NAR Prez on Feedback

[GuyNoir]

First off, great job, TRF'ers, on the feedback on NAR membership costs and benefits. Some comments culled from many messages now follow:

JRThro wrote:

>> Would the NAR consider selling subscriptions to "Sport Rocketry"

I guess I don’t see how this helps the NAR have more members. I think it’s likely to produce the opposite result. I haven’t run an economic analysis of it, but suspect I can’t charge a price that works for both potential buyers, i.e. low enough to induce them to buy, and the NAR, i.e. returns sufficient funds to the NAR treasury to fund other NAR programs.

Having said that, I’ll go off ans play with some numbers.

>> That might reduce the "sticker shock"

Agree that a lower price would help sell more, but that dues number was set to make sure the Association doesn’t go broke. When you add up the cost of the printing, postage, HQ, insurance, etc., and project that out over a 5 year horizon, that’s the price that keeps us in business.

Dbarrm wrote:

>> I have talked with my stepsons Boy Scout troup and will be doing SPACE
>> EXPLORATION MERIT BADGE

Many NAR sections happily support scouts in earning this badge. From a strictly NAR perspective, I think we get two things from this outreach: (a) positive public PR; having the scouts on your side is never a bad thing! (b) the opportunity to recruit new members; but I think scouts fall under my Rule of Tens. You have to fly a lot of scouts to get one new member in the local rocket club (they’re busy with scouting after all)

>> If every club put a little ad in the paper for a launch.

NAR sections (and other local clubs) should take advantage of the community calendar in their local newspaper. See https://nar.org/sectguide/NARnewsect1.html for more ideas on this subject.

Bsexton wrote:

>> The first thing that strikes me about this small thread is the number of active
>> rocketry hobbyists on TRF that do not belong to the NAR. . . .
>> what would the NAR have to offer you that they don't already

and

>> would it be worth offering a "trial" 3-month membership in the NAR


For TRF’s who are active (more than 4 launches per year, say) but not NAR members, try answering two questions for me:

(a) if you could get a membership in a rocketry organization, what are the top two things that membership would give you, and

(b) how much are you willing to pay for that??

>> I believe something like this was done with the Fly Rockets campaign

Yes. It was spectacularly unsuccessful. We sold less than a dozen of the trial memberships. That tells me we had an unappealing combination of costs and benefits.

Powderburner wrote:

>> posed by lack of available launch fields. I see that as the single biggest
>> problem our hobby faces.

>> Close on the heels of that is the problem with trying to convince a city
>> government to specifically allow (in the form of written rules) model rocketry inside
>> city limits and on city property.

and

>> our current/modern mentality (anti-liability, anti-terrorism, anti-anything
>> new and different) is solidly in place in the bureaucrat's minds and can be
>> a tough obstacle to overcome.

Try https://nar.org/pdf/hobby_overview.pdf as a place to start explaining the legal and safety mechanics to officials. Reminding the local fire marshall that rocketry is supported in NFPA Code can also helpful.

illini wrote:

>> Here in Northern Virginia the local Astronomy Club has about 700-800 members,
>> but I would guess far fewer than half of those are *active* observers

A good point. In most nonprofit membership organizations, less than half the folks are regular participants. During my time as an NAR section president, we had one family that faithfully showed up for our annual Labor Day demonstration launch, but never attended any other events!

cls wrote:

>> for example, in my home city, the fire marshall has told us he doesn't have
>> any problem with model rockets, none at all. but even with that ringing
>> endorsement we can't convince the city council to even consider letting a
>> NAR club set up in a park once a month.

Two suggestions here.

Find one member of the city council that might be sympathetic. Maybe they’ve got a kid in a scout troop or they’ve been exposed to rocketry in school. Get that person to let you fly a demo for either the council or someone inside the government (police chief?). Let the insiders see for themselves what you want to do. In all the time I’ve been involved in rocketry, I never have seen this approach fail to open up fields.

Second approach is to find out under what terms, conditions, and ordinances others use the park. If you’re a taxpayer, then you have an equal right to access public lands. Soccer teams use the fields, right? They probably do so under some arrangement with the city. You should have equal rights of access. Find the procedures and laws on the books that control that access, then comply with them for a rocket launch.

