1

is there a standard how NASA/ESA categorize hazardous propellant properties like flammability, toxicity, corrosiveness etc?

Any links, papers, discussions would be greatly appreciated!

Regards Christian

cl10k
  • 351
  • 1
  • 8
  • 1
    This seems rather broad / non-specific. Could you please specify more specifically what you're searching for, what you've found already, and so on? There's loads of standards implemented for handling and labeling hazardous chemicals. For NASA, check e.g. Glenn Research Center's HazCom program (just one out of hundreds of potential documents you might have in mind, see pages 6-7). – TildalWave Apr 14 '15 at 19:00
  • I want to analyze the usability of certain propellants under different perspectives. I got all the infos I need on thermal and chemical properties, mainly from standard literature like Sutton & Brown and some ESA/NASA papers. – cl10k Apr 14 '15 at 19:32
  • To conclude my work I want to concentrate on the consequences of handling hazardous propellants. All I have as a start, is a german standard database on hazardous goods (not related to space-tech) - this database has is own classification of hazardness, but I was interested if there is an international standard that space agencies have agreed on. Searching the NASA database returns thousands of papers, but I haven't found one yet specifically about this topic. :) – cl10k Apr 14 '15 at 19:32
  • What I really need is a common standard to quickly and nonambiguously categorize/characterize the hazardousness of a propellant...

    (Sry for being long-winded, I'm not a native speaker)

     – cl10k Apr 14 '15 at 19:41
  • 1
    No way to judge by a single criterion. Buttoned up in protective suits vs. naked, acute poisoning vs. chronic illness, burning propellants vs. explosion vs. leak. Each mode of failure has its own hazard. Please edit your question to be more specific. – Deer Hunter Apr 15 '15 at 05:49
  • I don't seem to get my point formulated. :/

    There must be a categorization (a common scale) like:

    0 : non toxic 1 : mildly toxic 2 : toxic 3 : very toxic

    In germany there is standard called "Gefahrgutklasse" which roughly translates to "classes of dangerous goods".

     – cl10k Apr 15 '15 at 07:16
  • I don't think there is any need to further edit the original question. It's simply about categorization. I'm not looking for instructions on how to handle propellants under certain conditions... – cl10k Apr 15 '15 at 07:22
  • I found something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704.

    See how the differentiation between Flammability, Health and Reactivity is done by some simple grouped numbers/letters...

    NASA or aerospace related companies must have something comparable for their propellants

     – cl10k Apr 15 '15 at 07:56
  • Are you looking for Material Safety Data Sheets? All the relevant information should be there: e.g. for hydrazine. – Deer Hunter Apr 15 '15 at 08:43
  • 1
    No. I want to know which standard NASA actually uses to categorize the hazardousness of their propellants. Do they use a concept that is related to the us-american "NFPA_704", or the international "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals" or maybe some internal standards?

    Your help is really appreciated, but I think you are interpreting too much into my initial question...

     – cl10k Apr 15 '15 at 09:24

0 Answers0