Pay Forward - Get out and Vote!

Commentary by Tim Van Milligan

There are two proposed rule changes in the NAR contest "Pink Book" that were just published in the NAR "The Model Rocketeer" Newsletter (June 1999). These two rule changes would have a vast impact on model rocketry, far more than they will have on competition rocketry. So I am urging people to get out and vote "NO" on them.

Basically, the first rule change would reduce the contest points for the R&D event, and the second, would drop it all together as a contest event. Both are very bad for the hobby.

Both of these proposed rule changes have the same effect. They are a way for people to get more "personal glory," by doing less work; and at the expense of future generations of rocketeers. I believe, and I will try to explain this to you -- that these proposed changes are the exact opposite of what Harry Stine always said: "don't pay back -- pay forward!"

The arguments put forward in the proposed changes seem to indicate that the original purpose of the R&D event was to share information among modelers. I don't believe that this was the intent of the event. There has always been methods to disseminate information, even though the methods have changed as technology has advanced.

I've also heard it said that the people that do the really extensive R&D projects would probably have done them anyway, even if they weren't part of NAR competition. That I think is totally true. But I believe that even the whimpy R&D projects that are done by competitors specifically to get "contest points" have a lot of merit for the hobby. This is very important, and needs to be explained further.

The adult contestant that does an R&D project is "paying forward" for the hobby of model rocketry. I believe this is true, because my own personal rocketry development was greatly influenced by the old R&D projects that were done in the 70's and 80's. When I first started to get serious about the hobby, I sought out technical information and the only place I could find it was in the R&D reports submitted by the older modelers. It would be a shame if today's youth didn't have information like I found useful. And technology continues to advance, new reports are still needed, and the NAR R&D event is the best centralized location for a new modeler to access easily.

Even the bad reports taught me something. It is often said that a person can learn a lot more through failure than through success. So I was able to find the mistakes that were made, and that has also furthered my knowledge of rocketry.

Also, the very act of an adult performing an R&D project sets an example to younger modelers. Kids will see that R&D is important for the hobby; and hopefully, they will realize that some day they will need to pay forward and perform an R&D project or some other service too. What example do we set by reducing the importance of R&D if either of these two rule change proposals are approved? It would send a message to the kids that they don't need to put anything back into the hobby. That philosophy probably would have scared Harry Stine, and it certainly scares me.

R&D should be left alone as part of the contest events. Why? Because if it is removed or reduced in importance, less R&D projects will be performed by adults. And children will stop performing them all together. This by itself would be a great loss to the hobby.

But R&D in competition also has other advantages. First, because R&D has been part of past competitions, the judges and other NAR members have a strong knowledge of what type of research has been performed previously. They become a great source of knowledge. I'm often asked about old projects, as it is easier for other people to ask than it would be for them to do a search in many different places. By eliminating R&D as a contest event, then we'd lose a lot of rocketry experts. This can't be good for the hobby.

Second, people know when projects are going to be presented, because they happen every year at the same time. If they aren't in the competition, there is no guarantee that they will ever be presented. And that the person who performed the work won't be questioned extensively about the results. I know this to be true, because I've involved in the scheduling of NARAM-2000, and we're having a hard problem finding the time we need for all the evening activities. If there wasn't a requirement to have R&D presentations as an activity, then they wouldn't ever be scheduled. These presentations are a great teaching tool for younger modelers. They see how the experienced modelers question the validity of the results, and how the results could be implemented into real rocketry projects.

Third, many of the R&D projects that are performed have major benefit to other people that choose to participate in NAR competitions. If R&D was moved out of NARAM to NARCON, then most of the people that would benefit most from the presentations would not be around to hear the results. Again, people wouldn't have a chance to ask questions to the person that performed the project.

I believe that by keeping R&D in the pink book as a contest event, and of great importance with a very high contest weight factor, lets everyone know that there are many of us rocketeers that are willing to forget the immediate personal glory of winning a National Championship, and want to pay forward for the larger goal of winning a stronger hobby.

I would hope that those people that actually win the National Championship, which is the highest award of the NAR, have done their part to "pay forward." If they are only in it for the personal glory, then it doesn't say much for our organization.

I believe that the intent of the R&D event is to advance the state of the hobby. Not only in competition, but in other areas as well. If these two proposed rule changes were to be approved, the quantity of R&D presentations would be vastly diminished, and the results would be harder to find. Both of these wouldn't affect us much in the immediate future, but the long term consequences are really going to hurt the hobby.

The blue colored "Model Rocketeer" (June 1999 issue) that was sent to NAR members contains a ballot for these proposed rule changes on page 6. I urge all eligible NAR members to vote "NO" for these two rule changes. They are RCP#9000020-20 and RCP #9000030-30. It is important to send in your ballot now (before July 15). We really need to defeat these two proposals. It is for the future growth of the hobby.

Tim Van Milligan is the President of Apogee Components, and author of the books: "Model Rocket Design and Construction," and "69 Simple Science Fair Projects with Model Rockets."

mailto:tvm@apogeerockets.com

Information date: July 25, 1999 lk