Posts: 159
From: Westcliffe, CO
Registered: Jun 2006

Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

Posts: 1933
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007

Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted 09-01-2012 11:38 PM               

---

If memory serves from some stuff I read on solid propellants in the Army, I think they were polysulfide based composite solids. Pretty stable stuff as opposed to a liquid propellant of almost any kinds, but still I wouldn't want it in any building I was in.

If it touched off in the state it's in, it'd probably act as a low explosive that can obviously generate a LOT of heat and pressure.

Maybe they've stabilized it somehow, but I'm no chemist so I wouldn't have a clue how they'd render it safe. That said, I'd think they'd HAVE to safe it in some manner, otherwise a spectator with the right equipment could kill himself, everyone immediately around them and destroy a substantial part of the building in the process.

I can't go into details, but I personally had to help out on an incident report once where someone accidentally set off a similar propellant type by accident. They didn't find much of the person to ID as human afterward.

I'd like to know how this stuff got rendered safe.

Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 09-02-2012 08:36 AM               

---

I am 100% sure that there is no AP in that section of "propellant". It's most likely just the binder PBAN or HTPB (rubber) with or without the fuel (aluminum).

Oxidizer-less propellant is what is used in inert solid rocket motors, like those used by shuttle program to perform the mated vertical ground vibration tests and functional validation tests at KSC and VAFB.

Posts: 159
From: Westcliffe, CO
Registered: Jun 2006

posted 09-02-2012 10:37 AM               

---

To answer the questions about it's potency, I was provided a 10 page report along with the artifact. It states that samples were removed and sent to the Army Laboratory on Redstone Arsenal and Marshal Space Flight Center Test Area for testing. Scans were taken and sent to a spectrochemical analyst in Promontory, Utah. The final paragraph in the analysis states that:

Based on all the testing accomplished on the small amount of material taken from the rocket motor, all indications show the material to be inert.

That being said, when we picked up the artifact, we were told that we should treat it as non explosive but slightly flammable. It is 40+ years old and has been sitting in storage, uncovered for quite some time.

Just for safety's sake, we also added a no smoking sign on top of the display.

We are obviously very pleased to be able to display it here as I've not seen anything like it displayed elsewhere. If anyone knows of a similar display, please share it with me.

Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

Posts: 281
From: Belleville, IL
Registered: Jun 2011

Posts: 159
From: Westcliffe, CO
Registered: Jun 2006

Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 09-03-2012 05:47 AM               

---

Ammonium perchlorate as used in solid fuel (it is an oxidizer) requires a very hot spark to light. A few years ago, the BATF erroneously classified the stuff as "low explosive" meaning that a lot of high powered rocketeers were temporarily in a bind as they required a permit and an explosives bunker to store the stuff. A lot of leg work by people working for the Tripoli High Powered Rocketry association and NAR got a judge to overturn the ruling as it was determined that the science they used to classify it as "low explosive" was junk science. The BATF decided to not appeal the ruling.

A buddy of mine in Tripoli had an ash tray made from Ammonium Perchlorate solid fuel. As a demonstration as to how safe and stable the stuff is, he would put out a lit cigarette in the thing. It practically needs something like a very hot firework or explosive to light and it burns hot as opposed to "exploding" if there is nothing to channel the buildup of pressure. In very large quantities and under high heat loads, it could explode I believe in its pure powder form (as what happened in the PEPCON plant explosion in 1988). But it apparently can't "explode" in its solid fuel form when mixed with aluminum powder and the other additives. By comparison, gasoline vapors and a lit match are MUCH more dangerous.

Posts: 12
From: Huntsville, AL
Registered: Mar 2011

posted 09-04-2012 08:49 AM               

---

We were concerned about the very same issues when we began to consider the loan out to the Southern Colorado Space Museum. We feel confident that the NASA and US Army report is correct and accurate regarding the inert nature of the sample.

Please also be assured that the handling of the sample was done taking the appropriate precautions for health and personal safety.

Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007

Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 09-04-2012 09:58 AM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ilbasso:
Was pondering the relative safety of solid fuel propellant, and then recalling that when the Shuttle program started in earnest, all offices in the VAB were closed and the tenants relocated because of the danger faced by having live propellant (SRB's) in the building.

---

Surely the danger presented by the SRBs was that they were loaded with fuel, not that the solid fuel was more dangerous than liquid rocket fuel.

In other words the SRBs are never empty (except after use) while the fuel tanks in a liquid fueled rocket are never full until just before launch, when everyone has been cleared from the immediate vicinity.

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 09-06-2012 07:16 AM               

---

Yes, the shuttle era VAB restrictions were due to the storage of fully fueled SRB segments in the VAB. During Apollo, the VAB was ONLY used to stack empty rocket stages. The fuelling was all done at the pad. So more people could tour the VAB facilities during Apollo without the security restrictions that were in place for shuttle. Sure, some elements such as the pyros and LES would be fuelled of course, but the arming systems likely would be left out until the vehicle was delivered to the pad. Even if solid fuel doesn't explode and needs a hot spark to light it, you really don't want an SRB segment to cook off as the resulting fire would be pretty intense.

As far as offices and desks within the VAB, to my knowledge there was some shuffling done. But not everyone who had an office in the VAB necessarily got cleared out. As I understand it, the offices for those people that had to be in the VAB (directly involved with the day to day operations of preparing shuttle stacks for flight) continued to have desk space in the VAB. They all just had to pass more stringent security background checks first.