What about having a Team Double Shot- The team would consist of at least two people, one of which was NOT a level 1 flyer at the beginning of the year. Each team member would have to materially participate in the construction and be on-site during both launches. Have a set G and an I motor, and the sum of the altitudes would be the score. One chance at each motor. This would encourage newbies to get their level 1 cert and provide some mentoring and comradery while giving some first-hand experience with HPR construction techniques, larger bore motors, electronic deploy, etc. Motor costs would also be split among 2+ people, keeping the cost reasonable. There seems to be a lot of new members this year that could participate and benefit.

I'd hope this would be in addition to the low-power SSS and level 2 SSSS. If we had this additional contest, perhaps it would take the "pressure" off the SSS and allow a lower impulse motor/lower altitude/lower cost launch as I suggested above.

I didn't get my SSS bird together this year but plan to participate next year. I like the idea of the combined event but think it should be in addition to the individual events (separate entry and pool). The team concept for it sounds very intriguing but I don't think it would work for a cert flight for L1 as the rocket has to be built (Exclusively?) by the flier (a more experienced member could clarify for us?).

Interesting idea for the combined event...2-stages must be flown with the altitudes of each stage combined for the total (or I suppose the sustainer alt would cover it)!? A single shot with both attempts included (a L1/2 booster with a LPR sustainer) for a max altitude! Obviously tracking electronics would be required and potentially other devices for staging, deployment, altitude, etc. If we go this route my preference is for an L1 motor for the booster but thats just me being selfish as I have an L1 booster already!

As for the SSS I would prefer it be kept to a SU motor for simplicity and mass participation. I have 24 and 29mm RMS cases but they add cost for others and complexity for those unfamiliar and I don't want to lose them either. I also think we (NCR) should tailor the SSS to take down a specific TRA and/or NAR record as Warren sort of suggested. I like the idea of no electronics for the SSS but if we go that route think we should also get serious about posting trackers/spotters for recording the altitudes and helping to locate rockets (this may also be in conflict with the record attempts, not sure if they require electronics for verification with TRA and NAR)?

My .02 worth!

John

Double-Shot sounds interesting as good flights on two separate rockets needed to win.

Double-shot staged sounds like a lot of lost upper stages to me... there's enough trouble finding the single stage G80s. Add a staging event and you not only make optical tracking near impossible, but you widen the landing area significantly for rockets that stage when they are not pointed quite straight up.

To add more confusion, I'd like to suggest "ss" (yes lower case 's'-es) for 'slow shot', blackpowder E9 being the only motor, and $5 or $10 entry fee, to entice the kids and other non-carbon fiber people.

Non seriously: Also "horizontal shot" Altitude using motors mounted +/- 10 15 degrees from horizontal (see Scott Hommas monocopter).

I'm intruiged by this E9 concept... Low and slow... hmmm. Ideas?

Warren

I agree with SpaceCowboy in that a Team Double Shot would be in addition to the existing individual contest. And I realize that a team attempt would not count as a Level 1 cert, but like many things doing it first supervised and then individually improves the learning curve.

The Double Shot idea that Joe brought up has forked a bit. Just to recap the options:
1) Have a combined contest that add the actual altitudes of the SSS and SSSS on the same airframe.
2) An additional individual contest with two shots, starting with an F or G motor first and a H or I motor second. Same rocket used for both shots.
3) As #2 above but with a team entry, with one 'apprentice' member and one 'experienced' member.
4) A two stage double shot
5) As #2 above but with a different rocket for each

Let's keep the discussion and opinion going on the Double Shot. A LOT of people are lurking here, please let's hear what you have to say.

The Single Shot evolution for 2009 has the following ideas thrown out:
1) Keep participation high and G impulse or below (Strong support for this)
2) Use a single-use motor to keep cost and complexity down (Strong support for this)
3) Allow for either motor charge or electronic deployment
4) Keep the SSS an individual event
5) Suggestion to go with a lower impulse motor to enable visual tracking and tighter design requirements (some support for this)
6) Potential youth-oriented SSS with a low impulse motor (like E-9) in addition to current SSS.

If we can approach agreement on the outline of the SSS, we can move on to motor selection. Having the SSS nailed down might also help us develop ideas for SSSS, Double Shot, etc...

E9 Low and Slow-
In a really light rocket, an Estes E9 could get to 3000' and be moderately fast. You would have to institute a minimum weight to get the low and slow effect. It would be cheaper though and would be the most accessible contest of what is mentioned. I think we would have to forgo the cash prize as I'm not sure it is kosher to have kids playing a sweepstakes.

Depending on the contest structure and what motor is eventually chosen for SSS, we might be able to entice more youth to participate in the SSS. Or with what is settled upon it may heighten the need for an entry level contest like the E9 you suggested. But I do see a lot of kids out at the launches and it doesn't appear they participate in contests much. Bryans brings up a good point about youth participation and we should keep that in mind.

By the way, I think the SSS is leaning toward a solution that does not require carbon or give it much advantage.

"low and slow" was mostly in comparison to G80 and J350 entries that do instantaneous translation to apogee rather than moving slow enough for my old eyes 🙂

The SSS has NEVER required carbon or composite construction. My first SSS - powered by an H180, was plain phenolic. Every one of my G80 powered SSS birds were either plain phenolic or even paper tubing. If I hadn't recused myself from this years SSS, I would have done an Estes paper tube wrapped with a one or perhaps two wraps of 1.5 oz glass.

Anyone wasting their time and money on fancy composite techniques for the SSS is getting into a helluva lot of overkill. Now for the SSSS that's a different story - a minimum diameter J350 bird that isn't made out of all composite materials MIGHT be possible with just phenolic, but it better be relatively short.

Warren

I created a survey on a third party website. Let's hear what motors people are interested in for next year's SSS.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=BulSUzZREVuYzPm5L_2fklUQ_3d_3d

It doesn't provide a results page, so I will periodically post survey status.

Chad,

We can readily create surveys here on the site, just send me a PM with what you want and I can post it in about 10 minutes WITH online results.

Warren

We've had five votes on the SurveyMonkey link above. So far, no consensus at all! One vote for each of the following, except the E9 which got 2 votes:
Estes-E9
Apogee-F10
AT-F20W
RoadRunner-E25
AT-F26FJ
AT-G40W
RoadRunner-F60
AT-G80T (new)

The only sure thing is there is little interest to have next year's contest use the same motor. People are looking for variety.

Warren is planning on moving the survey to within the NCR forum, but for now feel free to add your response to the existing off-site survey.

Chad

With 7 survey entries, opinions seem rather diffuse. Two motors got two votes- Estes E9 and RoadRunner F60. The rest got a single vote. Two write-in suggestions were the AeroTech F20W and the AeroTech F27R, both EconoJets. An additional write in Suggestion was the I435, I assume intended for the SSSS.

I propose that we narrow the choices down to three motors. 1) at the low end, the Estes E9, 2) at the mid range one of the medium impulse AeroTech F motors, 3) the RoadRunner F60. That covers three manufacturers and the spread of votes except for one vote for the 136 N-s AeroTech G80T. The discussion was leading toward a motor that allowed for visual tracking, and the G80T would be the most challenging in that regard- wispy smoke and 6500+ altitude.

For the medium impulse AeroTech motors, there are three suggested motors.

First is the EconoJet F20W-7. 23 N average thrust, 60 N-s total impulse, and 2.7 sec burn. It has a pronounced regressive thrust curve and is roughly $28 for two motors. It produces altitudes in the 4800' range. The delay is a bit short, resulting in deployment at 100 FPS in my RockSim test rocket. Optimum weight is in the 3 oz/80 gram range.
Second is the single use F26FJ-9. It has 26 N average thrust, 62 N-s total impulse and 2.4 sec burn. Black tracking smoke. It produces altitudes in the 4800' range also, the delay about the same with deployment at 80 FPS. Optimum weight in the 2.5 oz/ 70 gram range. All in all very comparable to the F20 but a little less regressive. $20 each.
Third in the medium thrust Fs is the Econojet F27R-8. 24 N average thrust, 50 N-s total impulse, and 2.0 sec burn. Similar thrust curve to the F20 but with a lower total impulse. Expected altitude about 4000' with an 3 oz/ 80 gram optimum weight. Delay produces deployment at about 80 FPS. $30 for two motors.

People can continue to vote on the Survey Monkey Link ( http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=BulSUzZREVuYzPm5L_2fklUQ_3d_3d ) or further the discussion here. How does this sound to people?