😯

Very impressive. FYI remove the ( . ) at the end for link to work.

Done!

X?

Based on some rough calculations, I get that it's an AE class motor (7 categories above X). This motor is to an X motor what a P motor is to an I.

😀

Thanks for the heads up, Chris. OK, let me amend my original post. It should be an Z16013598-P. My reasoning is as follows:
If I find a force conversion thru Google, I find that 1lb of force equals 4.482216 newtons. The article states the motor has up to 3.6 million pounds of thrust. If I take 3.6 million and multiply it by 4.482216, I should get the thrust in Newtons. That calculates out to 16,013,598 Newtons of thrust. Going by the Tripoli website under motors, I find that the max thrust of an "O" motor is 9,022.03 Newtons.
This means to me that a P = 18,044.06; Q = 36,088.12; R= 72176.24; S= 144,352.48; T= 288,704.96; U= 577,409.92; V= 1,154,819.84;
W= 2,309,639.68; X= 4,619,279.36; Y = 9,238,558.72; and Z = 18,477,177.44. My calculated thrust falls between Y and Z. (Remember, my numbers are maximum thrust for each impulse level.) If what I have calculated is correct, then the designation would be an "Z" and the total impulse of the motor would be 16,013,598. ( That makes me think that the Saturn V with five F1 engines with 1,500,000 lbs of thrust per engine, and a total thrust of 7,500,000 lbs of thrust would then have a combined thrust equal to mid level "AA" motor.)
Now if I am working under incorrect presumptions, please let me know. I want to learn and I do not mind the correction.
It would also mean by the calculations, as I have described above, an AE impulse motor would have, to me, and inconceivable thrust of 591,267,758.08 Newtons or the equivalent of 18 Saturn V's going off at the same time in the same place. Again, please correct me if I am laboring under the wrong information.

Bear,

The difference between your calculation and Chris' is the motor burn time. The classification system for model/amateur rocket motors is in terms of total impulse, not thrust. Total impulse is the area under the thrust vs. time curve -- the easiest example is: if a motor has constant thrust, then the total impulse is thrust multiplied by burn time.

I agree with your calculation of the thrust. The referenced article states that the motor burned for two minutes. So, if we assume that the thrust is constant and the burn time is 120 seconds, then the motor's total impulse is:

1,921,631,000 Newton-seconds

Based on calculations I've done before, if we continue the progression of model rocket motor classifications into the high-end single-letter motors:
W = 5,242,880 - 10,485,760 N-s
X = 10,485,760 - 20,971,520 N-s
Y = 20,971,520 - 41,943,040 N-s
Z = 41,943,040 - 83,886,080 N-s

...Then, assuming that a ZA = 2 Z motors, ZB = 2 ZAs, etc...
ZA = 83,886,080 - 167,772,160 N-s
ZB = 166,772,160 - 335,544,320 N-s
ZC = 335,544,320 - 671,088,640 N-s
ZD = 671,088,640 - 1,342,177,280 N-s
ZE = 1,342,177,280 - 2,684,354,670 N-s

So, I agree with Chris that this motor is a ZE or AE (whichever naming convention you prefer for motors above Z).

For comparison:
Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) total impulse ~= 1,300,000,000 N-s
Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) w/external tank total impulse ~= 1,016,000,000 N-s

....so a Shuttle launch was a cluster of 2 solid and 3 liquid ZDs.....

And as for the Saturn V: the first stage F-1 engines had an average thrust of 6,900,000 Newtons, and burned for 171 seconds, giving each engine a total impulse of:

1,179,900,000 Newton-seconds

So the Saturn V first stage (S-1C) was a cluster of 5 ZDs.

Unless I'm forgetting some other big rocket, this new rocket would be the highest total impulse single engine/motor ever developed!!!

ok,

first off, I am not a rocket scientist! But I do appreciate the process of trying to get the my head to conceive the size of that motor. So check out nasa's latest and greatest!
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html

The rocket sure looks like a Saturn V with some SRB's strapped to the side. Instead of looking at all of the math calculations (which clearly many of you enjoy!), I like the "fun facts page" - more of my style and more useful for a show-n-tell in my middle school classroom.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/588413main_SLS_Fun_Facts.pdf

Me? Right now I am focusing on building "pretty" birds that go up in one piece and return to a location that is within the nearby vicinity.

After you guys figure out the engine sizes and build one of these vehicles AND obtain the necessary Altitude Waivers, I will be happy to paint it in my garage!

Assuming that the main body of the newest nasa rocket "SLS" is 400ft tall and the diameter is 33ft, the main body alone would have a paint coverage area of 41,448sf. (2)(3.14)rh
As per google, the average area covered by the common aerosol spray can is 25sf, then I will need to by from Ace Hardware 1,658 cans of pure white. Of course, I will need probably the same amount of primer and then literally "a ton" of clear gloss to protect my 8 ft. tall decals.

My challenge is to calculate the adjusted net weight of the vehicle with the addition of 4973lbs of spray paint (minus the overspray)

I realize of course, that I have failed to include in my calculations the project of painting the srbs, and the cost of expanding my two-car garage into an appropriate sized VAB (I shudder to think about Longmont Building Permit Costs).

Yes, but Dave, you will get a discount of at least $5 off your next purchase from ACE Hardware. You have more good things to look forward to. For what it is worth, I will donate a head sock and a filter mask for the paint project and I will also donate a pack of 180 grit wet/dry sandpaper. I think I would also be willing to come watch and I will bring the coffee, if that will help.

I also appreciate you others for jumping in and showing me the holes in my calculations. I will learn more about this so I can be more accurate in my fantasy's in the future.

Can you imagine the mixers they must use to manufacture the fuel to make the grains on these rockets? That is no simple Hobart. What is the ablation in the nozzle throat after two minutes of hot gases roaring thru? At least liquid fueled rockets have the liquid propellant cooling the exhasut nozzle, which might be even worse, thinking of the temperature extremes, and the engineering and manufacturing headaches. 😯

thanks for the coffee!

What would really help me is if you could shake all of the cans for me WHILE steadying my 394ft extension ladder.

What are we gonna use for a launch lug? A 6ft drainage pipe?

Your welcome on the coffee. Do you use cream, sugar, Jack Daniels?
For a shaker, I was thinking of a rubber lined dryer drum from a used electric dryer that I can pick up for about $25. I also use such things to polish rocks and to polish my brass with walnut media. (Brass as in reloading of cartidges). For launching why not a couple of 4" stainless steel bolts for rail guides and then a piece of steel channel extrusion as a substitute for 15/15 aluminum extrusion. Who knows, maybe Northrop Grumman has some lying around they want to get rid of from a magnetic rail guide catapult launch system from a used aircraft carrier prototype? . We might also consider getting some sponsors for this project to defray some of the costs for parachutes, paint, guidance, carbon fibre, epoxy, (West Systems?) etc. Sell advertisement on the side. This will sure beat out those mediocre Saturns that they keep launching in Maryland. What's this 36 foot, 800 pound rocket crap? Let's get serious! We could also sell the rights to the LCO position and pushing the button! Should try to at least break even on this thing if done right. Who knows, we could maybe even get a Discovery Channel crew to come in, film and underwrite the whole thing, you know what I mean Vern? Maybe by keeping the fun in dysfunctional, we could turn this into a club project and get a new, larger trailer!LOL. 8)

Okay, forget about the motor casing cost... how much is the reload? 😯

I would bet one of the strap-ons alone would put a couple hundred pounds at least into LEO.

Given that UP Aerospace and Cesaroni both have casually quoted me $50K for a T-class motor, you'd probably be talking at least $10M for the reload and who knows how much for the casing. You'd also need a team of 10 and a crane at the least to assemble the reload.

Doggone it. For 9 million we might be able to do it, but 10? Nope. LEO? Definitely.

For the brief time it was active, I was a part of the Big Project - a TRA group who was thinking it might be possible to throw something small into orbit on an amateur basis. After almost 2 years, the consensus was good fucking luck with that if you're not a nation-state.

An example. A USAF project, Blue Scout, was a 2 or 3 stage all-solid sounding rocket that could do 900 miles or thereabouts AGL. It had barely a third of what was needed to reach even a decaying temporary orbit.

From a hobbyist perspective, the issue is guidance - pure and simple. The one thing we're not supposed to be playing with.

I would bet one of the strap-ons alone would put a couple hundred pounds at least into LEO.

Given that UP Aerospace and Cesaroni both have casually quoted me $50K for a T-class motor, you'd probably be talking at least $10M for the reload and who knows how much for the casing. You'd also need a team of 10 and a crane at the least to assemble the reload.

That particular "strap on" is what was going to tear the **** out of the Orion spacecraft, before the Aries-1 was thankfully cancelled. That plus an upper stage, was going to send about 50,000 lbs to LEO. The acoustic and vibration environments would have been worse than any other launch vehicle in history. It's one big booster, and probably costs around $100M.