On the Centuri Model Rocket Facebook page,
Steven Ross posted this:
Gary Dahlke responded:
"This is the aerospace industry convention: solid propulsion = motor; liquid propulsion = engine. Gary Dahlke, Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion 1993-2000, Space Shuttle Program 1993-2010."
I call them "Engines" out of habit, that's what I read in the model rocket catalogs.
This is from the 1972 Estes Catalog.
Vern wouldn't lie to us, would he?
The 1972 Centuri Catalog also called them engines.
Here's a clip from a Vashon Catalog. Vashon Rockets used liquid propellant or Freon.
Vashon called their liquid fueled rockets Engines!
So who's right?
Call 'em what you want, everybody will know what you are talking about.
Being a bit of a word nerd I’ve always preferred “motor” seeing as the word is derived from the Latin motor/movere which means “to move” as in “impart motion” rather than “engine” which comes from Middle English/Old French “engin” that meant “clever device” (Latin ingenium nature, innate quality). An engine could have been any contrivance built to do something - a torture device or a windlass or a battering ram could have been called an engine. The only thing the word motor can be (or could have been) used for is something that causes motion. As I said, I’m a bit of a word nerd 🤓
ReplyDeleteHi Openroad,
DeleteThat's probably the best explanation I've heard! Thanks for the word history.
I recall reading recently (it may have been one of those published magazine interviews with Vern Estes), that G. Harry Stine had oncetold Vern that they were called 'engines', but later on did not recall that conversation, and that the proper terminology was in fact 'motor'.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I'm in the same boat as you, Chris, having grown up with calling them engines. Nowadays, I think the two terms are pretty much interchangeable.
This conversation reminds me ... I need to get more reloads for my RES hardware. :-)
ReplyDelete