I still think this is a good idea. And, kind of ironically, if high altitude water vapor from rocket exhaust becomes a global warming concern, a carbon monoxide rocket might be almost our only option on Earth, too.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/10/2019 03:30 amI still think this is a good idea. And, kind of ironically, if high altitude water vapor from rocket exhaust becomes a global warming concern, a carbon monoxide rocket might be almost our only option on Earth, too. If a methane rocket uses half the fuel of a CO/O based one to get to near escape, the methane one wins, because you can make methane from electricity +CO2+water at 50% efficiency even using todays technology.
I still think this is a good idea. And, kind of ironically, if high altitude water vapor from rocket exhaust becomes a global warming concern, a carbon monoxide rocket might be almost our only option on Earth, too. Because while CO2 is responsible for the bulk of anthropogenic global warming, ironically it's far less than water vapor at very high altitudes (since water's residency time up there is long).Not a concern at present launch rates, or even an order of magnitude higher (although sooty kerosene WOULD be a concern, clean-burning methane perhaps not), but if you start launching a megaton of material to orbit or for hypersonic point-to-point, it's now a significant fraction of global aviation emissions (by global warming potential).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/10/2019 03:30 amI still think this is a good idea. And, kind of ironically, if high altitude water vapor from rocket exhaust becomes a global warming concern, a carbon monoxide rocket might be almost our only option on Earth, too. Because while CO2 is responsible for the bulk of anthropogenic global warming, ironically it's far less than water vapor at very high altitudes (since water's residency time up there is long).Not a concern at present launch rates, or even an order of magnitude higher (although sooty kerosene WOULD be a concern, clean-burning methane perhaps not), but if you start launching a megaton of material to orbit or for hypersonic point-to-point, it's now a significant fraction of global aviation emissions (by global warming potential).Soot in the upper atmosphere actually opposes global worming, increasing planetary albedo and keeping energy from ever reaching earth to be stuck behind CO2.It also weakens solar power, starves plants, and smells horrible. But it slows global warming.
Quote from: rakaydos on 06/10/2019 11:59 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 06/10/2019 03:30 amI still think this is a good idea. And, kind of ironically, if high altitude water vapor from rocket exhaust becomes a global warming concern, a carbon monoxide rocket might be almost our only option on Earth, too. Because while CO2 is responsible for the bulk of anthropogenic global warming, ironically it's far less than water vapor at very high altitudes (since water's residency time up there is long).Not a concern at present launch rates, or even an order of magnitude higher (although sooty kerosene WOULD be a concern, clean-burning methane perhaps not), but if you start launching a megaton of material to orbit or for hypersonic point-to-point, it's now a significant fraction of global aviation emissions (by global warming potential).Soot in the upper atmosphere actually opposes global worming, increasing planetary albedo and keeping energy from ever reaching earth to be stuck behind CO2.It also weakens solar power, starves plants, and smells horrible. But it slows global warming.It also destroys the ozone layer, and if it settles to the ground makes global warming worse and accelerated melting of glaciers in particular. It won’t be allowed at high flight rates.
By the way, if anyone happens to know where this paper or presentation is available, I would love to find out. It seems to have disappeared from the internet.
Here's the important part. The stored liquid CO2 (which makes up 96% of the gas compressed) would be expanded through a turbine, which would in turn be connected to the primary compressor. This step would recover a significant amount (how much I don't recall) of the energy used in the original compression process. This would reduce the amount of added energy required for subsequent compression operations and improve the overall efficiency of the system considerably.A diagram seemed to show the various compressors and refrigerators connected by a system of pulleys to transfer the mechanical power from the turbine, but there may be a more elegant way to do that. There were probably also some electric motors to bootstrap the facility's startup and make up for energy lost in the various processes.
For that matter, there was a time when coal gas, one component of which is carbon monoxide, was widely used in homes where natural gas is used today. Natural gas is definitely safer, but it's not like people regularly died of CO poisoning.
I think the safety of CO use on Mars is a non-issue. The hardly insurmountable problem I do see is the need for extra safety precautions when developing and testing the technology here on Earth.
For that matter, there was a time when coal gas, one component of which is carbon monoxide, was widely used in homes where natural gas is used today. Natural gas is definitely safer, but it's not like people regularly died of CO poisoning.I think the safety of CO use on Mars is a non-issue. The hardly insurmountable problem I do see is the need for extra safety precautions when developing and testing the technology here on Earth.
To be fair, in the ubiquitous CO-producing applications on Earth, "don't be in a confined space with the combustion" is still good advice. I'd suspect the main important safety measure would be for the CO tank to be normally unconnected to the people tank. Either isolation valves in the ventilation, airlocked compartment, or even outside the people tank altogether, something like that. Starting point isn't what people do when fresh air is everywhere, more like what people put up with on a ship or a submarine....