Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Rocket fuels

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Rocket fuels
Noticed this Slashdot thread, about a press release about synthesis of trinitramide, N(NO2)3. As noted by people in the thread, trinitramide is unlikely to be useful since it is unlikely to be easy to synthesize, handle and apply. That (and an earlier discussion tonight with my brother about what limits there should be in the chemistry education I will give to his kids) reminded me of a fun topic: horrible rocket fuels. Essentially any chemical with a lot of energy has been considered, and most have nasty properties in terms of explosiveness, toxicity and corrosiveness. Liquid rocket fuels are particularly horrific. One favourite is pentaborane, alias "green dragon". It can ignite spontaneously in contact with air, happily forms nasty shock sensitive compounds, reacts violently with water, is highly toxic (nerve agent level) and can even produce frostbite by evaporating from skin (while poisoning you). Chlorine trifluoride manages to be a more powerful oxidizer than oxygen itself, fluoridates *everything* and of course have other nasty properties. It will burn through sand. As John Clark is quoted in that post:
Quote:
”It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”
Fluorine-oxygen mixtures have been used in the form of FLOX - a liquid fluorine/liquid oxygen mix. That is a seriously frightening idea. Remember that liquid oxygen has so high oxygen partial pressure that the oil in fingerprints will explode when the liquid pours past. Now mix that with nastiest-kid-on-the-halogen-block fluorine... Most current rockets use the far milder combinations of liquid oxygen (LOX) with kerosene or liquid hydrogen. Hydrazine, which is in use, is highly toxic and dangerously unstable. (several of these have been featured on http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/ - a great read for anybody who likes spicy chemistry) This post is mostly to show space workers in Eclipse Phase how lovely their work environment actually is. Thanks to metallic hydrogen (which is just explosive), antimatter and small reactors they do not have to worry about the colourful hazards of bygone ages. Still, salvaging really old equipment or stuff built by eccentric designers ("If we can stabilize hydrogen, we ought to be able to stabilize nitrogen too!!!") will introduce some of the old horrors.
Extropian
root root's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
root@Rocket fuels [hr] Do those FLOX explosives work differently in vacuum? I'm not that good with chemistry, but I'm trying to ask if the space environment contains the virulence of the reaction well enough that FLOX can be used as a propellant in space. Or as a asteroid mining tool for space-dust based mining.
[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
root wrote:
Do those FLOX explosives work differently in vacuum? I'm not that good with chemistry, but I'm trying to ask if the space environment contains the virulence of the reaction well enough that FLOX can be used as a propellant in space. Or as a asteroid mining tool for space-dust based mining.
Rocket fuels contain all the molecules needed to burn, with no external oxygen needed. The problem with FLOX is that you have to lug around a tank with liquid fluorine. Not as nasty as antimatter, but still potentially dangerous if it gets open. The exhaust is toxic and nasty, but quickly disperses in vacuum.
Extropian
King Shere King Shere's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
ALICE (aluminum and ice) http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091021-tw-alice-rocket.html Reminds me of the mythbuster test with thermite + ice, but also the Metal combustion in CO2.
Quote:
Combustion of metals in carbon dioxide is a promising source of energy for propulsion on Mars. This approach is based on the ability of some metals (e.g. Mg, Al) to burn in CO2 atmosphere and suggests use of the Martian carbon dioxide as an oxidizer in jet or rocket engines http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040161238_2004146...
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
ALICE seems to be a great idea. Not sure about its thrust properties (I suspect metallic hydrogen is hard to beat), but it can likely be manufactured nearly anywhere in the solar system where there is sand and ice. Takes some energy to refine the aluminium of course. While looking around it, I also found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite Ah, so much fun we can have with nanostructured unstable compounds! Muhahahaha!!!
Extropian
root root's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
root@Rocket fuels [hr] Doesn't nano-thermite get set off by very small amounts of electricity? On a totally unrelated subject, I've heard that phased array transceivers have no-fly zones around them because of the possibility of the radio waves setting off electrically triggered things like ejection seats.
[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
root wrote:
Doesn't nano-thermite get set off by very small amounts of electricity?
I guess if you design the nanostructures right it will be triggered well by the right signals.
Quote:
On a totally unrelated subject, I've heard that phased array transceivers have no-fly zones around them because of the possibility of the radio waves setting off electrically triggered things like ejection seats.
I can believe that. There is a lot of power in the field if you want to run an early warning system, since you want a multi-thousand km range (and the received signal scales as 1/r^4). There will be some weird side lobes and tough gradients near the array. Incidentally, I think this will be true for EP phased aray laser cannons too. You don't want to be too close to the array when it fires - there will be *laser* side lobes.
Extropian
root root's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
root@Rocket Fuels [hr] I was thinking that there are lots of nasty nanotech constructs that have to be shielded from EM transmissions, which can get somewhat bitchy. For instance, a sufficiently dense cloud of particulate matter will explode (grain silos do this), so what ends up being the sufficiently dense cloud of nanites that can get set off by a local spime operating in the microwave region? Nano-spam can make your habitat explode.
[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
root wrote:
root@Rocket Fuels [hr] I was thinking that there are lots of nasty nanotech constructs that have to be shielded from EM transmissions, which can get somewhat bitchy. For instance, a sufficiently dense cloud of particulate matter will explode (grain silos do this), so what ends up being the sufficiently dense cloud of nanites that can get set off by a local spime operating in the microwave region? Nano-spam can make your habitat explode.
Yup. Dust explosions are essentially solid fuel-air explosives. However, they require the dust to be flammable and distributed in the air. The later is easy to accidentally achieve in microgravity, since things settle very slowly. The former can be fixed by careful engineering: *don't* use diamond shells for nanomachines, use aluminium oxide! Conversely, in vacuum conditions where there should not be any oxygen there is no real reason not to use whatever materials work the best. So devices intended to work there might have unshielded alkali metals, reactive diamond dust and tend to blow up in contact with air and water. Just a fun little hazard for PCs who go where they are not supposed to, and then forget to clean their space suits...
Extropian
nick012000 nick012000's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
Bah. All of these are merely chemical reaction engines; real men use Orion drives. They're superior to chemical engines and most fusion engines in basically every way that counts.

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Rocket fuels
nick012000 wrote:
Bah. All of these are merely chemical reaction engines; real men use Orion drives. They're superior to chemical engines and most fusion engines in basically every way that counts.
And you can use antimatter for even lighter Orion's. The problem is of course that now you have a ship loaded with easily detachable WMDs.
Extropian