On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:41:48 +0100, Ian Woollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htm New to me was Whitehead pointing out that although space nuts use SSTO and RLV interchangeably, the two are almost mutually exclusive: SSTO has to be light, and RLV has to be rugged. Doing an SSTO RLV... We're going to sneak up on it from both directions, improving the performance of our RLV until a stripped down version will just make orbit with no payload - and then we'll try to improve it some more. >It's got some very interesting bits, particularly when he talks about >the safety of LOX... >not sure I agree with his conclusions overall. I would be interested on >this groups opinion on how >the behaviour of LOX compares with HTP though. That's a religious question here. "There is no oxidizer but peroxide, and silver is its prophet." Because it can be used as a monoprop, peroxide is the best propellant to use when you're learning how to do liquid fuel rocketry. It's simple and it's safe. The downside is its cost. Paying several dollars per pound for peroxide is not an unusual experience. LOX costs about 1% of that, so any large biprop operation cries out economically for LOX. Peroxide need not cost as much as it does, and we're working on ways of reducing its cost, but if we ever get HTP cost down to LOX cost it'll be a miracle. OTGH, with peroxide, you don't need insulation. Or chilldown procedures. -R -- "Sutton is the beginning of wisdom - but only the beginning." -- Jeff Greason _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
