History of Skill Levels

[Solomoriah]

I was just looking for a new project, in the usual place... Ninfinger's site, of course... and noticed that the rockets in the old catalogs didn't have skill levels.

A little informal research shows that Estes listed a "degree of challenge" from 1 to 5 in their 1971 catalog. In the 1973 catalog, it's called "skill level" for the first time. Centuri didn't use skill levels until the 1975 catalog.

Who came up with this (obviously useful) idea? I had assumed, incorrectly it seems, that skill levels were as old as the hobby itself. I see that I am wrong.

I got into rocketry in 1976, and I just assumed that the things in the Centuri catalog (which I read and re-read until it fell apart) had been graven in stone for years. All the information in the catalog was presented as such incontrovertible facts that it seemed obvious that they had been known forever.

Evidently not. But the very first catalog in which they appeared gave no explanation, no "look at our new cool system!" such as I would expect nowadays.

I guess I'm rambling. It just struck me funny...

[James Pierson]

A very interesting subject to me Solo. I don't know much about the history of skill levels as I missed the first 40 years of the sport. The Apogee Newsletter #31 is an interesting read on this subject so here is the link:

http://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter31.pdf

I use this information to try and figure out what certain skills I have missed of skipped over :eek: in my few years in the sport. Clusters I thinlk I have finally figured out but stageing motors I just ahve a hard time visualizing the connections :confused: .

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

[Initiator001]

Many years ago, I spoke with Dane Boles who was with Estes for nearly 20 years.

He told me the Skill Level program was nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to increase sales.

The hobby shops loved it as it gave customers 'goals' to reach (Skill Level 1 through 5). The Skill Level plan also worked for the more expensive kits (The highest skill level kits were usually the most expensive).

Estes was pretty good, at first, in assigning skill levels that did match the difficulty of building/flying a specific rocket but, now, it seems the assigning of skill levels to Estes kits is a bit haphazard.

However, 'Skill Levels' for hobby rocket kits is a 'given', now. The hobby industry views skill levels as an important piece of marking for model rocket kits (And plastic models, etc.). When I was at AeroTech, we presented our rocket kits to the hobby industry and we were told that the kits HAD to have skill level ratings on the packaging or distributors would not stock the product. We put skill levels on the packaging for the kits even though it was pretty pointless as AeroTech kits are, maybe, skil level three at the most difficult.

Today, Skill Levels are all about marketing and sales. Nothing else. :(

Bob

[ghrocketman]

I would rate Aerotech kits as a high 2 or low 3 for skill level if using the old rating method used by Estes in the Mid 70's through the late 80's.
Probably closer to a 2 considering most parts snap fit into each other and it takes little to no model building experience to achive a well completed model.

[pantherjon]

Funny, I was just thinking of this very subject the other day! I remember(one of the few remaining memories of those by-gone days) going to the hobby store and looking at these cool kits that were rated as skill level 5(mainly the Saturn V)..I was under the impression at the time that I HAD to work my way up to that skill level. That I HAD to build so many skill level 1's and then 2's, etc :o I always wanted to get the Sat V but kept holding off cause 'I haven't even done a skill level 3 kit yet, I can't do a skill level 5 kit!', plus the price- dad kept telling me 'that's a pretty expensive kit son'...lol..

[Rocket Doctor]

I would say that Bob Cannon, the former Estes educational director might have had a hand in the skill levels.

Bob was a great guy and worked very hard at what he did at Estes, his passing left a huge void there.

I will try to find out more next week if anyone really knows or not.

[Royatl]

Many years ago, I spoke with Dane Boles who was with Estes for nearly 20 years.

He told me the Skill Level program was nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to increase sales.
...<snip>...

Today, Skill Levels are all about marketing and sales. Nothing else. :(

Bob


I think the Skill level system is the WORST thing that ever happened to Model Rocketry.

I can't tell you how many kids have told me over the years that "I can't build *that* rocket. It's a skill level 3!"

It's a bunch of horsepucky, I tell yas!

[Solomoriah]

Well, I'm prone to disagree with that. I believe that reasonably applied skill levels are a big help when choosing a kit. Kits like the Outlander are much more difficult than a Baby Bertha, for instance, and choosing an Outlander would be a big mistake for a beginner.

[Mark II]

Well, I'm prone to disagree with that. I believe that reasonably applied skill levels are a big help when choosing a kit. Kits like the Outlander are much more difficult than a Baby Bertha, for instance, and choosing an Outlander would be a big mistake for a beginner.
I remember getting my Estes Little Joe II in 1969, opening it up, looking at the parts and the instructions, and thinking, "Gee, this is going to be tricky." It was just the 5th kit that I had ever bought and built. (It was also the last rocket that I built for the next 34 years, but the difficulty level had nothing to do with that.)

The early catalogs do look like they attempted to provide some clues about the difficulty of the kits within the text description, but I think that the illustrations actually said more. The pictures usually told you as much as you would need to know. Besides me, does anyone else think that the kit pictures in the Estes and Centuri catalogs from the mid 60's through most of the 70's were noticeably more vivid and detailed than those of later years? Although it was a gradual change, doesn't it seem like the simplification of the catalog illustrations coincide with the addition of skill levels in the text (text is cheaper to print than pictures)? Then again, maybe this is just a spurious coincidence?

When I came back to the hobby and saw Skill Levels on kits, I didn't know what they meant. While I do think that Royalt makes a good and valid point, I suspect that the considerations that Solo mention were what drove this change in the end. In a way, you could see it as an effort to be truthful in the packaging, providing a small clue about how involved the project was going to be. If adding three little words to the outside of the packaging would prevent customers (and their parents or teachers) from flooding Customer Assistance with calls complaining about being deceived about how involved the model's construction was going to be, then it must have looked like it would be a very cost-effective change. And I would guess that product package and label design is indeed a marketing issue.

Mark

[Gus]

I think the Skill level system is the WORST thing that ever happened to Model Rocketry.
Roy,

The skill levels spurred my daughter to want to work her way up the skill levels. So while they may be an impediment to some kids, they can be an inspiration to others.

I think Flis and Semroc and Starlight do a good job of trying to let consumers know how relatively difficult a kit is to build.

Estes' skill levels, on the other hand, are all over the map. Some are meant to describe how difficult the kit is to build while others designate how much experience the user should have to launch the rocket. An Estes Eliminator is listed at the same level as the 1350 Interceptor. :confused: A Wizard and a Rubicon are the same level. :confused:

I really wish Estes would do a better job of assigning skill levels.

[Solomoriah]

I was just over at Hobbylinc.com and noticed that they use the following titles:

Level 1 Beta
Level 2 Explorer
Level 3 and 4 have no "titles"
Level 5 Pro

They also list "E2X" and "RTF" models.

[Shreadvector]

I was just over at Hobbylinc.com and noticed that they use the following titles:

Level 1 Beta
Level 2 Explorer
Level 3 and 4 have no "titles"
Level 5 Pro

They also list "E2X" and "RTF" models.

Websites of vendors often retain OLD designations (ond old and outdated "information"). The word designations were used around/approximately 10 years ago and died out a few years ago. They have not been in Estes catalogs for many years. See page 3 of the 2007 catalog (online or printed).

Some kits still have the old word based designations (like "Beta Series") and that is simply because the artwork has not changed in 10 years. It means nothing more than that.

[Solomoriah]

Websites of vendors often retain OLD designations (ond old and outdated "information"). The word designations were used around/approximately 10 years ago and died out a few years ago. They have not been in Estes catalogs for many years. See page 3 of the 2007 catalog (online or printed).

