Author Topic: Chrysler Studies for Hydrogen/Fluorine/Lithium upperstage 1970  (Read 1745 times)

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 69
In 1970 made Chrysler Coperation Space Division
a Study for Upper stage for Various Rockets: Atlas, Titan IIID and Solid 260 inch/S-IVB
using very nasty stuff: Hydrogene and Fluorine and Lithium or Beryllium !

the liquid Lithium and Fluorine burns in Combustion chamber
that's cooled by hydrogen, who goes true the Combustion chamber taking more heat of Lithium and Florine reaction.

Also they study Hydrogene and Fluorine and Beryllium
this more a Hybrid rocket were the Beryllium is solid rocket fuel, burned by Fluorine or mixture of Oxygen and Fluorine
again cooled by hydrogen who goes true the Combustion chamber taking the heat of reaction.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700022573.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700022572.pdf
Modify message
« Last Edit: 07/07/2017 10:56 AM by Michel Van »

Offline RIB

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • USA
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 62
Thank you Michel

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 595
Fluorine is horrible, but wat are the issue with Beryllium ? is that thing radioactive ?

Offline riney

  • mild-mannered mad scientist
  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Charleston, SC
    • my blog
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 8
I know the dust from machining it is pretty horribly toxic. Guessing its combustion products aren't particularly friendly, either.

Fluorine is horrible, but wat are the issue with Beryllium ? is that thing radioactive ?

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
Fluorine is horrible, but wat are the issue with Beryllium ? is that thing radioactive ?

LH2 is cold and liquid lithium is like 200 degrees Ceslsius, which is a bigger issue than the toxicity. (Toxic UDMH+N2O4 launches used everywhere.)

Beryllium must be solid, so you'd have also have a hybrid rocket, impractical for the small boost in ISP you might get.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline Port

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Germany
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 8
Fluorine is horrible, but wat are the issue with Beryllium ? is that thing radioactive ?

LH2 is cold and liquid lithium is like 200 degrees Ceslsius, which is a bigger issue than the toxicity. (Toxic UDMH+N2O4 launches used everywhere.)

Beryllium must be solid, so you'd have also have a hybrid rocket, impractical for the small boost in ISP you might get.

not to mention: if you think a H2/O2 mixture explosion is violent (and man it is violent) you better get your seatbelts on for Lithium and Fluorine, there's literally nothing more energetic in (standard) chemistry than this pair

Offline clegg78

  • I play KSP, so I know things about rockets and stuff... :)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Denver, CO
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 15
I know the dust from machining it is pretty horribly toxic. Guessing its combustion products aren't particularly friendly, either.

Fluorine is horrible, but wat are the issue with Beryllium ? is that thing radioactive ?

Formula 1 teams used Beryllium con rods and pistons up until about 10 years ago when it was banned.   The reason was that even though it was an alloy, there was still enough dust coming out of engines during normal operations and TONS of it during engine meltdowns that it caused a significant hazard to crews and drivers.

So yeah I am guessing burning it (which in most cases just oxidizes the metal) will still result in a very very bad time.   

Workers from Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons plant in CO often reported that Plutonium, Americium, and other hazardous radioactive elements they were working with were a magnitude less dangerous or scary than working with Beryllium which is heavily used in nuclear weapons as well.
Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride - Hunter S Thompson

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 0
...you better get your seatbelts on for Lithium and Fluorine, there's literally nothing more energetic in (standard) chemistry than this pair

Actually, beryllium and ozone are more energetic.

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 69
Fluorine is horrible, but wat are the issue with Beryllium ? is that thing radioactive ?

nope, but Beryllium so extrem toxic, they banned it use 10 years ago in the industry.
only one who use Beryllium is in nuclear application because of Neutron absorbing property.

This fuel combination are quite dangerous and Toxic
Fluorine if it find a weak spot in his tank, it will corrode it way outside and burn it way downward (like alien blood)
and since Chrysler put there Fluorine tank on top of Hydrogen tank
This will end in a very  toxic pad explosion !

On toxic fuel, I guess that this combination top them all: CIF5/MHF-5.
CIF5 is Chlorine pentafluoride,
MHF-5 is 55% Monomethylhydrazine, 26% Hydrazine and 19% Hydrazinium Nitrate

that stuff was consider as fuel for deep space probe main engine and RCS
it was even consider as RCS fuel for manned Mars space craft and Lander MEM in 1969 !

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 565
STS got rid of the Beryllium brakes. carbon lined stators and rotors.

"Each main landing gear wheel has a disc brake assembly consisting of nine discs, four rotors, three stators, a backplate and a pressure plate. The carbon-lined beryllium rotors are splined to the inside of the wheel and rotate with the wheel. The carbon-lined beryllium stators are splined to the outside of the axle assembly and do not rotate with the wheel."
 
"Because problems were encountered with the main landing gear braking system in the majority of the first 24 landings, an improvement program has been implemented for the main landing gear and braking system in addition to a long-term improvement program for the main landing gear brakes. "

"The previous, thinner, carbon-lined beryllium stator discs are being replaced in two positions with thicker discs to provide a significant increase in braking energy capability. The additional material added to the stators improves heat capacity, with resulting lower temperatures, and provides the stators with greater strength. Note that the main landing gear brakes, which were exposed to two 14-million- foot-pound wear-in cycles added before installation on the orbiter, reduced damage to the brakes during landing. The thicker stator discs will provide approximately 65 million foot pounds of energy absorption, which is a significant increase over the thinner stator discs"

"A long-term structural carbon brake program is in progress to provide higher braking capability by increasing maximum energy absorption capability to 82 million foot pounds and to reduce refurbishment costs. These new brakes will consist of a five-rotor, disc-type carbon configuration for each main landing gear wheel brake. The goal is to demonstrate that the carbon heat sink brake design will have the capability of providing a one-time stop of 100 million foot pounds. The go-ahead for the carbon brake design was given in January 1986, with delivery scheduled in late April 1988"

"The current strength of the orbiter landing system is a maximum of 240,000 pounds. Evaluations for landing loads of 256,000 pounds, associated with abort landings, are to be completed by the spring of 1988."

Just imagine being around the Orbiter at all after a landing.  Those Astros always did their walk around, plus all the service personnel.
The contamination potential performing a brake service would be large. Pulling that friction material pack apart for service would be an outdusting nightmare. I get all weirded out around Asbestos brakes.
I wonder what sort of safety precautions were in place while working with these used Be brakes.

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/lgear/brakes.html
Paul

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 5160
A few notes on Hydrogen, fluorine, Beryllium and Lithium.

LH2/LF2 gives you the deep cryogen problems of LH2 with the extreme toxicity of a halogen IE a large cloud of very cold toxic nastiness. That said it's possible to "passivate" fuel systems for fluorine use by flushing them so they build up a layer of metal fluoride on the surface, a tactic also used for HTP systems.

Now you add in Lithium, mp 180c. that means you either have a hybrid or you're going to have a very hot liquid (cooking oil hot, not normal molten metal temperature hot) to pipe through the system, next to a flow of LH2 at -255 c. This may make re starts difficult. 

This strategy won't work with Berylium as it's mp is c 1300c. So you're looking at a pure hybrid design, with the main grain in Be (Be has been suggested as an SRB metallizer, along with Mg to improve Isp).

Incidentally Be is still used for applications where it's high stiffness and low density are needed, such as fast moving optical and radio reflectors, often as an an alloy. However it's about 400x more expensive than Al alloys to machine (it's very abrasive as well as toxic). IIRC the F35 aircraft has about 35lb of Be or Be alloy in its construction.  Not something you'd want to inhale if one was on fire.

Earlier posts talked about its use in F1 piston rods. Be dust is very toxic and when Be burns in air it makes Beryllium Oxide, which is also very toxic. However in this application it will be burning with F2, giving BeF. I'm not sure if anyone knows if this is more or less toxic to humans, but probably best to avoid it.

Yes this will give you an Isp maybe 100secs above LH2/LO2 but massive increases in ground handling complexity and testing  and engine design mean that it has never been worth the costs involved to do it.

In actual rocket engineering there is what is what is theoretically possible and there is what is economically and environmentally viable.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline The Vorlon

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Southeast Massachusetts
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
11 posts and no one has mentioned FOOF?


I'll see your Li and raise you Cs.  Francium would be good, as it melts at about 80F, but getting it to the pad within the half life of 22 minuets is problematic.

I guess the Ludicrous Speed on Spaceball One were powered by Fluorine and Beryllium engines....

 ;D
Proud creator of Ian's Paper Model Rocket Collection:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42383.0

Tags: