A hydrogen,kerosene, and oxygen rocket will likely produce the performance needed for a near SSTO for a lot less trouble.Burning kerosene during the early phase of the flight reduces the size and mass of the tanks needed.See MAKS http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm
And yes, I wouldn't want to be with 100miles of someone dumb enough to be messing with Liquid Lithium and Florine in a rocket.~Jon
Quote from: Jorge on 02/06/2009 02:33 amAnd of course, if you want to go completely crazy, there's liquid ozone 15 and acetylene. But I'll let the co-author of that tongue-in-cheek proposal describe it himself:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/msg/3199d5be7e770f44(The rest of the thread is worth reading, for tips on making the acetylene radioactive, etc...)In a similar vein you have chlorine trifluoride, which was at least somewhat seriously considered as a propellant.
And of course, if you want to go completely crazy, there's liquid ozone 15 and acetylene. But I'll let the co-author of that tongue-in-cheek proposal describe it himself:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/msg/3199d5be7e770f44(The rest of the thread is worth reading, for tips on making the acetylene radioactive, etc...)
Quote from: hop on 02/06/2009 05:54 amQuote from: Jorge on 02/06/2009 02:33 amAnd of course, if you want to go completely crazy, there's liquid ozone 15 and acetylene. But I'll let the co-author of that tongue-in-cheek proposal describe it himself:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/msg/3199d5be7e770f44(The rest of the thread is worth reading, for tips on making the acetylene radioactive, etc...)In a similar vein you have chlorine trifluoride, which was at least somewhat seriously considered as a propellant.Thanks Jorge & hop...I had a good laugh from those. I really miss my chemistry 101. And from that last link, I loved this point (among others):"It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively"
Quote from: robertross on 02/11/2009 12:44 amQuote from: hop on 02/06/2009 05:54 amQuote from: Jorge on 02/06/2009 02:33 amAnd of course, if you want to go completely crazy, there's liquid ozone 15 and acetylene. But I'll let the co-author of that tongue-in-cheek proposal describe it himself:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/msg/3199d5be7e770f44(The rest of the thread is worth reading, for tips on making the acetylene radioactive, etc...)In a similar vein you have chlorine trifluoride, which was at least somewhat seriously considered as a propellant.Thanks Jorge & hop...I had a good laugh from those. I really miss my chemistry 101. And from that last link, I loved this point (among others):"It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively"I still think that George Herbert's gag propellant HOOOCCH was the best. Poly-Acetyl Ozone.http://www.retro.com/hooocch/acezone.html~Jon
I still think that George Herbert's gag propellant HOOOCCH was the best. Poly-Acetyl Ozone.http://www.retro.com/hooocch/acezone.html~Jon
Quote from: space_dreamer on 02/06/2009 11:57 amThe MAKS concept looks ideal - but why would the Russian have been wasting time with Kliper then ACTS if MAKS was sitting there just waiting to be finished?There are other considerations than ISP
The MAKS concept looks ideal - but why would the Russian have been wasting time with Kliper then ACTS if MAKS was sitting there just waiting to be finished?
Lastly Kliper and ACTS were supposed to be able to go to the moon while MAKS is a pure LEO vehicle.Still I bet they kick themselves for not finishing MAKS since MAKS-M and MAKS-D approach STS in some capabilities and would have given them something to compete with companies like Spacex and Arianespace with on equal grounds.
what about boranes?
Is it possible to get the effect of a tri-propellant with gelled fuels. For example if hydrogen was gelled with methane but the percentage of methane was stratified in the fuel tank so that there was lots of methane early in the burn and less as the burn continued?And if we forget about fixating on maximum isp, is it possible to gell the hydrogen with alternate gelling agents that do not use up so much oxygen as methane. This would allow the fuel/oxidiser mixture ratio to vary less as the hydrogen/gellant mixture ratio changed. In an article I found online, the hydrogen/methane (gelled) : oxygen ratio was 4:1 whereas the pure hydrogen : oxygen it was 6:1. Would there be any advantage in using alternative gelling agents so that this ratio would vary less as the mixture changed during the burn?Perhaps, methanol, ammonia, nitromethane!!Similarly, if there is a substance with a similar energy density/liter as methane but is far denser, then would it make any sense to gell this with methane in a similar stratified fashion? If the engine is running fuel rich then the effective energy densities would be less than that 'written on the can' as there would be incomplete combustion in the form of unreacted h2 and carbon monoxide. Some type of alcohol perhaps?
http://www.wickmanspacecraft.com/loxmono.htmlCheck this out, these guys are mixing LOX with kerosene at cryogenic temps to create a 'monopropellant'. Dont know how stable this mixture is, but it could save some tankage mass if you only need one tank, and making it pressure fed, eliminate turbopumping, you'd have the liquid equivalent of a solid rocket motor. Comments?
It isn't very different from a pebble bed nuclear reactor.