Time to get out the word out on TARC 2005

[LaneKG]

Note the Team America Rocketry Challenge is new and different for 2005. It is duration rather than altitude. It looks like more fun to me. See TARC 2005 Info below.

If you have contact with 7th to 12th graders whose school, scout troop or other non-profit youth group may be interested in Team America Rocketry Challenge have them go to www.rocketcontest.org and register for info.

Thanks,

Greg Lane
www.sears572.com

TARC 2005 Info:


Goals: Develop a new “challenge” that will be competitive, inexpensive, more inclusive, and will increase the chances of developing and successfully launching a model rocket. The rules and application will be posted at www.rocketcontest.org on September 7, 2004. The finals will be held on May 21, 2004, at Great Meadow, The Plains, VA.


The Challenge: To build and fly a model rocket carrying one or two raw eggs that achieves a precise flight duration (TBD) and returns the egg(s) uncracked. Bonuses are awarded if the rocket has two stages and carries two eggs rather than one.


Educational Objectives: The process of designing, building, and flying a moderately-complex flight vehicle teaches many concepts of teamwork, physics, and engineering, including aerodynamics, flight mechanics and stability, and electrical circuitry for the ignition system. The process of vehicle optimization for a performance goal teaches engineering design and tradeoffs.


Participation: Teams will consist of three to fifteen students who are in 7th through 12th grades in any U.S. school or home-school program, supervised by one or more adults who are certified as teachers (including home-school) or who are officially-appointed group leaders in U.S. chapters of national non-profit youth organizations, including but not limited to the Scouts, 4-H, Civil Air Patrol, Skills USA and Young Astronauts. There is no limit on the number of teams per school or organization. All teams must be affiliated with and must draw all their members from either a single school or local home-school organization, or a single chapter of a national youth organization.

 

[n3tjm]

I don't know... I think the altitude goal is better then duration... but TARC is fun. It is interesting to see what these youngersters do. I have seen some ingenious designs... The only down side is keeping my mouth shut in how I would do it .

 

[LaneKG]

The TARC flights I saw were mostly spectacular failures. I think duration will yield more successful flights and provide opportunities to tweak the design.

Greg

 

[Justin Horne]

My TARC flight (the second) was certainly a spectacular failure... The first was an awesome fligt on a G64 to E9..Heavy rocket... I won't do it again next year.. I was pretyt much the only one to work, and it was more stressful than fun for me.. Oh well, I like my rockets anyway.. Plus, my rockets work better than the TARC one...

 

[AlexM]

Originally posted by Justin Horne
My TARC flight (the second) was certainly a spectacular failure... The first was an awesome fligt on a G64 to E9..Heavy rocket...

I remember that one
I think that the altitude is more fun. It seems like there is a lot less luck involved in altitude than duration. I mean, if you live in california and there are a ton of thermals every time you launch, then you get to Virginia, and it is 60 and raining... Well, that would be a heckuva waste of a money for those travel costs.

 

[Ryan S.]

Originally posted by n3tjm
I don't know... I think the altitude goal is better then duration... but TARC is fun. It is interesting to see what these youngersters do. I have seen some ingenious designs... The only down side is keeping my mouth shut in how I would do it .

Think about it, with rocket weight/parachute size, coupled with decent rate, you are still aiming for a certain altitude, the difference is the altitude is depended on rocket size etc. So, this is just a different way of saying the same thing. Put a rocket to a certian height.

 

[havoc821]

Man, now I gotta change our design AGAIN!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG!!!!! Oh well. Last year we did a G64 to E9 but we were off by like 164 feet or so because by the time the 2nd stage lit it was getting close to horizontal and I drilled the altimeter vent holes wrong. They were too big. My fault though. It seems that the duration would be easier. Would it be like the team who had the most skil involved (like the bonuses and stuff) and whose was closest to estimated time? I guess there would be some kind of scoring method. Like 100 pts for exact timing of duration, 50pts per bonus, -10 pts for every sec off, out of a total of 200pts. This was just an example by the way. Well, back to the drawing board..........again.........and again.

