™
Go UP young man!
8/12/2009: Burst
Test, 350 psi
Two
weekends ago we got out to do the burst test of the oxidizer tank. It burst on the side of the top dome
section just above 350 psi, which is close to what we were expecting given
the manufacturer’s original rating of 75psi operating pressure and 4x
safety factor. 350 psi burst
pressure would allow 175 psi operating pressure at 2x safety factor, but
since we’ve only burst one so we don’t know the variability from
piece to piece. So for now we’re
going to proof test to 300 psi and operate at 150. Someday we may burst several to get
closer to the real upper bound but 150 psi will be fine for now. Another nice result from the test is
that the main tank was what burst so none of the fittings are the weakest
link. |
|
7/7/2009: Hybrid
Ignition Test
This
past weekend I got out to test the hybrid grain catalytic ignition system
with a more realistic setup of pressurized oxidizer flow as opposed to just
pouring on peroxide at ambient pressure.
Setup for the test went fine.
When I opened the main valve there was a white exhaust cloud, then a
bang about as loud as a gunshot and the lower part of the rocket burst into
flames. Not
a completely successful test, but when I looked at the video frame by frame
it wasn’t a complete failure either. To the left are links to video of the
firing and stills of a few frames.
Peroxide started to flow between frames 5 and 6, and came out as a
poorly decomposed white cloud, which is what I was expecting. The catalyst won’t fully
decompose the peroxide.
It’s just meant to make it hot enough to ignite the fuel, which
then burns with the undecomposed peroxide just like a nitrous or LOX
hybrid. In frame 13, the cloud is
still all white, which is what you would expect from decomposing peroxide,
but in frame 14 there is a yellow glow at the nozzle, which is what you would
expect from the paper fuel grain burning. I believe that the grain did ignite
properly between frames 13 and 14.
Unfortunately, by frame 15 the nozzle is obscured by the exhaust cloud
so I only have one frame of video that shows this. In frame 19 the grain had a
burnthrough. Examining the grain
after the test, there were gaping holes near the injector. For this test, I built a simple hybrid
grain out of a roll of paper. I
knew it wouldn’t hold up for a long burn, but I was hoping I could fire
it for a couple seconds to verify ignition. I guess not. The peroxide decomposed in monoprop
mode for 8 frames (266ms, the video is 30 frames per second), then ignited
and burned for 5 frames (166ms) before burning through. What
did I learn from this test? First
of all I feel very good about my oxidizer tank design. It performed flawlessly. The structure and plumbing on this tank
did get damaged by the fire. If I
wanted to use it again I would basically have to rebuild it. But in building this first one
I’ve figured out improvements I would make on the next one. I knew this tank would be damaged or
taken out of service eventually and when that happened I planned to burst
test it to give me an idea of the real burst pressure of the design. That time has come. I’m
still optimistic about the catalytic ignition system. I think it worked just fine and the
cause of the burnthrough was totally unrelated to the ignition. However I certainly don’t have
conclusive evidence yet. I need
to have an unambiguously successful test. My
plan for now is to work on developing a flight-like hybrid grain and testing
it with a simpler non-flight-like oxidizer tank. Then, when the grain is ready
I’ll build the second generation flight-like oxidizer tank. I haven’t been able to find
anyone with experience designing hybrid grains to help on the project
yet. If I do find someone that
would be great, but I think I’m going to start down the longer road of
building up my own expertise with incremental testing. Also,
you may have noticed from the video that this test did not take place at
Frontier Astronautics missile silo.
I don’t have the budget anymore to pay Frontier Astronautics
like I did for the work on the Laramie Rose. They have been very accommodating and
have done some things on a volunteer basis, but that wasn’t workable
for them anymore. So I am going
to be doing most of the work without them, and maybe occasionally pay to do
some testing at the silo when access to the infrastructure is worth it. I do have a couple friends here in
Laramie who are interested in the project and helped me with this test. And I have gotten volunteers from the
university engineering department before. Hopefully, I can build this into a
sustainable group that can make some significant accomplishments. |
|
6/7/2009: Static
Fire
Last
weekend we finally got out to static test the Laramie Rose engine. This was the first time we fired the
engine since taking it apart to inspect it and putting it together again. Everything worked just fine, which was
a positive sign. Another
purpose for this test was to measure the full thrust of the engine with a
tank pressure of 400 psi. We did
two tests. One with 80% peroxide
that fired for 32 seconds, and one with 90% peroxide that fired for 28
seconds. The engine was not
glowing red at the end of the 90% test.
The video of the 90% test is to the left. The 80% test didn’t look any
different. In both tests, the data
collection system for the load cells had some error that caused it to stop
collecting data a few seconds into the firing. Since we don’t have data for the
whole firing, any calculation of Isp would have too many assumptions to be
reliable. But we did get a good
measurement of the thrust at the beginning of the test. For
the 80% test, after it ramped up it went to 1000 pounds of thrust for 1.3
seconds, then settled down to 750 pounds. I think the 1000 pounds was an initial
inrush that got more peroxide in the engine than what is sustainable under
steady state conditions. The real
full throttle thrust is 750. For
the 90% test, this inrush pulse didn’t occur. It ramped up to 900 pounds of thrust
and stayed there. This
was a little puzzling because we had previously thought we recorded 1100
pounds of thrust with 90% peroxide at 300 psi (see news entry for
9/16/07). I looked back at the
data for that test. That was a
short test, and it seems to have experienced the same inrush pulse as the 80%
test did this time. There was a
plateau at 1100 pounds, and then another plateau at 900 pounds. Because the test was so short I had
convinced myself that the 900 pound plateau was part of the ramp down. There’s still a small puzzle as
to why the engine would make 900 pounds of thrust at 300 psi and still only
900 pounds at 400 psi. One
explanation is that we just put the engine together tighter this time
creating more pressure drop and less thrust. The bright side of that is it should
be good for catalyzation efficiency and engine durability. The
big answer is that we have an engine that can make 900 pounds of thrust. In order to fly for 90 seconds we
would need a completely full tank of peroxide, and the liftoff weight would
be 1900 pounds. There’s no
way we are going to bridge this gap with small tweaks. Competing in the LLC will require a
new engine with different geometry.
We can do short hovers with a partial peroxide load with what
we’ve got. I don’t
plan to spend on a new engine until going as far as we can with the current
hardware. |
|
4/23/2009: Hybrid
Catalyst Test
I’ve finally gotten to
test the hybrid grain catalyst system developed by Swift Enterprises. This is a catalyst that is applied to
the surface of a hybrid fuel grain.
When the peroxide hits the catalyst it decomposes, which creates
enough heat to ignite the fuel.
This gives the simplicity of a monopropellant system, open one valve
and you get thrust, with better Isp.
The catalyst is expendable, but it’s not expensive.
I made up a test coupon with
paper for the fuel. The video on
the left shows the result of pouring peroxide on it. There is a delay of about two seconds
before the paper ignites, which is normally more than you would like, but I
think this won’t be a serious issue because the peroxide starts
decomposing immediately. The
chamber won’t fill up with liquid oxidizer. Instead it will operate in
monopropellant mode until it ignites.
The next step is to do a real
ignition test with peroxide flowing from a pressurized tank through a real
fuel grain.
|
|
1/3/2009: Laramie
Rose & upper stage progress
Nothing much happened between
the last update and the Lunar Lander Challenge in October. Since then, we’ve started
working on Laramie Rose again. We
found two things that need to be fixed.
The IMU wasn’t communicating. We sent it back to Crossbow, and they
found that its I/O board wasn’t working, which they can replace. Separately, a circuit for driving the
pressurization valve wasn’t working. We’ve still got to look at
it. It may be a blown
transistor. Both of these were
working in June the last time we tried to test. There may have been some kind of ESD
event that caused both of these.
We’ll fix these and get back to testing when we can.
The plan for the next few tests
is first to do a static test fire because we took the engine apart to inspect
it and haven’t fired it since putting it back together. Then we should be ready for some
tethered hovers to test the position control aspects of the ACS. After that we will try a short
hover-in-place free flight. At
that point we will assess our chances to win second prize in level 1 of the
LLC and decide if we want to embark on the envelope expansion test program to
fly the LLC trajectory.
We are making progress on the
upper stage as well. The oxidizer
tank is cleaned and assembled. We
pressure tested it and found two leaks.
One was a fitting that needed to be tightened. The other was a ball valve that was
leaking through. I think what
happened with the ball valve was after cleaning it still had some distilled
water left in it. It was stored
in an unheated breezeway where the temperature got below freezing. The ice expanded as it froze and
ruined a seal. This is something
for people working with peroxide and rinsing equipment with distilled water
to be careful about. We may also
need to take precautions against cold soak at high altitude when the stage is
launched.
|
|
7/9/2008: Testing
Anomalies, SpeedUp out of NGLLC for 2008, New Product Release
Since the last update we've had a few testing anomalies. On April 19th we attempted another tethered hover, and the computer rebooted in mid-flight. Our abort system worked as intended. The normally-open spring-return vent valve opened and vented the peroxide tank, which terminated thrust. The tethers caught the vehicle and nothing was damaged. But we had to figure out the cause of that before testing again. Eventually, we tracked it down to a power system issue. Almost everything on the vehicle runs on 24 VDC, including the computer, but the radio modem needs 12 VDC. The computer has a power converter to generate various voltages for its own use including 12 VDC so we just powered the modem directly off that. When the batteries were low this power converter couldn't keep up with powering both the computer and the modem and eventually the voltage dipped to the point where the computer rebooted. The computer would run fine with the modem off, and we could get it to reboot by just turning the modem on. This happened when the batteries were partially drained, but still at a level where we hope to be able to operate. The solution is to get the modem its own 12 VDC converter and be vigilant about charging the batteries. While figuring that out we took the time to take the engine apart and look at it. Things in the catalyst pack had shifted around. We added more silver screens and put it back together. I wonder if catalyst packs really have the ability to be an infinite lifetime, low maintenance reusable part. On the other hand, it's nice how gracefully the performance degraded. We were probably slowly losing Isp with each successive firing, but we never noticed. On June 21st we were ready to test again, but we had another anomaly. There is a pin on the shaft of our throttle valve and jet vane actuators that touches a limit switch to define the home position. The pin on the throttle valve actuator broke off when we were running the vehicle startup sequence. It seems that the repeated flexing from touching the limit switch combined with the oxidizing environment down by the engine eventually weakened it. The pins were case hardened steel, and we're going to change them to spring steel to hopefully avoid this problem in the future. Nothing besides the pin was damaged and no one was hurt, but it does underscore how unexpected problems come up. If we were doing a free flight when these things happened, either of these anomalies could have caused loss of vehicle. We are not going to compete in the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge in 2008. The registration deadline was late this year, and by that point it was clear that we were not going to make it so I avoided paying the registration fee. It's really a combination of budget and schedule standing in our way. We're low on money, which has caused us to go slower this year than last year. And at this point we wouldn't have the time to be ready even if we had more money. The anomalies were just the final thing that sealed it. We have made a lot of progress this year, though. The vehicle is basically hardware complete except for a small wish list of improvements, and we have started tether testing. There's a lot of time spent just on things like making the tethers that is now out of the way. And finally, SpeedUp is releasing its first product. It's a peroxide compatible propellant tank. The full description is on the home page. This is part of the design that we plan to eventually make into an expendable upper stage. I thought there may be some interest in the tank itself, and it's something that we have in hand right now without needing to do any more R&D. This would be an easy way for a project to get a head start for working with peroxide. |
|
4/11/2008: First Tethered
Hover
On March 24th we performed the first tethered hover of the Laramie Rose. We're starting slowly and we've got a long way to go, but the initial results are promising. We had the computer only try to control the orientation of the vehicle, not its position. As you can see in the video, the vehicle remains upright but drifts to the side, which is exactly what you would expect without position control. The orientation control was very good. Even when the vehicle hits the limits of the tethers and they are pulling on it diagonally, which would cause the vehicle to tip, it remains upright until we cut the throttle. |
|
|
|
2/24/2008: Work
Continues
We have been busily making progress on the Laramie Rose in preparation for the first tethered tests. On the left is a photo from the 16th when we had ten people out working: myself, my dad, three Frontier partners, and five volunteers. Yesterday the vehicle computer booted up with on-board power for the first time. We should be doing a plugs-out (no ground support equipment) hot fire test very soon. On a human interest note, my dad, who is also named Bob Steinke, has become much more involved in the project. He modified a trailer to transport the Laramie Rose a little more conveniently than what we had for the X PRIZE Cup last year. The trailer is in the background to the right of the rocket. So there are two father/son namesake teams in the lunar lander challenge. |
|
|
1/20/2008: Test
Stand or Tuning Fork?
In previous tests we had seen noise in our thrust measurements like the top graph on the left. At first, I thought it was electrical noise or the engine was running rough, but someone had the bright idea that maybe it was vibrations in the test stand. Last week we did a test firing and increased our data sampling rate from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz and sure enough there is a 32 Hz vibration as seen in the middle graph. Everything is working fine. The engine is not running rough, and the load cells are accurately measuring the forces, including the forces from the vibration. Now that our sampling rate is faster than the frequency of the vibration we can postprocess it out of the data and we get nice looking graphs like the one on the bottom. In addition to testing the high data rate, we mapped the side forces of the jet vanes. We fired the engine 12 times for a total of 70 seconds using 90% peroxide. Our jet vanes are showing no signs of wear. On one of those firings we got to try out some freshly made peroxide form X-L Space Systems. It will be nice to have two independent suppliers of peroxide, one of them local. Unfortunately, a faulty pressure sensor caused us to set our regulator too low and we did not determine a new maximum thrust. We're close to being ready to start tether testing, so we're going to work on that for a while and defer the thrust issue. |
1/6/2008:
Pressure Test to 600 psig
Well, it's taken a while to get going again after the X PRIZE Cup. One of the outstanding issues with the vehicle is demonstrating enough thrust to lift off with a full tank of fuel. We've decided to take the simplest route for upthrusting and just increase the tank pressure. This weekend we pressure tested the propellant tank to 600 psig, the manufacturers certified minimum burst pressure, intending to operate at 400 psig. This is slightly less conservative than the 300 psig we had intended to operate at, but it still provides a safety factor of 1.5, which I feel is sufficient for an unmanned vehicle that is remotely pressurized. The engine and plumbing were intentionally overbuilt and have plenty of safety factor at this new pressure. The pressure test went fine, and since we had to fill the tank with distilled water for the pressure test we took the opportunity to weigh the water with the test stand load cells. We got 847 pounds of water in the tank, which converts to 1186 pounds of 90% peroxide. This is a little better than the 1150 number I had been using, and should give us about an extra second of hover time. Our margins are still somewhat thin, but they are positive, and I believe if we can get the thrust we will be able to fly for 90 seconds. We also have various weight saving strategies in our back pockets. For example, by simply using helium instead of nitrogen we can save around 30 pounds without making any change to the vehicle. It would be more expensive, but if we need those 30 pounds to win the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge we can get them. |
|
11/17/07: See Your
Name in the Sky
We are still seeking sponsors to help fund our vehicle development. In addition to corporate sponsorships we are initiating a program for people to put their name or a short message (up to 30 characters) on the Laramie Rose for only $25. As a souvenir, sponsors will receive a photocard of the rocket with their name or wording visible. This is your chance to see your name in the sky! In order to get the cards in time for Christmas, we must receive your checks or money orders by December 10th. Simply send payment to 2207 Rainbow Ave, Laramie, WY 82070. Include the name or words you want to appear on the rocket. We reserve the right to refuse unacceptable political, religious or profane language. If you wish to receive a photocard, please include your address with your payment and wording. |
|
|
|
11/17/07:
SpeedUp Still in the Running, Lunar Lander Prize Money Goes Unclaimed
We displayed the Laramie Rose at the X PRIZE Cup. It went very well. The vehicle hardware is 99% complete so it made a good display. There were a lot of people at the Cup, and we got a lot of compliments. We also got some practice with transporting the rocket over long distances. That's something that takes a lot of practice to get running smoothly. Going through everything we did this year will be very helpful for next year even though we didn't fly. As everyone knows, none of the prize money was won. We plan to be back to compete next year. As I said, our hardware is 99% complete. We also have some operations experience having static fired the vehicle and transported it to the cup. On the regulatory front, we got to a sufficiently complete permit application. The big thing that needs to be done is software development and integrated vehicle testing to get it flying the way we want. I feel confident that we're at least 50% done overall, which was all done within a year, so we should be able to be ready for next year's cup. Of course, there's a big difference between just barely being ready in time and having months to practice. We'll try to fly a competition trajectory as soon as possible to give us that extra time. It will still probably be June or July before we are flying 90 second free flights. And as Armadillo's experience shows, no amount of being ready can absolutely prevent unexpected problems. It's really made me stop and think about how environmental differences could affect our vehicle. Our monopropellant engine has almost no chance to hard start, but the bigger lesson is that even after working perfectly 30 times, some subtle difference can make an engine fail 3 times out of 5. How will companies in the new space industry ensure that their 1001st flight works just like the 1000th? The real answer to that is to design the vehicles so that no single failure is catastrophic. |
9/16/2007:
SpeedUp Will Display the Laramie Rose at the 2007 Northrop Grumman Lunar
Lander Challenge
Despite all of our progress it has become clear over the past months that we will not be ready to fly the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge trajectory in time for the Wirefly X PRIZE Cup. This is a little sad, and I'm both jealous and excited for the other teams still in the running. I'm looking into still doing a tethered hover demonstration at the cup. However, the financial costs of the logistics and insurance may make me decide against it. In any case, the Laramie Rose will be there on display. Looking back, I would say that the single biggest factor that prevented us from making it was a cycle time that was too long. I originally imagined weekly tests, but since we first fired the small thruster in February we've had 8 hot fire tests in 8 months. With each test we would learn something and have changes to make before it was worth testing again. Even with a perfect test we would want to add new functionality before the next test. These changes would always take at least a couple weeks plus delays with getting parts delivered, etc. There are some things about hardware that just take longer than software. Some day I will work for a rocket company that keeps at least one stable build at all times and goes out to fly it every day, rain or shine. |
|
9/16/2007:
First Test Firing With 90% HTP
This update is a little late because we actually did this test on August 18. We fired the engine with 90% HTP for the first time. The burn lasted only 6 seconds. It produced 1100 pounds of thrust at an Isp of 95 seconds. Nothing melted, and the jet vanes held up fine. The engine was not glowing red hot at the end of the burn. We'll have to have some longer burns before we can declare complete success, but this is a promising sign. |
|
8/1/2007:
SpeedUp's Permit Application Declared Complete Enough
SpeedUp’s application for an experimental permit has been declared complete enough for AST to start the official review process. This is obviously later than would be required for the 120 day window to close before the X PRIZE Cup, but AST has been very good at working to get approvals done in time for external deadlines. This is an important milestone to have reached. I'm not sure why they changed the wording. To me, sufficiently complete sounds a lot more official than complete enough, and the semantics seem exactly the same. |
|
7/31/2007:
First Test Firing With Thrust Measurement
After working out all of the issues from the previous test we had a test firing last week that gave us our first direct thrust measurement with the load cells. Here's what we learned from the data. The catalyst pack has more pressure drop than we thought. The maximum thrust we produced was 550 lbf. All of the measured forces are with the jet vanes in place so they include the jet vane drag losses. We were hoping to produce 1500 lbf with this level of tank pressure. Thrust levels from previous tests were determined analytically using a calculated catalyst pack pressure drop for a measured mass flow rate. The relationship between thrust, chamber pressure, and tank pressure is pretty nonlinear where we're operating so we don't need anywhere near triple our tank pressure to triple our thrust, but it is an open question how much we will be able to increase the thrust. This test had a tank pressure of 250 psi, and we can go to 300 and still have a 2x safety factor on the tank burst strength. This test also used 80% HTP. When we go to 90% it will reduce the volumetric flow needed for the liquid fraction of the decomposing propellant so it should reduce catalyst pack pressure drop somewhat. On the other hand, our plumbing doesn't have enough pressure drop. When we opened our throttle valve past 38 degrees the thrust became very rough. At 38 degrees we are already producing over 500 lbf of thrust so there wasn't much pressure drop left through the ball valve. I think that we are suffering from pressure instability in the catalyst pack similar to a biprop without enough injector pressure drop. We will probably just operate with the ball valve partly closed all the time to ensure sufficient pressure drop. We do know that we can stably produce at least 500 pounds of thrust at an Isp of 78 seconds with 80% HTP, and those numbers include jet vane losses. It's a positive test and we will continue forward from here. |
|
7/6/2007:
SpeedUp Granted 26 Second Burn Time Waiver
SpeedUp petitioned AST for a waiver of the regulatory requirement of obtaining a launch license for flights at Frontier Astronautics' launch site that have a burn duration of up to 26 seconds, but otherwise satisfy the definition of amateur activities. The waiver was granted. The primary requirement for granting this waiver was the fact that the rocket will be contained by physics to an uninhabited area. This was the determining factor in the propellant load and thus the maximum burn time. The actual flights won't be 26 seconds. They will be more like 23 seconds with a little reserve propellant. |
|
|
|
7/6/2007:
Video of Static Fire Test
Here is the video of the static fire test from a week ago Wednesday. The test was a throttling test with no jet vanes. Because we invited outside people, the date for the test was set well ahead of time, and the functionality was flexible. The test was well received by the crowd and we are very happy with it. After a warmup pulse that is not shown in the video we ran a script that started with the throttle ball valve in the closed position and opened it over the course of 30 seconds in 5 degree steps until it was fully open. At the beginning of the test there is a slight delay because at the first two positions, 5 and 10 degrees, the ball valve had not cracked open yet. Then the exhaust starts to flow, but the throat is unchoked. As the throttle opens further you can hear a short whistle when the flow chokes and the engine noise changes noticeably. Then there is a very smooth run and shutdown with another whistle at the end when the flow unchokes. Then, at the end we vent the pressurant from the propellant tank. We have a large vent valve because venting the tank is one part of our thrust termination safety system. This was the first time we had used this vent valve. We should have told people to keep their hearing protection in because it was surprisingly loud. There were two issues that came up. The first was a small leak out of the upper flange of the catalyst chamber. In the video you can just barely see it on the upper left of the engine. The leak didn't occur on our other static fire tests, but the engine had been taken apart and put back together since then. We're investigating and will decide what to do about this. The most likely thing is we will try some different gasket materials. Also, I'm pleased at what a benign failure mode it was. There was no fire, no explosion. The engine even kept producing thrust while it was leaking. The other issue is that our load cells were not properly isolated from ground so we didn't get any data from them. So we still don't have a measured thrust and Isp, but because the plume is so clear I'm confident we're getting good decomposition. |
6/29/2007: Media Coverage
of Static Fire Test
Two days ago we conducted a static fire test and invited the media. Yesterday we were on the front page of the three largest newspapers in Wyoming: the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, the Casper Star-Tribune, and the Laramie Boomerang. We also made the local news on KGWN channel 5 in Cheyenne, but apparently they don't archive permalinks to their stories. The actual test went well too. Pictures and video will be coming soon. |
|
3/27/2007: Main
Engine Fired
The main engine is complete for our Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge vehicle. Here's a movie of the first test firing that we did recently. Everything worked great. The engine ran smoothly and we are very happy with the test. This test used 80 percent peroxide and was done at a lower pressure than we expect to use in the competition so it did not have the full thrust and Isp. But stay tuned. We'll be testing the engine at full throttle soon. The next step after that is to set up the test stand for hardware in the loop testing with the core of the vehicle including jet vanes for thrust vector control. |
|
|
|
2/22/2007: 20lbf
Thruster Fired
As a confidence building measure we purchased a small peroxide monoprop thruster kit from Peroxide Propulsion, and a small Structural Polyglass propellant tank of the same materials and manufacture as our eventual vehicle propellant tank. We have fired this combination of propellant tank and thruster at the Frontier Astronautics test site in Wyoming and achieved 20lbf of thrust. This engine is not meant for use on the prototype vehicle. It is merely to increase our experience base. The thruster kit was designed for use as a helicopter or gyroplane rotor tip rocket where the catalyst is held firmly in place by centrifugal force as the blade spins. This was not the case in our test setup so there was some pulsing that is noticeable in the video. Our engine for the prototype vehicle is of a different design and we do not expect to see this problem on that engine. Despite the pulsing the engine worked fine. After an initial warmup the peroxide was fully catalyzed and the exhaust jet was clear. |
1/27/2007:
SpeedUp™ will be entering the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge
at the 2007 Wirefly X-Prize Cup
|
|
|
|
10/2/2006: First
peroxide delivery received
We have received our first delivery of peroxide from Peroxide Propulsion. In the photo on the left you can see the blue carboys which hold the peroxide. They are being stored in the "oxidizer room" at Frontier Astronautics' spaceport which used to hold the liquid oxygen for the ICBM when it was an active missile silo. The shipment took a full two months from payment to delivery. Shipping hazardous materials internationally by sea has a long lead time. We hope to be able to shorten this time a little having done this once now so we know better what we are doing. But mostly we will need to figure this lead time into our plans and order more well before we run out. We also received two catalysts from Peroxide Propulsion and performed some reactivity tests on them. One was solid silver screen, and one was platinum plated ceramic. The silver screen is currently available from Peroxide Propulsion's web site, and the platinum/ceramic was a sample of a new product which will soon be available. On the left there is a link to a movie of the interesting parts of the tests. The silver initially just made the peroxide foam slowly, but when it warmed up the peroxide suddenly flashed to steam. The platinum/ceramic was even more reactive making even small drops of peroxide flash to steam without any warmup period. |
|
|
8/19/2006:
SpeedUpWorld.com website launched
We're finally on the web! We've been busy doing lots of prep work that always has to be done before you can make any real progress. But we've got our first shipment of peroxide on its way to Chugwater so we hope to have some more interesting news to report soon. |
