https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UN_numbers_0301_to_0400
UN 1.1D for HE?
jd
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of George Herbert
Sent: dinsdag 24 mei 2016 11:21
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: LOX-Methane Kabooms
Yes. The worst worst case would be complete, effective mixing of the
propellants to a single mass of liquid, slush, or gel which is
catastrophically detonatable in bulk. Ignition could rapidly cause
detonation in bulk.
That would be HE 1.3 equivalent. Plus some as it's more energetic than TNT
per kilo.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On May 24, 2016, at 2:09 AM, "John Dom" <johndom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:right?
The ATF website relates to high explosives, rather than rocket fuels,
jd
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Herbert
Sent: dinsdag 24 mei 2016 7:49
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: LOX-Methane Kabooms
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/555218-table-distances-storage-explosiv
e-mate
rials-high
300k lbs is 2,275 ft to occupied buildings. And more than a bit liberal.
That will at least blow windows in that far away...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On May 23, 2016, at 8:41 PM, Wyatt Rehder <wyatt.rehder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:<John.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well explosive quantity safety distance for up to around 1 million
pounds of 1.3 is around 500 feet if I recall correctly, liquids are
typically treated as 1.3. Usually bipropellant liquids rate much
lower on the danger scale than conventional explosives. Main reason
being most liquid anomalies are almost exclusively deflagrations.
Mostly because physical events of a crash prevent much mixing taking
place irregardless of the miscibility of the two liquids. Usually
everything is on fire before it has enough time to mix much.
It would be a rare event that would see significant mixing. Perhaps
if both tanks burst on the pad without igniting you could get some
mixing, but then it doesn't really matter since the standard standoff
distance is 2 miles for any kind of orbital rocket. If the rocket got
any altitude off the pad it is nearly guaranteed to ignite on
crashing.
The explosive safety quantity distance for 225,000 lbs of 1.1
explosives is either 1500 or 2000 ft I cant remember off the top of
my head.
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:16 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I see a need for some testing.
Cough.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On May 23, 2016, at 7:24 PM, John Schilling
Question for the group mind: Has anyone out there come across a
formal methodology and/or experimental data for determining the TNT
equivalence of a LOX-Methane propellant explosion?
Not, I hasten to add, a deliberately premixed one - I think I
classified that potential blend as an "insanely dangerous" mixed
monopropellant in my Space Access talk. But we've now got multiple
launch providers talking about flying LOX-Methane bipropellant out
of the major ranges, and people are starting to ask for specifics
about how big an explosion you might get in a worst-case accident.
Which presumably would be a low-velocity crash right next to (or
back onto!) the pad after an early engine cutoff, tank rupture and
no immediate ignition so the potential for extensive mixing
followed by detonation. LOX and methane are fully miscible as
liquids at typical storage temperatures, and not hypergolic, so the
usual explanations of why we can't get 100% mixing and full
theoretical energy release don't hold.
With LOX-Kerosene, for example, the "maximum credible event"
is assessed at about 10% of theoretical yield partly on the grounds
that the kerosene will freeze as it mixes.
I would expect that LOX-Methane would be somewhere between 10% and
100% of theoretical yield in a worst-case crash, but that covers a
fairly broad range - and at 100% theoretical yield, it probably
covers an impractical amount of the Cape in the blast zone. So,
looking for the least troublesome way to narrow that estimate, and
if that comes down to "Yeah, the experiments are a bitch but the
guys at White Sands did that in 1963...", this might be a place to
ask.
John Schilling
john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(661) 718-0955