On Aug 6, 7:40 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I did a post to Steve a few days ago about that, it went to cyber-
heaven,
(I hardly think it was rejected, if so, moderators, please advise the
group).
Check the documentation on Oct 1 2005 here,
http://sugarshot.org/
(Report on Project "Phase One" Findings)

If this works it will really surprise me, as I played around with
"carmel candy" rocket propellant, and I don't think it has anywhere near
the specific impulse to get a rocket into space, particularly a
single-stage rocket (it is single stage, isn't it?) You know,
sulfer-zinc is a amauter propellant also, and it's got a lot better
specific impulse than "carmel candy".
For that matter, even black powder might be better.
Then they are going to try to recover the vehicle, with all the added
weight and complexity that that concept entails.
To give you some idea of the mismatch of fuel and expected performance I
foresee, they are trying to achieve superior altitude to the WAC
Corporal sounding rocket of around the same size with its booster (which
topped out at around 50 miles). And it used liquid fuel and a
solid-fueled booster to get even _that_ high.
Pat

Well Pat, rocket systems engineers test the components on the
ground as best they can, then integrate components and stages
for the full up vertical launch and flight, based on a lot of theory
and
testing, such as the Saturn V and the Shuttle System, that worked
very well. I understand the Ares 1 is having vibration problems that
may become a serious problem.

In the case of the Sugar Shot to Space team they have been planning
and testing for over 3 years, using IMHO solid engineering and theory,
and are learning by scaling up, so tough stuff like vibrations and
resonance is to measured and analysed on test rockets.
~~~~~~========
Ken