[AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?

  • From: "Troy Prideaux" <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:24:35 +1000

Yeah, much has changed *in general industry* since then with static mixing
becoming more and more common. It might be only a matter of time before the
technology works through to the larger solids although it's far from a
given.

Troy

-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf
Of Henry Spencer
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 12:35 PM
To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, Troy Prideaux wrote:
For really big stuff, it would make more sense (to me) to employ
static mixing technology instead of large planetary.

Continuous-flow mixing (don't know exactly what technology) was planned
for
ASRM, the post-Challenger attempt at an improved SRB.  At the time, it was
considered a significant development risk, so I gather it hadn't been done
before
for solid-rocket fuels.



Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. arocket
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2023