Rocket Fuel

April 4, 2008 7:34 AM

Remember Tang? The news from England is that the 2006 terrorists were going to use it to create an in-flight bomb.

Apparently, hydrogen peroxide and sugar is a potent combination, but not all fuels can be used as explosives. Others are suggesting that it's not the sugar, but the citric acid that's important. Either way, we'll never look at Tang in that same, innocent way. (via)

posted by CheeseDigestsAll (43 comments total)

*oxide + {something with high carbon content} is a potent combination. cf candy rockets
posted by DU at 7:37 AM on April 4, 2008

That's what the astronauts drank to make an in-flight bomb!
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:46 AM on April 4, 2008

Do they make sugar-free Tang yet? I've haven't drank Tang for years and I miss it.

Also, Sugar Free Tang Doesn't Support Terrorism.

...well, if it's the sugar that makes the bomb.
posted by unixrat at 7:50 AM on April 4, 2008

I don't see any mention of Tang in the Daily Mail article. But it's mentioned in the article excerpt quoted in the "via" link. Was it later deleted from the article? The article now states, "The main ingredient of the homemade bombs was said to be hydrogen peroxide, commonly used as hair bleach and easily available on the high street, mixed with other chemicals which the Daily Mail is not naming. "
posted by brain_drain at 7:53 AM on April 4, 2008

I like to mix Tang with Jello pudding to make pudding-Tang!
posted by TedW at 7:53 AM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

Didn't we basically find out that the liquid bomb threat was basically bogus, based on an unworkable plot, and totally (forgive the pun) blown out of proportion?
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:56 AM on April 4, 2008

I too, don't see the Tang link to the article. They were going to use drinks bottles, but as far as I recall, ,Tang hasn't been available for sale in the UK.
posted by Brockles at 7:57 AM on April 4, 2008

Wouldn't it have been more effective to just have the Kool-aid Man smash through the side of the plane?
posted by Kabanos at 8:00 AM on April 4, 2008 [8 favorites]

They mentioned 'Tang' on several news programmes last night, here in the UK. It was also reported that the banning of liquids on flights was directly linked to this plot -- the security services were unsure if they had caught all the plotters.
posted by popcassady at 8:00 AM on April 4, 2008

Here is a tasteless joke that is about 20 years past it's sell-by date:

Q: Why do they drink tang on the space shuttle?

A: Because they couldn't get seven up.
posted by empath at 8:04 AM on April 4, 2008

Didn't we basically find out that the liquid bomb threat was basically bogus, based on an unworkable plot, and totally (forgive the pun) blown out of proportion?

Well, now that the plot details are known better, surely Mythbusters will verify for us?
posted by Krrrlson at 8:05 AM on April 4, 2008

Sugars a pretty well known explosive ingredient - The Wasp Factory was mildly controversial for having reasonably acurate instructions for making the sugar and weedkiller bombs Iain Banks used to make as a kid.

I'm still very interetsed in knowing if this is something that could plausibly be done on a plane and that would significantly damage a plain.
posted by Artw at 8:15 AM on April 4, 2008

I'm not sure it was 'Tang' they were interested in using, but rather the critic acid in it. There's also a massive difference between the concentration of hydrogen peroxide you can buy in the grocery store (usually around 3%), and the concentration used in rockets (above 30%). Hydrogen peroxide at 30% is nasty stuff: it'll eat the skin off your hands and chew through most normal containers (ie cheap plastic drink bottles) in a few hours. Oh, and it breaks down back to water and hydrogen upon exposure to light, elevated temperatures, or air...(read: hydrogen peroxide isn't the most stable stuff on the planet).

I am a chemist, so my curiosity got the better of me:

Also from the the article, they were more interested in the use of the containers rather than what was originally in them. The the "other chemicals which the Daily Mail is not naming" can easily be found by searching for what they were trying to make: hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine or HMTD. Yet again, no need for sugar. And it only takes about five hours to prepare, while somehow maintaining the reaction at freezing temperatures, undetected on board an airplane. HMTD is a lovely explosive (by nature, unstable) that is set off by looking at it, touching it, or poking anything metal into it. So, yeah, what Saxon Kane said: it's totally blown out of proportion.
posted by rand at 8:16 AM on April 4, 2008 [3 favorites]

Tang hasn't been available for sale in the UK

Plenty of tang like stuff though. I remember getting some kind of particularly potent drink-dust from an army surplus store one time.
posted by Artw at 8:17 AM on April 4, 2008

Tang. Space Food Stix. Toaster pizzas that came out frozen in the middle. Tab. Captain Crunch. Strawberry Quik.

As a trailing-edge boomer who grew up at the height of the Junk Food Apocalypse, it's amazing I've lasted this long.

Remembering the distinctive smell of dioxin-based Shell No-Pest Strips exuding their nerve gas traces into the air at Burger King...
posted by digaman at 8:17 AM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

Well, now that the plot details are known better, surely Mythbusters will verify for us?

That, Krrrlson, would be brilliant.

I watched the documentary-style mock-up of how "easily" the stuff was to be assembled by the "passenger next to you!!!!" on the US BBC news last night. I now wish I'd skipped it.

I'd welcome a Mythbuster angle.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 8:17 AM on April 4, 2008

Theres a great comment here by eriko on the plausibility of in-plane explosive mixing.
posted by Artw at 8:20 AM on April 4, 2008

So, once again, the press is scaring the hell out of everyone over an unworkable plot?

Never mind the Tang. It's the Kool-Aid drinkers that worry me.
posted by PlusDistance at 8:21 AM on April 4, 2008

What annoys me is we've had people determidly trying to kill us with common household ingredients since the 1970s, and delt with it quite well, but as soon as the Americans have a flip out about terrorism we've got to run around waving our hands in the air about every little thing. Oh, and they funded the last lot of nutcases. Thanks guys!
posted by Artw at 8:23 AM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

That's interesting, rand. Anyone got a more detailed explanation to back up why it would be unfeasible to construct this bomb in the manner described - if indeed it is - on board a commercial flight?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:30 AM on April 4, 2008

Wouldn't it have been more effective to just have the Kool-aid Man smash through the side of the plane?

There is no way that a Great American like Kool-Aid Man would ever smash through the side of plane unless it was to take out Terrorists.
posted by IndigoJones at 8:51 AM on April 4, 2008

We're really just scratching the surface of "drink the Kool-aid" puns available here.
posted by scottreynen at 8:55 AM on April 4, 2008

HMTD is a lovely explosive (by nature, unstable) that is set off by looking at it, touching it, or poking anything metal into it.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:08 AM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

@digaman

Right there with you. As a fellow tail-ender, I tend to think that due to early exposure, we're nigh indestructable. (the No-Pest strip was Dioxin?!? i may be unkillable, baby)

As far as Junk terrorism is concerned, you all need to read more SF. John Brunners "Stand on Zannzibar" written in the 60's has a section on perverting the use of common materials. It's fiction that gets less fictional every day.
posted by djrock3k at 9:10 AM on April 4, 2008

Hidden below all the dreadful solemnity, that we see on this in the press, is the great comedy potential imparted by a bunch of men trying to bring on Armageddon with a collection of cult confectionery items.
posted by rongorongo at 9:16 AM on April 4, 2008

There seem to be a few chemists pitching into the discussion of this over at Schneier's Blog. This guy seems to think it's possible, as does this guy.
posted by Jakey at 9:34 AM on April 4, 2008

Hello, is this President Clinton? Good! I figured if anyone knew where to get some Tang it would be you.
posted by porn in the woods at 9:43 AM on April 4, 2008

Soft drinks containers were key to the plot. Bottles of Lucozade and Oasis would have their original contents removed via a syringe, and replaced with a homemade liquid explosive.
A dye would be added so they appeared to be the same colour as the original drink, the prosecution alleged.

So no actual in-situ bomb mixing at all.
posted by Artw at 9:58 AM on April 4, 2008

Well, they'd still have to connect the explosive in the bottle to their detonator, right? (Which, by the way, relies on the highly friction- and impact-sensitive HMTD, as has been pointed out.)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:04 AM on April 4, 2008

Wouldn't it have been more effective to just have the Kool-aid Man smash through the side of the plane?

OH YEAH!

HMTD is a lovely explosive (by nature, unstable) that is set off by looking at it, touching it, or poking anything metal into it.

Hasn't it been pretty well established that it would be virtually impossible to make HMTD in the bathroom of an airplane? That, because of the reactiveness of the chemicals involved, the maker would be injured if not killed long before a sufficient quantity to damage the plane could be produced.

I could swear that I read a fairly authoritative article on this, but I can't find it for the life of me
posted by quin at 10:05 AM on April 4, 2008

quin - some say that - the guys in Jakeys links offer the first real rebuttals of that I've seen. Sounds like no such plot existed anyway.
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on April 4, 2008

Thanks Artw, I hadn't followed those links. Interesting.
posted by quin at 10:11 AM on April 4, 2008

I'm kind of curious regarding teh offhand mention of Sandia National Labs doing tests that the second guy mentions. Has anyone heard anything about this?
posted by Artw at 10:15 AM on April 4, 2008

Sugar-Free Tang will set you back $13.76 USD for a four-pack of 1.8 oz containers.
Amazon.com carries it.
Enjoy the refreshing lo-carb goodness, just like the Astronauts.
You may be eligible for Free Shipping.
Unless you are a terrorist.
That is all.
posted by Dizzy at 10:16 AM on April 4, 2008

Man, I was flying through Gatwick that day. Utter chaos. You have thousands of travelers going on holiday suddenly told that every bag had to be emptied of anything liquid, paste, in any amount and that every bag had to be checked.

The scene of a few thousand people completely repacking their kit was alone worth the price of the holiday. We got away to Malaga 2 hours late and all of our luggage arrived intact.

Three blind mice (and family) 1, terrorists 0.
posted by three blind mice at 10:42 AM on April 4, 2008

We knew all about sugar and weedkiller bombs when I was young. I was gonna give it a go, then I heard about some kid on the news who blew his hand off... so I decided not to bother
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:44 AM on April 4, 2008

Just so long as I can take my bag of fertiliser and my drum of diesel on board...
posted by Artw at 11:46 AM on April 4, 2008

An actual real crazy-person trying to get actual real bomb-parts onto a plane
posted by Artw at 11:49 AM on April 4, 2008

I never cared for Tang.
But I knew people who thought it was the bomb.
posted by PHINC at 12:57 PM on April 4, 2008

Ha ha! I have both Tang and hydrogen peroxide in my home! I must hate America!

I'm totally going to mix some together and see what happens. Probably even more undrinkable than usual Tang, is what I'm thinking.
posted by mygothlaundry at 1:09 PM on April 4, 2008

Orange Tang, Grape Tang, how come they never produced Prune Tang?

Seriously, this brings back memories of being 18 and doing dumb stuff. My friend Mike and I read in Get Even that a mixture of sucrose and potassium nitrate would create a potent smokebomb. It did, but we chose to "take it to the next level" and contained it in a steel pipe, creating the dreaded "pipe bomb". We buried it under rocks and detonated it. The only way I can describe the sound is if a firecracker sounds like a snare drum, this IED sounded like a John Bonham bass drum.

Now this is the really freaky part. Being that we buried the thing under rocks, we were able to recover the resulting shrapnel. The cylindrical body was intact. One pipe cap was still threaded on, but had a silver dollar sized chunk blown out the end. The other end of the pipe was missing the cap entirely, but the male threads were intact. Believe it or not, we recovered the intact cap, and found that we could actually thread it back on just a bit.

I know it sounds like a bullshit story, and I'd be highly skeptical if someone else told it to me, but it really did happen. The physics of internal ballistics can be highly counterintuitive.

But these airplane guys were obviously up to no fucking good...
posted by Tube at 5:21 PM on April 4, 2008

this shit was debunked long ago.
posted by p3on at 3:35 PM on April 5, 2008

The explosives that they planed to use are a little different to the media hype about a 'Binary liquid explosive' (TATP) that was absolutely ridiculous, and was debunked before both in the link above, and here.

This time they appear to have wanted to use a simple sugar+peroxide bomb, stored in a sealed colouful 500ml plastic drink bottle (eg lucozade).

The HMTD mentioned above does appear to be nasty stuff, difficult to make and handle (link, google cache), but would have been prepared in advance, is a common terrorist explosive and would only be used as the detonator for the sugar bomb.

This does on the face of it appear to be a reasonable, well thought out plot, and also the trigger for the (still ridiculous) ban on large bottles of liquids on planes (My baby's pot of nappy cream got thrown out recently because it was *gasp* 125ml. The fact that it was 95% empty was irrelevant...)

IANAC (chemist) nor a terrorist.
posted by nielm at 11:53 AM on April 7, 2008