k3td

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends!

jderimig

I don't know, this sounds like a retreat by Gary.

This hardware cannot be used for AMW loads unless AMW submits it for certification no?

Juerg

Not really astonishing, isn't it? I am personally surprised this didn't come earlier.
AT was bringing back KBA loads. So they also need to have casings. You can't really expect that they send customers to buy elsewhere.

Juerg Thuering
TRA 04981 / TAP
(Switzerland)

jderimig

I do think it is wrong to call it "Monster Animals", that is clearly provocative and shows little class.

Juerg

I thought the same.
And then I was starting to wonder if this is the original title by RouseTech or if this is a local (RocketryPlanet) interpretation.
"Rouse-Tech announces KBA / AMW compatible Motor hardware" would be what I'd expect to read.
Darell, can you comment?

ddmobley

There was an update by the manufacturer after the article was posted, and while I edited in the website front end, I forgot to update the one paragraph blurb in the forums. The correct name is Kosdon By Rouse-Tech™, not Monster Animals. That name was probably the code name for the development project and not the retail release. I have updated the initial forum post. Thanks for the heads up.

As for the title, it was originally "Rouse-Tech Announces Kosdon by Rouse-Tech Animal-Compatible Hardware Sets" but it was too long for my content management system, so it got whacked down to a manageable size.

By the way, this should eliminate some of the critic's concerns about warranty issues, at least for the initially offered casing sizes.


1125 has always allowed for the provision that if a reload manufacturer wanted his reloads to be certified for use in another manufacturer's hardware, the reload manufacturer would have to submit the reload along with the other manufacturer's hardware in sufficient numbers to meet testing criteria. This would be the same scenario AeroTech would have used to get their most recent certifications for the KBA reloads. I do not know if there have been any precedential scenarios where the opposite held true, where the hardware manufacturer would submit his hardware and another manufacturer's reloads to have that combination certified as well, but I don't see where that wouldn't be doable. I don't know what 1125 says about this but it would seem to be equally as doable. I am sure time will tell.

jsdemar

NFPA1125 does not say anything about motor 'systems' from mixed sources. But it does say that the manufacturer must be responsible for QC on all components. The revised (still unofficial) NAR S&T policy/manual has a new paragraph for "cross compatibility", requiring each casing manufacturer to have the reloads retested.

-John DeMar
NAR/TRA L3

Just Jerry

If NAR does that as you say it would be new NAR nonsense. It would be very bad. I therefore expect you to implement it.

Load manufacturers should specify cases. New cases should be able to be added "by reference" without case specific tests (ie RMS by Dr. Rocket, by AT, by ISP, by LOC, by Rouse, by the boogie man). A specific specification case does not care who it is made by and reloadable cases have massive overhead.

Make certifications never expire. USR motors from 30 years ago are reliably flown still.

Just Jerry

k3td

My Dad used to make us burgers on the grill many years ago - two small patties on a single bun with some stuff in between. Guess that makes me an heir to the McDonalds empire!

Did we just jump the shark?

jsdemar

Was Ray Kroc ever hanging out with your Dad in the backyard. Jerry's point is slim but at least arguable.

-John D.

StuBarrett

That brings up something I'm ignorant about. Is the aluminum that is used for reloadable cases the cheapest kind? I know that there are different kinds (designated by four digit codes) so if the kind that is used for motors is some fancy/high-priced kind then it might be possible for someone to use the cheap kind for a 'compatible' knock-off.

Like I said, I'm ignorant about this...

Stu

Just Jerry

To address your point directly, virtually all cases use 6061-T6 aluminum. It is about $2.50 per pound in quantity.

I would also add that how that aluminum is designed, machined, and qc'ed makes a big difference. So the casing spec matters. AFAICT all readily available reloadable cases are "good" in quality and materials. They should be operated at 400-700 psi and not much more without article specific testing.

The good news is the variability is almost entirely in the load/nozzle/delay and this is a casing agnostic observation.

Just Jerry

Krank Fosdon

I am not the boogie man

Steve_Shannon

Hi Stu,
Dr. Drake Damerau would do this better, but I'll give it a shot.

6061-T6 is not the cheapest kind. 6061 is the specific alloy, which has a very specific chemical composition. T-6 refers to the specific heat treatment which determines its hardness, toughness, elasticity, machinability, etc. Taken together (6061-T6) they identify a specific metal that is manufactured by several companies and sold by many vendors in various forms, such as tubes, rods, and extrusions. For a fairly complete description of its properties and links to vendors see this link:
http://www.matweb.com/Spec...num=MA6016&group=General

6061-T6 is pretty widely used. It is also specified as the aluminum alloy for M16 rifles.

jsdemar

Depending on the post processing of the tubing, it is much more than $2.50per pound. Drawn tubing with additional tolerance specs on the ID is 3x that price in quantity. The ID tolerance (roundness runout) is important to the o-ring seal. Leaky o-rings (or poor liner) cause heat transfer, which is the killer of casings, short term and long term. Depending on the thickness of the case, the hot spot will burn through, or bulge, or just degrade the heat treatment. A slight bulge that isn't noticeable will cause poor o-ring compression on the next burn (and so on). Those are my observations, anyhow.

-John DeMar

ddmobley

I was just looking on the Rouse-Tech website for this new hardware, but I don't see it. Has anyone seen this hardware for sale anywhere?

UncleVanya

That's the sound of crickets you hear...

Lawndartman

A while back, I was ordering cases from Tom, and he told me he was not going to offer the cases. Too much hassle from the legal side. Tim GLR

ddmobley

Legal side? What legal side?

Signed,
Curious

Just Jerry

Just Jerry

JDcluster

The real question should be; If you fly a real AMW load & then a KBA load in a Roush Tech hardware & say it gives up the ghost, will Roush make good on the hardware? I'd be afraid to put an Error Tech load in my AMW casing.

This gives me a bad feeling of what might happen...


One other aspect of these little spats; The KBA loads aren't really Kosdon loads.
RCS/AT is using it as a smoke screen to sell loads for AMW hardware.
I have yet to see real DR Frank Kosdon loads: Fast/ Slow / Dirty Harry.....



JD

heada

Not defending anyone or taking sides. I seemed to remember some certifications last year that included Kosdon formulas.

See this motor that was certified by Tripoli in 2007:
http://www.aerotech-rocket...h/kba_j520f_tra_cert.pdf

as well as this motor:
http://www.aerotech-rocket...h/kba_k700f_tra_cert.pdf

Those look like Kosdon Fast loads to me but I've never seen one in person before. It doesn't say what hardware but I would assume Kosdon hardware since the assembly drawings show snap-ring cases.

http://www.aerotech-rocket...38-640m_j520f-l_assy.pdf

and

http://www.aerotech-rocket...54-1400_k700f-l_assy.pdf

-Aaron

SpartaChris

Or a smart business move perhaps?

agrippo

If I want to fly one of the KBA motors do I just buy the relevant AMW case from Paul or is someone making a case specifically for KBA motors that I'm supposed to use?

The postings about the "M" motor record attempt sure caught my attention.

Andrew Grippo

Just Jerry

The cases you refer to as AMW were originally Powertech cases under exclusive license from U.S. Rockets. Kosdon "took" them and with the cooperation of Charles E. Rogers had them TRA certified 2-91 as Kosdon TRM. Those were U.S. Rockets designs and formulas both Kosdon and Rogers were under contract with Powertech to honor.

Fast forward to Kosdon making a deal with Paul Robinson, then enacted as "Kosdon East", presumably to make propellants in some state other than CA which is so oppressive Kosdon and Kosdon TRM is all but dead. I get the impression Paul made the casings under license and added a few cases that were not already cloned from U.S. Rockets by Kosdon himself. Robinson went on to form Animal Motor Works (which has since partnered with CTI), using the still commercially unique single snap ring reloadable motors developed by U.S. Rockets in the early and mid 80's and released to the public at an Ocotillo, CA launch in January 1990. See the San Diego newsletter and compare it to the article reprint in HPR magazine. Quite interesting propoganda effort there, all on the record.

As Kosdon always does, he had a falling out with Paul, and switched sides to Gary at Aertotech who was all too anxious to try to get a propellant monopoly by licensing the U.S. Rockets casing designs and propellant formulas taken, by Kosdon and Rogers. Gary notably used his "special status" with TRA TMT and NAR S&T to get motors quickly certified and his considerable skill with DOT to get the propellants approved for AT to ship, and had a fully baked product line with essentially no engineering costs and only compliance and minimal process chemical changes.

But Gary being who he is, he still simply emphasized AT propellants in "those" casings, thus minimizing royalty payments paid. Not sure if he even honored the few due or not.

After the fire and BK AT deemphasized Dr. Rocket and accepted Monster motors as a second non-exclusive casing vendor. As such Monster under license from AT makes AT, ISP, and KBA cases "as needed". It simply appears to me his "needs" for KBA are minimized to reduce licensing payments.

It is a long sad tale. The main thing I complain about isn't even the thefts and conversion of corporate assets, the lawsuits offset all future profits on that. It is the severe lack of ethics and the accusations against good people to cover up the actions of clearly bad people. It is the loss of access FOR DECADES of valid, shipping, and producing product lines managed by folks who were actually expanding the market at the time, including adding to TRA memberships from customers and launches that technically in no way needed TRA for compliance at all.

The latest drama is actually the weakest one in the whole series.

In the mean time, the number of people accessing the "licensed" (read allegedly stolen 3 times) casings and propellants is about 5% of what it used to be.

That is not good for rocketry.

Someone somewhere should do SOMETHING for the good of rocketry, if only to improve their own greedy interests of earning more revenues in the process.

Just Jerry

One more thing . . . U.S. Rockets had a two for one warranty policy, which encouraged switching successfully, hence the banning by Rogers. Notably that policy was extended to ALL OTHER BRANDS TOO! Hence the ban never being lifted, safe motors being decertified and the false allegations of never filing FAA waviers. FAA employee Tom Moody was shocked to hear that considering his files were jammed with waviers. He tabled the TRA-Rogers FAA compliant with no action whatsoever. I declined the prosecutor's request to make and cooperate with a criminal complaint. I will never regret that.

ddmobley

The reloads are only certified for use in the hardware they were submitted to be tested in.

agrippo

I know, that's why I asked the question. I don't know whose case they were tested in.

From what I'm seeing on some different threads it looks like it was Jerry's/Frank's/Paul's - Powertech/Kosdon East/AMW case and I wanted to confirm that was the situation.

Andrew

SpartaChris

This had what to do with the guy's question?

ddmobley

Aerotech/KBA:

M1450W-P
75mm x 1039mm
Certified for use 75-7600 AMW Hardware only

7813 Newton-seconds Total Impulse
2134 Newtons Peak Thrust
1432 Newtons Average Thrust

Propellant mass: 4150 grams

W = White Lightning Propellant

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/1967/95/

Just Jerry

Actually I went on like that because it seemed to answer several of the questions in this thread while offering a bit of a history lesson with what, for me, was a minimum of whining.

Just Jerry

Happy 4th. Rockets 364 days a year. Go to a fireworks show.