New AT motor technology

Correct.

something

Yeah, Gary posted some info about this on TRF. The motors would use the new molded cases, with a forward closure that screws in. It's a great concept. You would get some of the cost benefits of reloadable technology without have to buy expensive hardware, plus if you lose the motor it's no big deal.

Plus, it's one more excuse to get some new rocket stuff...

David Erbas-White

Sounds like taking the best part of Pro38 (easy assembly) but losing the (expensive) re-usuable case.

Nice idea by the sounds of things.

I am guessing standard parts will be used. It will survive more firings than will be rated. If you read the TRF thread on this that was one of his concerns. You can also read my reply as you wish.

This was announced/discussed at length on TRF about a month ago. Including posting links to prototype instruction sheets. The announcement included a great account/summary of the N.F.P.A. issues and how after they reviewed the concept there are almost none.

He will sell thousands of these. Probably tens of thousands.

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

something

What that means to me is that some people who lose a case on its first or second flight will probably burn the remaining reloads in another identical case -- which could be a good thing in moderation but a very bad thing if taken to extremes. I wouldn't want to see these things reaching their failure point. Maybe a place on the label where an RSO could mark off how many times the case has been used?

If I get back to flying again (it's a time and money issue for me right now), a motor like this would suit my style very well. Would look pretty good in a Bandit or AR-2B, I'm guessing. ;-)

I agreee. Gary talked about publishing a "max firings per case" rating for each propellant, which means self-moderation can be on an informed basis.

No worse than any CATO.

That was specifically mentioned as a USER employed feature.

You most certainly seem like a nannystate and big brother advocate in this post.

This is a truly GREAT product.

Jerry

Who says there is a formal RSO at all launches?

I would hope that if they are caliming 3 reuses, that they ahve been tested to 6 reuses. As long as you can't buy grains without a case, it shouldn't be a problem.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I don't see how. Unless it saves the company on casing costs over single-use, that they pass on to the customer.

~ Duane Phillips.

Cost scale:

RMS case

CTI case

AT LUR case

AT SU Case

Not quite as cheap as SU, but as reloadable as any of the above, up to a point.

Remember the "rated" number of firings for a RMS case is around 20.

My point was you are likely to have "spare grains" no matter what, from case loss alone. So might as well lean into the wind and allow it.

Jerry

It saves on the manual labor required to assemble the motors. Even at minimum wage, labor is an expensive component of everything we buy. The labor and hte savings get passed on to the customer.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Really? Where is that rating?

David Erbas-White

You might be able to use a G64 reload cut down to the size you wish and make the nozzle the size you want.

save the left over for a smaller load the next time around.

here are the parts for sale now:

auger out the epoxy on the yellow end, then warm in an oven on warm, put in a vise and unscrew the yellow nut.

see the new SU motors are LU already, just that they epoxied the yellow parts threads on , bummer.

In article snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org, Bob Kaplow at kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD wrote on 3/14/05 1:23 PM:

Some labor savings but more importantly, the cost of the molded case is amortized over multiple firings.

Gary

In article 5EmZd.98002$FM3.53470@fed1read02, David Erbas-White at snipped-for-privacy@arachneering.com wrote on 3/14/05 1:39 PM:

Nowhere. We have received reports of some RMS motors being used well over

Gary

In article KoKdncTYc snipped-for-privacy@buckeye-express.com, AlMax at snipped-for-privacy@unverified.com wrote on 3/14/05 1:53 PM:

Correct, the standard reloads do not fit.

The parts listed on the RCS website are not associated with the LUR product (except one of the o-rings, the delay insulator and the casting tube).

Gary

Dammit.

Now you're going to get the obssessive-compulsive part of my to start marking my casings and writing down how often and what engine I'm using in them...

Seriously, thanks for the information. I didn't think this was a real 'rating', but was curious as to what proof Jerry was going to show...

David Erbas-White