[AR] Re: Sugar Rocket State of the Art?
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:57:56 -0700
It's going to be really tough to beat sucrose and potassium nitrate and
still be able to call it sugar propellant. Anything you add will reduce
the ISP not increase it.
Richard Nakka's site is the best source on the internet for sugar
propellant. SugarPro mailing list is the other.
Rick Maschek will probably chime in once he see the posting on Arocket.
IMO sugar propellant is good for some purposes certainly not the best
choice to reach space much cheaper to use APCP. Even if your making the
rocket and propellant. SS2S is a special case of using that type of
propellant to reach space and not what would be considered a cheap,
easy, or especially effective means of propulsion.
It is wonderful for what it is useful for. Smaller sounding rockets.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: Sugar Rocket State of the Art?
> From: "Ray Rocket" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender
> "ar0cketman@xxxxxxxxx" for DMARC)
> Date: Mon, October 13, 2014 11:19 am
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> On Mon, 10/13/14, Monroe L. King Jr. <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > It depends on what your expecting the motor to do. What are you wanting it
> > to do for instance?
>
> I'd like it to advance the state of the art, but first I'd like some idea
> where the cutting edge lies.
>
>
> Ad Astra,
>
> Ray
Other related posts:
