NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
General Discussion => Q&A Section => Topic started by: sanman on 08/17/2020 07:30 pm
-
What are the pro's and cons of hypergolics?
What are the different types of hypergolic propellant combinations available?
In what ways can hypergolics be augmented or enhanced?
-
I realize your question is 5 months old but I will share what I can. I hope this helps to answer your question.
My Army career was in Missile and Rocket artillery starting with the Lance missile, a hypergolic fueled missile.
Pro’s: hypergolic fuels burn/ignite very rapidly when they mix (no external ignition required) resulting in very high launch speeds. The overall missile size is smaller than a non hypergolic liquid propelled missile would be for the same payload/warhead.
Con’s: Safety! these fuels are extremely toxic and the oxidizers are just as dangerous. They were replaced on later systems with solid fuel for a reason.
Regarding interplanetary travel, manufacturing is complex and earthbound until off planet factories can produce the chemicals needed to fuel a return trip.
Fuel: unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine(UDMH). Oxydizer: inhibited red fuming nitric acid(IRFNA)
Enhancing these would be at the chemical level.
Hope this helps to answer your question!
-
Shuttle ran monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) fuel and nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) oxidizer in both the RCS and OMS.
Apollo SM SPS engine, and LM RCS and stage engines, used Aerozine 50 (50-50 mix of UDMH and hydrazine) fuel and NTO.
Apollo SM RCS used MMH fuel and NTO.
F=ma
-
Juno and other spacecraft are using HPH and NTO.
-
In what ways can hypergolics be augmented or enhanced?
Why? No need to.
-
The main pros are room temp storage and hypergolic and hydrazine is a mono prop.
-
HPH?
-
HPH?
High Purity Hydrazine?
-
What specific impulse improvements can be had by using pump-fed hypergolic engines over pressure-fed ones?