Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CQBArms
When I look at most kits, body tubes...sort of standard diameters. Nose cones, standard diameters (and types), materials balsa planks (fis cut in many different ways but lots of the same patterns 3F, 4F, launch lugs, engine mounts, shock cords, parachute systems, all pretty much standard stuff.
So unless you are building an entirely custom rocket with new concepts of engine mount, odd sized body tubes, recovery etc. It's going to include a large percentage of COTS parts. There's no way around it.
Now certainly you can flavor it up by increasing the percentage of "new parts" but actually look at a rocket and look at what percentage is "new stuff" and what's actually COTS parts. That goes for just about any mfg out there.
|
Well, there's traditional COTS and then there's Carl...
You can call any collection of parts COTS as long as those parts remain in the inventory. With almost every rocket design, the fins make up the most visible difference; body tubes are standard, nose cones follow "standardized" shapes and lengths, and the rings are fairly uninteresting by themselves. I suppose those items constitute COTS since we need them in every design...
COTS, though, is mostly an accounting method generally used to justify a reduction in (unique line item) parts count across production lines. Autos, computers, and other appliances are great examples of where that concept works well. It is also a good example of the concept taken to an extreme. Remember the Oldsmobile? Where is it today? It used to be GM's premere new-concept line...
I like SEMROC's concept of continually adding new parts to the collection whenever feasable. It's not like Carl really has to keep tons of non-shipped components in a warehouse all the time, taking up space and keeping his capital tied down. He produces enough to fill the immediate orders, and maybe a few for the bins, and that's it. He doesn't have to make any turned parts if nothing has shipped; filling those kit bags takes enough to justify keeping a few "old standards" in higher quantity, but even there he's not going to go overboard. Carl's COTS are dynamic... [
OK, I know that's a dangerous phrase, Bill. No snickering from the peanut gallery! 
]
I guess it's our perspective of what is "off the shelf" and what isn't. Turned parts, rings, and tubes certainly qualify. Carl, though, is using an older concept of a model rocketry company that caters to builders and designers, not impulse buyers; that requires a much larger variety in the parts he offers. Estes (and Centuri) started off that way until the "big dogs" came barking. Now, they're just one combined company catering to a short-term-attention-span customer who may or may not come back in a week for more. They were COTS-ed to death. Now, compare the product lines of Estes and SEMROC. Whose kits do you prefer? How did Carl get there? By not being what Estes became, but instead becoming what Estes once was: A hobbyist-oriented model rocket company.
By whatever name you want to call it, Carl's method works. We're benefitting from his efforts, he's not feeling too badly, and there's far more to come. No matter what Estes does today, I don't think they have the momentum anymore. Too little, too late, with no real understanding of what they did wrong. That's why I have such a negative feeling about the COTS concept when it comes to our hobby. I've seen it at its worst already. Carl is trying to counteract the damage, and that's a good thing.