I Love Rocket Science

[spacejunkie]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/04may_methaneblast.htm?list202240

[Yggdrasill]

You're not the only one. ;)

[Plognark]

That's so cool :grin:

[tensorproduct]

The link won't work. :(

[Worldtraveller]

Oooh...methane/LOX rocket? That's cool. Not eh most efficient in terms of combustion, but if we can process methane and oxygen from other planets within the solar system, it might be the most effective in the long run.

Cool stuff.

When I was in school, I got to witness a few dozen rocket firing (not that big, though) and it is always a cool thing to see up close.

Cheers,
Lane

[spacejunkie]

The link won't work. :(

Works fine for me. :huh:

Try clicking the quote button and then cut and paste the link.

Better yet! Google this,

Methane Blast

[premjan]

Maybe NASA blocks requests from Ireland? Works for me.

[tensorproduct]

Maybe NASA blocks requests from Ireland? Works for me.

Never had a problem with the Nasa website before, can't seem to get onto it at all at the moment. I found the video on YouTube though: awesome.

[Plognark]

Oooh...methane/LOX rocket? That's cool. Not eh most efficient in terms of combustion, but if we can process methane and oxygen from other planets within the solar system, it might be the most effective in the long run.

Cool stuff.

When I was in school, I got to witness a few dozen rocket firing (not that big, though) and it is always a cool thing to see up close.

Cheers,
Lane

I figure the ease of transport and ready availability are worth the downgrade in raw chemical power.

[Rhaedas]

Aside from less power, any reason why this hasn't been explored before? Sounds like overall it's a better choice in the long run. And even at less power per pound, if you're having to carry less insulation at the start, which is where most of the fuel is used anyway, maybe it's an even trade.

[Plognark]

Aside from less power, any reason why this hasn't been explored before? Sounds like overall it's a better choice in the long run. And even at less power per pound, if you're having to carry less insulation at the start, which is where most of the fuel is used anyway, maybe it's an even trade.

Dunno, they probably just went for the biggest bang per pound in the past. Now they're taking more variables into account, maybe.

[premjan]

methane no use without oxygen.

[Rhaedas]

Hydrogen doesn't oxydize well without oxygen either.

[Plognark]

methane no use without oxygen.

Consider the following: Liquid hydrogen fuel used by the space shuttle must be stored at a temperature of -252.9°C—only about 20 degrees above absolute zero! Liquid methane, on the other hand, can be stored at the much warmer and more convenient temperature of -161.6°C. That means methane fuel tanks wouldn't need as much insulation, making them lighter and thus cheaper to launch. The tanks could also be smaller, because liquid methane is denser than liquid hydrogen, again saving money and weight.

It's the liquid Hydrogen that's a bitch to store and insulate. A ~90 degree difference, especially at those low ranges, is a hell of a lot easier to maintain.

ETA: I don't think it's too hard to make O2 as long as you've got some electricity handy. You can just electrically split it from water, right?

[Yggdrasill]

The temperature issue isn't that important here on earth, as it's relatively cheap to just keep topping off the tanks with liquid as the gas escapes through valves at the top. That isn't as good in space, as the infrastructure required to keep topping off the tanks isn't as readily available.

These sorts of engines should be explored further, even if they don't end up being widely used. Adding options to the mix is never bad.

[Yggdrasill]

ETA: I don't think it's too hard to make O2 as long as you've got some electricity handy. You can just electrically split it from water, right?That is one way, yes, though the oxygen won't be liquid, and will need to be liquefied before being used in a rocket.

[Ampoliros]

NASA was originally considering methane/LOX for the CEV Service Module and the lander for Moon/Mars missions, but they scrapped it (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4191) in favor of traditional and more tested propellants (hypergolics or LH2), rather than pushing for the development on methane.

Edit: Oh yeah, and the vid in the link is extremely awesome. :)

[Plognark]

That is one way, yes, though the oxygen won't be liquid, and will need to be liquefied before being used in a rocket.

Well, yeah, I guess cooling and/or condensing it should do fine, right? I mean, as long as you've got electricity, probably from solar panels, you can eventually get yourself some liquid O2, I'd think.

[Yggdrasill]

Well, yeah, I guess cooling and/or condensing it should do fine, right? I mean, as long as you've got electricity, probably from solar panels, you can eventually get yourself some liquid O2, I'd think.Yeah, you can, but it does add to the power requirements, which means bigger solar panels and such.

[premjan]

You'd probably need to run the solar panels for quite a while to generate enough electricity to split enough oxygen off to burn the methane.

[dimensionality]

i prefer antigravity propulsion.
the most powerful rocket engine ever built utilised nuclear thermal propulsion. why is nasa not using it?
because it's on the tr3-b flying triangle.