LNG tanks represent a terror threat while in port, so assuming they're
doing their job *cough* I would imagine DHS would have some, probably
classified, studies on the maximum yield attainable by a deliberately
destroyed very large LNG tank. Obtaining those estimates (under
appropriate disclosure controls) could be a cheap way to set an accepted
upper bounds modulo the lower O2 concentration of air. You'd have to be a
major launch service company to have a shot at such access to classified
data and if it had an impact on rage safety that was visible, secrecy might
be problematic.
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:27 AM, John Dom <johndom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
proper accounting for thermobaric explosives is to not forget theoxidizer
You mean the air surrounding the fuel spray?
jd
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*On Behalf Of *David Masten
*Sent:* donderdag 26 mei 2016 16:56
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: LOX-Methane Kabooms
Seems to be a lot of thinking that this should compare to a thermobaric
device. But I was under the impression that such high yield explosives were
actually difficult to design and get things to actually be a large
percentage of mixing.
Also, the father of all bombs seems a bit controversial among analysts.
And, the proper accounting for thermobaric explosives is to not forget the
oxidizer. So in reality, twenty-something tons of explosive mixture
producing 44 tons TNT. If it was real.
Dave
On 5/25/2016 6:12 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 26/05/16 00:25, Paul Breed wrote:
mixing with buffer gas (air).
Not 100% sure this helps your case... just methane mixed with air could
make a really big bang....
The largest non nuke explosive has just 7 tons of fuel...
(Russian FOAB) 44Tons TNT equivalent...
Yep.
Worst I can think of:
Methane tank BLEVEs, methane vapour and droplets spray around. This cracks
the LOX tank, perhaps half of the LOX flies all about, mixing with the
methane and air, and the mechanical reaction expels any remaining methane.
Pause. Something ignites the cloud of methane/LOX/oxygen/air. Ka-boom.
The MR for a rocket would usually be about 2.8, whereas the MR for
stoichiometric combustion is 4.0 - so there would be excess methane to
react with the air even if all the oxygen was used, but I'm supposing about
half the LOX remains in the remains of the rocket.
Some of the LOX is mixed in with the methane, so the methane-air-mixture
is oxygen-rich compared to methane-air, which would make it burn better.
(it would be much easier to get a fast deflagration in methane/air/oxygen
than in straight methane/air - fuel/air bombs use metallised propylene
oxide, iirc. They disperse the fuel in droplet form, then ignite it.
Propylene oxide is pretty reactive - but nasty - stuff and burns easily in
air over large concentration ranges - the useful concentration range for
methane in air is a bit inconveniently small for fuel-air explosives,
unless the air is enriched with oxygen...)
In terms of destructiveness, it doesn't matter whether the methane (and
LOX) is in droplets - for fuel-air explosions we are not looking for a
detonation, but a large-scale fast deflagration; in order to get the most
destructive and longest lasting blast wave possible, droplet form is
actually more effective.
This dispersed cloud explosion gives a long-duration, well-coupled blast
wave, which is generally lethal at distances where a condensed explosive of
similar mass would be survivable.
In a condensed explosive, too much energy gets wasted near the explosion,
where you are going to be dead anyway - local overkill, resulting in
reduced effectiveness at distance.
Nitrogen in the air actually helps to couple the explosive power to the
blast wave, and increases the blast effect at distance.
Also the long duration blast wave tends to push debris (~shrapnel) further
than in a similar mass condensed explosive event.
This makes comparisons of dispersed cloud explosions with conventional
explosives a bit meaningless, as the effects are qualitatively different.
They are also different for different scales of explosion; here I am
talking about the 50-1,000 ton range.
However, supposing all the methane and half the LOX reacted, I estimate
the effect at lethal and highly damaging distances would be similar to
about 3.9 times the mass of propellent in terms of TNT.
That's a bit of a BOTE SWAG, but for medium-large rocket sizes it would be
somewhere above 3.4x and less than 4.5x TNT equivalent.
Ouch indeed.
20% ? piffle.
Oh, and then the blast spreads the remaining LOX over anything remotely
flammable. Grass, aluminium fuel tanks, steel launch tower...
