Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_558.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/scAW1m200WBw5A9k45>;
          Thu, 16 May 91 02:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 16 May 91 02:02:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #558

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 558

Today's Topics:
        Doc Clark tells all about ozone (long)
              Re: Honking at cyclists...
              Re: Honking at cyclists...
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
              Re: Honking at cyclists...
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 14 May 1991 20:37 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Doc Clark tells all about ozone (long)
Original_To:  SPACE

In article <Added.Ic8Vc=[e-mail]> Richard Ristow
([e-mail]) wrote:

>There's been some discussion about alternative propellant chemistry.  Does
>anybody know the current thinking on using ozone as the oxidant? ...

And with admirable economy, Henry Spencer ([e-mail]-- but
you knew that) replied:

>As far as I know, nobody has found a way around the fundamental
>problem of coping with a cryogenic liquid that is a powerful and
>touchy explosive.

Despite this, I got the contrary urge to dig up *Ignition* from the
local library and quote big slabs of what Doc Clark had to say about
this.  You may consider this a shameless waste of net bandwidth, but I
insist that it is Good For You to Become Educated.  Here's Doc:
================

Ozone, O-sub-3, is an allotropic form of oxygen... what makes it
attractive as a propellant is that (1)its liquid density is
considerably higher than that of liquid oxygen, and (2) when a mole of
it decomposes to oxygen during combustion it gives off 34 kilocalories
of energy, which will boost your performance correspondingly.  Saenger
was interested in it in the 30's, and the interest has endured to the
present.  In the face of considerable disillusionment.

For it has its drawbacks.  The least of these is that it's as least as
toxic as fluorine. (People who speak of the invigorating odor of ozone
have never met a real concentration of it!)  Much more important is
the fact that it's unstable-- murderously so.  At the slightest
provocation and sometimes for no apparent reason, it may revert
explosively to oxygen.  And this reversion is catalyzed by water,
chlorine, metal oxides, alkalis-- and by, apparently, certain
substances which have not been identified.  Compared to ozone,
hydrogen peroxide has the sensitivity of a heavyweight wrestler.

Since pure ozone was so lethal, work was concentrated on solutions of
ozone in oxygen, which could be expected to be less dangerous.  The
organizations most involved were the Forrestal Laboratories of
Princeton University, the Armour Research Institute, and the Air
Reduction Co.  Work started in the early 50's, and has continued, on
and off, ever since.

...During 1954-57, the Forrestal fired concentrations of ozone as high
as 25 percent, using ethanol as the fuel.  And they had troubles.

The boiling point of oxygen is 90 K.  That of ozone is 161 K.  On
shutdown, the inside of the oxidizer lines would be wet with the
ozone-oxygen mixture, which would immediately start to evaporate.  The
oxygen, with the lower boiling point, would naturally come off first,
and the solution would become more concentrated in ozone.  And when
that concentration approaches 30 percent, at any temperature below 93
K, a strange thing happens.  The mixture separates into two liquid
phases, one containing 30 percent ozone, the other containing 75
percent.  And as more oxygen boils off, the 30-percent phase
decreases, and the 75-percent phase increases, until you have only one
solution again-- all 75 percent ozone.  And *this* mixture is *really*
sensitive!

So after a series of post-shutdown explosions which were a bit hard on
the plumbing and worse on the nerves of the engineers, some rather
rigorous purging procedures were adopted.  Immediately after shutdown,
the oxidizer lines were flushed with liquid oxygen, or with gaseous
oxygen or nitrogen, to get rid of the residual ozone before it could
cause trouble.

That was some sort of a solution to the problem but not a very
satisfactory one.  25% ozone in oxygen is not so superior to oxygen as
to make its attractions overwhelmingly more important than the
difficulty of handling it. A somewhat superior solution would be to
eliminate the phase separation somehow, and in 1954-55 G.M. Platz...
had some success in attempting to do this.  He showed that the
addition of about 2.8 percent of Freon 13, CClF3, to the mixture would
prevent phase separation at 90 K, although not at 85 K.  Which meant
that if you had, say, a 35-percent mixture at the boiling point of
oxygen, it would remain homogeneous, but if you cooled it to the
boiling point of nitrogen 77 K, the high-concentration, lethal, phase
would separate out. [A bunch of people from Battelle and Air
Reduction] came up with a better answer in 1964-65, when they showed
that 5 percent of OF2 or 9 percent of F2 added to the mixture
completely eliminated the phase separation problem.  And their
addition didn't degrade the performance, as the Freon would have.
Nobody has yet come up with an even faintly plausible explanation for
the solubilizing effect of the additives!

One other ozone mixture has been considered-- that of ozone and
fluorine, which was thoroughly investigated during 1961 by A.J. Gaynor
of Armour.  (30% of ozone would be optimum for RP-1.)  But the
improvement over Flox 70 [a 70% fluorine-30% O2 mixture --WSH]
wouldn't be too impressive, and the thought of what might happen if
the ozone in the oxidizer let go on the launching pad and spread the
fluorine all over tha landscape was somewhat unnerving, and I have
heard of no motor runs with the mixture.

For ozone still explodes.  Some investigators believe that the
explosions are initiated by traces of organic peroxides in the stuff,
which come from traces, say, of oil in the oxygen it was made of.
Other workers are convinced that it's just the nature of ozone to
explode, and still others are sure that original sin has something to
do with it.  So although ozone research has been continuing in a
desultory fashion, there are very few true believers left, who are
still convinced that ozone will somehow, someday, come into its own.
I'm not one of them.
=================

From *Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants*, by
John D. Clark, Rutgers University Press, 1972.  Quoted without
permission.  But if Rutgers really *cared* about their copyright
they'd *keep it in print*, wouldn't they, and then I could BUY A COPY
OF THE DAMNED BOOK!  (bitter? no, not me, I'm not bitter.)  I've
gotten nowhere in finding copies for sale.  Fortunately a few nearby
libraries have it.  Public libraries are among God's finest blessings
upon this planet... But don't get me started.  Next time you're at a
party, you can work the topic around to ozone as a rocket propellant,
and dazzle everyone with your expertise, making new friends and
attracting members of the opposite sex.  Thank a public library for
it.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |                      Bill Higgins
 \       /                      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -                        Bitnet:                [e-mail]
     ~                          Internet:             [e-mail]
                                SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet:         43011::HIGGINS

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 91 21:31:53 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!bradley.bradley.edu!buhub![e-mail]  (Craig Levin)
Subject: Re: Honking at cyclists...


    Excuse me, gentlemen, but perhaps this string ought to be
conducted in sci.environment or sci.energy?

    I don't see a good deal of this pertaining to space, IMHO, and
some of this is getting way off of science-witness someone's dragging
in of his own interpretation of Social Darwinism, etc.

--
Craig\The Moonman\Levin                      Pedro Alcazar
[e-mail]     House Of The Moss Rose, Barony of
                Illiton, Middle Kingdom
"Space is big, space is dark, you'll always find a place to park!"
-Burma Shave

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 91 22:56:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Scott A. Starkin)
Subject: Re: Honking at cyclists...

What does this
<I am interested in getting some ideas on why drivers sound their horn
at cyclists. If you sound your horn at bikes, could you take the time
to answer the following few questions ? I will post a summary of
messages e-mailed to me in about a week or so.

    - what %-age of your "horn soundings" at cyclists are in
        anger ?
    - what %-age of your "horn soundings" at cyclists are to
        warn them of your prescence ?
    - did anyone ever tell you it was a good idea to use your
        horn to warn cyclists you were coming ?
    - if no, and you do this, what are your reasons for doing so ?
    - if yes, do you agree with this idea ?
    - if you ride a bike fairly often, do you sound your horn
        at cyclists when you drive ?
    - if you do sound your horn at cyclists, do you believe that
        bikes should not be in the road ?
    - how would you feel if a cyclist sounded a horn at you ?
    - do you have any other comments >

have to do with this

 My point is that we'll have to expand our energy consumption and our
|> vital space NO MATTER WHAT goes on. Of course we can improve
|> our efficiency to use this or that source of energy and matter, but
|> sonner or later we'll have to use the minerals of Antarctica, the
|> deuterium in the Earth's oceans, and go to the moon in order to
|> build a plateform there for Mars, Marcury and the asteroids.
|> Our ever increasing population will need more and more, and each individual
|> will need more and more of everything. And sooner or later even the
|> entire solar system won't be sufficient, so we'll have the rest of
the galaxy...

  Really this has gone well over the edge of what belongs on netnews
autos or for that matter reality.  Enough is enough with this trash, you
people are getting almost as bad as the motorcylcists
  remember this is a b-board about cars

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 91 01:54:23 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>|> Why would they lowball for a fixed price contract? They would lose
>|> a lot of money that way.
>

It is worth noting that contractors do not initiate government contracts.
If the above mentioned offer is picked up by the government, a request
for contact bids will go out, and various companies will submit bids.
These bids may or may not be be fixed price. The companies will certainly
"update" their cost estimates. The final cost which they offer the
government could change dramatically.

When someone offers the government a "fixed price contract", at least
at this point in a project, that company KNOWS that there is almost no
chance that the government will simply say "OK, go ahead." (In fact, I think
this would actually be unlawfull.) The purpose of such a fixed price
offer is to make the launch vehicle in question look like a good idea.
If they make a good case (e.g. sell it to the congress or NASA or DOD.)
Then, at some later date, there will be a contract out there.

                  Frank Crary
                  UC Berkeley

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 91 19:29:44 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>I have to side with NASA on this one, I'm afraid.  How long will it take
>>to get "cheaper approaches" into production?
>
>Should be doable in five years...

Yes... but I said "how long *will* it take".  Accepting the Augustine report
means doing exactly what NASA did in the 1970s:  phasing out a working,
operational capability in favor of rosy promises on paper.  There is no
commitment to any near-term development of heavylift launch capability
or manned expendables.  Orbiter production should be terminated only when
such efforts are approved, funded, and well under way.  They aren't.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 91 20:33:53 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>I have to side with NASA on this one, I'm afraid.  How long will it take
>>to get "cheaper approaches" into production?
>
>Should be doable in five years. We fund HL Delta and Titan V for heavy
>lift. We buy a Soyuz or rebuild a simple Apollo CSM to transport crew. To
>finish it off, we build a simple space station (perhaps the LLNL plan
>of something from the SSI ET study). All of this should be doable for about
>one years Shuttle costs.

Duh, huhhhh? We're going to build *TWO* new, improved lift vehicles, buy and
Americanize a Soyuz and mount it on top of a U.S. booster (either? Both? You
don't say up there) OR rebuild a CSM and certify it atop New, Improved
boosters (two separate steps there), and then put up an Econo-lodge space
"station" for the low-low-low price of one year's Shuttle costs?

You forgot the Ginzu steak knives.

To use the Henri Spencer (TM) Phrase:

            "Numbers, Please"

> This would give us every capability the Shuttle now
>has. It would also be cheaper and allow more work to be done.

Oh? So how do you fit SpaceLab modules on top of a Titan V and then bring them
back in 7, 10, or 30 days? What do you propose to tell the European Community?
"Sorry, folks, redesign again because we are..." How do you bring back
satellites and haul around 7 people at once? How do you provide a robot arm and
experiments in tethered satellites?

How do you tell all the poor bastards who have based their graduate research
work to fit into a Shuttle bay that they have to rework their experiements Yet
Again?

"We will take the money we save and help them to convert their experiments..."
Uh, no. I don't THINK so.



     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 91 02:28:58 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Honking at cyclists...

I do not exactly understand how you can discuss the status of the
human race thousands of years in the future. The level of technology
available by then will, literally, be like nothing we could even guess.
Similarly, we have no idea today, what the major problems with human
expansion will be.

I feel that, as long as we can solve the problems of the next, say
50 years, we can assume our children will be able to figure something
out to deal with more long term problems.

                    Frank Crary
                    UC Berkeley

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 91 17:57:54 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>I don't see how your conclusion follows, myself.  We do not have the
>>booster capacity, booster reliability, manned spaceflight experience,
>>or telerobotic capability to start exploiting asteroids in the next
>>few years, and I doubt it will be all ready to go by the end of the
>>decade, either.  We really aren't in *that* big of a rush to get the
>>information.

>Asteroid and comet exploration makes a _big_ difference in the timetable.
>To see one of the reasons why, let's take a little side-trip into orbital
>mechanics.

[lotsa stuff deleted]

>If we could detect asteroids down to 10m, this would solve two problems:

In other words, we need better detection apparatus, not a half-baked
asteriod explorer salvaged from a Galileo mission.  How does any of what
you said apply to Galileo?

I agree with you that asteroid mining and exploitation will be a boon
to space industrialization/exploration/settlement/whatever.  However, my
point was that diverting Galileo from its mission will have absolutely
no effect on the rate of our advancement towards this level of space
exploitation, since we will still have to wait until we get a good internal
analysis of some asteroids.

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #558
*******************