Design goals

[CQBArms]

As I like talking about rockets, and now have another reason to talk about them. I'm putting stuff out here to talk about.

It is my understanding that one of the end "goals" of this is to bring real, viable, flyable, products to market. To that end what would be some good design goals/limits?

COTS Only Parts
Upside:
I figure incorporating COTS parts might be good. It would require less fabrication, no real custom parts, would be very easy and cost effective to prototype.

Downside:
You end up with more 3FNC/4FNC/5/FNC etc

Semi custom with COTS
Upside:
Still basically all COTS except for some parts that are simple and easy to fabricate. Say new fin patterns, strakes, minor modifications to transitions parts. It will allow new looks to "old frames" with a minimum in fabrication time.

Downside:
There are lots of variations on a theme out there already. The current mega retail rocket kits are a prime example.

Military Kits
Lots of the military kits are pretty popular. There's a bit of a vacuum out there in low and mid power kits.

Upside:
Lots of designs out there, royalty free. Many are "flight ready".

Downside:
Might require prototypes for test flying as lots of military rockets/missiles are flight stable due to technology.

thoughts?

[CPMcGraw]

...COTS...

If I understand the reference, you mean "Commercial Off The Shelf"; then I think I have to disagree a bit. That's the "battle" we're fighting now with Estes. They've commercialized their "parts" down to a bare minimum for basic designs, and they've concentrated on stuff that would be difficult at best to duplicate, even if there was something in their line-up we even wanted to duplicate. What they've been fielding with their "stock" parts has been ridiculous and uninspired, to be kind; and their "stock" parts have, also to be kind, sucked in quality. That's a direct result of COTS.

SEMROC has gone in the other direction, and filled their bins (virtual / real) with components we can actually use, and actually want to use. That means we have more to work with, and our creativity is vastly improved, if not outright superior, compared to what Estes has demonstrated in the last few decades as a result. I'll put some of our resident forum designers -- myself included -- up against any that Estes has had in the past or is considering for the future. Further, each time someone has made a suggestion for a new component, Carl has taken the time to look into actually producing the part. Estes would never consider doing something so "customized" as producing simple components just because one of us asked.

Carl also has one advantage that Estes long ago forgot: You can introduce new balsa components to the market in quantity faster than you can a new plastic component. For him, it's just a digital file on a hard disk and a pile of raw balsa in the feed hopper. I suppose one can call that aspect COTS, if the shelf is a computer. Laser-cut fins are the same.

Traditional COTS would take things back to a "least-common-denominator" style of parts inventory that kills serious design efforts. That's been the bane of model rocketry for too long. We need the diversity of Carl's approach to strengthen the hobby. The COTS approach needs to die a quick death.

[CQBArms]

When I look at most kits, body tubes...sort of standard diameters. Nose cones, standard diameters (and types), materials balsa planks (fis cut in many different ways but lots of the same patterns 3F, 4F, launch lugs, engine mounts, shock cords, parachute systems, all pretty much standard stuff.

So unless you are building an entirely custom rocket with new concepts of engine mount, odd sized body tubes, recovery etc. It's going to include a large percentage of COTS parts. There's no way around it.

Now certainly you can flavor it up by increasing the percentage of "new parts" but actually look at a rocket and look at what percentage is "new stuff" and what's actually COTS parts. That goes for just about any mfg out there.

[CQBArms]

I will give you an example:

If I was able to build my own engines and rockets. I would reevaluate the entire concept of design from the ground up. Why are they 18mm, 24mm, 29mm engines. Not to sound Spinal Tap 'ish" but why not 20mm motors? 25mm, 30mm.
If you can build the whole system, engines to rockets...build something entirely different.
Sure you can continue to make and market standard sizes...but maybe there's innovation in a system that is not like all the other sizes out there.

I've read some of the posts in the other threads and it's "bring back this or that" ...bring back the century style parts kits. I look at the stable of Semroc kits, and most seem to be designs that have already been made and now are brought back or upscaled sort of COTS plans. Now I am a HUGE fan of Semroc, and love the company. I think they are the best thing out there, bar none...but now is a chance to redefine model rocketry. Why not take the big plunge...now motors, new mounts, new kits. Make it something exclusive to Semroc. A single source provider.

[CPMcGraw]

When I look at most kits, body tubes...sort of standard diameters. Nose cones, standard diameters (and types), materials balsa planks (fis cut in many different ways but lots of the same patterns 3F, 4F, launch lugs, engine mounts, shock cords, parachute systems, all pretty much standard stuff.

So unless you are building an entirely custom rocket with new concepts of engine mount, odd sized body tubes, recovery etc. It's going to include a large percentage of COTS parts. There's no way around it.

Now certainly you can flavor it up by increasing the percentage of "new parts" but actually look at a rocket and look at what percentage is "new stuff" and what's actually COTS parts. That goes for just about any mfg out there.

Well, there's traditional COTS and then there's Carl... :D

You can call any collection of parts COTS as long as those parts remain in the inventory. With almost every rocket design, the fins make up the most visible difference; body tubes are standard, nose cones follow "standardized" shapes and lengths, and the rings are fairly uninteresting by themselves. I suppose those items constitute COTS since we need them in every design...

COTS, though, is mostly an accounting method generally used to justify a reduction in (unique line item) parts count across production lines. Autos, computers, and other appliances are great examples of where that concept works well. It is also a good example of the concept taken to an extreme. Remember the Oldsmobile? Where is it today? It used to be GM's premere new-concept line...

I like SEMROC's concept of continually adding new parts to the collection whenever feasable. It's not like Carl really has to keep tons of non-shipped components in a warehouse all the time, taking up space and keeping his capital tied down. He produces enough to fill the immediate orders, and maybe a few for the bins, and that's it. He doesn't have to make any turned parts if nothing has shipped; filling those kit bags takes enough to justify keeping a few "old standards" in higher quantity, but even there he's not going to go overboard. Carl's COTS are dynamic... [OK, I know that's a dangerous phrase, Bill. No snickering from the peanut gallery! :o ]

I guess it's our perspective of what is "off the shelf" and what isn't. Turned parts, rings, and tubes certainly qualify. Carl, though, is using an older concept of a model rocketry company that caters to builders and designers, not impulse buyers; that requires a much larger variety in the parts he offers. Estes (and Centuri) started off that way until the "big dogs" came barking. Now, they're just one combined company catering to a short-term-attention-span customer who may or may not come back in a week for more. They were COTS-ed to death. Now, compare the product lines of Estes and SEMROC. Whose kits do you prefer? How did Carl get there? By not being what Estes became, but instead becoming what Estes once was: A hobbyist-oriented model rocket company.

By whatever name you want to call it, Carl's method works. We're benefitting from his efforts, he's not feeling too badly, and there's far more to come. No matter what Estes does today, I don't think they have the momentum anymore. Too little, too late, with no real understanding of what they did wrong. That's why I have such a negative feeling about the COTS concept when it comes to our hobby. I've seen it at its worst already. Carl is trying to counteract the damage, and that's a good thing.

[John Brohm]

I will give you an example:

...but maybe there's innovation in a system that is not like all the other sizes out there.

... Make it something exclusive to Semroc. A single source provider.

I think it's important to clarify a little more what we may mean by some of these concepts. I participate in an industry distinguished by proprietary technology; no plug and play, no standards to speak of, and significant after-sales costs to the Owner. These aren't qualities that we would necessarily want in Model Rocketry. As consumers, hobbyists, and amateur rocket scientists, we benefit directly from a "standard" that has gradually emerged over time. This standard (the genesis of which is largely lost in the mists of time), and the manfufacturer's adherence to it, allows costs to be minimized to us, the User, because generally everyone follows it and most stuff is interchangeable. My (insert manufacturer of choice) 18 mm motor will fit in the body tube of (other manufacturer of choice), and I can finish my rocket with nose cone XYZ (from yet another manufacturer of choice). While it may have its peculiarities (e.g.: why should a BT-60 be 40.5 mm in ID, as opposed to some other, rounded, size?), it nevertheless works, and keeps our building costs low, which we all appreciate.

The concept of COTS engenders the idea of diverse/3rd party market support; so long as everyone works towards the same standard, then much of the stuff can be categorized as COTS. But that doesn't mean that innovation is dead; quite the opposite, as the manufacturers must now differentiate in other ways (like service), with the breadth of the product line, and with the technologies incorporated within the products.

Semroc's strategy should avoid exclusive or proprietary technologies or parts except in those occasional cases when they're absolutely necessary (high performance propellant formulations might be an example); instead it should make the hobby as accessible as possible by engaging as many segments of the market as possible (for some it's kits, for others it's parts, motors, etc, etc), and by making the cost entry points as low as possible. Working with the so-called "standard" is central to this, and by being a price competitive supplier of a full product line, Semroc will be able to do this, and will quickly backfill much of the market share vacated by other suppliers. Part of the secret in accomplishing this is to manage capital investment (knowing the market and the customer base is important to this). Estes and Semroc have two different views of the market, and have two different strategies as a result. I think we're very fortunate that this is the case.

[rocket_james]

My (insert manufacturer of choice) 18 mm motor will fit in the body tube of (other manufacturer of choice), and I can finish my rocket with nose cone XYZ (from yet another manufacturer of choice). While it may have its peculiarities (e.g.: why should a BT-60 be 40.5 mm in ID, as opposed to some other, rounded, size?), it nevertheless works, and keeps our building costs low, which we all appreciate.

Semroc's strategy should avoid exclusive or proprietary technologies or parts except in those occasional cases when they're absolutely necessary (high performance propellant formulations might be an example); instead it should make the hobby as accessible as possible by engaging as many segments of the market as possible (for some it's kits, for others it's parts, motors, etc, etc), and by making the cost entry points as low as possible. Working with the so-called "standard" is central to this, and by being a price competitive supplier of a full product line, Semroc will be able to do this, and will quickly backfill much of the market share vacated by other suppliers. Part of the secret in accomplishing this is to manage capital investment (knowing the market and the customer base is important to this). Estes and Semroc have two different views of the market, and have two different strategies as a result. I think we're very fortunate that this is the case.

Yep! There is some benefit to having the Quest and Estes plastic, too. Some of those plastic fin cans make great high performance rockets with relatively small diameter tubes and big motors. With them going their direction and Semroc going his direction, we are all benefitting. While BMS did a good job of filling in for Estes, Centuri fans were in dire straits until Carl came along, though. Speaking of which, I love the concept of the Classic link on Carl's site - find a kit you like and build it by selecting the parts and putting them in your cart! Too cool!!
James

[CQBArms]

On the one hand I agree, on the other I don't.

I think there is room in design for a pure COTS re-blended, a partial COTS rocket with some modification (different nose cone or fins) . They are very quick to prototype and quite frankly easy to produce once an accepted prototype is made.

I do also think that leveraging totally proprietary technology is great and I don't see why they can't all run simultaneously.


One the firts like you innovate with pure COTS, granted not that exciting BUT it gets a product out there and fairly fast.

Second line is taking some COTs parts getting some minor custom parts, and building up.

Third line is totally new designs or designs based on new technology. Look at that builders corner, lots of "been done" rockets revised to leverage new technology.
For me I would rather see new technology AND entirely new designs but at least it is leveraging the new technology AND would effectively get something to market that can use it.
There's no sense in having a bunch of new motors with nothing to put them in.
Another option would be to design retrofit kits for some of the smaller models to use the smaller motors. Again a COTS or proven design adapted to a new technology.

[Carl@Semroc]

Yep! There is some benefit to having the Quest and Estes plastic, too. Some of those plastic fin cans make great high performance rockets with relatively small diameter tubes and big motors. With them going their direction and Semroc going his direction, we are all benefitting. While BMS did a good job of filling in for Estes, Centuri fans were in dire straits until Carl came along, though. Speaking of which, I love the concept of the Classic link on Carl's site - find a kit you like and build it by selecting the parts and putting them in your cart! Too cool!!
James

Try the experimental link (http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/ClassicKits2.asp) . It lets you filter to narrow down the choices.

Oh, if you put a % in front of the filter text, it searches for any occurance instead of "starting with".

[rocket_james]

Try the experimental link (http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/ClassicKits2.asp) . It lets you filter to narrow down the choices.

Oh, if you put a % in front of the filter text, it searches for any occurance instead of "starting with".

Awesome!! :o
Thanks for the help. I need it! :D

Have you gotten any feedback on the Classics page from folks using dial-up? There's a lot on that page. It takes several seconds to load on my computer, and I've got DSL. It might be worthwhile to have an intermediate page that allows the selection of a particular manufacturer, then use the filters on the subsequent page.

I really didn't have any appreciation for the problems faced by folks with dial-up until we made our last move. The area we moved into temporarily, until we got the house we're in now, didn't have DSL access, only dial-up. Ugh! What a pain! I started to notice load times for web pages after that.

James

[Carl@Semroc]

Good suggestion. I forget about dialup (until the DSL goes down!)

[Bob Thomas]

Carl, though, is using an older concept of a model rocketry company that caters to builders and designers, not impulse buyers; that requires a much larger variety in the parts he offers. Estes (and Centuri) started off that way .........A hobbyist-oriented model rocket company.

I've seen it at its worst already. Carl is trying to counteract the damage, and that's a good thing.

This is the bottom line and I believe why most of us are here.

Too many potential rocketeers are quickly bored, stating " yeah, they're fun, but I already launched a rocket!!!" They think its about the launch. They are usually too young to graduate to the higher power kits (which seems like the natural progression - send one higher). Right now, interest is lost when they see there is little else to excite them. They know little of developing a hobby skill. It is the idea of new "builders" kits to graduate to, something to excite or challenge and develop skills that I believe has the most potential. But there must be exposure as well.

In this respect, let Estes and Quest snag newbies with their RTF and quick kits at the mega-store .

That's why the LHS move is a good thing for SEMROC and rocketry.

A Saturn 1B on the shelf might scare some away, but it will make others pine for the skill to be able build one. In the meantime, new innovative designs and builders kits will bridge the gap.


Lets give them something to really grab and maintain their interest. Soon, they will be waiting for a new release as if it was new video game or platform!

Bob

[CPMcGraw]

...Too many potential rocketeers are quickly bored, stating " yeah, they're fun, but I already launched a rocket!!!"... interest is lost when they see there is little else to excite them. They know little of developing a hobby skill....In this respect, let Estes and Quest snag newbies with their RTF and quick kits at the mega-store...Lets give them something to really grab and maintain their interest...

I think one thing we have ALL got to start doing, whether we are in this as a business or as a devoted hobyist, is to demonstrate how easy a model rocket is to build. Granted, the S1B and LJII are high-quality, skills-needed models, and even some of us old-timers have difficulty building them. But they are not typical model rockets.

Something we need is a complete package similar to the old Estes Electro-Launch or Deluxe Starter Kits from 1971. These kits had the full-build Alpha instead of the Alpha III. This starter set should be developed to introduce to the newbie each skill needed for building models. Flying their model is "the icing on the cake"; unfortunately most starter sets don't teach you how to bake the cake.

SEMROC has numerous designs available that would be ideal for such a package, including but not limited to the Astro-1. If we wanted to use smaller motors, the BARCLONE Eaglet is available, as is the SEMROC Astro Jr.

The instructions would be more detailed than what we're used to. Possibly they would need actual photographs showing each step of the process. If you look at well-thought-out RC airplane instructions, you get not only a set of plans to work on, but a thick booklet with lots of photographs to look at and compare against. Our starter set needs to follow this pattern. It would take the newbie through the entire sequence, from opening the bag of parts and checking the contents, through finishing and painting, and finally flight preparations.

What kind of launch pad would we include? I've seen some inexpensive camera tripods selling for about $10; what could one be manufactured for? If we had a simple adapter head that attaches to the tripod, our launch pad would look "cooler" and be more stable than the other offerings. One additional advantage -- it gets the rocket (and the rocket's exhaust) up off the ground by about 18-24". Easier to work with, less of a fire hazard.

How about the launch controller itself? Another manufacturing issue, but one I think needs to be looked into.

Bottom line, SEMROC needs to have in-place all of the elements required to build and fly model rockets. It presently has the components for building the models down fine, and it's working on motors. SEMROC should not have to rely on any other model rocket company for any support item. It needs to have its own branded line of support equipment. Let's go after all the newbies, and all the BARs, and all the Neverbars. Let's get them in our fold, and show them what the hobby is really like.

