In article ,
Oren Tirosh wrote:
All else being equal, would you not prefer your 98% peroxide
stabilized? After all, stabilizers are not added by manufacturers to
make life harder for rocket builders. They are supposed to make
peroxide safer.

It's actually more a matter of making it less prone to deteriorate due to
contamination, and giving it a longer shelf life. I can't speak for John,
but if I were doing peroxide rocketry, I'd be willing to accept
constraints like a short shelf life and a need to be fussy about
cleanliness, in return for less hassle with catalyst poisoning etc.

All else being equal, yes, I'd be happier with *lightly* stabilized
peroxide using stabilizers compatible with my catalysts. (There is some
choice about just which stabilizers are used, and if you're buying in
bulk, you should have some voice in that decision.) The less fussy I have
to be about procedural details like cleaning and shelf life, the more time
and effort I can spend on design and development problems.

But there are a lot of assumptions in that (e.g, *are* there such
stabilizers?) and just getting it unstabilized might well be less hassle
all around.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |