What's CATO?
Dave Lowry
-Dave
Jim Cook
"CATO" is slang for catastrophic failure.
In the failures I've seen, either the nozzle has blow out, the forward
bulkhead (with burning propellant) has blown out, or the motor has actually
exploded, often as a seam-like split down the side of the casing.
J
Tony Wayne
think CATO stands for "Catastrophy At Take Off."
-Tony Wayne
C. D. Tavares
> Somebody please explain the acronym "CATO" for this newbie.
It's not an acronym, it's a contraction for "catastrophic failure."
This is when the engine fails to work properly. Usually it's in a
somwehat dramatic manner (propellant shoots out the front end, frying
your parachute, baking your rocket, and lofting a fireball; or the
nozzle blows out and caroms off the blast deflector) but it can also
be quiet and unassuming (your ejection charge never lit).
--
c...@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
jack hagerty
>I'm new to the term. Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, but I
>think CATO stands for "Catastrophy At Take Off."
Yet one more for the list!
- Jack
=============================================================================
||Jack Hagerty, Robotic Midwives, Ltd. ja...@rml.UUCP (smart mailers)||
||Livermore, CA ...!uunet!lll-winken!rml!jack (dumb mailers)||
||(510) 455-1143 jack%r...@lll-winken.llnl.gov (desperate mailers)||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
||"A Hobby becomes a Sport when you have to buy special shoes for it" - Me ||
=============================================================================
jack hagerty
I asked this same question about 6 months ago (and I'm a not-so-newbie :-)
and got several replies, all divergent, of course.
First off, CATO referres to an engine failure, generally explosive, where
all the propellant is burned in a much shorter time than planned. This
can be a nozzle blow-out (loud, but basically harmless), an end-cap
blow-out (where all of the pyrotechnic force blows *forward*) which
usually does a pretty good job of removing any internal structure including
the recovery system, and finally, a casing rupture which has unpredictible,
but devistating, effects.
As for the acronym itself, opinions range widely. Some say it's not an
acronym at all, but simply a contraction of "catastrophic" and should
be pronounced "Cat-O". Others maintain that it is an acronym but disagree
on the meaning. I've heard "CAtastrophic Take Off" and "Catastrophically
Aborted Take Off" which at least uses all the letters. Either of these
are usually pronouced "Kay-To", like the Green Hornet's side kick.
Opinions on the origins say that it is either from the military rocket
programs of WWII, the post war development era, or even a home-grown,
modroc only term.
Take your pick.
C. D. Tavares
While we're on the subject --
There is a strong rumor going around Compuserve (and not being refuted
by the Estes rep there) that Estes has introduced a new kit called the
"CATO." The kit is designed to break apart at about 100 feet and come
down in a mess of pieces. The pieces are designed to go back together
so that it can be flown again. The averred intention is to give kids
that "Challenger experience."
If this is true, it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long
time.
Jim Cook
writes:
>
>While we're on the subject --
>
>There is a strong rumor going around Compuserve (and not being refuted
>by the Estes rep there) that Estes has introduced a new kit called the
>"CATO." The kit is designed to break apart at about 100 feet and come
>down in a mess of pieces. The pieces are designed to go back together
>so that it can be flown again. The averred intention is to give kids
>that "Challenger experience."
>
>If this is true, it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long
>time.
Gives new meaning to the term "break apart recovery", eh?
J
Calvin Wilson
Just thought I'd throw this out:
In DARS (Dallas Area Rocket Society) we have used the term CATO as if it is
an abreviation for the term CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. It is not limited to motor
failures, but can and should apply to any major failure which results in an
unsafe condition for either the rocket the payload or the persons at the site.
Our syntax is as follows:
<modifier> cato
where <modifier> describes the subsystem in which the failure occurs.
Examples:
motor cato = any powerplant failure
recovery cato = incomplete of zero recovery system activation which is not a
result of a motor cato.
airframe cato = partial or total airframe failure (IE stress induced)
launch system cato = (IE a launch pad falls over AFTER the igniter starts)
safety system cato = a failure of the RSO to enforce safety rules and or a
failure for the RSO to notice unsafe conditions. (IE. 8 inch diameter
I powered rocket launched in high winds which flys a ballistic path
to impact over a mile away in a populated area)
There are any number of possible cato modifiers. The main criteria we use is:
If the failure endangered the mission or persons on the ground, then the term
CATO is applied.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Wilson, NTSC Specialist | These remarks belong to me. Not Motorola.
