Timeline for Why can't cryogenic oxygen and cryogenic kerosene be "stored" together?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2020 at 12:11 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @MikeBrockington An example of a monopropellant containing fuel and oxidizer mixed together please? you might want to ponder the meaning of "mono" | |
| Apr 23, 2020 at 11:58 | comment | added | J... | @MikeBrockington That's not the definition of a monopropellant. Probably the most common monoprop is hydrazine, which isn't a mixture of anything - it's just hydrazine (N2H4). Exothermic decomposition is initiatied in the presence of an iridium catalyst which decomposes the hydrazine into nitrogen, ammonia, and hydrogen gas, releasing energy. There is no oxidizer. | |
| Apr 23, 2020 at 8:44 | comment | added | MikeB | @OrganicMarble Fuel and oxidiser pre-mixed is pretty much the definition of a mono-propellant. Not intuitively a good idea, and as Sean notes, not particularly good in practice either, but they ARE possible, and do exist. | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 19:24 | comment | added | Vikki | @MikeBrockington: Yes, and the monopropellants that are safe enough to actually use provide absolutely crap performance compared to typical bipropellants - as that very (relative) stability that allows them to be handled (relatively) safely also means that they don't release enough energy upon decomposition to provide good performance. | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 17:41 | comment | added | YuccaWorks | Ah yes, the good old "It will explode violently"-Ignition, John D. Clark | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 15:58 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @MikeBrockington examples of monopropellants containing fuel and oxidizer mixed together please? | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 15:17 | comment | added | J... | @MikeBrockington Monoprop needs a catalyst to initiate the decomposition. In storage the propellant is stable and the decomposition can't back propagate into the tank (where there is no catalyst). That's very different from intimately mixed fuel/oxidizer where it would be almost impossible to isolate the fuel line from the active combustion in the chamber. | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 14:21 | comment | added | MikeB | A mono-propellant is essentially exactly what the OP described: fuel and oxidiser in the same mixture, in the correct ratio. You are also not mentioning the third part of the 'fire triangle' - not all fuel mixtures combust spontaneously. | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 14:11 | comment | added | Topcode | @mike-brockington still, how does it invalidate my answer? | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 14:02 | comment | added | MikeB |
Sorry, total brain-fade there - I meant monopropellant fuels.
|
|
| Apr 22, 2020 at 13:51 | comment | added | DKNguyen | @Topcode I commented the wrong person | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 13:49 | comment | added | DKNguyen | @MikeBrockington "Hypergolic fuels are fuels that react spontaneously upon contact with an oxidizer and do not require an outside ignition source such as spark plugs." | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 13:14 | comment | added | Topcode | @mike-brockington how? last i checked mixing hypergolic fuels in a tank will explode as you are filling it because thats how hypergolic fuels work, please explain how that makes them impossible. its not even that complex, fuel burns with oxygen, can you not understand that? | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 2:32 | history | answered | Topcode | CC BY-SA 4.0 |