 

[n3tjm]

Originally posted by Ryan S.
Think about it, with rocket weight/parachute size, coupled with decent rate, you are still aiming for a certain altitude, the difference is the altitude is depended on rocket size etc. So, this is just a different way of saying the same thing. Put a rocket to a certian height.

I think Tarc3 nailed one of the issues. The problem with duration is there is to many variables. Differents Termal Patterns has less affect on how high a rocket will go then how long it stays up there on chute. A TARC may design a rocket that performs good at their field, but then they come to an area during fly-off that has more (or less) thermals, and will get signifficantly different results. They have a few flgiths before their flight counts, but it is still a situation I would be uncomfortable with if I was flying...

Also there is the issue of timing. The Altimeter in the first two TARC's were the final, undesputed judge. However... I assume timeing will be done by stopwatches... and there is more human error in that regard.

 

[Justin Horne]

Originally posted by Tarc3
I remember that one
I think that the altitude is more fun. It seems like there is a lot less luck involved in altitude than duration. I mean, if you live in california and there are a ton of thermals every time you launch, then you get to Virginia, and it is 60 and raining... Well, that would be a heckuva waste of a money for those travel costs.

I agree... I mean, if you live in a windless zone, then there is lots of wind at the contest, and you have no idea what would work best, you've got problems...

 

[AlexM]

Oh well... Its too late for this year. Maybe it will turn out ok. If not, then they will change it the next year. Hopefully, NASA accepts our SLI grant request. If so, then my team will not participate in TARC. Either one is fine with me though...

 

[AlexM]

Originally posted by Justin Horne
My TARC flight (the second) was certainly a spectacular failure... The first was an awesome fligt on a G64 to E9..Heavy rocket... I won't do it again next year.. I was pretyt much the only one to work, and it was more stressful than fun for me.. Oh well, I like my rockets anyway.. Plus, my rockets work better than the TARC one...

Oh yea, look on the bright side, your rocket was better than that third one. I can still here that one slamming into the asphalt.

 

[Justin Horne]

Think you are confusing me with someone else... we don't have asphalt at our club, so its not me.. we didn't get to the finals either.. Our rocket went up, went about a 30 degree angle, reached 450 some feet, and then failed to stage (thankfully our altimeter battery was not strong enough to light the ematch) and about 100 feet from the ground, the G64 ejected, separating the stages and saving our pricey electronics and my case... Oh well.. We launched it earlier and that was beautiful.. Maiden flight to 1013 feet.. Too bad we didn't make it a qualification...

 

[AlexM]

Oh, I thought that you were the secind flight at the finalsd... There was a rocket that fits your description that did go second though. Now I feel like a complete idiot.:kill:

 

[Justin Horne]

Originally posted by Tarc3
Oh, I thought that you were the secind flight at the finalsd... There was a rocket that fits your description that did go second though. Now I feel like a complete idiot.:kill:

Nah, that's fine..

 

[teflonrocketry1]

TARC eliminated the required altimeter to make the event cheaper for the participants; but why still require two egg payload? If there was only a one egg payload wouldn't the challenge still be the same with a more varied and economical choice of motors? Those who enter the duration competition might use a laptop with RockSim loaded and a portable weather station; wouldn't that be more expensive? I wonder what the thought process was behind the design of this years competiton?

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

 

[AlexM]

I have no clue. Also, boy scouts and stuff are allowed. I dont know why, but I dont like that. I complained about the duration competition in like March with no response, but it is obviously to late now. Oh well... just prayin for NASA.

 

[xenon]

Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
but why still require two egg payload? If there was only a one egg payload wouldn't the challenge still be the same with a more varied and economical choice of motors?

Actually, you don't have to have two eggs. The contest only requires one egg and one stage but you can get extra points if you you two eggs and/or two stages. This is preliminary info from the web site but it could have changed. Personally, my team will probably use one stage and two eggs.