Cheap, easy to handle fuels/oxidizers

If you wish to try something really ridiculously dangerous and unfriendly,
take LO3 (liquid ozone). It's very toxic, corrosive and could detonate,
but it's more dense and has higher energy than LOX. It's also
more expensive, by far..

I vague recall somebody was crazy enough to try it...
I'm not sure if there is a stable (no detonation) LO2/LO3 mix...

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ...
Peter Fairbrother wrote:

I don't know of any other liquid oxidisers in use that Henry hasn't
mentioned, save fluorine/ flox, which is ridiculously dangerous and
unfriendly.

There are some exotics, like perchloryl fluoride and nitrogen trifluoride,
but I don't believe they are in use. Chlorine pentafluoride has been
used in upper stages/buses, but it's extremely dangerous.

Paul

In article ,
Michael J Wise wrote:
And it has the great virtue that at room temperature, it is
essentially chemically inert: only when you get it hot does it become
an enthusiastic oxidizer.

So if you used it to cool a Chamber that was already running with some
sort of an "Ignition Mixture", could you then pump the stuff in and run
it thru a catalyst?

In principle, at least. The details matter a lot. Even at temperatures
where it's definitely an aggressive oxidizer, it's not yet highly
decomposed; quite a small initial decomposition fraction suffices when
the reaction with a fuel drives the temperature up further.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article QXE2b.265282$uu5.61256@sccrnsc04,
Vlad wrote:
I'm not sure if there is a stable (no detonation) LO2/LO3 mix...

If (dim) memory serves, yes, reasonably-safe mixtures exist, but they
have two problems. The first is that they don't necessarily stay mixed --
strange things happen during boiloff, because LO2 and LO3 don't boil off
at equal rates. The second is that even if you tame the handling issues,
the percentage of ozone in the safe mixtures isn't high enough to make
them especially attractive.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

"Vlad" writes:

If you wish to try something really ridiculously dangerous and unfriendly,
take LO3 (liquid ozone). It's very toxic, corrosive and could detonate,

....IIRC, it is also =VERY= reactive with organics, forming explosive "ozonides,"
so the tankage and piping must be kept even cleaner than with LOX or H2O2.


but it's more dense and has higher energy than LOX.

....In fact, LH2/LO3 is even more energetic that LH2/LF2, while not producing
a toxic, corrosive exhaust...


It's also more expensive, by far..

I don't see why it should be more expansive "by far" --- ozone can
easily be produced from oxygen via a brush discharge, and it is
straightforward (albeit dangerous!) to concetrate it using a reflux
condensor. (In fact, since LO3 has a significantly higher boiling point
than LO2 (161.25 K vs. 90.15 K), and since ordinary LOX often contains
a small concentration of LO3, if you simply leave a large dewer flask
of LOX sitting out for a while, it will eventually contain a dangerous
little puddle of LO3...)


I'm not sure if there is a stable (no detonation) LO2/LO3 mix...

Again, since ordinary LOX often contains a small concentration of LO3,
yet it does not detonate, I would say that the answer must be ``yes.''
(Although whether it will not detonate at _useful_ concentrations of LO3
is another question entirely !!! :-/)

As I have noted in this newsgroup before, Ozone can be "stabilized"
against decomposition by freezing, and its freezing point is above
the boiling point of liquid nitrogen (80.65 K vs 77 K)). Hence, it is
at least _conceivable_ that a stable and even "pumpable" slurry
of frozen O3 in LN2 might be still yield a significantly higher I_sp
than LOX, while being less "touchy" (explosive and reactive) than
LO3. (Unfortunately, I have so far been unable to find data on how
the detonation sensitivity of frozen O3 compares to liquid O3... :-(


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

(Henry Spencer) :

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
John [Carmack]'s latest breakthru is adding an alcohol to 50% peroxide to
make a cheap, easy to handle, easy to buy mono-propellant for his rockets.


Well, not a breakthrough exactly -- it's an old idea, used in applications
like torpedo propulsion -- but it has been largely forgotten in rocketry.

Does anyone know more about this combination or other cheap fuel
combinations?

The tricky part, really, is the oxidizer. Fuels are generally cheap and
straightforward. There are about four reasonable choices of oxidizer --
LOX, peroxide, N2O, and WFNA -- each with its own set of disadvantages.
LOX and peroxide both require meticulous cleanliness, LOX is cryogenic,
high-grade peroxide is costly and hard to get, N2O requires high pressure,
WFNA is highly corrosive.

What about dissolved solid oxidizers? I am sure I read about one atleast in
the past.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote

What about dissolved solid oxidizers? I am sure I read about one atleast in
the past.

I remember hearing of, but not using, a 60+% w/w solution of sodium
perchlorate in water for model rocketry in the 60's or 70's. Is that what
you're thinking of?


--
Peter Fairbrother

(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...
Vincent Cate wrote:
The combination of Nitrous-Oxide(N2O) and Propane(C3H8) seems
interesting. It seems to have a high ISP. Both self pressurize, and
are relatively safe and easy to handle. At the URL below they say "an
ISP of 230 at sea level, 290 at high elevation".

It's rather bad by standards of 'good' propellants; upper stage
lox/kero engines can get upwards of 330 S ISP, and hydrazine/tetroxide
can get upwards of 320 S.

Ya, "high ISP" is wrong. High enough to be interesting to me though.

Get thee to a library (or $$ and Amazon) to a copy of
Matheson's Gas Handbook. Therin are many secrets of the
thermodynamics and gas behaviour world explained clearly
for all to see.

It is $150 on Amazon for a new one and I just got a 4th
edition one on abebooks for $12. Am I going to be missing
much? One of the problems of living on this tropical island
with no income tax and no sales tax is that there is also no
decent library. :-)

But is this ISP of 290 seconds real? Can we get that at 100 PSI?

Not at 100 PSI. (and do you mean tank pressure or chamber pressure 8-)

Chamber pressure. But I don't know how much lower chamber pressure would
end up being than tank pressure. Can you say?

After mid-september I will have some more detailed discussion
in this thread, but it's a bit proprietary right now.

I will look forward to it.

-- Vince

It's also more expensive, by far..

I don't see why it should be more expansive "by far" --- ozone can
easily be produced from oxygen via a brush discharge, and it is
straightforward (albeit dangerous!) to concetrate it using a reflux
condensor. (In fact, since LO3 has a significantly higher boiling point
than LO2 (161.25 K vs. 90.15 K), and since ordinary LOX often contains
a small concentration of LO3, if you simply leave a large dewer flask
of LOX sitting out for a while, it will eventually contain a dangerous
little puddle of LO3...)

Because:
1. LO3 could detonate - you'll pay for safety measures and risk (LO2 is much safer)
2. LO3 is highly toxic - you'll pay for safety measures and risk (LO2 is almost not toxic)
3. O3 production is low volume - costs more, capital costs:
O3 - 1000 $/(kg/h) LO2 - ~ 25 $/(kg/h)
4. O3 production requires more energy by it's nature and it's highly inefficient:
O3 - ~ 9 kWh/kg LO2 - ~ 1.3 kWh/kg
5. Discharge "eats" electrodes, and frequent replacement is required
(or less frequent, for gold/platinum electrodes).

I bet however would agree to produce LO3 will ask at least 10 times
the price of LOX, and more likely 100 - 1000 times the price.

A good indication - use of O3 for water disinfection is more costly
than Cl2, and Cl2 is more expensive than O2.
Another good indication is a very high price of toxic N2O4.


As I have noted in this newsgroup before, Ozone can be "stabilized"
against decomposition by freezing, and its freezing point is above
the boiling point of liquid nitrogen (80.65 K vs 77 K)). Hence, it is
at least _conceivable_ that a stable and even "pumpable" slurry
of frozen O3 in LN2 might be still yield a significantly higher I_sp
than LOX, while being less "touchy" (explosive and reactive) than
LO3. (Unfortunately, I have so far been unable to find data on how
the detonation sensitivity of frozen O3 compares to liquid O3... :-(

I don't see any theoretical indications why solid O3 should not
detonate if liquid O3 detonates.
I also don't know any similar case, when liquid detonates and
solid does not.
Liquids are just more sensitive, because it's more likely to create a shock wave
in liquid accidentally (cavitation is one good example).

I doubt solid O3 in LN2 makes any sense because of the large amount
of inert N2.
In a fantasy land,
LHe +
something to increase viscosity (to form a gel) +
nanoparticles of solid O3 (nanoparticles only because they sound cool)
would make a reasonable oxidizer due to very low density of LHe
(and, therefore, low mass fraction of inert He) and low
molecular mass of He (higher Isp at the same temperature).
(if such a thing is possible is this world, it would be too expensive
and too cryogenic, and in the fantasy world, why not use N5 instead
of trivial O3 ?)

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
The tricky part, really, is the oxidizer. Fuels are generally cheap and
straightforward. There are about four reasonable choices of oxidizer...

What about dissolved solid oxidizers? I am sure I read about one atleast in
the past.

Nothing with performance that's worth writing home about, as far as I know.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

Hi,

You can learn EVERYTHING you ever wanted to know about the use of LO2/LO3
slurries by reviewing the tech reports from the NASP program...
If memory serves me correctly, they decided that a 12% slurry was the
optimum mix for NASP.

The problem with H2O2 is that there isn't anyone currently working with the
stuff who has even the smallest clue what they are doing. John Carmack and
his people could save them selves a world of hurt that they are setting them
selves up for if only they would sit their asses down and review the
literature. John, your going to get someone killed with your ignorance.

N20 - Yes Henry, there is a room temperature catalyst for it. Once again, do
a literature review. Just look outside the aerospace industry for the answer
to that one.

Lox/Methane makes a BEAUTIFULLY performing mixed monoprop. There is a 3
degree temperature overlap at which they are liquid. Operationally
maintaining the mixed monoprop in that temperature range is the real trick.
Here is the reason it was never used: It is photo-sensitive. At the optimum
O/F ratio it has 4.61 times the explosive energy of TNT and the only thing
it takes to detonate the mixture is a FLASHLIGHT. A security guard died so
that we could learn this...

Lox is clearly the way to go in terms of cost and performance. However,
until someone invests HEAVILY in Lox Valve R&D, it will never be reliable.
Frozen Lox valves are one of the most common causes of vehicle flight
failures in the entire history of rocketry.

I don't think there is "one" right answer though. If I was going to get back
into the rocket biz, i'd use a mixed monoprop for a small launcher and
Lox/hydrocarbon for a big launcher.

As Always,

Jay Troetschel


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
The tricky part, really, is the oxidizer. Fuels are generally cheap
and
straightforward. There are about four reasonable choices of
oxidizer...

What about dissolved solid oxidizers? I am sure I read about one atleast
in
the past.

Nothing with performance that's worth writing home about, as far as I
know.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |