Rocketdyne Tripropellant (Hydrogene and Fluorine and Lithium) rocket engine

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
10,404
Reaction score
18,041
Indeed - madness it was. But there was a reason for the madness. Is that non-fluorine LH2 SSTO (think Venture Star) specific impulse 465 seconds falls very, very short from orbit. Something like 8500 m/s when SSTO requests 9200 m/s : THAT close. And since the propellant mass fraction is already perched at 0.90 or more... only specific impulse is left to make SSTO happen.

Ideally, a SSTO would work better with a specific impulse of 500 - 510 seconds.

But hydrolox will never do better than 475 seconds, and yes, the few dozen seconds make a difference.

And that's why they fought so hard for fluorine, despite its absolute madness. They needed the extra specific impulse to help the case of hydrolox SSTO. They wanted 510 seconds rather than 465 seconds.
 
Eek! A friend got their doctorate using HF.

Using HF to melt volcanic basalts, that is.
 
I found even more Insane Concept for Tripropellant

TOXMAX​

It burn Liquid Fluorine with liquid Lithium mixed with 10% RADIOACTIVE CESIUM-137 !
This Is no joke, the proposal use Cesium-137 to keep Lithium at +200°C

Source X

GJAiafnW4AARHCU


GJAjHIAXoAAIFf5

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769958999279927787
View: https://twitter.com/ToughSf/status/1769958999279927787
 
Last edited:
Plus the specific impulse is, what, 475 seconds ? not enough gain compared to RL-10B-2 467 seconds, or a NASA 1978 476 seconds (ground tested).
 
Archibald said:
Plus the specific impulse is, what, 475 seconds ?
Click to expand...
That so low, because burn Lithium with Fluorine direct, produce heavy molecule in exhaust
if you put hydrogen in mix, it take heat from this combustion and produce fast light molecule in exhaust.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom