Looking for better ISP?
Kallend
This is what the Air Force is looking for! Wonder if it will need a
LEUP?
RECORD NUMBER:
2028PRA0009
CBD ISSUE DATE: 02/09/98 SECTION: Procurements FSC CODE:
A
TITLE: EXPLORATORY RESEARCH IN HIGH ENERGY DENSITY MATERIALS
(HEDM)
SOL AFOSR BAA
98-3
DUE
022098
POC Dr. Michael R Berman, (202)
767-4963
The Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) and Defense
Advanced
Project Agency (DARPA) announces a fiscal year 1998 competition
for
exploratory research in High Energy Density Materials (HEDM).
PROGRAM
GOALS This program is focused on stimulating a major breakthrough in
the
availability of new high energy density materials (HEDM) for use by the
U.
S. armed forces, government agencies and commercial activities.
The
primary objective is to synthesize HEDM materials which would provide
at
least a 200% increase in explosive power relative to HMX and/or develop
a
minimal signature propellant with a specific impulse of more than
450
seconds at 1000 psi chamber pressure. The HEDM must meet DoD
requirements
for storability, shock sensitivity, operational handling and deployment.
A
secondary objective is to improve environmental factors associated
with
the manufacture and use of explosives and propellants. TASK 001
Nitrogen
HEDM Synthesis: The existence of pure nitrogen compounds (Nx,
x=4,5,6...)
has been predicted by numerous quantum mechanical calculations over
the
last ten years. The calculations indicate that these materials have
high
exothermicity (180 kcal/mole N4 (Td) at MP2/6-31G*) and predicted
barriers
to dissociation on the order of 30-60 kcal/mole. The decomposition of
N4
(Td) gives an adiabatic flame temperature of 7600 K and an Isp of
445
seconds at 1000 psi chamber pressure. The primary decomposition
product
(99%) at the nozzle exit plane is N2 with traces of atomic N and N3.
The
first task of the effort is to develop a synthetic route for
the
production of all-nitrogen HEDM compounds. The initial synthesis
will
produce microgram to milligram quantities of all-nitrogen HEDM;
eventually
the synthetic route will be scaled up to gram quantities of HEDM.
The
chemical composition and structure of synthetic products must
be
established by appropriate analytical techniques (e.g. Raman, IR, and
mass
spectroscopy). Ab initio quantum mechanical calculations will be
performed
to determine HEDM geometric structures, their normal modes and
isotopic
shifts. Models of synthetic mechanistic and kinetic details will
be
developed utilizing quantum mechanical tools, experimental data
and/or
information from existing databases. A second aspect of this task is
to
synthesize nitrogen content oxidizers and monopropellants such as N-F
and
N-O compounds. These HEDMs must provide significant improvement
over
current technology in propulsive performance. TASK 002 HEDM
Properties:
Physical and chemical properties of all-nitrogen HEDM will be
obtained.
The synthetic route will be scaled up to gram quantities. HEDM must
be
isolated and possibly purified. Physical properties such as
vapor
pressure, heat of formation, shock sensitivity and stability
and
decomposition rate as a function of temperature will be determined.
This
AFOSR documents, and others, are available on the AFOSR website
at
http://www.afosr.af.mil. Please select the "Doing Business With
AFOSR"
selection. A very limited number of hardcopies will be available
for
individuals without access to the internet. To request a hard copy
please
contact (202) 767-4990. Note
26.
Doing Business With
AFOSR
URL
http://www.afosr.af.mil
None
EMAIL
michael...@afosr.af.mil
AFOSR/PK, 110 Duncan Avenue, Room B115, Bolling AFB, DC
20332-8050
(W-036
SN165562)
--
John Kallend
IIT, Chicago
Tom Binford
The Silent Observer
VRGNJ wrote:
>
> This seems to mention an existing propellent with an ISP of 445, roughly
> twice the ISP of AP composites and 5+ times that if BP (Estes) propellants.
> Does anyone know anything about the specifics of this propellant?
> Is anyone making motors with this kind of propellant for our us? Could
> someone? What would be involved?
>
Did you read the abstract? They're talking about N4, four atoms of
nitrogen bonded together, acting as a monopropellant by decomposing to
the familiar N2.
Not only is no one making this stuff commercially yet, they were talking
about making experimental microgram quantities in the abstract -- and I
doubt they'll ever work up to gram lots at temperatures above liquid
nitrogen. Even if it's stable enough to load into a rocket tank, I'm
inclined to expect it (like most other monopropellants) to be prone to
detonating back up the feed line and into the tank on a hard start...and
this stuff would make tetranitromethane look tame when it does go.
OTOH, if they can make it work (stabilizing additives, special tank and
tube linings, whatever), it'll put the Space Shuttle out of business.
Think about it -- a monopropellant with Isp comparable to the LH2/LO2
mix, meaning lighter tanks, half as much pump hardware, half as many
pipes, and density more like LO2 than LH2; it'd be the ticket to making
SSTO practical as a load lifter. And, of course, it's made from air and
the exhaust is just nitrogen...
--
Better freedom and a chilly road than a warm hearth and servitude.
-- Fafhrd
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer NAR # 70141-SR Insured
Rocket Pages http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/launches.htm
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.
William Chops
>> TITLE: EXPLORATORY RESEARCH IN HIGH ENERGY DENSITY MATERIALS
Is anyone making motors with this kind of propellant for our us?
>> The initial synthesis will
>> produce microgram to milligram quantities of all-nitrogen HEDM
The way I read it, no one makes this kind of propellant AT ALL yet. This
is a "call for proposals" to do RESEARCH into such things, and no one is
quite sure whether they actually exist yet, much less whether they can be
manufactured or how they behave (interestingly, the air force apparently
wants either an exposive OR a propellant - uncharacteristicly flexible of
them!)
There's another theoretical substance "meta-stable helium" that is
supposed to be even higher ISP, and a solid at room temperature, but
I haven't heard anything along those lines in quite a few years...
BillW
--
(remove spam food from return address)
gerald clark
William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
> >> TITLE: EXPLORATORY RESEARCH IN HIGH ENERGY DENSITY MATERIALS
>
> Is anyone making motors with this kind of propellant for our us?
>
> >> The initial synthesis will
> >> produce microgram to milligram quantities of all-nitrogen HEDM
>
> The way I read it, no one makes this kind of propellant AT ALL yet. This
> is a "call for proposals" to do RESEARCH into such things, and no one is
> quite sure whether they actually exist yet, much less whether they can be
> manufactured or how they behave (interestingly, the air force apparently
> wants either an exposive OR a propellant - uncharacteristicly flexible of
> them!)
>
> There's another theoretical substance "meta-stable helium" that is
> supposed to be even higher ISP, and a solid at room temperature, but
> I haven't heard anything along those lines in quite a few years...
>
> BillW
>
> --
> (remove spam food from return address)
--
Remove the -bogus- portions of my return address!
Jerry Irvine
In article <19980211144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, vr...@aol.com
(VRGNJ) wrote:
> which of course doesn't exist. Second is the benchmark, an existing
> propellant, the proformance of which the research must improve upon if the
> research is to achieve its purpose. It is that benchmark existing
propellant I
> am referring too. It is that benchmark existing propellant that may open up
> some interesting possibilities.
Perhaps restating just that relevent portion of the RFP might be helpful,
especially if you have a specific or general formulation to publish.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
The Silent Observer
VRGNJ wrote:
>
> When you read through this whole RFP, you find two things: First is the
> research that they are looking for, which is what the replys discuss, and
> which of course doesn't exist. Second is the benchmark, an existing
> propellant, the proformance of which the research must improve upon if the
> research is to achieve its purpose. It is that benchmark existing propellant I
> am referring too. It is that benchmark existing propellant that may open up
> some interesting possibilities.
I've taken a short quote from the original post:
"The primary objective is to synthesize HEDM [High Energy Density
Materials] materials which would provide at least a 200% increase in
explosive power relative to HMX and/or develop a minimal signature
propellant with a specific impulse of more than 450 seconds at 1000 psi
chamber pressure."
To me, this doesn't imply that such a propellant exists -- they
reference RDX, an existing chemical explosive, but don't specifically
reference a propellant. In fact, this Isp figure is close to the
propellant Isp of LH2/LO2, and a little better than methane/LO2, but
both of those produce huge water vapor/droplet contrails. What's called
for here is a "minimal signature" propellant -- ideally the exhaust
would be indistinguishable from air except for temperature (no way to
disguise that in a rocket). Nitrogen fits that bill...
But there is not now >any< such propellant that's usable in military
missiles, which is surely where the DOD is headed with this research.
FWIW, the 200% increase in explosive power relative to RDX would exceed
what I understand to be the theoretical yield of octonitrocubane, the
most power explosive anyone expects to find anytime soon (which no one
has yet fully synthesized, though I gather non-nitrated cubanes have
been made).
Tom Binford
high energy fuel in rockets and solid fuel ramjets.
P'rfesser
William "Chops" Westfield <bi...@ciscoSPMFD.com> wrote:
>There's another theoretical substance "meta-stable helium" that is
>supposed to be even higher ISP, and a solid at room temperature, but
>I haven't heard anything along those lines in quite a few years...
>BillW
Ha! Wimpy stuff! Give me that stabilized monatomic hydrogen every
time. Or even better, how about positronium? Nucleus is a positron,
with an electron in the orbital. Really good exhaust velocity. Of
course, the tiny fraction that is ionized at room temp might tend to
cause the rocket to explode. Taking the planet with it...
Destroying the earth is probably considered Very Bad by most,
especially when done accidentally as one pursues a hobby.
P'rfesser
Tim
P'rfesser wrote:
> Ha! Wimpy stuff! Give me that stabilized monatomic hydrogen every
> time. Or even better, how about positronium? Nucleus is a positron,
> with an electron in the orbital. Really good exhaust velocity. Of
> course, the tiny fraction that is ionized at room temp might tend to
> cause the rocket to explode. Taking the planet with it...
>
> Destroying the earth is probably considered Very Bad by most,
> especially when done accidentally as one pursues a hobby.
>
> P'rfesser
Uh, oh. Sombody better amend that safety code fast!
Tim
Mark Johnson
The Silent Observer <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"The primary objective is to synthesize HEDM [High Energy Density
>Materials] materials which would provide at least a 200% increase in
>explosive power relative to HMX and/or develop a minimal signature
>propellant with a specific impulse of more than 450 seconds at 1000 psi
>chamber pressure."
>To me, this doesn't imply that such a propellant exists -- they
>reference RDX, an existing chemical explosive, but don't specifically
>reference a propellant. In fact, this Isp figure is close to the
>propellant Isp of LH2/LO2, and a little better than methane/LO2, but
>both of those produce huge water vapor/droplet contrails. What's called
>for here is a "minimal signature" propellant -- ideally the exhaust
>would be indistinguishable from air except for temperature (no way to
>disguise that in a rocket). Nitrogen fits that bill...
>But there is not now >any< such propellant that's usable in military
>missiles, which is surely where the DOD is headed with this research.
Couple of things to note here:
1. Some weapons systems use RDX or HMX as a rocket propellant
component...it makes for a bigger 'bang' against the target. Most
commonly, these are NOT airlaunched systems as there's too much danger
of explosion 'on the wing' of the carrying aircraft. You wouldn't want
a 'golden BB' small arms hit on a Sidewinder or AMRAAM to blow a
fighter or attack plane out of the sky.
2. RDX and HMX are both classed as high explosives and are no way, no
how, ever, going to be approved by DOT as consumer rocket propellants.
I can't remember whether they're classed as UN 1.1 or 1.2 (one of
those is mass-detonating explosives, the other is mass-detonating
explosives with shrapnel, and I can never keep them straight.
Ed
P'rfesser wrote:
>
> William "Chops" Westfield <bi...@ciscoSPMFD.com> wrote:
>
> >There's another theoretical substance "meta-stable helium" that is
> >supposed to be even higher ISP, and a solid at room temperature, but
> >I haven't heard anything along those lines in quite a few years...
>
> >BillW
>
> time. Or even better, how about positronium? Nucleus is a positron,
> with an electron in the orbital. Really good exhaust velocity. Of
> course, the tiny fraction that is ionized at room temp might tend to
> cause the rocket to explode. Taking the planet with it...
>
> Destroying the earth is probably considered Very Bad by most,
> especially when done accidentally as one pursues a hobby.
>
> P'rfesser
Are you discussing ji or a propellant here? B{)
....Ed
Dave/Kristin Hall
The Silent Observer (sil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: To me, this doesn't imply that such a propellant exists -- they
: reference RDX, an existing chemical explosive, but don't specifically
Uh, they said HMX, not RDX (sorry to pick the nits).
: FWIW, the 200% increase in explosive power relative to RDX would exceed
: what I understand to be the theoretical yield of octonitrocubane, the
: most power explosive anyone expects to find anytime soon (which no one
: has yet fully synthesized, though I gather non-nitrated cubanes have
: been made).
