New Motors Certified, Oct 16, 2021

[AeroTech]

How about a matched set:
Start with a 3G75 Propellant-X hard boosting L-2400 or whatever you can do.
Paired with a long-burn 38 and/or 54mm loads that when flown as a complex two-stage stays just barely under M-impulse.

So a new 3G75 L and a long-burn 38 and 54's (one each) totaling 5000ns when flown as a 75/54 or 75/38 combo.
Makes a great two-stage "kit" for level-2 fliers.

The L1940X in the 75/3840 case is already certified and planned for release this month.

 

[AeroTech]

This does seem to be a legal, but violates the spirit of the rule, IMHO.
The "motor builder" is now really just the "motor assembler" and probably knows very little about the propellant they are using.
How is this really different from selling a certified load other than you order parts individually and they don't come in the same bag?
The real "motor builder" will not be at the launch.

A research load - to me - needs to be flown by somebody involved in the propellant manufacturing.
Perhaps I should start a biz selling my grains to be used with OTS nozzles and cases....what is stopping this?

There are propellant data sheets available for most RCS grains, and the motor builder can input the ballistic data in BurnSim or other software to design their motor (unless they are copying an existing AeroTech motor configuration). In addition, a number of grains are sold in longer lengths that are intended to be cut and fabricated to the user's desired dimensions.

 

[FredA]

Still seems to be ala-cart motor building without real knowledge.
I guess maybe it's research if truly done that way.
But seems to me to lead to today's usual behavior of copy-cats on social saying something like: "I did this and lived to talk about it -- so it must be safe" and we have a new defacto "certified" motor configuration in the wild.

 

[Theory]

Still seems to be ala-cart motor building without real knowledge.
I guess maybe it's research if truly done that way.
But seems to me to lead to today's usual behavior of copy-cats on social saying something like: "I did this and lived to talk about it -- so it must be safe" and we have a new defacto "certified" motor configuration in the wild.

same could be said for true EX propellants “I did this and lived to tell about it.”

In the end Aerotech provides a series of proven propellants and components to the consumer. Believe that is a good thing.

 

[FredA]

.....provides a series of proven propellants and components to the consumer.

Yep - a really nice selection of commercial certified loads.

 

[boatgeek]

same could be said for true EX propellants “I did this and lived to tell about it.”

In the ent Aerotech provides a series of proven propellants and components to the consumer. Believe that is a good thing.

Yep - a really nice selection of commercial certified loads.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding is that the "traditional" method of research motor design goes something like:
Develop a propellant formula (from prior work or others)
Mix propellant
Develop simulation (BurnSim or equal)
Characterize propellant in static tests
Adjust simulation to match test results
[repeat as many times as desired, modifying the formula]

Finalize motor design (nozzle throat diameter, check case pressures, grain lengths, etc. etc.)
Mix final batch
Assemble motor
Fly!
Adjust plans for the future depending on flight results

Being able to buy grains from Aerotech/RCS eliminates the first set of steps. You get a characterized and tested propellant with commercial-standard QC that you can use to design a final motor that may or may not resemble a commercial reload. Presumably, you could also do weird stuff like mixing and matching propellant grains (I don't think that AT has an equivalent to CTI Pink or Dual Thrust, eg). Making up more examples, you could make a Red + Metalstorm or a Brown (Red and Green) if RCS has those propellants available. Or you could make extra hot/extra mellow versions of commercial reloads by changing the nozzle throat diameter a tick. All of the design work to make that happen would be on your shoulders, which is what makes it Research.

Just my opinion, as someone who doesn't current do research motors, but does do a lot of engineering for work and fun. In fact, the RCS approach is probably the only way that I would get into Research, since I don't have the facilities or desire to mix up my own propellant.

 

[Sandy H.]

[snip]

Just my opinion, as someone who doesn't current do research motors, but does do a lot of engineering for work and fun. In fact, the RCS approach is probably the only way that I would get into Research, since I don't have the facilities or desire to mix up my own propellant.

Your whole post is awesome from my point of view and mimics how I think I'd like to start to learn about EX. My long-term goal would be to develop something or a variation of a recipe and make it, but I think I personally could learn a lot by just making motors initially based on known propellant first. I think my journey might look like:

Learn the basics from knowledgeable/experienced fliers
Learn Burnsim or other
Make a configuration/trial to experiment with different nozzle diameters and core diameters/shapes.
Static test
Launch
Make observations and try new configurations

I could see doing that for a year or two before attempting to cast my own propellant and even then, I'd want to do the propellant processing with an experienced person/group to make sure I'm not missing a safety aspect.

The research I would do would not at all be moving the state of the art in the industry forward, but it would be moving my personal understanding forward and that seems enjoyable to me.

Thanks for a great post!

Sandy.

 

[FredA]

Seriously -- if you want that level of learning - just run Burnsim over and over.
It's actually where I spend the bulk of my time.

Buying pre-qualified/characterized grains and assembling them to see if they burn as advertised is not really doing research.
Learn the geometry, burn rates, etc. all from simulation.

You don't learn much by actually burning the motor.
At that point it confirms you copied the characterization data into Burnsim correctly.

 

[Sandy H.]

Seriously -- if you want that level of learning - just run Burnsim over and over.
It's actually where I spend the bulk of my time.

Buying pre-qualified/characterized grains and assembling them to see if they burn as advertised is not really doing research.
Learn the geometry, burn rates, etc. all from simulation.

You don't learn much by actually burning the motor.
At that point it confirms you copied the characterization data into Burnsim correctly.

I'm not arguing with you. You already do it and you know the day to day for EX motors and I only know how to follow directions at this point. I take baby steps. I might get there later than most people, but I enjoy the process of learning and gaining confidence to determine my next step. I think I will enjoy trying different core shapes that real scientists/engineers already know about, but cutting the grain and seeing the difference in performance seems exciting to me.

I actually am very interested in building my own data acquisition system as well. Again, not moving the bar forward, but just doing the steps myself and having the 'ah-ha' moment seems fun.

Maybe I misunderstand the EX world, but just running sims seems less fun than running the sims and then seeing it happen as 'designed' vs as simulated.

I'm not doing it now, nor have I done it in the past, so it is just what I envision. Guys making their own propellant and flying new profiles are cool. I would like to get there someday.

Sandy.

 

[Theory]

To each their own.

If a flyer takes the appropriate steps to run a motor using commercially available grains and components through burn sim, then assemble and fly the motor, that’s cool. No harm there.

Don’t see why we need to overly define “EX”.

Fly, be safe, and have fun.

now back to the J615 : - ))

 

[jimzcatz]

I prefer the term "research" as opposed to "EX"

 

[boatgeek]

Seriously -- if you want that level of learning - just run Burnsim over and over.
It's actually where I spend the bulk of my time.

Buying pre-qualified/characterized grains and assembling them to see if they burn as advertised is not really doing research.
Learn the geometry, burn rates, etc. all from simulation.

You don't learn much by actually burning the motor.
At that point it confirms you copied the characterization data into Burnsim correctly.

You've said a lot about what Research is not to you. What is it in your mind?

That said, I don't really subscribe to a One True Way model in any walk of life, and especially not in hobbies. It seems like there are many avenues for learning and most importantly, having fun.

 

[Theory]

Probably time to move to a new thread

 

[alan.r.bullock]

Your whole post is awesome from my point of view and mimics how I think I'd like to start to learn about EX. My long-term goal would be to develop something or a variation of a recipe and make it, but I think I personally could learn a lot by just making motors initially based on known propellant first. I think my journey might look like:

Learn the basics from knowledgeable/experienced fliers
Learn Burnsim or other
Make a configuration/trial to experiment with different nozzle diameters and core diameters/shapes.
Static test
Launch
Make observations and try new configurations

I could see doing that for a year or two before attempting to cast my own propellant and even then, I'd want to do the propellant processing with an experienced person/group to make sure I'm not missing a safety aspect.

The research I would do would not at all be moving the state of the art in the industry forward, but it would be moving my personal understanding forward and that seems enjoyable to me.

Thanks for a great post!

Sandy.

Hi Sandy ,I live inEngland,In the North East,near York.I designed solid,composite,rocket propellants for a living,as an iternational consultant engineer.I was very priviledged in that I was able to work,( formulate&develop),my own technical ideas,&bring them to fruition
As wellas working on AP/Al/HTPB propellant compositions,I have a Patented AP/Al composition that employs an oxygenated,thermoplastic,copolymer,plasticised with a mixed system of liquid plasticisers,one of which is HTPB. This functions as a propellant extremely well.Because the copolymer itself is oxygenated,the AP content of the composition may be reduced,thereby enabling an extremely physically strong propellant composition in terms of tensile strength in compression, and elongation. This propellant exhibits a specific impulse of 240 seconds @ 1Mpa,with a corresponding burn rate of 3-5m.m./sec,depending on particle size of the AP.
These propellant compositions have been produced in 75 m.m. and 96 m.m. grain diameters successfully.
If you are interested in the above content for joint use in rocketry, please email me .
Regards, Alan.

 

[alan.r.bullock]

Hi Sandy ,I live inEngland,In the North East,near York.I designed solid,composite,rocket propellants for a living,as an iternational consultant engineer.I was very priviledged in that I was able to work,( formulate&develop),my own technical ideas,&bring them to fruition
As wellas working on AP/Al/HTPB propellant compositions,I have a Patented AP/Al composition that employs an oxygenated,thermoplastic,copolymer,plasticised with a mixed system of liquid plasticisers,one of which is HTPB. This functions as a propellant extremely well.Because the copolymer itself is oxygenated,the AP content of the composition may be reduced,thereby enabling an extremely physically strong propellant composition in terms of tensile strength in compression, and elongation. This propellant exhibits a specific impulse of 240 seconds @ 1Mpa,with a corresponding burn rate of 3-5m.m./sec,depending on particle size of the AP.
These propellant compositions have been produced in 75 m.m. and 96 m.m. grain diameters successfully.
If you are interested in the above content for joint use in rocketry, please email me .
Regards, Alan.

 

[FredA]

SANDY -- sign up for the research part of the forum and tell us more!

 

[tsmith1315]

SANDY -- ...tell us more!

 

[Sandy H.]

SANDY -- sign up for the research part of the forum and tell us more!

I think you mean Alan, not me!

Sandy.

 

[AeroTech]

Hi Sandy ,I live inEngland,In the North East,near York.I designed solid,composite,rocket propellants for a living,as an iternational consultant engineer.I was very priviledged in that I was able to work,( formulate&develop),my own technical ideas,&bring them to fruition
As wellas working on AP/Al/HTPB propellant compositions,I have a Patented AP/Al composition that employs an oxygenated,thermoplastic,copolymer,plasticised with a mixed system of liquid plasticisers,one of which is HTPB. This functions as a propellant extremely well.Because the copolymer itself is oxygenated,the AP content of the composition may be reduced,thereby enabling an extremely physically strong propellant composition in terms of tensile strength in compression, and elongation. This propellant exhibits a specific impulse of 240 seconds @ 1Mpa,with a corresponding burn rate of 3-5m.m./sec,depending on particle size of the AP.
These propellant compositions have been produced in 75 m.m. and 96 m.m. grain diameters successfully.
If you are interested in the above content for joint use in rocketry, please email me .
Regards, Alan.

What is the patent number?

 

[FredA]

Yes Alan sign up -- sorry Sandy.
And yes -- patent number please.

 

[bad_idea]

I'll Big Daddy that.

That would be a rocket worth traveling to see. For all that it could be seen before vanishing instantly from the pad.

Yes Alan sign up -- sorry Sandy.
And yes -- patent number please.

If posts in the Research forum are typically anywhere near as interesting as Alan's bombshell, I need to hurry up and start getting certs.

 

[Sandy H.]

Yes Alan sign up -- sorry Sandy.
[snip]

No worries. I'm fairly confident in my life, but kinda cool to get invited by name to the Research forum. I figured you wanted the other guy. Not at all self-conscious now. I mean, I'm pretty good at stuff most of the time. . . maybe not that great. . . I guess I screw up a bit. . .more often than I should. . . meh. . .

But I think Theory is right. Sorry to dis-rail the thread about the cool new Aerotech products, the I40N-P, the J615ST-20A and the N1975W-PS. I might get to fly 2 of the 3 sometime. . .Not sure the budget will ever support the other one. . .

Sandy.

 

[AeroTech]

Yes Alan sign up -- sorry Sandy.
And yes -- patent number please.

The reason I asked is that I did a search on the USPTO site under Alan’s name and didn’t find anything related to solid propellants. I could have overlooked one, who knows. And oxygenated polymers have been around for a long time in the form of polyol polyurethanes and polyesters. Enerjet was the first hobby rocket company to use them beginning in the late 1960s.

 

[StreuB1]

We were burning GAP and BAMO 20 years ago....

I concur, what is the patent number?

 

[alan.r.bullock]

We were burning GAP and BAMO 20 years ago....

I concur, what is the patent number?

So what! This binder system is not related at all,and nowhere near as expensive in either raw material cost or ptoduction costs! GAP is a very expensive product,and although an energetic material , what would the advantages be for use in HPR? I doubt very much if motor manufacturers would find this to be economic to produce even if it were possible to obtain a license to manufacture. This binder system is as close as possible to an (off the shelf product).
Alan B.

 

[AeroTech]

So what! This binder system is not related at all,and nowhere near as expensive in either raw material cost or ptoduction costs! GAP is a very expensive product,and although an energetic material , what would the advantages be for use in HPR? I doubt very much if motor manufacturers would find this to be economic to produce even if it were possible to obtain a license to manufacture. This binder system is as close as possible to an (off the shelf product).
Alan B.

Can’t get much cheaper than PEG or PPG. Why would you use HTPB as a plasticizer? It’s a viscous, functional polymer. Just curious.

 

[alan.r.bullock]

Can’t get much cheaper than PEG or PPG. Why would you use HTPB as a plasticizer? It’s a viscous, functional polymer. Just curious.

You said it!HTPB a functional polymer.Capable of being cross linked with di,and tri isocyanates.Sufficient HTPB in plasticiser mix to improve mechanical properties in compression(tensile strength),and in extension(%elongation).All between -40c and +70c.
Alan

 

[AeroTech]

You said it!HTPB a functional polymer.Capable of being cross linked with di,and tri isocyanates.Sufficient HTPB in plasticiser mix to improve mechanical properties in compression(tensile strength),and in extension(%elongation).All between -40c and +70c.
Alan

Plasticizers are usually inert, low viscosity, miscible organic liquids that don't enter into the polymer reaction. So what is the HTPB reacting with in your binder?

 

[mtnmanak]

Another problem is that the dealers are busting at the seams with inventory. They can't keep in stock what is already available. And their trailers are overloaded.

Trying to figure this out a bit - the statements seem contradictory. The vendors are bursting at the seems and trailers are overloaded, but they can't keep items in stock?

For a while now, the 38mm and 54mm motors seem to be easily and readily available, but it is often difficult to find many of the 75mm and 98mm motors. They seem to sell out pretty quick. I had to wait months to get my hands on M2050s, L2500s, and a few other motors.

Are you seeing slow movement on the smaller motors but good sales on the larger motors? Or is it specific propellants that aren't selling?

As the holidays sales are right around the corner, this information would be helpful for me to formulate my shopping list. I buy most of my motors during these sales and stock up for the year. If you have a list of "slow movers" that are sitting around in vendor stock and may be on the chopping block, I wouldn't mind targeting that inventory this year to help vendors out and stock up myself.

 

[tjsnakez]

I love the idea of taking a lot of the slower selling items and making them a once or twice a year pre-order only item. That would open up the catalog quite a bit, and keep dealers from having crazy inventory and clogging things up with slow moving product. On the other hand I would guess some of the more popular items can't be kept in stock.

I see very few Black Max, BlackJack, and Metalstorm motors flown in recent times. All size 1 grain motors and 2 grain 98mm motors do not seem to be very popular. The endburning motors - although very cool, do not seem to be super popular. Although the new ST 29mm endburners seem to be pretty interesting and well received so far.

Since I must put a request in These are really the motors I feel are missing from the current selection (without going into weird boutique motors)
I'm not sure that it is possible, but if blue thunder could be tamed enough to put into the 38/720 case that would be amazing.
The Super Thunder motors are super popular and the 75/2560 and 75/3480 cases are begging for it.
A Propellant X reload for the 98/7680 or 98/10240 case (baby N?).