Talk:Solid-propellant rocket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isp[edit]

I changed the performance numbers listed for solid / Lox-RP1 / Lox-LH2 engines. The new data reflect theoretical performance numbers, in s, for standard operating conditions (1000 psi chamber, 14.7 psi exit). These are the numbers given by Sutton in Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th ed, pp. 188-189. The old numbers reflected a mix of sea level / vacuum Isp, which is misleading at the least. Evand 22:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Rocket fuel[edit]

Is there any solid rocket fuels handy at home. How to determine a fuel for a rocket.

There are a number of rocket propellants accessible to the amateur rocketeer. However, it should be remembered that engaging in rocketry safely requires care, knowledge, and a respect for the energies involved at all steps. Probably the most accessible propellant is one based on sorbitol and potassium nitrate, often referred to as rocket candy. It is related to the original candy propellant, sucrose / potassium nitrate, but easier and safer to work with. Evand 20:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thermite, while not made from household materials, is made from VERY easily-obtained materials (aluminum powder and iron oxide powder). These two are actually two of the components of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. 76.180.49.69 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The oft-repeated assertion that there is thermite in the SSRBs is perhaps technically true, but misleading. Thermite is 25% Al, 75% Fe2O3; the SSRBs contain 16% aluminum and 0.4% iron oxide. The aluminum is present to add energy by burning with the oxygen from the AP. The iron oxide is present not as a source of oxygen (as it is in thermite) but as a catalyst to modify the burn rate. While the iron does end up donating its oxygen, the fact that this is not the primary purpose should be obvious from the fact that AP has a higher oxygen content in a higher energy form. Most solid propellants include some quantity of burn rate modifiers, which work together with grain geometry and casing dimensions to provide the thrust curve required by the mission in question. Evand (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More accurate?[edit]

This article in the NYTimes suggests that the use of solid fuel rocket motors results in more accurate missles that when using liquid fuel motors. "Solid fuel dramatically increases the accuracy of a missile while a liquid fuel missile is not very accurate in hitting targets." How is this? --Hooperbloob 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYT has it wrong. In their defense, there are a number of reasons to prefer solid propellants for missiles. The biggest is storage and operation -- solids can be stored ready to fire almost indefinitely. Storable liquid propellants, as a rule, are toxic, corrosive, degrade over time (months or years), and are less dense than solid propellants. The density means that for many military applications where volume is limited (eg space in a sub / truck / etc) the solids perform better, despite slightly lower Isp, due to the increased quantity of propellant in the same volume. Also, solid motors are frequently simpler and therefore cheaper to build in quantity, though the higher propellant cost (mainly due to labor-intensive casting procedures) may offset or reverse this. If anything, liquids would actually be more accurate, since solid propellant burn rates depend on things like storage temperature, which makes for a less precise thrust curve. I'm guessing somehow the reporter translated "solid propellants make for better missiles" into "solid propellants make for more accurate missiles." Evand 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that tends to make more sense, thanks for the interpretation.--Hooperbloob 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steel casings[edit]

"In the USA, the use of a steel casing requires a federal permit when building models[citation needed]."

This was in the article. I believe it to be incorrect, so I marked it [citation needed], and have now removed it. I know that steel casings are not permitted under NFPA-1127, Tripoli, or NAR rules, but I don't believe it is illegal in any way, or requiring of special permitting. If anyone has a reference, please feel free to put it back. Evand 20:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaust[edit]

Is the following really true? If so, it really needs to be cited, 'cause, well, I don't believe it:

"The exhaust from a solid rocket motor contains hydrochloric acid and aluminium oxide. These have a negative effect on the environment. Furthermore, for military use, the smoke trail and the infrared radiation from the hot particles make it possible to detect the launch from space. These problems led to the research in smokeless grain which contains nitrogen-containing organic molecules."

I'm sure the military stuff is true, but is the presence of "hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide" really ubiquitous or does it depend on the type of propellant used? In the same vein, does the problem with detectable launches really hinge on the presence of those specific compounds in the exhaust, as this implies? jhf (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously the exhaust composition depends on the propellant. AP (or other chlorine-based oxidizers) will produce an exhaust containing HCl, which may leave a visible smoke trail (especially in high humidity). Propellants containing metals also leave a smoke trail, because of the solids in the exhaust (which are much more visible in IR than gaseous exhausts). Any rocket launch is possible to detect, but from a practical standpoint the chlorine and solids make it much easier, which is a big piece of why many military rockets avoid those. Evand (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

history[edit]

what arab army used rockets in 13th century? or was there any arab country to have a regular army? if this is an encyclopedia the information must be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.220.159 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbyist fuel[edit]

The article makes this claim: "The vast majority of amateur rocket motors utilize a composite propellant, most commonly APCP." That's news to me. I don't know what the G and larger motors use for fuel, but the smaller engines all use black powder. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that section is talking about amateur motors, not commercial ones. Very few amateur motors use black powder. Common propellants are APCP and KNO3/sugar. I don't know which is more common, but I strongly suspect it's APCP. There's also significant amateur work with nitrous hybrids. Unfortunately, I don't have a handy citation for this. Evand (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's right. I believe the smaller motors (which tend to be commercially produced) use black powder, and the larger motors, whether commercial or not, use APCP or other alternatives to black powder. Black powder is more dangerous for amateurs to handle. But even if you're correct, the article is wrong. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience in the hobby, you're absolutely correct. However, the term "amateur", in context, means made by an amateur, not used by an amateur. In general, amateur rocketry refers to the practitioner producing their own motors, and terms such as hobby rocketry, model rocketry, and low-, mid-, or high-power rocketry refer to the use of commercially made motors in a commercial or home built airframe. Evand (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this is turning into a question of semantics. I think the problem lies with ambiguity in the phrase "amateur rocket motors" in the sentence in question. It can be read as "amateur rocket-motors" or as "amateur-rocket motors." (Note the placement of the hyphen.) It seems you interpret this to mean amateur motors for rockets but I read it as motors for amateur-rockets. Maybe the sentence could be reworded as "The vast majority of rocket motors built by amateurs utilize..." I also question your claim that the term "amateur rocketry" refers to the practitioner producing their own motors." To the uninitiated reader, the term "amateur rocketry" sounds like it's about amateur rockets, not amateur motors, so that's probably how the term should be used. Having said that, I want to thank you for clarifying. I think this gets to the root of our disagreement. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the normal WP policy is on jargon and technical terms. When used by people in the hobby, the phrase amateur rocketry (or amateur rocket motor) is unambiguous, at least in my experience. To anyone else, it could easily mean either. See for example amateur rocketry. I think the article should use the term in a manner consistent with the contextual definition, but being clear to people who don't know much about the subject is the point of an encyclopedia. Out of curiosity, do you fly rockets? (I'm not trying to say you're not qualified, I'm just curious what your perspective on the article is; the perspective of insiders like myself can get myopic.) Evand (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked up that policy either, but I will when I get a bit more time. Sometimes technical terms are chosen carefully and work well, other times they can be very misleading to anyone outside the field. Whatever we do, I think clarity and accuracy should be our highest concerns. And I agree with you that, in context, it's pretty clear that they're talking about the motors, but I'd still like to see it reworded. I'm thinking of changing it to either "amateur motors" or "amateur-built rocket motors." I also noticed a problem with the first sentence, where it says "Solid fuel rockets can be bought for use in model rocketry; they are normally small cylinders of fuel..." So it's talking about the motor, not the rocket. I'd like to reword this, too. To satisfy your curiosity, I used to fly rockets as a kid, and again as an adult a few years ago, but I haven't done that in a while. I only launched smaller rockets. I rarely used D engines and never used anything bigger. What's your experience? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those changes sounds fine to me. I flew a variety of Estes rockets as a kid; more recently I've flown high power stuff, mostly I-J class. I've done a little solid propellant amateur work (KN/Epoxy, mostly), and am currently working on a M-class nitrous hybrid that will hopefully fly later this year (underloaded as a K or L motor) before flying at full load some time after that. Progress has been slow as we've taken a bit of a detour to improve test stand instrumentation, including designing a more appropriate data acquisition system from scratch (and of course real life has intervened). I've also worked professionally with biprops. Evand (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made the changes, but I would still like to see a reference for the section. It may be more accurate, but it's still unsourced. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High explosives[edit]

just wondering - if you had a small rocket that used high explosives, i.e. pure RDX, would that get you more fuel efficiency, or just blow you into tiny pieces? RowanEvans (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energetic fuels like RDX and HMX see some use in military propellants. Performance is similar to APCP type propellants, but without the chlorine and solids that make a highly visible exhaust plume. In rocket operation, they burn much like other fuels (ie without detonating). However, between expense and safety concerns they don't see much use outside the military. Evand (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, fuels that burn too fast risk bursting the combustion chamber. In black-powder rockets, this can happen if cracks form in the compacted fuel. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to dig out my copy of Sutton to be certain, but my recollection is that nitramine fuels burn at similar rates as double base propellants or APCP. The precise burn rate and nozzle size are matched to each other, and burn rate catalysts / inhibitors can be used to tailor the burn rate to the mission requirements. I don't know of any reason to believe that nitramine propellants are any more or less prone to cracking than APCP and such; I think that's mostly a property of the binder used. Evand (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to cracking in nitramine or APCP. I was addressing the original question about burn rates, not your reply. Looking back at the article, I realize I was just making the same point as the 2nd to last paragraph in the "Design" section. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid fuel engines vs Liquid Fuel[edit]

One thing I fail to understand is, bearing in mind the reliabilty of large solid fuel motors, their ability to be stored until needed and not least the relatively low cost, why would anyone want to build a big liquid fuel engine?

A solid fuel booster for the V2 would have enabled their deployment much earlier in the war and it is noticeable that the US dependence on large liquid fuel engines is declining for the launch phase.

Is this because of office politics within Germany as Werner von Braun rose to fame and the fact that everybody was mesmerised after the war by his achievements without considering their value?

Or are there other reasons? Or have I missed something?

Drg40 (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans did build a moderately large unguided solid propellant ballistic missile called Rheinbote during WWII. The 3782 lb four stage rocket was powered by 1290 lb of diethylene glycol dinitrate propellant and carried an 88 lb warhead 136 miles. Rheinbote's 3668 mph top speed was slightly greater than that of a V-2, but the 37' 5" Rheinbote was never deployed operationally. All four stages were fin stabilized and the rocket was launched from an inclined ramp. <Solid Propellant Rockets, Alfred J. Zaehringer, p. 14,1958> Oberth actually spent WWII developing solid propellant rockets and created a design for a solid propellant satellite launch vehicle after the war. Solid propellant rocket propulsion lagged liquid propellant rocket engine technology until 1956 when Atlantic Research Corporation in the U.S. demonstrated an aluminized case-bonded solid propellant with an exhaust velocity of over 5000 mph. Within five years, the Polaris Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) had become operational, Minuteman had made a successful maiden flight to full range, and Scout had become the first all-solid-propellant launch vehicle to orbit a satellite.Magneticlifeform (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this. Documents declassified in the Ministry of Defence archives, London in May 2007 disclose the chemical composition of the first and second stages of the Polaris A3 FBM, common to both the US and British navies. Document is referenced as TNA DEFE 69/616 E5 p1. A verbatim transcription of the page follows below.
First Stage
Dimensions: Cylindrical 15 ft long (4.57 m), 4½ ft diameter (1.37 m),
Weight: 24,200 lbs (11,000 kg)
Casing: Fibre Glass with alloy end rings
Propellant: Single Base Grain Type (ANP 2969)
Fuel / Binder: 12.5% Polyurethane, 12.5% Nitro, Plasticizer
Oxidiser: 55% Ammonium Perchorate
Additive: 20% Aluminium
Retardent: Traces of carbon black
Weight: 20,800 lbs (9,455 kg)
Explosive Category 1.3
Second Stage
Dimensions: Cylindrical 7½ ft long (2.29 m), 4½ ft diameter (1.37 m),
Weight: 10,300 lbs (4,682 kg)
Casing: Fibre Glass with alloy end rings
Propellant: Double Base Type
Fuel / Binder: 14.4% Nitrocellulose, 32.4% Nitroglycerine
Oxidiser: 5.1% Sodium Perchorate, 25.9% Cyclotetra-methylenete-tranittramine (HMX)
Additive: 18% Aluminium
Retardent: 2.5% Triacetin, 1.0% 2-Nitro-diphenylamine (2-NDPA), 0.7% Resorcinal
Weight: 8,800 lbs (4,000 kg)
Explosive Category 1.1
The British motors manufactured in the US c1966 were by 1981 suffering age-related defects. A study of 88 missiles showed 10% unservicible with no known remedy. All were replaced 1982-86 by new-build "replica" motors at a cost of £350 million. The old motors were destroyed in the open air at the US Army disposal facility at Hawthorne Ammunition Depot, NV., by first splitting the casings lengthwise and severing the ends with a HE shaped charge followed by burning of the solid fuel
George.Hutchinson (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No "solid-fuel" rockets[edit]

The terms "solid-fuel rocket" and "liquid-fuel rocket" are misnomers of common usage. "Rocket fuel" is not equivalent to "rocket propellant". "Solid propellant rocket" and "liquid propellant rocket" are technically correct descriptions. All rockets use propellant, which is the mass reacted against to produce thrust. Rocket propellants may, or may not, consist of fuel and oxidizer which burn to produce hot gas which is ejected from a nozzle to generate the thrust. While "solid propellant rocket" is often shortened to just "solid rocket", the phrase "solid-fuel rocket" is imprecise and not generally used within the industry. Jets (air-breathing) may only require a supply of fuel, but no rocket runs on fuel alone. My point is that the title "Solid-fuel rocket" is itself a misnomer that would better read "Solid propellant rocket". The casual substitution of "solid fuel" for "solid propellant" in the text of the article is relatively harmless, but such technically inaccurate terminology does not seem as appropriate in the title. As a matter of interest, solid rocket manufacturers usually refer to their propulsive devices as motors, while liquid rocket manufacturers refer to theirs as engines. The difference is merely a reflection of historical origins. Magneticlifeform (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous thrust curve[edit]

I am questioning the trust curves shown in the Solid-fuel rocket:grain geometry. My understanding is that, essentially, the thrust is a function of grain surface area. A simple circular bore would quickly reach 100% of thrust and may peak at 200-300% then drop down as the grain is fully consumed. The graph of a circular bore shows essentially a fixed thrust (excluding ignition and burnout). The My question: are the diagrams correct, or do they need correction? Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) -Diagrams are correct to the point that they can be and still be acceptable by ITAR. The nature of each thrust curve is also dependent on the overall grain aspect ratio, which in each of these applications was balanced in order to bring through the character of the bore geometry. I am 100% an expert as a practicing propulsion engineer and researcher. Thank you for your concern.[reply]

Parson's propellant higher specific impulse than double base?[edit]

The "History" section states that John Parson's asphalt/potassium perchlorate composite propellant had significantly higher specific impulse than the double base propellants of that time. I have 2 books (Hunley and Warren) which report that the specific impulse of Parson's propellant was 186 seconds. At the same time I have Gruntman's book reporting that Goddard had tested double base propellants at Isp>230 seconds years earlier and rocket data on the HVAR WWII rocket which implies an Isp of 198 seconds, which is still greater than 186 seconds. The significant advantage of the Parsons propellant was that it had a slow burn-rate suitable for JATO applications without suffering from the short shelf-life of the dry, compressed powder propellants that Galcit had already tried. I do not trust a single data point (198 sec) as a basis for changing the statement in the History section, but if there is a WWII rocket buff out there with more WWII rocket Isp data, perhaps he (or she) could look into it. Magneticlifeform (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how do they light one?[edit]

how do they light one? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use an ignitor on the top segment. It is a small ordnance device that is (usually) electrically activated and provides the first combustion. Its also the last item to be installed, since after that the rocket is considered "armed". – Baldusi (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solid-propellant rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solid-propellant rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link to http://www.pw.utc.com/StaticFiles/Pratt%20.../Products/.../pwr_rl10b-2.pdf complemented with archived copy http://web.archive.org/web/20120326211303/http://www.pw.utc.com/products/pwr/assets/pwr_rl10b-2.pdf Petermelville (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Solid-propellant rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Even after giving less weight to the comment by 联合果君, who did not provide a reason, there is no consensus for merging Solid rocket booster to Solid-propellant rocket. Editors disagree on whether there is sufficient scope to have separate articles.

Cunard (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging the content of Solid rocket booster into Solid-propellant rocket. They are the same thing. I propose Solid rocket booster turn into a redirect to Solid-propellant rocket. The written content is similar; the biggest reason for merging over deleting is the copying of sources from the booster to the rocket article. Kees08 (Talk) 18:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I merged everything but the lede to preserve sources and links. Since it's a Start class article, I'm not so worried about the pretty at this juncture. When someone adopts this article, they can clean it up. --Neopeius (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is plenty of scope for all three of these articles. Even if all SRBs are solid-propellent rockets, far from all solid rockets are boosters. Also the merge was carried out far too hastily to claim any sort of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose——联合果君 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Merge reverted. --Neopeius (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Anything about solid rocket booster can easily explained on the solid-propellant rocket. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solid-propellant_rocket&oldid=1205353576"