aaarg I cant find it, specs for GoFast

Heheh! A cluster of S50,000 motors would be too cool for words!

That's what I thought too, then I sat down till the feeling passed.

I hear Bubba laughing with anticipation, in the background, as only a Kaylyfornia Bubba can..(;-)

Fred

Fred

Probably closer to 99.95%.

Hard for you to understand Ray. Watching the failure video, a person with expertise can LEARN SOMETHING.

Try it sometime.

Jerry

Troll to tech in 5 seconds flat.

So the conversation could stay on topic. It worked perfectly too.

You weren't curious about the answer were you? It was HIS question after all.

Besides you have posted you do not believe me, so it would not have been a valuable answer to YOU.

Just helpful Jerry

Tape the rocket to the top of the motor :)

Hey that's not vaproware! What is it doing on rmr?

Bill on delivery :) Pay like FOREVER.

Nope, you're still a troll!!

You know, Fred, you'rs sure sounding like this "Bubba" guy is some kinda _friend_ of yours...

As for DG's question: yes, the pyro operator was cognizant of the details of the arrangements, both for the solid propellant flight and the hydrogen peroxide flights that we made on the same day... this all took place under the "experimental rockets unlimited" section of the pyro code, which applies to the launch of all rockets not falling into the "model" or "high power" category. As befits its catch-all nature, the "experimental - unlimited" code is silent on the question of "commercial" or "noncommercial" origin of rockets and their propellants (unlike the MR/HPR sections of the code, with their requirements for "registered" commercially-made motors).

Spoken like a true connoisseur!

-dave w

That's never stopped you before. :)

Yup... California style! :)

-dave w

Clearly amateur.

That was you. Hypocrite.

Selling propellant to somebody is NOT an amateur activity.

BINGO!!! Hence the Bubba factor..

The "Experimental Rockets Unlimited" code under which we flew does not specifically require that the flight be an "amateur" activity.

Friend of yours, this "Bubba"?

-dave w

The first CXST motor failed due to mechanical issues with the front closure. The failure had nothing to do with erosive burning.

With minor changes, due to an unrelated design change to the motor, the same erosive burning set-up was used on the second motor as was used on the first. With a redesigned forward closure the second motor worked, put the rocket into space, and the rest is history.

As part of the motor development program a series of propellant characterization and erosive burning characterization tests were performed. The intent of the erosive burning development program was to maintain high performance, but decrease risk for such a large motor.

One result of the characterization tests was a very significant experimental verification of a specific aspect of erosive burning theory, the result of which will be improved erosive burning design criteria for high power and experimental rocket motors.

A tech article is planned for High Power Rocketry on the development of the CXST motor, and on the erosive burning design criteria that were developed during the CXST motor development.

On another note a tech article on the DART aerospike flights has been submitted to High Power Rocketry. You'll be seeing it soon. Enjoy! Lots of photos; the Optimal 168 rocket is a cool rocket even before you add the aerospike.

Chuck Rogers snipped-for-privacy@aol.com