out that the request was for a sibling level forum and looking at the examples that Hospital_Rocket gave, we went back and discussed some more. I see some merit in what Hospital is saying as some of those categories just don't fit nicely anywhere. The discussion became, do we add a new forum or do we modify the descriptions of existing forums to better define where some of these categories should reside. We chose to redefine the descriptions of some forums to make it more clear where some of these topics should go. Our reasons are as follows: If we create a new forum, we'd have to assign a moderator to that forum and just add more workload. If we added a "Rocket Science" forum, we would definately get posts in there that didn't belong such as clustering, proper impulse for X size rocket, etc... thus adding more moderating work. We felt that aerodynamics could be discussed in the Propulsion forum since it is a factor in what makes a rocket go up. RF Propagation could be discussed in Support & Recovery because its dealing with electronic payloads. Acoustics and Structural Dynamics were our biggest problems. We decided that if we were to change the description of the Techniques forum to include something like "This forum can also be used to discuss Advanced Rocketry Techniques/Discussions which don't fit neatly into other categories." that we could cover the odd topics that don't fit elsewhere. I hope everyone understands that we do consider all requests for forum changes but our primary goal is to make navigation and searching of the site as simple as possible. TRF's broad category format is intentional to serve this purpose.

Thanks for continuing to contribute to making this the best rocketry forum on the Net.

PS The same logic applies to the request for a Hybrid Forum. We feel that hybrids can easily fit into some of the existing broader categories.
 

Hospital_Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
1
Fair enough,

While I am not in total agreement, I do appreciate your taking tnhe time to look. I would appreciate it if you guy would continue to survey the distribution of posts as I remain concerned that the coffee house is no longer the right place for posts related to rocketry that don't quite fit anywhere else. They are too diluted by well meaning and friendly banter.

I only attribute this to our growing community generating more and more traffic.

A
 

MarkABrown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
1
I totally agree with you about the Coffee House. This is STRICTLY MY OPINION ONLY, but I don't like the Coffee House at all.
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
0
Can I cautiously put my head out and ask what people don't like about the coffee house?
 

powderburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,399
Reaction score
6
Mike, I think the coffee house is a good idea-----for miscellaneous rocketry-related topics. However, it does tend to get a little (or a lot) silly much of the time and is pretty much wasted space. No, I am not a snob, I just don't think NFL junk and battleship games are very rocketry related. If I want silly stuff, I will ask my 10-year-old about Sponge Bob's latest adventure.

MarkABrown, I agree totally with your thought on keeping things "as simple as possible." As I have stated elsewhere, simple is good. Simple has a special virtue of its own. The older I get, the more I appreciate simple. I think the existing forum organization is fine and can easily accommodate specialized topics.

I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to the moderators and operators of TRF for giving all the rest of us a place to learn, share, and enjoy our hobby.
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,763
Reaction score
22
I guess I am happy the way it is (the Coffee House). I have no problem ignoring totally OT posts that I'm not interested in.
 

DynaSoar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
3,022
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by rstaff3
I guess I am happy the way it is (the Coffee House). I have no problem ignoring totally OT posts that I'm not interested in.
I've been doing networked computer stuff for almost 30 years* now, and I can say for certain that just about any time you have a place where people get together to talk about something, and they become friendly with each other (which is as it should be) they're going to end up talking "off topic". Allowing it to a reasonable degree makes the place more friendly. When people do that and not participate in the main topic, then you've got a problem.

I don't see that happening here. People do it only a reasonable amount, and sometimes even preface their subject lines with [OT]. Even without it, the subject lines are usually obvious enough that they can be ignored if you want to. And still the majority of stuff in the Coffee House is related to either rocketry or rocketers.

That being said, back to Al's suggestion. You have forums for propulsion, and recovery. One for design, including modeling/simulation, theoretics, technical reports material and such things, would seem to make sense to me. There's at least a few folks out there with a good grasp on the science end and might be more prone to sharing it, if there were a place specifically for it.

(* On the RSTS system at Purdue, circa 1975. The terminals were strictly TTY: teletypes with line printers. No monitors. Everything going in and coming out was printed on paper. And STILL people would use them to chat, in some cases even just across the room.)
 

rbeckey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
26
Perhaps if one of the persons desiring a new forum would volunteer for the moderator duties, it would eliminate one of Mark's quite valid reasons for objecting to further seperation of the catagories.
 

Hospital_Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
1
If it would facilitate the idea, I would happily volunteer to moderate.
 

arthur dent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
928
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by Mike
Can I cautiously put my head out and ask what people don't like about the coffee house?
Even more cautiously I think the coffee house is an excellent section and its one of the reasons i was initially attracted to the TRF.:)
 

Hospital_Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
1
It's not that I don't like the coffee house, heck it's a great place to share community ideas and just have the kind of banter that makes a place like TRF fun. I don't think it's a good place to put rocketry posts that "don't fit elsewhere." IMHO, there isa growing number of posts that a result of our moderator's conservatisim are becoming square pegs in round holes.

This is not in any way anything more that a small bit of constructive criticisim. These folks bust their tails to provide a place that I have sent literally dozens of friends to. I even troll RMR and send the shell shocked BARs here as a place where the subject is indeed rocketry.

My only concern is that we are a growing community and as we grow, we need to constantly look at our place and ensure it evolves to meet the needs of everybody.

Actually the above statement is not really true. This place is private property and the only thing that "has" to be is what the moderators feel is appropriate.

While I do not wholly agree with their decision, I understand it, will abide by it, and work within the framework they provide.

A
 

teflonrocketry1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
4
How about adding a flight simulation forum, an aerial photography forum, a radio control and an electronic payload forum. Do a search you will find there is enough information under each of these topics to justify categories under the heading of Rocket Science.

In the Modeling section there probably be a separate sections for rocket gliders, model rocket motor powered boats and model rocket powered cars.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
A

Austin

Bruce,

We will discuss your request, although I can tell you now that photography and payload would fall under the "Support and Recovery" section. Moreover, I don't think that there has been enough threads on R/C glider, boats or cars to justify a section; Those are specialty items and while they do include rocket motors, they don't follow the core theme of Rocketry. Still, we will visit it just to verify.

Thanks for your request,

Carl
 
Top