Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Wants Green Rocket Fuel

Posted by samzenpus on from the save-the-earth-before-you-leave-it dept.

coondoggie writes "NASA is looking for technology that could offer green rocket fuel alternatives to the highly toxic fuel hydrazine used to fire up most rockets today. According to NASA: 'Hydrazine is an efficient and ubiquitous propellant that can be stored for long periods of time, but is also highly corrosive and toxic.' It is used extensively on commercial and defense department satellites as well as for NASA science and exploration missions."

7 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. God help us by fnj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NASA is wasting time and money on this crap?

    1. Re:God help us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Going green already killed Columbia crew because the foam problems started when they moved away from a chlorofluorocarbon foaming agent. The EPA was willing to grant NASA an exception.

    2. Re:God help us by stevelinton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hydrazine is described as corrosive and toxic, both of which will make it expensive to handle, require special pipes and tanks and so on. As far as I know, it's not
      an environmental consideration -- it surely decays to nitrogen and water pretty fast.

      I suspect this is about cost saving in the handling.

  2. Grant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A little food coloring should fix that. I should see if I can get a grant.

  3. I take it you're not a technician handling it? by fantomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess if I was one of the technical crew who had to work with this stuff and be exposed to its toxicity, I'd be welcoming my boss researching a way of making my life safer. I'm sure the technicians love working for NASA but given the choice between working with highly toxic fuels that might burn them/ give them cancer/ other nice side effect, or something less damaging, I am sure they'd be all in favour of an option that won't harm them and won't potentially leak into local water tables, get drawn up into local water supply / agriculture and end up in their kids.

    My experience is the people most likely to moan about health and safety are those whose greatest risk of an industrial injury is stabbing themselves with the office stapler. Folk working in genuinely high risk environments seem quite grateful their bosses have to abide by regulations.

    1. Re:I take it you're not a technician handling it? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Folk working in genuinely high risk environments seem quite grateful their bosses have to abide by regulations.

      You know things have gotten bad when a small bit of truth, expressed clearly amidst an environment of emotion, blind partisanship and ignorance can almost bring tears to my eyes. I hear so much about how "Regulations are bad, m'kay?" even from people who should know better, that a calm persuasive case for why we need regulation actually chokes me up.

      Regulations are not a "necessary evil". They are simply "necessary".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. It's the money by realxmp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Going Green is probably just an excuse here, it's the money. Because it's toxic and corrosive it's hard to handle and thus expensive to handle. First you have the expensive equipment and protective gear, and then we have the paperwork... Think about it this way, every time you use the stuff you're generating reams and reams of risk assessments and paperwork. That paperwork is essentially a writeonly document which has to be produced everytime they come up with a slightly different way to do things.