AeroTech Open Thread

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Dizwolf's post in the L1000 cato thread asks the valid question of the treatment of the motor after leaving Aerotech as a possible cause. Do you simulate in the lab the temperature/humidity/abuse cycles an engine may see in the real world? If the motor has a small but functional safety margin you may not see a failure in testing fresh motors, but a small normally inconsequential degradation from environmental or handling issues may put it over the edge. I am not saying this is the issue or that there is still an issue, I'm just curious if you test for this as it may explain a difference onsite testing and results in the field. Another possibility would be looking for commonalities in conditions at the launch sites where the issues happened.
 
What I believe to be a failure in the MESS system. Failures should be reported and openly discussed.... and I think openly tracked. But the fear of economic impact keeps failures in this dark world... which leads to distrust. As much as I wish we could all have numbers of failures and detailed reports on why, I also understand people are panicky. Which is why the whole system is broken.

I don't think that you would see a ton of cato's anyway, as I don't think the numbers are that high.
 
I don't think that you would see a ton of cato's anyway, as I don't think the numbers are that high.

Percentages maybe not. But I very frequently see CATOs, blow bys and other such failures. Makes for great photos, but not much fun to fly. I bet it's enough to make it worth tracking.
 
Last edited:
Clear as mud, with the flyer reporting he called and was told this was a new motor. Perhaps he was told it was an unaffected lot, and it just happened to become an affected lot. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I think this is the most likely scenario.
 
What I believe to be a failure in the MESS system. Failures should be reported and openly discussed.... and I think openly tracked. But the fear of economic impact keeps failures in this dark world... which leads to distrust. As much as I wish we could all have numbers of failures and detailed reports on why, I also understand people are panicky. Which is why the whole system is broken.

Yeah I thought the MESS report was to inform manufacturers of issues or potential issues too. This is why we prefer the customer to contact warranty directly whenever possible.
 
Last edited:
Dizwolf's post in the L1000 cato thread asks the valid question of the treatment of the motor after leaving Aerotech as a possible cause. Do you simulate in the lab the temperature/humidity/abuse cycles an engine may see in the real world? If the motor has a small but functional safety margin you may not see a failure in testing fresh motors, but a small normally inconsequential degradation from environmental or handling issues may put it over the edge. I am not saying this is the issue or that there is still an issue, I'm just curious if you test for this as it may explain a difference onsite testing and results in the field. Another possibility would be looking for commonalities in conditions at the launch sites where the issues happened.

We test our motors using field conditions including temperature cycling. We ship the new L1000s like the old ones and they have worked perfect thus far. But yes, variables are taken into consideration when we do our testing.
 
Yeah I though the MESS report was to inform manufacturers of issues or potential issues too. This is why we prefer the customer to contact warranty directly whenever possible.

The NAR is the certifying agency and consumers report failures of certified motors for statistical analysis. Hence the name M.E.S.S.

The NAR would never report failures to manufacturers as a third party middleman.

Consumers report product failures to manufacturers for warranty claims.
 
What I believe to be a failure in the MESS system. Failures should be reported and openly discussed.... and I think openly tracked. But the fear of economic impact keeps failures in this dark world... which leads to distrust. As much as I wish we could all have numbers of failures and detailed reports on why, I also understand people are panicky. Which is why the whole system is broken.
Dave

The MESS system was started by NAR S&T and now includes TRA TMT and CAR MTC. We get between 150 to 200 MESS reports per year, so either hobby rocket motors don't have any issues, or more likely almost all of the motor problems don't get reported. except by bitching on the forum and other rocketry meeting places. All we can do it to analyze the reports we receive and attempt to determine if a motor has a problem or not, and believe it not, up to half of the reports we receive are incomplete and do not include the important required information such as the proper motor label identification, the lot number, the delay (if any), and how the motor failed, so it is sometimes impossible to figure out if the manufacture has a problem or the user did something wrong.

If you check the NAR/TRA/CAR combined list, you will see ~2000 uniquely labeled engines. With a maximum of ~200 MESS reports per year, this again indicates that one would be lead to believe that a motor failure is a rare occurrence. Yet at the launches I attend, I observe a nominal 2% failure rate. In a single year, our club CMASS launches over 3000-4000 rockets involving ~5000 motors, so ~100 motor failures at CMASS should account for ~50% of the annual MESS reports. I also went to LDRS where we had ~850 launches involving ~1000 motors. Of these maybe ~200 are research motors with a ~20% failure rate so the other ~800 certified motor should have produced ~16 certified motor mess reports. Somehow I must be lucky and get to observe a majority of the motor failures that happen each year.

Right. :facepalm:

last year ~183 motor failures were reported (Some appear to be duplicates). The majority of the failures were Estes motors (116). That not surprising however as Estes makes probably >80% of the rocket motors flown in the US each year. The rest are from AT+Estes AP (55), CTI (13), and Quest (5). Of the 55 AT (+ AP Estes) failures (~50 unique or identifiable events), the were (3) unique L1000 failures (4 actuals but 2 were the same motor reported thru both NAR.org and motorcato.org). There were also (6) G80 failures, (4) F44 failures, (3) F42 failures, (3) G40 failures, so (3) L1000 failures do not stand out as unusual.

Another item that we do not know what the production numbers are for any of the motors from any of the manufacturers. What the certification group do is to conduct and witness static firings of a small number of motors and verify that the motors perform as label, and that the instruction comply with legal requirements so the motor can be sold to consumers in the US. The manufacturers are required to perform routine static QA test firings by NFPA during production and the manufacturers warrantee their products. Warrantee claims are expensive so no manufacturer is going to purposely ship a lot of motor known to fail. There is no profit in it, indeed it is a big financial loss several times any profit the manufacturer made on the original sale.

If more than 15% of the reported failures of a manufacturer's products in a single year are attributed to a single labeled motor, S&T looks further into the item. None of the AT failures arise to this level, so no further action is required by S&T at this time based on failure reports.

Yeah I though the MESS report was to inform manufacturers of issues or potential issues too. This is why we prefer the customer to contact warranty directly whenever possible.

You, as the manufacturer, are required to perform lot testing according to NFPA 1125, and you, as a manufacturer, provide a warrantee on your products, based on claims you receive on failures of your products. NAR S&T and TRA TMT independently certify the performance of the limited number of motors you provide to them meets your specifications, and that the instructions and labeling that you supply comply with current regulations. We annually review MESS reports sent in by consumers on motor failures of the types we certify. If we feel there is a performance issue with any motors we have certified, we notify you. If there is a safety issue, we can and have immediately decertified a motor, and will not permit it to be used until the issue is addressed, and fortunately this is extremely rare.

We can not supply a complete statistical analysis on motor failures as we to not know the production number or the use numbers of a uniquely labeled motor at a given time. All we can do is to perform a sparse data analysis on the failure reports we receive and attempt to determine if these failure lie outside statistical bounds which are somewhat ill defined. Each manufacturer has more data than we have, and is usually aware of an issue before we are, and usually rectifies the problem before we need to act, which is how is should be handled.

The NAR is the certifying agency and consumers report failures of certified motors for statistical analysis. Hence the name M.E.S.S.

The NAR would never report failures to manufacturers as a third party middleman.

Consumers report product failures to manufacturers for warranty claims.

That's a concise summary, Shread. Thanks.

Bob Krech, Tech Officer, NAR S&T
 
Bob- not trying to place blame on you guys. Just point out without every flier reporting motor results, it's just all incomplete data. As you've said, most don't get reported.

In a dream world we'd have all the numbers to compare. I think it's likely the best data is in the hands of the manufactures, comparing production numbers to claims. If there's an issue, I'm sure they'd pull the motors themselves, as claims get expensive.
 
It's been too quite for too long...

If one were supposing that there were products constantly in development at Aerotech, then one might assume there was a development and introduction schedule giving some idea when products might make it to market...

For those of us who watch this thread and this forum, what are the chances that we could be given some idea when such products may become available for purchase. It is popular to inform the buying public in advance of introduction in many industries. "Xx product coming to stores in November" is not unusual to see. It would seem Aerotech is big enough and mature enough to do something similar for more of their products with longer lead times.

There have been many hints of products in development on this thread but no timeline to help us plan our buying strategies. The holidays are coming and, to take advantage of the gift-giving spirit, some of us need to be planting seeds very early. If a product hinted at is not really going to be available until February 2016, then to subtly ask for it as a present (possibly even to oneself) by December 25 may create a dilemma if one can't obtain said product in time.

So, Aerotech, could you offer us a listing of products (including the ones you have already hinted at) and their approximate release dates for the next quarter? We know that there will be time to get products to dealers and all that, but it would really help knowing what lies ahead for those of us who are waiting for certain new products with baited breath.

A few items on the personal short list - 75mm RAS, 24/60 F33FJ and F34R reloads.

Anything you can share?
 
I'd also love to see some timelines, even preliminary ones, announced formally (or informally for that matter)

Nate
 
While it would be nice to see, if I were AT a timeline would be the last thing I'd put out. People would be barking at you two days after the next widget was supposed to hit the streets. "What's up brah? Where are my new toys bra?? You promised me new loads for the 29/120 case brah!"

By the way, any chance of getting new loads for the 29/120 case? Say a Green brah?
 
Charlie and crew are at XPRS and BALLS over the next week but I suspect you'll hear something from them soon.
 
I just got back from BALLS where we had a great time, I'll have some news about some new stuff as well as answer the unanswered questions either tomorrow or Wednesday. ImageUploadedByRocketry Forum1443501531.093933.jpg
 
The above motor static test...nice and smooth.

o.jpg


Tony
 
The new products may not be out yet but I just got a good sized order with no back ordered items and a 1 week turn around. That right there tells me things are improving in the world of AT.
 
I just got back from BALLS where we had a great time, I'll have some news about some new stuff as well as answer the unanswered questions either tomorrow or Wednesday. View attachment 273257

Now this one looks exiting - the kind of exiting where I can't resist of making a fool of myself by speculating.

Counting pixels, the motor appears to be about 10-20% longer than the longest 98mm comparable casings in the market. Tony's picture doesn't look like White Lightning, so I assume we're talking about Propellant-X. Looks like an O7000 with 22-24kNs. How many rockets do you plan to shred with that thing? ;-)

Reinhard
 
Last edited:
I just got back from BALLS where we had a great time, I'll have some news about some new stuff as well as answer the unanswered questions either tomorrow or Wednesday. View attachment 273257

I have a new question that hopefully wont be un-answered for long ...

Are you coming out to Oktoberfest in Las Vegas next month ??!?

Kenny
 
Now this one looks exiting - the kind of exiting where I can't resist of making a fool of myself by speculating.

Counting pixels, the motor appears to be about 10-20% longer than the longest 98mm comparable casings in the market. Tony's picture doesn't look like White Lightning, so I assume we're talking about Propellant-X. Looks like an O7000 with 22-24kNs. How many rockets do you plan to shred with that thing? ;-)

Reinhard

In my estimation, your guestimation isn't too far off ;).
 
Hi AT folks-

I'm hoping you can briefly discuss a couple of small-motor development points that I believe you're working on... Appreciate any info you can provide on:
  • 24mm sparky reloads (as pictured on your website with the caption "Barbara Grocki`s rocket on a 24mm diameter `F`-class Aerotech Metalstorm motor at MDRA`s Red Glare VIII Launch (photo by Dan Michael)")
  • development of (or challenges associated with) additional reloads for the 24/60 case
  • any progress on re-issuing a redline reload for the 29/40-120 case
  • Are any other propellant types being examined for the 29/40-120 case? I'd love to see a sparky!

Thanks in advance!
Erik McKee
 
Be prepared to pay Haz-Mat shipping for those Sparky for a 29 mm x 40-120 case.
If they ever materialize....

JD

Hi AT folks-

I'm hoping you can briefly discuss a couple of small-motor development points that I believe you're working on... Appreciate any info you can provide on:
  • 24mm sparky reloads (as pictured on your website with the caption "Barbara Grocki`s rocket on a 24mm diameter `F`-class Aerotech Metalstorm motor at MDRA`s Red Glare VIII Launch (photo by Dan Michael)")
  • development of (or challenges associated with) additional reloads for the 24/60 case
  • any progress on re-issuing a redline reload for the 29/40-120 case
  • Are any other propellant types being examined for the 29/40-120 case? I'd love to see a sparky!

Thanks in advance!
Erik McKee
 
buying from local vendors avoids Hazmat! But a good point, still.

-e
 
Back
Top