Russia Develops Revolutionary Ammonia Rocket Engine

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:40:22 AM UTC-7, bob haller wrote:
On May 9, 1:12*pm, 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/...olutionary_Amm....

only a tiny cost of a rocket launch is fuel..

so will this produce more power per pound of fuel?

Said to be more easily stored and handled when compared
to liquid H2. But I am only looking at press reports so
.........the truth maybe in the wind.............Trig

On May 10, 6:47*pm, wrote:

Said to be more easily stored and handled when compared
to liquid H2.

Apparently, though, a mixture of the two substances - and an issue
exists that it could be dangerously explosive in the mixtures required
for efficiency - is just the fuel. The oxidizer would still,
apparently, be liquid oxygen, which is cryogenic - even if not as
cryogenic as liquid hydrogen.

Thus, since we already have kerosene-oxygen rockets, it looks as
though this would only be an incremental improvement. If a non-
cryogenic oxidizer could also have been used while maintaining
efficiency - harking back to the original V2 - that would have been
revolutionary.

John Savard

In article
,
Quadibloc wrote:

On May 10, 6:47*pm, wrote:

Said to be more easily stored and handled when compared
to liquid H2.

Apparently, though, a mixture of the two substances - and an issue
exists that it could be dangerously explosive in the mixtures required
for efficiency - is just the fuel. The oxidizer would still,
apparently, be liquid oxygen, which is cryogenic - even if not as
cryogenic as liquid hydrogen.

Thus, since we already have kerosene-oxygen rockets, it looks as
though this would only be an incremental improvement. If a non-
cryogenic oxidizer could also have been used while maintaining
efficiency - harking back to the original V2 - that would have been
revolutionary.

John Savard

IIRC (I don't have the table in front of me), NH4/O2 isn't too much
better than LOX/kerosene. NH4 is corrosive and highly toxic.

In article orfairbairn-5626AA.20481614052012@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

In article
,
Quadibloc wrote:

On May 10, 6:47*pm, wrote:

Said to be more easily stored and handled when compared
to liquid H2.

Apparently, though, a mixture of the two substances - and an issue
exists that it could be dangerously explosive in the mixtures required
for efficiency - is just the fuel. The oxidizer would still,
apparently, be liquid oxygen, which is cryogenic - even if not as
cryogenic as liquid hydrogen.

Thus, since we already have kerosene-oxygen rockets, it looks as
though this would only be an incremental improvement. If a non-
cryogenic oxidizer could also have been used while maintaining
efficiency - harking back to the original V2 - that would have been
revolutionary.

John Savard

IIRC (I don't have the table in front of me), NH4/O2 isn't too much
better than LOX/kerosene. NH4 is corrosive and highly toxic.

I'd be more worried about the acetylene going "boom". Acetylene, in
this application, scares me more than solids.

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

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article orfairbairn-5626AA.20481614052012@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

In article
,
Quadibloc wrote:

On May 10, 6:47*pm, wrote:

Said to be more easily stored and handled when compared
to liquid H2.

Apparently, though, a mixture of the two substances - and an issue
exists that it could be dangerously explosive in the mixtures required
for efficiency - is just the fuel. The oxidizer would still,
apparently, be liquid oxygen, which is cryogenic - even if not as
cryogenic as liquid hydrogen.

Thus, since we already have kerosene-oxygen rockets, it looks as
though this would only be an incremental improvement. If a non-
cryogenic oxidizer could also have been used while maintaining
efficiency - harking back to the original V2 - that would have been
revolutionary.

John Savard

IIRC (I don't have the table in front of me), NH4/O2 isn't too much
better than LOX/kerosene. NH4 is corrosive and highly toxic.

I'd be more worried about the acetylene going "boom". Acetylene, in
this application, scares me more than solids.

Jeff

Yup!