What exactly is.....?

[skybuster]

So after reading many posts about engines, I've come across "re-loadable" ones. As a newbie to rocketry, I'm confused about them. So, what exactly is a re-loadable engine, is it like reloading ammunition like some shooters and outdoors people do, or is it something completely different?
Thanks for the info

[Aksrockets]

Reloadable engines are ones that are made from kits. The prices are way cheaper then single use ones. most serious hobbyists use relodables much more then single use AP engines.

the most expensive part is the case you load them into.

[Handeman]

Yes, they are similar. Reloadable MOTORS (engines have moving parts) are metal motor casings and end closures. You purchase the internals and in most cases this includes the single use nozzles. After use, you clean the motor case and closures and use it again. Almost all motors H and above are reloadable.

[[POW]Eagle159]

Yes, they are similar. Reloadable MOTORS (engines have moving parts) are metal motor casings and end closures. You purchase the internals and in most cases this includes the single use nozzles. After use, you clean the motor case and closures and use it again. Almost all motors H and above are reloadable.

Sorry but I think that electrical motors have a moving part!
So you sir are wrong....

[jimzcatz]

Oh no,not the motor vs engine debate again. Estes sells engines,although I prefer the term "motor" Anything F and above is usually termed "motor" but to each their own.

[[POW]Eagle159]

Oh no,not the motor vs engine debate again. Estes sells engines,although I prefer the term "motor" Anything F and above is usually termed "motor" but to each their own.

I know it is so similar... Don't want to get off topic ...

[jim fustini]

NASA calls them motors so that is what I call them. Also CTI, Aerotech, LOKI, and AMW call them reloadable "Motors"

[bjphoenix]

So after reading many posts about engines, I've come across "re-loadable" ones. As a newbie to rocketry, I'm confused about them. So, what exactly is a re-loadable engine, is it like reloading ammunition like some shooters and outdoors people do, or is it something completely different?
Thanks for the info

The ammunition reloading analogy is pretty accurate. The casing is a significant part of the motor, and if you can re-use it then you can save some money. You buy the casing separate from the propellant, then you buy a kit that contains the propellant, probably the nozzle, some o-rings and seals, etc. and assemble it yourself. You can launch the rocket, clean the casing, reload it, and fly it again not too long afterwards.

Different manufacturers have slightly different hardware and reload kits, so some are easier and quicker to load than others. If you want to go this way, then the best thing is to find out if there is a dealer local to you that sells one brand or the other, then buy that system.

[bjphoenix]

NASA calls them motors so that is what I call them. Also CTI, Aerotech, LOKI, and AMW call them reloadable "Motors"

I don't get caught up in this argument, but does NASA make a distinction between the solid fuel boosters and the liguid fuel motors? I always thought that the distinction of "motor" vs. "engine" had to do with where the fuel came from.

[Wingarcher]

NASA does: what does SSME stand for?

Space Shuttle Main Engine.

SRB? Solid Rocket Booster.


Nat
MARS #136
www.nypower2011.com

[Rocketjunkie]

NASA does: what does SSME stand for?

Space Shuttle Main Engine.

SRB? Solid Rocket Booster.

SRB is the complete booster, including recovery, etc. When referring to the propulsion unit, it's SRM - solid rocket motor.

[[POW]Eagle159]

SRB is the complete booster, including recovery, etc. When referring to the propulsion unit, it's SRM - solid rocket motor.

Hoooo. some one got shot down trying to be too technical... pow pow

[shreadvector]

An electrical motor has no moving parts. The output is the motion. For a regular electric motor the output is the spinning of the shaft. For a linear motor, the output is a translating motion.

Mass drivers are motors.

See hundreds of previous threads where this has been explained over and over again.

[cjl]

An electrical motor has no moving parts. The output is the motion. For a regular electric motor the output is the spinning of the shaft. For a linear motor, the output is a translating motion.

Mass drivers are motors.

See hundreds of previous threads where this has been explained over and over again.

The shaft in an electric motor is not stationary. It is a part of the motor. Therefore, an electric motor has moving parts (or, more accurately, a moving part).

(Q.E.D.)

[jim fustini]

Heee heee lol Just don't flame and get this locked.

[Tronman]

[shreadvector]

The shaft in an electric motor is not stationary. It is a part of the motor. Therefore, an electric motor has moving parts (or, more accurately, a moving part).

(Q.E.D.)

The shaft is not required to turn the electrical energy into movement. The shaft is built into the motor so that when the electricity creates the movement, there is a way to harness that movement.

To be clear: An engine requires moving parts to convert energy into movement while a motor does not require moving parts to convert energy into movement. You may substitute other words for "movement" but I am talking about the output of the motor or engine and it can be rotational (like a shaft) or linear (like a mass driver or a rocket motor or a rocket engine).

There is no point in retyping the same messages that have been posted over and over again for many years in many threads. If someone cannot use the search function and cannot read those past messages, then they may indeed continue to post arguments in this thread as a method of demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of science, thermodynamics and reading comprehension.

[[POW]Eagle159]

The shaft is not required to turn the electrical energy into movement. The shaft is built into the motor so that when the electricity creates the movement, there is a way to harness that movement.

To be clear: An engine requires moving parts to convert energy into movement while a motor does not require moving parts to convert energy into movement. You may substitute other words for "movement" but I am talking about the output of the motor or engine and it can be rotational (like a shaft) or linear (like a mass driver or a rocket motor or a rocket engine).

There is no point in retyping the same messages that have been posted over and over again for many years in many threads. If someone cannot use the search function and cannot read those past messages, then they may indeed continue to post arguments in this thread as a method of demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of science, thermodynamics and reading comprehension.

THIS...THIS has nothing to do with re-loadable ENGINES...NOT motors...

[n3tjm]

Some rocket motors have moving parts. Floating Bulkhead Hybrids . Hehe.

[cjl]

The shaft is not required to turn the electrical energy into movement. The shaft is built into the motor so that when the electricity creates the movement, there is a way to harness that movement.

No, but the rotor certainly is. Without a rotor, there is no way to turn the electrical energy into movement. The rotor moves. Thus, a moving part.

To be clear: An engine requires moving parts to convert energy into movement while a motor does not require moving parts to convert energy into movement. You may substitute other words for "movement" but I am talking about the output of the motor or engine and it can be rotational (like a shaft) or linear (like a mass driver or a rocket motor or a rocket engine).

To be accurate, engine and motor are largely (but not completely) interchangeable. Engine usually implies combustion of a fuel, while motor is more generic. Thus, a car can have a 340 motor, or a 340 engine (and both are correct), but en electric motor is not an engine. Similarly, rockets can be considered engines or motors (though by convention, most people refer to solid rockets as motors and liquid rockets as engines), as can the motor (or engine) in a lawnmower. Hydraulic motors are not engines however.

There is no point in retyping the same messages that have been posted over and over again for many years in many threads. If someone cannot use the search function and cannot read those past messages, then they may indeed continue to post arguments in this thread as a method of demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of science, thermodynamics and reading comprehension.

Science, thermodynamics, and reading comprehension have very little to do with this. Understanding of the english language is what is under question here.


(This will be my last post on this thread as far as engines vs motors are concerned, since it's really not that relevant to the original question)

[shreadvector]

The shaft is not required to turn the electrical energy into movement. The shaft is built into the motor so that when the electricity creates the movement, there is a way to harness that movement.

To be clear: An engine requires moving parts to convert energy into movement while a motor does not require moving parts to convert energy into movement. You may substitute other words for "movement" but I am talking about the output of the motor or engine and it can be rotational (like a shaft) or linear (like a mass driver or a rocket motor or a rocket engine).

There is no point in retyping the same messages that have been posted over and over again for many years in many threads. If someone cannot use the search function and cannot read those past messages, then they may indeed continue to post arguments in this thread as a method of demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of science, thermodynamics and reading comprehension.

[judo]

The man, new to the hobby, is asking about reloads.

I respectfully request that engine/motor/electricity discussions be tabled.

Help him out. Answer his questions.

[bradycros]

So after reading many posts about engines, I've come across "re-loadable" ones. As a newbie to rocketry, I'm confused about them. So, what exactly is a re-loadable engine, is it like reloading ammunition like some shooters and outdoors people do, or is it something completely different?
Thanks for the info

First picture is the reloadable and reuseable hardware.

Second picture is of the parts that go into the hardware, each set of parts is good for one lift off.


www.hobbylinc.com/htm/aro/aro61205.htm
F12-5J Reload Kit 24/40 (3 reloads)
Other items from Aerotech
Catalog Location: Model Rockets > Rocket Engines > Reloadable
This Package Contains Three F-class F12-5J Model Rocket Reload Kit for Aerotech RMS 24/40 Motors. Federal Law Prohibits the Sale of this Product to Persons Under Age 18.
Your Price: $17.89
Savings: 33% off
List Price: $26.99
Product Number: ARO61205
Not in Stock, due date unknown
Email me when available
Not in Stock, due date unknown

OR



Features
•Fits all kits designed for black powder "D" motors.
•The primary use is for single stage.
•The "J" stands for Black Jack Propellant.
•This reload kit includes (3 of each)
•-Liner (7/8" O.D. tube).
•-Propellant Grain (long slotted part).
•-Delay Grain (short solid part).
•-Delay Spacer (9/16" O.D. Washer, O-ring or tube).
•-Delay Insulator (5/8" O.D. tube).
•-Forward Insulator (7/8" O.D. washer).
•-Nozzle (black plastic part).
•-Aft O-Ring (3/32" thick x 7/8" O.D.).
•-Forward O-Ring (1/16" thick x 7/8" O.D.).
•-Copperhead Igniter.
•-Ejection Charge Container/Nozzle Cap.
•Instructions provided for use of the Copperhead Igniters.
•Detailed assembly and operation instructions included.
Includes
One 3-Pak Package of F12-5J Reloadable Motor Systems

Specifications
•Propellant Weight: 1.07oz (30.3g)
•Loaded Motor Weight: 2.4oz (67g)
•Average Thrust: 2.7lbs (12N)

[cjl]

So after reading many posts about engines, I've come across "re-loadable" ones. As a newbie to rocketry, I'm confused about them. So, what exactly is a re-loadable engine, is it like reloading ammunition like some shooters and outdoors people do, or is it something completely different?
Thanks for the info

As has been stated, reloadable rocket motors (or engines) are very much like reloading ammunition. The pressure vessel for a rocket is a fairly expensive component, so if it can be reused, it saves quite a bit of money over single use motors. Reloadable rockets vary in complexity from the ones shown by Bradycros, where you have to assemble a lot of components into the final motor, to the Cesaroni motors, which are basically preassembled (and you just insert the assembly into the casing). Pricing varies somewhat as well - the motors that come mostly preassembled (Cesaroni) tend to be more expensive in the smaller sizes, since it takes more effort to manufacture a preassembled reload kit than it does to simply put all of the required parts in a bag. In larger (especially 54mm and up) sizes, this price difference goes away, since at that point, most of the cost is in the propellant itself rather than in the labor.

[shreadvector]

http://www.skypirate.net/rocketry/ou...utreach_01.htm

http://www.skypirate.net/rocketry/ou...utreach_03.htm

[ClayD]

I cant speak for the cti stuff, but hobby line 29mm reload that AT sells, i can fly those repeatedly all day long.... if you get used to it, the method of assembling the reload translates into thier bigger motors as you get further into flying rockets. theres a few more parts as you get into sealdisks instead of paper insulators, but if you can assemble a 29mm, you can do a 38, 54, 75... ect...

i can pull my 29mm hobby line out of a recovered rocket and turn it around in under 5 min and be ready to go again.
you get more power for less buck...

CJL, i am going to argue with you (wow) on the cost being due to propellant...... it is overhead.... propellant is cheap no matter how big the motor is.
haha...


“I had a stick of CareFree gum, but it didn't work. I felt pretty good while I was blowing that bubble, but as soon as the gum lost its flavor, I was back to pondering my mortality.”-mitch headburg

Understanding of the english language is what is under question here.

complete lack of reading comprehension.

[cjl]

I cant speak for the cti stuff, but hobby line 29mm reload that AT sells, i can fly those repeatedly all day long.... if you get used to it, the method of assembling the reload translates into thier bigger motors as you get further into flying rockets. theres a few more parts as you get into sealdisks instead of paper insulators, but if you can assemble a 29mm, you can do a 38, 54, 75... ect...

i can pull my 29mm hobby line out of a recovered rocket and turn it around in under 5 min and be ready to go again.
you get more power for less buck...

Agreed. It's a more complex procedure, but you can get used to it pretty fast. I can turn around an AT 29 or 38mm motor in less than 5 minutes (from removing it from a rocket until it is ready to fly again, cleaned, reloaded, and set to go). It's something to consider for some people, but I've never found it to be a big deal.

CJL, i am going to argue with you (wow) on the cost being due to propellant...... it is overhead.... propellant is cheap no matter how big the motor is.
haha...

On the larger motors (I'm talking K+, and especially 75 and 98), materials cost is a significant chunk of the cost of a motor. Propellant, liner, and nozzle costs are not cheap. On the other hand, a little 24mm F motor has very little propellant, and most of the costs are just overhead and labor rather than parts. Of course, only the manufacturers know the cost breakdown for sure, but I'd bet that propellant is a significant fraction of the cost of 75 and 98mm motors, while it is not for the small (especially 24mm and smaller 29mm) reloads.

[ClayD]

Agreed. It's a more complex procedure, but you can get used to it pretty fast. I can turn around an AT 29 or 38mm motor in less than 5 minutes (from removing it from a rocket until it is ready to fly again, cleaned, reloaded, and set to go). It's something to consider for some people, but I've never found it to be a big deal.


On the larger motors (I'm talking K+, and especially 75 and 98), materials cost is a significant chunk of the cost of a motor. Propellant, liner, and nozzle costs are not cheap. On the other hand, a little 24mm F motor has very little propellant, and most of the costs are just overhead and labor rather than parts. Of course, only the manufacturers know the cost breakdown for sure, but I'd bet that propellant is a significant fraction of the cost of 75 and 98mm motors, while it is not for the small (especially 24mm and smaller 29mm) reloads.

I would think.... a pound of propellant, equals X, and is the same value in any casting tube... the batches of propellant probably fill 98 75 54 38 29 24 and 18mm all at the same time.....

you can get much more quality control by batching 50lbs at a time versus multiple runs at 12lbs 12lbs 15lbs 11lbs.. (using fake numbers of course, but you get the idea.)

you are correct, a 75mm liner can be 15.00 paper or 90.00 specialty item.... so there is oporotunity to spend more taking from your profit margin.

my comment on overhead, is that mostly the M and N motors have such a disproportunate increase in cost, that i "assume" manufactures make up more overhead where the market will pay for them. the smaller motors are a much tighter market, so if you try to make up too much overhead on the small stuff, your going to see a shift to the supplier who starts making up his margin from the j's on up to the Ms

look at an I-284, and a J350 reload... and the difference in cost, it is not proportunate to additonal manufactured cost... i would bank on it....

you know... can you charge 5.00x10 times and get away with it, or are you charging .1x500 times, and loosing buisness.....

[accooper]

OK, now the BIG question. When does the casing pay off? The cost is higher initially. My wife says after 20 successful flights. The guys I fly with say 15.

Who is right. I say somewhere in the middle. Also the guy who taught me to use reloads also taught me to keep record of every reload flight. Anyone else do this?

Andrew

[eggplant]

Sorry but I think that electrical motors have a moving part!
So you sir are wrong....

by definition, an engine converts power into motion... a motor is any machine that supplies motive power to a vehicle.