6 ms·

Yes, but the Merlin engine doesn’t burn hydrazine, it burns RP-1 just like the F-1. I fail to see the environmental benefit. Also, how energy efficient is the

Yes, but the Merlin engine doesn’t burn hydrazine, it burns RP-1 just like the F-1. I fail to see the environmental benefit. Also, how energy efficient is the production of hydrazine? Non-fossil processes for making fuels tend to be pretty wasteful, take hydrogen from methane compared to hydrogen from electrolysis for instance.

messe 5y ago
SpaceX’s starship and superheavy are planned to use Methane rather than RP-1. The exhaust is much cleaner. It’s not as clean as just using Hydrogen, but that’s quite difficult to store at cryogenic temperatures, far less dense, and not as suited to long duration missions.
- _joel 5y ago
  Yes, this is the whole reason they designed Raptor and get methane via the Sabatier reaction [1]. If you want to get back from Mars, you won't find tanks of RP-1 but you can make methane from abumdant CO2 and water (with solar arrays) which is available on Mars [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
  - JPLeRouzic 5y ago
    Could it be used to could make cars based on hydrogen which while thermal, would be also without net carbon emission, isn't?
    - _joel 5y ago
      Sabtier doesn't make H2, it makes CH4. You'd need to convert it at about 300degC with a catalyst (so that takes lots of energy). Then the byproduct would be CO, whilst that isn't a bad direct greenhouse gas it interact with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere. Hydoxyls ineract with other greenhouse gases to reduce their power, so it would have no net effect, if anything it could be worse. Just combust the CH4 directly, it's got better energy storage capacity anyway.
      - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
        You would take the resulting CH₄ and split off the hydrogen using pyrolysis and put that in the car. Which is likely how you would get the H₂ to feed the Sabatier reaction in the first place, from CH₄ out of the ground. I don't know what is sillier, this or hydrolysis of water. I suppose the benefit of removing and adding and removing carbon again would be that at each removal step you end up with a pile of solid carbon that you can put in a landfill. But I'm always wary of schemes to spend energy to sequester carbon, even if it is renewable energy. That's energy you probably could have used to greater effect elsewhere, like charging an electric car or supplanting a coal power plant.

messe 5y ago

SpaceX’s starship and superheavy are planned to use Methane rather than RP-1. The exhaust is much cleaner. It’s not as clean as just using Hydrogen, but that’s quite difficult to store at cryogenic temperatures, far less dense, and not as suited to long duration missions.

_joel 5y ago
Yes, this is the whole reason they designed Raptor and get methane via the Sabatier reaction [1]. If you want to get back from Mars, you won't find tanks of RP-1 but you can make methane from abumdant CO2 and water (with solar arrays) which is available on Mars [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
- JPLeRouzic 5y ago
  Could it be used to could make cars based on hydrogen which while thermal, would be also without net carbon emission, isn't?
  - _joel 5y ago
    Sabtier doesn't make H2, it makes CH4. You'd need to convert it at about 300degC with a catalyst (so that takes lots of energy). Then the byproduct would be CO, whilst that isn't a bad direct greenhouse gas it interact with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere. Hydoxyls ineract with other greenhouse gases to reduce their power, so it would have no net effect, if anything it could be worse. Just combust the CH4 directly, it's got better energy storage capacity anyway.
    - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
      You would take the resulting CH₄ and split off the hydrogen using pyrolysis and put that in the car. Which is likely how you would get the H₂ to feed the Sabatier reaction in the first place, from CH₄ out of the ground. I don't know what is sillier, this or hydrolysis of water. I suppose the benefit of removing and adding and removing carbon again would be that at each removal step you end up with a pile of solid carbon that you can put in a landfill. But I'm always wary of schemes to spend energy to sequester carbon, even if it is renewable energy. That's energy you probably could have used to greater effect elsewhere, like charging an electric car or supplanting a coal power plant.