What is the longest burning motor?
shrox
charge) if possible. I see the Aerotech F10 at 7.13 second average.
Shrox
David Weinshenker
Some of the 54mm Aerotech motors (single use I65, J125, K250, and
reloadable J90, J135, and K185) had burn times just under 10 seconds.
-dave w
Mr. Bill . . . Kennedy
38mm with "one-tiny-nozzle-opening"
Doubt if its available.
Later,
Mr. Bill
I'll post pictures soon
"shrox" <sh...@shrox.com> wrote in message
news:3C23FB80...@shrox.com...
R. J. Talley
they burn shorter. OK, granted, that was a stupid joke. But hey, I'm on my
third shot of Gentleman Jack and everything is funny. Hey try this:, How
does one break up a Taliban bingo party? Shout, "B-52!" or, How can you tell
when a Taliban fighter has reached puberty? He takes the diaper off his butt
and wraps it around his head! I gota million of em.
--
R. J. Talley
NAR 69594
"To do is to be"...Descartes
"To be is to do"...Voltaire
"Do be, Do be, do"...Sinatra
"Mr. Bill . . . Kennedy" <sillybil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:QbTU7.306295$W8.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John Grassi
"Mr. Bill . . . Kennedy" <sillybil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:QbTU7.306295$W8.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Oliver Arend
www.thrustcurve.org for details)
Oliver
Scott Aleckson
I think the burn time on the Shuttle SRBs is about as long as you can
get these days. (sorry, just had to)
shrox
Shrox
--------------------------------
Darren J Longhorn
>Those are good motors, it's the shipping costs that kills ya...
>
Yeah and because the individual grains are more that 62.5kg you can't
get them "easy access".
I'll get my coat...
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8238
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/
UKRA #1094 L2 RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/
"If this is the 21st century, then where's my personal jetpack?"
Tom Binford
"John Grassi" <1...@1.com> wrote in message
news:f9%U7.2227$Cx2.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Tiny opening will produce shorter burns.
It was an end burner. Tiny nozzle needed.
Aerotech used to make an end burning 54 mm I32. 20 second burn.
Tom
Jerry Irvine
<tbin...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "John Grassi" <1...@1.com> wrote in message
> news:f9%U7.2227$Cx2.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > Tiny opening will produce shorter burns.
>
> It was an end burner. Tiny nozzle needed.
> Aerotech used to make an end burning 54 mm I32. 20 second burn.
>
They also made a 29mm H5.
I have more types of aerotech motors than you have . . . .
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Quilly Mammoth
<01rocket-221...@1cust238.tnt1.rancho-cucamonga.ca.da.uu.net>, Jerry
Irvine spake thusly:
>
>In article <u2a5gs...@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Binford"
><tbin...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> "John Grassi" <1...@1.com> wrote in message
>> news:f9%U7.2227$Cx2.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> > Tiny opening will produce shorter burns.
>>
>> It was an end burner. Tiny nozzle needed.
>> Aerotech used to make an end burning 54 mm I32. 20 second burn.
>>
>
>They also made a 29mm H5.
>
>I have more types of aerotech motors than you have . . . .
Neener, neener, neeeeeener................
>
>Jerry
>
>--
>Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California USA
>Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
>Bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Quilly Mammoth
TSmith1315
>Aerotech used to make an end burning 54 mm I32. 20 second burn.
>
Didn't they also make a 98mm K125 around 2500N-s?
Tim
RBrigham1
>Those are good motors, it's the shipping costs that kills ya...
The storage is no picnic either! ;-)
Robert Brigham
NAR 79579 L1
Words are your friends. Choose them carefully.
Vic Tanner
Thought it was SRB's on the Shuttle? :>)
"Tom Binford" <tbin...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:u2a5gs...@corp.supernews.com...
Tom Binford
"TSmith1315" <tsmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011224011206...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> Tom wrote:
>
> >Aerotech used to make an end burning 54 mm I32. 20 second burn.
> >
>
> Didn't they also make a 98mm K125 around 2500N-s?
K125, L250, M500. all burned about 17 seconds . They were 98 mm single use
motors that had a shallow slotted grain.
Tom
>
>
> Tim
>
>
Tom Binford
"Vic Tanner" <vict...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:Fa0W7.4044$bv6.167...@twister2.starband.net...
> Tom,
>
> Thought it was SRB's on the Shuttle? :>)
If you get away from solids, the Saturn 5 third stage had a total burn time
of about 10 minutes (over 2 burns in an Apollo Moon mission), the thrusters
on Galileo had a total thrust duration of about an hour, and the ion
thrusters on deep Space 1 ran for over a month.
