Russia Develops Revolutionary Ammonia Rocket Engine

On 10/05/2012 3:12 AM, wrote:
"Power engineering manufacturer Energomash has
started development of a new rocket engine which
could vastly reduce the cost of rocket launches and
avoid the need to produce hydrogen for fuel, the
makers say.

The new rocket, which will be around 30 percent
more efficient than exising designs, works on a
completely novel fuel mixture of acetylene and
ammonia (atsetam)."

See:

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...in e_999.html

30% more efficient compared to what propellant? I think such claims
should be taken with a good measure of sceptism and doubt.

In article . com,
says...

On 10/05/2012 3:12 AM, wrote:
"Power engineering manufacturer Energomash has
started development of a new rocket engine which
could vastly reduce the cost of rocket launches and
avoid the need to produce hydrogen for fuel, the
makers say.

The new rocket, which will be around 30 percent
more efficient than exising designs, works on a
completely novel fuel mixture of acetylene and
ammonia (atsetam)."

See:

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...in e_999.html

30% more efficient compared to what propellant? I think such claims
should be taken with a good measure of sceptism and doubt.

Especially when we're reading an obviously translated article. This
wouldn't be the first time something important was "lost in
translation".

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article . com,
says...

On 10/05/2012 3:12 AM, wrote:
"Power engineering manufacturer Energomash has
started development of a new rocket engine which
could vastly reduce the cost of rocket launches and
avoid the need to produce hydrogen for fuel, the
makers say.

The new rocket, which will be around 30 percent
more efficient than exising designs, works on a
completely novel fuel mixture of acetylene and
ammonia (atsetam)."

See:

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...in e_999.html

30% more efficient compared to what propellant? I think such claims
should be taken with a good measure of sceptism and doubt.

Especially when we're reading an obviously translated article. This
wouldn't be the first time something important was "lost in
translation".

Jeff

I also question the value of it. Fuel doesn't really dominate launch costs.
Sounds like they're solving a problem that doesn't really exist by making
things more complex. I can't see that being a winner.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

I also question the value of it. Fuel doesn't really dominate launch costs.
Sounds like they're solving a problem that doesn't really exist by making
things more complex. I can't see that being a winner.

Sounds like a group of Russian researchers looking for their next big
project. Should be fun on the test stand, especially when testing with
higher concentrations of acetylene. :-)

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

I also question the value of it. Fuel doesn't really dominate launch
costs.
Sounds like they're solving a problem that doesn't really exist by making
things more complex. I can't see that being a winner.

Sounds like a group of Russian researchers looking for their next big
project. Should be fun on the test stand, especially when testing with
higher concentrations of acetylene. :-)


Yeah, for that one, use the "rule of thumb" If you can't cover the size of
the explosion with your thumb extended at arm's length, you're too damn
close.

The more I think about it, the more I think "What could possibly go wrong?"


(hmm, on a different note, anyone recall the thread on the worst possible
fuel combination, I can't recall the details but I know pretty much all of
them included fluorine.)

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
Greg \(Strider\) Moore wrote:

(hmm, on a different note, anyone recall the thread on the worst possible
fuel combination, I can't recall the details but I know pretty much all of
them included fluorine.)


Well, there is this, although I don't think it's the one I remember.

https://groups.google.com/group/sci....se_frm/thread/
9cb3c7526868f1cc/153a61e8396bc868?hl=en&tvc=1#153a61e8396bc868

--
Kathy Rages

In article merica,
(Kathy Rages) wrote:

In article ,
Greg \(Strider\) Moore wrote:

(hmm, on a different note, anyone recall the thread on the worst possible
fuel combination, I can't recall the details but I know pretty much all of
them included fluorine.)


Well, there is this, although I don't think it's the one I remember.

https://groups.google.com/group/sci....se_frm/thread/
9cb3c7526868f1cc/153a61e8396bc868?hl=en&tvc=1#153a61e8396bc868

Some of those are what we discussed 50 years ago, including LOX/Be/H2,
where the LOX/Be served as a heat source to the H2 working fluid.

Aside from the toxic Be oxide exhaust, it would have made a pretty good
rocket motor -- if you could find a good way to meter in the Be.

F/H2 has a better Isp than LOX/H2, but the HF exhaust turns a lot of
people off.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
F/H2 has a better Isp than LOX/H2, but the HF exhaust turns a lot of
people off.


Gee, can't imagine why.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net