|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
least polluting rocket fuel
On the contrary if you are a rocket engineer it's essential to use the
most expensive propellant you can find, because that helps keeps the costs of rockets high, the launch volume low; and increases profits. So on that basis nuclear produced hydrogen is a wonder fuel. I was just pointing out that bioethanol was cheap to make sure that everyone here avoids using it in their rockets. Obviously. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
least polluting rocket fuel
In article , Damon Hill
wrote: "Ian Woollard" wrote in ups.com: According to: http://www.stardrivedevice.com/electrolysis.html a 'gallon equivalent' is 1kg of hydrogen and would in fact cost slightly over $4 to produce by electrolysing water. However, for rocketry purposes this neglects the liquification costs which are quite significant. Last time I heard, NASA was purchasing their *liquid* hydrogen for about $7/kg, and that wasn't even environmentally friendly hydrogen, which is more expensive. So the only acceptable propellants are wind/solar powered electrolytically derived and liquified hydrogen and oxygen? We certainly don't want nuclear-comtaminated fuels, do we? (sarcasm) What is the ISP of a LOX-whale oil rocket? -- David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
least polluting rocket fuel
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Turning crap into rocket fuel | Pat Flannery | Policy | 42 | January 7th 06 07:43 PM |
Improved lunar landing architecture | Alex Terrell | Policy | 183 | September 22nd 05 01:32 AM |
REQ: Rocket Fuel & Propulsion | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 28th 05 10:11 PM |
Poison, From the Far Right? (Rocket Fuel...) | Jim Burns | Policy | 49 | March 2nd 05 06:23 PM |
OPINION (Oberg): "Post-Columbia NASA hunkers down" | James Oberg | Space Shuttle | 56 | August 6th 03 09:31 AM |