RCP 2021-012
Enter NAR login credentials for access.
Please enter your username or email address. This should be the same login you use for your NAR membership
11 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Home
- Join NAR
- Site Map
- Contact Us
- My Membership
- About NAR
- American Rocketry Challenge
- Model Rocket Info
- High Power Rocketry
- Educational Resources
- Find a Launch
- Local Clubs
- Insurance Questions/Claims
- Safety
- Rocket Motor Information
- Contest Flying – NAR Competition
- National Scoreboard
- US Team Selection Scoreboard
- Register an NAR Launch
- Competition Results Entry
- Team Registration
- Teams List
- Contest Events
- Competition Meets
- US National Model Rocket Performance Records – 8/2/19
- International Competition
- Competition Guide
- U.S. Model Rocket Sporting Code
- Rules Revision Process
- Sport Rocketry Magazine
- Member Resources
- Website Fixes
- Donate
- What’s My NAR Number?
- Log out
High Power Rocket Certification
Design and Fly High Power Rocket Vehicles Learn MoreLocal Rocketry Clubs
Connect with Proven Rocketry Experts Find A Club TodayMembers-Only Forum
Engage in meaningful conversations about rocketry topics that matter. Get Connected!Sport Rocketry Magazine
Six 48 Page Issues a year with NAR Membership!
I like this proposal. If it is possible to consider its application to NRC flying, it would be very helpful for the various Contest Directors around the country to have an idea of what mission point values should be. Many will never have judged a scale flight and the original outline of the event was that they would only have to judge the qualification of the flight – the flight points were all or nothing. This would insure a more consistent value of mission points across the field in NRC flying during the year. CDs could just note whether declared mission events occurred or not and the number points would come from the judging team’s assessment of the data package.Â
Great proposal! — Patrick Peterson
I really like this proposal. Â
I like the idea, though to clarify, which judge is responsible for verifying that the mission points are applicable to the model? For example, which judge gets to reject cluster points for the old Estes Patriot :-)? More commonly in “true” scale vs sport scale, mission is supposed to be relevant to the specific round being modeled.
I agree, this would be a good change.
Agree. This would be a good change.
Good idea.
Chan, in response to your comment, it has always been incumbent upon the modeler to provide documentation to show applicability of a particular function to the model/prototype flown.
Does this wording mean that if I declare and option, and it doesn’t work, there’s no penalty?
As far as I’m aware, you can’t have negative mission points anyways. The penalty for a failed operation has (again, as far as I’m aware) been under 52.12.2 “General Flight.” Penalties for failed mission effects is outside the scope of this RCP.
Looks like a good proposal to me.