Oldtimers Question: NARAM inquiry

Does anybody remember or know when the NAR quit selecting the participants for its NARAM and opened it up to all who wanted to attend? tia
shockie B)

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:02:15 GMT, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't know if that was ever the case. My first was Naram 12.
I do know that contestants could make their own motors for the first national meet. I'm not sure when that option ended. There was a period when motors used were required to be purchased from the range store. I think 12 was last year motors sold at the range store were marked to indicate such, but they were not required to be used at the contest.
I'd certainly like open participation to continue, but I like so to some seeding effects based on pre NARAM accumulated points. I'd like to see something like the top three seeds in each division excused from range duty, or made completely voluntary, and people in the top 10 be given their preference on scheduling range duties.
Alan

alan:
in the beginning it certainty was like that. People submitted applications and the contest board (or others) actually selected the participants. NARAM-12 was my first NARAM too (and NARAM-13) and anybody that showed up could attend.
The reason I know this to be true, is I have been collecting old articles from modeler magazines of the day and have been reading about NARAM's 2-7 and they all had contestant limits.
Also "back in the day" NARAM was not held the first weekend of the month of August as it is today. nor did it last all week. It used to be held close to the 2nd-3rd week of August and it was only 3-4 days in length.
Here's what G.Harry Stine had to say about the 4th NARAM held at the Air Force Academy in 1962, and I quote:
" Model rocketeers turned up from Connecticut,New York,Minnesota,Texas, Oklahoma,Kansas, Arizona,Illinois,Wisconsin and Utah. There were about 100 people involved , 80 of whom were contestants. In case you're wondering why so few, NAR Had to limit the number of entrants this year or things would have gotten out of hand. NAR aims to hold down the number of contestants in its NARAM through elimination contests and regional meets so that the affair doesn't get too big too manage. Thus, only the best modelers get to come"
From 1963 NARAM-5 coverage, G.Harry states and I quote thus:
"At early Nationals(I assume here he meant NARAM's,1-3) ANY NAR member could enter and fly, but with NARAM-4 in 1962 things began to get a little out of hand. The Association's Contest Board foresaw several hundred contestants so they set a limit of 50 entrants for NARAM. How do you pick the nation's top 50 model rocketeers? And what about the new blood that has always shown up each year? The procedure finally followed was to simply ask who could come to NARAM-5. Over 100 indicated they could make it. From these 50 were chosen. A selection board compared the contest points each applicant had amassed during the shooting year. It was also considered how long a modrocnut had been active in the NAR. Finally, to give balance to the meet,the board noted your geographical location."
From 1964 NARAM-7 coverage and I quote G.Harry again:
"NARAM is an invitational meet. Potential contestants signify that they can come if invited, and from this list a slate of 75 contestants was chosen by the NAR Contest Board on the basis of each rocketeer's competition record during the year. Incumbent National Champions were allowed to defend their titles. Over 150 enthusiasts applied for slots at NARAM-7, and it was a tough job to winnow them out. The best were invited to Aberdeen."
It makes you wonder how such a system would be perceived or tolerated in todays world? Also I wonder how long the people who was not selected back then, stayed in the NAR? Did the NAR shoot themselves in their own foot by turning away scores of contestants?
SO it appears this started at NARAM-4 in 1962.
shockie B)
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

I remember the info that came with the application to NARAM 13 said that contestants would be chosen, and there was a checkbox to state whether if you weren't chosen, you would still like to be a non-contestant participant (NCP). Since it was my first NARAM, and didn't know anybody else in the NAR except my own section, I doubted I would be chosen. The three from my section were myself, John Langford, and Willard Arbour. If there was any choosing, we probably got preferential treatment because it was the first NARAM for all of us, and we were from Georgia, which I think hadn't been well represented at past NARAMs. I think Willard applied as a NCP; at least I don't remember him flying any competition. And there were a couple of other Georgians from Dalton (Tancred Lidderdale was one of them)
I was really excited when I got the letter saying I was a contestant.
The next two years, anyone from my new section that wanted to compete at NARAM got to do so (we had a couple of guys each year), and I don't think their info packets mentioned anything about having to be chosen.
So, if there ever was anything like that, it was gone by NARAM 14, and it didn't seem to be a problem at 13 either. I think by 18 or 19 they were *begging* people to come to NARAM.
Roy nar12605
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
I am just glad to see NAR is STILL all about limiting participation, rmr is STILL all about some guy named Jerry, and you are here to restate history in an oblique and innacurate way.
It was G Harry himself who advocated "misfire alley" so literally any capacity launch could happen. In addition to G Harry's NARWIN contest, it seems to me someone else who has written articles here in the past was a "misfire alley" advocate.
I suppose simply saying that makes me someone to attack??
ROFL.
I am not old.

I don't see how I "restated " history in an oblique and inaccurate way. My quotes were direct quotes from magazines articles of the day by G.Harry himself.
As far as "inaccurate" history goes, you are the one that is propagating inaccurate information. If you happen to peruse the July 1969 issue of Model Rocketry magazine , G.Harry has an article that describes the genesis of the Misfire Alley system. It happened to be 1965. As pictures in these old articles clearly show, in the first NARAM's they used LONG ( and I mean 30ft plus!) rack launchers with a centralized launch controller that had been built by Vern Estes and donated to the NAR. The misfire alley system of G.Harry was not used at a NARAM until NARAM-8 at Clinton County AFB, Wilmington, OH in 1966 and then it was a small disaster.
Oh and here are some representative samples of contestant participants at some early NARAM's:
NARAM 1 1959 Denver, CO 21 NARAM 2 1960 Denver, CO 27 NARAM 4 1962 USAF Academy Colorado Springs, CO 80 NARAM 5 1963 Hanscom Field, MA 55 NARAM 7 1965 Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Aberdeen, MD 75 NARAM 11 1969 USAF Academy Colorado Springs, CO >100 NARAM 12 1970 JSC Clear Lake City/Houston, TX 188 NARAM 13 1971 Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Aberdeen, MD 294
shockie B)
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Thanks for the data.
A comparison to three recent NARAMs would be helpful.
  Quoted Text Here  
Cut.
  Quoted Text Here  
Fact. You confirnmed it.
  Quoted Text Here  
Established by others later. At least one Lucerne launch and at least one Ocotillo launch I went to were misfire alley and large attendance.
I cannot remember a LDRS for example where the lines were not over an hour long.
  Quoted Text Here  
So without starting a new arguement, who advocates or employs misfire alley these days? Apparantly not NARAM or LDRS, eh??

snipped-for-privacy@everywhere.com wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Plaster Blaster was...
David Erbas-White

snipped-for-privacy@everywhere.com wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
LDRS23,
Geneseo, NY.

snipped-for-privacy@everywhere.com writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
NARAM has used a Satellite system since the early 80s. The current one is designed to be set up as a 100' diameter ring of 18 pads. The distance works out so that for A-D, you can fire any pad regardless of what is going on at any other pad, so in this way it's like a Misfire Alley, but still under the control of a single LCO. For E-F-G models, you have to clear one pad on either side of the rocket being flown.
Remember that for NARAM, once the flight is launches, there are still range resources, either timers, trackers, or judges, attached to the flight.

Hi Bob,
Here is some data for you.
Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
We used the satellite system at the 1980 World Champs. I don’t know if this was the first or not, but it was the first one I has a hand in. JK
Bob Kaplow wrote:
> >>Does anybody remember or know when the NAR quit selecting the participants >>for its NARAM and opened it up to all who wanted to attend? > > > To the best of my knowledge, they never did that. The rule was therein > case it ever became necessary to do so. But it was never used, at > > > least not in the time I was a member. >
The NAR did select who could enter the nationals. I know that in 1963 at NARAM 5 they did. I applied to fly and did not get selected. So I went and worked on the range. JK

  Quoted Text Here  
I recall that, and that's how I remember when it was first used at NARAM: 1981. IIRC it got "lost" (the launch system that never returned) after NARAM-33, and NIRAs system was shipped to Nevada for NARAM-34, and then we built the current NAR system a couple years later. It's been a LONG time since NARAM was flown on racks.
BTW, I know who has (or at least had) much of the equipment that was in the Volume 1 of the NAR handbook: the racks with MMI towers, the elbow theodolites, etc. I wonder what the proper place to get this stuff donated to would be: probably Bill Stine's museum when it finally happens.

On 26 Oct 2005 12:30:35 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Wouldn't that give a significant advantage to those contestants in altitude events who launch from the side of the ring closest to the trackers?
- Rick "Unless +/- 50' is negligible wrt the baseline" Dickinson

Rick Dickinson wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Nope - the baseline is between the the trackers, not from the trackers to the pad.
Dale Greene SPAAR 503

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
NAR contest events use a two-station (often more at national events) azimuth-elevation tracking system, so distance from the pads has little bearing on results.
-

  Quoted Text Here  
If you were using one Estes style elevation only tracker, yes. With 2 or more theodolites, it doesn't matter where you launch from, or which direction you might arc over.
I do pick pads based on flying conditions, but not for altitude reasons.

  Quoted Text Here  
Yup, there is a "sweet spot" where closure is more probable. Choose a launcher as close to, and centered on the baseline, as possible.
GC

  Quoted Text Here  
Is that true regardless of the data reduction method used? V-M closures go to pot near the baseline.

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Some time ago I started looking at data reduction errors. I even went so far as to start cobbling up a web page. I haven't finished as I got distracted but that preliminary page does have a plot of the error for the two station geodesic method.
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/rnd/trackingdata/tracking.html
As you can see in the picture at the bottom, the minimum error actually happens slightly offset from the baseline.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
"Monte Carlo runs
In order to better compare the results of the various data reduction methods, I wanted to see how they performed in the presence of random noise. Since I don;t have a good feel for the probability distribution function of real data, I will simply use nice zero mean Gaussian noise. The standard distribution for this noise is 1 degree which seems to be about the right amount to simulate the magnitude of typical errors.
So. pick a point in space and then compute the azimuth and elevation angles for each tracking station. Now added random noise to each of these and round to the nearest half degree (simulating the typical resolution of tracking hardware) and compute the results. Repeat."
Oh well, nice try David. ;)
I once suggested that one of the tracking stations could be located at the launch site to eliminate one communication set. However, in practice I DO recommend placing the lauch site well off the baseline, such as the clasic 60-60-60 configuration.
Alan