[rocket_james]

Something we need is a complete package similar to the old Estes Electro-Launch or Deluxe Starter Kits from 1971. These kits had the full-build Alpha instead of the Alpha III. This starter set should be developed to introduce to the newbie each skill needed for building models. Flying their model is "the icing on the cake"; unfortunately most starter sets don't teach you how to bake the cake.

The instructions would be more detailed than what we're used to.

That as an option, I agree, Craig. The "cheap" starter set is still good for getting folks in the hobby, too. Not everyone can afford the full deal. I also think both should include a catalog, a basic concepts booklet, and a "send a friend a catalog" postcard. I wonder how many of us got in the hobby because of a friend or teacher? That usually meant some level of competition between friends - fly higher, get the bigger rocket, have the latest rocket, etc. Part of what's missing for the newbie rocketeers is a bonding between the rocket company and the rocketeer. BARS automatically seek that bonding because we grew up with it. The newbie has never made that connection - it's more the "me" thing, self gratification , or whatever. Easy to get bored, or distracted by whatever next thing is "hot." Nothing is in the kits today that promotes that bonding or encourages the person to stay with it, to seek the next challenge. No MRN copies to see what others are doing, or to get further encouragement from the rocket company. I think it really takes a whole package, just like what we grew up with. Well, a nice space race would help too. :D

What kind of launch pad would we include? I've seen some inexpensive camera tripods selling for about $10; what could one be manufactured for? If we had a simple adapter head that attaches to the tripod, our launch pad would look "cooler" and be more stable than the other offerings. One additional advantage -- it gets the rocket (and the rocket's exhaust) up off the ground by about 18-24". Easier to work with, less of a fire hazard.
How about the launch controller itself? Another manufacturing issue, but one I think needs to be looked into.

Yeah, those plastic Estes and Quest launch pads are horrible. Low to the ground and easy to break. Of course, low to the ground is good for the little kids that like to put their rocket on the pad. A pad that lets the rod down horizontally to allow the rocket to be slipped on would be nice. Then you get the heigth without cheating the little kids from putting their own rocket on the pad. Kids today seem to want things to be of fairly decent quality. Too many failures and they'll give up on it. We've taught them that. I always liked the launch controller that could be hooked up to the car battery. Unfortunately, there probably aren't many launch areas available that allow the car to be pulled up to it. Most mom and dads aren't going to lug a big 12 volt battery around and recharge it either. Big dilemma.

SEMROC should not have to rely on any other model rocket company for any support item. It needs to have its own branded line of support equipment. Let's go after all the newbies, and all the BARs, and all the Neverbars. Let's get them in our fold, and show them what the hobby is really like.

I agree, Craig. It's that whole bonding thing! ;)

[CPMcGraw]

...The "cheap" starter set is still good for getting folks in the hobby, too. Not everyone can afford the full deal. I also think both should include a catalog, a basic concepts booklet, and a "send a friend a catalog" postcard. I wonder how many of us got in the hobby because of a friend or teacher?

I had a chance to talk to my LHS contact today, and casually asked him what trends he was seing in the hobby industry. His opinion was that the RTF items - rockets, RC aircraft, RC cars, etc... - really did bring a lot of people into their respective hobbies; but that these customers were also coming back to look for the more sophisticated items, like kits that require building and finishing. This was across the board. These customers were hitting a roadblock because those same companies were not following up as well with more construction-style products.

Has anyone noticed one of the "new" product lines Estes has brought out? Fully-assembled rockets in those conformal heat-molded blister packs. No motors, no pad, no launch controller, just the rocket -- fully assembled (maybe you have to attach the parachute...) and ready for launch. Wal Mart is selling them for $10. I looked at two: a 3FNC and a 4 FNC. The 3FNC used a gold-plated* Alpha III fin can, a gold-colored pre-wrapped body tube, and a gold-plated* PNC-50Y nose cone. The 4 FNC used a fin can which I don't think has been used before. The packages look like they cost as much to make as the rockets do, BTW...

I whole-heartedly agree with the inclusion of a paper catalog, especially one that has a full line of components and accessories. Those were the catalogs we all used to drool over. It wasn't just the rockets, but the idea that with those components you "could do anything". Those pages were like the old Edmund Scientific catalogs, or the Heathkit electronics catalogs.

Something I once thought about for a Deluxe Starter Set was to include a copy of "The Handbook" as a premium. That might be something to consider for educators wanting to include rocketry in their classrooms.

[*Gold-plated in the sense that they were plated with a gold-colored metallic coating...]

[foose4string]

I whole-heartedly agree with the inclusion of a paper catalog, especially one that has a full line of components and accessories. Those were the catalogs we all used to drool over. It wasn't just the rockets, but the idea that with those components you "could do anything". Those pages were like the old Edmund Scientific catalogs, or the Heathkit electronics catalogs.


[*Gold-plated in the sense that they were plated with a gold-colored metallic coating...]

I remember drooling over those catalogs too, and it's still nice to have some bathroom reading material, nothing beats a hard copy. But just remember, those were the days before the internet, it may not be as crucial as it once was. On the other hand, the more material floating around with the Semroc logo on it, the better.

[CPMcGraw]

I remember drooling over those catalogs too, and it's still nice to have some bathroom reading material, nothing beats a hard copy. But just remember, those were the days before the internet, it may not be as crucial as it once was. On the other hand, the more material floating around with the Semroc logo on it, the better.

Oh, the internet is nice, and we couldn't do what we're doing now if we didn't have it. But as much as I like the internet, I still want hard copy to actually read. I hate having to read from my computer screen, especially when I'm trying to work with an image, or do some coding, or do something where I need both a printed page and a work screen to figure out. I hate having to switch windows in the middle, toggling back and forth.

Give me a paper catalog, which I can look at without having to crank up the computer. I'm old-school. I like books. Nothing has adaquately replaced the book yet, and I don't think it ever will. There's a personal connection with the printed page that you just don't get with a monitor. Just don't try to take away my computer, though. Death would be too good for you... :D

[snaquin]

Has anyone noticed one of the "new" product lines Estes has brought out? Fully-assembled rockets in those conformal heat-molded blister packs. No motors, no pad, no launch controller, just the rocket -- fully assembled (maybe you have to attach the parachute...) and ready for launch. Wal Mart is selling them for $10. I looked at two: a 3FNC and a 4 FNC. The 3FNC used a gold-plated* Alpha III fin can, a gold-colored pre-wrapped body tube, and a gold-plated* PNC-50Y nose cone. The 4 FNC used a fin can which I don't think has been used before. The packages look like they cost as much to make as the rockets do, BTW...[/i]]

I have seen them. I wonder if these are geared towards someone that purchased his first RTF rocket or a starter set and possibly lost the rocket that came with the set? Instant gratification for the "non-builder" that needs to get back out into the field to launch again. Possibly lacks the time or design skills to build his own. Perhaps this is the market Estes is trying to reach?

I whole-heartedly agree with the inclusion of a paper catalog, especially one that has a full line of components and accessories. Those were the catalogs we all used to drool over. It wasn't just the rockets, but the idea that with those components you "could do anything". Those pages were like the old Edmund Scientific catalogs, or the Heathkit electronics catalogs.[/i]]

One would think I was trying to memorize those first model rocket catalogs I had by the amount of time I spent staring into them! :)

Something I once thought about for a Deluxe Starter Set was to include a copy of "The Handbook" as a premium. That might be something to consider for educators wanting to include rocketry in their classrooms.



[*Gold-plated in the sense that they were plated with a gold-colored metallic coating...]

I still refer to my two copies. I agree. If there were one piece of literature I could put in the hands of the guy buying his first starter set, this would be my choice. When I first started in model rocketry that was the reference materials I needed to show me model rocketry and all it encompassed.

The Handbook as a premium is a very good idea.

.

[CPMcGraw]

I have seen them. I wonder if these are geared towards someone that purchased his first RTF rocket or a starter set and possibly lost the rocket that came with the set? Instant gratification for the "non-builder" that needs to get back out into the field to launch again. Possibly lacks the time or design skills to build his own. Perhaps this is the market Estes is trying to reach?

Maybe I'm a little jaded :eek: , but I don't think it's meant as the "replacement" rocket so much as it is meant to be the second (or even third)rocket. I don't believe Estes is pushing their customer base in the "model" direction at all, but simply toward more RTF product. In fact, most of the "new" Estes products I've seen lately, even those meant for LHS's, have been RTF foamies. I have not seen an Alpha or a Big Bertha on a peg wall for some time; and when I hear of Hobby Lobby putting Outlanders on sale as "discontinued" or "closeouts", I think Estes may actually be encouraging the demise of kits altogether. Fits in with what my "Deep Throated Nozzle" contact at the the local shop told me earlier about companies "falling down" on the follow-up items. Estes may not be the only ones that have fallen down that hole, but they're certainly not making any visible effort to climb back up, either...


One would think I was trying to memorize those first model rocket catalogs I had by the amount of time I spent staring into them! :)

Been there, done that... :D Way too often; coulda floated a missile cruiser from the spittle...


I still refer to my two copies. I agree. If there were one piece of literature I could put in the hands of the guy buying his first starter set, this would be my choice. When I first started in model rocketry that was the reference materials I needed to show me model rocketry and all it encompassed.

The Handbook as a premium is a very good idea.

I'll start a new thread on "Items Needed in a Deluxe Starter Set", so we can focus on this discussion. Maybe we can develop some of the printed literature there ourselves...

[foose4string]

Maybe I'm a little jaded :eek: , but I don't think it's meant as the "replacement" rocket so much as it is meant to be the second (or even third)rocket. I don't believe Estes is pushing their customer base in the "model" direction at all, but simply toward more RTF product. In fact, most of the "new" Estes products I've seen lately, even those meant for LHS's, have been RTF foamies. I have not seen an Alpha or a Big Bertha on a peg wall for some time; and when I hear of Hobby Lobby putting Outlanders on sale as "discontinued" or "closeouts", I think Estes may actually be encouraging the demise of kits altogether. Fits in with what my "Deep Throated Nozzle" contact at the the local shop told me earlier about companies "falling down" on the follow-up items. Estes may not be the only ones that have fallen down that hole, but they're certainly not making any visible effort to climb back up, either...




Been there, done that... :D Way too often; coulda floated a missile cruiser from the spittle...




I'll start a new thread on "Items Needed in a Deluxe Starter Set", so we can focus on this discussion. Maybe we can develop some of the printed literature there ourselves...

Estes now has a moderated forum. According to the forum moderator, they are supposedly climbing out of that hole within the the next year or two. We'll see. I think they finally realized how many old and potential customers they have alienated by not offering more product and discontinuing many of the builder's classics. The odd rocs are a sore spot for me too. Too many, IMO. I think those are the very reasons why Semroc(among others) has done so well, not to mention the great service and pricing. If Estes wants to continue in the toy business, that's fine too. Just opens the door for someone else, namely Carl! :D

[rocket_james]

I have seen them. I wonder if these are geared towards someone that purchased his first RTF rocket or a starter set and possibly lost the rocket that came with the set? Instant gratification for the "non-builder" that needs to get back out into the field to launch again. Possibly lacks the time or design skills to build his own. Perhaps this is the market Estes is trying to reach?
I sent my youngest grandson a starter set a few years back and built him a rocket. He was seven at the time, and lives far away. He loved them and has become an avid rocketeer, but has never built one rocket. He is almost ten now and has flown every RTF/ARTF rocket that's out there. My son-in-law and daughter are not into it, but do encourage his love of rockets. He is now interested in other aerospace topics, too, BTW. Anyway, these RTF/ARTF packets are all they buy him. After the launch pad gave way, they simply bought another starter set, the Snapshot. I sent him a basic builder kit, the Quest Big Rage in the second batch of rockets and encouraged them to help him get started with it. It's probably the closest thing to a starting build rocket as any others around. My understanding is that it still sits uncompleted. :( He really doesn't have any incentive to build one as long as Mom and Dad will buy him the RTF/ARTF rockets. I think they actually discourage any thoughts he might have for building the rockets.
James