A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Steam Rockets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 6th 06, 12:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Steam Rockets


Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
DougC wrote:

tomcat wrote:
The liquid hydrogen and lox take up too much room and will, over a
period of time, vent into the vacuum of Space.


My space ship doesn't have leaks like that.

The hydrogen and oxygen
can, however, be carried into space as a very dense stable fuel in the
form of water. But the water must be vaporized and the water molecules
cracked apart into separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms.


Toss in a handful of Lithium Aluminum Hydride ( LAH )


How many kg of LAH does it take to split 1 kg of water?

Since the weight of the water will be the same regardless of whether its
stored as H2 and LOX or water, the only offsetting weight savings will
be the elimination of the cryogenics necessary for the former.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Just say 'No' to Windows.
-- Department of Defenestration.





It is the savings in 'Volume', not weight, that is so important. You
can only make a waverider so big.


tomcat

  #22  
Old August 6th 06, 12:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Steam Rockets


Danny Dot wrote:
--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org


"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...
The idea of using water as a rocket fuel seems extraordinary, but it is
feasible for at least part of a rocket's propulsion.

Steam vapor is an invisible vapor that has 1600 times the volume of the
water it came from. This fact was used to drive steam locomotives. It
works.

For a rocket, however, the 'trick' is to instantly produce the steam in
an explosive kind of way. If possible this will produce considerable
thrust. Steam locomotives used a fire box burning coal. To
'instantly' produce steam, however, the old 'fire box' of the steam
locomotives is simply too slow.

Now you may wonder why you would want to carry water instead of
previously separated hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen are very
high volume gases and even as liquids they take up lots and lots of
room. It is difficult to to take enough along in specially made
cryogenic tanks to be effective. These tanks, moreover, have vents
which vent off the gas produced by relatively warm tanks. And this, of
course, is waste and reduces the amount of fuel. It makes hydrogen/lox
a difficult fuel to use for long missions.

Water, on the other hand, is very stable and very dense. It will stay
put for very long voyages and can actually be replenished in Outer
Space. The Moon, for example, is believed to have more than 600
billion tons of water on it's North and South Poles. Asteroids also
have been proven to have water in large quantities. The rings of
Saturn and the Poles of Mars are other examples of water in Outer
Space.

So, the possibility of a 'Steam Rocket' is an exciting one filled with
the promise of a stable, dense, and replenishable fuel.

The 'trick', however, is to instantly vaporize the water into steam in
order to produce enough reaction. The faster the vaporization the
greater the ISP and pounds of thrust.


Interesting idea. Water on a nuclear core would certainly make a good
rocket.



This should be possible without contaminating the water. The water
could act as a reactor cooling agent while getting zapped with laser,
maser, electrode energy generated by the reactor. The cooling of the
reactor should put the water on the threshold of cracking.


ISP is only a function of the velocity of the gases as they escape the
nozzle. Higher temperatures lead to higher velocities, as does lower
molecular weight of the exhaust gas. This is why a LOX/H2 rocket has a
higher ISP than a kerosene/LOX -- water is a lighter molecule than the
combustion products of kerosene/LOX.



I believe that ISP is over rated. It is important within the
atmosphere because a rocket or plane cannot exceed the speed of it's
own thrust. This, however, is NOT true in the vacuum of Outer Space.
Today, with rocket thrust becoming an orbital or escape velocity
requirement it is thrust to weight that should take priority.



When I first became an astronaut instructor in 1990, I was shocked to find
out the orbit engines on the shuttle (and most other orbit vehicles) do not
use pumps. The roughly 250 psi pressure in the tanks feeds propellant
straight into the 125 psi combustion chamber. This keyed my research into
ISP and I discovered a small chamber pressure does NOT mean low ISP. I also
discovered that ISP in the shuttle computer software is "defined" as VEX,
which is the exhaust velocity of the SSMEs. The Russians talk exhaust
velocity a lot and use the term ISP less than we do.

You are correct that water can be stored in a much smaller tank than
hydrogen, but for a heat engine that dumps a liquid onto a heat sorce, the
small molecular weight of H2 gives much higher escape velocities for the
same temperature. H2 has a molecular weight of 2 and water a weight of 18.
At the same temperature H2 will have a HUGE advantange on ISP/VEX. And, I
see the max temperature for both would be about the same.



This is true when H2 is compared to steam, but we may be capable of
reducing water to it's constituent parts: H and O. In such a case the
water rocket would have the same ISP as the hydrogen lox rocket. The
power would come from the same source, only the fuel injection and
combusion chamber design would differ.


BUT, having said this, H2 takes HUGE volume to store, can't be stored on
orbit, requires major engineering to "handle", requires expensive components
to "handle", and is expensive. Maybe water dumped on a nuclear reactor has
its place in the world. It could probably get to SSME like ISPs because in
both cases the exhaust gases are both water. The question is -- can a
nuclear core go to the same temperature of the combusion chamber of an SSME.
If the heat engine design could get to the same temperatures, it would be
easy to get to SSME ISPs. If the design was orbit only, then higher ISP
would be easy because the SSME nozzles are compromized to work at sea level
as well as a vaccum.



Well, 2500 deg. C. cracks water completely. And, we have materials
that can handle that. And, furthermore, we can use regenerative
cooling to produce the super heated steam, protecting the combusion
chamber and nozzle walls at the same time.


tomcat






A couple of ideas to produce this instantaneous vaporization is to use
a nuclear reactor and/or another rocket using conventional fuels. I
believe that either of these two ideas will work.

An added bonuis of the 'Steam Rocket' is that at high temperatures --
1000 deg. C. to 2500 deg. C. -- the water molecule splits. When this
molecule comes back together, which it will as soon as the temperature
drops, it generates enormous explosive force and roughly 6000 deg. F.
temperatures. Basically, at this point, you have a hydrogen-lox
combustion with the ISP of the hydrogen/lox engine like the SSME (Space
Shuttle Main Engine) for example.

Even if a small amount of the water vapor 'cracks' and then comes back
together as a hydrogen lox reaction it would add enormous explosive
reaction to the Steam Rocket and should make it a practical rocket for
use in Outer Space.


tomcat


  #23  
Old August 6th 06, 01:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Steam Rockets


Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Danny Dot wrote:
ISP is only a function of the velocity of the gases as they escape the
nozzle. Higher temperatures lead to higher velocities, as does lower
molecular weight of the exhaust gas. This is why a LOX/H2 rocket has a
higher ISP than a kerosene/LOX -- water is a lighter molecule than the
combustion products of kerosene/LOX.


Actually, the real story there is more complex and somewhat different --
even though many textbooks claim the above -- because temperature and
molecular weight are not independent in a chemical rocket. (John Clark's
"Ignition!" is one of the few references that gets the story right,
probably because Clark was a propellant chemist rather than a rocket
engineer, and had to understand the underlying details.) The correlation
between lighter molecules and higher velocity is due to indirect effects.

For a nuclear rocket, though, the situation is much simpler, because there
temperature *is* independent of propellant. There, molecular weight
matters directly and strongly.



Let's not be purists. Turn some of that reactor energy into electrical
juice and zap the propellent with a hefty dose of laser, maser, and
sheer electricity at the same time it is cooking in the hot tube. You
could inject a little lithium aluminum hydride at the same time if you
want to.



When I first became an astronaut instructor in 1990, I was shocked to find
out the orbit engines on the shuttle (and most other orbit vehicles) do not
use pumps... This keyed my research into
ISP and I discovered a small chamber pressure does NOT mean low ISP.


Correct. To a first approximation, Isp is independent of pressure.
Higher chamber pressure pushes more gas through per second, but it's the
thermal energy of combustion that determines Isp, and that's not (very)
dependent on pressure. The RL10 has slightly higher Isp than the SSME
despite a much lower chamber pressure.

Where it really gets counterintuitive is with cold-gas thrusters on
spacecraft. The gas is typically stored at very high pressure... but it
goes through a pressure reducer/regulator before reaching the thrusters!
This boggles novices' minds. The reduction doesn't matter, because it's
the thermal energy of the gas that drives the expansion through the
nozzle, *not* the feed pressure.

I also
discovered that ISP in the shuttle computer software is "defined" as VEX,
which is the exhaust velocity of the SSMEs. The Russians talk exhaust
velocity a lot and use the term ISP less than we do.


The Europeans confuse the matter further by using velocity units (rather,
a mixed-up version of velocity units -- N-s/kg) and calling it Isp. It's
exhaust velocity that really matters, but Isp is more convenient for
comparisons, not least because it extends gracefully to airbreathing
engines, where exhaust velocity does not tell the full story. Isp is a
better choice as a figure of merit, even though it needs to be converted
to turn it into something physically meaningful.



In the vacuum of Space it is thrust-to-weight that counts. And, in the
weightlessness of Interplanetary Space it is continuous power that wins
the contest, such as an ion engine.


BUT, having said this, H2 takes HUGE volume to store, can't be stored on
orbit, requires major engineering to "handle", requires expensive components
to "handle", and is expensive. Maybe water dumped on a nuclear reactor has
its place in the world.


A better choice is ammonia -- almost as easy to store as water, comes
apart easily and completely into nitrogen and hydrogen when you get it
hot, and *doesn't* recombine. The resulting average molecular weight is
about 8.5, giving a nuclear-rocket Isp about half that of hydrogen. Water
doesn't break down significantly at any reasonable reactor temperature, so
its molecular weight stays at 18, giving about 1/3 of the hydrogen Isp.
(Worse, it's an oxidizing agent when you get it hot, which is hard on the
usual reactor materials.)

It could probably get to SSME like ISPs because in
both cases the exhaust gases are both water. The question is -- can a
nuclear core go to the same temperature of the combusion chamber of an SSME.


No, not even close. The core of an orthodox solid-core nuclear rocket is
limited, by materials issues, to considerably lower temperatures than that
of a high-pressure oxygen/hydrogen flame. (The nuclear core has to run
hotter than the gas, whereas the chamber walls of a chemical rocket can
run much cooler.)



Using both the reactor's heat and it's electrical output should solve
the problem. As stated above, the combination of heat with laser,
maser, electricity should 'cook off' the water right when it hits the
combustion chamber.

Since steam is involved as well as the 'cooking' process a 'Steam
Rocket' might do best with a double combustion chamber. You could
think of it as adding an afterburner. The first chamber cooks,
separates, and pushes super heated and super expanded steam into the
second chamber where regenerative cooling makes it a bit cooler than
the previous putting the hydrogen and oxygen back together. The should
yield a big second "Bang".


tomcat

  #24  
Old August 6th 06, 08:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Steam Rockets

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 08:43:44 -0500, in a place far, far away, Wilbur
Slice made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I am considering the possibility of using the F-1 kerosine and lox
engine along with the steam rocket engine. That way the excess heat of
the F-1 engine can be used to produce super heated steam which, in
turn, can be zapped with electricity, microwaves, or lasers to crack
the water molecules.

The other possibility is to use a nuclear reactor, a small one mind
you, that can produce hundreds of kw for the electrodes, masers, or
lasers.

There may be yet other alternatives. I solicit ideas, suggestions, and
wayward thoughts on the subject.


Here's a suggestion. Go learn some mathematics, and physics.
  #25  
Old August 6th 06, 09:42 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Steam Rockets

"tomcat" wrote in message
ups.com

I believe that ISP is over rated. It is important within the
atmosphere because a rocket or plane cannot exceed the speed of it's
own thrust. This, however, is NOT true in the vacuum of Outer Space.
Today, with rocket thrust becoming an orbital or escape velocity
requirement it is thrust to weight that should take priority.


Well, 2500 deg. C. cracks water completely. And, we have materials
that can handle that. And, furthermore, we can use regenerative
cooling to produce the super heated steam, protecting the combusion
chamber and nozzle walls at the same time.

However, within a near absolute vacuum of 1e-18 bar it shouldn't require
2500 deg. C., or does it?

I otherwise totally agree, so please do bother to tell that one to those
smart Third Reich folks encharge of their nearly 30% inert GLOW massive
Saturn-V rocket that somehow still managed at nearly a 60:1 ratio of
rocket/payload in getting such a horrific amount of their Apollo payload
tonnage and of so quickly into orbiting our moon. Outside of your NASA
koran, got any modern and otherwise proven rocket-science that'll back
any of that hocus-pocus up?

Why do you keep excluding the superior energy density worth of
h2o2/c3h4o LRBs, much like water that'll keep rather nicely without
either being sub-frozen and thus requiring such a great deal of
insulation and many other technological complications?

98% h2o2 at 1.4 g/cm3 is just plain old water on steroids that can be
ignited as is. Perhaps better yet, isn't there such things h2o3 or
h2o4?

BTW; what extra tonnage of ice loading did those Saturn-V rockets have
to deal with?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #26  
Old August 7th 06, 01:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Steam Rockets

tomcat wrote:

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
DougC wrote:

tomcat wrote:
The liquid hydrogen and lox take up too much room and will, over a
period of time, vent into the vacuum of Space.

My space ship doesn't have leaks like that.

The hydrogen and oxygen
can, however, be carried into space as a very dense stable fuel in the
form of water. But the water must be vaporized and the water molecules
cracked apart into separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Toss in a handful of Lithium Aluminum Hydride ( LAH )


How many kg of LAH does it take to split 1 kg of water?

Since the weight of the water will be the same regardless of whether its
stored as H2 and LOX or water, the only offsetting weight savings will
be the elimination of the cryogenics necessary for the former.


It is the savings in 'Volume', not weight, that is so important. You
can only make a waverider so big.


OK, how many cm^3 of LOH does it take to split 1 cm^3 of water?

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's something vewy scwewy going on awound here." -- Elmer Fudd
  #27  
Old August 7th 06, 01:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Steam Rockets

tomcat wrote:

[snip]

It is the savings in 'Volume', not weight, that is so important. You
can only make a waverider so big.


Are you planning on using this engine for propulsion during the
waverider's flight? If so, leave the oxygen (or most of it) behind and
use an air breathing engine. You only need the O2 above the atmosphere.

If you are using the waverider for re-entry (like the space shuttle) and
launching with a rocket, then its weight that matters. Particularly if
you can use a multi-stage vehicle, volume isn't nearly as important as
weight.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. Standard
disclaimers apply. Celebrity voice impersonated. Batteries not included.
Limit one to a customer. Best if used by April 1, 2007. Refrigerate
after opening. Void if removed.
  #28  
Old August 7th 06, 03:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Steam Rockets


Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
tomcat wrote:

[snip]

It is the savings in 'Volume', not weight, that is so important. You
can only make a waverider so big.


Are you planning on using this engine for propulsion during the
waverider's flight? If so, leave the oxygen (or most of it) behind and
use an air breathing engine. You only need the O2 above the atmosphere.

If you are using the waverider for re-entry (like the space shuttle) and
launching with a rocket, then its weight that matters. Particularly if
you can use a multi-stage vehicle, volume isn't nearly as important as
weight.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. Standard
disclaimers apply. Celebrity voice impersonated. Batteries not included.
Limit one to a customer. Best if used by April 1, 2007. Refrigerate
after opening. Void if removed.





Waveriders have to be aerodynamic. If they are too big then they are
apt to have too much drag. In short, they are 'flying gas cans' that
have to be shaped for hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere.

Waveriders, on the other hand, use air pressure underneath the vehicle
to hold the weight. They can be heavier per thrust amount than can a
vertical rise rocket.


tomcat

  #29  
Old August 7th 06, 04:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Steam Rockets

tomcat wrote:

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
tomcat wrote:

[snip]

It is the savings in 'Volume', not weight, that is so important. You
can only make a waverider so big.


Are you planning on using this engine for propulsion during the
waverider's flight? If so, leave the oxygen (or most of it) behind and
use an air breathing engine. You only need the O2 above the atmosphere.

If you are using the waverider for re-entry (like the space shuttle) and
launching with a rocket, then its weight that matters. Particularly if
you can use a multi-stage vehicle, volume isn't nearly as important as
weight.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. Standard
disclaimers apply. Celebrity voice impersonated. Batteries not included.
Limit one to a customer. Best if used by April 1, 2007. Refrigerate
after opening. Void if removed.


Waveriders have to be aerodynamic. If they are too big then they are
apt to have too much drag. In short, they are 'flying gas cans' that
have to be shaped for hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere.

Waveriders, on the other hand, use air pressure underneath the vehicle
to hold the weight. They can be heavier per thrust amount than can a
vertical rise rocket.


The only application I've heard so far for a waverider space vehicle is
for the re-entry phase. Going up isn't a problem of aerodynamics. You
just strap on big fuel tanks and kick them loose at the end of the boost
phase.

To date, I'm unaware of any efficient way to go orbital from aerodynamic
flight with any significant payloads.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
c (velocity of light in a vacuum) = 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight
  #30  
Old August 7th 06, 06:08 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,rec.org.mensa
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Steam Rockets


Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
tomcat wrote:

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
tomcat wrote:

[snip]

It is the savings in 'Volume', not weight, that is so important. You
can only make a waverider so big.

Are you planning on using this engine for propulsion during the
waverider's flight? If so, leave the oxygen (or most of it) behind and
use an air breathing engine. You only need the O2 above the atmosphere.

If you are using the waverider for re-entry (like the space shuttle) and
launching with a rocket, then its weight that matters. Particularly if
you can use a multi-stage vehicle, volume isn't nearly as important as
weight.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. Standard
disclaimers apply. Celebrity voice impersonated. Batteries not included.
Limit one to a customer. Best if used by April 1, 2007. Refrigerate
after opening. Void if removed.


Waveriders have to be aerodynamic. If they are too big then they are
apt to have too much drag. In short, they are 'flying gas cans' that
have to be shaped for hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere.

Waveriders, on the other hand, use air pressure underneath the vehicle
to hold the weight. They can be heavier per thrust amount than can a
vertical rise rocket.


The only application I've heard so far for a waverider space vehicle is
for the re-entry phase. Going up isn't a problem of aerodynamics. You
just strap on big fuel tanks and kick them loose at the end of the boost
phase.

To date, I'm unaware of any efficient way to go orbital from aerodynamic
flight with any significant payloads.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
c (velocity of light in a vacuum) = 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight





"To date, I'm unaware of any efficient way to go orbital from
aerodynamic flight with any significant payloads." -- Paul Hovnanian


Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't.
Technology has reached the point where waveriders, completely reusuable
rocketry, can be built and reach orbit.

They must, however, carry 10 times their thrust weight in combined dry
weight and fuel (GLOW). It will take roughly 1 hour to reach orbit.
The SSME has proven capable of long burn times. The SSME has the
'punch' to do the job. This may also be the case of the J-1a though
the burn time might exceed it's capability. The J-1a is a kerosone and
lox rocket that would reduce waverider size somewhat.

The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) packs 400 thousand pounds of
thrust at sea level, while consuming 1035 pounds of fuel per second.
The J-1a packs 1.8 million pounds of thrust at sea level, while
consuming 6000 pounds of fuel per second.

The day of the waverider has arrived. One just needs to be built.


tomcat

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Steam Rockets tomcat Space Shuttle 333 January 23rd 07 04:27 AM
How Rockets Differ From Jets tomcat Space Shuttle 139 December 11th 05 10:06 PM
Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets Andrew Nowicki Policy 28 February 10th 05 01:55 AM
XCOR $11000 Steam Engine Prize Neil Halelamien Policy 0 November 6th 04 12:38 AM
OT (and long) "Toy" Rockets John Beaderstadt History 3 April 28th 04 03:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.