[SS-Propellant] [Fwd: Propellant casting schemes]

[dormans]

It's a difficult decision.  This aspect of the project represents what I
think is one of the most difficult challenges which we face.  There are a
lot of interesting ideas that came out of this discussion and I think that
they all warrant further investigation, but for this project and the amount
of propellant that we are going to be dealing with, I think that we need to
make the decision based on, in order of importance, 1.Saftey, 2.Quality, and
3. Ease of production.  That being said, my vote is that we move forward
with the Krech/Nakka method.  My biggest concern with this method is that
there seems to be the potential to lose a lot of heat in steps 2 and 3,
which could cause us trouble in step 4.  Not a huge problem. The other thing
that scared me about this method was seeing the note that estimates the
required time to produce 12 segments is 4.75 days. Seeing the number is a
bit daunting, but realistically I think that any method that we use will
take approximately the same 4 or 5 days to complete 12 high quality
segments.

 

I also still like the Vrbec Method based solely on the fact that it is a
method that most of us have experience with.  The potential for a mishap
with this method would have to be well addressed though.  Perhaps a simple
test to see the effect of an unexpected ignition of some quantity of finely
milled and well mixed powdered propellant in an open container would give us
an idea if this was a method that we wanted to pursue or not. 

 

Randy Dormans

 

  _____  

From: ss-propellant-bounces at exrocketry.net
[mailto:ss-propellant-bounces at exrocketry.net] On Behalf Of Rich Nakka
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:40 AM
To: Propellant Development Team
Subject: [SS-Propellant] [Fwd: Propellant casting schemes]

 

Greetings, Propellant Development Team members,

There hasn't yet been any feedback from the team as to which propellant
productions schemes we should pursue. I expect we should narrow the list
down to a couple of schemes, and do whatever followup investigation/testing
that is necessary to finalize the choice to a single one. Or perhaps none of
the schemes presented is worthwhile? Other ideas?

Once again, the link to the document is here:
http://www.sugarshot.org/downloads/ssts_propellant-schemes.pdf

Feedback, please...!
Time is fleeting....!
Richard
--------


-------- Original Message -------- 


Subject: 

Propellant casting schemes


Date: 

Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:10:17 -0500


From: 

Rich Nakka  <mailto:richnakka at rogers.com> <richnakka at rogers.com>


To: 

Propellant Development Team  <mailto:ss-propellant at exrocketry.net>
<ss-propellant at exrocketry.net>

 

Greetings, fellow Propellant Development Team (PDT)  members,
 
I am sure you have all been closely following the interesting 
discussions about proposed propellant casting schemes.
 
I've summarized the schemes in the following Word document:
http://sugarshot.org/downloads/ssts_propellant-schemes.doc
 
I would appreciate if each PDT member could read over the document and 
make comments including pro's and con's of the various schemes. Once 
comments  has been compiled, we can then take the next steps in 
assessing the schemes and trying to narrow down one or two that we can 
invest more effort in studying greater detail.
 
Please return marked up docs to me by Wed. Dec.21st evening, at the 
latest. I will be gone on vacation after that and I plan on taking the 
feedback with me, to peruse and summarize, while on holiday.
 
cheers & thanks
Richard
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.exrocketry.net/pipermail/ss-propellant/attachments/20060114/cfa592fd/attachment.htm