ROL NEWS--AeroTech Announces Certification of Three New Reload Kits

AeroTech Announces Certification of Three New Reload Kits June 22, 2004 Web posted at: 5:40 PM EDT
(ROL Newswire) -- The AeroTech division of RCS Rocket Motor Components
(RCS), Inc. is pleased to announce the certification of three new Reloadable Motor System (RMS) reload kits by the Tripoli Motor Testing (TMT) committee. These reloads are the 29mm G79W, 38mm G61W and the 38mm I600R.
Technical specifications may be found on the AeroTech website at www.aerotech-rocketry.com
The G79W uses two standard grains from the 29mm high power RMS line, and the G61W uses a single standard 38mm RMS grain. The I600R uses standard length 38mm Redline grains that have been modified to reduce the motor output to just under 640 N-sec. The I600R was specifically designed for use in this year's LDRS 'I-Lite' Bowling Ball loft competition and produces an initial thrust of over 180 pounds with a duration of just under 1.1 seconds.
The two 'G' reloads fit new RMS casings that are being introduced simultaneously by AeroTech and Dr. Rocket/Reloadable Systems. These cases are compatible with existing 29 & 38mm high power closures. The G79W is NOT compatible with the 29/40-120 model rocket RMS hardware. The I600R fits existing 38/720 motor hardware.
The three new reloads are being released in conjunction with LDRS-23, the annual high power rocket launch sponsored by the Tripoli Rocketry Association. Limited quantities of G61W and G79W reloads and 29/120 and 38/120 RMS cases will be available from AeroTech dealers attending the launch. Initial sale of the I600R reloads will be restricted to participants in the I-Lite Bowling Ball Loft competition.
The G79W and G61W reloads qualify as "model rocket motors" and no user certification is required, though purchasers must be 18 years of age or older in compliance with Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations. A Level 1 Tripoli or NAR certification is required for purchase of the I600R reload.
Source: RCS Rocket Motor Components (RCS), Inc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Way to go Gary! So glad to see you back in action! Can't wait to go to LDRS 23.... Barry

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

Do they go into "outer space" too?

--
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

I600R also sounds like a good 'pre-L2 shakedown' motor for L1 flyers IMO. *Lots* of thrust, but still an I.
-- Niall Oswald ========UKRA 1345 L0 EARS 1151 MARS
"Gravity assisted pieces of the rocket raining from the sky should be avoided. It is also financially undesirable." -Portland State Aerospace Society
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Niall Oswald wrote:

Yep - and a step in the right direction IMHO. We have too many motors that are a "baby J" or "baby M" or whatever... it's good to see some that are near the top of the impulse range for their "letter" class.
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave W. wrote: << Yep - and a step in the right direction IMHO. We have too many motors that are a "baby J" or "baby M" or whatever... it's good to see some that are near the top of the impulse range for their "letter" class. >>
Yes! Motors which produce just barely more impulse than the previous size is one of my pet peeves. I like motors that are at least in the upper end of their impulse range.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Yet you do not like USR (think it should be certified). Ironic, eh?
--
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 wrote: << Yet you do not like USR (think it should be certified). Ironic, eh? >>
Hey, I'd love to see you get your motors certified. Just don't expect everyone to set aside the rules just for you. You want 'em certified, you gotta meet the same standards as every other manufacturer. If you are unable do that, I'm sympathetic. If you're unwilling to do that, well, that's your choice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

You mean the same standards that keep very nearly every manufacturer of solid rocket motors in this country _uninterested_ in offering "certified consumer" motors?
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

Dave W. wrote: <<You mean the same standards that keep very nearly every manufacturer of solid rocket motors in this country _uninterested_ in offering "certified consumer" motors? >>
Name ONE motor manufacturer besides Frank and Jerry who has specifically cited the motor cert requirements as a reason not to produce consumer motors.
BTW, "well, there was this guy who used to make a few motors for his buddies" doesn't count. You said "motor manufacturers", not small time wannabes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Why not start with those two, and their related customers and contractors (totaling over 5 "manufacturers").

--
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:

What five manufacturers?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry asked: << Why not start with those two, and their related customers and contractors (totaling over 5 "manufacturers"). >>
Because Dave said, "...nearly every manufacturer of solid rocket motors in this country..." We already know about you and Frank. Your customers are not motor manufacturers, and your "contractors" are unknown and unconfirmed.
So what other manufacturers of solid rocket motors in this country have cited the cert requirements as a reason for staying out of the consumer (hobby) rocket market?
How many real, established solid rocket motor manufacturers are there? Thiokol, Aerojet, who else? Do those folks even know, or care, that the hobby market exists? I doubt it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

What, two isn't enough?

Ray, your attitude sucks AP fumes.
Hobby rocketry is enough of a niche market that we have no freakin' business making a distinction between "small time wannabes" and "manufacturers"... we should be _encouraging_ "small-time" suppliers to come forward with new products - motors as well as books, electronics, rail buttons, or molded plastic hardware for parallel-staged boosters - instead of setting policies intended to keep out those who aren't "legitimate" (i.e., "established" and "corporate") enough.
And don't go bleating about "government requirements" - that's one of the areas in which the orgs could offer help: Imagine if NAR/TRA had an outreach program to assist new manufacturers through the DOT testing process to establish their propellants as "suitable to be shipped safely", instead of simply laying back, arms folded, and saying "go make your own arrangements with DOT and then we'll consider talking to you".
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's even worse is when you provide specific examples, those particular examples are instantly dismissed as invalid examples, without reason or basis of course.

ie "rejecting 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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Isn't Vulcan a former "consumer" motor supplier who still makes motors for "industrial" applications?
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Isn't Vulcan a former "consumer" motor supplier...>>
Yes.
<< ...who still makes motors for "industrial" applications?>>
That's what I've heard, though I don't know if they're still in business. But did they cite the cert requirements as their reason for dropping out of the hobby market? Or was there some other reason, such as an inability to compete in the age of reloadable motors? (They were, after all, the ones who concocted that bogus video in an attempt to scuttle AT's entry into reloads.)
Of course, if they are still doing business for the industrial market, that means they already have their ATF and DOT permits. So I'd be curious as to exactly how the cert process would be a stumbling block for them, or any other legal manufacturer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Absolutely. They were "blackballed" over the "video issue".
You know, when AT was shipping RMS for YEARS before they were EITHER DOT approved or NAR/TRA certified.
That one.

Gary copied reloadables from VULCAN!!
And delays And Redline ...

By illegally requiring ATF permits everyone including a judge agrees are not needed. Everyone except NAR and TRA of course.
Jerry
So why are YOU ignoring the FACTS in this message? Hmmm?
--
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

This should be in the FAQ.
--
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
Nice! A stamp of approval from you're biggest fan. 8-)
wrote:

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.