Carbon fiber cased moon-burner M motor build and static test

Nov 06, 2026 Last reply: 1 day ago 3 Replies
Jump to replies (3)

The detail that jumped out at me is the casing wall: roughly 0.08 inches of carbon fiber holding together an M-Class motor with 7.392 lb of propellant on board. That is a very thin structure for the power involved, and Andrew Reilley pulled it off. The total mass came out at 10.6 lb, which means the propellant mass fraction landed at 0.73, clearing the stated goal of getting above 0.7.



The build itself is a serious piece of work. The casing was produced on an automated filament winding apparatus and then post-cured at 130 C. Up front there is a CNC-machined aluminum closure, and the nozzle side pairs a brown phenolic retainer with a black graphite insert. The propellant was cast using a custom 83% solids APCP formula, and the core geometry, a four-fin star, was designed in OpenMotor before any mixing happened.



The firing was done upright in a steel test stand, and the numbers look strong: a peak thrust of 417.7 lbf over a burn of 4.976 seconds, adding up to 7298 N s of total impulse. After the burn the graphite throat was still glowing, which says a lot about how hard that little insert worked.



One open item: the maker noted the results did not line up with the simulation. The motor clearly performed, but the mismatch between the OpenMotor predictions and the measured numbers is the loose end I would want to see chased down in a follow-up.



Overall this is an ambitious step from 2 inches up to 3 inches for more thrust and impulse, and the execution shows.



Project by Andrew Reilley. Watch it on their YouTube channel:

formatting link


That 0.08 inch wall is the choice that impresses me most. Keeping the structure that thin is what lets the total mass stay at 10.6 lb against 7.392 lb of propellant, and hitting 0.73 on the mass fraction proves the approach worked. The trade-off in my view is that there is almost no structural margin to spare, so a proper 130 C post-cure stops being optional and becomes the whole ballgame on a case like this.

I am curious about the casting side of this. With a four-fin star core designed in OpenMotor and an 83% solids APCP mix, how was the star geometry actually held in place while the propellant was poured and cured? Getting a crisp star pattern to survive casting in a dense mix like that seems tricky, and I would love to know what tooling or method was used for it.

Since the measured results did not line up with the simulation, a concrete next step would be feeding the actual test stand numbers back into OpenMotor and refining the model until it matches the 417.7 lbf peak and the 4.976 second burn. Once the software matches reality on this motor, the same calibrated model could be used to design a bigger or differently shaped core, and the next firing would be a much better predictor.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required