Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Air Force & NASA Fire Off Green Rocket

Posted by kdawson on from the one-of-these-days-alice dept.

coondoggie writes "NASA and the Air Force said today they had successfully launched a 9-ft. rocket 1,300 feet into the sky, powered by aluminum powder and water ice. This combination of fuel elements, referred to as ALICE, has the potential to replace some liquid or solid propellants. The technology is being developed at Purdue University and Pennsylvania State University. Aside from its environmental benefiits, ALICE has the advantage that it could be manufactured in far-away places, such as the moon or Mars, instead of being transported to distant horizons at great cost, researchers said."

123 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ethical question by martas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    right, because aluminium is in such short supply, and the survival of the human race on earth depends on it.

    --
    weinersmith
  2. Re:Ethical question by iroll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not for a million years, no. Pretty sure the Earth is capable of that. Come back when you've got nine nine's probability of success on 10 billion years, and we'll talk =)

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  3. Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... cool! by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who cares so much if it's "green"? How many of these do we launch a year - that might be what maybe 1/100 of a minute of smog eminating from California? Now... if we can easily manufacture these off earth, THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  4. Aluminum powder is green? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In what universe is powdered aluminum "greener" than a hydrogen/oxygen rocket? Even hydrazine burns to an inert end product if I remember my chemistry right (no guarantees there), aluminum is anything but inert.

    1. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by captnbmoore · · Score: 1

      The one where there are no cars.

      --
      The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
    2. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by bob5972 · · Score: 1

      But it burns water and aluminum. Using natural water makes anything green.

    3. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is easier to produce and easier to store: no need for high-pressure supercooled storage as needed for H2 and O2 storage. Besides, pure O2 is a very dangerous material to handle, which is why in most labs O2 cylinders are at relative low pressure. A leak can cause a fire: grease can combust spontaneously when in contact with pure O2. So handling H2 and O2 costs a lot of effort and energy. That makes them expensive as well. And in general: higher total cost means more resources used and that is always bad for the environment.

      Hydrazine is also a very bad poison. Maybe not when it is burnt completely - but 100% combustion is always hard to reach, and I'm too lazy to look up the combustion of hydrazine now. And again it is a real danger in the handling stage. Or when a rocket were to explode upon launch, that is also still a real issue.

      Many other solid propellants are either poisonous themselves, or have bad combustion products. Commonly used propellants are very expensive too.

      This nAl-H2O (nAl = nano-Aluminium) product is very interesting as the combustion products are Al2O3 (silica) and H2. In the solid state it is also safe, you can probably eat it without adverse health effects. No nutritional values though, the Al particles likely pass unchanged.

      And it has other interesting applications as well: nAl-H2O can be stored safely and easily long term, not much risk of leaks as it is a toothpaste-like substance at room temperature. If you were to bring pure nAl particles on e.g. a submarine you can use the reaction with sea water to propel your submarine with the heat of the reaction directly or with the H2 that is produced.

      And finally nAl is relatively cheap to produce and Al is plentiful on this planet, water of course also doesn't cost much, and as such it can be a really cheap alternative to current fuels. Production of Al from ore takes a lot of electricity as it is an electrolysis process, which is an environmental issue, though this can be solved by using water, wind or even solar power.

    4. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Free Aluminum is non-inert (that's kind of the entire point of a rocket which uses free aluminum as one of its fuels). Aluminum bound to oxygen (like that which is found in water ice, aluminum's bond is more powerful that hydrogen), on the other hand, can be (depending on formula of course) one of the strongest bonds in the natural world. Bauxite (AL2O3) is very inert compared to most other compounds.

      Just because one of the chemicals involved is non-inert doesn't mean the product will be non-inert. Chemistry 101 and the existence of Salt teaches that.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    5. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that quite a pile of waste gets generated in the aluminum refining process. It is separated from the ore using electrolysis. So while the rocket exhaust itself may be "green", the production of the fuel certainly is not.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      According to your explanation, the new fuel seems to possess many superior qualities, but labeling it as "green" seems weaselly marketing BS seen too often recently. When did "green" replaced "better"?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    7. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Labeling it "green" is for sure good for marketing. But that doesn't mean it's not true. The main issue about this fuel (after reading up a bit more on it on Google) is how to use it. The reaction is known and studied since the 1960s already.

    8. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by skine · · Score: 1

      When has green not meant better?

      Buying a car which uses no gasoline, but still relies on burning coal is considered the pinnacle of being green.

      Burning biodiesel is considered better for the environment than regular gasoline or diesel. Not because its emissions are considerably better, but because it comes from plant.

      "Clean" coal will be better than regular coal because instead of letting its emissions go into the air, we plan on trapping "all" of them and burying them.

      etc., etc., etc.

    9. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Besides, pure O2 is a very dangerous material to handle,

      My ass its dangerous. Its so not dangerous just about any tom dick or harry can get a bottle and keep it in the garage. Its a *lot* safer than acetylene, and you can have that in your garage right next to the oxygen, in a welding kit. The last O2 bottles I had were 3000psi. Hardly low pressure.

      LOX is also pretty safe for the same reasons. Sure you don't go around smoking and stuff. But LOX and O2 and industry standard and quite safe to handle with minimal procedures.

      However, having used both Nos and HTP, they are not nearly as safe. As those guys testing a Nos rocket found out. Its chemically unstable on its own. O2 is not.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    10. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      which is why in most labs O2 cylinders are at relative low pressure.

      Then labs must be wusses compared to every welding shop in town, where O2 is delivered at 3000 psi (21 MPa for our benighted friends) in a bunch of old metal cylinders clanging around in the back of a truck.

      Of course, the same goes for all of those recreational scuba divers - 3000 psi strapped to their back.

      Unless I'm greatly mistaken, and the places you work consider this relatively low pressure. In which case, I apologize profusely.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    11. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by damburger · · Score: 1

      In the universe of PR. In terms of carbon footprint, I guess all cryogens are bad because of the electricity required (but why not get that from a green source? Like a nuclear power station ;-) )

      However, kicking particles of aluminium into the air is pollution, so not green when you get past the simplistic view of carbon emissions. Aluminium has been linked to some fairly nasty human health conditions when ingested in excess.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    12. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by damburger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Side note re hydrazine; 100% combustion is not only impossible it is undesirable for rockets. Most are run a little fuel rich so that there are unburned and partially burned molecules in the exhaust which are lighter than the oxides you would get from complete combustion, and thus for the same energy give slightly higher exhaust velocity.

      Hydrazine pollution is a big part of why the Russians are planning to dump Proton for Angara; on the face of it a foolish decision because Proton is cheap, reliable, and almost as capable as the basic Angara designs in terms of payload and orbit. The rationale is that a significant of the cost of a Proton launch is cleaning up the chemical residues it spurts across Kazahkstan.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    13. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The last O2 bottles I had were 3000psi. Hardly low pressure.

      3000 psi, that is just over 20 MPa. That is indeed relative low pressure for gas cylinders. Safe, inert gases such as helium, carbon dioxide and nitrogen come in 200 MPa cilinders. Or 30,000 psi for you. I recall even inflammables such as hydrogen come in 200 MPa cylinders. But I have to say it's been like 15 years that I worked with those gases in a lab.

      Acetylene is also a special case, according to Wikipedia that is usually dissolved in a solvent inside it's bottle as it tends to explode when overpressurised.

    14. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by damburger · · Score: 1

      However, applying a little basic rocket science on top of that says that for optimal performance you run fuel rich, because aluminium particles are much lighter than aluminium oxide particles, and thus you want some of the fuel to be unburned and act purely as reaction mass. Part of the pollution problems with other rocket propellants (storable and solid) is that they don't burn some of their propellant. Its easy to run an environmentally optimal mix when you want to get to 1,300ft - its a little harder when you need to make it into orbit.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    15. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Hydrazine is downright evil. It's extremely toxic, but also hallucinogen so you get disoriented before you're killed off, at low concentrations. At even lower concentrations it is "just" carcinogen.

      Oh, and did I mention that it's explosive? It explodes if you look at it wrong.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    16. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen is not a storable propellant. Solid propellants such as the ones used in the Shuttle SRBs produce clorine gas on combustion.

    17. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

      When has green not meant better?

      When describing your great aunt's complexion after eating the funny tasting crab salad.

    18. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by Aphex+Junkie · · Score: 1

      Don't be obtuse.
      Biodiesel is better because it does not release *extra* carbon into the air. The plant it came from sucked in existing atmospheric CO2, unlike petroleum-based fuels which release "new" (long-sequestered) CO2.
      Also, no one believes that "clean coal" bullshit.

    19. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Mind you, I can think of smarter things to do with water than to use it as propellant in space where it won't be reclaimed by our biosphere.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    20. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have an O2 cylinder in my garage that runs 3000psi when full. Welding gas, y'know. Every mechanic's shop has one. Hydrogen is also used as a welding gas, it is commonly stored and shipped in the same truck as the O2 cylinders. Along with propane, acetalene, MAP gas, etc.

      Aluminum is -very- expensive to produce compared to liquefied gas. Its refined from bauxite by electrolysis. They put the Al refineries next to hydroelectric dams instead of next to the bauxite mine, that should tell you something eh?

      Not saying it couldn't work nicely as a propellant for use on the moon or asteroids, where water ice and recoverable aluminum could be found. Thermite could too. Just saying calling it green is tripe.

      Although I have to say, the thought of refining pure aluminum on the moon is PURE science fiction. Electrolysis of molten rock, hard to do in a space suit with a refiner unit hauled up from Earth, right? Electrolysis of the ice for use as a hydrogen/oxygen rocket would be easier, yes? Solar panel, couple plastic bags and a compressor pump.

    21. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

      Don't tell the greenies dude, they want to switch us all to hydrogen cars.

      However you are incorrect. Pressurized hydrogen is certainly stored, its used as a welding gas and shipped in cylinders all over the place all the time. -Liquid- hydrogen is very difficult to handle compared to propane or gasoline. But compared to refining aluminum its easy. They have a huge tank of liquid hydrogen sitting on the shuttle launch site in Florida, its been there a looooong time.

      And hey, when you burn it you get water. What do you get when you burn aluminum? Really abrasive dust.

    22. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Would there be a reason we can't take the aluminum from soda cans and such that's already been separated, and powder that?

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    23. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Buying a car which uses no gasoline, but still relies on burning coal is considered the pinnacle of being green.

      Please. Three words for you: "economies of scale". Or do you *really* think it's better to have a bunch of little, inefficient ICEs running around in lieu of one big one?

      Furthermore, using centralized electricity generation means centralized pollution, making it far easier to deal with (adding new filters to an existing plant is easy... good luck upgrading the catalytic converters on millions of cars), *and* you can use alternative energy sources. Yes, believe it or not, coal isn't the only method by which one can produce electricity.

      Burning biodiesel is considered better for the environment than regular gasoline or diesel. Not because its emissions are considerably better, but because it comes from plant.

      Yeah, it's call carbon neutral, moron.

      Honestly, I've seen stupid posts, but yours is quite impressive.

    24. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Not saying it couldn't work nicely as a propellant for use on the moon or asteroids, where water ice and recoverable aluminum could be found.

      It's the latter bit which is the problem. You just don't tend to find highly reactive metals in their elemental state.

      Thermite could too.

      For a rocket you want gas rather than liquid...

    25. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Pressurized hydrogen is certainly stored, its used as a welding gas and shipped in cylinders all over the place all the time. -Liquid- hydrogen is very difficult to handle compared to propane or gasoline.

      In many cases what you have in the container is a liquid, at least with a full container. Putting a gas under pressure can cause it to change state, which is also why you may have to cool the bottles whilst filling them.
      The easiest way to see this is with a clear plastic butane lighter, since butane does not need that high a pressure to liquify at normal temperatures.

    26. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

      And last time I checked, the process of getting Aluminum in the first place isn't exactly stunningly pleasent to the environment.

    27. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      The last O2 bottles I had were 3000psi. Hardly low pressure.

      3000 psi, that is just over 20 MPa. That is indeed relative low pressure for gas cylinders. Safe, inert gases such as helium, carbon dioxide and nitrogen come in 200 MPa cilinders.

      The high-pressure gauge on the carbon-dioxide tank feeding my kegerator usually reads only somewhere around 800-850 psi. Carbon dioxide can exist in liquid form at room temperature with that pressure over it. As gas is drawn out, more gas boils out of the liquid until equilibrium is restored. It's only when the liquid runs out that the pressure starts to fall (and you'd better plan on getting a refill Real Soon Now when that happens).

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    28. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by skine · · Score: 1

      whoops, didn't mean to post as AC.

    29. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen is stored in metal hydride powders inside the tanks, because the pure gas will walk through welded seams under pressure. Likewise acetylene is stored dissolved in acetone, because it behaves badly by itself. These indirect storage methods are industrial scale and common.

      Liquid hydrogen has properties that destroy mild steel tanks and fittings by making them brittle. Therefore exotic and expensive alloys are used in rockets.

      All of which is still "greener" than nanoscale aluminum powder and alumina dust released into the atmosphere. And easier than refining aluminum. Particularly in space.

    30. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

      Are there pop cans lying around on the moon?

    31. Re:Aluminum powder is green? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      That's not what this discussion was about. This discussion was about the waste created and being "green". Green doesn't apply to the moon.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  5. Re:Ethical question by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Point taken. "million years" was an implied "at least", not a deadline. But still...

    a) I assumed the multiple destinations would then be responsible for their own existential musings and subsequent expansion activities, if needed.

    b) Are you sure the current single Earth is cable of nine nines of probability of sustainability? Before you answer, consider external events that might jeopardize this particular bit of real estate... solar events, large rocks, gamma rays from remote sources, etc.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  6. To the Moon by bobdotorg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I suspect that the rocket's first stage will have a Radium - Aluminum - Phosphorus based fuel (RAALPh) and will propel the ALICE stage to the moon. Straight to the moon. One of these days.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:To the Moon by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suspect that the rocket's first stage will have a Radium - Aluminum - Phosphorus based fuel (RAALPh) and will propel the ALICE stage to the moon. Straight to the moon. One of these days.

      Oh. Mod points gone. Oh my ribs...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:To the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Snap! I accidentally my entire lunch laughing at that one.

    3. Re:To the Moon by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the radium and phosphorus would certainly ensure that the rocket stays "green" (even in the dark)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:To the Moon by damburger · · Score: 2, Funny

      As would much of the wildlife in the range

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  7. Re:Ethical question by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    In a heartbeat, without hesitation.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  8. Hm... by Rehnberg · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that we could send all the stuff we need to launch a rocket to the moon, assemble it there, then make the fuel and launch it from the moon? It seems to me that doing this would save quite a bit of fuel and allow us to go farther into space.

    1. Re:Hm... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would be easier if water could be found on the moon.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Hm... by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't conservation of energy still apply? You'd expend all the energy needed to lift the mass of "one standard rocket ship" out of Earth, land it on the moon, then expend even more energy getting it off the surface of the moon. How is that better than lifting "one standard rocket ship" directly off the Earth? (Yes, I admit there might be scale effects where we don't have a large efficient rocket capable of lifting said mass in one go.)

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    3. Re:Hm... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't conservation of energy still apply? You'd expend all the energy needed to lift the mass of "one standard rocket ship" out of Earth, land it on the moon, then expend even more energy getting it off the surface of the moon. How is that better than lifting "one standard rocket ship" directly off the Earth? (Yes, I admit there might be scale effects where we don't have a large efficient rocket capable of lifting said mass in one go.)

      You build one "standard rocket" on Earth, which is capable of going to the moon.

      You fill it with fuel, and send it off to the moon. It arrives with empty tanks.

      Now, at this point, you have one "standard rocket" sans fuel, sitting on the moon. The rocket had to have had around 15 km/sec deltaV when it started, which was just about enough to go to the moon and land there.

      You refuel it from fuel made on the moon. Now you have a rocket with 15 km/sec deltaV sitting on the moon.

      Hmm, how far can you go with that...tough one. Allow for 5 km/sec to be blown on the landing wherever we're going to land. It probably won't be that much, since we'll probably use aerobraking to some extent, but let's be generous. 10 km/sec left.

      We launch from the moon, on an orbit that'll pass within 500 km of the Earth's surface, where we'll make a second burn to send us outbound....

      The rocket leaves the vicinity of Earth at somewhat more than solar escape speed.

      In other words, such a "standard rocket", if refueled on the moon from fuel made on the moon, and relaunched, can go basically anywhere in the Solar System. It can do it relatively quickly (relative to what we can currently launch - we're not talking hundreds of km/sec here). Jupiter in a year, Mars in a few weeks, that sort of thing....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Hm... by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      we'll probably use aerobraking to some extent

      On the moon?

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    5. Re:Hm... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      we'll probably use aerobraking to some extent

      On the moon?

      You were inattentive. The "aerobraking" comment was for going places FROM the moon, not TO the moon.

      If we were talking about going TO the moon, then 5 km/sec would be ludicrous, since lunar escape speed is less than 2.4 km/sec. And the deltaV required for that was assumed within the 15 km/sec of the "standard rocket".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  9. Re:Ethical question by reilwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What if this happened in your lifetime...and you're not part of the crew?

  10. I tried this once by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

    I was watching a TV show about this last year. I heard that you could repack Testor's engines. They used aluminum powder, potassium nitrate, and sulfur. I think that you are allowed to launch them up to 2000 ft.

    1. Re:I tried this once by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Unlikely to find potassium nitrate on the moon I think, at least until after we've been there for a while, and aren't forced to sell our solids back.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  11. Hey you know that ALICE chick? by syousef · · Score: 1

    ...She goes off like a rocket!

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  12. No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollutes by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this talk about this and that going "green" is just puff; no real meaning beyond getting PR and more funding.

    I don't see how any rocket can be considered "green" considering most all of the environmental impact is not from firing the rocket, but is from building it.

    Ending all wars and stabilizing human population would go far further towards safeguarding the environment than all these feel-good "green" initiatives.

    Ron

  13. Re:Ethical question by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    Then I doubt I'd be in the position to make that call.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  14. Re:Ethical question by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    Am I on the rocket? If so - yes

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  15. Clever acronym, but... by __aailrp9629 · · Score: 1

    Isn't it already taken?

    1. Re:Clever acronym, but... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      taken several times, for that matter

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  16. Re:Ethical question by fooslacker · · Score: 1

    If you want to boil it down to a simple yes/no, I think it largely comes down to a calculation of what supports the most sentient creatures in the end or a sentience total cost of ownership concept. Given that these things are unknowable you would have to turn to statistics, quantify sentience, and then find the set of events with the highest expected value for sentience, Time is relevant to the question you pose only in the fact that it affects the probability calculation for life or death of a unit of sentience.

    It's an interesting thought experiment but in the end that's the interesting thing about evolution. Each individual creature can act with self-interest and things like environmental adaptability, altruism, and numerous other emergent behaviors that are a side-effect of the simple will of the individual to survive take questions like this out of our hands for the large part which IMO is a much better system than one person or a small group of people attempting to decide things for themselves within the limited context of their own existence.

  17. Details by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

    OK. I want details. How fine does the aluminum powder have to be? Is it available commercially, or do I need to get out a grinder and a piece of bar stock? Do you need to powder your water ice to mix them together, or can you mix them while the water's liquid and then cool them while mixing, maybe in something like an ice cream maker? I guess the first question should have been, how stable is the stuff at room temperature? If it is stable at room temperature, what does it take to set it off - I mean, ignite it?

    I don't exactly see anything to bust, but Adam and Jamie definitely should have a go with this stuff.

    1. Re:Details by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      The Aluminum powder in the article is nano-scale, good luck with that grinder. Normal Aluminum powder could probably produce a similar (though much less powerful) effect since it's one of the two components in (the most common form of) Thermite.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    2. Re:Details by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      OK. I want details. How fine does the aluminum powder have to be? Is it available commercially, or do I need to get out a grinder and a piece of bar stock?

      Curious about it, I Googled nano aluminum powder. It seems easy to purchase it. Several sites sell it. I also found some interesting bits of information.

      There appear to be a few different processes to creating it. Here is one example:

      Aluminum nanoparticle is produced by laser evaporation process. The raw material used is high purity Aluminum.

      Another example:

      The nano aluminum particles were produced in different ambiance by the wire explosion process.

      It also has a lot of applications. Just to name a few, I found references to rocket propellant, micro-electronics, and high-strength alloys. Cool stuff.

      Now as to the rest of your questions, I'm still curious...

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    3. Re:Details by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Adam and Jamie (Mythbusters) already did have a go at this one, and didn't know it. They put a shedload of thermite (Fe2O3 + Al2) on top of bricks of ice, and watch the amazingly energetic explosion, in difference to regular thermite burning.

      It was in an episode that aired in the last week or two.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. Re:Ethical question by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    aluminium

    Oh dear lord, not this again.

    • The discoverer (Sir Humphry Davy) spelled it Aluminum.
    • Aluminum saves a syllable.
    • NASA, the subject of this article, spells it Aluminum.
    • IUPAC accepts the spelling Aluminum.
    • A-loo-mi-num has such a nice... woody quality about it, while Al-yoo-min-i-um is a nasty tinny sort of thing.

    ... Q.E.D.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  19. Yahbut by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

    who would mix them up?

    Yes, it's a clever acronym, and yes it's already taken, but context is everything here.

  20. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real goal is being able to build it easily on other planets. Although I don't know what they're thinking when they mention the moon. We're yet to find ice on the moon. Hydrogen is exceedingly rare on the lunar surface.

    --
    Dear Lord: I don't want to go back to college, so please help me be sexy. Amen.
  21. Re:Ethical question by martas · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm the founder of a world-wide organization whose aim it is to execute every person to have ever used the "aluminum" spelling. I'm very serious about this. You should be, too.

    --
    weinersmith
  22. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

    Ending all wars and stabilizing human population

    Aren't those near diametrically opposite actions? Last time I checked, wars or plagues are some of the best checks on population growth.

  23. Re:Ethical question by anagama · · Score: 1

    come on -- mods, take a Quaalude. This is not a troll, it's a joke. Joke's might not be funny, or they might, depends on who hears it (I like this one), but if you don't see the humor, that does make it a troll.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  24. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by anagama · · Score: 1

    Besides that, aluminum requires enormous amounts of electricity. I fail to see how aluminum fuel can be thought of as green considering the amount of coal that goes into our electrical grid.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  25. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by anagama · · Score: 1

    Apparently, not enough. The black death was but a blip. Real population control will require real intent to control population.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  26. Re:Ethical question by anagama · · Score: 1

    Ok, remove apostrophe in "Joke's" and and "not" between "does" and "make". I need an editor.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  27. Pure government waste and PR by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All these gigantic federal government agencies commonly put on displays like this to look good in public and to make the next budget request go smoother. Truth is, any aerospace project run by the government costs so many resources that it's kind of irrelevent whether it's environmentally friendly or not. If you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something, your actions cause the labor of thousands of people, all of whom will burn up all kinds of resources to get the job done. It doesn't really matter what the resulting rocket burns - the pollution from all the machinery and coal power plants and pickup trucks and countless other things is far greater.

    The government needs to do what private industry can't : research a cost effective vehicle for accessing space. Whether that be an elevator, a bank of lasers, a gigantic railgun, or a factory in Russia mass producing simple rockets, we need something drastically better than the current crap. Until something is done about the stupendous costs of rockets, it's pointless to even discuss trips to far off planets and other big manned expeditions.

    1. Re:Pure government waste and PR by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "The government needs to do what private industry can't : research a cost effective vehicle for accessing space. Whether that be an elevator, a bank of lasers, a gigantic railgun, or a factory in Russia mass producing simple rockets, we need something drastically better than the current crap. Until something is done about the stupendous costs of rockets, it's pointless to even discuss trips to far off planets and other big manned expeditions."

      So work done by academic institutions, sponsored by NASA, on cheap alternate forms of propulsion don't count?

      Who am I kidding - it's not like you RTFA'd

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Pure government waste and PR by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      A laser launch system would cost about 5 billion dollars. Cheaper than Orion or Constellation, and a heck of a lot better bargain in the long run. That's what NASA should be developing. Compared to their main expenses, a few million tossed out to university PhDs who have no ability to actually build their ideas is chicken feed.

  28. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Aluminum is common on the moon, and water may be abundant on Mars. So, we propel the moon into orbit around mars (or better yet, pull Mars into LEO), and... um... PROFIT!

  29. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by izomiac · · Score: 1

    Hmm... If you put too many rats in one container they resort to cannibalism despite being well fed. When I heard about that study someone mentioned that other studies were looking at whether this phenomenon could explain higher crime rates in cities. However, I'd never really thought of war (and resulting plague) as a major population control factor for humans. Perhaps humans seem inherently violent because we are still hardcoded to deal with hunter-gatherer level population densities. Thus modern society might trigger anti-over-population adaptations (evolutionary hold-overs) such as war. That would make space colonization very attractive... e.g. lower human population density and the resulting wastes of resources while retaining our ability to share knowledge.

  30. Nitrogen compounds by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Still going to be various nasty nitrogen compounds from the heat of the exhaust interacting with the atmosphere I bet.

  31. So, the important question by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    Can I use this ALICE to build an inexpensive rocket myself?

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  32. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    shh don't tell them the whole "green" movement is bullshit it'll kill their buzz.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  33. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by pearl298 · · Score: 1

    I don't think the idea is to set up a coal burning plant off planet though.

    Even coal buring is MUCH cleaner in a fixed plant where you can put in all kinds of heavy pollution control equipment though.

    Pictures of water vapour coming out of the plant chimneys on a cold morning don't count!

  34. Re:Ethical question by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    Al-yoo-min-i-um is a nasty tinny sort of thing.

    Not as bad as "newspaper" or "litterbin".

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  35. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by pearl298 · · Score: 1

    Arguably the best way to prevent war and eliminate poverty would be to scatter billions of condoms from high flying aeroplanes throughout the third world.

  36. Not silica by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Just a nitpick : "Al2O3 (silica) ". No. Silica is Silicium Dioxyde (SiO2). Al2O3 is alumina.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Not silica by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Yes you're totally right, my bad.

  37. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by damburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really. The only proven effective method of stabilizing population is to give women the choice over whether to have children. Happily, this is also the Right Thing To Do. Sometimes the universe throws you a bone.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  38. seen something similar to this before by tekgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

  39. Re:Ethical question by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Actually what made my jaw drop about this article is that they are touting this as environmentally friendly? Do they know how much energy it takes to Mine then ship then smelt then ship again then grind to dust all that Aluminium? Give me a break!

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  40. Re:Ethical question by AlecC · · Score: 1

    Or Uranium or Helium or Lithium or just about all the other elements ending in -um

    I grant that Davy omitted the second i, but people like regularity - especially in regular structures like the Periodic Table. The extra letter has been added, so far as it has, by popular demand,

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  41. Re:Ethical question by m50d · · Score: 1
    A-loo-mi-num has such a nice... woody quality about it, while Al-yoo-min-i-um is a nasty tinny sort of thing.

    And which is more appropriate to the material in question?

    --
    I am trolling
  42. 1300 feet or 430m ? by kubitus · · Score: 1
    Every amateur rocket size 10 inch can do that.

    what is the chemical reaction? 3H2O + 2Al = Al2O3 + 6H ??

  43. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by noisyinstrument · · Score: 1

    Ending all wars and stabilizing human population

    Aren't those near diametrically opposite actions? Last time I checked, wars or plagues are some of the best checks on population growth.

    Yeah, but last time I checked wiping out the human race wasn't part of the green movement's long term goals.

  44. Re:Ethical question by SlashWombat · · Score: 2, Informative

    I agree ... its only the Yanks that think aluminum is a reasonable way to spell
    it. Every other element they spell correctly.

    Next, lets pick on the yanks for avoiding metric measurements ...

  45. Re:Ethical question by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I grant that Davy omitted the second i, but people like regularity - especially in regular structures like the Periodic Table. The extra letter has been added, so far as it has, by popular demand,

    But not for Molybdenum or Tantalum, curiously...

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  46. Re:Ethical question by Kagura · · Score: 1

    execute every person to have ever used the "aluminum" spelling.

    Man, sucks to be you... ;)

  47. Re:Ethical question by Alsn · · Score: 1

    The point is that you can solve those issues separately by using green energy to do all those tasks. If the fuel itself isn't green in the first place however that point is moot.

  48. Re:Ethical question by qmaqdk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, then let's be consistent:

    Helum, Lithum, Beryllum, Sodum, Magnesum, Aluminum, Potassum, Calcum, Scandum, Titanum, Vanadum, Chromum, Gallum, Germanum, Selenum, Rubidum, Strontum, Yttrum, Zirconum, ah, who needs more than 40 protons.

    --
    My UID is prime. Hah!
  49. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by wisty · · Score: 1

    Relax. The Air Force is involved. It wouldn't go ahead if it was inefficient.

  50. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    I made the mistake of sending the Prius vs. Hummer total lifetime pollution article to a tree hugger I know.

    Now they're just confused.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  51. I RTFA by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    And googled, and read all the comments, but I'm still in the dark as to how the thing actually works. Can anyone enlighten me?

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  52. Ice machine? by hugg · · Score: 1

    "Spacecraft might one day refuel on the moon or Mars using plain old ice."

    Isn't there not a lot of water on the moon and Mars? In fact isn't there not even a lot of hydrogen?

  53. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by inviolet · · Score: 1

    Not really. The only proven effective method of stabilizing population is to give women the choice over whether to have children. Happily, this is also the Right Thing To Do. Sometimes the universe throws you a bone.

    But then most children will be had by bored and/or irresponsible women -- which means: the lower class. You need one more step in your grand plan: turn fertility off by default, using a chemical in the water or whatever. Then offer free pills, to anybody who wants one, to turn it back on.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  54. You could say it isn't as bad as another by dbIII · · Score: 1

    In this case I think it means kids born downwind from the launch pad are not born with any more defects than the average unlike some other fuels that are very nasty but require a lot less energy to produce. However you are right, everything is being pushed as green or clean even if "clean coal" for instance means just a little bit "cleaner" than using current pollution controls.

  55. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's true. A Hummer is going to spend so much of it's lifetime getting repaired that it's not going to be on the road much burning fuel.
    A Hummer is just a status symbol, a bold statement that you are rich and so is your mechanic. Old East German quality combined with West German prices, a Mercedes in price and a Travant in substance.
    To be serious a Prius is there to solve the problem of stop-start traffic. Take it out of that situation and you can find better things.

  56. Emerson! by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." :-)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dying_Night

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  57. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    Old East German quality combined with West German prices, a Mercedes in price and a Travant in substance.

    No no no. If it was really built like a Trabant, it would weigh less than one ton.

  58. Hell by grnrckt94 · · Score: 1

    I thought they fired off an actual green rocket with green flame! No my nick was not inspired by this post.

  59. Yea, it's finally It raining alumimun! by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    Wow! Talk about transparent aluminum! You can see right through while it's burning in a big fiery ball. Look it sparkles!

    Yea, It's raining sapphire!

    Oh GOD! RUN FOR THE HILLS! IT'S RAINING SAPPHIRES!

    Isn't this similar to what caused a recent extinguished some significant life about 13,000 years ago? Didn't they discover a fine layer of microscopic diamond ash that was responsible for a lot animals, especially the Mammoths and people dieing in North America? Sure this was on a much larger scale and shorter timeframe. Isn't there some danger in seeding the atmosphere with microscopic aluminum particulate matter? Sure it's only going to be in small quantities ... at first. But we're talking about getting this high up into the atmosphere where it could stay for years. It could even at some point alter the cloud formation and other weather conditions on the planet.

    Although, it's not what I would call ac green solution. You should wee what it takes to produce aluminum powder. It's about 95% waste, 5% product. Of course, I exaggerate, but not by much. It's a horrible process to extract it from raw material. Which is why so many companies love recycling aluminum. It's hugely cheaper and cleaner to get aluminum from cans than from ore. Of course, now NASA's going to be taking all our aluminum cans, so you can expect the cost of ... well everything to go up (except for rocket fuel). Quick, buy some stock in ALCOA!

  60. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 1

    Oh it is, they just missed their chance at the Sydney Olympics when someone stopped them from putting the Sheva virus into the water filtration system.

    --
    Orwell was an optimist.
  61. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by damburger · · Score: 1

    How ironic that, given your signature, you would advocate forcible medication of 'undesirables' because you don't like their moral behaviour. You want to stop the 'lower classes' from having children? Why not just call them 'degenerate races' and be done with it?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  62. Re:Ethical question by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    Next, lets pick on the yanks for avoiding metric measurements ...

    Now that's just low.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  63. Re:Ethical question by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Helium is a bad example. It's not a metal. If you want elements named systematically, it should be "helon".

  64. Re:Ethical question by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    You're right, of course. All metals should end in "-ium". Of course, "magnesium" and "manganesium" will be even more confusing than they are now. "Platinium", well, we'll get used to it. But most people have forgotten the traditional "aurum" for gold, "argentum" for silver, "plumbum" for lead, "ferrum" for iron, and so on, and they'll be baffled by "aurium", "argentium", "plumbium" and "ferrium". And when it comes to "nickelium", "cobaltium", "zincium", "tungstium" and so forth, you can probably expect even more push-back.

  65. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Just smelt it in Iceland, then, using their vast hydroelectric and geothermal resources and supporting their failing economy. ;-)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  66. Re:Ethical question by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the lecture Al

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  67. Re:Ethical question by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    I'm the founder of a world-wide organization whose aim it is to execute every person to have ever used the "aluminum" spelling. I'm very serious about this. You should be, too.

    Talk about a grammar Nazi.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  68. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by inviolet · · Score: 1

    [Turn fertility off by default using a chemical in the water, and offer free pills to anyone to turn it back on.]

    How ironic that, given your signature, you would advocate forcible medication of 'undesirables' because you don't like their moral behaviour. You want to stop the 'lower classes' from having children? Why not just call them 'degenerate races' and be done with it?

    1. Indeed I do NOT like the moral behavior of the lower class.
    2. Your paraphrase of my post is dishonest -- particularly the word 'forcible'.
    3. I don't want the lower class to cease having children. I do, however, want the lower class to stop having accidental children -- children that are not particularly wanted and not particularly affordable to their parents.
    4. Your final sentence is an argument from intimidation, and not even a good one, given points 1, 2, and 3.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  69. Re:Ethical question by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Yet the whole world, except for some tiny but very delusionally arrogant group, spell it "Aluminium".

    Live with it. You can't change it, even if you believe everybody on the planet is living in your regional reality.

    Your children will call it Aluminium anyway. And their children will not even know that there was another spelling.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  70. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

    I had thought it burned with a cool green flame.

    Damn it.

  71. Re:No Rocket is Green - Building It Is What Pollut by SBrach · · Score: 1

    Not often do you get a Tom Clancy reference around here.

  72. Re:Ethical question by lennier · · Score: 1

    Well, Tantalum is just a big tease anyway.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  73. Man... by executivechaos · · Score: 1

    ...Purdue sure has been busy lately. GO BOILERS!!! Martin Jischke knew what he was doing with all that fund raising during his time there..

  74. Re:Green... eh - manufacture on off planet ... coo by anagama · · Score: 1

    Plus, Iceland is so conveniently located to Australia's huge bauxite reserves ... oh wait -- ships use oil.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  75. Re:Ethical question by smithmc · · Score: 1

    Yet the whole world, except for some tiny but very delusionally arrogant group, spell it "Aluminium".

    5% of the world's population is "tiny"?

    And, if we're delusionally arrogant, we learned from the absolute masters of delusional arrogance. We may try to control the planet, but hey, we didn't try to physically conquer the whole damn thing, like some people.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!