Alternate Binders

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON.

DANGER

None of this is adding up to a good idea.
I'll be honest, this is incredibly dangerous on scales never seen before headed by probably the biggest idiot possible. But that idiot has a bit of money to chuck at it and a proper facility complete with anti hand-be-gone measures taken.
 
Then you have no reason to do anything else. Also, APCP is legally not an explosive, but you may need a license for extremely large quantities of AP.
Unfortunately as it's looking right now, APCP might be even harder to obtain
 
What are you talking about? APCP is what you are talking about making.
Hold up confused APCP with a different binder. Indeed, ACPC is what I'm making but with a tiny twist that'll help my rather lackadaisically designed rocket body to not flop over on the pad from low thrust early in the burn
 
I'll be honest, this is incredibly dangerous on scales never seen before headed by probably the biggest idiot possible. But that idiot has a bit of money to chuck at it and a proper facility complete with anti hand-be-gone measures taken.

Are you planning on using an experimental amateur solid rocket motor to launch a person above the Karman line? I can't think of anything else that would fit with the rest of your statements. If so, I agree with your statement.

Hold up confused APCP with a different binder. Indeed, ACPC is what I'm making but with a tiny twist that'll help my rather lackadaisically designed rocket body to not flop over on the pad from low thrust early in the burn

Also, this can be done with standard APCP as well, with some minor geometry engineering.
 
Are you planning on using an experimental amateur solid rocket motor to launch a person above the Karman line? I can't think of anything else that would fit with the rest of your statements. If so, I agree with your statements.



Also, this can be done with standard APCP as well, with some minor geometry engineering.
Absolutely not that would be ridiculous. MY goal isn't to do that, my goal is to source chemicals and materials.








It's the rest of the team's goal.
 
It's nearly impossible to legally do what your team is wanting to do in the US unless you're a corporation and work very closely with several large government agencies.

Whatever budget you have, add at least 1 zero to it and more than likely not even then.

What binder to use is the least of your worries.
 
It's nearly impossible to legally do what your team is wanting to do in the US unless you're a corporation and work very closely with several large government agencies.

Whatever budget you have, add at least 1 zero to it and more than likely not even then.

What binder to use is the least of your worries.
I'm just the messenger. I assume someone has a plan on how to get proper FAA, Dep of Energy, etc licenses and permission.
 
Welp, I'm out. Good luck, and I hope that nobody ends up dead or in jail.

FWIW Penny pinching on manned flight is what got us any number of disasters. The reams of paper you will need to submit for approval will also cost more than the APCP binder. If you do it without approval, you'll be looking at several felonies. And being only the chemicals guy gets you all the way down to conspiracy felonies, which are ... just as long a prison time.
 
Welp, I'm out. Good luck, and I hope that nobody ends up dead or in jail.

FWIW Penny pinching on manned flight is what got us any number of disasters. The reams of paper you will need to submit for approval will also cost more than the APCP binder. If you do it without approval, you'll be looking at several felonies. And being only the chemicals guy gets you all the way down to conspiracy felonies, which are ... just as long a prison time.
I'd be the last person to let an unauth launch happen as I have infinitely more on the line than pretty much anyone else.
 
I'm just the messenger. I assume someone has a plan on how to get proper FAA, Dep of Energy, etc licenses and permission.
I'd be the last person to let an unauth launch happen as I have infinitely more on the line than pretty much anyone else.

First of all, the reality: Anyone with $10-20 million to burn on this type of project will just pay Virgin Galactic or Blue Origin for a far safer ride to the Karman Line.

But just in case they're really that nutty, you really should figure out who on the team is dealing with those approvals and also ensure that you are covered legally in case they take your motor design and go on a rogue launch. The legal fees are another thing that will cost more than the binder.

And now I'm really out, I promise. Best of luck to you all.
 
First of all, the reality: Anyone with $10-20 million to burn on this type of project will just pay Virgin Galactic or Blue Origin for a far safer ride to the Karman Line.

But just in case they're really that nutty, you really should figure out who on the team is dealing with those approvals and ensure that you are covered legally in case they take your motor design and go on a rogue launch. The legal fees are another thing that will cost more than the binder.

And now I'm really out, I promise. Best of luck to you all.
At the moment we're not even mixing more than 1 KG of chemicals at a time for tests. Anytime we so much as MENTION larger scale testing, one of us has a phone out googling what sort of permissions we might need. Hell, for the first test we even got fire department permits just in case.
 
At the moment we're not even mixing more than 1 KG of chemicals at a time for tests. Anytime we so much as MENTION larger scale testing, one of us has a phone out googling what sort of permissions we might need. Hell, for the first test we even got fire department permits just in case.

Ok so you got to tell us what you're doing. Given the proper direction and advice and responses we could advise you properly with the vast amount of experience here.
700 to 900kg is quite a task. Hopefully we can guide you through the reality of what you are attempting to do. However to participate here in our world you will need to understand and accept a few things as not to ruin this for the rest of us. Otherwise you will cast yourself out and rightfully so as we do not condone or encourage anything that would put our hobby or technical hobby at risk let alone others saftey and wellbeing. Someone of your credentials, stature and background should understand and know there are levels to this.
 
One thing you may not be aware of yet is that small scale test data does not scale linearly up to large motors. There are multiple reasons for this, outside the scope of this thread. But for the moment you can take my word for it if you choose.

Some practical consequences:

1) The formula you develop for a small motor is likely deficient in some possibly important ways for a larger motor.
2) Scaling too much too fast leads to results deviating from expectation. I recommend scaling no more than 4x at a time.
3) Larger motors have problems that in a practical sense don't really exist in smaller ones. The required level of engineering is not a constant!
4) Motors under acceleration have additional issues compared to static tests.
5) Because of the scaling problems, and flight related problems, you should expect to have to perform at least one if not many more tests at each level before moving to the next level. That is, at least one static test and one flight test. And if your results are not within a pretty narrow tolerance of what you expect, test again until you can hit your tolerance range before scaling up again.

So you are going to go through many times the propellant mass you are anticipating. Getting through the process will take years. It will take you years to get the experience to be able to reliably pull it off.

My last several EX motors - the flight ones in the N and O range - burned to within 0.1 second of planned duration, and the rockets they were flown in came in at under 3% altitude error, usually closer to 1%. These are APCP motors, first burns. Testing was with smaller motors but within acceptible (to me based on my experience) scaling factors. And I do make corrections during the scaling...

In my EX hybrid I failed to compute one detail - just one - and had a cold flow start and delayed ignition. I didn't realize until I computed it, that I needed roughly 1MW of power for the ignition profile I was aiming for. I assumed instead of computed, and was off a couple digits on my WAG. It worked, but not fast enough. At least it was a static test, and no harm done.

The larger the motor, the more complex. The more complex, the more you have to compute EVERYTHING, or else perform lots of static and flight tests to determine what works in practice. Either approach is ok. Combined they are better.

I think I have enough experience to tackle making a first attempt at a motor perhaps a quarter the size of the one you are contemplating. I'd expect to take a couple years to get it done to be flight worthy to where I know exactly how it is going to perform. And it would be expensive... and I'd want a team of helpers at that scale... and a dedicated fabrication facility... and a test facility.

There are others here who are commenting on this thread who have more experience than I have. In some cases, a lot more!

IMHO, I'd expect you to take at least 5 years to get to where I am now, assuming you have at least a degree in a relevant field such as physics, chemistry, or some hard engineering discipline, and dedicate yourself to learning everything. It might take a little longer otherwise.

I might be off somewhere, but from ground zero - where you essentially are now - I'd expect this to be a 10 year project if you do it right and don't get distracted. If you half-ass it, it will just be an expensive CATO or worse.

I'm not trying to discourage you. Quite the contrary! Just trying to provide one opinion on a bit of calibration of the scale of what you want to attempt.

Cheers!
Gerald
 
Can anybody say "the motor you're likely talking about is going to subject the passenger to far, far more than the number of g's that the human body can tolerate and continue functioning."

Run Away as fast as you can! Don't look back. Just run.......

Remember Lot's wife!

Brad
 
700kg - you'll be a pro and should be teaching people here....
Can't wait to see you static test video posts.
 
Ok so you got to tell us what you're doing. Given the proper direction and advice and responses we could advise you properly with the vast amount of experience here.
700 to 900kg is quite a task. Hopefully we can guide you through the reality of what you are attempting to do. However to participate here in our world you will need to understand and accept a few things as not to ruin this for the rest of us. Otherwise you will cast yourself out and rightfully so as we do not condone or encourage anything that would put our hobby or technical hobby at risk let alone others saftey and wellbeing. Someone of your credentials, stature and background should understand and know there are levels to this.
Karman line's the goal here
 
Can anybody say "the motor you're likely talking about is going to subject the passenger to far, far more than the number of g's that the human body can tolerate and continue functioning."

Run Away as fast as you can! Don't look back. Just run.......

Remember Lot's wife!

Brad
In theory I can keep the "throttle", or in this case burnrate, down for just long enough so the human isn't subject to higher than 10 G's for more than a split second. I personally know that's my limit and I'm a rare scenario for withstanding G's
 
700kg, even with poor Isp propellant, is beyond the FAA definition of an Amateur Rocket. 889,600 Newton-seconds (200,000 pound-seconds) is the limit. See 14 CFR § 101.22 (c). Therefore, your project would be considered commercial and would require a license and insurance. Other triggers are >150km altitude or beyond suborbital. Or, manned, of course.

Insurance, legal costs, range fees, and operational costs are all more expensive than the propellant chemicals. Your alternate binder is made from red herrings. ;-)
 
One thing you may not be aware of yet is that small scale test data does not scale linearly up to large motors. There are multiple reasons for this, outside the scope of this thread. But for the moment you can take my word for it if you choose.

Some practical consequences:

1) The formula you develop for a small motor is likely deficient in some possibly important ways for a larger motor.
2) Scaling too much too fast leads to results deviating from expectation. I recommend scaling no more than 4x at a time.
3) Larger motors have problems that in a practical sense don't really exist in smaller ones. The required level of engineering is not a constant!
4) Motors under acceleration have additional issues compared to static tests.
5) Because of the scaling problems, and flight related problems, you should expect to have to perform at least one if not many more tests at each level before moving to the next level. That is, at least one static test and one flight test. And if your results are not within a pretty narrow tolerance of what you expect, test again until you can hit your tolerance range before scaling up again.

So you are going to go through many times the propellant mass you are anticipating. Getting through the process will take years. It will take you years to get the experience to be able to reliably pull it off.

My last several EX motors - the flight ones in the N and O range - burned to within 0.1 second of planned duration, and the rockets they were flown in came in at under 3% altitude error, usually closer to 1%. These are APCP motors, first burns. Testing was with smaller motors but within acceptible (to me based on my experience) scaling factors. And I do make corrections during the scaling...

In my EX hybrid I failed to compute one detail - just one - and had a cold flow start and delayed ignition. I didn't realize until I computed it, that I needed roughly 1MW of power for the ignition profile I was aiming for. I assumed instead of computed, and was off a couple digits on my WAG. It worked, but not fast enough. At least it was a static test, and no harm done.

The larger the motor, the more complex. The more complex, the more you have to compute EVERYTHING, or else perform lots of static and flight tests to determine what works in practice. Either approach is ok. Combined they are better.

I think I have enough experience to tackle making a first attempt at a motor perhaps a quarter the size of the one you are contemplating. I'd expect to take a couple years to get it done to be flight worthy to where I know exactly how it is going to perform. And it would be expensive... and I'd want a team of helpers at that scale... and a dedicated fabrication facility... and a test facility.

There are others here who are commenting on this thread who have more experience than I have. In some cases, a lot more!

IMHO, I'd expect you to take at least 5 years to get to where I am now, assuming you have at least a degree in a relevant field such as physics, chemistry, or some hard engineering discipline, and dedicate yourself to learning everything. It might take a little longer otherwise.

I might be off somewhere, but from ground zero - where you essentially are now - I'd expect this to be a 10 year project if you do it right and don't get distracted. If you half-ass it, it will just be an expensive CATO or worse.

I'm not trying to discourage you. Quite the contrary! Just trying to provide one opinion on a bit of calibration of the scale of what you want to attempt.

Cheers!
Gerald
Hence the small tests. My philosophy is to start small and solve whatever problems at that scale and move up. Solve the new scale's problems and move up. Solve enough and I'm at my goal. Really that simple. The problems won't be simple but in theory my team can EASILY solve it. I myself have a Bachelor's in Aerospace Engineering and a bit of computer science experience. Sadly that's the highest education that anyone on the team has but we get by.
 
700kg, even with poor Isp propellant, is beyond the FAA definition of an Amateur Rocket. 889,600 Newton-seconds (200,000 pound-seconds) is the limit. See 14 CFR § 101.22 (c). Therefore, your project would be considered commercial and would require a license and insurance. Other triggers are >150km altitude or beyond suborbital.

Insurance, legal costs, range fees, and operational costs are all more expensive than the propellant chemicals. Your alternate binder is made from red herrings. ;-)
That's perfect for me though because I so happen to work at a commercial rocketry company. I'm sure someone from legal can give me advice. It sure as hell won't be cheap which is where I turn to alternative sources. Worst case scenario I launch from a non restrictive country or international waters like Copenhagen Suborbitals is doing.
 
By international treaty, you are subject to US laws regardless if where you're launching from, even international waters. You have to follow the FAA regs regardless and at the sizes you're talking, that also involves State Dept and DoD/NASA for range access.

Propellant is the smallest cost and the easiest to do.
 
Tells everyone where he works
Says he has top secret clearance.
Space X approve of that ?
Or the FBI ?
Have to wonder really.
Starts with a Howdy signs with Cheers, asks about Alibaba sourcing in bulk. Red, very red flags.
People are crazy.
Or Gov. trolling for law breakers.
 
Tells everyone where he works
Says he has top secret clearance.
Space X approve of that ?
Or the FBI ?
Have to wonder really.
Starts with a Howdy signs with Cheers, asks about Alibaba sourcing in bulk. Red, very red flags.
People are crazy.
Or Gov. trolling for law breakers.
I haven't done anything illegal (yet) and it won't be illegal when I do it because I'll have permission. Keep in mind I'm about 2 or 3 years away from ACTUALLY full scale testing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top