NASA Announces Enviromentally Friendly Jet Fuel

drama writes "From the Press Release: 'Two years of collaboration between Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., and NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., have led to the development of a non-toxic, easily handled fuel made from a substance similar to what is used in common candles. The by-products of combustion of the new fuel are carbon dioxide and water; unlike conventional rocket fuel that produces aluminum oxide and acidic gasses, such as hydrogen chloride.' Or for pictures and more info, visit the site."

Comments

Carbon dioxide and water!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like petroleum! How environmentally friendly! (sarcasm aside, this is a step forward from existing fuels, but ecotopia it ain't)

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Bonker]

There are ways of dealing with CO2 emissions that we're not currently taking, but that we could. One of those involves injecting CO2 into oceanic depths where it's likely that it will remain in solution.

Why?

[kakos]

Granted, a rocket launch probably belches out a LOT of these chemicals, but there is a launch how often? Not very often, last I recall. The polution they produce is negligable compared to the total polution cars produce.

NASA should be spending this money on more important endeavors, such as the ISS or perhaps even another moon trip. Blowing money to produce environmentally safe rocket fuel is stupid and inefficient.

Paraffins

[SimJockey]

Actually, paraffins are a broad class of hydrocarbons not just the familiar candle wax. Paraffins are characterized by having unsaturated C=C bonds, whereas olefins are all saturated C-C bonds. Not sure what kinds of paraffins would have the kind of energy density they would need for rocketry level thrust, maybe aromatics?

As a ChE, this is cool. But the really interesting part is the oxidizer (which they give no details on) and the nozzle. Vapourizing and mixing must be amazingly fast.

Not a big deal.

[Chris Y Taylor]

First of all, NASA has a LONG way to go before it has a launch frequency high enough for any pollution from their launch vehicles to be significant.

Second, there are plenty of rocket designs for liquid rockets that already produce only water or water and CO2; so an "environmentally friendly rocket" is not a new thing. The Saturn V, for example used Kerosene for fuel.

What is significant news for nerds is that this is work on a hybrid rocket design. Hybrid rocket motors are interesting because they combine some of the benifits of solid and liquid designs... but that probably wouldn't be considered newsworthy to mainstream media outlets. So, my guess is that this NASA center wrote up a press release and stuck in the magic words "environmentally friendly" to get the news to give them some coverage. The fact that we don't need eco-rockets yet, or that other minimally polluting rocket designs have been around for over half a century are irrelevent because the people they are selling themselves to don't have a background in rocketry, don't bother to check their facts, and many of them feel happy inside when they think they are helping to fund something that protects Mother Earth. And meanwhile the pros and cons of hybrid rocket designs (and probably the things that the test program was really supposed to find out) don't get any attention at all.

Call me when they are testing cubane fuels.

Re:Not a big deal.

[Idarubicin]

The Saturn V, for example used Kerosene for fuel.

Well, the first stage, at any rate. The second and third stage engines were hydrogen fuelled. (Liquid oxygen served as oxidizer for all three stages.) Granted; both fuels are significantly friendlier to the environment than the solid fuels used aboard the Shuttle.

The thing about the Saturn V is that it wasn't reusable. It had great payload capacity to earth orbit, but you had to throw away twenty or thirty storeys of rocket parts to put stuff up there. With the Shuttle, the solid rocket booster shells are recovered, inspected, reassembled, and refuelled.

Probably the most important consideration: liquid fuels are finicky--you need pumps, valves, and cryogenics. Solid fuel doesn't slosh. Solid rocket boosters are easy to use. Still rocket science, but simpler, more reliable, cheaper rocket science. Kudos to NASA for improving their technology while considering the environment.

Re:jet != rocket

[Waffle Iron]

In fact, this article is about solid rocket fuel, which up to this point has been mostly dirty stuff (often a mixture of polyurethane binder, ammonium perchlorate oxidizer and powdered aluminum fuel). It's not jet fuel at all. (Jet fuel is basically just kerosene).

As for liquid fuel, the upper stages of the Saturn V and the main Space Shuttle engines burn H2 and O2, producing nothing but pure water. OTOH, most liquid fuel rockets on unmanned boosters burn nasty chemicals like N2O4 and UDMH (because they were often derived from ICBMs, which you want to keep fueled all the time, so no cryogenic fuels.)

At any rate, if it can burn, some rocket has used it as a fuel. Find out more here and here.

Actually a better use would be

[BoomerSooner]

To use this in automobiles. That would put a stake in the hearts of those in the middle east (assuming it's not oil based).

Actually, here's my question...

[Reality Master 101]

John Carmack, are you out there?

Can this fuel be used for amateur or semi-professional space ventures? Does it give any advantages over using, say, Peroxide fuel? How does the energy release/pound compare?

I know Peroxide is pretty nasty stuff, so it would be cool if a safer to handle alternative came down the pike.