| General > General Technical Chat |
| Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE |
| << < (19/22) > >> |
| Sal Ammoniac:
--- Quote from: asmi on April 27, 2023, 07:28:28 pm --- --- Quote from: coppice on April 27, 2023, 03:48:53 pm ---The fuel is solid. Its not volatile. It burns ferociously once ignited, but like many high energy combustible or explosive materials its pretty hard to get started. One of the nice things about solid fuel rockets for things like air-to-air attacks is you want them to sit around for years unused with minimal risk and maintenance, and they do. --- End quote --- That is still more dangerous than with liquid rockets, which are simply transported unfueled and therefore these is zero chance of explosive accident. --- End quote --- Ah, but you still have to transport the liquid fuel and oxidizer, which isn't without its own hazards, especially for hypergolics like hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. |
| Dundarave:
There was a reference earlier in the thread regarding the failures and successes of the Russian rocket programs, and I wanted to bring attention to these four PDF books by Russian academician Boris Chertok for those interested: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol1.pdf https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol2.pdf https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol3.pdf https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol4.pdf They describe the Russian rocket and space program from the beginning in amazing personal detail from a high-ranking insider. Lots of incredible screwups that make for great comparisons. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 27, 2023, 08:16:13 pm ---Ah, but you still have to transport the liquid fuel and oxidizer, which isn't without its own hazards, especially for hypergolics like hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. --- End quote --- Transporting hypergolics must be a nightmare. They seem like something you would restrict to places where the alternatives have serious problems, like control thrusters. In reality there are large vehicles driven entirely by them. |
| David Hess:
--- Quote from: coppice on April 27, 2023, 08:29:28 pm ---Transporting hypergolics must be a nightmare. They seem like something you would restrict to places where the alternatives have serious problems, like control thrusters. In reality there are large vehicles driven entirely by them. --- End quote --- Hypergolics have the advantages of easy ignition, easy storage, and high performance. It took a long time for solid fuels to reach useful levels of performance and cryogenic fuels are difficult to store. As far as safety, solid fuels have the disadvantage of not being able to throttle, shut-off, or restart, except for hybrid rockets which have the disadvantages of both and more. |
| David Hess:
--- Quote from: coppice on April 27, 2023, 08:29:28 pm ---Transporting hypergolics must be a nightmare. They seem like something you would restrict to places where the alternatives have serious problems, like control thrusters. In reality there are large vehicles driven entirely by them. --- End quote --- I do not think hypergolics are any more dangerous to transport than many industrial chemicals. They are sure a hazard if spilled, but so are a lot of things. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |