New AT motor technology



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! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
"To enslave men, successfully and safely, it is necessary to have their minds occupied with thoughts and aspirations short of the liberty of which they are deprived. A certain degree of attainable good must be kept before them." Frederick Douglas, "My Bondage and My Freedom," 1855
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So where does this fit into the pricing range of existing product lines? If it isn't cheaper than single-use, as Jerry hinted, why would it be useful?
~ Duane Phillips.
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is cheaper "per flight" than single use (expensive case used on each SU, AND has a faster breakeven than metallic case systems, albiet at the cost of replacing cases more often.
Actual "cheapest" will be a pricing strategy factor by RCS.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I could always sell you the RMS hardware at 25% off and make the break even cost a bit lower. :-) http://www.the-motorman.net / . . . .

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is the "per flight" cost that I intended. If we are talking a < $2 difference per flight between SU and this new variety, I personnaly would stick with SU. Less hassle. As I understand it so far, a 3 pack < 2 pack SU. This does not seem to be a significant reason to switch from SU. It does, however, make a difference from the RMS line, in that users will eventually build up a supply of casings that one can stand to lose.

What do you mean here; please explain?
~ Duane Phillips
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com, Duane Phillips at snipped-for-privacy@askme.askme wrote on 3/14/05 4:05 PM:

It will probably result in about 30% less per flight (about $4 per flight on an F20W for example).
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary C. Rosenfield wrote:

Very reasonable, and something I'll probably give a try -- I don't tend to fly many SU because I'm not fond of the cost per flight on SU loads.
-Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The question is, how will this "new techknowelegy" (AT-NT) be implemented.
For SU, there's no question - use once and toss.. for RMS. - keep using, as the case failure is probably due to something else (like a missing o-ring)
For these new thingies, they're built to handle 3 or more uses. Will S&T/TMT test them to verify that 5,6,7, 10 uses still result in a "certified motor"? There's got to be a failure point in these "limited reuse" things, and unlike real RMS, probably can't be used 10's (or 100's) of times... That seems to be something that AT/S&T/TMT will need to determine!
Is the failure at 5 uses or 7 uses, or 50 uses? (trust me.. there will be atleast one flier who thinks it's the "lucky case" and keep reusing it like a RMS, over and over again!) If the LU case causes a problem on it's 10 usage, will this be covered by TRA/NAR insurance, as it was a "certified" configuration, or is not certified, as the case was used more than 3 times? How can the case usage be tracked, as the "use 3 times" appears to be a basis for pending certification...
Gosh... I really think AT screwed up here, as their new "system" can not be regulated (by the RSO) or tested by a testing agency! It's either SU or has a durable case.. Not one that is "recommended" for 3 burns! (with published test data to back it up!)

flight on

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it happens regularly.

Yes.
Correct.
Propellant type dependent.

And when it fails "normally" it will not be a warranty item but a learning experience.

No, it is a viable system, but indeed does rely on consumer "judgement".
You know, like when you assemble a complex RMS reloadable with it's 7 leak points.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Woody wrote:

implemented.
using, as

o-ring)
"certified
things,
times...
I'm sure they will work something out. IThe concept has already been approved by NFPA, which is the real issue.

will be

it like

10
"certified"
times?
be a

Why would anyone keep using the same case over and over, when they get a new case every time they buy a pack of loads? Your argument doesn't make sense.
Besides, if anyone actually was stupid enough to keep using the same case until it catoes, the worst that will happen is they have to buy a new rocket.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was already allowed within NFPA "model code" language. Synerjet had motor kits many years ago already.
The only "mods" to NFPA were NOT done by NFPA itself or even overseen in any substantial way by NFPA. They were made by the members of the sport rocket caucus and submitted for rubber stamp to the NFPA-pyrotechnics committee which is yet another group of industry reps.
NFPA rents a room and sells books.
You really need to update your false language Ray.

Because you can. My kid got up to OVER 80 firings on a SINGLE NOZZLE the other day.

Correct. Therefore no rule against it is needed.
Unless you just love rules for their own sake and the collateral damage just doesn't bother you one little bit. Like TRA leaders for example.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

NFPA writes regulations which become law when adopted by states and municipalities.
s
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know what? You keep saying this false statement. You keep getting corrected by people with first hand experience. You refuse to change.
This is one of the many reasons you are characterized as a moron.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

getting
The only one "correcting" me is you, and we all know what your word is worth.

Do you deny that NFPA regs have the force of law in states and cities that have adopted them?
w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Irvine at snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote on 3/15/05 10:04 PM:

Minor correction.
NFPA writes model codes which are often adopted as local and state regulation by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1) Ok, let's say that you bought 2 of the new packs.. Two cases, and 6 loads.. First flight is lost, and now you have 5 loads and 1 case. What would most folks do? Try to fly all 5 loads in the one case, or try to find a "spare case"... I think the answer is clear...
2) Trust me ray, there will be someone that tries to use the case until it catos.. I could tell you about the time where folks were throwing unused grains into a webber "smokey joe" grill 10' from tents at a big launch one night. (my tent was one of them... I woke up as the tent kept getting "bright"!).
Seeing the "breaking point" of these cases could actually become a "contest" of sort! "I few this case x times, even though AT only says 3!". It may not be you Ray, but understand that you're view isn't the same as everyone...)
It could not just be a cato if the case is used 5 or 15 times when it's only certed for 3.. If the cato resulted in other damage, what's the insurance impact? Let's say the cato resulted in a grass fire for example. (as I've seen in AZ, with a few that have been nasty.. And this will be a bad summer for fires here, based on the rains in the spring....) No one hurt, but the guy that owns the field files a claim as he lost 2 acres of "whatever".... "well, I think I used that case less than 10 times....."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You NEED bad news to live, don't you?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Woody wrote:

get
doesn't
same
buy a

and 6

would most

"spare
The cases can handle additional firings, so using up a couple of spare loads is no biggie.

until it

unused
launch one

getting
Sure, there's always someone who will find a way to do something stupid with anything. That's no reason to keep a good product off the market.

it's only

insurance
I've
summer
but the

"whatever"....
If you're that worried about it, don't permit them at your launch.
s
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ray..ray!! the correct answer is self-regulation.!!!! heheeheehh
now of course X's self regulation may not be Y's self-regulation....
know what I mean vern ?
shockie B)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.