• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Was fluorine ever used in an launch vehicle or spacecraft?

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
Desert Dawn said:
Lockheed also went to the trouble of building a satellite (and having it launched into orbit) that used fluorine in its engine to test the idea Lockheed was putting forward to use fluorine for the FDL-5.
Florine was never used in an launch vehicle or spacecraft. That is just as silly as your claim that an FDL-5 in space.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

"During the 1960s, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne tested numerous aerospike engines, ranging in size from subscale, cold-flow models to this 250,000- pound-thrust oxygen/ hydrogen engine shown at a test stand in Nevada."

Weird that they'd test this thing in Nevada. One would think one of the coasts. ???
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
784
Reaction score
36
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

They used to have a test site outside Reno. I'd bet they saw the handwriting on the wall re: Santa Susana vs. LA sprawl even then.
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
784
Reaction score
36
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Byeman said:
Desert Dawn said:
Lockheed also went to the trouble of building a satellite (and having it launched into orbit) that used fluorine in its engine to test the idea Lockheed was putting forward to use fluorine for the FDL-5.
Florine was never used in an launch vehicle or spacecraft. That is just as silly as your claim that an FDL-5 in space.

The USAF had an active program in the early 1960s for a fluorine upper stage for Titan, called Chariot. The toxicity issues finally convinced them to cancel it, and I think we're all relieved they did. However, can we be sure that no Chariot components (such as a small fluorine-filled, proof-of-concept tank, for example) were ever tested in orbit, or even suborbitally?
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
89
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

George Allegrezza said:
can we be sure that no Chariot components (such as a small fluorine-filled, proof-of-concept tank, for example) were ever tested in orbit, or even suborbitally?
"Swing low, sweet Chariot"... but not too low! ;D
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

George Allegrezza said:
Byeman said:
Desert Dawn said:
Lockheed also went to the trouble of building a satellite (and having it launched into orbit) that used fluorine in its engine to test the idea Lockheed was putting forward to use fluorine for the FDL-5.
Florine was never used in an launch vehicle or spacecraft. That is just as silly as your claim that an FDL-5 in space.

The USAF had an active program in the early 1960s for a fluorine upper stage for Titan, called Chariot. The toxicity issues finally convinced them to cancel it, and I think we're all relieved they did. However, can we be sure that no Chariot components (such as a small fluorine-filled, proof-of-concept tank, for example) were ever tested in orbit, or even suborbitally?
All orbital launches are known and the launch vehicles identities are known. The identities of the classified payloads are fairly known. Having a florine payload or upperstage would have signatures, visible to others. Different PHE/SCAPE/hazmat suits, facilities on base for storing the commodity, launch pad mods to handle loading and unloading, vehicles for transporting the commodity, and the list goes on.
 

Desert Dawn

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Website
www.picturetrail.com
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

George Allegrezza said:
Byeman said:
Desert Dawn said:
Lockheed also went to the trouble of building a satellite (and having it launched into orbit) that used fluorine in its engine to test the idea Lockheed was putting forward to use fluorine for the FDL-5.
Florine was never used in an launch vehicle or spacecraft. That is just as silly as your claim that an FDL-5 in space.

The USAF had an active program in the early 1960s for a fluorine upper stage for Titan, called Chariot. The toxicity issues finally convinced them to cancel it, and I think we're all relieved they did. However, can we be sure that no Chariot components (such as a small fluorine-filled, proof-of-concept tank, for example) were ever tested in orbit, or even suborbitally?

Hi George,

from what i remember there were quite a number of different engines that were ground tested with fluorine during the 1960's, not just the Titan upper stage engine. When i posted the same thing on a space forum over 10 years ago, i got the usual, it's not possible ! it's not true ! from people who are trained to deny or actively disavow any news or findings concerning what was then still partly classified programs. Unfortunately for them, a lot of information about these have since been released in the public domain. Yes indeed for the toxicity. These things looked good on paper but i have heard a story of at least one person who got contaminated by this and who did not survive long.

I don't have (public) report of any other having been flown in space except for the Lockheed-built satellite (the launcher did not use fluorine, just the sat).
 

Desert Dawn

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Website
www.picturetrail.com
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement


``All orbital launches are known and the launch vehicles identities are known. The identities of the classified payloads are fairly known. Having a florine payload or upperstage would have signatures, visible to others. Different PHE/SCAPE/hazmat suits, facilities on base for storing the commodity, launch pad mods to handle loading and unloading, vehicles for transporting the commodity, and the list goes on.``




Nobody said that the launcher used fluorine. It was the satellite's engine itself that did. Neither did i say the payload was classified. You'd better go dig those old Lockheed Horizons, they are public domain, if you know where to look. Have fun, i sure did when i searched for them. Some of the libraries where a well known hypersonic propulsion specialist sent me in the early 2000's (because he knew well they were there) would then declare after i contacted them, there are no such publications whatsoever in our inventory. Same with some museums, until i pointed out to them the results of my search for All the items in libraries across Canada. They were forced to admit that, indeed, they do have those publicaton issues in their libraries... (thankfully we had access to a Very efficient specialized search engine for these things back then)(no relation to Google, of course).
 

Desert Dawn

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Website
www.picturetrail.com
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

sferrin said:
"During the 1960s, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne tested numerous aerospike engines, ranging in size from subscale, cold-flow models to this 250,000- pound-thrust oxygen/ hydrogen engine shown at a test stand in Nevada."

Weird that they'd test this thing in Nevada. One would think one of the coasts. ???
Maybe not so weird, you could check the book by Dick Mullready, Advanced Engine Development at Pratt & Whitney The Inside Story of Eight Special Projects 1946-1971, which include lesser known stuff like the early aerospike engines. There are a few page extracts from the book that are available on the web or from other sources (i have a few pages from it, somewhere at home). There is at least one passage in it that gives some info about where it was tested and why from what i remember.

The book is available at Amazon or possibly at your local library.
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Desert Dawn said:
`` Having a florine payload .``

Nobody said that the launcher used fluorine. It was the satellite's engine itself that did. Neither did i say the payload was classified. You'd better go dig those old Lockheed Horizons, they are public domain, if you know where to look. Have fun, i sure did when i searched for them.
1. I said "payload" which includes spacecraft, space vehicle, satellite, etc. It still doesn't matter, the same indicators would exist at the launch site.
2. Since you say it was unclassified, then it would be in open sources. Guess what? No fluorine fueled spacecraft exists. Since happen in the past, it would have been on a gov't sponsored launch. There would be other sources that would document this.
3. The onus is on you to do the research, you made the claim You either need to provide the source to back your claim or retract your claim.
 

Desert Dawn

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Website
www.picturetrail.com
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

I should have remembered it's always a bad idea to feed the squirrels. My mistake.

You should do your own research, i spent 4 years and a half on it, i'm done. If you are of the category of individuals who wants everything all cooked into their mouth but are unable to even press a few clicks or take a walk to your local libraries after all the leads i gave you (plus more posted by others on this forum), you should find yourself another hobby. If you wish for me to DO research to satisfy your personal curiosity, then be my guest, send me an email, i will give you my hourly rate for personalized research. Time is not free and i'm no volunteer worker for the lazy. And in case you didn't notice because you seem more absorbed by frantic denial than careful reading, the source for what you are asking was already given, but since i feel no incentive to devote more time to someone who pays no attention and should learn a thing or two, you just go and find it wherever you want. I probably still have a photocopy of the page in question at home, but like i said above, i have no incentive to go spend hours digging it out from tons of papers for you, i've got other things to do.

Good luck.
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Desert Dawn said:
I should have remembered it's always a bad idea to feed the squirrels. My mistake.

You should do your own research,
Quite the opposite. Making claims with supporting data is the mark of a troll.

You made the claim, all the onus is on you to back it with data. In the absence of proof supplied by you, your claim (and word) holds no merit. You have a habit of making unsubstantiated claims (FDL-5). Additionally, I know you are wrong. No fluorine fueled propulsion system has flown into orbit by the US. (30 years of USAF/NASA experience and member of a team collecting photos of every US launch)

Here are all the US launch vehicles with their launches, please kindly point out the one where fluorine has flown on.
http://space.skyrocket.de/directories/launcher_usa.htm
 

Desert Dawn

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Website
www.picturetrail.com
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

That's strange, i was thinking exactly the same thing about you. When you keep denying people's references and posting of available documents that anyone can go find for themselves, as typical trolls do, you either post your name and stop hiding under a nickname and avatar or you go troll elsewhere. Right now, you have no credibility whatsoever, you did not even spend the effort to go look for the documents i pointed out because you know full well it will prove you wrong. Secondly, you can keep denying, it is not the number of times you deny that will make you any more believable. So you are wasting your time.

You can keep collecting all the photos your want and pretend you know the content of every launch that was ever put into orbit. You are either extremely naive to believe these lists or you are of extremely bad faith, or both. Do you think the Russians told the world YES, we are launching a space battle station when they did their (thankfully unsuccessful) launch of the Polyus, and earlier successful military recon. Almaz ? Do you think the Russians did us the courtesy of telling us in advance they kindly put FOBS with nuclear warheads into orbit ? Do you think the USAF is telling us what they actually put in the cargo bay of their X-37 vehicles ? Do you think the USAF and NRO tells us, YES, we launched a stealth satellite (after they conveniently spread some debris in orbit and declared their new reconnaissance sat as being 'destroyed', yet countless amateur astronomers and observers saw the supposedly 'dead' sat change orbit and reported these change in matter of days where others also saw them.

Not a chance in the world, so you hit a wall again with your illogical claims.

You suddenly discover my website since the past 3 or 4 days because of my post and you think you know everything ? The FDL-5 sections of my website (the information posted on the new website have been updated many times and have evolved as more data became available. Right now that version of FDL-5 is still classified, so you cannot claim that it was NOT flown, even if you were in the know, in which case you would not be allowed to publish that information publicly or you'd be in trouble.

So, 'a habit of making unsubstantiated claims' ? Quite the contrary (for having said once years ago that the FDL-5 had 'most likely' been flown (never said 100% sure, huge difference...), i don't know any serious aviation author that does not update and revise his work when he reprint his book, same here). I am one of only a handful of persons on the forum that went to the trouble of spending years of research on specific subjects (for months on end), sifting through hundreds of thousands of pages of printed documents, web documents and microfilms, photos and drawings, and interviewing engineers directly involved in hypersonic programs or space programs.

If you want to spend more time, you can go do some reading here (though based on your previous answers i believe you'll again be less than interested to click on yet another link that proves you wrong):

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1580/1

I did not even remember i still had that link on my computer, interestingly Mr. Ketchum refers to the Rocketdyne Nevada test site also, in reference to, yes, fluorine engine tests. Say, wasn't that where they tested that annular aerospike engine again... mmh ? (which was planned to use fluorine and power the FDL-5 in one of the smaller version of that engine ?). Kind of strange they had that big fluorine accident on the same test site where a new type of engine which was also designed to use FLOX was also tested. If that's not an extraordinary coincidence, i don't know what you call it.

Also, to quote an aerospace engineer who worked since the 1960's both for the USAF and for one of the major aerospace contractors on hypersonic programs who told me places like (this forum for example) would be an ideal platform to publish disinformation (about classified programs, when people in the industry are not too happy to see researchers of black programs post info pertaining to them when they would rather keep these program details hush-hush). And he was right, i saw it numerous times, both in the press and on forums like this one.

(Slight correction: i have seen your website probably once or twice years ago, what i had not seen was your personal page, so i correct what i wrote, you are not related to or employed since 30 years by the USAF nor Nasa, you are located in Germany and your webpage is nothing more than a list. I know a few people who make lists and they are nothing more than that. One can find more details on the official list published by the UN. I command you on your passion for Rattus Norvegicus though, it's not everyone who keeps one of these at home).

(quote: 'Additionally, I know you are wrong'... I am pretty much sure there is a scientific team somewhere who will spend time on this one).

It's also always found it funny to look at 'official' records of history published by gov't sources concerning hypersonic program which all had those enormous gaps in their history, with most of the classified stuff being absent from the list. If you look back at history timelines for those programs in papers published during the 1970's you find barely nothing, except for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Nasa lifting bodies and not much else. Go a decade or two closer to us and they timidly add 2 or 3 more things... almost with regret. Go to the last few years, and now we see a lot of the things they wanted to keep out of pubic view (even though papers on specific programs were available since many years if you knew where to look). They are very slow to adapt to the reality of these programs having already been declassified and they still keep omitting to mention a lot of the (known) good stuff in their official histories. It's a bit ridiculous.

What kills science and education in the US in the field of engineering (just ask Mikio Kaku) is not just the way the education system works, but actually all this obsession about keeping all the interesting and cutting edge developments and what works in space and hypersonic programs away from the vast majority of people (except to those who were directly involved with these) for decades. That's how we forget the lessons learned by our predecessors and we keep spending billions and making the same old mistakes over and over again. One engineer who commented about the X-33 program at the time of its failure about the last minutes changes to the wings and the addition of an external cargo bay referred to all the trade studies they had done decades earlier on other program and how they had learned (what the X-33 engineers learned the hard way).

That's probably why the proposed replacement for the Space Shuttle is now a copy of an old Russian spaceplane. It's sad in a way. Well... at least they will get something built, not cancelled, this time. I don't keep my fingers crossed though..
 

Desert Dawn

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Website
www.picturetrail.com
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

A small Lockheed sat. Circa 1960's to early 70's, don't remember the name off hand, nor if they actually gave its name, there was a photo of it though. Scott possibly have the document on hand as i know he have scans of several of the pages (or only scans of the photos and illustrations ?) of several of the same stuff i dug out of the old Lockheed Horizons. I'll probably dig out my own black and white photocopy of it when i get around diving into the tons of papers here for other things. Or you'll either sell him the paper if he says the magical word dollars in his email (i almost proposed him to send you an email last night, well, maybe you will make another sale after all).
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,011
Reaction score
180
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Folks, perhaps it is possible for you to stick to facts about the topic and maybe discuss your differences
via PM ? There are many lines of text in the last posts saying actually nothing about the Dream Chaser,
but only about who knows or doesn't know what or why and so on. Important for you, but certainly not
really funny to read for the majority of our members here.

SO, PLEASE BACK TO TOPIC, WITHOUT STARTING CONFLICTS !

 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Desert Dawn said:
A small Lockheed sat. Circa 1960's to early 70's,
Never existed. Scott's response is a clue.
Never said Gunter's website was mine. It is just a respected website, both in the spaceflight history and spaceflight industry.
 

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

It is possible that there may be some confusion between FLOX and flourine.
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Desert Dawn said:
Also, to quote an aerospace engineer who worked since the 1960's both for the USAF and for one of the major aerospace contractors on hypersonic programs who told me places like (this forum for example) would be an ideal platform to publish disinformation (about classified programs, when people in the industry are not too happy to see researchers of black programs post info pertaining to them when they would rather keep these program details hush-hush). And he was right, i saw it numerous times, both in the press and on forums like this one.

Actually, they don't have to do anything. They just sit back and watch, because people like you do a better job of spreading disinformation. They get a laugh at the riduculous stuff that gets posted by the likes of you.
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
11
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Hey guys? Can we shut up now about flourine and all the other stuff from the last five posts and get back to Dream Chaser? Please? Can we? Thank you.
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement

Byeman said:
Actually, they don't have to do anything. They just sit back and watch, because people like you do a better job of spreading disinformation. They get a laugh at the riduculous stuff that gets posted by the likes of you.

...You know, if *I'd* posted something like this here...


[thinks and shakes head in mild dismay]


Nah. Too much vitriol for the stomach this afternoon. Either that, or it's the commies having put all that fluorine in the water after all... :p
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
89
Topic split. Fluorine may be discussed here in The Bar if it remains polite and civilized. Thanks.

I am absolutely not conversant (nor do I care much) for space and satellites... but reading through it all I can make two comments about what was written:
  • The claim that, because official lists of launches do not include a certain launch it didn't exist, seems preposterous to me. The governments always keep stuff secret (especially the one that is dangerous, cost millions and/or didn't work) and so it appears to me as naive and a little unfair to use this as an argument.
  • From the very start of this topic, the word "fluorine" has always been spelled properly by certain members, while others keep writing "florine" or even "flourine". That certainly gives more credibility to those who can spell it correctly in my book... ::)
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
Stargazer2006 said:
  • The claim that, because official lists of launches do not include a certain launch it didn't exist, seems preposterous to me. The governments always keep stuff secret (especially the one that is dangerous, cost millions and/or didn't work) and so it appears to me as naive and a little unfair to use this as an argument.
the claim was made that " Neither did i say the payload was classified.", hence it should be in open documentation.

As for official list of launches. It is impossible to performance orbital launch without the public knowing it in the US. All orbital launch vehicles are known, all tail numbers accounted for, all launches have been visually seen by the public. Additionally, the all payloads identities have been basically cataloged. And again, there would have been indicators visible to many people if fluorine was on the base.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
89
From an Bell Aerospace company publication of the early 1960s...
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
Just read the F-1 book's chapter on the F-1A. It was underwhelming. Mentioned that two F-1As were produced for testing, but doesn't state the dates that they were tested. It was rather obtuse. Then jumps to the proposal to revive it for the Space Exploration Initiative in the early 1990s.

It does mention that a flourine-oxygen oxidizer was proposed. I don't take those ideas seriously because flourine is such an incredibly nasty chemical. Nobody would have used it.
blackstar said:
It does mention that a flourine-oxygen oxidizer was proposed. I don't take those ideas seriously because flourine is such an incredibly nasty chemical. Nobody would have used it.
Hugely nasty, which makes you wonder what the Air Force was thinking when they started Chariot (aka AFRPL Program 3), an in-space maneuvering stage using flourine AND hydrazine.
 
Top