Steve_Shannon

These are compatible with AMW cases. Does that mean that a person can use either AMW cases or original Kosdon cases at a commercial launch and not violate motor certification policies?

Also, I seem to recall that Loki cases are compatible with AMW and Kosdon cases, but must use AMW/Kosdon closures and nozzles in order to use Kosdon reloads. Is that correct? If so, can these motors be considered certified in that configuration?

Rich Pitzeruse

Looks like AMW cases will soon be the hobby standard cases!

n3tjm

Why do they call it Kosdon by Aerotech when AMW is not Kosdon?

Steve_Shannon

AMW was once called Kosdon East and made Kosdon products. The cases they make are identical to the cases used for Kosdon motors. Then, Aerotech partnered with Frank Kosdon to make reloads for the Kosdon cases. That line of products was called "Kosdon by Aerotech".

n3tjm

They are not identical. The Kosdon/AMW motors mentioned, only the Case are identical. However, that is not true for all AMW cases. AMW's 390 is shorter than Kosdons. A Kosdon 390 won't fit in a AMW 390. Also, the other difference is the Bulkhead and Nozzle. A Kosdon load for the 38/640 WILL NOT fit the 38/640 motor with a AMW nozzle and bulkhead. I have both the Kosdon and AMW 38/640 setup, and used Kosdon and AMW loads for them.

Steve_Shannon

Thanks, that's useful information.
I would still like to know if a Kosdon by Aerotech reload, loaded into the compatible AMW case, is considered a certified motor. Has that combination been submitted for certification (or does it need to be?)

jsdemar

The AT "Animal-compatible" grains were submitted for certification.

n3tjm

I have not seen any announcement for NAR stating that they were certified. Did I miss something. Anyone notice the 29mm loads. That should be interesting.

CF-105

My, how things change...

Perhaps my memory is going, but do I recall a hue & cry from a certain motor & hardware manufacturer when CTI released their "Brand A" compatible reloads a few years back?

Not that I'm complaining, but I'm also not missing the irony!

Steve_Shannon

Hi John,
I understood that they were submitted and in fact that they were granted NAR certification. What I don't understand is if they were tested with AMW cases or with Kosdon cases, or if NAR considers those cases equivalent for certification purposes.

Perhaps I am being dense (wouldn't be the first time) but as I understand it certified motors are only certified when used in the same combination of case, case hardware(closures, nozzles, etc.), approved igniter, and reload that was submitted.

To drag it out further, if I were a manufacturer and if I were to come up with a reload that would fit in an Aerotech case, I believe I would have to submit it with an Aerotech case for testing. If I wanted it to be certified for use with a different case, such as the large Cesaroni cases, then I believe I would need to submit that combination also. I believe that is what Cesaroni did with their larger reloads that can be used with either AT or Cesaroni hardware.

An exception would be where the case manufacturer has approved the case as equivalent, such as the case of Aerotech, Dr. Rockets, Rouse. Perhaps AMW and Kosdon have notified NAR/TRA of such an arrangement. If so, that would be great, but we need to know in order to not violate the safety codes.

Rocket Flier

I thought the same thing. Then I thought, why didn't he just do the same at the time, turnabout being what it is...

ddmobley

Check this out:

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/455/95/


NAR S&T is running behind in announcements. I just published a few weeks ago an announcement about NAR certifications for AMW that were tested in May.


1. There are Kodson by AeroTech reloads that were made for hardware that was originally manufactured by Kosdon.

2. There are 'Animal Compatible' Kodson by AeroTech reloads for hardware that was originally manufactured by AMW and Kosdon East.

All of the reloads were submitted for testing with the appropriate manufacturer's hardware as required by the motor certification authority.

There is a difference here with the cross-compatible reloads CTI introduced in the past, in that the CTI cross-compatible reloads would fit the CTI hardware AND/OR the AeroTech and similar RMS hardware. In the case of the "Animal Compatible" Kosdon by AeroTech reloads, these reloads do NOT fit any AeroTech or similar RMS hardware. Essentially there is no "cross-compatibility," it's just one manufacturer making reloads for another manufacturer's hardware.

Johnly

First the why question:

NAR S&T certifies motors to the requirements specified in NFPA 1125.
There is nothing in the standard that prohibits one manufacturer from having motors tested and certified compliant to NFPA 1125. This was discussed at length at LDRS in 2002, when CTI proposed making reloads for AT hardware.
CTI won the battle, and CTI reloads were certified my CAR in AT hardware, and the certification accepted by NAR and TRA. Gary is just following the trail blazed by CTI a few years ago.

Had the motors been submitted to TMT for testing, they would have been accepted and certified if they met the requirements of NFPA 1125. How do I know? We asked Ken Good, and that was his response after taking to his folks.

The KBA reloads are currently only certified for use in the designated AMW hardware.

John

ddmobley

I think John meant to say "THESE KBA reloads are currently only certified for use in the designated AMW hardware." There are currently thirteen other Kosdon By Aerotech reloads that are certified by TRA that are only certified for use in the designated Kosdon hardware:

I170S-L (38 x 314)
I280F-L (38 x 314)
I310S-S,L,P (38 x 368)
I370F-P (38 x 368)
I450F-L (38 x 368)
J405S-L (38 x 476)
J605F-L (38 x 476)
K400S-S,M,L (54 x 403)
K600F-S,M,L,P (54 x 403)
K1000S-P (54 x 728)
K1400F-P (54 x 728)
L1000S-P (54 x 728)
L1400F-P (54 x 728)

crontab

billspad

Apparently NAR S & T is incapable of making it's own decisions since this one was based on decisions at LDRS and discussions with Ken Good.

DumasBro2

Wasn't Gorilla recently told they can't certify loads in AMW cases so they had to make their own? Seem the old adage is true, "It's not who you know......"

n3tjm

That is a agreement between Aerotech and Kosdon. I wonder if legally its still valid since Aerotech is now RCS?




That is fine if the aggrement was transfered to RCS. And that Aggreement was made with Kosdon, not AMW. AMW is a different entity




The AMW nozzles and bulkheads were not originally manufactured by Kosdon. That is an AMW design. Also, what about the 390 motor? AMW's is shorter. If Aerotech/RCS comes out with a load for the 390, then they making a load for a 100% AMW not Kosdon motor.





Did Aerotech test these loads in hardware they manufactured? From what I understand, that was what NAR certified with Pro75 and Pro98. NAR only honored the cert of those motors in CTI's hardware. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Seems to me that these loads should only be certified in hardware made by Aerotech.

jsdemar

NAR did not certify the CTI loads the work in AT casings. CAR did. The NAR and TMT never "confirmed or denied" the cross-certification, they just put the motor on the combined list without specifying the casing.

The new "AT for AMW" loads are a unique situation because they were tested by the NAR and they were only tested in AMW hardware. Aerotech/RCS does not currently make hardware for these loads. This opens up a new playing field where other propellant manufacturers can make reloads without ever having made hardware.

gorillamotors

Tripoli told me that I could make and have reloads certified for AMW cases. I would have to send in 3 motors for each case size. ie 54/1050: 3 cases, 3 nozzles, 3 fwd closures, 3 nozzles washers, 3 thrust rings, and 6 snap rings. ALL AMW hardware with NO substitutions.


I would loved to have done it that way but I felt morally bound to put out my own hardware (I have purchased over $20,000 of 54mm and 75mm drawn aluminum tubing so far). So I did. My hardware is identical to AMWs except for the nozzles.

Jim Harris

n3tjm

I thought NAR had the Policy of not certifying loads in other peoples hardware without writen permission from both parties.

jsdemar

NAR S&T had that policy. The NAR Board has decided to change it. For more information, contact your elected NAR officials.

billspad

That somewhat hostile person in the posting under yours is correct about who made the change. It was the NAR President according to the delayed email that we received a day after the decision was made.

ddmobley

AeroTech is AeroTech. It is owned by RCS. The same person/people owns AeroTech/RCS, so the agreement transferred intact.


Agreed. But NFPA 1125, TMT, NAR and CAR have procedures for entities who want to build reloads: they test them in the intended recipient hardware they are intended to be used in, supplied by the manufacturer who is requesting certification of the reload.


That is irrelevant. As long as the reloads are certified in the manner specified in NFPA 1125 and the certifying authority, it doesn't matter who manufactured the hardware. It's a brand new game now.


As John pointed out, CAR certified the CTI reloads and TRA/NAR accepted their certification in cross-recognition.


AeroTech doesn't make AMW hardware. The certification requirements are that the manufacturer requesting the certification supply the hardware to test the reload in, not that they also make the hardware.

Sylvania, GE and AC Delco didn't make the car you drive, but they do make replacement bulbs for it.

billspad

There's a problem with this that nobody seems to think of. A motor manufacturer designs casings to work with his propellant to meet the requirements 1125. Unless the reload manufacturer knows the design specifications of the casing or takes a sample and tests it he doesn't know for sure if the combination of his propellant and someone else's casing will meet 1125. There are currently no requirements in 1125 or NAR testing procedures for this. In this particular case I doubt there will be a problem but by rushing the certification of these motors the NAR has set a dangerous precedent.

billspad

Sort of. It's not a matter of allowing Aerotech to manufacture. They can do that all they want and the NAR has no say in it. It's the certification that's the issue and I believe that was inevitable. The problem is that the certification was rushed so that Aerotech could sell the motors at LDRS without the proper consideration being given to technical issues. Keep in mind that I'm a member of the S & T committee (for now) but what I'm saying here is my personal opinion. I can say for a fact that I brought these issues up and was essentially told that the certifications needed to be done right away so Aerotech could sell the motors and the rest could be straightened out later. To say I'm disillusioned would be an understatement.

heada

Can NAR S&T decide to not test a case/propellant combo? If so, what are the rules that says what combinations are testable and what aren't?

I work in the medical industry (part of IT, I'm a computer nerd) and because we're heavily FDA controlled, we have very strict quality guidelines and procedures. If my signature is required to implement something and I feel that it hasn't followed our quality processes, I can refuse to sign the paperwork and the entire project sits there until quality reviews it and either gives their okay or they fix the issue. I'm wondering if there is anything along those lines in S&T. If you feel that the combination of case and propellant is not meeting the letter or spirit of the law, are you forced to continue and test anyway or can you refuse?

-Aaron

n3tjm

What happened to the Aerotech that made quality product for quality price?

I remember when F25's and F50's were around 80 n/s and G40's and G80's were around 120ns. Now the F's are < 60 and the G's are around 100... for over twice the price. Pay more for better quality? Nope. I see more of them fail that I ever have in the "Good ol day." I see more of them fail at a club launch then estes motors, yet estes motors out number Aerotech motors substantially. There are several launches were not one other brand motor fails, but at least one, mostly more than one Aerotech blows.

Aerotech RMS is a better product because you can somewhat quality control the motor. However, the overcomplicated assembly gives more room for error. Their delays are never accurate (in RMS and Disposable). I seen a -10 go as short as 2 and as long as to late as shovel recovery. There are fewer failures in RMS, however the ones I seen could be preventable with better design.

When AMW motors came available, I sold all my Aerotech 38 and 54mm hardware. I still use there 29mm, but always said to friends once AMW comes out with 29mm, those are endanger too. I only had a couple AMW failures. Both of them my fault, had to do with trimming delays way to short. Been flying AMW for several years now, seen others fly. Have not seen a failure in other peoples AMW's yet.

I wonder what Gary's true intentions are? Is he in enough trouble because AMW taking enough sales that he wants to undercut them by selling loads far cheaper (which amw loads are cheaper than Aerotechs of the same power, at least in 38mm, not sure about 54, 75, 98). Trying to kill the animal? Why not sell the loads for the same price as AMW? If they are truely making money off selling them that low, why not make a few more bucks? Make sells off of the "more availablilty" and "different formulas" aspect.

IMO - It is a mistake rush certifying these motors. We do not know the aftermath of what NAR did will be. Many people are ticked off over Lyndals and Bunnys apparent favoritism with aerotech. Trust me. If their names appeared on a ballot, they not going get that many votes over this issue alone.

I am fine with Aerotech making loads for Kosdon motors. Making loads for AMW motors is a mistake. Maybe not legally, but ethnically. I wonder how Gary sleeps at night?




Thats different. They make a standard size product that your car happens to use and the car manufacturer approves of using that size bulb.

billspad

As it stands now, no. In its infinite wisdom the NAR Board told S & T that it must follow NFPA 1125. I can't seem to find anything in 1125 that provides for refusing to test a motor. TMT has a clause in their testing procedures that allows them to refuse a motor that they think is unsafe. It's logical to think that NAR S & T could also do that but logic hasn't come into play all that much lately.




It's LDRS so it's not the NAR's problem and, as far as I'm concerned, even if it was NARAM or the NSL it's the BATFE's problem not the NAR's. We are not and never should be the police.





Unfortunately, that is an accurate statement.




Here's the part the bothers me the most. I've known Bunny for years. Well enough so that when we meet at NARAM or TARC we actually talk about things other than rockets. I can not reconcile his decision or his explanations for that decision with the guy I know.




I'd have to check my email on this subject to be sure. There's a lot of it! I'm almost positive only 2 motors were fired. 1125 allows for this but long standing S & T procedure and, from what I read above from the Gorilla guy, TMT procedure requires 3.

tedcochran55409

This is more complicated than it looks. All the derogatory comments don't help, either, even the ones that aren't slanderous.

Times have changed. It used to be that NAR did all the testing; now there are multiple certification authorities. It used to be that NAR created all the standards; now, in the US, NFPA has that primary role.

"Certification" means that an independent agency (NAR S&T in this case), using a formal procedure, follows written requirements (from NFPA, in this case) to test a specific motor, and then documents the results. It's basically a pass/fail test.

This announcement only says that a specific propellant load in a specific set of hardware performs to the specification. It doesn't address warranties, legal arrangements, morality, or the meaning of life.

If NAR hadn't certified that the motors met all NFPA guidelines, even though they did, then what? On what basis (legal or otherwise) can we presume to impose "higher" standards? What legal leg do we have to stand on?

Is NAR supposed to be interpreting the legality of licensing agreements? Are we supposed to be weighing in on warranty options?

I think our job is to take a motor and confirm that it performs to spec. It is, ironically, the least political way to go.

--tc

tedcochran55409

This doesn't make engineering sense to me. If you overpressurize a case, it will fail. NFPA says it has to fail longitudinally, and one example of the casing has to be tested to failure. This was previously done for the casings in question, presumably hydrostatically. What other tests would you require S&T to do?

If we think that the NFPA requirements are not stringent enough, we need to work through NFPA. All NAR can do is test that the motor meets the NFPA requirements.




I disagree with the scope of the precedent you claim was set. A reload that operates at a higher pressure than the casing was certified for will, I'm guessing, require that the casing be retested to ensure that it can withstand the required 2X pressure (unless that data is available from previous tests of the casing). But reloads that operate at a lower pressure don't have such problems. They do have to be tested for temperature, of course.





Again, NFPA requires 2 motors. I don't know why TRA requires 3.

I'll repeat my fundamental argument: The level of politics in testing is reduced if testing simply follows the requirements--no more, no less.

(Of course, there will likely be increased politics around requirements-setting, but that is where it properly belongs, in my opinion.)

Regards,

--tc

billspad

That's exactly the problem. NFPA 7.4.6 states the the casing must be able to take at least twice the designed operating pressure. The original casing manufacturer should have done this test. S & T is only required to test if the motor fails safely not at what pressure it fails. The after market reload manufacturer doesn't have any of the casing test information from the original manufacturer unless it's given voluntarily (like that would ever happen) or he tests the casing himself. All I wanted was for the reload manufacturer to provide that information. That would put the mixed motor on the same level as the original. There's an email on the S & T mailing list describing as situation where an after market reload could cause a problem. I won't quote directly from the S & T mailing list but the person who made that observation is a member here.





That's right. Do you think the manufacturers are going to volunteer to do that? Honestly, if we could count on them to follow the rules there really wouldn't be a need for S & T.







S & T has required this for years. The existing S &T procedures require it. The new ones haven't been approved by the Board yet. It should have been 3 motors.




From my perspective (I've been on the committee since the early 90's) there never was any politics involved until the last year when a particular manufacturer asked for and got preferential treatment. That of course is my opinion only. Others on the committee may think otherwise.




I've got to disagree with you on this one. If it's an engineering fact, it's not favoritism. If the casing can't take it then the motor shouldn't be certified. Unfortunately, there's no mechanism in place to make that determination unless the motor happens to blow up on the stand. That's been my objection to this from the beginning. We're supposed to be looking out for the end user, not the manufacturer. The casing might survive the two firings needed for certification even if it is operating on the edge of failure. What's going to happen half a dozen firings later?




Show me somewhere in writing were it says NAR Certification is NFPA certification. We have all the right in the world to impose higher standards if we fell it's necessary. We have a responsibility to never drop below those standards because local regulators depend on our certification being at least the minimum.

I'll give you an example from my line of work. The fuel gas code in MA is an NFPA code. The version that's incorporated into the MA state regulations contains several pages of modifications that make certain aspects of the code more restrictive. That's the higher standards you mentioned.

The reality of this is that somebody thinks we're in competition with TMT for motor testing. It's not a game. It's not a contest. If we co