>> so it would be really great to have some help from NAR for developing flying fields.
>> statistics on safety, testimonials, guidance for dealing with "city hall",
>> panel discussion from people who've tried and succeeded (and failed), we need all of it.

See some of the links above, and then also start at https://nar.org/sectguide/index.html and go from there.

Micromeister wrote:

>> Even with all this focus its an up hill fight getting these new flyer to our
>> monthly launches in Middletown, Maryland about 75 miles or about an
>> hour and 15 minutes from most of there homes.

Don’t have any good ideas about the “kid transportation” problem.

>> Bunny mentioned the NAR is looking for the other 15000 people flying
>> models more then a couple packs of motors. Humm! so the NAR is saying
>> we can't reach three quarters of the repeat flyers that have been identified.
>> That is NOT good. The National Orginizations need to spend much more of
>> our resources on pubic service messages, Ads, Posters for libraries and other
>> public displays to get the word out that "Flying Rockets is a fun". If we
>> spent a 1/3 of what were throwning to the toilet now I'm sure we'ed have
>> fewer problems with the feds.

(a) I don’t think the feds we’re fighting in the courts give a rat’s patooie about our hobby, and certainly some of them think we’d be better off without it.
(b) The 15,000 figure is my estimate, and the actual number could be higher or lower
(c) If I took 1/3 of the $300,000 spent by both NAR and TRA over the past 5 years to run an ad campaign, what would be the nature of said campaign? Pretend you have $20,000 to spend annually. Where do you go and what do you advertise? Is the campaign designed to raise public awareness of the safety and benefits of the hobby, to sell NAR memberships or both?

>> Why aren't the Mod-Roc manufacturers doing more advertising?

They don’t have to do mass advertising. Estes isn’t selling to the consumer directly. They’re selling to the buyers in chain stores, like Wal-Mart.

>> C) I like Sport Rocketry Mag... Worth at most 20.00/yr...

It costs more than that for us to print it, John!

Darian Rachal wrote:

>> I'm not sure this is still done, but at one time there was information about joining the
>> NAR in each Estes kit. That was probably the best chance the NAR had for
>> increasing membership.

There’s limited mention of the NAR, including our website, in Estes kits. However, I have no control over the content, size or placement of that message. Since the information is also no longer on a separate flyer, but embedded with other ads for Estes products, the ad is largely ineffective. I unfortunately have the membership source data to demonstrate that this avenue has been in steady decline for the past decade.

Silverleaf wrote:

>> Perhaps the NAR could create a seperation between class of ADULT membership

What combination of services and price would appeal to those not ready to step up to full membership?

Jflis wrote:

>> what *about* the health of the hobby? My personal opinion (no data to support this,
>> just an observation) is that it is not as healthy (per capita) as it was in the 60's and
>> 70's. Two reasons that I see is 1) the state of our space program and how it is
>> persceived by the media and 2) the ultra cautious, PC society that we have built.

Agreed on all points.

>> As to the cost of NAR membership. I think it needs to be re-reviewed.

The NAR Board conducts a financial review at every meeting. One thing John Worth, retired Executive Director of the AMA taught me was that an organization can’t support its mission and activities if it’s going broke. Unless we either cut services or raised more money, we had no choice but to raise dues when we did. I didn’t like doing it, and I’m not happy about it, but it beats being bankrupt.

I will however give more thought to this idea of limited memberships. I hesitate only because I don’t know the right mix of price and service to make it work yet.

texasck1 wrote:

>>I know in an earlier thread, the guy from NAR (I don't know his name)

Uh, that would be me (grin)

>> Offer something that is of real value to the beginner and experienced
>> rocketeer alike. Their greatest strength is not the insurance, but the wealth of
>> experience that the members have.

Ok, so how do I package it and then get people to pay for it? The only successful example I know of for website delivery of expertise is the Wall Street Journal. Other newspapers, who are selling their expertise in explaining the events of the day, can’t get people to pay to access their sites. They run those sites to sell ad space to others who want to reach the paper’s readers, and to support print subscribers. At best, they break even on the deal.

I think this analysis of “selling expertise” is spot on, but I be darned if I know how to build an organization around it and cover the costs of doing it.

 

[jflis]

First, Bunny, thank you for your response.

In the original thread I hadn't seen the comment about "why aren't the mod-roc manufacturers doing more..." and "information about the NAR in each kit..."

We've talked a number of times, and I beleive that you know of FlisKits commitment to support the NAR when/where ever possible. We provide a separate card in each of our kits that shows the FlisKits warranty, but well over half the sheet is devoted to the NAR with a membership form, reasons to join and the NAR Safety code.

This is at our expense and we are proud to do this (not tooting my horn, just stating the fact). I would encourage the NAR to come to me (and to the other manufactures) and let us know if there is anything else we can do to help spread the word.

For example (just thinking out loud here), would it be helpful to the NAR if you had some sort of a coupon from FlisKits that members could use for our products? I can't speak for Estes, Quest or others, but I beleive many manufacturers would be agreeable to further support, within reason.

Keep the community posted and updated. It is a great help.
jim

 

[astronboy]

I already have a link to NAR on my company's website, but just added another on the front page, just under my logo.

I would like to add a small flyer to include with my orders that I mail out. Does NAR have anything ready-made for vendors to simply copy and include... say as a coupon size or quarter page blurb about NAR?


Phred

 

[AKPilot]

Can I just say "thank you" for taking the time to respond.

 

[JRThro]

Originally posted by narprez
First off, great job, TRF'ers, on the feedback on NAR membership costs and benefits. Some comments culled from many messages now follow:

JRThro wrote:

>> Would the NAR consider selling subscriptions to "Sport Rocketry"

I guess I don’t see how this helps the NAR have more members. I think it’s likely to produce the opposite result. I haven’t run an economic analysis of it, but suspect I can’t charge a price that works for both potential buyers, i.e. low enough to induce them to buy, and the NAR, i.e. returns sufficient funds to the NAR treasury to fund other NAR programs.

Having said that, I’ll go off ans play with some numbers.

>> That might reduce the "sticker shock"

Agree that a lower price would help sell more, but that dues number was set to make sure the Association doesn’t go broke. When you add up the cost of the printing, postage, HQ, insurance, etc., and project that out over a 5 year horizon, that’s the price that keeps us in business.

My thinking on the separate subscriptions was to try to get the magazine in front of more people, hoping that they might be intrigued enough to participate more in rocketry and/or be interested enough to join the NAR for an additional $30 or $40.

I can see that it might have an effect opposite of the desired one, if people currently join the NAR so they can receive the magazine.

 

[Silverleaf]

What combination of services and price would appeal to those not ready to step up to full membership?

This is a good question. 8)

For a Standard membership, I'd simply like to recieve the magazine, and a membership #.

Since I'm unable to attend large launches, as a member I could still do this - i.e launching anything up to and including G motors, but any certification efforts by me wouldn't be possible with the standard package. IF I decided to step up to Certification Level NAR membership, then I could with all honesty, see paying the current rate.

Should I recieve the insurance provided by the NAR for a lower sum of money - i.e the "Standard" membership ?

I'd like to think so, BUT to be honest, I can't see the reason for having it given "my" situation launching on my own property, and low power flights.

I guess the concenus would be yes, we want it, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Hopefully the understanding here is that a Standard Membership would be just that, no bells and whistles, whilst the Deluxe Membership would give the "full meal Deal" as it is now.

Thank you for posting here, and for identifying part of my response as having some interest/recieving dialogue within your organization.

Cheers,

 

[DynaSoar]

Originally posted by Silverleaf
What combination of services and price would appeal to those not ready to step up to full membership?

This is a good question. 8)

For a Standard membership, I'd simply like to recieve the magazine, and a membership #.

Since I'm unable to attend large launches, as a member I could still do this - i.e launching anything up to and including G motors, but any certification efforts by me wouldn't be possible with the standard package. IF I decided to step up to Certification Level NAR membership, then I could with all honesty, see paying the current rate.

Should I recieve the insurance provided by the NAR for a lower sum of money - i.e the "Standard" membership ?

I'd like to think so, BUT to be honest, I can't see the reason for having it given "my" situation launching on my own property, and low power flights.

I guess the concenus would be yes, we want it, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Hopefully the understanding here is that a Standard Membership would be just that, no bells and whistles, whilst the Deluxe Membership would give the "full meal Deal" as it is now.

Thank you for posting here, and for identifying part of my response as having some interest/recieving dialogue within your organization.

Cheers,

I'd be willing to pay more for my "Level Certified" membership if it'd help reduce the standard membership enough to attract more joiners. If that benefits those that don't or can't go to HPR, so be it.


If the magazine is so expensive, it should be an option. Or else drop the flash. I haven't seen an issue so far that's any better than Model Rocketeer was. If the gloss and color isn't increasing membership and is costing more, I don't see a point. I need information. I don't need to be impressed.

 

[THoz]

I'm with Silverleaf on this one. A 'Standard' or 'Basic' membership would be perfect for me. I don't currently, or ever expect to, fly anything over a D, due to limitations of launching space and cost. Although I really would like to get the magazine, I looked at the cost of getting a membership to NAR and it just wasn't a fiscally wise choice. I could do without the insurance benefit also because of flying low power, mostly on private property, and having homeowners insurance. Could a two tiered membership plan work? Mark, I know you'd have to run the numbers and make an educated guess, but it may be something to look into.
Also Mark, thank you for your responses and very well thought out explanations to the points that have been brought up. Well done!!!

 

[Chilly]

IIRC, dues went up because of insurance premiums. So would splitting up membership into two "classes" do anything to reduce insurance costs? I'm assuming it costs more to insure HPR activities than "modrocs".

 

[JRThro]

Originally posted by Silverleaf
What combination of services and price would appeal to those not ready to step up to full membership?

This is a good question. 8)

For a Standard membership, I'd simply like to recieve the magazine, and a membership #.

Since I'm unable to attend large launches, as a member I could still do this - i.e launching anything up to and including G motors, but any certification efforts by me wouldn't be possible with the standard package. IF I decided to step up to Certification Level NAR membership, then I could with all honesty, see paying the current rate.

Should I recieve the insurance provided by the NAR for a lower sum of money - i.e the "Standard" membership ?

I'd like to think so, BUT to be honest, I can't see the reason for having it given "my" situation launching on my own property, and low power flights.

I guess the concensus would be yes, we want it, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Hopefully the understanding here is that a Standard Membership would be just that, no bells and whistles, whilst the Deluxe Membership would give the "full meal Deal" as it is now.

Thank you for posting here, and for identifying part of my response as having some interest/recieving dialogue within your organization.

Cheers,

I bet that offering the two-tiered memberships would indeed increase the number of NAR members, but I also bet it would decrease revenues. And yes, I realize that this is pretty similar to what I was suggesting in my earlier post.

 

[KermieD]

Not being an expert on insurance, it strikes me that insurance can't be on the table as optional. For starters, insurance rates are based on the number of people subscribing. If, say half the membership would go to a non-insurance carrying package, rates would go up for the rest.

Also, I do believe (and this is where I could be way off, so be gentle) that insurance only covers club sanctioned launches and that it covers everyone at those launches. Is it then fair for the handful of members who would then be paying astronomical rates to be doing so to cover everyone who didn't want to pay for the insurance?

One value point that I don't see being discussed here is outreach. NAR membership may not reflect it, but a good portion of the educational outreach out there is being done by NAR members, through Boy Scouts, 4H and schools. Our club regularly gets requests from local teachers (at least local to where the club is) who do a websearch looking for educational resources and end up contacting the club president for assistance teaching their students. Without the NAR, public awareness would suffer greatly.

 

[Micromeister]

We've had this conversation before Mark:
If the mag is costing more than about 2.00 to produce we'er wasting a lot of money. I'm sure printing costs have gone up like everything else but the Old model rocketeer printed on what looked like newsprint paper with a one color cover was GREAT! 30 years later I still refer back to these issues often, they are one of my treasured collections, loaded with well witten articles and informative content. OBTE b&w pics are fine for most of the year, maybe one "special Color issure" a year covering the entire year if the editor must have color and glossy paper. Bunny; I said 20.00 was what it's worth, not necessarily what we are spending for it Content is more important then the Glitter. Remember if we're not trying to sell the mag in the open market we the readers are buying it for whats between the covers.

Here's were we seem to part ways Bunny. I've alway understood the NAR to be a SERVICE organization representing the model rocket community. As such we should be promoting the hobby. To effectively promote anything that entity must appeal to the next generation of folks particapating in the activity. To this end MOST of the orgs attention should be focused on YOUTH involvment. Getting rocketry to the next generation shouldn't be left to the manufacturers. Which is pretty much what we've done up to now. While Mr. Stine and Mr. Estes were deeply involved with the NAR everything went along fairly well. Now that for the most part these Giants of the hobby have left the stage..we find ourselves without "marketing" strength of the "glory days".
That said Mark: The NAR now needs to take that hypothetical 20 grand we've thrown about and put it strongly into posters showing the fun and safety of Model Rocketry to YOUTH. These should be targeted at School, library, youth groups and hobby shops just for starters. Obviously 20,000.00 will not cover every place we'ed like to prompt all at once, we'll have to select high density, places first. Sure NAR sections well help, I'm sure if there were a National campaign guideline most would go great guns to help incliding some additional funding. This need be an on going continuous revolving or circulating information outreach program for the long haul.
We will not change the climate in Washington, without the General Public on our side. 4500 to 5000 mod-roc people can't do that alone No matter how good the lawyer.
Scouting discovered in the late 80's a large drop in youth coming into the program. National HQ begain a new campaign with only a single poster in most local libraries in youth rich areas to draw awareness back to Scouting... It worked. Model Rocketry is smaller, but can draw attention in the same simple, fairly inexpensive way. WE must start pushing our hobby "MODEL Rocketry" to, and involve the next generation of young people. How? through information, education, demonstration, and people friendly publication. A simple 22" x 28" printed poster would be one heck of a good start. Mark! Please refocus the NAR's attention, direction on youth in the hobby. Us ol'e farts are dying out at a pretty fast rate.....Just look at sandman!

 

[Chilly]

Shrox already has a pretty neat poster...

I'd appreciate a clarification about NAR's insurance, since it is a big reason I'm going to join soon. I know it's not primary (like Tripoli's), but my impression was that it would cover ALL my rocket activities and not just sanctioned club launches (unlike Tripoli's).

This story's been told before, but last spring I went on my own to the local NAR club's field (with their permission) to fly some G motors. A rather large rocket went horizontal and screamed off into the woods about a half-mile away. If the wind had been blowing the other direction, it would've ended up in a residential neighborhood.

If it had done some serious damage or started a fire, I'd have been screwed, blued, and tatooed. Someone please tell me if NAR insurance would cover a scenario like that.

 

[cls]

we enjoy the color magazine. as soon as Sport Rocketry arrives in the mail, my kids jump in to it - first looking at the pictures, trying to read some of it, finally asking me to read it with them. conversely I can't get them to even look at the black & white newsletter. so, if the magazine is a promotional tool then at least part of it should be color.

 

[shockwaveriderz]

I understand why we have the Model Rocketeer newsletter but I think it should be rolled into the SR magazine....Most of the info there is already in the SR, or on the website anyway, so to me its kinda redundant.....

perhaps as far as memberships go, we could have a ala carte type of membership, where you could pick and choose from a menu of activities, or interests and then you would select what you are personally interested in ... Don't know if this would be a workable idea....

I also think the NAR should become more of a service and support org vis a vi, helping its membership get LEUPS if that membership desires to go HPR....right now they are left to their own devises to figure it out.....

I know this is really weird: we have the NAR fighting the BATFe against requiring LEUPS while at the same time the NAR website encourages you to follow all applicable state and federal laws by getting a LEUP if necessary....

 

[rstaff3]

I know this is really weird: we have the NAR fighting the BATFe against requiring LEUPS while at the same time the NAR website encourages you to follow all applicable state and federal laws by getting a LEUP if necessary.... [/B]

I don't find this at all weird.

 

[k5knt]

I have to agree with Silverleaf also. I was a NAR member back in 1999. I didn't renew, because I left the hobby following a move.

Looking at one of my old issues of Sport Rocketry insurance was an *option*. I think this is something that should be considered again. Maybe even offer two levels of insurance.

Using the 1999 pricing as an example, membership (Senior) was $35.00 with $1,000,000 liability insurance an additional $24.00.

Considering that the current membership dues are only $3.00 more with TWICE the insurance it really is a good deal. But at this point in time I would be more likely to join at $35.00 with no insurance.

Kent

 

[Ray Dunakin]

Here's something that local clubs and individuals can do to help grow the hobby and increase membership:

Make up "business cards" that simply say, "For more info about model and high power rocketry:" Include URLs for NAR, TRA, your local club, and rocketry forums such as TRF and ROL. Everyone could easily keep some of these cards on hand, to pass out to anyone who expresses any interest in the hobby.

You could go a step further, and make flyers that have all that info plus a map to the local launch site(s) and a launch schedule. Keep some in your car and hand them out to anyone who asks about your rockets. (This is especially effective if you have large rockets that are easily visible.)

Giving folks all this info makes it easy for them to follow up on what might otherwise be just a passing interest.

 

[brianc]

Originally posted by Chilly
Someone please tell me if NAR insurance would cover a scenario like that.

https://nar.org/insurancefaq.html

 

[Zack Lau]

https://www.nar.org/hpcert/
according to this page High Power Certification is free.

Why not generate some revenue by charging for certifications?

NAR already has a fee schedule for NARTREK and NARTREK cadet
programs--getting NARTREK Gold costs $20 in application fees.
Someone who completes the four NARTEK cadet levels has to pay $20 to $28.

I had no problem with paying $20 for my NARTEK certificates--it costs money to run the program.

 

[shockwaveriderz]

good idea..it fits in with my al la carte idea perfectly but it will never happen as 80% of the adult NAR membership is already certed and they would oppose any such fees.....So you would end up with a situation where that 80% would be "grandfathered" in and any new HPR certs would cost....

I look upon certs basically as gettting a hpr license to fly....I don't see why it should not cost the bearer something to get one..surely if they can afford the costs associated with HPR, they could pay an extra $25-50 per Lx level

I've also always thought it strange, that you have to take a test to get an L2 but you don't have to take any formal test to get an L1.....I would prefer that L1 people, who by definition are newbies, should be given the test, or at least a minimal competency test... and of course the test is about the HPR Safety Code and NFPA 1127.....

I personally would like to see a NARtrek type of program for certs.....differing levels with each L1/L2 cert category for example because there is so much a person could do at each Lx level, for example right now a person can get an L1 just by shooting up 1 SU H motor.....

But that person needs experience to do dual-deployment, clustering,staging of HPR, etc..... so what I am suggesting is if you do your L1 with a single H SU motor and engine ejection that would be a minimal L1 cert.....then you would be in a L1 cert program where you had to do the other forms of L1 level HPR: clustering 2 H for example, staging 2 H, using a combo of Su engine ejection and an altimeter for DD, using reloads with electrionics for both dd,etc.... and you would have to repeat these activity tasks in the L2 category with L2 size engines.....

I think it would make much more expwerienced people in each Cert level.....so you might be a L1-A, versus a L1-F etc..


just some food for thought....

 

[dr wogz]

I had to pay about $40CAD for my Canadian association of Rocketry membership.. and will probably have to again next year. they don't seem to offer insurance, so, I have to get my MAAC (the equivalent to AMA - RC airplane insurance). When asked if CAR membership was necessary, i was tiold Tripoli or NAR was a better choice...

Does NAR operate this side of teh border? Are there any advantages to operating this side of the border? or is this really something I shoudl be bringing up at the local club?

But....

Looks as though, there is a loss of interest here in Quebec as well, as AmAq3 is holding a [general] meeting, and will possibly disband afterwards. Pitty.

Pitty, as I (we) will stick with low / mid power from my local RC flying feild (soy bean feild)

Looks like I'll have to contact ORG (Ottawa rocketry Group) for launches..

 

[wwattles]

Originally posted by shockwaveriderz
good idea..it fits in with my al la carte idea perfectly but it will never happen as 80% of the adult NAR membership is already certed and they would oppose any such fees.....So you would end up with a situation where that 80% would be "grandfathered" in and any new HPR certs would cost....

I look upon certs basically as gettting a hpr license to fly....I don't see why it should not cost the bearer something to get one..surely if they can afford the costs associated with HPR, they could pay an extra $25-50 per Lx level

I've also always thought it strange, that you have to take a test to get an L2 but you don't have to take any formal test to get an L1.....I would prefer that L1 people, who by definition are newbies, should be given the test, or at least a minimal competency test... and of course the test is about the HPR Safety Code and NFPA 1127.....

I personally would like to see a NARtrek type of program for certs.....differing levels with each L1/L2 cert category for example because there is so much a person could do at each Lx level, for example right now a person can get an L1 just by shooting up 1 SU H motor.....

But that person needs experience to do dual-deployment, clustering,staging of HPR, etc..... so what I am suggesting is if you do your L1 with a single H SU motor and engine ejection that would be a minimal L1 cert.....then you would be in a L1 cert program where you had to do the other forms of L1 level HPR: clustering 2 H for example, staging 2 H, using a combo of Su engine ejection and an altimeter for DD, using reloads with electrionics for both dd,etc.... and you would have to repeat these activity tasks in the L2 category with L2 size engines.....

I think it would make much more expwerienced people in each Cert level.....so you might be a L1-A, versus a L1-F etc..


just some food for thought....

You wouldn't happen to be a private pilot, would you? Because that's the type of system that they go through. Most people start with single-engine land-based, then you start getting into other things like aerobatics, multi-engine, seaplanes, etc. Each new step requires a certain number of flight hours, with instruction.

As for grandfathering people, maybe it should be part of the insurance option that if you are going to be launching HPR, your membership cost and insurance is going to be higher. After all, there is a higher risk/danger in HPR than LPR (when was the last time you saw a 13mm motor rip make a crater 18 inches deep?), so the potential damages claimed in HPR are higher. Should you grandfather people, or just have them pay for the privilege to launch larger rockets and still be insured?

I personally am not a NAR member, nor a Tripoli member. I am a member of a local club, and I pay my launch dues on launch day. I'm planning on becoming a NAR member this spring, so I can get certified L1/L2. But other than that and being insured, I really haven't seen anything that would greatly entice me to join. I get the comraderie from being a member of the club. I have a sanctioned place to launch through the club. I support the NAR's legal efforts through direct donation.

What would entice me to join? To be honest, I'm not really sure. Perhaps a vendor partnership similar to what AAA and AARP has, where NAR members get vendor discounts on sales/shipping. But exactly what percentage? Again, I have a hard time drawing a line in the sand. 10%? 15? Vendor's discretion? Same item cost but 50% off on shipping? This would hurt the vendors, unless they get compensated somehow, and NAR is already hurting for funds or else they wouldn't be having to raise the membership costs.

Speaking of AAA, why do people join? Is it because of contests they may have the right to enter? Is it for a magazine? Nope. It's for the insurance. People will gladly put up a good chunk of money every year to know that if they end up in trouble on the road, they can get a tow truck to a service station at little or no charge. How does NAR compare? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm sure there are parallels somewhere. Also, other professional organizations, such as AOPA, and ASME, may have some parallels from which we could learn.

Okay, enough ramblings. Back to work!

