Metallic Hydrogen created, will change spaceflight

[Peder]

Dear Forum.

I read something interesting in the news today that I thought you guys might find interesting.
Some Researchers have created " metalic hydrogen".. You might wonder what it is, but that is hydrogen gas compressed with a force of 71700000 psi, that is more than 1,3 the presure of the presure in the earth center.
So you might wonder why is this so facinating.
When doing this you can create "metallic hydrogen" and it is what I will call a "super rocket fuel".
The "metalic hydrogen" can also be used in electric cars and many other products".
However so far it is extremly difficult to create metallic hydrogen, and also very expensive.. But as time goes by and they get better and faster at creating this, then it the price will drop ect.

But maybe im not the best at explaining, but hope you guys find what you seek about the topic in the below links.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/diamond-vise-turns-hydrogen-metal-potentially-ending-80-year-quest

Here is a danish article with interesting facts.  ( use google translate to translate it )
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/naturvidenskab/metallisk-brint-skabt-i-laboratoriet-kan-give-os-super-raketter
 

Or you can try to click my google translate link for direct translation

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=da&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fnyheder%2Fviden%2Fnaturvidenskab%2Fmetallisk-brint-skabt-i-laboratoriet-kan-give-os-super-raketter&edit-text=

Edited January 26, 2017 by Peder

[Shpaget]

Quote

Metallic Hydrogen created

*allegedly

Quote

will change spaceflight

Only if it retains the form after releasing the pressure produced by the diamond vise.

And if they can make more than a speck of it.

And if they made any at all.

[Streetwind]

"will change spaceflight" is a strong claim. There's four possible turnouts I can see here:

1.) The experiment fails to pass peer review, or turns out to have created a liquid. Everything returns to business as usual.

2.) The experiment created metallic solid hydrogen, but it reverts to its natural gaseous state after the vice is released and/or the temperature is raised back to normal. The scientific community utters a collective groan of disappointment, and resigns itself to studying its properties in the lab for novelty factor only.

3.) The experiment created metallic solid hydrogen, and it tenuously survives being brought back up to ambient pressure and temperature. A wave of great excitement rushes through the scientific and engineering world, and usage as a rocket fuel is discussed by amateur blogs everywhere, while the professionals just shake their head with a wistful smile because nobody is suicidal enough to deal with the stuff in practice. It would be more dangerous than chlorine triflouride.

4.) The experiment created metallic solid hydrogen, and like diamond, it not only survives being brought to ambient pressure, but it turns out rock solid. The entire world faints in shock, somebody wins a nobel prize, and rocket fuel ambitions are completely forgotten because Jesus Christ In A Camper Van we have a stable solid room temperature superconductor! Spaceflight will be the least that this changes. It'll change everything.

 

I'm intrigued by the experiment, but you know the saying: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm expecting this to be case 1 or 2 for the time being, until more independent confirmation to the contrary comes about.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Streetwind

[Carl]

21 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

It would be more dangerous than chlorine triflouride.

It could be worse, it could be dioxygen difluoride.

[DDE]

@Carl, it's an easy bar to meet. ClF3's forgotten cousin ClF5 comes to mind. @Streetwind, it's a very potent explosive based on theoretical predictions.

I say we shouldn't get our hopes up, and are ought to keep an eye out for research on mono-H.

[YNM]

Seeing the helium tank explosion...

 

... I think we shouldn't try it yet.

[UmbralRaptor]

Oh good, the actual article is paywalled.

 

My solid state physics is a bit weak, so what does a 32.5 eV plasma frequency mean in terms of conductivity and optical properties? Similiarly, does the 7.7e23 particles/cm^3 have any effect on (thermal and/or electrical) conductivity, and does it mean that the material density is ~1.28 g/cm^3? (At the, uh, interestingly high pressure)

Edited January 27, 2017 by UmbralRaptor

[K^2]

Yes on the density. Both properties imply high conductivity and makes it a fantastic candidate for superconductivity. (Not that it's news.) Optical properties, in a word, shiny. Again, not surprising for a metal.

And yeah, for metallic hydrogen to be usable as a fuel, it has to be metastable. MSMH would be an ultimate chemical fuel by all accounts, but there is currently no evidence of metastability.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, YNM said:

helium tank explosion

Spoiler

 

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

MSMH would be an ultimate chemical fuel by all accounts, but there is currently no evidence of metastability.

Unless it would have required many times more energy than contain.

[Carl]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Unless it would have required many times more energy than contain.

Even then it has the advantage of being storable, so you can do the compressing when you have lots of energy but little need for thrust and release it when the opposite is true.

[magnemoe]

52 minutes ago, Carl said:

Even then it has the advantage of being storable, so you can do the compressing when you have lots of energy but little need for thrust and release it when the opposite is true.

