TARC

Did AIA or the insurance carrier impose that decision? I agree that staging failures and lawn darts are dangerous, but a well run range keeps people safe. BP staging failures are equally dangerous, but that was not banned. Presumably every team that failed at the fly offs, also demonstrated successful staging to qualify.

I agree, but I would rather allow the students to come to that decision (or not) on their own rather than have that decision taken away from them.

Alan

Then that was the school's mistake, not TARC's. Schools with perutations for "producing" good students, also provide oportunities for exceptional students to achieve beyond the standing curriculaum.

I think the experience itself is worth far more than the cash awards. However, I did suggest that the payout could be based on the score achieved rather than the rank. You could even put the scores on a bell curve (or other curve) and assign grades A, B, C, D, F and pay by grade. Students and teachers understand grading on a curve. And you could still give a trophy to the team lucky enough to get the best score.

You're too modest because, "We had hoards of teams come by last year & consumed our entire spring..."

Alan

If looked at as an ROI calculation, TARC is a waste of time and money. Just the entry fees from last years TARC were more than twice the prize pool. Ditto for this year. Before you even buy your first rocket part or motor. The hundred teams that went to the flyoffs certainly spent more than the total prize package on travel.

But TARC wasn't about money. Ask any one who was at the flyoffs last spring.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

(Bob

finals was

the most

I don't know who made it. Might have even been NAR.

range

I think that's the topic of another thread :-)

There are a couple of problems. For most of the day, there was little wind--rain, yes, but no wind. Naturally, most of the teams aimed the launch rods precisely vertical. The rockets, of course, didn't fly that way, so the lawn darts were raining down all over. And since many of the rockets were quite small, it would be a real shame to move the pads out another 1000' to ensure that the rockets stayed away from the crowds.

In fact, the data don't support that on at least two counts. For the rockets flown last year, the AP-powered ones were universally more massive. The all BP rockets ranged from 300 to 1000 grams. The lightest all AP rocket was over 1100 grams; most were over

1400. The AP to BP rockets were almost all in between, but varied more widely: the lightest was about 700 grams, the heaviest was just shy of 1500.

And, while the All-BP rockets were limited to 100 N-Sec max (and went as low as 45), the AP rockets started at around 150 N-Sec and ranged to 200.

So, on average, the all BP rockets were less than half as heavy with less than half the power.

Maybe not in the rain :-)

taken

Yeah, but they didn't let them make their own motors, either...some limits just make too much sense.

FWIW,

--tc

support

about

fields

Requirement? No. Practical necessity? Yes. Although I'm sure there were some teams willing to do hour long bus rides to get to larger fields, I'm sure most didn't. Lots of fields are impassable in the winter, and lots of teams wanted to fly more often than once a month. They learned lots more by walking out of the school and launching, even if a few rockets end up scattered around the neighborhood...but then there's the safety issues involved, which is the topic of another post.

ute as

Sure, that's possible, but again, remember the experience level we're talking about. Dual deployment was quite beyond the reach of most of these teams, given their experience and the time they had available.

--tc

Funny...

You were curious a couple messages ago as to why the lousy signups...

I give up... Why the lousy signups this year, Bob?

I'm curious too...

Andy

How far beyond, boss?

Maybe being spread thin would have been a better choice of words.

I think some got bummed when their team leaders didn't make the trip to the flyoffs because they had AP testing that same weekend...

Tough one here though MSFC came through big with their program for teachers.

Real big...

No quibble here?

Sadly, I'm looking forward to spending better time amongst the fewer. Sigh...

Andy

"Ted Cochran" wrote in news:6jgub.4306$sb4.946 @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Which, of course, makes perfect sense as TARC is an altitude constrained event.

len.

OK, I'll try this again. TARC should be an extra curricular activity rather than integrated into the curriculum. Not that can't be done. For example, mathematics is a dull pointless subject for many students because they do not have an application for the math that they are learning. OTOH I was often frustrated in JR. and Sr. High because I did not yet have the math tools to do the things that I wanted to do in model rocketry. Some elements of TARC could be integrated into the math curriculum to make math more useful and interesting to the students.

It is also true that student projects such as TARC can be very engrossing and cause students to neglect their other studies. Many students may have to forgo other traditional extracurricular activities as well, to devote more time to TARC. It is their choice.

That's a bummer, but if I had the choice, I would take the APCP test instead of the AP test. I'd get all that AP knowledge in college anyway.

I agree, except maybe for flying in bad weather.

Alan

this is the core of my dissatisfaction with elementary math instruction. for every one like you who were nearly lost because of it, count on 6 who were lost ... irretrieveably. consquently, college calculus becomes a "weed out" class instead of the great mind expanding synthesis that it really is - took me 20 years to figure that out!!

there isn't any reason not to teach 6th graders the relevent bits of math for rocketry, and all physics, chemistry - what ever they are interested in and motivated to learn.

these days we have calculators to help people who struggle with arithmetic facts. but that shouldn't hold them back and it is unfair to hold the rest of the class back doing page after page of mind numbing 3 digit addition with carry or whatever.

because of the vast 20th century research in education we KNOW how to teach math and teach it effectively. but it requires a fundamental reorganization of the math program at school - and at home. it's really hard for the readin-ritin-rithmetic crowd (like Bush and his no-child-left-untested crap) to understand this but math is not just arithmetic facts and formulas, it is really a way of thinking.

we can start by throwing out the TV.

