Author Topic: Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program  (Read 1120 times)

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2003, 10:33:13 PM »
Actually, Creamo, I'm quite aware of what rockets are.  I've milled thrust nozzles out of graphite, calculated ISPs, built my own core burning solid fueled rockets and more.  You seem to have made quite an assumption about me that's not accurate.

I referenced explosion once in my post about the Challenger, and that was just because most people think of it as an explosion.  In truth, the core burning solid fueled booster (which is made of 5 segments, each sealed with a rubber o-ring) caused the 'rapid breakup' because the internal pressure overcame the weakened (by cold) seals and allowed a burnthrough.  The ET was compromised by the outgassing and had a structural failure.  The fuel and LOX tanks ruptured and ignited, but the result was a burn, not an explosion.  The OV was torn apart by being released into the supersonic slipstream and pitching up, not by exploding.

The reason big solid boosters are dangerous, if you bothered to read me post, is because you have a lot of chemical energy waiting to be ignited and sitting there for a while.  Chemical only rockets can be assembled and moved while empty and are only dangerous to be around hours before they are launched when they are fueled (unless you're talking something like an SS-18 or its brethren which use storable room temperature liquid propellents, but that's more of a military thing).

I predict the cause of the disaster will be linked to the solid boosters.  Not because I have some sort of irrational fear of rockets, but because it's the most reasonable assumption considering the 'event' occurred days before it was to be launched.

Creamo, please read the actual message you're responding to instead of what you imagine the message will be about, knee-jerk responses will just get you in trouble.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Creamo

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5976
      • http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2003, 10:52:54 PM »
Nice google search instant professor responce.

I read your initial post, you think solid rocket fuels are "disastrously dangerous". Your wrong, and that's the end of it. Although I'd like to see your motor data, and testing from your EX "core burning solids" motor, lol.

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2003, 11:25:53 PM »
Didn't search google at all, what's with the attitude?  I just like and know rockets, what's your problem with that?  

The fact is that solid fueled rockets are dangerous because THEY ARE FUELED ALL THE TIME, not just before launch.  What part of that do you not understand?  I am a model rocket enthusiast, not some chicken little who's trying to outlaw model rockets.  

Listen, just because you stuff store bought motors in cardboard, fiberglass, or carbon fiber tubes doesn't mean you have the only opinion that counts.  Respond with facts to bolster your argument, not childish attacks like 'nice google search instant professor'.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2003, 11:55:20 PM »
BTW, the reason I kept specifying core burning is that anyone can make tip burning rocket engines.  That's all bottle rockets are, for example.  I don't know if you know what the difference is, but I'm sure you can figure it out with a 'nice google instant professor' search.  :rolleyes:
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Creamo

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5976
      • http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2003, 11:56:55 PM »
Tell me more about the "thrust termination system that blows the end caps off" of 2 million pounds of AP professor clueless.

lol

Offline Creamo

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5976
      • http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2003, 11:59:55 PM »
"tip burning rocket engines"?

Lol!

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2003, 12:14:04 AM »
A core burning solid rocket is a tube of propellent with a hollow space in the center.  When it is ignited, the inside surface burns.  A core burning rocket produces a LOT more thrust because so much more surface area is being combusted (more thrust then a tip burning rocket).  It burns from the inside outwards.  Examples of core burning rockets include your model rocket engines, the space shuttle, and pretty much any high performance rocket (sidewinders, solid ICBMs, etc).

A tip burning rocket is like what you'll find in a bottle rocket.  The propellent is packed solid and burns from the bottom up to the top.  It's much easier to make because you don't have to keep the center clear and it runs at lower pressure.  The downside is that it is a lot less efficient.  The surface area that combusts is much smaller then a core burning rocket and as it burns upwards, the size of the combustion chamber increases until the combustion is taking place far from the nozzle.  I'm surprised that a self professed rocket expert like yourself doesn't know this.

Read Jenkin's guide to the shuttle, he describes a thrust termination system that was proposed for the shuttle.  Since a core burning SRB is burning all the way down the center, the hollow space goes up to just below the nose cones.  The suggestion was, put something like detcord or explosive bolts in a place where they can be fired to sever the nose from the SRB in a controlled fashion.  When this happens, the top of the combustion chamber is wide open.  The fuel keeps burning, but since it isn't contained with only one way out, it just burns off without being forced out through the nozzle.  

The main reason NASA didn't do it was because they estimated that adding it would increase the shuttle weight by a lot because they would need to reinforce the frame to handle sudden negative Gs along the thrust axis.

Golly, I'm having a hard time figuring out if you just don't know better or if you are maliciously stupid.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline classy man

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2003, 02:08:15 AM »
I wuld like to ad some thawts of my own on this;
Solid propellants of the composite type, containing separate fuel (or reducer, chemically) and oxidiser (in a separate compound) intimately mixed, replaced the simple double-base propellants to a considerable extent, especially for large non-military motors. The organic fuel material is initially in a liquid or semi-liquid form that can set to a solid (binder). Among the earliest substances used were asphalt and various synthetic rubbers. While generally not considered as composite, black powder was in fact the oldest composite propellant. Before 1940 black powder, in common use, was nearly synonymous with the words 'rocket motor' .

While working on the theory of rocket propulsion for his doctoral thesis in 1937, Frank Malina mentioned to Fritz Zwicky of Caltech some difficulties he was having in his study. Zwicky exploded with the opinion that Malina was wasting his time on an impossible subject. For, he said, Malina must realise that a rocket could not operate in space as it required the atmosphere to push against to provide thrust! By 1940 he realised that he was mistaken.

At Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (GALCIT),in 1939, one of the first objectives was to develop a solid propellant rocket unit capable of delivering a constant thrust on the order of 1000 pounds for a period of 10 to 30 seconds. As far as is known, no black powder or smokeless powder rocket had ever been constructed to meet these specifications of thrust and duration. Experts consulted by Malina, John Parsons, and Forman were very dubious about the possibility of doing so.

Preliminary experiments made by Parson and Forman with pressed solid propellant charges restricted to burn cigarette-fashion appeared to support this view. It was generally believed that the combustion chamber pressure of a restricted burning solid rocket unit would continue to rise from the moment of ignition until any combustion chamber of reasonable weight would burst. In other words, it was thought that such combustion was inherently unstable.

The GALCIT group's mentor, Professor Theodore von Karman, in the spring of 1940, had to listen to both the opinions of the experts and to the explosions of Parson's rockets. One evening at home Von Karman wrote down four differential equations describing the operation of an ideal restricted burning motor, and asked Malina to solve them. It was found that, theoretically, a restricted burning unit would maintain a constant chamber pressure as long as the ratio of the area of the throat of the exhaust nozzle to the burning area of the propellant charge remained constant, that is, the process was stable. Experimental verification of the theory was soon obtained.

Although there have been centuries of experiments with black powder rocket, and several investigators used smokeless powder and Ballistite in rockets between about 1918 and 1939, none of these rockets had the thrust and duration required for the aircraft "super-performance" applications. Parsons and Forman in 1938 built and tested a smokeless powder constant-volume combustion motor similar to the one that had been used by Goddard. They concluded after these tests that the mechanical complications of constructing an engine using successive impulses to obtain thrust durations of over 10 seconds was impractical. Upon Parson's recommendation, they concentrated their efforts on the development of a motor provided with a restricted burning powder charge that would burn at one end only at constant pressure to provide a constant thrust.

Parsons started with the traditional sky rocket. This type of pyrotechnic device was propelled by a black powder charge pressed into a cardboard combustion chamber with a conical hole in its centre. The gases escaped through a rounded clay orifice. Its efficiency was very, very low, but it was reliable. The conical hole in the charge was believed to be the secret that kept the charge from burning down the sides of the container or to produce chamber pressures that would burst the container. The longest duration of thrust of this motor did not exceed about 1 second.

During 1939 and 1940, various mixtures based on black powder and mixtures of black powder with smokeless powder were tested in 1 in. and 3 in. diameter chambers. The charge for the 3 in. chamber was made up of 6 in. long pellets compressed at around 6,500 psi., and coated with various substances to form a solid or liquid seal between the charge and the walls of the chamber. The charge of the 1 in. chamber was pressed directly into the chamber in small increments at pressures between 7,700 and 12,000 psi. Most of the tests of these charges ended in an explosion.

Mechanical causes for failures, such as burning of the charge on the surface next to the wall because of leakage, transfer of heat down the walls sufficient to ignite the sides of the charge, and cracking of the charge under combustion pressure, were suspected. However, there were those who were convinced that the combustion process of a restricted burning charge in a rocket motor was basically unstable. Only after von Karman and Malina proved the process was stable in their analysis of the characteristics of the ideal solid propellant rocket motor in the spring of 1940 was a concentrated effort was made to study the mechanical causes of failure.

Hundred of tests were then made with different powder mixtures, using black powder as the basic ingredient, with various loading techniques and various motor designs. The dependence of chamber pressure on the ratio of chamber cross section area to nozzle throat area was determined for each specific powder mixture.

By the spring of 1941 the results were sufficiently encouraging to schedule flight tests of an aircraft equipped with solid propellant rockets specially designed for it. The propellant charge used in the Ercoupe motor was a type of amide black powder designated as GALCIT 27 (amide: organic compound containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Some examples: HCONH2, CH3CONH2, C6H13CONH2). The 2 lb. charge was pressed into the combustion chamber, which had a blotting paper liner, in 22 increments by a plunger with a conical nose shape at a pressure of 18 tons. The diameter of the charge was 1.75 in. and its length varied between 10 and 11 in. The motor was designed to deliver about 28 lb. thrust for about 12 seconds.

Eighteen rocket motors were delivered every other day for the first tests at March Field, California, about an hour's drive from the project. During the first phase of the flight tests one motor failed explosively in a static test and one while Ercoupe was in level flight. Thereafter, 152 motors were used in succession without explosive failure. The motors were prepared by Parsons, Forman, and Fred Miller.

On August 16, 1941, Boushey made the first take-off of the Ercoupe with six JATOs firing. The first American manned flight of an aircraft propelled by rocket thrust alone was made by Boushey on August 23, 1941. The propeller of the Ercoupe was removed and 12 JATO units installed, of which only 11 functioned. The Ercoupe was pulled by a truck to a speed of about 25 m.p.h. before the JATOs were ignited. The airplane left the ground and reached an altitude of about 20 ft. This flight was not originally scheduled but the group could not resist the opportunity to make the improvised demonstration of the future possibility of rocket propulsion.

Frank Malina noted that it was most fortunate that the flight tests were carried out close to the location of the project, which permitted the rocket motors to be fired within a few days from the time they were charged with propellant. Following the flight tests, it was found that after the motors were exposed to simulated storage and temperature conditions over several days they exploded in most cases. It was evident that either the blotting paper liner or the mechanical characteristics of the propellant were unsatisfactory.

But the Navy Department regarded the successful Ercoupe tests with much interest from the point of view of application of rockets for assisted take-off of aircraft from aircraft carriers. Upon the urging of Lt. C.F. Fischer of the Bureau of Aeronautics, who had witnessed the tests, a contract was placed by the Navy with the Project in early 1942 for the development of a 200 lb. thrust, 8 second unit. The unit was designated by the acronym JATO for Jet Assisted Take-Off (sometime RATO), and this designation is still used.

This Navy contract came in the midst of the explosive failure of the JATO unit developed for the Ercoupe tests. All efforts to improve the amide-black powder propellant and loading techniques of the motor developed for Ercoupe tests failed to meet specified storage conditions ranging from Alaska to Africa. Investigations of motors using Ballistite also proved negative, mainly because of its ambient temperature sensitivity (variation of its rate of burning and thrust with ambient temperature).

hope my thoughts here helps you fellers understnad rokkets

Offline Creamo

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5976
      • http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2003, 02:27:15 AM »
Good point. It had gotten that retarded.

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2003, 02:41:04 AM »
C'mon, Creamo, at least show that you're man enough to admit your mistakes.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2003, 03:31:36 AM »
Creamo being an arse on the forums is compensated by him being an absolute angel in real life.

You'll grow to love him. In a manly, macho way of course, coz Creamo ain't no fudgepacker.

That we know of, anyway.

Oh btw; if ya build rockets, you're a rocket scientist in my book. I have enough problem getting those bottle rockets to lift off :D

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2003, 04:02:43 AM »
I stand by what I said creamo.  

Another point of info: 5 of the 7 emergency O2 systems were switched on.  So they were conscious after the explosion.

Rockets are dangerous, especially really big ones parked over your head, but I must vehemently disagree with you. In spite of what you seem to argue, it just seems that from my point of ignorance, liquid-fueled rockets seem to have considerably more points at which they can fail than solid-fueled ones, and the record seems to show that.  Does that mean model rockets, even the really big impressive ones like you go shooting off, are dangerous? Well, yeah they are.  That's what range safety is for.  Do they mean that we should get our panties bunched up and scream terrorist or child endangerment at every seven-year-old girl putting an A motor in a mosquito?  Or that we should worry that an aborted spy satellite launch from Vanderbilt is gonna wipe out half of Santa Barbara? Uh, no.

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2003, 12:41:13 PM »
While it is true that liquid fueled rockets have many more points of failure then solid, the reason they are preferable from a safety perspective is that they can be shut off.  

When the SRBs light on the shuttle, they keep burning until they are done, even if they find something wrong.  When the SSMEs fire, on the other hand, they can shut them off if something breaks.  This has happened before, actually.  On STS 41-D, there was an on-pad abort after the engines started because the computers detected a problem.  Hence the famous quote from that launch: "I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!" (the shuttle commander).  (MECO means main engine cutoff, that's what they call it when they shut off the engines after ascending to orbit).
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Creamo

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5976
      • http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2003, 10:02:24 PM »
Ok, look.

Chairboy, Ill post our motor formulas, and I see no need to admit I’m wrong that rocket AP fuel is as disastrously dangerous as you claim.

Dinger, the ‘’Tip burning” bottle rocket BBS class Chairboy ranted for my unintended enjoyment in response to my post may have entertained me, and led to short and biting posts in reply, but at least I  get what your saying. I still just disagree wholeheartedly.
 Liquid fuels are scary to me, only because I don’t understand them, and I believe they can actually explode. Solid fuels don’t scare me at all, because they cannot.

 My brother does all the building on the motors I fly, although it’s a group effort via funds and email, and at launches we see eachother at. Sometimes at his house on vacation too I have to do the dirty work, although mixing isn’t near as fun as just flying the motors he makes. I prefer to build rockets that can take them. And my last one did eat up his EX M2000 to over 10,000 feet. Yes, Im proud of that.

He has just a small garage, a 5 quart KitchenAide mixer, various casting and packing tools, and a modest chemical inventory. He started with AN which is pretty cool. Phase stabilized ammonium nitrate is a powerful propellant but a safe propellant. Using simple bates grain geometry which is an advantage over its APCP counter part, (the scary stuff you guys worry about) you get long burn motors which I personally like.  PSAN also burns much cooler than APCP so standard liners can be used for long duration motors. Meaning it saves us money. Plus it’s different and has a cool, longer burn. People, especially the farmers we fly on their land, can’t believe fertilizer motors work so well!

Typical characteristics in 3 inch and smaller motors we fly is as follows:
C* - 3800
Density (lb/in**3) .049
Coefficient - .0038
Exponent - .6
This is the thrust/time profile from CP Technologies FPRED program for a 6 grain 75MM L motor:
(6) 4.5 inch grains with 1.250 cores
Nozzle throat - .625
4182 Newton’s from 4.8 pounds of propellant

Your free to try them CB. If you use them and they work, please turn us a few graphite nozzles.

AP though, (Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant) is by far the most popular and most widely accepted propellant by amateurs, and we didn’t want to have to buy the over priced commercial stuff in the long run, so we made our own. Well, for local launches and TRA certs, sure, commercial stuff is fine. Experimental motors can’t be flown all the time. Plus, it is not nearly as hygroscopic as PSAN so it stores well, the burn rate is fairly easy to adjust, and it is compatible with many color chemicals. (The high Mg content in PSAN motors washes out most all color additives) Building grains and having humid weather destroy them is not good. AP is much better.

To date 2003, we have tested and flown approximately 100,000 Newton seconds of various APCP propellants. My brother lives in Iowa with a great “backyard” test area, which is sweet. The results have been mixed but we’ve had some modest success. Most of the propellants are 82% solids and use 15% binder, 2% curatives, and 1% linking agents. We currently use 200 micron AP and do not evacuate our propellants. In the near future a vacuum chamber will be set up. This should improve our propellants significantly.

Motors we have flown:
38MM
H190 Fast
J590 Fast
J300 Red

54MM
J400 Fast
J600 WL Clone

75MM
L500 PSAN
L1200 Red
L1500 Fucia (Red kicked in the butt with CuO stolen from Darren Wright)
M2000 Fucia

In the works:
WL Clone – Needs degassing. Mean dense stuff. 15% Mg with 1% burn rate catalyst.

I was pissed off at the initial post that AP solid fuel rockets are dangerous, but if you are into amateur rocketry Chairboy, dude, we are in the same hobby. Ill trade grains for graphite nozzles. Don’t get mad at my boozonics, lets hook up.