Some kits still have the old word based designations (like "Beta Series") and that is simply because the artwork has not changed in 10 years. It means nothing more than that.
I'm well aware of this, Shread. But just because a designation is no longer current does not indicate that its meaning has changed or been somehow erased. Beta = Skill Level 1 remains a valid description, even if Estes no longer says "Beta" in their advertising.

[D Ritchie]

I'll admit that I bought into the whole skill level mindset, but then hey, I was only about ten years old.

And certain rockets, such as the Orbital Transport or Mars Lander, I felt they deserved their designations!

It may have been a marketing ploy, but it sure was a good one!

[Solomoriah]

I'm confident the Mars Lander deserves a Skill Level 5. I'm not sure that the Saturn V qualifies, though... any opinions on the subject?

[ghrocketman]

The only kits I think Estes produced that should have been a Skill Level 5 were the K-29 Saturn 1B, K-41 Mercury Redstone, and the original 1/70 scale Little Joe II.
All had wooden dowel escape towers that are a real PAIN/NUISANCE to build.
I have replaced my Semroc Saturn 1B and LJII 1/70 Apollo capsules with ones from Apogee that have PLASTIC escape towers for this reason; yes it does add $16 to the kit cost but I see no reason to make a build any more painful than it needs to be !

I think the Mars Lander should have been no higher than a Skill Level 4 as it is not really that hard to build as long as you follow the directions closely. In 1971 this one was assigned a "degree of challege" of four.

The Orbital Transport is actually a more difficult build than the Mars Lander as there are so many fins/wings that can be a challenge to mount/align correctly on the tube.

None of the Saturn 5's that Estes produced should have been over a skill level 4.

[Silverleaf]

This is a very interesting discussion and the word "Skill Level" reminds me of two memories that I have of my youth.

The first was the level required to properly build said kit, be it:
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
Master

OR

Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta
Epsilon

and

2) The type of rocket/system that the rocketeer is attempting. For instance..

Level 1 was 3FNC
Level 2 was Glider/Streamer
Level 3 was Multi-Stage
Level 4 was Clustered
Level 5 was Scale

In all instances, I have a clear recollection of learning each stage, working on multiple kits to ensure I was ready for the next. I also remember a vague reference to Scratch-building falling with/near Scale - though slightly below.

I should thank NASA, Estes and Century equally, for each inspired me to become the scale fanatic I am today. Without NASA's vision and guidance, and Estes/Centuries Tech manuals, catalogs, parts and kits, I'd still be in the dark.

Cheers,

[Mark II]

This is a very interesting discussion and the word "Skill Level" reminds me of two memories that I have of my youth.

The first was the level required to properly build said kit, be it:
Beginner
Intermediate ...
...

and

2) The type of rocket/system that the rocketeer is attempting. For instance..

Level 1 was 3FNC
Level 2 was Glider/Streamer ...
...
In all instances, I have a clear recollection of learning each stage, working on multiple kits to ensure I was ready for the next. I also remember a vague reference to Scratch-building falling with/near Scale - though slightly below.
That is interesting; I had never heard of the concept of following a clearly delineated set of "stages" when building rocket kits, and waiting until you had "graduated" from building one type of rocket before you moved on to building rockets that were at the next "stage." I have nothing at all against doing that, but it is certainly very different from what my friends and I were doing when we were kids.

Back before there were skill levels, we just bought whatever kits interested us. Based on the kit pictures and descriptions in the catalogs (see the 1967, '68 and '69 Estes catalogs), my buddy and I would make rough guesses about how complex each kit was going to be to build. Then we would order whatever appealed to us, and whatever we could afford. If it turned out that we were in over our heads with a certain kit, well, there was always Dad or an older brother or a kid down the street available to help us finish it up. Or else we would just assemble the sections that we could do, and leave off the parts that were too complex. In those days, I never knew anyone who followed any kind of programmed progression of skill levels. I'm not trying to say that what we did was better; model rocketry was still relatively new back then, and we had far fewer kits to choose from. Maybe in part because of that, we just followed a different, unstructured approach to building rockets.

Mark

[Silverleaf]

Mark,


My apologies. I didn't mean you had to wait until you had "graduated" . Those Skill levels were solely to teach you more complex ideas of rocketry. By all means if one didn't interest you - in my case Gliders didn't at the time - you simply moved on to the Skill you desired to work on.

Once I discovered Scale - all other forms of rocketry took a back seat for me. That is until I discovered the glory of combining multiple levels - like multi-staging a scale glider - 3 for the price of one. 8)

Cheers and sorry for the confusion,

[Jerry Irvine]

Skill Level involves two terms, each designed to invoke "behavior".

Skill helps consumers to self-regulate their behavior to experience product satisfaction. In the modern world, self-regulation is used (by membership associations) to weed out folks from participation in a hobby too good for some. Perhaps most.

The good old days were better.

Level is a term to emulate educational grades. It implies a "graduation" from one level to the next. Thus a consumer of goods will start with the simple (widely accessable, even at the local retail level and other outlets) , sample the more complex layers until they achieve the ultimate layer. The benefit of this scheme is the likely employment of several samples of each layer until self-image matches perceived skill in that layer. Then the CONSUMER "graduates" to the next layer and samples until it is self-perceived they are "adequate" to move to the next layer or skill.

This necessitates a declining number of samples per layer and a pentultimate sample that justifies the adventure (ie Saturn V, the USA example of Moon Rocket).

Hi guys.

I am Jerry.

U.S. Rockets skill levels are about one ratchet above Estes.

:)

[Mark II]

Mark,


My apologies. I didn't mean you had to wait until you had "graduated" . Those Skill levels were solely to teach you more complex ideas of rocketry. By all means if one didn't interest you - in my case Gliders didn't at the time - you simply moved on to the Skill you desired to work on.
Yes, I did understand what you meant in your description of the skills progression. When I said "graduated," I meant the term to be understood to mean "as self-assessed," which is why I put it in quotations. I guess I should have been more clear about that. I did read your post as describing a self-paced learning process that you had pursued, and also assumed that it was your own freely chosen regime of self-disciplined skills development. Your process was in striking contrast to the way my friends and I pursued the hobby, as I went on to describe in my post. Like you, we were also developing our model-building skills (after a fashion :rolleyes: ), and we were aware of that, but we were certainly not doing so in any deliberate, purposeful and progressive way. Partly because there weren't that many of them at the time, we didn't always think of the kits as being designed for hobbyists who were at different skill levels. More often, we tended to just see them as possessing a range of "tricky" sections, with some kits having many tricky parts (like the Saturn 1B), others having hardly any (like the Alpha), and the rest as ranging somewhere in between these extremes. We made these rough estimates based on our reading of the catalogs.

The presumed level of complexity was only one of several criteria we used in deciding what kit to buy. We didn't always see it as a particularly critical one, though, especially when we were looking at kits that we thought were really cool and really wanted to get. ;) (We didn't always give it enough weight, and we often assumed that we could get someone to bail us out if we needed it.) Cost was often a much bigger factor in the decision.

Mark

[Mark II]

The first was the level required to properly build said kit, be it:
...

Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta
Epsilon
...

Well, the package on my Alpha says that it's a Beta, and my Beta could be called a Gamma! :D

(Sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you. If I didn't say that, someone else would :rolleyes: ...)

Mark




P.S. And what about Gamma? Well, as we all know, Gamma lives next door to Uncle Bill in Sedona, where she paints pictures and makes things out of crystals. Mom says that every once in awhile she also "chews buttons" (?) and "goes out of her mind" for a couple days :confused:. (No, I don't get it, either.) Dad says that's when Uncle Bill has to go over to her house and hide the guns.

P.P.S. Oh, and Gampa? Well, he got a hair transplant a couple of years ago and now lives way over in South Beach, Florida with "little Gamma."

[Rocket Doctor]

Another aspect of Skill levels are the instructions. When I was doing insturctions for Estes, I was given the prints, bill of materials and the parts, and if the kit was new, you had to start from scratch.

Keeping in mind, you had to outline the instructions as if the builder has never built a kit before. As we all know, there are "short cuts" that we all take since we have built many kits before. But, when setting up instructions, you cannot use those short cuts.

Estes had changed over from "verbage" to more graphics, the reason for this was, when translated into other languages, something simple in English, could be a "novel" in another language.

My motto was, the more information the better, especially on parts, at one time, Estes was going to eleiminate the part numbers on the front page, no reference, I was told by the former marketing manageer, who is no longer there, that's to prevent "cloning".

But, if a cutomer had a missing part or needed extra parts, it would have been hard to describe all the parts listed on the front page. I always put down the part number, and full description.

In my opinion, skill level is just a guideline, each individual builder can judge his or her level of building knowhow.

I have seen new members to the hobby wanting to build a Saturn V because it looked "cool" only to be disappointed with the end results and dropping out of the hobby before they even get started.

You would have to agree, some builders could handle a higher skill level kit from the get go, while other need to start off with the basics. Over time, all builder will progress up the "scale". Skill levels are only a guideline, it's not gospel.

[Jeff Walther]

Funny, I was just thinking of this very subject the other day! I remember(one of the few remaining memories of those by-gone days) going to the hobby store and looking at these cool kits that were rated as skill level 5(mainly the Saturn V).

The Mercury Redstone from around 1974 should have been skill level 6. You had to carve these little notches in the vanes at the bottoms of the fins and assemble that escape tower out of individually cut (you cut them yourself) dowel rods.

I loved that kit. I can't remember whatever happened to it. I keep looking at the ones on Ebay, but they're all the newer version with the plastic parts. Hmmm. I bet I can build it from the plans, right? There's no plastic...

[LeeR]

I think the Skill level system is the WORST thing that ever happened to Model Rocketry.

I can't tell you how many kids have told me over the years that "I can't build *that* rocket. It's a skill level 3!"

It's a bunch of horsepucky, I tell yas!

Ditto that! It is arbitrary, and 5 levels are too many levels. I could see kits described as "Beginner", "Intermediate", and "Advanced". But how can anyone decide the difference between a Level 2 and Level 3? Or a Level 3 and a Level 4? In many cases, not much.

I also get irritated at rocket websites that list their kits as different skill levels. I do not necessarily want to go back and forth thru 5 pages, seeing what is available. Up front, in BOLD, and easy to find -- give me a link that shows ALL kits. If you want to put a skill level on the kit, that is fine, and I'll ignore it, but I'll concede that maybe it will be helpful to others.

[ghrocketman]

+1 to the Original Estes K-41 Mercury redstone being worthy of "Skill level 6".
I still have two of those new-in-bag and remember that the escape tower on that one was much more difficult to build than anything in ANY other Skill 5 kit, including the 1/70 K-29 Saturn 1B Apollo capsule tower.
Tons of small pieces that one had to individually fabricate.
Each fin was comprised of no less than 6 individual pieces, with each piece requiring complex sanding.
By far the most difficult model rocket build I have ever seen or have built by a LONG shot.
If you can build a K-41 MR and do a QUALITY job, you can build any rocket kit produced.

[Rocket Doctor]

In my opinion, skill levels should be done away with. Each and every builder is unique and they can or cannot build a particuliar kit.

A 10 year old may be able to build a saturn V, while someone much older may not.

Skill levels are just a way to give the potential builder some clue as to difficulty, and, the skill level may or may not fit that particulir kit.

The escape towers on the Mercury capsules are very difficault, and, the last time that Estes brought out the Mercury-Redstone, I tried to get them to have the capsule and tower molded to eliminate that problem.