6? More like 26.

At least in CA.

Sounds like a cirriculum change proposal to me.

And Excel.

Sounds like a cirriculum change proposal to me.

The math, chemistry, physics, rocket channel?

>

...

curriculum change? how so? the topic is the same, the teaching would be more effective

yeah - TV as an educational medium has been pretty thoroughly disproved. sesame street does not teach kids the alphabet nor does it help them learn to read. for adults, what I always say "hey, you know how to read, right? so why do you watch the news, that's just someone reading to you!!"

seriously, you can read the newspaper in 15 minutes and get more info out of it than you can in an hour of the sex-and-violence-that-masquerades-as-news.

although, the recent proposal for a hard science channel was interesting. but it could never compare with books and magazines.

California is in flux. Maybe THIS is the time and place to propose it.

I love, and learn alot from, "The Mechanical Universe". I think it airs in NY on CUNY-TV.

Alot of animations that descibe equations graphically, while simultaneously showing the actual equations and their reductions.

I wish there were more shows like that

- iz

Cliff Sojourner wrote:

news:6jgub.4306$sb4.946

heavy

constrained

Right.

But the point is, these heavier birds crash harder, and the more energetic birds represent a larger danger when they're flying in a direction other than up, and last year these characteristics were universally reflected in rockets with an APCP upper stage.

--tc

I might not have given you the right impression. I was not frustrated with math, I excelled at that. I was perhaps frustrated with model rocketry and my inability to solve related problems because I had not leaned enough math yet. I was really POed at Jr. High math teachers who refused to help me understand how to use the Barrowman CP equations when I asked them for help, after I had satisfactorily completed their math curriculum well ahead of schedule. Instead they wanted me to complete some silly useless additional subjects that they had on their own agenda. It wasn't about what the student needed but about what the teachers needed to advance their own agenda. If I were to have been "lost", it would be a rebellion against teachers and not a loss to myself or math.

I don't think students are ever lost irretrievably. However, some students get the idea that they are not good in math and start dodging it without trying. Math is tree with subjects built on the foundation of previous classes. A poor student may have to start over with Algebra I where they first fell of the wagon instead of trying remedial calculus, but they are not irretrievably lost.

Harumpf. I don't know if mind expanding is quite right, maybe eye opening or eureka! "Weed out" is not a good term either. Students start freshman calculus with a wide spectrum of natural ability and preparation, but regardless of all that, they compete against each other for portions on the almighty bell curve. Some don't like where they fall on the curve in relation to their peers, and decide that they may enjoy more success in a different peer group. I was dealt a hard blow when I allowed them to put me in the "better" calculus sequence of classes. This pitted me against the best hard core Math majors, instead of the engineering students that I should have been competing with for grades. I was no longer a straight A math student, but I did not weed myself out.

True. I would have benefitted greatly from being taught algebra in

6th grade instead of in 9th.

Calculators don't help bad math students. It only allows bad students to complete their faulty work in less time. I went though the public school system just before calculators. I was somewhat slow on those elementary school timed arithmetic tests. I leaned under the "new math". We learned number theory early on. I tended to solve simple arithmetic problems by actually doing the math, rather than memorization of multiplication tables, etc. I went to good schools in Iowa and I cannot ever recall a class being held back because of a slow student.

I'm not so sure that is true. But it does seem like every math teacher wants to push their own agenda on teaching math, or adopting a different textbook. That is, they are more concerned about advancing their career than teaching the student the math he wants to learn. There is no one size fits all.

But Bush means well, we think. The problem is that people can only take so much testing before they just don't give a $*@#. The problem is the testing itself, and to a lesser extent, the assessment of the test. Then too, "teaching to the test" is a disservice because it is time wasted not teaching the material that the student wants or needs. Although, I guess if you truly have a class of standardized students (clones no doubt), teaching to the standardized test would be standard, err OK.

A lot of math really is just arithmetic facts and formulas. But it is not a memorization exorcise. What you can't remember, you can easily derive from what you do remember. (Chemistry requires easy math, but brutal memorization.) It is not just a way of thinking. Some math assessment tests are more like generic IQ tests than math tests, but that is just wrong. Creative problem solving is to be encouraged, but let's not reward creative thinking that illustrates misconception or yields wrong answers.

Bad move. It is a powerful educational tool. You just need to throw out a lot of the crappy programs.

Alan

Mathematica.

A simply awe inspiring programming achievement. In my Top 10 list of greatest programs ever written, even with it's inane PDF output routines.

I think its like a calculator, though. It might help with some math skills, but not problem solving; the actual value of mathematics.

But its the greatest toy ever invented for math geeks.

Along with MATLAB, MAPLE, FORTRAN, bc, spreadsheets, and all the others I didn't mention, of course.

...

... like RPN calculators!!!