![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would it not be better to split the "External Links" into three sections?
The "External Links" would remain for two new sections called "Commercial Web Sites" and "Personal Web Sites" would be added.
Why should we have commercial and personal web sites linked here at all? Links to the NAR and Tripoli perhaps, as the two major rocketry organizations which certify motors and flyers. Having personal pages and commerical pages here would seem to violate WP:EL in that these pages don't necessarily add anything more that should be here, and some of them link to pages designed only to sell things. -- Cassavau 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"Greater regulatory emphasis may therefore be directed at amateur rocketry itself."
Is there any reference for this? I haven't heard of any such thing, so I believe it is pure speculation. If there isn't a reference I will delete it soon. Evand 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I had asked and the comment back was "...Most of the article lacks citation" statsone 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"federal and state authorities incorrectly allege that model rockets can be modified to act as weapons"
The word "incorrectly" seems perfectly appropriate here -- there is no sound evidence to support these claims, and plenty of evidence against them -- including tests conducted by these same agencies! Evand 02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Who the heck is Edward C. Doyle? I googled, wiki'ed and asked among other means for who this guy is and I can't find anything to suuport the claim that this person invented model rockets. This should be removed until a reference can be cited.
TRA sanctions EX rocketry, with some limits. They don't require any standardised designs, but they do require a (slightly) restricted choice of fuels. For example, I'm working on hybrids made out of PVC pipe ( [1]), which can't be said to be a "standard" design at all. However, they do have a strong resemblance to other hybrid motors. "Relatively standard" seems an appropriate phrasing. Evand 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
``In the contemporary U.S." is pretentious. Just say, ``In the United States today.."
I just linked to http://www.bmr615.org/hobby_faq_s They looked word-for-word identical in the sections I compared.
In fact, most of the commercial links seem to violate WP:EL, so unless someone objects in the next week or so, I plan on removing them. -- Cassavau 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a lot of changes to this page. I changed some headings to make them more sensible and consistent.
I also moved some sections around to make them more logically oranized.
I added a section on recovery systems, but I'm not satisfied with the placement of this section. Comments/suggestions on this please.
Added some information to the motors section, spec. about the D and E reloadable APCP motors for model rockets. (APCP isn't just for high-power).
I didn't touch the amateur/experimental section as I am not involved with that.
-- Cassavau 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I added a section for notable events. I added the CSXT space flght to this section. I envision other historically-significant moments in model rocket history here. Any comments on the utility or appropriateness of this section? Cassavau 13:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I reverted edits that added links to and comments regarding rocketry in Argentina. They seemed to be out of place in the English version of wikipedia. Is this an acceptable reversion? I'm still pretty new, so I welcome comments and criticism. -- Cassavau 03:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more specific regarding the confusing format? What is confusing about it? The more detail you can provide, the better it will be in the end. -- Cassavau 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is about model rockets. There should be seperate pages for Amateur and High-Power rocketry. Also, why is it called Model Rocket when the article starts "Model Rocketry is..." ? Should the title be changed to Model Rocketry ? Troggulus 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting a working version of a history section here, until it is deemed ready for inclusion in the main article. Please add/comment below. -- Cassavau 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
1954— Orville Carlisle develops the Rock-A-Chute Mark I rocket and disposable black-powder rocket motors.
c. 1957— Orville Carlisle reads an article by G. Harry Stine about the danger of amateurs building rockets and rocket motors.
1957 — National Association of Rocketry founded by Orville Carlisle and G. Harry Stine.
1957 — Orville Carlisle and G. Harry Stine found Model Missiles, Incorporated to manufacture models rockets and motors.
1958 — Vern Estes founds Estes Industries, the second commercial manufacturer of model rocket motors.
1970 — Estes Industries introduces the D motor [1].
1990 - Aerotech Consumer Aerospace introduces reloadable motors. [2]
I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I maintain a site which is used to share data for simulation of commercially-manufacturered hobby rocket motors. (It contains info and simulator data for motors certified by TRA, CAR and NAR.) I think you'll find that ThrustCurve.org is a valuable resource. John Coker 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I see many parts of this topic that aren't accurate or pertinent and even rife with conjecture.
"professionally-manufactured" in the first sentence under the subheading "Model and High Power Rocketry" should be "commercially manufactured" .
The second sentence of same, in two parts: "Since these motors are professionally designed and constructed,..." What or whom does "professionally designed and constructed" refer to?, and,
"...they are far safer than motors produced by individuals for use in amateur or experimental rocketry" This statement is pure conjecture - and maybe even pejorative - as there has never been believable data from reliable sources on this matter.
Besides, those two thoughts are inherently disjointed.
Under the subheading "Companies": "...while a host of engine manufacturers provided ever larger engines, at much higher costs."
"ever larger engines" is ambiguous (Size? Weight? Power?) Also, "at much higher costs" is impertinent.
Continuing: "...as high powered rockets routinely broke Mach 1 and reached heights over 10,000 ft." Misleading, as the information is too specific. If one were to do a simulation and come up with Mach 1 +/-25% and 10,000' +/-25% (to give some breathing room), a limited amount of combinations would apply. A flyer could break Mach 1 and go 5000' or go 10,000' and not get anywhere near Mach 1.
Continuing under "Companies" subheading, paragraph 4 reads: "Engine reliability became a significant issue though, with "CATO"s,..." and ending with ".. At this time (2006) single use motors above G class are quite rare, and many are collectables" is factually incorrect and laden with inaccuracies, besides being entirely uncited.
Almost everything under the "High Power Rocketry (HPR)" subheading is inaccurate.
Under "The Meaning of Numbers" (which is poor usage, BTW) down to the "Reloadable Motors" section is OK but doesn't spell it out concisely, or shall I say, in "encyclopedic form".
The "Safety" subheading is incomplete with regard to rocketry on the whole.
The entire topic sways between model rocketry and high power rocketry indiscriminantly, and often without cause or necessity.
Nothing personal, but this article needs a serious and objective clean up. Evil Prince 00:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see this entry went back to bad grammar, conjecture, and unqualified information. Oh, well, I tried... Evil Prince 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
dear friends, The description was changed from hobby to a sport with no discussion or rational. Needs to be changed bck. statsone 05:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how Stine's defence of rocketry is pertinent. Rockets can be used to disperse NBC agents or to launch shape charges. Neither of those threats has anything to do with launching store-bought cardboard tubes at glass windows. The quote from Stine doesn't address these concerns. Rklawton 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
In this section it is stated that "All engine manufacturers and rocket launch participants must be licensed"
I disagree with the phrase "must be licensed". Both Engine manufactures and HPR participants must be certified.
I support this view with the following link to NARs High Power Rocket Safety Code;
http://www.nar.org/NARhpsc.html
Item #1 covers participants and item #3 covers HPR motors. Rocketmaniac 11:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC) thank you-- Mybest6 ( talk) 20:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is currently scoped to only include vertical take-off. Where did this definition come from exactly? The NFPA 1122 for example also applies to the engines of model aircraft for example. I think there's a strong case for using the same definition.- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Is a water rocket supposed to be a model rocket in this article? Water rocket claims that it is. I would prefer to see an inclusive definition, or else maybe move the article to model rocket (pyrotechnic) or something like that.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 03:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think we should add an "In popular culture" section? I'm sure we can all think of instances of when some model rocketry was in popular culture. Like the movie and book October Skies for example. Flightx52 ( talk) 21:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Does the paragraph about the lawsuit against the BATFE really belong under "Precautions and Safety?" It seems out-of-place there.
Since the ATF was trying to regulate high-power motors (not model rocket motors), perhaps it doesn't even need to be mentioned in an article about model rocketry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.53.125 ( talk) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Anybody else think there should be a separate article for reload motor systems? JUSTaPRO ( talk) 14:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is there a table with the impulse ranges from A to O? A "G" motor is the highest class motor that is not a high power rocket... the table should be ended there.
I'd also put 1/2A and 1/4A motors before the A-row, as those are the smallest impulse motors you can purchase... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUSTaPRO ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This article definitely lacks ~ Components Required and Basic Methods type sections. And is it possible to include a film clip? This is an activity that's best seen in motion. Heavenlyblue ( talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Rocketry and toys are far better projects to define this article--
Petebutt (
talk)
19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Model rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Model rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)