Tom
Dave Lyle
>
> "Vic Tanner" <vict...@starband.net> wrote in message
> news:Fa0W7.4044$bv6.167...@twister2.starband.net...
> > Tom,
> >
> > Thought it was SRB's on the Shuttle? :>)
>
> If you get away from solids, the Saturn 5 third stage had a total burn time
> of about 10 minutes (over 2 burns in an Apollo Moon mission), the thrusters
> on Galileo had a total thrust duration of about an hour, and the ion
> thrusters on deep Space 1 ran for over a month.
A bit more than a month. Deep Space 1's ion engine has accumulated over
670 days of operating time.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/release_2001_241.html
Oliver Arend
1's engines forever... but you probably couldn't with the Saturn V third
stage...
Oliver
Jerry Irvine
<oar...@web.de> wrote:
Tripoli decertified several tested, proven, certified long burning motors
on the basis of burn time alone. There was no authority calling for them
to be decertified.
The two motors that pop to mind were the AT 98mm K125 and the USR 54mm K125-FS.
Actually its pretty scary that USR motor was certified. It was used in
several science programs, not because of its superior performance or
amazing burning time, but because it had "cool sparks".
The Silent Observer
Well, no, even an ion thruster won't run forever. The ion flux at the
exhaust end erodes the grid -- I've seen estimates that current
technology xenon ion engines will last between two and ten years of
continuous operation, but the older cadmium and cesium engines were good
for only a few weeks of operation before the grid got so thin it started
to blow away on the ion wind.
--
This space temporarily vacant. Look for more wit and wisdom in the
next iteration.
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer NAR # 70141-SR Insured
Rocket Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/launches.htm
Telescope Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/astronomy.htm
Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.
Alan Jones
wrote:
>Tripoli decertified several tested, proven, certified long burning motors
>on the basis of burn time alone. There was no authority calling for them
>to be decertified.
>Jerry
When did that happen? Has the blanket "waiver" of the "15 second
rule" for TRA launches been recinded?
Alan Jones
Tom Binford
"Alan Jones" <ala...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:3c2aa091...@news.iowact1.ia.home.com...
It was when Tripoli found out about the 15 second limit. They got the waiver
later but the motors were never recertified.
Tom
>
> Alan Jones
>
>
Oliver Arend
> exhaust end erodes the grid -- I've seen estimates that current
> technology xenon ion engines will last between two and ten years of
> continuous operation, but the older cadmium and cesium engines were good
> for only a few weeks of operation before the grid got so thin it started
> to blow away on the ion wind.
True. No machine can run _forever_. There's always wear and tear. We're
never gonna reach another star...
Oliver
shrox
new one. Like a cd jukebox. Other parts will wear out but replacing the part with
the highest rate of wear on the fly seems feasible in this case.
Shrox
-----------------------------------------
Jerry Irvine
ala...@nospam.home.com (Alan Jones) wrote:
IIRC 1988?
It is a permanant wavier.
Jerry
Recertify the USR K125-FS just to scare the general public!
Matt Beland
<oar...@web.de> wrote:
Don't get your logic... run a xenon ion engine for a few years, replace
the grid, run it a few more. You might not accelerate anymore, but you
won't lose any velocity. It's not like driving to Detroit, you don't have
to set a cruise control. OK, so you won't get there in a Whammo frisbee
with decontamination gel and you won't get there in time for the next
commercial. So what? You leave Earth orbit (or solar orbit from the
asteroid belt, more likely) and head out for Alpha Centauri; your
grandchildren are commanding the ship when it arrives. Heck, if you use
one of the really *big* generation ship concepts - like an inflated
asteroid 20 miles long and 10 in diameter - you could even continue your
model rocketry hobby on board.
--
Matt Beland
ma...@rearviewmirror.org
http://www.rearviewmirror.org
Tom Binford
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-271...@1cust237.tnt1.rancho-cucamonga.ca.da.uu.net..
.
>
> Recertify the USR K125-FS just to scare the general public!
You called these K200's, they tested as a K85 with a 17 second burn.
I used a couple, cool motors.
Tom
The Silent Observer
>
> Couldn't the grid be replaced? Just rotate out the old one and replace it with a
> new one. Like a cd jukebox. Other parts will wear out but replacing the part with
> the highest rate of wear on the fly seems feasible in this case.
>
Certainly, the exit grid could be made replaceable. Unfortunately,
we're talking classic ion engines here, even with xenon working fluid;
in a working system with solar panels or nuclear thermal generators they
can give an acceleration of a few milligees. Taking along the extra
mass of spare grids and a changer mechanism is counterproductive.
And don't even talk to me about manned ships driven by current
generation ion engines; yes, continuous thrust is a wonderful thing, but
it'd take you years just to get up to your cruising speed, and more
years to stop at the other end, not even counting coasting along for
decades at a few percent of light speed.
Fortunately, the VASIMR engine was tested a couple years ago, and the
inventor is working to get it on a space mission; it's the forerunner to
a fusion rocket, using magnetic bottle technology to turn hydrogen gas
into a plasma, and by varying the flow rate the temperature (and thus,
velocity) of the exhaust can be tuned to a high efficiency for the long
haul, or to higher thrust for maneuvering. Expectations appear to be
that you'll be good for a tenth gee or more for maneuvers with a
supercritical nuclear reactor as a power source, even including a life
system and lots of reaction mass.
RayDunakin
<<You called these K200's, they tested as a K85 with a 17 second burn. I used a
couple, cool motors. >>
Yes, very cool motors. But definitely need a light weight rocket. You should
see a 4" diameter camera rocket landshark across a half mile of desert powered
by one of these sometime! :)
David Weinshenker
Did you get any photos from that "flight"?
-dave w
RayDunakin
inventor is working to get it on a space mission; it's the forerunner to a
fusion rocket, using magnetic bottle technology to turn hydrogen gas into a
plasma, and by varying the flow rate the temperature (and thus, velocity) of
the exhaust can be tuned to a high efficiency for the long haul, or to higher
thrust for maneuvering. Expectations appear to be that you'll be good for a
tenth gee or more for maneuvers with a supercritical nuclear reactor as a power
source, even including a life system and lots of reaction mass.>>
The Luddite tree-huggers are gonna love that. :P
RayDunakin
Not much. I had a Super 8 movie camera payload, and the power shut off on the
first bounce. But I did get some interesting footage out of it. The rocket sat
on the pad for an very long time as the motor ssloooowwwlllyyy built up
pressure, then it went up about 20 feet, did a small loop, and hit the ground
just as the motor really got going.
Bob Kaplow
> Certainly, the exit grid could be made replaceable. Unfortunately,
> we're talking classic ion engines here, even with xenon working fluid;
> in a working system with solar panels or nuclear thermal generators they
> can give an acceleration of a few milligees. Taking along the extra
> mass of spare grids and a changer mechanism is counterproductive.
You don't coast! F1 race car drivers never coast. It's either foot on the
throttle, or onthe brake. Half the trip is spent accelerating towards the
destination, the other half is breaking at the other end.
It's only the fuel limitations of chemical rockets that prevent us from
doing this in current space travel.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us/Leading_Edge/MayJun00.pdf
NIRA: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us NAR: http://www.nar.org
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --
Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759
26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy
Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
The Silent Observer
>
> In article <3C2BD68D...@ix.netcom.com>, The Silent Observer <sil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Certainly, the exit grid could be made replaceable. Unfortunately,
> > we're talking classic ion engines here, even with xenon working fluid;
> > in a working system with solar panels or nuclear thermal generators they
> > can give an acceleration of a few milligees. Taking along the extra
> > mass of spare grids and a changer mechanism is counterproductive.
>
> You don't coast! F1 race car drivers never coast. It's either foot on the
> throttle, or onthe brake. Half the trip is spent accelerating towards the
> destination, the other half is breaking at the other end.
If you can cram enough fuel/reaction mass on board, you're correct; the
fastest way from point A to point B is to accelerate all the way with a
flip turn in the middle.
Unfortunately, if you want to go anywhere much further than Neptune,
even with an ion thruster, you need to coast because you can't cram
enough fuel and/or energy on board to thrust all the way. Mass ratios
of 500 or more are reasonable for interstellar flight at very low
acceleration -- and still lead to multi-decade trip times.
> It's only the fuel limitations of chemical rockets that prevent us from
> doing this in current space travel.
If we had a NERVA you could do this on a trip to the Moon -- and cut the
trip time from three days each way to a few hours. Big deal.
With VASIMR throttled back for maximum Isp, you could make this kind of
trip to Mars, maybe even Jupiter with a reasonably sized life system and
return trip reaction mass. Same goes for Orion.
To get to Alpha Centauri (which has, as of yet, given no evidence of
being worth the trip), you'd need a true fusion rocket or an antimatter
thruster.
