This was sooooo cool. I remember the Harvard test and Metallic Hydrogen. Hadn't heard about Octaoxygen. I however wouldn't want to expense out a manufacturing process for making Metallic Hydrogen. But WOW, now using this as a rocket fuel is just so cool! or hot lol
@@terranspaceacademy Actually I didn't do the math but much much further in a ship designed for it. It would be a fun research to figure out a ship with a combo of this fuel + Solar or Laser Sail.
@@terranspaceacademy hi, this may be a bit late but in one of your more recent videos (or may have been someone else idk), a microwave electro-thermal thruster was developed for use as a low thrust high lsp engine for satellites. it worked by ionizing water. if microwaves became powerful enough & compact enough, and perhaps a super dense power source (like fusion reactors) became practical, do you think we could combine this with the aforementioned metallic hydrogen+octaoxygen rocket, creating a high thrust, high specific impulse engine (metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen's exhaust product would be REALLY, REALLY hot water, but water nonetheless. Actually, if it's really hot, microwave antenna might end up doing less work, reducing the engineering requirements in one aspect)
Very cool! Metallic H and Octaoxygen. But I'm guessing they have to be kept at ultra high P and ultra low T which implies a building size cooler, a killer pressure vessel, and a power plant. So even theoretically you'd start with a really big vehicle. But sure, worth looking into. Btw, 0:55 Bloing - I like your spelling better. Onomatopoeicer :) Great episode, Prof! Thanks!
I'm glad you touch on metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen as a future fuel. I wish this would talked about more often to help push for research and development. It would be something if SpaceX got in on this.
Wow, new info! I know chemistry and thought about Fluorine as a great oxidizer a long time ago. I never knew Fluorine, Hydrogen, and Lithium were ever considered for rocket engines. I’ve heard of metallic hydrogen being a game changer, but Octaoxygen is completely new to me. Great video!
I always wonder if we aren't missing something simple, like the wheel that some cultures never discovered. The metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen look interesting, and complicated to produce, but then, look how long it took to go from cathode ray tube to LED flat screens, and now they are ubiquitous. Process always stands in the way... like Elon Musk says, it is harder to develop than to produce...
Forget about bi-propellant engines. I'm working on a tri-propellant engine. The Specific Impulse could be as high as Isp 700. I need help from Tom Mueller to design the injector plate. Fuel mixture is extremely critical. I wanted to build my own Methane powered rocket motor back in 1986 when I learned that the three best Hydrocarbon fuels are Acetylene C2H2, Methane CH4, and Ethylene C2H4. Using the Method of Characteristics I even designed my own Methane powered engine. The future of rocket engines will be the tri-propellant motor which is difficult to perfect due to fuel mix ratios and combustion irregularities.
Once again I enjoyed the lesson. It is amazing to me that there aren't more followers. These are the best tutorials I have ever encountered on almost any subject. Only the sermons of Dr. Peter Ruckman are better; and only because of the relevancy of the subject matter. If I had the resources I'd get me several Academy T-shirts and wear them proudly. BTW: I still want a diploma.
Would be curious to know how metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen would improve with an aerospike engine or air breathing engine as opposed to using the typical bell nozzle?
Yes I'm so kiddy I shaking. I was wondering about this very thing yesterday. Radiation shielding vs pressure management. Pressure is going to win. We can deal with strapnel but with necular it's radiation and strapnel. Thank for this vid.
Only TEA was primary used in early US hydrocarbon rocket engines. TEB was known about, but wouldnt come around in mainstream use until later on. The F-1, H-1, S-3D, MB-3 etc all used TEA alone. Soviet Hydrocarbon fuels are T-1 and RG-1. RG-1 has slightly lower performance than RP-1, but slightly higher density.
How true. Single stage to orbit (and beyond) spacecraft will only be feasible with the advanced propellent you mention at the end of the video - metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen. Petrol engines - which allowed the creation of personal motor vehicles - are so much efficient compared to steam engines because the temperature in the cylinders are so much higher, at 900 °C. In the case of personal rockets, the idea that 95% of the mass of the vehicle must be fuel, is underwhelming... Advanced propellents for rockets would like to be as the transition from the steam engine to the internal combustion one. Thank you for the inspiring video...
What would contain metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen? The materials would have to be some pretty tough stuff. The first time I heard of metallic hydrogen was in a SF short story from the '30s, from the viewpoint if a creature living on Jupiter... Years ago, I read an article about an accident involving hypergolic fuels. No one was injured, but one guy had a heart attack, I guess knowing what those furls could do. Another great video!
Some believe it might be stable... Others say it might spontaneously create fusion from quantum tunneling in such close nuclear proximity... We'll have to have more to test :-)
Well the Fluorine engine is interesting, albeit insane to use in practice probably due to the issues if it has an accident. Metallic Hydrogen is interesting as well, but right now it's straining our ability to try and make it at all and we still don't know if it's meta-stable or not. So that's probably quite awhile off at best. Which means the best chemical engine we could maybe manage to make near term would be a detonation engine, like a rotating detonation engine. You sadly didn't cover this type, but I've been getting the impression from the few articles I've read on it , that a sub-variant like the rotating detonation engine might be able to gain us another 5 to 10 percent in ISP. Not world changing, but still a rather interesting gain that would still be pretty helpful in improving the mass fraction to orbit if achieved.
@@terranspaceacademy Good point, lately it does seem like it's starting to make some real progress. The first substantial step up in chemical energy performance in a long time.
Maybe the dark side will use, er, octafluorine (check typos), and be even faster . . . or, even, SpaceX will take its human cargoes in Starship pairs, country-dancing their way to Mars, and then some genius will design self-replicating robot spacecraft 'explorers'. Maybe.
What about gelled fuels? Having mostly the same ISP with less boil-off but with greater impulse density and perhaps closer to hypergolic ignition would perhaps be worth it. You could possibly also have additives that are to risky(energetic) as bulk fuel. And O4 might be more feasible...
I enjoyed it immensely. And later looked up the head bobble so I have some idea what that indicates now... Or should I say, a list of what it might indicate :-)
I had previously stated here that I wondered if the starship engines spinning up could provide the push to separate the starship from the booster for an abort. After the booster incident during the spin test, I withdraw that as a valid option. lol
It occurs to me that a relatively small amount of water pumped into a (edit: already burning) solid rocket core like oxidizer through a hybrid core should substantially increase specific impulse if also reduce thrust somewhat. Considering it's density, ease of storage and handling it's by far the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to a trifuel arrangement. Odd I've never heard of it.
Water actually has a higher molar mass than most fuels so running fuel rich works better. Though using microwaves with water has proven to be a viable concept.
@@terranspaceacademy Even solid rockets like the old boosters on the STS? It should at least be hot enough to convert the H2O mostly into O/O2 and H/H2 into it's out of the nozzle. Even averaged out shouldn't it be lighter than the combustion products of perchlorate solid fuels?
metallic hydrogen as a liquid could be pumped around the combustion chamber and nozzle, the transition to gas should absorb a lot of heat. One thing about metallic hydrogen is that it might be stable at normal pressures and temperatures once created but no one is sure until we have enough to experiment with...
The best and most powerful liquid chemical rocket motor is hydrogen - ozone based. Fluorine based engines are way too toxic for our atmosphere. The hydrogen - ozone motor has to be turbocharged by the third propellant and by increasing the combustion temperature and pressure. Need to know what third propellant? Then ask me.
About the metallic fuels, wouldn't it be more efficient to just let them burn on their own? As in, isn't the energy trapped in the metallic hydrogen and oxygen far greater than what would be released when they chemically combine with something else, making it more efficient to replace all of the fuel with one of them? And only if both metallic hydrogen and oxygen is available and both have a similar amount of energy trapped in their bonds, should they both be used together...
They may be stable and will need to be "ignited" to release their energy. The energy released from the compressed form should far outweigh the chemical reaction.
@@terranspaceacademy You didn’t say Nitrogen Dioxide, that I would have noticed. Used to design catalytic converter cores for non-road spark ignition engines. Heh. My name used to be plastered all over the EPA and ARB websites, but that was ten-fifteen years back.
@@terranspaceacademy Oh yeah, good old Nitrous Oxide. All the Nitrogen oxides are interesting, and all are poisonous to some extent. But NO2 is the real nasty of the bunch. Canadian Regis are no more than 2ppm in atmosphere. I’ve been in manufacturing plants where the air was nearly that bad. Propane engine exhaust isn’t as clean as most think, or at least they weren’t till the EPA Large Spark Ignition engine rules too effect in 2007. I knew customers who were floored when replacing older equipment when they realized that productivity went up and sick call ins went down. Yeah, I talk too much but most folk just don’t realize how much we’ve cleaned up engine exhaust.
Terran Space Academy why can't we burn methane and oxygen in a more restricted combustion chamber and get higher temperatures and pressures? And use Tantalum Hafnium carbide as the combustion chamber?
It erodes the lining at some point. The high energy particles impact and break off atoms of the chamber. Magnetic confinement of plasma has the highest potential but transpiration cooling has not been maximized i don't think.
@@terranspaceacademy Thank you for your attention. My solution to this is to print the engine, use the fuel to keep the walls cool and strong and "Sweat" the fuel through a sintered layer to even out the coolant and gasify liquids at 5000 degrees and hope for an exhaust temperature of 7000 F or above and much higher velocities. Then engine would have to be small to be highly efficient and hotter, but as you said my concern is ablation and the max temperature limit that this fuel can reach under restrictions at the throat. Know anything that might cancel this out?
I got those from NASA documents on the shuttle system. Those are optimal reaction numbers. Equipment may not be able to handle them at full temperature so they run cooler.
Um, "nitrocellulose, which is basically paper and nitroglycerin" Nitrocellulose is nitrated cellulose, has no other ingredients. Please visit Wikipedia, for there's a range of nitration degree that makes NC ca series of compiunds. But octaoxygen and metallic hydrogen? Now that would be incredible! Cheers...
Sorry but I think this is about performance but the lack of efficiency. It's like going to Niagara Falls and witnessing the same displacement of a waste of fuel and oxidizing materials that can be beneficial if done correctly by adding a hybrid system to this , it will cut fuel consumption and give the same displacement but the best part of that equation is time . It's a longer and more effective way to use the fuels. Our little piece of space is extremely vast and running out of fuel just to get to low earth orbit and then a secondary to continue on for a couple of minutes then drift isn't going anywhere in our small sector. Humans haven't even gone past the Moon just because we are unwilling to understand. All I've seen from NASA and other space agencies are the new politicians that circumnavigate the tough questions and those old fellows will probably be dead by the time we actually have feet on the ground on any distance planet in our solar system. Better call Saul and have him clean up this mess
@@terranspaceacademy well I like what's being offered by Skylon , their Sabre engine spec is an interesting design. Has it's own transfer system from jet to rocket fuel. There was a few questions I had to ask. The most important one is, is it fuel efficient
@@terranspaceacademy So many of you like math and lack seeing the true outcome. Well let's find out how good your math really is. Outta 7 billion people on the planet and at the rate of astronauts leaving earth and just dropping to a quarter of the population. How many generations will it be for someone from your family to get into space ? The problem is the lack of information and investigating more possibilities therefore we are currently doing plenty of copy and paste. A new canvas is definitely needed. Some idiots believe Nuclear Thermal Rockets will be the shiznitzz but they forgot the most important thing. The vacuum of space. The radiation doesn't dissipate, it's with us for the whole ride along with cosmic radiation and like the three examples here already, it's not going to take about 10,000 years to go inert but because all that makes up the universe keeps those areas hot , so it will be forever until we completely move it off the earth...I'm for fusion but that's a long ways away from us . The universe has 4 Natural elements that can help us archive our goals and those fuels are in abundance outside of earth. If science is your game, please play it right. I think there's a better way, a solution that can make this safe . You see it every day..innovation.. but a rocket is still a rocket and nowhere close to fuel efficient. A hybrid spacecraft or should I say a hybrid engine spec is what we really need and want . If I had a boneyard at my disposal, I would pull an ironman and say , I told you you so . Cheers and have a great day
Metallic Hydrogen or Octal Oxygen as a fuel combo is NONSENSE. Forget about how you can or cannot make it. The problem is that there is no flight possible way to KEEP IT in their respective states. While you might be able to keep them in the required temperature (at least the majority of them for a relatively short while until they boil off), there is no way to maintain the pressures needed. And, you need both. -- Hypothetically, if you have the divine ability of control temperatures and pressures at will, you won't bother with Metallic hydrogen or Octal Oxygen either. You'll simply have a bottle rocket!
The purpose of these lessons is to stimulate thought and show that we should not assume we have reached the pinnacle of scientific and technological achievement. Any time someone has made that argument they have been proven wrong. How do you know that these compounds won't be stable once formed?
Has anyone come up with a plausible wat to mass produce MH? I know the discovery is still in peer review but assuming its real. I wonder what kind of pressures those man made diamond cells produce, and if that tech could be scaled up? Maybe it could even compete with gas thats 5$ bucks a gallon at the damn pump.🤣
"Like a cloud of unburned methane... and atmospheric oxygen, for instance"
Well played sir 👏
Thank you Danny :-) I was trying not to be too smug just in case it ever happens to me.
This was sooooo cool. I remember the Harvard test and Metallic Hydrogen. Hadn't heard about Octaoxygen. I however wouldn't want to expense out a manufacturing process for making Metallic Hydrogen. But WOW, now using this as a rocket fuel is just so cool! or hot lol
It would be amazing! To the moon and back single stage with no problem :-)
@@terranspaceacademy Actually I didn't do the math but much much further in a ship designed for it. It would be a fun research to figure out a ship with a combo of this fuel + Solar or Laser Sail.
@@terranspaceacademy hi, this may be a bit late but in one of your more recent videos (or may have been someone else idk), a microwave electro-thermal thruster was developed for use as a low thrust high lsp engine for satellites. it worked by ionizing water. if microwaves became powerful enough & compact enough, and perhaps a super dense power source (like fusion reactors) became practical, do you think we could combine this with the aforementioned metallic hydrogen+octaoxygen rocket, creating a high thrust, high specific impulse engine (metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen's exhaust product would be REALLY, REALLY hot water, but water nonetheless. Actually, if it's really hot, microwave antenna might end up doing less work, reducing the engineering requirements in one aspect)
Why is it that the narration fits EXACTLY how I would expect videos from a space academy to be? Love it!!!
Thank you!!
Very cool! Metallic H and Octaoxygen. But I'm guessing they have to be kept at ultra high P and ultra low T which implies a building size cooler, a killer pressure vessel, and a power plant. So even theoretically you'd start with a really big vehicle. But sure, worth looking into. Btw, 0:55 Bloing - I like your spelling better. Onomatopoeicer :) Great episode, Prof! Thanks!
Thank you Eri! I slip a few errors in to keep the trolls happy! That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it :-)
I'm glad you touch on metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen as a future fuel. I wish this would talked about more often to help push for research and development. It would be something if SpaceX got in on this.
Indeed. With their resources they might be able to actually get something done :-)
Does anyone have Elons phone number?
Hell, I'll ask him...
I heard that he's a good guy
@@MarcusAgrippa390 LOL. I hope you get phone number. Any engine that uses metallic hydrogen would make the Raptor 2.0 look like an antique.
Wow, new info! I know chemistry and thought about Fluorine as a great oxidizer a long time ago. I never knew Fluorine, Hydrogen, and Lithium were ever considered for rocket engines. I’ve heard of metallic hydrogen being a game changer, but Octaoxygen is completely new to me. Great video!
Glad it was helpful Thomas! I would think the military would be willing to make one of these. :-)
Nice job on the rocket comparison animation.
All the credit goes to HazeGrayArt. He is amazing :-)
I always wonder if we aren't missing something simple, like the wheel that some cultures never discovered. The metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen look interesting, and complicated to produce, but then, look how long it took to go from cathode ray tube to LED flat screens, and now they are ubiquitous. Process always stands in the way... like Elon Musk says, it is harder to develop than to produce...
Very very true
And it's hard to go from development of tech to the production. Because you also need to develop means of cheap production.
Elon did say prototyping is easy, production is hard. Development of new technologies is still likely the hardest.
Thanks for the lesson. I always learn something new. Great channel.
Thanks for watching!
One of the coolest one yet, thank you so much!
Glad you liked it Andrzej!
Great video, thanks
You’re most welcome tycoon :-)
Forget about bi-propellant engines. I'm working on a tri-propellant engine. The Specific Impulse could be as high as Isp 700. I need help from Tom Mueller to design the injector plate. Fuel mixture is extremely critical.
I wanted to build my own Methane powered rocket motor back in 1986 when I learned that the three best Hydrocarbon fuels are Acetylene C2H2, Methane CH4, and Ethylene C2H4. Using the Method of Characteristics I even designed my own Methane powered engine.
The future of rocket engines will be the tri-propellant motor which is difficult to perfect due to fuel mix ratios and combustion irregularities.
Interesting! We would love to hear more! Mueller is at Impulse now and may be looking for new ideas :-)
Once again I enjoyed the lesson. It is amazing to me that there aren't more followers. These are the best tutorials I have ever encountered on almost any subject. Only the sermons of Dr. Peter Ruckman are better; and only because of the relevancy of the subject matter. If I had the resources I'd get me several Academy T-shirts and wear them proudly. BTW: I still want a diploma.
I appreciate that Don! Thank you! Working on it :-)
Would be curious to know how metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen would improve with an aerospike engine or air breathing engine as opposed to using the typical bell nozzle?
Interesting... Have to think about that.
Yes I'm so kiddy I shaking. I was wondering about this very thing yesterday. Radiation shielding vs pressure management. Pressure is going to win. We can deal with strapnel but with necular it's radiation and strapnel. Thank for this vid.
You are most welcome :-)
Only TEA was primary used in early US hydrocarbon rocket engines. TEB was known about, but wouldnt come around in mainstream use until later on. The F-1, H-1, S-3D, MB-3 etc all used TEA alone. Soviet Hydrocarbon fuels are T-1 and RG-1. RG-1 has slightly lower performance than RP-1, but slightly higher density.
Thank you JM! Did not know that.
Brilliant video! thank you!
You are most welcome Johnny! :-)
That methydooct engine is mind-blowing but I imagine cost would be a limiting factor for a long time. Excellent graphics btw!
Thank you very very much! :-) I think it will be a while before we have Octaoxygen and metallic hydrogen.
I have a feeling that the next big leap in knowledge will require a new physics. Something I love to postulate and burn brain cells on.
It is a good use of brain cells :-)
another good lesson,,thanks and best wishes
Thank you: And to you also John :-)
Thank you for another great video. I look forward to watching your videos and learning
Glad you like them Chad!
How true. Single stage to orbit (and beyond) spacecraft will only be feasible with the advanced propellent you mention at the end of the video - metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen.
Petrol engines - which allowed the creation of personal motor vehicles - are so much efficient compared to steam engines because the temperature in the cylinders are so much higher, at 900 °C.
In the case of personal rockets, the idea that 95% of the mass of the vehicle must be fuel, is underwhelming... Advanced propellents for rockets would like to be as the transition from the steam engine to the internal combustion one.
Thank you for the inspiring video...
You are most welcome :-)
i didn't knew about two propelant types, amazing!
Isn’t it though? People are incredibly creative.
Great post as usual. I missed my vocation I always loved lyroteck but got stuck at thermite. Next life maybe either that or orbital mechanics.
It's not too late Sam!
Another great video
Thank you Jay!
All hail the algorithm
All hail!
What would contain metallic hydrogen and octaoxygen? The materials would have to be some pretty tough stuff.
The first time I heard of metallic hydrogen was in a SF short story from the '30s, from the viewpoint if a creature living on Jupiter...
Years ago, I read an article about an accident involving hypergolic fuels. No one was injured, but one guy had a heart attack, I guess knowing what those furls could do.
Another great video!
Some believe it might be stable... Others say it might spontaneously create fusion from quantum tunneling in such close nuclear proximity... We'll have to have more to test :-)
Well the Fluorine engine is interesting, albeit insane to use in practice probably due to the issues if it has an accident. Metallic Hydrogen is interesting as well, but right now it's straining our ability to try and make it at all and we still don't know if it's meta-stable or not. So that's probably quite awhile off at best.
Which means the best chemical engine we could maybe manage to make near term would be a detonation engine, like a rotating detonation engine. You sadly didn't cover this type, but I've been getting the impression from the few articles I've read on it , that a sub-variant like the rotating detonation engine might be able to gain us another 5 to 10 percent in ISP. Not world changing, but still a rather interesting gain that would still be pretty helpful in improving the mass fraction to orbit if achieved.
I was covering fuels :-) We did cover the detonation engine in several episodes but with the US about to field one we need an update.
@@terranspaceacademy Good point, lately it does seem like it's starting to make some real progress. The first substantial step up in chemical energy performance in a long time.
Maybe the dark side will use, er, octafluorine (check typos), and be even faster . . . or, even, SpaceX will take its human cargoes in Starship pairs, country-dancing their way to Mars, and then some genius will design self-replicating robot spacecraft 'explorers'. Maybe.
I could see it used for military purposes.
For me, it is the bottle rocket in king size!🎇 Gunpowder and something else mixed in!
That's right! Old school :-)
Thank you sir very comprehensive awesome 😎🇺🇲🙏
Very welcome John! Thank you!
What about gelled fuels? Having mostly the same ISP with less boil-off but with greater impulse density and perhaps closer to hypergolic ignition would perhaps be worth it. You could possibly also have additives that are to risky(energetic) as bulk fuel. And O4 might be more feasible...
I am very interested in gel and paste hybrids :-)
Rocketry is nice movie. 👍
I enjoyed it immensely. And later looked up the head bobble so I have some idea what that indicates now... Or should I say, a list of what it might indicate :-)
I had previously stated here that I wondered if the starship engines spinning up could provide the push to separate the starship from the booster for an abort. After the booster incident during the spin test, I withdraw that as a valid option. lol
If they are in the upper atmosphere or vacuum and they just run the methane turbo pump I think it would work. No explosion risk :-)
Cool! Brain food! Thanks TSA!
You are most welcome Ken! :-)
It occurs to me that a relatively small amount of water pumped into a (edit: already burning) solid rocket core like oxidizer through a hybrid core should substantially increase specific impulse if also reduce thrust somewhat. Considering it's density, ease of storage and handling it's by far the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to a trifuel arrangement. Odd I've never heard of it.
Water actually has a higher molar mass than most fuels so running fuel rich works better. Though using microwaves with water has proven to be a viable concept.
@@terranspaceacademy Even solid rockets like the old boosters on the STS? It should at least be hot enough to convert the H2O mostly into O/O2 and H/H2 into it's out of the nozzle. Even averaged out shouldn't it be lighter than the combustion products of perchlorate solid fuels?
With the final hydro/octao2 hybrid, would the ablation regression rate be sufficient enough to not melt the casing and nozzle without active cooling?
It's not octao2
metallic hydrogen as a liquid could be pumped around the combustion chamber and nozzle, the transition to gas should absorb a lot of heat. One thing about metallic hydrogen is that it might be stable at normal pressures and temperatures once created but no one is sure until we have enough to experiment with...
Heck, even just letting metallic hydrogen vaporize would be an extremely simplistic high thrust engine!
It would indeed Bruce :-)
The best and most powerful liquid chemical rocket motor is hydrogen - ozone based. Fluorine based engines are way too toxic for our atmosphere. The hydrogen - ozone motor has to be turbocharged by the third propellant and by increasing the combustion temperature and pressure. Need to know what third propellant? Then ask me.
Mmmm... Ozone is pretty toxic stuff in the lower atmosphere. Ok, I'm asking... what's the secret third propellant?
@@terranspaceacademy The third propellant is Acetylene C2H2
How about the most silly oxidizer, FOOF ?
We speak not of the FOOF!
What would a tank for metallic hydrogen be made of? 200 proof unobtainium?
Metallic hydrogen could actually be stored at room temperature in an aluminum container.
About the metallic fuels, wouldn't it be more efficient to just let them burn on their own? As in, isn't the energy trapped in the metallic hydrogen and oxygen far greater than what would be released when they chemically combine with something else, making it more efficient to replace all of the fuel with one of them? And only if both metallic hydrogen and oxygen is available and both have a similar amount of energy trapped in their bonds, should they both be used together...
They may be stable and will need to be "ignited" to release their energy. The energy released from the compressed form should far outweigh the chemical reaction.
Hmm. The used NO but not NO2? I would have thought NO2 a better choice.
I believe it was NO2.
@@terranspaceacademy
You didn’t say Nitrogen Dioxide, that I would have noticed. Used to design catalytic converter cores for non-road spark ignition engines. Heh. My name used to be plastered all over the EPA and ARB websites, but that was ten-fifteen years back.
I just loved the guy laughing video.
@@terranspaceacademy
Oh yeah, good old Nitrous Oxide. All the Nitrogen oxides are interesting, and all are poisonous to some extent. But NO2 is the real nasty of the bunch. Canadian Regis are no more than 2ppm in atmosphere. I’ve been in manufacturing plants where the air was nearly that bad. Propane engine exhaust isn’t as clean as most think, or at least they weren’t till the EPA Large Spark Ignition engine rules too effect in 2007. I knew customers who were floored when replacing older equipment when they realized that productivity went up and sick call ins went down.
Yeah, I talk too much but most folk just don’t realize how much we’ve cleaned up engine exhaust.
Terran Space Academy why can't we burn methane and oxygen in a more restricted combustion chamber and get higher temperatures and pressures? And use Tantalum Hafnium carbide as the combustion chamber?
It erodes the lining at some point. The high energy particles impact and break off atoms of the chamber. Magnetic confinement of plasma has the highest potential but transpiration cooling has not been maximized i don't think.
@@terranspaceacademy Thank you for your attention. My solution to this is to print the engine, use the fuel to keep the walls cool and strong and "Sweat" the fuel through a sintered layer to even out the coolant and gasify liquids at 5000 degrees and hope for an exhaust temperature of 7000 F or above and much higher velocities. Then engine would have to be small to be highly efficient and hotter, but as you said my concern is ablation and the max temperature limit that this fuel can reach under restrictions at the throat. Know anything that might cancel this out?
Ahhh u done started some sh@&. The metallic gases era.
It is time for the purple flames!
Yes talking about dreaming big. Metallic hydrogen! Thats why children are born.
Indeed! Someday it will be child’s play
Those numbers for MMH/NTO don't seem right - I'd expect the temperatures to be abut 1000 degrees lower and Isp to be about 100 seconds lower.
I got those from NASA documents on the shuttle system. Those are optimal reaction numbers. Equipment may not be able to handle them at full temperature so they run cooler.
What about switching the lithium for cesium because cesium is more reactive than lithium.
That's a good... But scary... Thought Joseph.
No fuel tank is strong enough to contain metallic hydrogen. It will revert back to regular liquid hydrogen in the pipes before combustion occurs.
Very possible but we will never know until we make some :-)
Um, "nitrocellulose, which is basically paper and nitroglycerin"
Nitrocellulose is nitrated cellulose, has no other ingredients. Please visit Wikipedia, for there's a range of nitration degree that makes NC ca series of compiunds.
But octaoxygen and metallic hydrogen? Now that would be incredible! Cheers...
Thank you Steven!
Plasma Kinetic has hydrogen engines that were top secret for about ten years; will you do research on the company?
I've been reading about them... It's a crime against humanity they were held back so long. Will do.
Ahh yes...
More fodder for daydreaming!
Thanks guys!
You're very welcome Ross!
Who hurt you sir? We will find them.
Standby to avenge the wronged Professor! Seriously I’m doing great :-) Non illegitimi carborundum
I am SPEECHLESS ,I HOPE SIR that YOU CAN'T GET THE NECESSARY FUNDING TO EXECUTE A PROTOTYPE WOW JAY WAS RIGHT YOU ARE THE MAN😎🇺🇲💪
Thank you so much!!
Propane vs methane?
Propane can coke more when used for cooling...
3:40 "speak to-meal"-!?... You mean Tamil, if so; *ta-mill* is a closer approximation to their enunciation when they speak the name of their language.
As an onspeaker I did my best :-)
44° Celsius is 111.2° Fahrenheit not 105.
Sorry... was in Texas and had heat stroke. You are quite correct.
@@terranspaceacademySouth or East Tx I bet it was 105 and humid too. I can't imagine how anyone functions in that nightmare.
Sorry but I think this is about performance but the lack of efficiency. It's like going to Niagara Falls and witnessing the same displacement of a waste of fuel and oxidizing materials that can be beneficial if done correctly by adding a hybrid system to this , it will cut fuel consumption and give the same displacement but the best part of that equation is time . It's a longer and more effective way to use the fuels. Our little piece of space is extremely vast and running out of fuel just to get to low earth orbit and then a secondary to continue on for a couple of minutes then drift isn't going anywhere in our small sector. Humans haven't even gone past the Moon just because we are unwilling to understand. All I've seen from NASA and other space agencies are the new politicians that circumnavigate the tough questions and those old fellows will probably be dead by the time we actually have feet on the ground on any distance planet in our solar system. Better call Saul and have him clean up this mess
Sadly Saul has probably been put out to pasture. Can't have anything actually get done after all... :-)
@@terranspaceacademy well I like what's being offered by Skylon , their Sabre engine spec is an interesting design. Has it's own transfer system from jet to rocket fuel. There was a few questions I had to ask. The most important one is, is it fuel efficient
@@terranspaceacademy So many of you like math and lack seeing the true outcome. Well let's find out how good your math really is. Outta 7 billion people on the planet and at the rate of astronauts leaving earth and just dropping to a quarter of the population. How many generations will it be for someone from your family to get into space ? The problem is the lack of information and investigating more possibilities therefore we are currently doing plenty of copy and paste. A new canvas is definitely needed. Some idiots believe Nuclear Thermal Rockets will be the shiznitzz but they forgot the most important thing. The vacuum of space. The radiation doesn't dissipate, it's with us for the whole ride along with cosmic radiation and like the three examples here already, it's not going to take about 10,000 years to go inert but because all that makes up the universe keeps those areas hot , so it will be forever until we completely move it off the earth...I'm for fusion but that's a long ways away from us . The universe has 4 Natural elements that can help us archive our goals and those fuels are in abundance outside of earth. If science is your game, please play it right. I think there's a better way, a solution that can make this safe . You see it every day..innovation.. but a rocket is still a rocket and nowhere close to fuel efficient. A hybrid spacecraft or should I say a hybrid engine spec is what we really need and want . If I had a boneyard at my disposal, I would pull an ironman and say , I told you you so .
Cheers and have a great day
Metallic Hydrogen or Octal Oxygen as a fuel combo is NONSENSE. Forget about how you can or cannot make it. The problem is that there is no flight possible way to KEEP IT in their respective states. While you might be able to keep them in the required temperature (at least the majority of them for a relatively short while until they boil off), there is no way to maintain the pressures needed. And, you need both.
--
Hypothetically, if you have the divine ability of control temperatures and pressures at will, you won't bother with Metallic hydrogen or Octal Oxygen either. You'll simply have a bottle rocket!
The purpose of these lessons is to stimulate thought and show that we should not assume we have reached the pinnacle of scientific and technological achievement. Any time someone has made that argument they have been proven wrong. How do you know that these compounds won't be stable once formed?
Has anyone come up with a plausible wat to mass produce MH? I know the discovery is still in peer review but assuming its real. I wonder what kind of pressures those man made diamond cells produce, and if that tech could be scaled up? Maybe it could even compete with gas thats 5$ bucks a gallon at the damn pump.🤣
Very true! About 530 GPa but I'm sure refinements can be made. We need better catalysts to give us cheap hydrogen! :-)