That it require lot more of energy to create than you get out of it is not an problem, its simply an cost issue, an good monopropelant with an ISP of 1000 could easy defend an very high liter price. 
Yes price could easy be too high, many million $ for an liter would be too expensive,  1000 $ would make it very interesting. 
Main issue is if its stable and how stable. 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Carl said:

Even then it has the advantage of being storable, so you can do the compressing when you have lots of energy but little need for thrust and release it when the opposite is true.

Unless the plant for this would be easier to store onboard and call "engine".

[Carl]

There's not a lot of options out there that offer what metastable metallic hydrogen would in terms of engine performance.

[tomf]

10 minutes ago, Carl said:

There's not a lot of options out there that offer what metastable metallic hydrogen would in terms of engine performance.

My googleing turned up a few sources claiming an ISP of 1700 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012194/meta

[Carl]

Yeah but the thing about MSMH is it doesn't have anywhere near as bad a set of problems in achieving high TWR as most similar or higher ISP options. And it doesn't have the issues in terms of radiation or whatever of various nuke proposals that could do high ISP + High Thrust. IMO i suspect MH won;t be MS, though i wouldn't rule out it being possible to make it so in some fashion. But thats likely a long, long time away.

[HebaruSan]

Here's the previous metallic hydrogen thread. Is it the same research?

 

[magnemoe]

44 minutes ago, Carl said:

Yeah but the thing about MSMH is it doesn't have anywhere near as bad a set of problems in achieving high TWR as most similar or higher ISP options. And it doesn't have the issues in terms of radiation or whatever of various nuke proposals that could do high ISP + High Thrust. IMO i suspect MH won;t be MS, though i wouldn't rule out it being possible to make it so in some fashion. But thats likely a long, long time away.

Yes, MSMH has high ISP, might be higher than nuclear thermal while you can get higher trust than even nuclear thermal not to talk about ion.
And its an monopropelant so you can use an very simple engine, perfect for upper stages. 
I doubt its metastable however even metastable while cryogenic would make it very useful. 

[Scotius]

But...how would this work? We'd have a shiny block of metal stored somewhere in the rocket - how would it be turned into a very fast gas escaping through the nozzle? Heat it up in a controlled manner? Shave some particulates and turn them into gas away from the main chunk?

[Carl]

That depends on the exact properties, but heating it is a definite possibility.

[Green Baron]

It seems like there are serious doubts about what was really measured.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-metallic-hydrogen-1.21379

Edited January 28, 2017 by Green Baron

[K^2]

14 hours ago, Scotius said:

But...how would this work? We'd have a shiny block of metal stored somewhere in the rocket - how would it be turned into a very fast gas escaping through the nozzle? Heat it up in a controlled manner? Shave some particulates and turn them into gas away from the main chunk?

Do you understand, at least roughly, how a solid rocket engine works? Look it up on Wikipedia if you have some doubts. MSMH rocket would work exactly the same way, with heat causing Hydrogen at the interface to transition, increasing pressure and temperature in the chamber as a side effect. This is somewhat unusual, as materials usually take energy away while evaporating/subliming, but metallic hydrogen has such ludicrously high enthalpy, that it would not only offset energy required to turn Hydrogen into gas, but also leave enough energy overhead to significantly surpass any chemical rocket in every metric of performance.

[Guest]

On 27/01/2017 at 1:30 AM, YNM said:

Seeing the helium tank explosion...

 

... I think we shouldn't try it yet.

When should it be done, then? You'll never get better at something without trying.

[Scotius]

Thank you for the answer. There was no need for snippiness though. I do know how solid fuel engine works. Thing is, i (nor anyone else so far) never seen an engine filled with a gas squeezed so hard, it became a lump of metal. Rocketry 101 doesn't cover the behaviour of metastable metallic hydrogen when it's heated and turns to gas again. Would it liquify in a controlled manner, or would it explosively turn to a cloud of gas (and shrapnel) all at once when exposed to heat? Thus my curiosity. Considering the amount of energy stored in said lump, caution is highly advised.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Scotius said:

Thank you for the answer. There was no need for snippiness though. I do know how solid fuel engine works. Thing is, i (nor anyone else so far) never seen an engine filled with a gas squeezed so hard, it became a lump of metal. Rocketry 101 doesn't cover the behaviour of metastable metallic hydrogen when it's heated and turns to gas again. Would it liquify in a controlled manner, or would it explosively turn to a cloud of gas (and shrapnel) all at once when exposed to heat? Thus my curiosity. Considering the amount of energy stored in said lump, caution is highly advised.

Would it liquify in a controlled manner, or would it explosively turn to a cloud of gas (and shrapnel) all at once when exposed to heat?
Yes that is also important, most solid fuel is designed to burn slowly, as I understand gunpowder is also designed to reduce burn speed, however metallic hydrogen would not burn 

[YNM]

10 hours ago, String Witch said:

When should it be done, then? You'll never get better at something without trying.

Well, definitely don't test it on a ment-to-fly booster yet...