Liquid Propulsion Kits

Discussions of motors from single-use and RMS solid propellants to hybrid propellants

Moderator: Moderators

thumper
Rocket Onlooker
Rocket Onlooker
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 am

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby thumper » Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:36 am

I don't know if this thread is still active, but I've recently been in contact with the manufacturer of the SS67B-3 engine, and it's based on the WWII German Taifun missle (an unguided rocket system) that, although never deployed operationally, was copied by the US as the Loki and the USSR as the R-103.

So it does work.

But 50% Hydrogen Peroxide isn't really something you want to dip your fingers into.

Also, in Canada at least - an 8kg unguided rocket capable of altitudes >5,000 feet AGL and travelling at speeds just under Mach 1 requires some special attention from Transport Canada.

Such things like:

1/ An Authorized launch site.
2/ NOTAM to close the airspace up to 12,500 feet AGL.
3/ Non-refundable fees associated with the launch event.

My initial plans were to build this into a scale Saturn V, but my calculations indicate it will need to be over 1.8m high, and nearly 8kg, with the SS67B-3 for the centre engine, and four solid fuel motors such as the Cesaroni Pro-38 solid rocket motors for additional boost.

Is something like this practical - or even legal in Australia?

BTW: Cost to get the engine into Australia is $1099.00 for the engine + $700.00 via UPS for shipping. (as of the date on this post).

User avatar
OverTheTop
It's only money...
It's only money...
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby OverTheTop » Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:23 am

Welcome Thumper. Not sure of the legalities of liquid fueled engines in Oz. As for the 1.8m Saturn V, sounds like it would fit well in the LOC 50th Anniversary kit, if they are still available. That kit can be configured for various five-motor clusters too.
TRA #13430
L3
"Everybody's simulation model is guilty until proven innocent" (Thomas H. Lawrence 1994)

thumper
Rocket Onlooker
Rocket Onlooker
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 am

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby thumper » Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:22 am

Thanks for the welcome OverTheTop!

my calculations indicate I'd need three (3) one meter diameter parachutes to bring it home, and /w a 6" diameter body tube for the first and second stages of the Saturn V, it would reach Mach 0.97 and slightly over 6,000 feet at apogee...although that may change slightly once I figure out what all the electronics are going to weigh.

Even if it turned out not to be legal to launch here in Australia, it will be a fun project and final 'shelf display' to acknowledge the Gemini and Apollo Astronaut friends that I had who are no longer with us.

User avatar
OverTheTop
It's only money...
It's only money...
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby OverTheTop » Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:13 pm

TRA #13430
L3
"Everybody's simulation model is guilty until proven innocent" (Thomas H. Lawrence 1994)

thumper
Rocket Onlooker
Rocket Onlooker
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 am

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby thumper » Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:09 am

PK wrote:It's rubbish. Not much more than a BP powered steam generator.
PK


What is a "BP powered steam generator"?

thumper
Rocket Onlooker
Rocket Onlooker
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 am

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby thumper » Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:00 am

Does anyone know what 'pk' meant by a "BP steam generator" when commenting on the SS67B3 liquid fuel motor?

thumper
Rocket Onlooker
Rocket Onlooker
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 am

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby thumper » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:02 pm

Now, I know that H2O2 is, by definition: an unstable compound used as an oxidizing and bleaching agent, an antiseptic, and as a propellant.

But 'propellant' seems to me to be the 'buzz word' here, and - in Canada anyway - H2O2 is available in drug stores at around 2-5% concentration. Girls use it to dye their hair, and my brother used it to paint 'cat' on the side of his house pet to avoid it being shot by the neighbour.

This engine however, uses 50% H2O2 combined with high octane gasoline.

Now if my extensive research /w declassified material from China Lake Naval Ordinance Testing Station on rocket engines and burning hydrocarbons is of any value … an engine that's proven to be capable of reaching nearly a nautical mile, and - if the body tube is around 6" in diameter - to slow the vehicle down and thus avoid max Q difficulties …. keeping the speed to around Mach 0.97 is 'rubbish' (which BTW in Canada translates to 'garbage') is indeed true, my question is still: "what empirical data has this conclusion been based upon"?

And WHAT is a BP steam generator?? Inquiring minds would like to know.

FUN FACT:
Mixed correctly, the residence time in the combustion chamber of the SS67B-3 during combustion produces an exit gas velocity in excess of Mach 2.

User avatar
OverTheTop
It's only money...
It's only money...
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby OverTheTop » Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:13 pm

I think PK was suggesting that the BP (black powder) burned for the entire duration of the burn and was basically the major force behind thrust creation in the motor system. The burning BP would boil the water in the H2O2 and thus create steam. It was said that the burn stopped when the BP ran out so obviously there is not enough energy in the peroxide decomposition to keep the motor going after BP burnout.
TRA #13430
L3
"Everybody's simulation model is guilty until proven innocent" (Thomas H. Lawrence 1994)

thumper
Rocket Onlooker
Rocket Onlooker
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 am

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby thumper » Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:45 am

I think PK was suggesting that the BP (black powder) burned for the entire duration of the burn and was basically the major force behind thrust creation in the motor system. The burning BP would boil the water in the H2O2 and thus create steam. It was said that the burn stopped when the BP ran out so obviously there is not enough energy in the peroxide decomposition to keep the motor going after BP burnout.


The data from Los Alamos Laboratories, and the engine test stand data disagrees with 'pk'.... this is a bit more complex than an Estes rocket.

User avatar
OverTheTop
It's only money...
It's only money...
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby OverTheTop » Wed Sep 04, 2019 11:34 am

Data is good!
TRA #13430
L3
"Everybody's simulation model is guilty until proven innocent" (Thomas H. Lawrence 1994)

thumper
Rocket Onlooker
Rocket Onlooker
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 am

Re: Liquid Propulsion Kits

Postby thumper » Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:32 pm

OverTheTop wrote:Data is good!


I agree.

Proceeding from a false assumption, or merely 'speculating' w/o actually knowing all the details - generally doesn't end well.

FUN FACT:
The SS67B-3 does not use 'black powder'. As the hydrogen peroxide is broken down, the oxygen liberated is ignited /w a separate chemical ignition system in the combustion chamber.

As stated previously … this is NOT a simple Estes rocket - it is somewhat more complex. And capable of lifting over 15 lb to >5000 ft.


Return to “Propulsion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest