Ian Woollard wrote: > > Yes, I love that piece. > > Another more wider ranging article on cost lines is: > > "Why are launch costs so high"? > > http://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htm > > It's got some very interesting bits, particularly when he talks about > the safety of LOX... > not sure I agree with his conclusions overall. I would be interested on > this groups opinion on how > the behaviour of LOX compares with HTP though.
My chief mechanic, Mike Laughlin, did much of the HTP loading and unloading for the propulsion testing for the Roton ATV; his assistant, Johnny Hernandez, operated the peroxide concentrator plant. They didn't like those jobs *at all*, involving hundreds of pounds of 85% HTP. They also were the "red team" for the LOX-kerosene test stand, and worked with LOX in up to several thousand pound quantities. Loading and unloading LOX on our test stand and the EZ-rocket is literally an everyday thing (4 of five days this week), and lately we have had to handle LOX in incredibly dusty conditions with no incidents. HTP is very convenient for small scale engine and vehicle testing and reaction control-type applications like tailsitter rockets. It is also an energetic monopropellant sensitive to almost any random contaminant. The Beal launcher, with *hundreds of tons* of peroxide in one large pressure vessel, would have been a disaster waiting to happen. LOX is cheap, readily available, high performance, and is routinely handled safely by thousands of workers around the world every day. HTP is not. -- Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber Scares me and *I'm* fearless. _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
