New breed of rocket fuel is greener and safer
Scientists at McGill University in Montreal have created a new type of solid rocket fuel that they say is safer and cleaner than existing high-energy aerospace fuels.
Rocket fuels typically need to be hypergolic, combusting instantly when they come into contact with an external oxidizer. Most of the fuels used today are derived from hydrazine, a highly toxic and unstable compound of hydrogen and nitrogen that must be handled with inordinate care. Despite this, it's estimated that around 12,000 tons of carcinogenic hydrazine-based fuels are released into the atmosphere each year by the aerospace industry.
Described in Science Advances [open, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav9044] [DX], the McGill rocket fuel is based on zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs), a type of metal organic framework (MOF) where metal ions are clustered together with an organic molecule called a linker. According to the researchers, the high latent energy of these MOFs can be unlocked using simple chemical triggers, producing a rapid hypergolic response and ignition within 2 milliseconds.
"This is a new, cleaner approach to making highly combustible fuels, that are not only significantly safer than those currently in use, but they also respond or combust very quickly, which is an essential quality in rocket fuel," said co-senior author Tomislav Friščic, a professor in McGill's Chemistry Department.
Also at Silicon Republic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:39PM
I'd say that's the wrong adjective.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:47PM (2 children)
Did they by George?
Well done chaps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)
There's a hybrid Nox/Solid rocket engine from Aerotech. It uses cellulose as the solid part. I've been wanting to replace the cellulose with marijuana to see if that gets it (or me) higher.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:37PM
Oops... It's N2O, not Nox.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:07PM (3 children)
They start by stating "Rocket fuels typically need to be hypergolic" which is far from a rule. Yeah, hypergolics are popular for some purposes, but they are far from necessary, especially in the general case. The actual paper words it much differently and seems to be solely interested in the hypergolic property of these compounds. There is a reason energetic metallics don't see much if any use in rocketry, lighter combustion products are strongly correlated to SI.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday April 12 2019, @01:18AM (2 children)
The take off stage does (/may?) not need hypergolic.
Once on orbit, I imagine the "orbit correction and/or attitude adjustments" rockets however may be better of with them - high impulse (lower quantity of fuel to transport in orbit), must fire reliably, short and controlled fire time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday April 12 2019, @04:07PM (1 child)
I wasn't totally discounting hypergolics, just pointing out they aren't a strict requirements for rockets or even the most popular choice by tonnage. Thankfully first stage hypergolics aren't a popular idea (anymore), though as you pointed out they are ubiquitous in attitude control, where there is much less tonnage and their use is of little threat to humans.
I just wish we lived in a world where the headline would be "new family of (potentially useful) hypergolics" instead of a summary that tries to make it sound like hypergolics are a serious threat and represent all rocket fuel. I guess I should just be glad we didn't get "rockets cause cancer, scientists discover cancer free rockets".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @05:48PM
This MOF/ZIF stuff sounds like a hybrid solid fuel, so maybe not for on-orbit reaction control. Are they replacing carcinogenic or aluminum exhaust products with zinc, cobalt, and cadmium products?