The original Gemini-Titan from the 1966 catalog was another challenging kit as well, especially the motor section, those small dowels didn't seem to cooperate with the builder, the second release was plastic parts.

[Solomoriah]

"Problem?" Dude, building the escape tower for the Redstone (or about any scale kit of that era) is an ACHIEVEMENT. Making it easy takes away the challenge of building a difficult kit.

[Gus]

The original Gemini-Titan from the 1966 catalog was another challenging kit...

I thought the hardest part of any Estes kit I built as a kid was putting in the window wells on the Gemini Titan capsule. This was in the pre-dremel era when those wells had to be put in with an exacto and a piece of sandpaper. Making the two of them look symetric and properly spaced was incredibly nerve-wracking, especially considering that, with my personal space program budget at the time, replacing the capsule was not an option.

I think the second most difficult Centuri/Estes kit task was the Saturn wraps. Even with the contact cement, there really weren't any do-overs.

With the Mercury escape tower you could at least redo it umpteen times til you got it (sort-of) right. ;)

[JAL3]

When I was a kid, I paid attention to skill levels only because they gave me "bragging rights" when dealing with the other kid in my neighborhood who built rockets. All of the "cool" rockets had higher numbers and those were the one I kept trying to build...and failed to do a decent job. I did not have the skills to pull them off.

I understood thing on re-entering the hobby as an adult and wanted to do better. Most of the visually appealing kits (to me) were higher skill levels but those were the ones I really wanted to build.

Semroc put me on the right path. I had never heard of them as a kid but I placed a big order from them as a BAR. I know the Mars Lander and Saturn 1B were part of that order as well as a Hydra and SLS Lazer-X. There were some others as well but the most important one was the one I did not order. I got a free Squire thrown in. When they came, I drooled for a while but realized that I did not have the skills to put together the "cool" ones and started out with the Squire. I still have it.

At the same time, I was accumulating kits from all over the place. I had gone crazy, but I was pleased with my initial success. I even got The Point to work properly and, as a kid, the paper shrouded rockets were my bane; to which I returned and failed over and over again.

I hit on a system. I divided all my rockets into piles based on the given skill level or what I assumed the level to be. I would build a 1 and then a 2. Then I would do a 1 and a 2 again. Next time I did 1, 2 then 3 for a couple of itterations. Finally, I got up to a 4 and it actually worked. It wasn't too embaressing to look at either. I was also pleased that I had build some nFC rockets that worked well, looked good and I grew fond of along the way.

I don't follow my training curve system anymore (very much) but I still have not started a level 5.

I have been thrown sometimes by what seems to be mislabeling of skill levels that don't make sense but they have been, overall, a usefull guide. To me, the most notorious one was the Estes Cosmos Mariner. It was rated a 2. It was my second attempt at a 2. It is still unfinished. I was still learning about Fill n Finish and the thing is plastered in "stucco". Every now and then, I will sand some more and, one of these days, I might get down to the wood again. I do know that it has been harder than some of the level 3 and even one of the level 4s.

I like the system. I just wish it was a bit more systemitized.

[Rocket Doctor]

"Problem?" Dude, building the escape tower for the Redstone (or about any scale kit of that era) is an ACHIEVEMENT. Making it easy takes away the challenge of building a difficult kit.

Many escape towers were left missing for the fact that they couldn't be built correctly. You have to admit, they are a pain in the ........to build, even for a seasoned builder.

And, it you would happen to crash your rocket, and the escape tower was ruined, all that work went down the drain.

[Solomoriah]

Saturday rangerstl flew his Zooch Little Joe several times; the escape tower broke off once, and he glued it back on. Evidently, the base of the tower is one of those fiber discs you pop out of a centering ring; it tears off cleanly between the layers, saving the tower itself from breaking.

We did almost lose it in the grass, but when it was found he was able to reattach it very quickly using some CA I had in my range box.