>LOX is cheap, readily available, high performance, and is routinely >handled safely by thousands of workers around the world every day. HTP >is not.I personally think that HTP can't be that dangerous- it was used in Russian submarines for
decades before the Kursk. Or to be more accurate, it's probably very dangerous, but
ways to handle it safely obviously exist.
But I was really refering to this bit:
"Apart from the thermal stress and other problems of dealing with cryogens, it is difficult to keep oxygen from reacting with the walls of the plumbing it is flowing through. This makes it extremely difficult if not absolutely impossible to eliminate catastrophic failure modes, in which a failure in one engine destroys the entire propulsion system."
I was wondering whether HTP was quite so bad for this kind of failure mode. Will wall material
burn as easily in HTP if you get it hot enough by losing a pump? Does one engine necessarily take all the
others out? Is the above statement even true for LOX? (He does mention some alloys don't do this, but
they're supposedly heavy.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">--
Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber
Scares me and *I'm* fearless.
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
