Rising commercial solid rocket motor demand effects on the HPR hobby

[prfesser]

The fact that ADN is two orders of magnitude--- literally a hundred times!--more expensive than AP means that ADN use is unlikely to be practical within my lifetime, apart from a few possible specialized applications in military ordinance. Doubt that it would be found to be practical within the lifetime of anyone reading this.

Stability of ADN and its mixtures is a serious impediment. The combination of price + problems means that both fundamental and applied research on ADN will continue to be skimpy. Don't look for barrels of cheap surplus ADN for the amateur community until later. Until much, much later. As in 'ever'.

[This all sounds vaguely familiar: hark back to studies of nitronium perchlorate in the 60s. Oboy, the Isp vs. AP!!.... well, yes, there are a few minor problems. NO2ClO4 was found to decompose without any outside help, even when highly purified. It decomposes more rapidly in the presence of other substances: catalysts, fuels(!!), and its own decomposition products(!!!). With moisture you get nitric and perchloric acids, the presence of which most people would find highly unimpressive ("Please work downwind from me. About a mile. Maybe three.") And so on.]

[NO2ClO4 was abandoned and is now of academic interest only.]

 

[Antares JS]

[This all sounds vaguely familiar: hark back to studies of nitronium perchlorate in the 60s. Oboy, the Isp vs. AP!!.... well, yes, there are a few minor problems. NO2ClO4 was found to decompose without any outside help, even when highly purified. It decomposes more rapidly in the presence of other substances: catalysts, fuels(!!), and its own decomposition products(!!!). With moisture you get nitric and perchloric acids, the presence of which most people would find highly unimpressive ("Please work downwind from me. About a mile. Maybe three.") And so on.]

This story makes me want the solid propellant version of Clark's "Ignition!"

 

[boatgeek]

Environmental concerns about perchlorates leading to tighter regulation of both production and consumption, lower observable exhaust, higher Isp.

Sorry for going back a ways, but lower observable exhaust may be as much a downside as an upside in many hobby applications. While there are some popular low-smoke formulas, there's an awful lot (including the sparkies and straight smokies) where the smoke plume is the goal and people are willing to sacrifice Isp for that effect. There's certainly a group also looking for maximum Isp/maximum performance too, but they're not the entire hobby.

Even on the military side, you see quite a few solid rocket applications with very visible smoke trails (eg HIMARS/ATACMS) when the propellant designers could have used a lower-smoke formula. I don't know the reasons that they chose that particular formulation, but reduction in smoke clearly wasn't a design priority.

 

[techrat]

Even on the military side, you see quite a few solid rocket applications with very visible smoke trails (eg HIMARS/ATACMS) when the propellant designers could have used a lower-smoke formula.

Likely for the same reason we do it in the hobby: To see where it went and then the next strike will be more accurate.
Just like "tracer" bullets that allow you to adjust your aim so you can actually hit what you are shooting at.

 

[boatgeek]

Likely for the same reason we do it in the hobby: To see where it went and then the next strike will be more accurate.
Just like "tracer" bullets that allow you to adjust your aim so you can actually hit what you are shooting at.

That may well be true for some rockets, especially unguided ones. For HIMARS/ATACMS, I assumed that the smoke trail was kind of irrelevant since the rocket is guided to the target long after the motor burns out and the launcher is nominally far enough behind the front line that the visible smoke trail isn't particularly useful in tracking the launcher for counterbattery fire. There are definitely some applications (eg air-to-air missiles) where you want less smoke trail to help keep your target from either seeing the missile itself or from tracking the launcher's location.

 

[AeroTech]

The fact that ADN is two orders of magnitude--- literally a hundred times!--more expensive than AP means that ADN use is unlikely to be practical within my lifetime, apart from a few possible specialized applications in military ordinance. Doubt that it would be found to be practical within the lifetime of anyone reading this.

Stability of ADN and its mixtures is a serious impediment. The combination of price + problems means that both fundamental and applied research on ADN will continue to be skimpy. Don't look for barrels of cheap surplus ADN for the amateur community until later. Until much, much later. As in 'ever'.

[This all sounds vaguely familiar: hark back to studies of nitronium perchlorate in the 60s. Oboy, the Isp vs. AP!!.... well, yes, there are a few minor problems. NO2ClO4 was found to decompose without any outside help, even when highly purified. It decomposes more rapidly in the presence of other substances: catalysts, fuels(!!), and its own decomposition products(!!!). With moisture you get nitric and perchloric acids, the presence of which most people would find highly unimpressive ("Please work downwind from me. About a mile. Maybe three.") And so on.]

[NO2ClO4 was abandoned and is now of academic interest only.]

It looked great on paper and in sims

 

[AeroTech]

Sorry for going back a ways, but lower observable exhaust may be as much a downside as an upside in many hobby applications. While there are some popular low-smoke formulas, there's an awful lot (including the sparkies and straight smokies) where the smoke plume is the goal and people are willing to sacrifice Isp for that effect. There's certainly a group also looking for maximum Isp/maximum performance too, but they're not the entire hobby.

Even on the military side, you see quite a few solid rocket applications with very visible smoke trails (eg HIMARS/ATACMS) when the propellant designers could have used a lower-smoke formula. I don't know the reasons that they chose that particular formulation, but reduction in smoke clearly wasn't a design priority.

Since the advent of “effects” propellants, the main reasons for no-smoke formulations like AeroTech Classic to continue being produced is nostalgia and novelty. Which is amusing to me because at the beginning of composite propellant hobby rocketry, that is all that was available.

 

[boatgeek]

Since the advent of “effects” propellants, the main reasons for no-smoke formulations like AeroTech Classic to continue being produced is nostalgia and novelty. Which is amusing to me because at the beginning of composite propellant hobby rocketry, that is all that was available.

This may be a silly question but when customers are asking for a new propellant formulation, are they specifically interested in lots of/no smoke? A silly question because I'm sure that customers ask for everything all over the map, whether it be plausible or even possible.

 

[SolarYellow]

I like clean burning.

 

[kjhambrick]

I like clean burning.

I am a White Lightning or a Black Jack guy ( I've not tried FastJack yet ).

 

[cbrarick]

you can get clean burning with AP formulations. Warp 9 are two great example of this. It's just that most hobbyists want a smoke trail of some sort

 

[Art Upton]

I remember Danville Dare II 1989, I had a camcorder... A lady next to me did also. We kept saying "I hope this one is a White Lightning"

I bought many W motors there to take home along with Rocket Flight BP Gs

Edit: it was 1989... not 1988

 

[rocket_troy]

I like clean burning.

TP

 

[Art Upton]

TP

I had a Warp H motor look like that when they first came out. Someone took a picture of it in my yellow Loc Phantom rocket and it was used for awhile in print.

 

[rocket_troy]

I had a Warp H motor look like that when they first came out. Someone took a picture of it in my yellow Loc Phantom rocket and it was used for awhile in print.

That one was a rather tame affair in comparison. IIRC in the 1/4"/s br ball park.

TP

 

[AeroTech]

This may be a silly question but when customers are asking for a new propellant formulation, are they specifically interested in lots of/no smoke? A silly question because I'm sure that customers ask for everything all over the map, whether it be plausible or even possible.

They are mostly looking for new motor configurations and sizes as we have most of the effects covered at this point.

 

[SolarYellow]

They are mostly looking for new motor configurations and sizes as we have most of the effects covered at this point.

Yeah, like a 24/80 or 24/100 Hobbyline case with White Lightning and Blue Thunder loads. Heck, even Classic would be cool.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I definitely prefer propellants with effects. Not a fan of the clean-burning propellants.

 

[Antares JS]

They are mostly looking for new motor configurations and sizes as we have most of the effects covered at this point.

Wish list:

Smokeless/Classic propellant Q-Jet C's to fly our Mercury-Redstones on to get the most realistic-looking flight possible. Alcohol doesn't produce much of a smoke trail.

A green motor for the 75/7680 case to imitate the AMW M2500GG.

 

[ZEDL1]

They are mostly looking for new motor configurations and sizes as we have most of the effects covered at this point.

Yes you do.
Jim

 

[kjhambrick]

Yeah, like a 24/80 or 24/100 Hobbyline case with White Lightning and Blue Thunder loads. Heck, even Classic would be cool.

EDIT: Maybe this belongs over in the Propulsion / Aerotech Subforum ...

Questions for @AeroTech ...

I understand that it costs y'all a fortune to certify a new motor.

And it must hurt financially to go thru the process and not sell enough to recoup your investment.

I'll bet you've already thought of this but here goes ...

I am still waiting for my paperwork to go thru but I have recertified TRA level 2 so I should be able to buy and fly components from RCS as Experimental or Research Motors at Research Launches.

I see that there are 14.25 inch Redline and 13.75 inch 8221 propellant grains available in 24mm at the RCS site.

Q: Are there similar White Lightning, Black Jack, Blue Thunder or other grains that I missed ?

I can buy a 48-inch length of 24mm phenolic motor case tubing so I imagine I could make my own 24mm single use G-Motors from parts available at RCS.

I also found the 24x70mm and 24x95mm Single Use Experimental Motor Kits ( EMK ).

Q: I wonder if it would be worthwhile for RCS to provide (an) experimental RMS 24/80 or RMS 24/100 or RMS 24/120 case(s) and the grains and nozzles and the additional odds-n-ends to load them ?

I would certainly buy a set of RMS Cases and the propellant and the other components required to load them !

And such an offering might tell you what kind of market there REALLY is for an RMS 24/100 or an RMS 24/120 motor ...

Thanks for all that you do for the hobby !

-- kjh

 

[AeroTech]

EDIT: Maybe this belongs over in the Propulsion / Aerotech Subforum ...

Questions for @AeroTech ...

I understand that it costs y'all a fortune to certify a new motor.

And it must hurt financially to go thru the process and not sell enough to recoup your investment.

I'll bet you've already thought of this but here goes ...

I am still waiting for my paperwork to go thru but I have recertified TRA level 2 so I should be able to buy and fly components from RCS as Experimental or Research Motors at Research Launches.

I see that there are 14.25 inch Redline and 13.75 inch 8221 propellant grains available in 24mm at the RCS site.

Q: Are there similar White Lightning, Black Jack, Blue Thunder or other grains that I missed ?

I can buy a 48-inch length of 24mm phenolic motor case tubing so I imagine I could make my own 24mm single use G-Motors from parts available at RCS.

I also found the 24x70mm and 24x95mm Single Use Experimental Motor Kits ( EMK ).

Q: I wonder if it would be worthwhile for RCS to provide (an) experimental RMS 24/80 or RMS 24/100 or RMS 24/120 case(s) and the grains and nozzles and the additional odds-n-ends to load them ?

I would certainly buy a set of RMS Cases and the propellant and the other components required to load them !

And such an offering might tell you what kind of market there REALLY is for an RMS 24/100 or an RMS 24/120 motor ...

Thanks for all that you do for the hobby !

-- kjh

Q#1 Whatever is on the store is what is currently available. There are limitations for certain propellant grains as they must be shippable under our existing shipping approvals. If there is something specific you are interested in (and that we are already making for reloads or motors) let me know and I’ll see if we can put it in the store.

Q#2 That would be a very niche product and is not a priority at this time.

Thanks for your support of AeroTech.