The latest, greatest out here is a formulation called CL-20. I'm no
chemist, but what I've gathered is that it's a stressed hydrocarbon that
is based around some sort of carbon *cubic* molecule.
--
David Hall
Propulsion Performance Office
Naval Air Warfare Ctr, Weapons Div
Dave/Kristin Hall
William "Chops" Westfield (bi...@ciscoSPMFD.com) wrote:
: quite sure whether they actually exist yet, much less whether they can be
: manufactured or how they behave (interestingly, the air force apparently
: wants either an exposive OR a propellant - uncharacteristicly flexible of
: them!)
Not really. Most (read: All that I am aware of but I'm willing to admit
that my knowledge is hardly archival.) modern propellants are based on
high explosives. Heck, this is nothing new. Case in point: The Mk-88
(booster for the Nike system) propellant was 50% nitrated cellulose, 35%
nitro-glycerine, and 15% "other" (read: stabilizers). And this was way
back in '64.
-Dave
The Silent Observer
Dave/Kristin Hall wrote:
>
>
> The latest, greatest out here is a formulation called CL-20. I'm no
> chemist, but what I've gathered is that it's a stressed hydrocarbon that
> is based around some sort of carbon *cubic* molecule.
That's the cubane I'm talking about. AFAIK, it's been made in a
tetranitro form, but to date no one has synthesized octonitrocubane...
William Chops
Not really. Most (read: All that I am aware of but I'm willing to admit
that my knowledge is hardly archival.) modern propellants are based on
high explosives. Heck, this is nothing new. Case in point: The Mk-88
(booster for the Nike system) propellant was 50% nitrated cellulose, 35%
nitro-glycerine, and 15% "other" (read: stabilizers). And this was way
back in '64.
Actually, I think this is backward. Most 'modern' propellants are based on
AP composites (just like we use.) The previous generation (of which I
assume there is a lot left) was double-base NC/NG, but apparently it has
storage problems. NG/NC is also a plastic, more or less, and would appear
to have certain manuafacturing advantages, except for the fact that it tends
to explode. Source: Sutton (well, he said something more like AP based
composites are less sensitive during the manufacturing stage...)
Now, there are some AP composite propellants with stuff like HMX added as
well (HMX is the most powerful commonly used explosive, I think), but you're
getting pretty exotic by that time.
Tom Binford
Dave/Kristin Hall wrote:
>
> Uh, they said HMX, not RDX (sorry to pick the nits).
>
> The latest, greatest out here is a formulation called CL-20. I'm no
> chemist, but what I've gathered is that it's a stressed hydrocarbon that
> is based around some sort of carbon *cubic* molecule.
>
> --
> David Hall
> Propulsion Performance Office
> Naval Air Warfare Ctr, Weapons Div
Both RDX and HMX are used in propellants.
Thiokol has a paper on CL-20 visit their site at
<http://www.thiokol.com>
Tom Binford
>>
> The latest, greatest out here is a formulation called CL-20. I'm no
> chemist, but what I've gathered is that it's a stressed hydrocarbon that
> is based around some sort of carbon *cubic* molecule.
Interesting material! I WANT some :-)
StreuB1
All this hubub about polyatomic this and HMX that........the technology and
propellant products already exist for the propellant they want.....what they
are looking for is someone to develop it. The propellants are much more simple
than all you are making them out to be....what they are, basicly, are partially
stabilized explosive compounds...in part. Thats just a few of the ones that the
DoD and DARPA are looking at. The others are actual propellants.....just doing
"VERY" interresting things with them to extract their true energy......and
thats all I'll say at this time. = )
Cheers to all,
Brian
P.S.: At times I talk too much....Ive used refrain here! SEE!
StreuB1
>I can't remember whether they're classed as UN 1.1 or 1.2 (one of
>those is mass-detonating explosives, the other is mass-detonating
>explosives with shrapnel, and I can never keep them straight.
>
>
RDX and HMX are 1.2 MDE's....mines, grenades and the like are 1.1 MDE's.
= )
Just adding a helping hand
Cheers,
Brian
Jerry Irvine
In article <19980214073...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
str...@aol.com (StreuB1) wrote:
> All this hubub about polyatomic this and HMX that........the technology and
> propellant products already exist for the propellant they want.....what they
> are looking for is someone to develop it. The propellants are much more simple
> than all you are making them out to be....what they are, basicly, are
partially
> stabilized explosive compounds...in part. Thats just a few of the ones
that the
> DoD and DARPA are looking at. The others are actual propellants.....just doing
> "VERY" interresting things with them to extract their true energy......and
> thats all I'll say at this time. = )
Send a formula and I'll make a test batch. The company that makes RDX/HMX
is hot to get us as a customr for some reason.
Jerry
1.1 class model rocket propellants anyone?
Jerry Irvine
> RDX and HMX are 1.2 MDE's....mines, grenades and the like are 1.1 MDE's.
Yea, but a 1.1 model rocket motor can be made as long as it "burns" more
than 0.05 sec. So only a portion of the total impulse need be a
detonation. Dual thrust motor?
Just Jerry
Test the limits.
Rchkel
Jerry Irvine wrote:
> In article <19980214073...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> str...@aol.com (StreuB1) wrote:
>
> > All this hubub about polyatomic this and HMX that........the technology and
> > propellant products already exist for the propellant they want.....what they
> > are looking for is someone to develop it. The propellants are much more simple
> > than all you are making them out to be....what they are, basicly, are
> partially
> > stabilized explosive compounds...in part. Thats just a few of the ones
> that the
> > DoD and DARPA are looking at. The others are actual propellants.....just doing
> > "VERY" interresting things with them to extract their true energy......and
> > thats all I'll say at this time. = )
>
> Send a formula and I'll make a test batch. The company that makes RDX/HMX
> is hot to get us as a customr for some reason.
>
Yeah right! send him the formula so he can say he did it first!And whine and stomp
his feet. And say you broke into his garage
and stole it from him! what a great idea!
> Jerry
>
> 1.1 class model rocket propellants anyone?
>
> --
> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California USA
> Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
RichRemember if you order anything from USR BEND OVER BABY!!!!!!!!!!!
Arno Hahma
In article <6c01ar$q...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Mark Johnson <mark.s....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>1. Some weapons systems use RDX or HMX as a rocket propellant
>component...it makes for a bigger 'bang' against the target. Most
I doubt. HMX and RDX are used because they can be used to make less
sensitive propellants than perchlorates. They also create a much lower
signature and still have about as high an ISP as perchlorate
propellants have. Drawbacks are high cost, difficult processability and
difficulties in keeping the ballistic properties constant from batch to
batch. BTW, HMX and RDX propellants are frequently called LOVA, i.e.
LOw VulnerAbility propellants.
>commonly, these are NOT airlaunched systems as there's too much danger
>of explosion 'on the wing' of the carrying aircraft. You wouldn't want
I think that is not an issue here. It is just that the RDX/HMX
propellants offer no advantage as signature is not a problem anyway
(the plane usually has at least as large a signature as the missile it
launches).
>2. RDX and HMX are both classed as high explosives and are no way, no
>how, ever, going to be approved by DOT as consumer rocket propellants.
Yes, but the propellants made out of them can be non-detonable.
Provided, they are correctly made, of course.
ArNO
2
Arno Hahma
In article <6c0r1l$jkh$2...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>,
Dave/Kristin Hall <theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>: most power explosive anyone expects to find anytime soon (which no one
>: has yet fully synthesized, though I gather non-nitrated cubanes have
>: been made).
Hexa and heptanitrocubanes have already been made, on milligram scale,
though. Tetranitrocubane is relatively easy to make, but is slightly
less powerful than HMX or RDX.
>The latest, greatest out here is a formulation called CL-20. I'm no
>chemist, but what I've gathered is that it's a stressed hydrocarbon that
>is based around some sort of carbon *cubic* molecule.
CL-20 or HNIW is a caged hexanitramine with 6 carbons and 6 nitrogens.
It is made by condensing benzylamine with glyoxal to get the skeleton
and then exchanging the N-benzyl groups into nitro groups.
Unfortunately, that is pretty difficult to do in high yield and in any
case, you will have to use more than 10 kg of chemicals for each 1 kg
of CL-20 made because of the large size of the benzyl protecting
groups.
CL-20 is very powerful, but only about 10..15 % more than HMX. Thus, it
offers quite little improvement over HMX, except in shaped charge
applications. ADN (ammonium dinitramide) is a better choice for
propellants.
>David Hall
ArNO
2