Mark Simpson
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote in message news:<kklEP4...@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
Martin Maney
> It's only the fuel limitations of chemical rockets that prevent us from
> doing this in current space travel.
Ah, yes, "torch" ships. They may go by other names, but the example
that's bobbing to the surface of mind - a most uneasy body of water -
is Spinrad's "Riding the Torch".
--
Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books.
For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring,
but to him they are but toys of the moment,
to be overturned with the flick of a finger. -- Gordon Dickson
Ron Zeppin
Kosdon had built...Minimum Diameter airframe...Kosdon designated it an H8.
It had a burn time of 40 seconds. It burned well out of earshot...amazing
thing was...the recovered it.
If Franky can get himself legal, I think we can look forward to some really
cool stuff like this!
Ron
--
Ron Zeppin
Access Rocketry
http://accessrocketry.blastzone.com
TRA# 6024
AHPRA
XRAA
Jerry Irvine
<Zip...@extremezone.com> wrote:
> Several years ago, a couple members of the local club flew a motor that
> Kosdon had built...Minimum Diameter airframe...Kosdon designated it an H8.
> It had a burn time of 40 seconds. It burned well out of earshot...amazing
> thing was...the recovered it.
> If Franky can get himself legal, I think we can look forward to some really
> cool stuff like this!
But what are that chances of that, or that he will ever make any motors he
did not swipe directly from Jerry Irvine?
Jerry
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Zeppin
> Access Rocketry
> http://accessrocketry.blastzone.com
> TRA# 6024
> AHPRA
> XRAA
> shrox <sh...@shrox.com> wrote in message news:3C23FB80...@shrox.com...
> > What is the longest burning motor available? A booster (no ejection
> > charge) if possible. I see the Aerotech F10 at 7.13 second average.
> >
> > Shrox
> >
--
Megaphage
seconds.
Moira
shrox
Shrox
------------------------------------------------------
Dave/Kristin Hall
: I was just curious about it, no requirements really.
Well, I've watched a Trident D-5 sans nozzle burn for close to 10 minutes.
:)
--
David Hall
- http://www.ridgenet.net/~thehalls
Tom Binford
"Dave/Kristin Hall" <theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in message
news:a18idh$lns$3...@delphi.ridgenet.net...
> shrox (sh...@shrox.com) wrote:
> : I was just curious about it, no requirements really.
>
> Well, I've watched a Trident D-5 sans nozzle burn for close to 10 minutes.
I don't think that was intentional :-)
Tom
K2 UNIT
K2
Lew Garrow
13 seconds - still a nice long burn!
"K2 UNIT" <k2u...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020110112335...@mb-dh.aol.com...
K2 UNIT
burn Hypertek. I definitely recall exceeding the 15-second burn time with an
"L" using a .098 orifice, which was some trigger to get the 15-sec. TRA wavier.
K2
Mark Simpson
I saw your unfortunate bout on Battlebots Tuesday night. Tough break
drawing the reigning champ in the first round. I liked your Bot,
though.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
k2u...@aol.com (K2 UNIT) wrote in message news:<20020110115330...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
Jerry Irvine
mark.s...@home.com (Mark Simpson) wrote:
> Korey,
> I saw your unfortunate bout on Battlebots Tuesday night. Tough break
> drawing the reigning champ in the first round. I liked your Bot,
> though.
I have seen Battlebots toys in local stores. Is one of them a Kline Bot?
Jerry
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
>
> k2u...@aol.com (K2 UNIT) wrote in message
news:<20020110115330...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
> > Perhaps it has an expired certification and the "L200" is the current
longest
> > burn Hypertek. I definitely recall exceeding the 15-second burn time with an
> > "L" using a .098 orifice, which was some trigger to get the 15-sec.
TRA wavier.
> >
> > K2
--
Mark Simpson
a Vlad The Impaler toy. It's one of my favorite Bots.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Mr. Bill . . . Kennedy
> What is the longest burning motor available?
Alright Shrox . . . here it is.
http://home.att.net/~billyjingx2/P1010905.jpg
Don't know of it's availablility (can't have mine).
>A booster (no ejection
> charge) if possible.
None with this one.
>I see the Aerotech F10 at 7.13 second average.
Its a 'baby H', so I'd guess it to be @20 sec. burn. I'd like to stick
around for the 320 sec. delay.
Kool indeed.
Say you saw it first on rmr
don't even remove the silly and attempt to reach billy . . .it ain't for
sale :)
>
> Shrox
>