Just about anything you do to make the propellant more suitable makes the ISP lower. Galcit is the next logical step. This propellant is a hundred years old I think. It's a dead horse. Even if you make it work somehow it's performance is just too low to be practical for large rockets. I am so glad to see SS2S get away from the phased staging concept though. I think their chances for greater success just increased 10 fold. If they keep building you'll see some impressive sugar altitude for sure. Galcit may have some room for improvement but it's been around forever too. It's performance is better with less effort. Monroe > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [AR] Re: Sugar Rocket State of the Art? > From: Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, October 14, 2014 4:46 am > To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Am 14.10.2014 05:08, schrieb David Weinshenker: > > Ben Brockert wrote: > >> I did a number of FEA tests on sugar propellants using material > >> properties experimentally found by Nakka and showed that you can't > >> make really large case bonded sugar rockets with aluminum cases > >> because the case stretches more than the propellant and it cracks. > > > > I remember some folks at FAR working on an "inside out" sugar motor > > design which was intended to avoid the stretching/cracking problem > > (which was blamed for an observed tendency for explosions): they > > were planning to cast the propellant around a central support (a > > threaded rod with some nuts along it to keep the grain from sliding > > off) and burn it inward from the outer surface. (I don't know how > > well that worked - this was several years ago - but it seemed like > > a possibly clever idea.) > > What would keep one from adding some fibers to the molten propellant? > > Alterntaively roll a acore similar to a biscuit roll. > i.e. a fabric layer covered with a propellant layer of reasonable > thickness rolled up into a cylindrical core. > > uwe