Motorola Inc. Field Service Division | Our goal is "Total Customer Satisfaction"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Wilson
>While we're on the subject --
>There is a strong rumor going around Compuserve (and not being refuted
>by the Estes rep there) that Estes has introduced a new kit called the
>"CATO." The kit is designed to break apart at about 100 feet and come
>down in a mess of pieces. The pieces are designed to go back together
>so that it can be flown again. The averred intention is to give kids
>that "Challenger experience."
>If this is true, it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long
>time.
You gotta be kid'n!!!
If this is true, PLEASE tell me what I can do to stop it. I spend most of
my time helping to promote the science of the hobby in a safe environment.
This could be a real setback.
doug_jones
writes:
>In article <1992Feb13....@src.honeywell.com>, lo...@src.honeywell.com
(Dave Lowry) writes:
>> Somebody please explain the acronym "CATO" for this newbie.
>
>While we're on the subject --
>
>There is a strong rumor going around Compuserve (and not being refuted
>by the Estes rep there) that Estes has introduced a new kit called the
>"CATO." The kit is designed to break apart at about 100 feet and come
>down in a mess of pieces. The pieces are designed to go back together
>so that it can be flown again. The averred intention is to give kids
>that "Challenger experience."
>
>If this is true, it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long
>time.
It is also sick. IMHO this is NOT how we should remember the brave crew of
Challenger. I would rather Estes put it's effort into bringing kids into the
sport for the scientific lessons that can be learned (not to mention the fun)!!
Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'I am a traveler of | Douglas R. Jones
both Time and Space' | IEX Corporation
Led Zeppelin | (214)612-2600 ext: 325
| djones@iex
| uunet!iex!djones
-------------------------------------------------------------------
C. D. Tavares
> In DARS (Dallas Area Rocket Society) we have used the term CATO as if it is
> an abreviation for the term CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. It is not limited to motor
> failures, but can and should apply to any major failure which results in an
> unsafe condition for either the rocket the payload or the persons at the site.
> recovery cato = incomplete of zero recovery system activation which is not a
> result of a motor cato.
The NAR Pink Book defines it more strictly as a failure that causes a
disqualified flight, but which was NOT under control of the modeler.
So there is no such thing as a "recovery system cato" unless, say, a hawk
gets angry at your boost/glider and strikes it out of the sky (this has
happened). Most motor failures (short of, say, putting the upper stage
engine in backwards) are considered to be mostly out of control of the
modeler, as are faults in the launch system (except in the Space Systems
event, where the launch system is your own), or stopwatches.
So technically, under Pink Book rules, the timers can "cato."
George George
the term originated with the MESS survey. MESS stands for
Malfunctioning Engine Statistical Survey, an NARMIT(?)
project. It may also have come from Dr. Jerry Gregorek of
OSU who (I think) was involved with NAR engine testing.
I used to remember this stuff, but that was 15 years ago :-)
CD Tavares or Bob Kaplow (both regular posters here) probably
remember. Any comments Gentlemen?
... gng
Calvin Wilson
>In article <1992Feb18....@Athena.dal.fsd.mot.com>, c...@Athena.dal.fsd.mot.com (Calvin Wilson) writes:
>> In DARS (Dallas Area Rocket Society) we have used the term CATO as if it is
>> an abreviation for the term CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. It is not limited to motor
>> failures, but can and should apply to any major failure which results in an
>> unsafe condition for either the rocket the payload or the persons at the site.
>> recovery cato = incomplete of zero recovery system activation which is not a
>> result of a motor cato.
>The NAR Pink Book defines it more strictly as a failure that causes a
>disqualified flight, but which was NOT under control of the modeler.
>So there is no such thing as a "recovery system cato" unless, say, a hawk
>gets angry at your boost/glider and strikes it out of the sky (this has
>happened). Most motor failures (short of, say, putting the upper stage
>engine in backwards) are considered to be mostly out of control of the
>modeler, as are faults in the launch system (except in the Space Systems
>event, where the launch system is your own), or stopwatches.
>So technically, under Pink Book rules, the timers can "cato."
>--
Good point C.D.