Fall and Impact of a CZ-3B Booster

[XB-70A]

The launch of a Long March 3B carrying BeiDou-3 M7 and M8 on January 11th was a success. An alert was, as usual, issued 48 hours before the launch to the residents living on the flight path to prevent any victim due to the fall of the YF-25 boosters. However, some villagers were able to attend the event, and one of them was able to film the fall of one of the boosters as well as its impact and detonation, forming a large toxic cloud.

Original source: https://weibo.com/tv/v/FDZAzteEQ?fid=1034:1f7e0a18988adfe958f3b4e2ce04b641

The video also is available to look at on Spaceflight101: http://spaceflight101.com/chinese-villagers-capture-falling-long-march-rocket-booster-on-video/

  

 

  

 

 

Unfortunately, these villagers were not warned of the danger of the hypergolic propellants residues.

Edited January 13, 2018 by XB-70A

[Scotius]

RIP a huge swath of forest (with resident animals). Dang it, China - it's not like you don't have a long shoreline. You can not drop tanks full of toxins on your own people.

[Green Baron]

In '96 the village of Xichang was hit by a rocket (Intelsat 708), officially 6 people died, but videos from the town tell a different story.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Green Baron
Deleted unprovable claim

[kerbiloid]

While adults are discussing whether use such nice big funnel for concrete casting or for livestock feeding, the boy tries to keep in mind size and shape to make a KSP mod with Blender.
He's a local nerd, and girls and woman know what is he thinking about.

Edited January 13, 2018 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

RIP a huge swath of forest (with resident animals). Dang it, China - it's not like you don't have a long shoreline. You can not drop tanks full of toxins on your own people.

If that was california the whole state would caught on fire.

[Ultimate Steve]

2 hours ago, Scotius said:

RIP a huge swath of forest (with resident animals). Dang it, China - it's not like you don't have a long shoreline. You can not drop tanks full of toxins on your own people.

As I understand it, their newer launch complex for their newer rockets is what they are in the process of switching over to. The old launch complex is inland because it was built during a war as to help protect it. Now that the threat has calmed down significantly, they chose to move their launches.

[YNM]

6 hours ago, Scotius said:

... it's not like you don't have a long shoreline. You can not drop tanks full of toxins on your own people.

With Phillipines, Republic of China, Okinawa, South Korea and Japan in the way, it's not quite US' East Coast you know. Nor India's east coast. Nor New Zealand's. Nor French Guiana's. Not even Russia, to an extent (they have Kamchatka)...

Edited January 14, 2018 by YNM

[IncongruousGoat]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

With Phillipines, Republic of China, Okinawa, South Korea and Japan in the way, it's not quite US' East Coast you know. Nor India's east coast. Nor New Zealand's. Nor French Guiana's. Not even Russia, to an extent (they have Kamchatka)...

Actually, India's east coast doesn't work too well either, since they've got all of SE Asia sitting over there. From what I gather, ISRO boosters have to fly a substantial dogleg to avoid dropping spent stages on someone's head.

[StrandedonEarth]

What they really need for those inland launchpads are F9B5’s, so the boosters don’t crash. Since it is shameful to be dropping such toxic things on their people. At least they’re getting a coastal site going. 

[XB-70A]

Indeed, the Wenchang site should start to take over the three others Satellites Launch Centers. Alas, it would not eliminate the problem, but transfer it to the sea instead of the land. We learned the lesson in French Guinea during the Ariane 1-4 era, and where the amount, even if ridiculous, of UDMH/N2O4 remaining in the stages used to dammage the local sea life and the corals reefs.

Hopefully, Long March 5, 7, 9, and 11 are concerned by the typical RP and solid fuel. Still not clean, but already way better than the hypergolics.

[YNM]

4 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

Actually, India's east coast doesn't work too well either, since they've got all of SE Asia sitting over there. From what I gather, ISRO boosters have to fly a substantial dogleg to avoid dropping spent stages on someone's head.

Doglegs are only done to polar launches (PSLV), as there's Ceylon/Sri Lanka. But normal equatorial launches are almost care-free. Islands off to the north of Sumatra (Andaman Island) are actually part of India - and that's ~800 km downrange from their launch site.

Also, India has fair relations to most of SE Asia.

Not so much for China to it's eastern neighbors. Their only gap is between Phillipines and ROC. Hence Wenchang. Skimming Vietnam for polar launches is also fine off there I think. Not so much for the rest of SE Asia...

Edited January 14, 2018 by YNM

[NSEP]

This is why i think Hydrolox is the superior rocket fuel.

[Starman4308]

3 hours ago, NSEP said:

This is why i think Hydrolox is the superior rocket fuel.

Any of the cryogenics should have vastly reduced toxicity. Kerosene should not be hugely worse than gasoline fumes, and should not be hugely risky to clean up, while methane and oxygen should literally just boil away.

I do have a fair bit of respect for why many launch providers avoid hydrolox, particularly for lower stages. The density is very low, causing not just construction but aerodynamic issues (sending the CoM upwards), it's a strong reducing agent, it's very cryogenic, etc.

Furthermore, on the engine side of things, that low density means requiring separate turbopumps for the hydrogen and oxygen, and the low density means relatively little mass gets pumped into the combustion chamber, meaning weaker thrust than a similar-sized engine with denser propellants.

In any event, though, there is no good reason why China should be dropping multiple boosters and stages with residual UDMH on its citizens; UDMH is very, very toxic. While the UDMH/NTO combination is hypergolic and relatively simple to deal with, bulk uses like this can cause a severe environmental problem.

[kerbiloid]

Using hydrolox you are letting your neighbor (who lives near a gas plant) inhale toxic gases instead of you, while you are breathing fresh air.

P.S.
Maybe they would just place the KSC at the West edge of the desert to let the simple, nice and efficient hypergolic tank fall on bare rocks, shocking the jumping mice.
But unlikely they didn't consider this possibility.

Edited January 15, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Using hydrolox you are letting your neighbor (who lives near a gas plant) inhale toxic gases instead of you, while you are breathing fresh air.

If you mean they're going to be gasseous dihydrogen monoxide that is 

 

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Maybe they would just place the KSC at the West edge of the desert to let the simple, nice and efficient hypergolic tank fall on bare rocks, shocking the jumping mice.
But unlikely they didn't consider this possibility.

Xinjiang and Tibet is not exactly on good terms with the central government, you know. Also, those are close to the disputed areas with India, and the slightly less visible one with Russia (see history). Putting it near the buffer state (Mongolia) was their best shot.

Edited January 15, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, YNM said:

If you mean they're going to be gasseous dihydrogen monoxide that is 

I mean that hydrogen is usually made of natural gas by its pyrolysis and multi-stage refining.

[Acea]

On 2018/1/14 at 2:31 AM, Green Baron said:

In '96 the village of Xichang was hit by a rocket (Intelsat 708), officially 6 people died, but videos from the town tell a different story.

That video was edited in purpose, which was actually a clip filmed in an earthquake striken area. I MEAN HOW COULD THERE BE A VILLAGE NEARBY A LAUNCH SITE

[Pand5461]

Don't be overly enthusiastic about hydrolox. While exhaust per se is just water plus unburnt hydrogen, the flame is so hot it causes nitrogen and oxygen in the air to react producing - guess what? - nitrogen dioxide and NTO. Spent stages are harmless, though, unless they fall directly onto your head.

Solid fuel is fun, too. Space Shuttle launches attracted lots of gulls and pelicans because chlorine in the SRB exhaust dissolved in local waters producing acids and killing a lot of fish.

So, kerolox is currently the most environment-friendly option for lower stages, and we'll soon know about methalox.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

I mean that hydrogen is usually made of natural gas by its pyrolysis and multi-stage refining.

RP1-LOX then ?

In any case, if you ever thought "whoa, how unthoughtful", let's not forget this is a nation truly (almost, least) building itself bottom-up, just from a later standpoint. Forget getting it from someone else or getting to high-tech first, they go with what they can make. They progress faster because they have a good, massive one. There's a good reason why it's going to stand on top soon, you'll just have to wait. And pray they don't stall too soon.

 

We're kind of trying the same, but it's not close at all yet for space capability. Probably tied somewhere in relations.

Edited January 15, 2018 by YNM

[Green Baron]

2 hours ago, Acea said:

That video was edited in purpose, which was actually a clip filmed in an earthquake striken area. I MEAN HOW COULD THERE BE A VILLAGE NEARBY A LAUNCH SITE

Which video are you referring to and what's your sauce for that ? Yes, there are residential areas nearby that had (have ?) to be evacuated for a launch.

Idk if there is an official report openly available, here's a review from 17 years later:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2323/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2326/1

tl,dr: maybe 6, maybe more, probably not hundreds.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Green Baron

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Pand5461 said:

Don't be overly enthusiastic about hydrolox. While exhaust per se is just water plus unburnt hydrogen, the flame is so hot it causes nitrogen and oxygen in the air to react producing - guess what? - nitrogen dioxide and NTO. Spent stages are harmless, though, unless they fall directly onto your head.

Solid fuel is fun, too. Space Shuttle launches attracted lots of gulls and pelicans because chlorine in the SRB exhaust dissolved in local waters producing acids and killing a lot of fish.

So, kerolox is currently the most environment-friendly option for lower stages, and we'll soon know about methalox.

That is an common issue with all hot reactions, same problems as with high performance diesel engines. 

[Starman4308]

11 hours ago, Pand5461 said:

Don't be overly enthusiastic about hydrolox. While exhaust per se is just water plus unburnt hydrogen, the flame is so hot it causes nitrogen and oxygen in the air to react producing - guess what? - nitrogen dioxide and NTO. Spent stages are harmless, though, unless they fall directly onto your head.

The nitric oxides, while unpleasant, are nowhere near as bad as hydrazine and its derivatives such as UDMH... not to mention the amount of NTO* that will be left in the spent stage. The cryogenics, while not perfect, are a lot better than the hydrazine-derivative fuels and nitric oxide-based oxidizers.

*A, liquid-fuel rockets generally always still have a little bit of propellant left in the feedlines and bottom of the tank at shutdown. B, just to make sure we're both clear on this, nitrogen dioxide and NTO freely interconvert: if you have one, you have the other, in a temperature-dependent ratio.

I'm not hugely concerned about how LH2 is currently produced. While steam reforming is a CO₂-emitting process, it's a drop in the bucket next to factories, cars, cattle, etc. In the long run, electrolysis can take over for steam reforming, and in the short run, the carbon emissions from LH2 production are probably dwarfed by the carbon emissions from making the rocket hardware in the first place. Additionally, while there are a few hydrolox first stages out there, it tends to be reserved for upper stages where its specific impulse outweighs the significant engineering challenges of using hydrolox.

The environmental consequences I'm concerned about from rocketry are caused by toxic compounds getting dropped either on land (which is bad) or at sea (which is... less bad? Maybe?). Upper stages like the Briz, I'm not overwhelmingly concerned about: they're not very large, and reenter hard, hopefully dispersing any residual hypergolic propellant over a wide area. Lower stages, though, I'd vastly prefer to be handled with either cryogenics or solids.

 

Current or in-development launch vehicles with hypergolic first stages/boosters:

GSLV Mk. II (boosters, second stage).

GSLV Mk. III (first stage).

Long March models 2C, 2D, 2F, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C

Proton-M

Rokot

Simorgh?

Strela

Unha (IRFNA/kerosene lower stages, UDMH/NTO third stage)

 

Current or in-development launch vehicles with hypergolic upper stages:

Briz, Fregat, and Volga upper stages (various Russian and Soviet-legacy launchers)

Cyclone-4M

Ariane 5 EPS L.97 and EPS L10 upper stages

Delta II

Epsilon CLPS fourth stage

Long March 5, 6, 7 third stages

PSLV stages 2, 4

Shavit 4'th stage

Tronador upper stage

Vega upper stage

 

Overall, in compiling these lists (based on a quick scan of Wikipedia), I've found a few things out. First, there's more operational orbital launch vehicles than I thought. Second, while India and China (which have recently developed orbital launch capability) are currently making extensive use of hypergolic first stages, they seem to be developing rockets with cryogenic first stages, though I'm uncertain how much of that is environmental concerns, and how much is just the higher specific impulses offered by the cryogenics. Third, Argentina is developing a launch vehicle and I am utterly surprised by that.

[kerbiloid]

16 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

The nitric oxides, while unpleasant, are nowhere near as bad as hydrazine and its derivatives such as UDMH... not to mention the amount of NTO* that will be left in the spent stage.

And there is almost always an excess of NTO over hydrazine. The clouds of orange smoke on start and on picture are NTO-rich, not hydrazine.
While NTO (N2O4) dissociates into NO2 molecules which appear in much greater amounts around the chemical plants as well as thunderstorms, volcanoes, etc.

16 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

it's a drop in the bucket next to factories, cars

 

16 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

the carbon emissions from LH2 production are probably dwarfed by the carbon emissions from making the rocket hardware in the first place

Isn't NOx emission so?

Hydrazine

Quote

As of 2000, approximately 120,000 tons of hydrazine hydrate (corresponding to a 64% solution of hydrazine in water by weight) were manufactured worldwide per year.

120 000 t per year. This is like ~700 Proton launches per year.

Also we should remember that Space Shuttle solid boosters were spreading clouds of chlorides, which are heavier that air and not healthy at all.
But if two of them were not lost in accidents, unlikely somebody would stop using them.
At least, SLS isn't afraid.

***

Also, it looks a little late to worry about hypergolics toxicity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Cybernetics has killed the rocket paradise of 1960s-70s when hundreds of dirty and smelly hypergolic ICBM and LV were being tested in fresh air.
Smaller and more durable sats, computer experiments, so on.
 

***

16 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

how much of that is environmental concerns

Environmental concerns are more important when you already have produced and sold enough old goods and want your clients to buy new, more enivironmental friendly goods.
It's important not to start creeping your clients too early.
(Yes, I drink tap water, not bottled.)

Edited January 16, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Pand5461]

@Starman4308 I've re-read the article on NOx release from different fuel pairs - looks like I've exaggerated the harm from hydrolox a bit.

The values there are for rockets, not for pairs. So, Space Shuttle, due to sheer size, released more toxic compounds at launch than a Proton (when it does not somersault, that is).

Cloud composition at a Space Shuttle launch: 65 t of water, 72 t of carbon dioxide, 38 t of aluminum oxide, 35 t of hydrogen chloride (!!), 4 t of other chlorine compounds (!), 240 kg of carbon monoxide, 2.3 t of NOx (!).

It's hard to tell where the nitrogen oxides come from as it may come as byproduct from hydrolox engines and from ammonia perchlorate in SRBs. The aluminum and chlorine come from solid fuel, so it's probably second worst after UDMH+NTO. And no idea why there's CO₂.

The shift towards cryogenic fuels is likely due to lower operational costs in the long shot. UDMH is synthetic, hence expensive. Methalox is the cheapest mixture because both components are naturally abundant and don't require much refining. Kerolox needs least measures for personnel safety (being gaseous, methane is potentially more dangerous than kerosene). And the advantage of greater specific impulse with cryogenic fuels matters, of course.

There's one relatively safe hypergolic mixture, though, kerosene + HTP. It was used on the UK's Black Arrow and is planned for use on Lin Industrial's Taymyr rocket, which resembles Black Arrow in many ways actually.

[Starman4308]

On mobile, so not a full post, but does that article give any info on how much NOx comes from the hydrolox engines, and how much from the SRB, with its ammonium perchlorate that has all the necessary atoms?

EDIT: @Pand5461 , here's the breakdown of the obvious sources of those gases.

Water: primarily the SSMEs, but also the hydrogen and oxygen in ammonium perchlorate, which is (NH₄⁺)(ClO₄^-), plus hydrogen and oxygen from the PBAN binder.

Carbon dioxide: Mostly the PBAN binder.

Aluminum oxide: powdered aluminum from the SRBs plus the oxygen.

Hydrogen chloride: the chlorine from ammonium perchlorate has to wind up somewhere.

Carbon monoxide: PBAN binder. I'm surprised there isn't more carbon monoxide: from a rocket performance perspective, you want lighter carbon monoxide than heavy carbon dioxide. That's a big part of why hydrocarbon-oxygen rockets are run fuel-rich.

NOx: Nitrogen from the ammonium ions and the cyano groups in PBAN (and isn't that a fun thought). Oxygen from perchlorate and PBAN.

Not seen in this breakdown is N₂.

 

Overall, this has been enough to convince me that there is some environmental impact from firing large-scale solid rocket motors, though it's probably still not as bad as the hypergolics. While orbital launch consumes a small fraction of what the military and amateur rocketeers use, there's the issue that orbital launch vehicles generally have low TWR, so you're putting a lot of exhaust into a small area for a fair while until it's far off the pad.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Starman4308