New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#1 2004-02-26 17:25:36

~Eternal~
Member
Registered: 2003-09-25
Posts: 211

Re: Helium "Fuel"?

Does anyone know the math behind how many psi would it take for a valve one centimeter in diameter releasing helium to get into LEO...
Like...
How many psi per minute would be required to flow out of the valve to enter LEO and how much total helium psi would it take?


The MiniTruth passed its first act #001, comname: PATRIOT ACT on  October 26, 2001.

Offline

#2 2004-02-27 04:05:09

Rxke
Member
From: Belgium
Registered: 2003-11-03
Posts: 3,669

Re: Helium "Fuel"?

Dunno, but helium is getting too expensive real quick, demand is currently bigger than production... price is rising on a regular basis...

Why helium? you want a balloon going 'pssssjtfblflblb' in a controlled way when it's near the stratosphere?

Offline

#3 2004-02-27 15:36:04

~Eternal~
Member
Registered: 2003-09-25
Posts: 211

Re: Helium "Fuel"?

Yeah actually ^_^.
I'm working on an enviromentally safe "rocket engine", and looking for possible fuels.


The MiniTruth passed its first act #001, comname: PATRIOT ACT on  October 26, 2001.

Offline

#4 2004-02-27 22:53:58

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Helium "Fuel"?

Environmentally safe? There are three that readily come to mind...

1: Hydrogen/Oxygen engines, used for decades since the Apollo program and which power Shuttle. The only exaust, water vapor
2: Kerosene/Oxygen engines, which are quite clean because of the high burnup degrees and temperature, leaving nothing behind but steam, carbon dioxide, and a little non-toxic carboon soot.
3: Parafin/Oxygen hybrid engines, undergoing low-intensity development by the USAF, which would yeild aproximatly the same level of cleanliness as kerosene engines.

Other engines, ones that use hypergolics or perchlorates, are also not that bad things considerd, most of the toxic material is combusted and broken down... A well-designed nuclear engine would also produce no substantial radioactive residue.

Relying on simple pressure expansion as a source of energy to lift a rocket will get you no place fast, the amount of energy you can store is simply not useful. Chemical and nuclear engines posses far more energy per mass because of the intense thermal energy dumped into the exaust from their respective reactions.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB