Most powerful Rocket Propellant

[Pyrohawk]

It part of a project I mentioned in the Randomn Thread but thought it wouldn't be a bad idea for a thread in this section for it. What is the most powerful solid rocket propellant you have came across?

 

 

I mean mainly for "model" high power rockets but discussion of skyrockets would be fine also.

[TheSidewinder]

Leaving aside the obscure (and often dangerous) hybrid formulas, I'd vote for APCP (Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant) if you're talking straight Rocketry.

 

It's the same basic propellant used in the Shuttle's SRB's. And you can make the exact same formula if you wish, as it's public knowledge. (It sill amazes me that they actually "cast" those in 3 sections, in amounts that stagger the imagination.)

 

If you include Pyrotechnic uses, though, I'd have to say Whistle Mix is more "powerful".

 

I'm curious to see what others' experiences have been.

[Miech]

What the most powerful propellant will be depends on how you define 'most powerful'. Is it the most (chemical) energy per amount of mass, highest gas output per measurement of time or the highest specific impulse?

 

For usuable safer compositions I would say potassium chlorate with charcoal and some paraffin to regulate the burning rate gave me very fast rockets with an insane lift off. The burning time was quite short though. Do NEVER even ATTEMPT to ram this kind of propellants. This propellant is prone to give a very loud explosion if your engine design isn't right.

 

For a longer burning time and somewhat less thust I would think of a cored whistle rocket (the core being in star shape to enlarge burning surface). With a critical design those things fly very high. Critical design means something as using an aluminium casing and getting the maximum possible pressure without blowing it. I personally dislike putting high energetic mixtures in metal casings, but at least the casing is visible at a Röntgen scan if something goes wrong.

 

The shuttle booster fuel is way to expensive in my opinion, but I'm sure it will kick some weight into the air.

 

For safety reasons I would recommend using a cluster of engines for lifting big rockets. This means putting 3, 7 or 19 separate solid fuel engines under your payload and igniting them at exactly the same time. This greatly reduces the chance of getting hurt very bad in case of an accident.

[KinneticEnergy]

KSNB or KNSU (recrystallized sugar fuels)can be optimized enough to make them substantially powerful. I do agree, It's not quite as powerful as APCP, but some good ol' Fe2O3 can make it quite powerful.

[Mumbles]

Please refrain from posting when you have nothing useful to add KineticEnegy. Those propellents really shouldn't even be considered for the applications here. I'd say APCP is the standard here. If it cannot outpreform it, there really is no use in mentioning it.

 

You may also be interested in knowing that KNSU is not a legally usable fuel in most rocket clubs. It's burning characteristics are too unpredictable, and has other serious disadvantages. Dextrose and sorbitol are acceptable for use though.

[Pyrohawk]

Yeah, APCP is definately the only way to go on this.... It has the highest Isp's of solid rocket propellants. Atleast that I know of. We can be pretty certain it will include AP but different fuels and additives will affect the "power" and I am looking for comp.'s that you have heard of that have the highest Isp.

 

I'm not really sure on what to say for what I consider the most powerful propellant. I guess simply which propellant under all the exact same circumstances will put the rocket the highest in the air. Isp sis usually the standard though..... They told me they wanted to know Isp, expansion ratio, and energy released.

 

Off Topic but just to clarify:

 

Oh and as for those people who mentioned one propellant ay be more expensive.... I don't know how big an issue that is. The rocket I'm working on is funded by The Ohio State University.... I have no clue how much money the club is getting but the members talked as though we can spend some decent money.

[KinneticEnergy]

Please refrain from posting when you have nothing useful to add KineticEnegy. Those propellents really shouldn't even be considered for the applications here. I'd say APCP is the standard here. If it cannot outpreform it, there really is no use in mentioning it.

 

You may also be interested in knowing that KNSU is not a legally usable fuel in most rocket clubs. It's burning characteristics are too unpredictable, and has other serious disadvantages. Dextrose and sorbitol are acceptable for use though.

I know about the KNSU restrictions, IMHO what I stated was not useless. If you recall, I mentioned KNSB (Kno3/Sorbitol) could be used.Have you heard of the SSTS (Sugar shot to space) Project? A group of rocketeers are in the process of sending a rocket to space using KNSB as their propellant choice

Link: http://sugarshot.org/

 

. That being said, I think this fuel could be successfully used to power a rocket to such high altitudes.

 

I'm sorry if my information was not considered useful, I try to make every post worth while, and in my human nature, failure to do so is far from improbable.

[Mumbles]

I know about the sugar shot to space thing, however you do realize how inefficient it is right? Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's practical. Sugar fuels are relatively low energy, and thus required a huge amount of fuel. From the site it makes it seem like it is at the very least 100lb of propellant. The project is being done out of interest, not practicality. Any moron could shoot a rocket to space with conventional high energy propellants.

 

You can ride across the country on a bicycle, does that mean it's a reasonable suggestion to get from New York to LA?

[BigBang]

Mind posting more information on what you need? Shoot me a PM as well, HPR is what I'm best at and have the most contacts for (for instance the motor manufacturer who made the motors for ICARUS, the ERAU project.)

[TurboSnail]

If you want to make an extreme rocket propellant sparing no coasts, Lithium Perchlorate LiClO4 is the oxygen source to use fore several different reasons, Primarly the amount of oxygen present per gram of oxidant is "high" to say the least. But in practice it is not vidly used du to several factors $$$ being a mayor part of the problem.

 

Oxidants contaning Florine also has high potential in HPR, but the gasses produced from burning a fule based on Florin vould be toxic and corrocive.

 

>>>_@/"

[Boomer]

Two ideas come to mind, both originate in HE-science where you don't want to dilute your precious RDX with 30% rubber (ala Semtex). The key word here is energetic binder. Admittedly, unlike plastic explosives, the rubber, epoxy or whatever will not be inert, but serve as a fuel. Anyway here it comes:

 

Idea No.1 When reading about partly nitrated/chlorinated Erythritol, I remember a version of PETN where one hydroxyl stays un-nitrated (read PETriN), and later is acetylated. The resulting ester can be polymerized ala polyvinyl acetate.

Containing already a good part of the needed oxygen, the amount of oxidizer could be reduced, which also eases casting.

 

Idea No.2 is my old idea of a melt/cast of organic nitrates, but because of the low energy without AN. Think a (possibly eutectic) mix of some of the following: Urea-, Guanidine- hexaminedi-, ethylendiaminedi-nitrate, possibly with nitroguanidine, or for the brave a mix of nitrates and perchlorates of those organic bases. And while we are at it, what about hydrazine nitrate and -perchlorate?

 

I found nitrate mixes that melt below the mp of candle wax, and get solid only below 35C. In these one could incorporate solid perchlorates (if one doesn't want to overheat them trying to get a uniform melt), or simply metal powders for energy. Hell some military formulas proposed RDX, HMX, HNIW as rocket propellants! Just like NC, NG and NQ (nitroguanidine) are all HEs as well as propellants (single- double- and triple-based respectively).

 

But beware, above 10-20% of a solid nitramine even a void-free uniform cast of the tamest of the mentioned materials becomes detonable. At least theoretically, and with big critical diameters, and only with good initiation (i.e. a CATO won't do it), but still....