WW

 

[illini]

Here's a thought. Bunny recognizes that "selling expertise" is what you'd like NAR to do. Also, a lot of people say that the magazine is the most attractive thing about NAR. What if you beefed up the magazine just a bit to make it more about bringing expertise to NAR members? Say you formed a pool of old hand volunteers to write columns on different aspects of rocketry in their areas of expertise, rotating them from issue to issue so that none is particularly burdened. Howsabout Trip Barber or George Gassaway doing a competition column? Bunny or Rob Edmonds doing a boost glider column? Peter Alway or George Gassaway doing a scale column? etc., etc. You get the idea. I like Sport Rocketry, but would like it even more if it included something like that. Might even help attract those who are on the edge.

 

[Silverleaf]

Boy, I can just hear the flames coming with this reply. lol

I can honestly say that even if Peter Alway, George Gassaway, and Vern Estes started writing for the NAR magazine, its not going to sway me to pay 62 bucks for a membership that I logistically would not use for anything more than the membership card.

Yes, I'd love to see articles from the more well known rocketeers in the NAR publication, but it still comes down to common sense, and justifying the cost year in and year out.

Puts on flame retardant suit.....ok, let 'er rip ! 8)

 

[DynaSoar]

Originally posted by Silverleaf
Boy, I can just hear the flames coming with this reply. lol

I can honestly say that even if Peter Alway, George Gassaway, and Vern Estes started writing for the NAR magazine, its not going to sway me to pay 62 bucks for a membership that I logistically would not use for anything more than the membership card.

Yes, I'd love to see articles from the more well known rocketeers in the NAR publication, but it still comes down to common sense, and justifying the cost year in and year out.

Puts on flame retardant suit.....ok, let 'er rip ! 8)

Not from me.

I'd far rather see articles by relative newcomers. The best stuff in Model Rocketeer and Model Rocket News was stuff being done and written up by people doing it for the first time. That got me going and kept me interested.

Articles by people who know everything and tell you what to do and not do make me cringe. It's intimidating to newer users to be confronted with so much expertise. It makes them more aware of their sho0rtcomings and dissuades them from experimenting and exploring.

Unless they have an incorrigable rebelious streak like me and try things their own way anyway. I'd much rather people were encouraged to do that. I think a lot more of the people the NAR wants to attract and keep would find it more interesting.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

Originally posted by shockwaveriderz
I know this is really weird: we have the NAR fighting the BATFe against requiring LEUPS while at the same time the NAR website encourages you to follow all applicable state and federal laws by getting a LEUP if necessary....

What's weird about encouraging NAR members to obey the law? Or do you think it's weird that they would oppose ATF's excessive regulation of rocketry?

There is nothing "weird" about doing both. Until the law (including ATF's policies that contradict the law) is changed, one can be fined or jailed for violating the law.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

Charging fees to cert, in addition to membership fees and all the other expenses of getting started in high power, would be counterproductive to growing the hobby.

 

[rbeckey]

I am not a member of the NAR. I have never been to a club launch, so apparently the insurance does not apply. My residence does not meet the requirements for a LEUP. Considering the costs of motors, the LEUP, etc. unless I hit the lottery G motors are the limit for me. I don't know if anyone in the local NAR or TRA could buy motors for me, but I find the idea of asking someone to do me a favor like that revolting.

Basically, what I'd get for my $62 is a membership card and a magazine. That amount would almost be a trade for enough motors for one of my family launches. Instead of increasing my participation in rocketry, I'd actually be reducing the number of times I launch.

I suppose one could say that I should support the hobby by joining and paying. That is what I do for the NRA. The difference is the price. I am pretty certain the NRA is still $25, and I am on the old Easy Pay Life program anyway. If I had $62 extra, I would. If there was some consideration for the fact that I am not ever going to cert, and that the insurance does not apply to my situation (like a reduced membership fee) I would consider it.

 

[jflis]

I was doing the math earlier and just wanted to present the problem of the high cost of NAR membership in a different light:

The Sport Rocketry mag costs $4.95 on the newstand. That's $29.70 per year (6 issues a year), leaving $32.30 as the balance of what your NAR membership costs.

This works out to $2.69 per month or $0.62 per week.

Seems to me that I can give up a cup of coffee per month to recover this.

just food for thought.