[AR] Re: MXP-351 propellant
- From: David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:05:05 -0700
On 10/11/2016 11:44 AM, David Masten wrote:
I'm not the person behind the @mastenspace account, and all you asked
for was the ingredients. ;-)
I don't have much to add besides what all we've now tweeted out, but for
those not on twitter, here is what was tweeted:
MXP-351 can get within 90 - 95% of the theoretical Isp of a traditional
NTO/MMH bipropellant. We plan to use it for our small moon landers
Theoretical Isp:322s vs 336 for NTO
Both propellants nontoxic. Splash protection & simple chem respirator 2
handle
I'm a guessing H2O2 with catalyst-doped fuel (perhaps a witches'
brew of solvent amines spiked with various organometallics -
carboxylates? metallocenes? acetyl-acetone complexes perhaps?)...
336 sec. for N2O4 with MMH suggests an engine expanding
into vacuum with a fairly high area ratio... under similar
conditions, something in the 320's for H2O2 with DMAZ (for
example) would be thermodynamically credible, at least...
Rocketdyne chart says 289 sec. for N204 + MMH at 1000/14.7 psia;
calculated at similar expansion conditions I get about 281 sec.
for 100% H2O2 with DMAZ.
-dave w
Other related posts:
