Why Are Model Rockets So Boring These Days?

[Palanan]

When I was a kid, model rockets were about the coolest thing I could make myself, because they combined all the challenge of building a model with the starry-eyed fun of actually firing them into the sky.

Back in the 80s, there was a whole spectrum of creative and colorful designs, from the Orion Starfighter and Torellian Invader to the Solar Sailer, Starship Andromeda, Starblazer X-20, Nebulon Warrior, S.S. Cassiopeia, Mars Lander, on and on.

Some of these were patterned after concepts from Chesley Bonestell and other classic space artists; others were clearly derived from Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica. Excalibur and the Dragonship were an homage to Flash Gordon, and many other designs were based on current or imagined space vehicles—starliners, space stations, even a space taxi.

Yes, they could be shamelessly goofy, and aerodynamic efficiency wasn’t always the priority—but dammit, they were fun, and they lit up the imagination with all the possibilities of both science fiction and near-future space exploration.

These days, by contrast, what few rockets you can even find anymore are bland, insipid clones, with very little apart from a few decals to separate one design from the other. There’s no imagination on display, nothing to hint at the universe beyond the lowest layers of atmosphere—much less the urge to rise up and explore, out as far as the mind can reach.

What happened? Why are today’s model rockets such boring, uninspired things?

[The Eye]

We live in a boring age the Rockets and cars among other things are a symbol of that.

[Remmirath]

I don't know. Aside from scale models, even when I was still doing model rocketry (a little over ten years ago now) I would agree that it was difficult to find any kits that were very different. Some were at least notably different from the others (mostly in the glider and two-stage areas) -- but none that were strange enough they would compromise stability or flight path. I had fun making several wackier rockets, but those were all ones I designed myself, not from kits. I would have liked to build a kit that was based off some sci-fi art; that would've been pretty cool!

If I had to guess, my guess would be either copyright difficulties or an emphasis on only kits for rockets that would fly well being sold... but I really don't know the reason for the switch. Taking a look around, it looks like most of the kits on the market are still the same as the ones available when I was doing model rocketry, so whatever the change was it probably happened before I would've been aware of it. I do recall my mother mentioning that there were more unusual kits when she was young, but there were also less kits in general and more doing it oneself.

Apparently most of the at-least-somewhat-unusual designs these days are E engines or above, and I never had access to a large enough field for those. That contributes to my main theory that the rather bland and similar designs for most rockets are due to wanting to be able to advertise the stability and ease of building for the kit -- I always got the impression that most of the kit makers think people who fly A to C rockets are less serious about it than those flying larger and more powerful rockets, and thus those are probably considered the more casual kits or some such. I'm sure there's some truth to that, but not for everyone, to be sure.

[Gnoman]

From looking through the catalog, most of what I'm seeing is the same designs that were around 20 years ago, with the photo-taking and gliding ones eliminated. That's probably because of the rise of personal drones killing that market.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Remmirath
If I had to guess, my guess would be either copyright difficulties or an emphasis on only kits for rockets that would fly well being sold... but I really don't know the reason for the switch. Taking a look around, it looks like most of the kits on the market are still the same as the ones available when I was doing model rocketry, so whatever the change was it probably happened before I would've been aware of it.

I think the heyday was the late 70s and early 80s, with most of the more imaginative designs thinning out in the late 80s and early 90s. Certainly by the mid-90s the overall blandness had set in.

My comment about stability was a little tongue-in-cheek; all of their designs were fine on that front, especially ones like the Cassiopeia and the Torellian Invader which had rings or multiple open tubes. And with a couple of exceptions, all of the names and designs came from Estes and Centauri, so I don’t think copyright issues were a factor.


Originally Posted by Remmirath
I had fun making several wackier rockets, but those were all ones I designed myself….

Ah, yes. I worked up a number of my own designs—some of which flew wonderfully well, and some of which (thankfully) never flew at all.

Sadly, my favorite custom-designed rocket did a sharp parabola into the ground when a malfunction misdirected the engine thrust. It would’ve survived with nothing but a dirt-stained nose—but while the nose was lodged in the grass, the ejection charge went off, which blew apart the body tube just aft of the nose cone. That was twenty years ago, and I still haven’t had the heart to attempt a repair.


Originally Posted by Remmirath
That contributes to my main theory that the rather bland and similar designs for most rockets are due to wanting to be able to advertise the stability and ease of building for the kit….

Before its last flight, my favorite custom design was declared “the most stable rocket I’ve ever seen” by the president of our local rocketry chapter. Funky designs can be very stable. :smalltongue:

But I think ease of building is a key factor here. Around the mid-to-late 90s is when I started noticing a rise in simplified, pre-painted model airplane kits. As someone who spent way too much time with an airbrush, I find the notion of a pre-painted kit to be somewhat pointless; for me, creating and realizing the paint scheme is half the fun.

But either there was a decline in patience and attention spans in the mid-to-late 90s, or toy corporations thought there was, because now that I think about it the two trends do match up—the blandifying of rockets and the faster, simpler model kits for planes. I have a feeling there’s more to it on the model rocket side, but you may be onto something with the ease of building. Maybe this was supposed to appeal to parents?


Originally Posted by Gnoman
…the photo-taking and gliding ones eliminated. That's probably because of the rise of personal drones killing that market.

I had one of those photo-taking rockets, but I never managed to get a photo because the “camera” was a pile of cheap plastic parts that you had to assemble yourself. I have a feeling that the photo rocket was discontinued because it simply wasn’t selling well, because that cheap camera was too much hassle to put together and actually use.

The “lens,” for want of a better term, was another plastic part—just clear molded plastic like a model airplane canopy. I have a feeling the photo quality would’ve been terrible anyway.

[Stan]

I remember the hobby shop having a whole wall of options in the late 70s, early 80s. My brother and I made a several over a 2 year period then fell away from it.

I suspect the the more unusual designs didn't sell as many per design, or were more expensive to make so had lower profit margins. If the whole market is half or a third as big as it used to be, then many designs would have their sales drop to a level that they were no longer profitable to keep producing.

[Xyril]

If I had to guess, my guess would be either copyright difficulties or an emphasis on only kits for rockets that would fly well being sold... but I really don't know the reason for the switch.

I would guess this is the reason. Nowadays, if you want to collect sci-fi memorabilia, you can buy kits for model non-rockets, you can buy all sorts of memorabilia or swag, and if you want to fly around in an X-wing, you have games for that. People who build model rockets now want to build small rockets that work well, not the U.S.S. Enterprise with a rocket strapped to it. This means buying kits that generally follow one of a few simple, effective, and easily replicated templates, or building their own design to see how well it works.

[druid91]

I think part of it is the boom in video games and such. Now if you want to see an X-wing fly, your first thought is going to be one of the many games that let's you fly an x-wing.

Video games didn't DO that back in the day, so nerds entertained themselves with other things. Model Rocketry being one of those things. Nowadays, I get the feeling that Model Rockets are still sold due to a combination of nostalgia factor, and a hardened fanbase.

So, you can mostly find simple rockets. Made in such a way that dear old dad can take their son/daughter out to go show them how to have good old fashioned fun, launching chemically propelled tubes of cardboard tipped with pointy plastic cones into the atmosphere.

[Trekkin]

Part of it might be that it's easier than ever to build arbitrary plastic shapes, thanks in part to 3d printing and other techniques.

I always remembered seeing two basic sorts of people at our impromptu rocket range: the kids (like me) who mostly just wanted to see things fly and maybe make them fly better, and the hobbyists out to strap some worryingly un-aerodynamic plastic monstrosity to a very large engine (cluster) and fly a disintegrating mess of ex-wing.

Now, most of my hobby rocketry associates have moved beyond what the rocket companies used to sell; they're flying hybrid motors or full liquid engines, and even the ones still using classic solid motors are cutting parts on CNC machines or printing them out. The only people I still know who fly company-built rockets are kids, and like I said, kids are generally happy to see something fly -- and happier still when, in the event that thing happens not to fly today, the burning mass on the launch rod represents only a day's work and a few dollars' expense to replace.

So perhaps it's just that store-bought rockets are more of an entry point now?

[nyjastul69]

You spend money and buy the thing. You spend time and build the thing. You make time and find a place to fire it off with a possible recovery area. Assuming everything goes correctly, you *might* find your rocket if it lands on the ground. It's a high maintenance hobby.

I wasn't able to afford these toys as a kid (late '70's/early'80's). I do remember some of the older kids who had these toys sending me out to chase them down as cost for watching them build and fire them off. I was very happy to run around the neighborhood as they were pushed by the winds into trees, power lines or nearby vacant lots.

Basically the whole RC vehicle thing seems to have replaced this niche hobby by and large.

ETA: It also wouldn't surprise me if someone got reported to HS as result of launching one. I'll bet you need permission to launch them nowadays.

[tschel23]

Maybe lack of demand has forced hobby shops and model areas of larger stores to select just a few? Good question though. I wonder has the demand for Testor's paints or model paints also diminished?

[Trekkin]

Maybe lack of demand has forced hobby shops and model areas of larger stores to select just a few? Good question though. I wonder has the demand for Testor's paints or model paints also diminished?

Well, if by model paints you mean wargaming mini paints, I'd say local variation washes out the global trend.

That is a good point though; maybe parents would just rather buy their kids less dangerous toys now? The ones I see in arts-and-crafts focused hobby shops are all fairly small now, too.

[J-H]

The engines always seemed ecpensive to me. It's what, $5 a flight? That was a week's allowance when i was 10.
I flew a plastic starter rocket. I got a more complex kit,but it onvolved somehow aligning 5-6 wooden fins on a cardboard tube and gluing them. I do not think it ever flew.
Substituting toilet paper for wadding leads to a scorched parachute btw.