-- Peter Fairbrother
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:48 PM, David Masten <dmasten@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmasten@xxxxxxxxxxx> <dmasten@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The latest document is from 2008 with correction 1 Sept 2, 2011.
6055.09-M, volume 5 is the one of interest, specifically table
V5.E4.T5 (which is nearly identical to 2005's 6055.09-STD C9.T18).
It may very well be the case that LO2/LCH4 should be treated more
like LO2/LH2 than LO2/RP-1. The greater of 8W^2/3 or 0.14W for LH2
gives greater than one adjustment at smaller quantities (<~500lb)
while only 14% at huge quantities. Is this because any credible
mixing would be limited due to pure volume and time? I'm thinking if
the BLEVE shock case it occurs before time to mix, otherwise in the
open and sufficient time to get full mixing it would also involve
dissipation and mixing with buffer gas (air). I don't know, just
trying to think through it.
Thanks,
Dave
On 5/25/2016 2:12 PM, George Herbert wrote:
That's the standard, yes; the question is if it's right or not.
The difference between 10 tons HE equivalent probably typical
(plus satisfying fireball), and 225 tons at C9.T18 (20% to 500k
lbs 10% above that), to a possible 1.3 kilotons for a Falcon Heavy
at 100% TNT efficiency, to a worst case ~ 4 kilotons for the full
load of Kerosene at 43 MJ/Kt...
I am not convinced the scenarios *past* 100% RE are
implausible... The propellant energy density is ~3x higher than TNT.
Assuming it will always necessarily go very inefficiently,
especially if something falls back into a flame trench and
ruptures and mixes before ignition, seems unwise. That's the
point. A Falcon-9 contains over a kiloton of unreacted energy, a
Falcon Heavy about 4 kilotons...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On May 25, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Randall Clague
<<mailto:rclague@xxxxxxxxx> <rclague@xxxxxxxxx>rclague@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rclague@xxxxxxxxx> <rclague@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Has no one on this thread read DDESB-6055.9? It's the standard
reference on the topic. LOX/hydrocarbons, all of them, are rated
at 20%. If you have 40,000 lbm of LOX/methane, and it goes bang,
it will have a TNT equivalent (NEW) of 8000 lbm.
The Quantity-Distance for blast is 40*(NEW^(1/3), units are feet
and pounds. For 8000 lbm, that comes to 800 feet. That's not
useful, because the Hazardous Fragment Distance for even the
smallest quantity of explosive mixture is 1250 feet.
Jeff Greason and I did have some success convincing AST that if
you could dump one of your propellants, you need only consider
the stoichiometric complement to whatever you hadn't been able to
dump before impact. For example, if kerosene (assuming O:F of
2.6:1) remaining at impact was 1000 lbm, but LOX remaining was
only 520 lbm, your NEW would not be 304 lbm, as 6055.9 would have
it. It would be 144 lbm.
That's only useful if you can dump a propellant, of course.
-R
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Keith Henson
<<mailto:hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx> <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx> <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Seems to me it might be worthwhile to come at this from the
opposite
> end: What conditions would be necessary to produce thorough
mixing of
> the majority of a vehicle's LOX-CH4 propellants, followed
by detonation?
At least once in a test the tank valves opened without
ignition and
the whole load of RP-1 and LOX drained out through the
engine. The
mix was called gel and tended to be treated like
nitroglycerine. In
this particular event (which I don't remember even what
rocket it was
or when), the aftermath was a rocket sitting in a large pool
of gel.
According to the story related to me, the test engineers just
walked
away and waited a few hours till all the LOX evaporated.
There are people who have fun by filling two liter soda
bottles with
LOX and propane. Apparently if you let the bottles warm up a
little,
the propane becomes miscible with the LOX. If you shoot at the
bottles with a 30-06, about half the time they will detonate
(with an
impressive bang). So apparently that hydrocarbon and LOX
isn't as
sensitive as nitro. On the other hand, tracer ammo will set
off such
mixes every time.
Keith
--
David Masten
CTO
Masten Space Systems
415-244-9171 <tel:415-244-9171 <415-244-9171>>
--
David Masten
CTO
Masten Space Systems
415-244-9171
