Jim, many thanks for that advice!
Unfortunately, where I work now doesn't have good access to a library. The
university I used to work at *may*have access to some of the old
AIAA/JANNAF, and I get back there occasionally since I still work on a few
projects with them, and get asked to give guest lectures sometimes. So I
may be able to find something there. I'll also look into the other missile
systems you mention.
Yes, the tactical missile motor compositions that use RDX or HMX are closer
to my PBX compositions, however my understanding from the literature that I
have read is that the predominant mechanisms of ageing are (i) plasticiser
loss, and/or (ii) oxidation of the PU binder (most likely, IMO, probably a
combination of both). Ageing of the nitramines isn't usually a factor in
ageing of the composition (as I understand - I may be completely wrong!).
In fact we just pulled some bombs loaded in PBXN-109 (RDX, Al, HTPB-IPDI,
DOA), after 15 years in the magazines, and the RDX doesn't appear to have
aged at all. The mech props of the PU though have changed - it has become
significantly stiffer, less flexible. More or less what we expected, but
it is nice to actually get our hands on the samples and confirm it!
Annex C to AOP-46 has an interesting discussion that uses the Arrhenius
equation to relate accelerated ageing studies to long-term storage life,
which (if this kind of thing interests you) you may find useful, if you
weren't already aware of it. It's only really applicable to constant
temperature ageing/storage though, applying it when the temperatures are
cycled is a little trickier...
Thanks again,
James
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 17:57, Jim Rosson <jmrosson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
James:
You want solid propellant service life data? I might be able to help:
See if you get your hands on a copy of text book: Volume 170 of Progress
in Astronautics and Aeronautics, title Tactical Missile Propulsion.
Chapter 5 has treatise on service life predictions .vs actual.
Can also find articles in old AIAA/JANNAF journals from many
rocket/missile programs service life studies. Most of these antique
publications are not online, even if you are member of organization; so
might need to visit a decent science tech college library to find them.
Look for dedicated studies on Polaris, Minuteman, Titan, and Shuttle SRB
solid booster motors. These studies usually detail the polymer blend,
oxidizers, and additives.
The amateur community focus is on "safer" HTPB polymer system, and leave
the DOT 1.1 materials to experts. Regardless, Tactical missiles often use
HMX/RDX modifiers that might be more interesting to you? Couple current
missile programs like Aim-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM; have published
service life studies. Couple of vehicles in the Nike missile project
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nike> had several service life
studies published. There are also some NATO member and other international
service life reports on non-US missile systems. These are all hiding in
same old AIAA/JANNAF periodicals. Some of newer declassified articles
published since 2000 can be found online.
Another source of solid propellant service life data is gas generators
used in automotive airbags, and aircraft exit slide inflation. They used
different oxidizers to lower flame temperatures, but they use polymer
binders that can be useful comparison. Have to hunt around the
automotive/aircraft tech journals for the papers, but they have published
extensive measured .vs. predicted service life studies at command of US
federal gubermint and NHTSA/FMVSS regulations.
Cheers!
Jim
On November 29, 2021 at 8:34 AM J P <james.padfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Anthony,
This was a composite HTPB/AP propellant? Can you tell me any details
(however vague) on the formulation? I ask because I work with cast-cure
PBX explosives, which of course generally have very similar compositions to
cast composite rocket propellants, and I am forever being asked ( by
customers, by our salesmen and programme managers) about upper and lower
storage temps, storage lives, etc. etc.! And any evidence, even anecdotal,
is always interesting (to me at least!).
Thanks,
James
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 01:06, Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Bill
They conducted their 10th anniversary flight with a surplus 100K Lb./sec.
booster we had built. I was not involved with the launch. The motor had
been in non-climate controlled storage in NM for 8 years so it had be
cycled from below freezing to over 100 F all that time. It was a good way
to confirm the published storage and age limits of the system. The booster
was paid for anyway and had all the required approvals but most
importantly, the crew were well qualified on the system and operations. It
went to space without a glitch.
Best.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Saturday, November 27, 2021 6:48 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Homemade Astronauts on Tv
Anthony:
Only morally, spiritually, and emotionally.
When Jim has that beer w/ Ken, we should buy.
Bill
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 4:44 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Jim,
Was someone injured participating in CSXT?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *JAMES ROSSON
*Sent:* Saturday, November 27, 2021 5:36 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Homemade Astronauts on Tv
On November 26, 2021 at 8:51 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: We get contacted by some of these production companies asking to
us donate or sell them rocket motors and as a general rule, we respectfully
decline.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
LOL Anyone who makes commercial motor gets asked to donate (and refuses
the 2nd time).
Ever notice how you don't see the same folks launching rockets in more
than one show? The production companies making rocket shows only survive
because folks are willing to pay their own way to be a TV star.
IMHO - Being involved in a rocket TV show is like biting into a bad apple
and being forced to finish it.
If your smart, will NEVER do that again.
On November 26, 2021 at 8:28 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I wouldn't waste my time watching that show, it gives amateurs an
undeserved bad reputation.
Ken
My condolences on your experience Ken. If it is any consolation, you are
not alone?
Behind the scenes history of CSXT activities are so ludicrous; the trail
of injured souls would read like a bad fiction novel, if anyone dared
publish it. In spirit of "If you don't have anything nice to say, come
sit next to me." Let's met at the bar sometime soon? :-)
+1 Most all TV shows "gives amateurs an undeserved bad reputation".
Sigh.....
