One of the main benefits to using peroxide .vs. LOX is its density impulse and non-cryo operation. The density of 100% peroxide at 0 C is 1.472 gm/cc; at 40 C its 1.427 gm/cc, which is a 3% difference. This would probably require an oxidizer tank about 3% heavier.
Counteracting this is a TBD slightly higher Isp for the higher temperature peroxide. The key downside to using peroxide is its much greater cost .vs. LOX. Clearly, for now (non SSTO attempts) it makes sense to keep warm peroxide in the tanks if there is any issue about the catpack not *fully* catalyzing every last bit of peroxide. We have not seen any problems with silver down to 10C or so with 85% peroxide. Once we start using 90%, it should be even less of an issue. It will become an issue if the catalysts that we use for 100% peroxide simply won't work around 10 C. Our cermet catalyst has proven itself with 99% peroxide, but appears to require preheating. Whether this is true with 40C peroxide is TBD. Tests next year will determine this issue. Dan In a message dated 11/1/02 9:16:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Performance could be calculated based on peroxide temperature, and this would go into the pilot's pre-flight checklist. >> _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
