New methane/Lox engine tested - news to anyone? Important milestone?

Hi all

In case anyone missed this"

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...06/06-053.html

or

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0418010238.htm

Is this old news, significant news, a milestone, promising?

AFAIK no one has operated a LV with methane/LOX before.

Methane is quite easy to keep liquid under relatively light pressure (or
cooling), and the techniques for handling LOX should BE well understood by
now.

Methane = smaller (and lighter) fuel tank and is easier to come by than
hydrogen.

Any other advantages?

Thanks for your time.

Regards
Frank Scrooby

Frank Scrooby wrote:
In case anyone missed this"

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...06/06-053.html

or

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0418010238.htm

Is this old news, significant news, a milestone, promising?

Not sure, but since the first URL has the phrase:

"believed to be longest in duration for such an engine developed and
hot-fire tested in the United States"

that suggests that at least one other group outside of the US has been
doing some stuff with LOX-Methane.

AFAIK no one has operated a LV with methane/LOX before.

Methane is quite easy to keep liquid under relatively light pressure
(or cooling), and the techniques for handling LOX should BE well
understood by now.

Methane = smaller (and lighter) fuel tank and is easier to come by
than hydrogen.

Any other advantages?

Wasn't Rubin (Zubin?) et all suggesting Methane because one could
manufacture it on Mars?

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

I would say significant news and promising.
Pressure fed, Methane/LOX, throttle capability... all senior
technology.
103 seconds... RRS.org would know if they had a longer burn.
-----
The significant news and promising comes from getting back to
basics of engineering rather than the glamor of cutting edge
research. Both are important but one works to investigate and
publish information and the other works to get something built.

Pressure fed rockets and consideration of an Apollo like capsule
is the wind changing from research grants towards flight hardware.
Many post have echoed thes concepts for years here.
--

In article ,
Chris Giese wrote:
"Frank Scrooby" wrote:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...06/06-053.html

Methane is quite easy to keep liquid under relatively light pressure (or

It's critical temperature is -83 degrees C; meaning it can't be
liquefied above that temperature. The critical pressure is 46 bar,
which doesn't seem very "light"

Liquefied natural gas is liquefied methane.

Among other things, it is shipped by ocean-going vessels.

Any other advantages?

Same Isp as hydrazine but far less toxic.

Can be made from CO2 in the Martian atmosphere (and from water,
if there's any there).

Denser than LH2, which _may_ be advantageous for a rocket meant
to climb out of a deep gravity well. Discussion he
http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fue...en_deltav.html

AFAIK, it is one of the densest, if not the densest,
means of storing hydrogen. Burned, it gives off more
energy per unit volume, not per unit mass. However, it
is not twice as good as higher hydrocarbons (hexane,
octane, kerosene).

However, I don't know if it counts as a "storable" propellant.
This graphic:
http://www.permanent.com/images/t-loxf1a.gif

suggests that storing LOX or liquid methane in Earth orbit
would be difficult.



--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

I thought LNG was mostly propane. Would not properly insulated LOX or
LCH4 actually freeze in LEO? FWIW July 06 'Astronomy' mag says the Mars
orbiting radar sats have found quite a lot of water ice at both polar
caps of Mars.
Walt BJ