The TRA BOD has now approved the proposal and the use of these motors in the
> EX program with the provision that sucrose not be included. Sorbitol and
> dextrose, which are preferred from an ease of preparation stand point are of
> course allowed.
Why not sucrose? I would think it's availability and low cost would lend itself to be more popular than sorbitol and dextrose.
According to TRA, at the temperature it has to be heated to, it is considerably less safe than the other two. I have no experience with it - I asked & that's what they told me.
Phil Ste>> The TRA BOD has now approved the proposal and the use of these motors in >the
Phil Stein
Stuart,
Tried to D/L the SugarPro_Proposal.pdf file; got a File Not Found Error.
Am trying to figure out why KNSU was not accepted by TRA.
Just curious.
It was working earlier but now I get the same message. When I ftp into the site the file is gone now! I get an "over quota" message so it seems to have been removed. I will put the document on another site and fix the link shortly.
-Stuart
Got it.
Thanks, Stuart.
This may be true. However, is sucrose propellant any less safe once made? It's safety at the launch that TRA should be concerned with, not the off field hazards. Manufacturing hazards vary and it's up to the manufacturer to control these and minimize the effects to others.
Tom
TRA as a RULE sticks its nose in as many post as it can reach, logic or not as a means to establish POWER and CONTROL over PEOPLE and FACTIONS of rocketry.
Nothing else matters, especially NOT science or sense or logic.
Jerry
Poli=many Tics=blood sucking insects
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required