Talk:Model rocket

message: 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.
:That's a good idea. I've already thought of doing something like that. Willy Logan 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --statsone 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: "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)
replies: text: There is a joint press release from July 2003 by NAR and Tripoli which cites the efforts of several US Senators.  Two senators were proposing increased regulation and one senator proposed protecting the hobby from unnecessary regulation.  These national organizations refute the claims that increased regulation is either necessary or useful. Sneezy2 01:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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 (), 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)
thread_title:  Amateur rocketry 

message: * I would like to make a formal request to add http://www.celtickane.com/rocketry to the external links section of this page.  It is my own website, so I wouldn't like to add it myself, but I would prefer that someone else review the website, and make the decision to add it.  It contains valuable information for model rocket enthusiasts regarding building homemade rockets and rocketry parts.  --Sugarskane 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They got their version from us.  At the very bottom of the page is the line '...and from the Internet-based encyclopedia "Wikipedia."'.  They're free to re-use Wikipedia content, as long as they give us credit. --Carnildo 04:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see where linking to http://celtickane.com/rocketry adds anything to the  entry.  It would mostly serve the owner of the celtickane.com page.  See my comments below.  I don't think pages such as these are appropriate in this entry. --Cassavau 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for external link addition

message: 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.
: Nicely done statsone 17:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Made some changes

message: 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)
replies: text: The CSXT flight is well deserving of mention, but not in this article.  It was an amateur rocket, definitely, and a high power rocket depending on the details of your definition, but was not in any way a "model rocket."  I would venture a guess that the people involved wouldn't like it being called that either.  Perhaps move the mention to a separate amateur rocketry article?  (I've been meaning to create an amateur rocketry article to go along with the model / hpr pages, but life has been busy what with, well, amateur rocketry...) Evand 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I created the Amateur Rocketry page earlier, and this section/event should be moved there. --Cassavau 03:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. --Cassavau 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this section should be replaced by a history / timeline section?  I'm sure someone who knows a bit more about it than I do could come up with a fair amount to put there.  That would seem a better fit than notable events. Evand 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, that would be fantastic.  I don't know enough of that history, which is why I hadn't added anything of that type. --Cassavau 05:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Events Section

message: 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)
replies: text: I should also note I checked the external links which had been added and neither one seems to work. --Cassavau 03:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion and nation-specificity

message: 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)
replies: text: The amateur section should probably not be the first section.  The controversy section should probably be shorter -- it is disproportionately long and talks about things (eg amateur propellant making and details of regulations) that probably don't really belong in this article. Evand 04:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is very helpful. If nobody else works on it, I'll try to get to it tonight or over the weekend. --Cassavau 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe we've addressed the concerns noted and have therfore removed the cleanup tag. --Cassavau 14:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The opening paragraph is very inane. I gives guidelines from the NAR, then '...and other lightweight materials' makes it say nothing, then it says it gives guidelines for ... 'and more'. Don't make statements if you're going to say something after making anything possible again.. I also doubt NAR should get more than one mention in the intro.82.169.255.79 (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep, there probably should be a seperate page for Amateur.  Not so sure about High-Power yet.  Perhaps the title should be changed to Model Rocketry with a redirect from Model Rocket as well. --Cassavau 03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Right now, there is a movement to change "amateur rocketry" to "experimental rocketry".  I'd also say that all of them fall under the umbrella term of "hobby rocketry."  In any case, searches for "model rocketry" (in Wikipedia and Google) do make it to this article. John Coker 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the title "Model Rocketry" is more appropriate than "Model Rocket".  I will suggest that a alternate umbrella term would be "Sport Rocketry."  If you visit The NAR website, they describe themselves as "the oldest and largest sport rocketry organization in the world."  When I came looking for this topic, I searched Wikipedia for "sport rocketry" and it found no article that matched that index.  In Google searches regarding the debate about ATF regulation, I see the umbrella term "hobby rocketry" used most often. Sneezy2 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate Articles for Amateur and High-Power

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm all for it, I like the timeline.  I can take some pictures of some model rockets I own, Estes Big Daddy, Big Bertha, Baby Bertha, Skywriter and others I own if you feel it would improve the article.  Please reply on my page.  Thanks, Tom 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed History Section 

message: I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I diasagree.  The site is relavent to the discussion and not a social site statsone 17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with statsone -- this link doesn't fail WP:EL. --Cassavau 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: These all sound line reasonable changes to me.  Please feel free to make them. Evand 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with consistency and pertinence 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hobby or Sport

message: 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)
replies: text: As can anything else airborne.Simkid (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only the biggest high-power rockets can lift active guidance systems (almost all model rockets are unguided, except by their fins) and warheads, and military rockets would work much better for any sort of attack. Plus, Stine's comment was more about rockets hitting stuff (like people and cars), not about military-style attacks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stine

message: 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)
thread_title:  High Power Rocketry (HPR) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why, exactly, do you feel Jetex is pertinent for this page given the rest of the discussion? Theroyatl (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a model rocket. But it goes beyond that- I think most articles in the wikipedia do better to take a fairly general view of a particular term; and I'm not at all sure that the definition used here isn't essentially OR. I mean where did it come from?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of the article

message: 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)
thread_title: Popular Culture Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lawsuit reference under Precautions and Safety 

message: Anybody else think there should be a separate article for reload motor systems? JUSTaPRO (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reloadable motors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table Under "Performance" and the scope of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  not beginner-friendly 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pyroguide.com/index.php?title=Black_powder_rocket
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614104829/http://www.nar.org/cabinet/waiverinst.html to http://www.nar.org/cabinet/waiverinst.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630012435/http://www.bellevillehobby.com/custom.aspx to http://www.bellevillehobby.com/custom.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210084116/http://www.nar.org/NARrcrbgsc.html to http://nar.org/NARrcrbgsc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205044939/http://nar.org/NARhpsc.html to http://nar.org/NARhpsc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928000247/http://www.nar.org/modrocs.html to http://www.nar.org/modrocs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813110342/http://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml to http://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)