Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 16 May 91 02:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 May 91 02:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #558 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 558 Today's Topics: Doc Clark tells all about ozone (long) Re: Honking at cyclists... Re: Honking at cyclists... Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Honking at cyclists... Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 1991 20:37 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Doc Clark tells all about ozone (long) Original_To: SPACE In article Richard Ristow (AP430001@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU) wrote: >There's been some discussion about alternative propellant chemistry. Does >anybody know the current thinking on using ozone as the oxidant? ... And with admirable economy, Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu-- but you knew that) replied: >As far as I know, nobody has found a way around the fundamental >problem of coping with a cryogenic liquid that is a powerful and >touchy explosive. Despite this, I got the contrary urge to dig up *Ignition* from the local library and quote big slabs of what Doc Clark had to say about this. You may consider this a shameless waste of net bandwidth, but I insist that it is Good For You to Become Educated. Here's Doc: ================ Ozone, O-sub-3, is an allotropic form of oxygen... what makes it attractive as a propellant is that (1)its liquid density is considerably higher than that of liquid oxygen, and (2) when a mole of it decomposes to oxygen during combustion it gives off 34 kilocalories of energy, which will boost your performance correspondingly. Saenger was interested in it in the 30's, and the interest has endured to the present. In the face of considerable disillusionment. For it has its drawbacks. The least of these is that it's as least as toxic as fluorine. (People who speak of the invigorating odor of ozone have never met a real concentration of it!) Much more important is the fact that it's unstable-- murderously so. At the slightest provocation and sometimes for no apparent reason, it may revert explosively to oxygen. And this reversion is catalyzed by water, chlorine, metal oxides, alkalis-- and by, apparently, certain substances which have not been identified. Compared to ozone, hydrogen peroxide has the sensitivity of a heavyweight wrestler. Since pure ozone was so lethal, work was concentrated on solutions of ozone in oxygen, which could be expected to be less dangerous. The organizations most involved were the Forrestal Laboratories of Princeton University, the Armour Research Institute, and the Air Reduction Co. Work started in the early 50's, and has continued, on and off, ever since. ...During 1954-57, the Forrestal fired concentrations of ozone as high as 25 percent, using ethanol as the fuel. And they had troubles. The boiling point of oxygen is 90 K. That of ozone is 161 K. On shutdown, the inside of the oxidizer lines would be wet with the ozone-oxygen mixture, which would immediately start to evaporate. The oxygen, with the lower boiling point, would naturally come off first, and the solution would become more concentrated in ozone. And when that concentration approaches 30 percent, at any temperature below 93 K, a strange thing happens. The mixture separates into two liquid phases, one containing 30 percent ozone, the other containing 75 percent. And as more oxygen boils off, the 30-percent phase decreases, and the 75-percent phase increases, until you have only one solution again-- all 75 percent ozone. And *this* mixture is *really* sensitive! So after a series of post-shutdown explosions which were a bit hard on the plumbing and worse on the nerves of the engineers, some rather rigorous purging procedures were adopted. Immediately after shutdown, the oxidizer lines were flushed with liquid oxygen, or with gaseous oxygen or nitrogen, to get rid of the residual ozone before it could cause trouble. That was some sort of a solution to the problem but not a very satisfactory one. 25% ozone in oxygen is not so superior to oxygen as to make its attractions overwhelmingly more important than the difficulty of handling it. A somewhat superior solution would be to eliminate the phase separation somehow, and in 1954-55 G.M. Platz... had some success in attempting to do this. He showed that the addition of about 2.8 percent of Freon 13, CClF3, to the mixture would prevent phase separation at 90 K, although not at 85 K. Which meant that if you had, say, a 35-percent mixture at the boiling point of oxygen, it would remain homogeneous, but if you cooled it to the boiling point of nitrogen 77 K, the high-concentration, lethal, phase would separate out. [A bunch of people from Battelle and Air Reduction] came up with a better answer in 1964-65, when they showed that 5 percent of OF2 or 9 percent of F2 added to the mixture completely eliminated the phase separation problem. And their addition didn't degrade the performance, as the Freon would have. Nobody has yet come up with an even faintly plausible explanation for the solubilizing effect of the additives! One other ozone mixture has been considered-- that of ozone and fluorine, which was thoroughly investigated during 1961 by A.J. Gaynor of Armour. (30% of ozone would be optimum for RP-1.) But the improvement over Flox 70 [a 70% fluorine-30% O2 mixture --WSH] wouldn't be too impressive, and the thought of what might happen if the ozone in the oxidizer let go on the launching pad and spread the fluorine all over tha landscape was somewhat unnerving, and I have heard of no motor runs with the mixture. For ozone still explodes. Some investigators believe that the explosions are initiated by traces of organic peroxides in the stuff, which come from traces, say, of oil in the oxygen it was made of. Other workers are convinced that it's just the nature of ozone to explode, and still others are sure that original sin has something to do with it. So although ozone research has been continuing in a desultory fashion, there are very few true believers left, who are still convinced that ozone will somehow, someday, come into its own. I'm not one of them. ================= From *Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants*, by John D. Clark, Rutgers University Press, 1972. Quoted without permission. But if Rutgers really *cared* about their copyright they'd *keep it in print*, wouldn't they, and then I could BUY A COPY OF THE DAMNED BOOK! (bitter? no, not me, I'm not bitter.) I've gotten nowhere in finding copies for sale. Fortunately a few nearby libraries have it. Public libraries are among God's finest blessings upon this planet... But don't get me started. Next time you're at a party, you can work the topic around to ozone as a rocket propellant, and dazzle everyone with your expertise, making new friends and attracting members of the opposite sex. Thank a public library for it. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins \ / Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - - Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET ~ Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 91 21:31:53 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!bradley.bradley.edu!buhub!moonman@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Craig Levin) Subject: Re: Honking at cyclists... Excuse me, gentlemen, but perhaps this string ought to be conducted in sci.environment or sci.energy? I don't see a good deal of this pertaining to space, IMHO, and some of this is getting way off of science-witness someone's dragging in of his own interpretation of Social Darwinism, etc. -- Craig\The Moonman\Levin Pedro Alcazar moonman@buhub.bradley.edu House Of The Moss Rose, Barony of Illiton, Middle Kingdom "Space is big, space is dark, you'll always find a place to park!" -Burma Shave ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 91 22:56:34 GMT From: ss86+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott A. Starkin) Subject: Re: Honking at cyclists... What does this have to do with this My point is that we'll have to expand our energy consumption and our |> vital space NO MATTER WHAT goes on. Of course we can improve |> our efficiency to use this or that source of energy and matter, but |> sonner or later we'll have to use the minerals of Antarctica, the |> deuterium in the Earth's oceans, and go to the moon in order to |> build a plateform there for Mars, Marcury and the asteroids. |> Our ever increasing population will need more and more, and each individual |> will need more and more of everything. And sooner or later even the |> entire solar system won't be sufficient, so we'll have the rest of the galaxy... Really this has gone well over the edge of what belongs on netnews autos or for that matter reality. Enough is enough with this trash, you people are getting almost as bad as the motorcylcists remember this is a b-board about cars ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 91 01:54:23 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS >In article <9105121528.AA27759@iti.org>, aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >|> Why would they lowball for a fixed price contract? They would lose >|> a lot of money that way. > It is worth noting that contractors do not initiate government contracts. If the above mentioned offer is picked up by the government, a request for contact bids will go out, and various companies will submit bids. These bids may or may not be be fixed price. The companies will certainly "update" their cost estimates. The final cost which they offer the government could change dramatically. When someone offers the government a "fixed price contract", at least at this point in a project, that company KNOWS that there is almost no chance that the government will simply say "OK, go ahead." (In fact, I think this would actually be unlawfull.) The purpose of such a fixed price offer is to make the launch vehicle in question look like a good idea. If they make a good case (e.g. sell it to the congress or NASA or DOD.) Then, at some later date, there will be a contract out there. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 91 19:29:44 GMT From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May14.175342.430@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >>I have to side with NASA on this one, I'm afraid. How long will it take >>to get "cheaper approaches" into production? > >Should be doable in five years... Yes... but I said "how long *will* it take". Accepting the Augustine report means doing exactly what NASA did in the 1970s: phasing out a working, operational capability in favor of rosy promises on paper. There is no commitment to any near-term development of heavylift launch capability or manned expendables. Orbiter production should be terminated only when such efforts are approved, funded, and well under way. They aren't. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 91 20:33:53 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May14.175342.430@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1991May13.162458.2041@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>I have to side with NASA on this one, I'm afraid. How long will it take >>to get "cheaper approaches" into production? > >Should be doable in five years. We fund HL Delta and Titan V for heavy >lift. We buy a Soyuz or rebuild a simple Apollo CSM to transport crew. To >finish it off, we build a simple space station (perhaps the LLNL plan >of something from the SSI ET study). All of this should be doable for about >one years Shuttle costs. Duh, huhhhh? We're going to build *TWO* new, improved lift vehicles, buy and Americanize a Soyuz and mount it on top of a U.S. booster (either? Both? You don't say up there) OR rebuild a CSM and certify it atop New, Improved boosters (two separate steps there), and then put up an Econo-lodge space "station" for the low-low-low price of one year's Shuttle costs? You forgot the Ginzu steak knives. To use the Henri Spencer (TM) Phrase: "Numbers, Please" > This would give us every capability the Shuttle now >has. It would also be cheaper and allow more work to be done. Oh? So how do you fit SpaceLab modules on top of a Titan V and then bring them back in 7, 10, or 30 days? What do you propose to tell the European Community? "Sorry, folks, redesign again because we are..." How do you bring back satellites and haul around 7 people at once? How do you provide a robot arm and experiments in tethered satellites? How do you tell all the poor bastards who have based their graduate research work to fit into a Shuttle bay that they have to rework their experiements Yet Again? "We will take the money we save and help them to convert their experiments..." Uh, no. I don't THINK so. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 91 02:28:58 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Honking at cyclists... I do not exactly understand how you can discuss the status of the human race thousands of years in the future. The level of technology available by then will, literally, be like nothing we could even guess. Similarly, we have no idea today, what the major problems with human expansion will be. I feel that, as long as we can solve the problems of the next, say 50 years, we can assume our children will be able to figure something out to deal with more long term problems. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 91 17:57:54 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516 In article <1991May13.211249.8185@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <28875@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>I don't see how your conclusion follows, myself. We do not have the >>booster capacity, booster reliability, manned spaceflight experience, >>or telerobotic capability to start exploiting asteroids in the next >>few years, and I doubt it will be all ready to go by the end of the >>decade, either. We really aren't in *that* big of a rush to get the >>information. >Asteroid and comet exploration makes a _big_ difference in the timetable. >To see one of the reasons why, let's take a little side-trip into orbital >mechanics. [lotsa stuff deleted] >If we could detect asteroids down to 10m, this would solve two problems: In other words, we need better detection apparatus, not a half-baked asteriod explorer salvaged from a Galileo mission. How does any of what you said apply to Galileo? I agree with you that asteroid mining and exploitation will be a boon to space industrialization/exploration/settlement/whatever. However, my point was that diverting Galileo from its mission will have absolutely no effect on the rate of our advancement towards this level of space exploitation, since we will still have to wait until we get a good internal analysis of some asteroids. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #558 *******************