Steam Rockets

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.

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

tomcat wrote:
[snip]

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

But why lug that nuclear reactor along with you? Split the water into
hydrogen and oxygen and store it in two tanks. The propellant weight
will be the same as carrying the water.

When you want thrust, mix the hydrogen and oxygen, ignite it in a
suitable combustion chamber and you've got thrust.

Wait a minute. This sounds familiar.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature
replaces it with. -- Tennessee Williams

Yes I think he has forgotten the input of energy to split the water is a
fair proportion of what you need, so you then need fuel to do that, so where
is the benefit?

Maybe he has made some new ultra light combustible to do this?

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
tomcat wrote:
[snip]

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

But why lug that nuclear reactor along with you? Split the water into
hydrogen and oxygen and store it in two tanks. The propellant weight
will be the same as carrying the water.

When you want thrust, mix the hydrogen and oxygen, ignite it in a
suitable combustion chamber and you've got thrust.

Wait a minute. This sounds familiar.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature
replaces it with. -- Tennessee Williams

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
tomcat wrote:
[snip]

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

But why lug that nuclear reactor along with you? Split the water into
hydrogen and oxygen and store it in two tanks. The propellant weight
will be the same as carrying the water.

When you want thrust, mix the hydrogen and oxygen, ignite it in a
suitable combustion chamber and you've got thrust.

Wait a minute. This sounds familiar.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature
replaces it with. -- Tennessee Williams




I actually have a high regard for the SSME. For short burns it is a
great engine. For long voyages into Outer Space, however, it has
shortcomings.

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


tomcat

Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes I think he has forgotten the input of energy to split the water is a
fair proportion of what you need, so you then need fuel to do that, so where
is the benefit?

Maybe he has made some new ultra light combustible to do this?

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:




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.


tomcat
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
tomcat wrote:
[snip]

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

But why lug that nuclear reactor along with you? Split the water into
hydrogen and oxygen and store it in two tanks. The propellant weight
will be the same as carrying the water.

When you want thrust, mix the hydrogen and oxygen, ignite it in a
suitable combustion chamber and you've got thrust.

Wait a minute. This sounds familiar.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature
replaces it with. -- Tennessee Williams

On 5 Aug 2006 04:00:41 -0700, "tomcat" wrote:


Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes I think he has forgotten the input of energy to split the water is a
fair proportion of what you need, so you then need fuel to do that, so where
is the benefit?

Maybe he has made some new ultra light combustible to do this?

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:




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.


Screw the liquid oxygen and all that. Keep it simple. All you really
need is a big tank of diet coke and some mentos.

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 )

Doug Chandler

Brian Gaff wrote:

Yes I think he has forgotten the input of energy to split the water is a
fair proportion of what you need, so you then need fuel to do that, so where
is the benefit?

Maybe he has made some new ultra light combustible to do this?

:-)

Oh ... I get it ... a metallic liquid sodium rocket.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

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 )

Doug Chandler




The idea of 'reducing agents' hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for the
suggestion.

Increasing the temperature of water into a super heated steam decreases
the amount of energy required to crack the water molecule. So,
regenerative cooling with either the water engine itself, or some other
rocket engine, reaps big dividends.

But I am not a purist. If lithium aluminum hydride works then it would
make sense to use it. I am even beginning to think of 'water bombs'
for the military.


tomcat

: "tomcat"
: Increasing the temperature of water into a super heated steam decreases
: the amount of energy required to crack the water molecule. So,
: regenerative cooling with either the water engine itself, or some other
: rocket engine, reaps big dividends.
:
: But I am not a purist. If lithium aluminum hydride works then it would
: make sense to use it. I am even beginning to think of 'water bombs'
: for the military.

Is this like the "dihydrogen monoxide is toxic" schtick?
'cause it doesn't really make sense otherwise.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw