Calculations for H202 rocket...

You already have a logical disconnect. Only 1 mile and FAST M2 and extraordinarilly excessive 120 second flight time. Unless this is a horizontal airpane there is no way your numbers are right.

Do a google search for alt.bas

Change away from H2O2 and 120 sec "ballistic flight" time an option? I have the motors in stock. If you include parachute recovery 120 sec is easily practical.

Jerry

(long live Estes)

God save Estes Industries and please bless vern and Gleda Estes.

dearch google cp.bas

Abandon it! SOLIDS ROCK. YES EVEN ERRORTECH.

NONE ARE TRUE ON A SYSTEM BASIS.

Network. The internet is your friend. Unsolicited email from rocketeers is your friend.

Just Jerry

true believer in rmr despite its many shortcomings.

STINE DAMMIT!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Uh, one minor nit - that should be DAMNIT. ;O)

Brant! Stine! Arcas! Damnit!

Dammit is an acceptable variation. Just ask my friends, John Brandt and Gary Stein.

Zooty

Assuming that off-the-shelf motors in current use for HPR cannot be made to work for your application, you'll find that H2O2 will be a comparatively frustrating experience. In the concentrations you're likely to be able to source on a casual basis, the performance is rather poor. You'll find yourself mucking about with catalyst packs for a long time until you get suitable performance.

If you want to investigate the (theoretical) performance properties of various propellants, might I suggest you get a copy of CPROPEP? This is a C re-coding of an original Fortran program used by NASA back in the 1950s for investigating the combustion properties of various propellant combinations.

Off the top of my head, you're like to do better with either existing HPR motors, or designing an N2O hybrid motor. [I'm biased towards hybrids, and everybody here knows it--you could probably build a solid composite motor just as easily, assuming that your "professional builders" are located in the appropriate legal situation to legally manufacture such things].

My mistake, thanks for pointing it out. I'll do better next time!

-Scott

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I meant tetranitromethane C(NO2)4, not to be confused with octanitrocubane - which is completely different and not much good as an oxidizer.

Tetranitromethane isn't much good as an oxidizer in practice either... the thermochemical performance is respectable, but attempts to fire it in a rocket motor have typically been plagued by explosions...

ClF5 is quite another matter... a very effective oxidizer for certain fuels, but requires special techniques to handle because it's violently reactive with just about anything. (In this latter respect, chlorine pentafluoride and trifluoride resemble fluorine, only more so: Fluorine exists as a liquid only at temperatures so low that its reactivity is much diminished, and as a gas is much less dense.)

But then, as has been said before, "there are no nice liquid rocket oxidizers". (H2O2 is one of the less nasty ones, but still needs to be handled with appropriate caution.)

-dave w

At Mach 2, you cover a lot of distance in 120 seconds. That's almost

An electronics package that studies atmospheric conditions Assume that ALL design options are open, and that I'd sacrifice

You won't get any help from me. I'm not giving anyone any advice on how to design a 20 pound rocket to travel horizontally at Mach 2 for 2 minutes.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

BTW, you don't happen to be employed bt the BATFE do you?

Jerry, Sounds like we both smelled the same fish. I'm not aware of any atmospheric conditions that are studied at Mach 2 and

I will but the price is substantial. it requires scary-cool tech. And in some cases State department authorization.

Jerry

Presumably "some cases" means customers outside the US, such that the project would be considered a "technology export"?

(Or is the SD actually claiming domestic jurisdiction on such things these days?)

-dave w

It's an easy solution, Mark. Just hang the 20 pound rocket under the wing of an F15.

Good call (catch), Mark. I've been out on Puget Sound alot recently with the salmon run and my sense of smell is a bit overtaxed. I missed the fine print when I first read this post.

steve

It was till PA2.

Just civil rights deprived Jerry.

Pardon me? I said that the premise violated the laws of physics and logic Unless: a. Horizontal flight was involved or b. Recvovery phase was included c. or both

Jerry

But after questi "{Change away from H2O2 and 120 sec "ballistic flight" time an option? I have the motors in stock. If you include parachute recovery 120 sec is easily practical." Not exactly "clamming up". ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

No matter what else is said, no one can say you don't have a sense of humor Jerry. ; )

Randy