3 ms·
The subtitle is worth a mention: it’s a history of the development of liquid rocket fuels (in the USA — written in the early 1970s, it predates the opening up o
by cstross 7y ago
The subtitle is worth a mention: it’s a history of the development of liquid rocket fuels (in the USA — written in the early 1970s, it predates the opening up of Soviet rocketry to the west). Written by a chemist specializing in high energy reactions, it’s memorable for such bizarre concepts as the exploration of ozone as a possible oxidizing agent (scary stuff!) and the alarming willingness of the US Navy and Air Force to even think about using Dimethyl Mercury as rocket fuel (hint: it’s pretty much the benchmark for neurotoxins—see also Karen Wetterhahn—and when you burn it the exhaust plume dissolves aluminum structures like, oh, aircraft wings and warship superstructures).
- wiredfool 7y agoI ran across a PDF of ignition a while back and lost a couple of days to it. My recollection is that they were aiming for atomic mercury, because a monatomic heavy propellant was one way to optimize the specific impulse. Not as bad as dimethyl mercury, but still quite toxic.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pfdietz 7y agoThe mercury was for optimizing for density impulse: density x specific impulse.
- pjc50 7y agoIn the book, the "safe" oxidiser they settle on is ... red fuming nitric acid! After discovering that it can be safely stored in stainless steel tanks with the addition of a small amount of the even more dangerous hydrofluric acid, which forms some kind of iron-fluoride compound on the tank inner surface.