No Flamable rocket fuel

[ppcastroe]

Yesterday i have an idea. I know thath the rocket fuel make gas and this gas propels the rocket, but this fuel is very dangerous. This is my idea: if we put together bicarbonate of sodium and vinegar (nautralization reaction) we obtain gas and a liquid, this gas produce pressure when we contain this reaction. This reaction can whit the apropiates conditions propels a very litle probe in an sub-orbital flight.

all this thing is only an idea if you have more opoinions or comments about this topic, im very interested to see it

Thanks ppcastroe:)

p.d: Sorry about my english

[linkxsc]

The reaction is too slow and unpredictable to run into an engine. Also theres a lot of extra material involved that goes to waste.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Yesterday i have an idea. I know thath the rocket fuel make gas and this gas propels the rocket, but this fuel is very dangerous. This is my idea: if we put together bicarbonate of sodium and vinegar (nautralization reaction) we obtain gas and a liquid, this gas produce pressure when we contain this reaction. This reaction can whit the apropiates conditions propels a very litle probe in an sub-orbital flight.

all this thing is only an idea if you have more opoinions or comments about this topic, im very interested to see it

Thanks ppcastroe:)

p.d: Sorry about my english

Anyone want to calculate the ISP of baking soda and vinegar? I'm going to guess it's in the single digits.

When you want a "safe" rocket engine, you use what is called a cold gas thruster: basically a bottle of compressed nitrogen or helium attached to a nozzle. IIRC these can get ISPs over 100. Even then, to get any payload into a suborbital space trajectory, you generally need something like APCP or a hybrid rocket.

Baking soda and vinegar are on the same level of energy as soda and Mentos; at BEST, you get a vehicle that can propel itself off the ground for a few seconds.

[Kibble]

IIRC these can get ISPs over 100.

Cold gas thrusters can only achieve an ISP of 68 seconds.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

This thread did get me thinking about something: There's no perfectly safe way to store large amounts of energy. We've all seen explosions with rocket or jet fuel, but we've also seen lithium batteries burn, compressed gas canisters can burst, flywheels can shatter and even springs can cause spectacular destruction when they snap.

Basically if you ever need to engineer something with high energy density then you have to run the risk of that energy being released much more rapidly than you might want.

[magnemoe]

This thread did get me thinking about something: There's no perfectly safe way to store large amounts of energy. We've all seen explosions with rocket or jet fuel, but we've also seen lithium batteries burn, compressed gas canisters can burst, flywheels can shatter and even springs can cause spectacular destruction when they snap.

Basically if you ever need to engineer something with high energy density then you have to run the risk of that energy being released much more rapidly than you might want.

This, liquid fuel is actually pretty safe as it can not do anything unless you also have oxygen, if you have oxygen it will just react on the surface. Batteries, flywheels, compressed gas and solid rocket fuel don't require oxygen.

[Nibb31]

Getting to orbit requires a lot of high-density energy. You will always need some sort containment and expensive handling measures to manipulate that sort of energy.

This is why getting to space will always be a complicated and expensive process. People won't have this sort of energy available in their garage or their back yard, because the probability of that energy being unleashed in an uncontrolled manner would be too catastrophic.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Nibb31

[Teamwork]

Cold gas thrusters can only achieve an ISP of 68 seconds.

Well it obviously depends on what the propellant is. A quick search from wikipedia told me that and ISP of 68 is about what it should be for nitrogen gas.

[Firwen]

Some hybrid engines, like the one of the Dream Chaser use a mix of solid propellant and not-inflammable, not-toxic liquid propellant.

This is considered safer than classical liquid fuel + oxidizer.

However, they have a lower ISP than traditional liquid engines.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Firwen

[RainDreamer]

Hmm...do you count nuclear bombs as non-flamable fuel? Because, (correct me if I am wrong) technically you can't burn nuclear fuel. The reaction is different. So rockets that get their propulsion from the detonation of a nuclear bomb would probably fit this criteria, yes?

[Firwen]

Hmm...do you count nuclear bombs as non-flamable fuel? Because, (correct me if I am wrong) technically you can't burn nuclear fuel. The reaction is different. So rockets that get their propulsion from the detonation of a nuclear bomb would probably fit this criteria, yes?

This is the kind of idea that Jebediah would love.

[RainDreamer]

This is the kind of idea that Jebediah would love.

Ever heard of Project Orion?

[magnemoe]

Ever heard of Project Orion?

Think it was that he was referring to, ion engines uses non flameable fuel, same with vasmir, some small satellites heat cold gas by electricity to improve ISP, nerva runs on only hydrogen.

But I agree that orion is the winner in the non flammable fuel category.

[frizzank]

Another theory is that its not explosive at room temperature, much like the fuel used in the SR-71.

JP-7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7

[Xannari Ferrows]

I may be able to use Tauphi energy from my molecule to refine this theory, or whatever it is. If you hear about an explosion of unprecedented magnitude, it's probably me

[Just kidding. I know it wont happen]

[Cirocco]

Ah yes, project Orion a.k.a. "hey guys, let's fly a nuclear reactor into space by nuking it repeatedly"

funniest part being of course that barring the radiation, this actually could be a really efficient way to propel a spacecraft

you have to laugh at the ideas humanity comes up with sometimes

[Firwen]

Ever heard of Project Orion?

I knew it and I got the reference.

But only Jebediah can consider replacing "flammable" propulsion by nuclear bombs as being "safer"

[magnemoe]

Ah yes, project Orion a.k.a. "hey guys, let's fly a nuclear reactor into space by nuking it repeatedly"

funniest part being of course that barring the radiation, this actually could be a really efficient way to propel a spacecraft

you have to laugh at the ideas humanity comes up with sometimes

Then I was playing Fallout 3 transportation was an issue as it was no cars, horses or anything and it and it seemed impossible to mod in.

I came up with an genial idea using the game physic engine: it had mini nukes who exploded like an mortar shell an launcher and the explosion pushed everything away.

Why not combine orion pusher plate with pongo stick unfortunately nobody made it.

On the upper side its an orion mod for KSP, problem is that it pretty much breaks the game, 3000 ton to Jool in 30 days is no issue.

[Skyler4856]

Ever heard of beam based propulsion, that would fit in the realm of non-flammable fuel

[RainDreamer]

Ever heard of beam based propulsion, that would fit in the realm of non-flammable fuel

Not sure if that is even counted as fuel...

Although if we are talking about beam propulsion through ablation of surface material, you can call the material that get ablated away fuel, I guess. Otherwise we would still use conventional fuel sources to power our beams.

Edited April 23, 2015 by RainDreamer

[1of6Billion]

Like this? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Gizmo-Science-Museum-Cosmic/dp/B0000AUN2P

[Beowolf]

This is a standard issue that comes up whenever someone talks about innovative rocket propulsion. There is "fuel" and there is "propellant". Rockets need propellant, which is any matter you've ejected in one direction to push the rocket in the opposite direction. Fuel is where you get the energy that's going to be used to accelerate the propellant. It can be chemicals, nuclear, or for ion engines, plain old electricity.

Chemical rockets confuse matters two ways. First, their fuel and propellant are sort-of the same thing (the propellant is actually the combustion product of burning the fuel). Second, most chemical fuels are stored as two components that release their energy when mixed...confusingly called "fuel" and "oxidizer".

Personally, I wish we could just stop using the word fuel in rocketry. Too many cool concepts, like beamed propulsion and our old friend Orion, just don't fit the term. It seems to cause a distraction whenever those concepts get discussed.

Propellantless drives, like Cannae if it really works, will make things even more confusing!

[Brotoro]

Rocket engines (and other reaction engines that operate by ejecting a jet of particles, such as aircraft jet engines) need "reaction mass".

The stuff that pushes the reaction mass out of the engine is the "propellant". This term comes from the propellant in a gun that pushes the bullet out (talk to Goddard about this). Similarly, the compressed gas in a spray can is what pushes the stuff out of the can.

The propellant is very often the reaction mass (or part of the reaction mass)...but they don't have to be the same thing.

The engine also needs an energy source, which may be a "fuel" that is consumed, either by combustion with an oxidizer or by fission, for example. The fuel may be part of the propellant (or may not) which may be part of the reaction mass.