Dimensions of Aerotech floating closure nut.

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Ravenex

Well-Known Member
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
930
Reaction score
45
As the thread title states I am looking to see if someone can give me accurate dimensions of the Aerotech floating forward closure nut, both 38mm and 54mm. Particularly I need the inner dimension of the ring but I would like the remaining dimensions as well. If anyone can measure these for me I would be greatful.
 
Nut, it's more like a hollow bolt. I have both at home and can use my caliper and report back tonight.

The threads and ridge that pushes on the spacer is the same dimensions of the standard forward closure.

~John
 
I guess hollow bolt is a better description.
 
38mm forward closer retaining ring is:
38mm OD
31.6mm ID
18.5mm thick, 9.2mm of that being the threaded part.

54mm forward closure retaining ring is:
54mm OD
47.5mm ID
18.5mm thick 9.2mm of that being the threaded part.

Nut, hollow bolt, forward closure retaining ring, ya that.

~John
 

Attachments

  • 20200806_235507.jpg
    20200806_235507.jpg
    99.7 KB · Views: 42
  • 20200806_235522.jpg
    20200806_235522.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 40
dont bother. once you get invested in bigger motors like 54mm just used a standard plugged forward closure and use electronics. electronics is far superior then using motor ejection. using motor ejection for 54mm just shows you are not serious about rockets. the only time i use motor ejection is when i use a single use motor and that is very rare.
 

I am aware of the RCS HEI closures and did consider them for this project. I decided to try to make my own design partly because I don't want to use the "Low Cost Head End Initiator" they are designed to work with partly because of the military style connector that is kind of bulky and partly since I want to build in a layer of ESD protection right at the closure. I also want something that gives the freedom to use other types of initiators.

As a side, couldn't tell if the "Low Cost Head End Initiator" is single use. Which would make it much more expensive over time than using other initiators.
 
A little judgey, aren't we??? 🤔 :)
well when you are putting up a 100 dollar motor, 150 dollar hardware, plus over 100 dollars in recovery gear, time and energy, cost of the kit, and cost of epoxies....ect.. i want the best chance of getting rocket back. using deployment electronics increases the chances of getting it back 1000%%%
 
Yes, it is single use. It is a low-cost version of the NASA Standard Initiator (NSI), which typically costs over $1,000 each.

I am aware of the RCS HEI closures and did consider them for this project. I decided to try to make my own design partly because I don't want to use the "Low Cost Head End Initiator" they are designed to work with partly because of the military style connector that is kind of bulky and partly since I want to build in a layer of ESD protection right at the closure. I also want something that gives the freedom to use other types of initiators.

As a side, couldn't tell if the "Low Cost Head End Initiator" is single use. Which would make it much more expensive over time than using other initiators.
 
dont bother. once you get invested in bigger motors like 54mm just used a standard plugged forward closure and use electronics. electronics is far superior then using motor ejection. using motor ejection for 54mm just shows you are not serious about rockets. the only time i use motor ejection is when i use a single use motor and that is very rare.
How on earth did you get from his question about dimensions to your assumption he's doing motor ejection?
 
Sanctimoniously . . .

Dave F.
i meant nothing by it. i just prefer electronic ejection over motor ejection for reliability. i have had to many rockets crash because of motor ejection failure early on in my rocket experience. from there on told myself if all possible in every rocket i build from that point on will be electronic ejection where possible. to me motor ejection is taboo.
 
i don't know what he was planning. i am not in his head. i only know what i would do and not do.

How did you make the jump from the OP asking for the dimensions of a component to THIS (quoted below), especially after he had been given the dimensions he had asked for, by another poster ?

dont bother. once you get invested in bigger motors like 54mm just used a standard plugged forward closure and use electronics. electronics is far superior then using motor ejection. using motor ejection for 54mm just shows you are not serious about rockets. the only time i use motor ejection is when i use a single use motor and that is very rare.

Dave F.
 
How did you make the jump from the OP asking for the dimensions of a component to THIS (quoted below), especially after he had been given the dimensions he had asked for, by another poster ?



Dave F.
Who cares. let it go. i have moved on. bother someone else
 
Who cares. let it go. i have moved on. bother someone else

Sure thing, just because you "have moved on", everything is fine now . . . NOT !
Why ? Because the effect of your words still remains and your self-righteous attitude continues, even now.

Perhaps, you should offer a sincere apology to the affected party, rather than "barking orders" !

Dave F.
 
Sure thing, just because you "have moved on", everything is fine now . . . NOT !
Why ? Because the effect of your words still remains and your self-righteous attitude continues, even now.

Perhaps, you should offer a sincere apology to the affected party, rather than "barking orders" !

Dave F.

well its seems you are more bothered with what i said then the OP.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top