I thought it was pretty sickening the way the article emphasized the catos.
Over and over it was the screwups and explosions that interested the writer.
I can't see how that is a big plus in popularizing the hobby.
But then, where did he get the idea that people 'enjoy' seeing catastrophes?
Maybe from attending launches and observing people's reactions to them, eh?
Still, he could have done a lot better. I don't recall that he spent much
time talking about interesting instrumentation or data analysis. He wrote it
up like HPR was just an upscale amateur fireworks hootenanny. Not good.
Aaaack! I agree with Fred! The world is coming to an end.
Even the Discovery Channel shows over a year ago were slanted towards
showing the failures and marginal stuff. EVERY time someone talks to me
about that show, the first thing they seem to mention is "that idiot with
the cigarette in his mouth"...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none.
Why would you think it was PopSci's mandate to "popularize the
hobby"? And to the casual spectator, of course the CATOs become
the most interesting part of the launch. The successful flights
quickly become routine. As my wife says, "They go up, they come
down ... they go up, they come down ..."
Most of us who planned and hosted LDRS 23 actually thought, for
the most part, that the article was fair and accurate. The
general public isn't going to be interested in an HPR, ER or
Sport Rocketry type of article, with rocket kit names and motor
designations and certification attempts documented ad nauseum.
And as for "popularizing the hobby", the print version of the
article includes a link to the LDRS 24 web site, from which
people can get to the TRA site. Also, in the print version the
author and the photographer are quoted as saying:
"Despite the occasional launchpad burn-up or midair explosion,
injuries to bystanders were non-existent..."
and
"The rocketeer culture is one of the coolest I've encountered."
Hmmm. "Occasional mishaps", "no injuries", "cool culture".
Doesn't sound like a slamming of the hobby to me, but just an
article written from the perspective of a single spectator
attending his first rocket launch.
...Rick
--
Rick Dunseith
BRS 0079 - LDRS 23 Committee
TRA 7162 - L3/TAP
CAR S376 - L4
President, NAPAS (www.napas.net)
Seeing as the magazine is titled "Popular SCIENCE", I personally would
have expected an article of a more serious tone; focussing on the
educational aspects of the hobby; instead of the "fiery thrills and spills".
The magazine may be written for the general population, but they usually
treat their subject matter with respect.
--
Greg Heilers
Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
Serious science? The same issue had an article on a guy who
flies around suspended from dozens of large helium filled
balloons. :-)
The LDRS 23 article sidebars, in the print version at least,
highlight a number of individual flights, listing rocket size and
weight, type of motor, time and financial investment, altitude
achieved, etc. One sidebar includes cutaway drawings and brief
explanations of solid vs. hybrid motors. One directs readers to
a web page highlighting interesting dates in rocketry history
(www.popsci.com/rocketeers).
In the body of the article is a brief explanation of the
evolution from BP to composite motors, and a high-level
explanation of how rocket motors work in general. There's
mention of our regulatory woes. There's mention and a
description of hybrid motors as an alternative to solid-fuel
motors. And there's mention of our EX activities and highlights
from the EX day flights.
So there is actually some "science" (enough for the layman, at
least) mixed in with the sensationalism in that article.
FWIW, not everyone thought it was a disrespectful article. While
some on the TRA forum were offended by it, most of the
respondents seemed to think it was a pretty reasonable article.
...Rick
Yes...but such articles are always outweighed by "serious" (though
written for the layman) articles on astronomy, physics, aeronautics,
electronics, medical technology, computers, etc.
I, personally, did not find the article too insulting; though I can see
where many would. But remember....most of the insulting, embarrassing, or
disrespectful quotations...came from the rocketeers themselves.
--
Greg Heilers
Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
THIS is a serious problem that MUST be addressed by NAR and TRA. We will
NEVER win against the BATFE if this is the image we are presenting to
others.
Even the Discovery channel stuff did more harm than good IMHO. The only
thing I can recall seeing on TV that showed our hobby in a favorable light
was the 10 minutes of footage in "Voyage to the Milky Way" that included Ray
Halm's Arcon flight.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the
principles of a democratic society, accountable government and
international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner
consistent with the Constitution.
Do you have any pointers on controlling the press?
On 11 Jul 2005 13:46:13 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob
Kaplow) wrote:
It's a matter of having the right person being the focal point for media for
the organization(s). I think one excellent job was the WSJ article that
Bunny worked on for at least 6 months.
I intend to go to NARAM and bring this issue up with the NAR BOT. I think
it's something that requires as much joint effore between NAR and TRA as our
current BATFE struggle.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
This is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a country
that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its constitutional
heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values
that lie at the roots of our democratic system. -- Supreme Court
Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1972
I don't have a problem with the article. I'll say it could have
emphisized CATOs a little less but as the author stated, unless you
are an enthusiast, nominal flights get boring.
What do you think Bunny would have done differently and to what
outcome?
On 12 Jul 2005 13:45:29 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob
Kaplow) wrote:
How do you propose they "address" it, Bob? The ONLY way is to either
ban members from speaking to the press at these events, or only allow
them to "read the script". Neither of those is in any way, shape or
form acceptable.
-Kevin
kevin: I also have problems with a "script".....
But don't you think it would be good if there was at least some form of
mutually agreed pros and cons?
I mean ONE clear loud voice would seem to me to be better than 1000 smaller
voices...
shockie B)
Your pros and cons don't necessarily match mine, and so forth.
The better way is when you know the media will be present, select
someone from the host group that's eloquent and stops and thinks before
answering questions, and have that person be their initial contact and
show them around.
-Kevin
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.