Need help with a rocket motor ID

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:38:32 +1030, "Dave Kearton"
wrote:

I've just received a few pics of a small rocket motor, from a friend of
mine.

It's about 2Kg and about 45cm long with a 10cm wide nozzle. It's a
liquid fuel motor and doesn't look like it has any electrical connections.

We're all guessing it could be some form of reaction nozzle for (maybe) a
Gemini or Apollo capsule.

Can I buy a vowel please ?

Dave,
Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud
who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know
what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you
can add to the stew.

One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is
preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me
like it may be " ?07705"
Cheers,
jc

"About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree
it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no
provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants
that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact.
The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen
peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the
stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure
one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it
dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks
and human soup. Yuck!

Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me.
Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a
manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a
really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing.
The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the
can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that
doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked
environment. That goes along with the idea that it's
designed for vacuum.

Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to
me. Hope my input helps."

"jc" wrote in message
...


Dave,
Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud
who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know
what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you
can add to the stew.

One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is
preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me
like it may be " ?07705"
Cheers,
jc

"About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree
it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no
provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants
that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact.
The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen
peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the
stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure
one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it
dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks
and human soup. Yuck!

Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me.
Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a
manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a
really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing.
The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the
can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that
doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked
environment. That goes along with the idea that it's
designed for vacuum.

Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to
me. Hope my input helps."



Thanks, every little bit helps.




I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4
from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in service
and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

well this is a mixing chamber for a chrop duster. looks like its a old
grummend agcat around the 1960 design, the corossion has me worried...
"Dave Kearton" wrote in message
...
"jc" wrote in message
...


Dave,
Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud
who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know
what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you
can add to the stew.

One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is
preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me
like it may be " ?07705"
Cheers,
jc

"About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree
it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no
provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants
that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact.
The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen
peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the
stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure
one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it
dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks
and human soup. Yuck!

Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me.
Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a
manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a
really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing.
The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the
can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that
doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked
environment. That goes along with the idea that it's
designed for vacuum.

Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to
me. Hope my input helps."



Thanks, every little bit helps.




I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4
from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in
service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

well this is a mixing chamber for a chrop duster. looks like its a old
grummend agcat around the 1960 design, the corossion has me worried...
"Dave Kearton" wrote in message
...
"jc" wrote in message
...


Dave,
Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud
who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know
what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you
can add to the stew.

One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is
preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me
like it may be " ?07705"
Cheers,
jc

"About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree
it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no
provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants
that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact.
The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen
peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the
stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure
one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it
dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks
and human soup. Yuck!

Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me.
Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a
manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a
really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing.
The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the
can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that
doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked
environment. That goes along with the idea that it's
designed for vacuum.

Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to
me. Hope my input helps."



Thanks, every little bit helps.




I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4
from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in
service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote in
message ...




I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4
from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in
service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe.







As Esmarelda whispered to Quasimodo "It's only a hunch, but I can't ignore
it"





I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways
that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and hopefully
they'll own up to it as well.




http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm




Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on
sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my way
was a lot more educational.



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote:

I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4
from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in
service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe.

As Esmarelda whispered to Quasimodo "It's only a hunch, but I can't ignore
it"

I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways
that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and
hopefully
they'll own up to it as well.

http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on
sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my
way
was a lot more educational.

I think you have it. Here's another picture, from

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/p41ainer.htm

--Bill Thompson

"William R Thompson" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dave Kearton" wrote:

I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4
from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in
service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe.

As Esmarelda whispered to Quasimodo "It's only a hunch, but I can't
ignore
it"

I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways
that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and
hopefully
they'll own up to it as well.

http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on
sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my
way
was a lot more educational.

I think you have it. Here's another picture, from

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/p41ainer.htm

--Bill Thompson





The Stromberg twin barrel carbie on that one would make it go like a cut
cat.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote:

I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways
that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and
hopefully they'll own up to it as well.

http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on
sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my
way was a lot more educational.

I'm guessing that you were answered by Oswald Mosley, a man
with nothing to say and no trouble proving it.

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/p41ainer.htm

The Stromberg twin barrel carbie on that one would make it go like a cut
cat.

According to astronautix.com at

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aqm37.htm

the AQM-37 can do up to Mach 3 or 4, depending on the version.
It's a target drone, and the article in your pictures is probably the
sustainer engine (the bigger thrust chamber must give it the initial
boost up to speed, but it would burn a lot of fuel). Propellants are
identified as liquid oxygen and kerosene. At least five thousand of
these drones have been manufactured since 1959. Even allowing
for the number that must have splashed into the oceans, it seems
likely that one of them could have landed in the Skylab Parking Lot.

--Bill Thompson

William R Thompson wrote:
"Dave Kearton" wrote:

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on
sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my
way was a lot more educational.

I'm guessing that you were answered by Oswald Mosley, a man
with nothing to say and no trouble proving it.



I think you've scored a direct hit with this one. Why anybody would
select the identity of a Facist as his screen presence escapes me...


"OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you need [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ "






the AQM-37 can do up to Mach 3 or 4, depending on the version.
It's a target drone, and the article in your pictures is probably the
sustainer engine (the bigger thrust chamber must give it the initial
boost up to speed, but it would burn a lot of fuel). Propellants are
identified as liquid oxygen and kerosene. At least five thousand of
these drones have been manufactured since 1959. Even allowing
for the number that must have splashed into the oceans, it seems
likely that one of them could have landed in the Skylab Parking Lot.

--Bill Thompson



Unfortunately, the motor is still in the US. The current 'owner' is
quite happy with his purchase, and is fairly sure that it's legal - but
until he's totally sure, he wants to keep quiet about it.

Through the wonders of the Internet, we could assemble a quick think-tank
to sort it out. There has to be something to counterbalance the porn
and get rich quick schemes.


Once again, thanks to (almost) all who put their oar in.


--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

William R Thompson wrote:
"Dave Kearton" wrote:

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on
sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my
way was a lot more educational.

I'm guessing that you were answered by Oswald Mosley, a man
with nothing to say and no trouble proving it.



I think you've scored a direct hit with this one. Why anybody would
select the identity of a Facist as his screen presence escapes me...


"OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you need [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ "






the AQM-37 can do up to Mach 3 or 4, depending on the version.
It's a target drone, and the article in your pictures is probably the
sustainer engine (the bigger thrust chamber must give it the initial
boost up to speed, but it would burn a lot of fuel). Propellants are
identified as liquid oxygen and kerosene. At least five thousand of
these drones have been manufactured since 1959. Even allowing
for the number that must have splashed into the oceans, it seems
likely that one of them could have landed in the Skylab Parking Lot.

--Bill Thompson



Unfortunately, the motor is still in the US. The current 'owner' is
quite happy with his purchase, and is fairly sure that it's legal - but
until he's totally sure, he wants to keep quiet about it.

Through the wonders of the Internet, we could assemble a quick think-tank
to sort it out. There has to be something to counterbalance the porn
and get rich quick schemes.


Once again, thanks to (almost) all who put their oar in.


--

Cheers

Dave Kearton