Topic: Cyclic Ozone rocket fuel.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

With nearly twice the energy of normal, bent-shaped ozone (O3), cyclic ozone could hold the key component for a future manned-mission to Mars. No one has ever seen-let alone made-cyclic ozone.

...

Levis points out that the successful production of cyclic ozone could play an important role in putting a human on Mars because rockets could be able to carry one-third more payload

Still very speculative of course. 

[Bonk]

Interesting... cyclopropyl groups (three membered carbon rings), however improbable, exist. (e.g. http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471940747.html). I find the existence of cyclic ozone even more improbable. But perhaps it can be done... I used to be able to work these molecular orbital energies out easily... time for a review I think. (hmmm...). My cyclopropane comparison is a bit flawed in that the C-C bonding is mostly sigma with less pi bonding character (I think).The O-O bond in ozone is a sigma single bond with delocalised pi bonding over the molecule? This delocalisation may be what makes cyclic ozone possible in analogy to benzene...  if an oxygen atom in the right oxidation state is "teased" into the O2 party... hmmm... stearic hinderance is the reason quoted why it does not form cyclic ozone naturally and instead delocalises the extra bond... perhaps if somehow highly oxidised oxygen nuclei could be arranged, and then let the electrons in to fill in the gaps how they see fit...

He's using lasers? I would have thought high energy catalytic surfaces first... (oops! hope that's not the answer... lol) You can get the same kind of feild strengths or higher more easlity at the tips of carbon "microneedles" (http://www.carbotec.com/p_fdfims.html)... perhaps this approach could be scaled up as well? Or perhaps some specific metallic surface would do it?... Hmmm carbon nanotubes and buckyballs can be produced by laser ablation of purified carbon... perhaps that what this fellow is doing to purified solid or liquid oxygen? If not, there's another approach.


related links:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/chem/walsh/cp.html
http://neon.cm.utexas.edu/bauld/teach/cycloprop.html
http://www.americangasgroup.com/html/cyclopropane.html
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/CHEM.htm
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/O/key.html
http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/980624/index.html
http://dirac.ms.virginia.edu/~emb3t/o2/o2.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/ghpr/2002/00000022/00000001/art00006 (extra raman peaks in pressurized solid O₂ !!!)

Thanks for the link Nemesis!    I found it most interesting to think about.

[Nemesis]

This is just intended as a proof of concept.  Prove that cyclic ozone can be made and that it has the expected properties, then work on an affordable method of bulk manufacturing for rocket fuel.

I'd like to see them make solid hydrogen myself.  It is believed to have some interesting properties.   

As a rocket fuel it should have a much larger propulsion benefit than cyclic ozone (combine the two and compound the effect).  I believe that compared to liquid hydrogen it delivers 5x the specific impulse.  Add 1/3 of that for cyclic ozone and you have a propulsion system 6.7 times as efficient as the shuttles main engines with current Liquid hydrogen/LOX mixture.

It is also believed to be stable at room temperatures and pressures, you could hold a chunk of solid hydrogen in your unprotected hand.

Finally solid hydrogen is believed to be a super conductor at room temperatures, perhaps higher.  Many uses for that, even if highly flamable.

[E_Look]

Any molecule that bent out of shape is bound to have high fuel value, but boy, I'd hate to be part of the crew handling it.  If you just think bad thoughts, it's enough to detonate the stuff.

As for hydrogen, it still would be better to store it in some kind of solid matrix, a H2 sponge, for safety's sake and ease of transport. 

[TheJudge]

Any molecule that bent out of shape is bound to have high fuel value, but boy, I'd hate to be part of the crew handling it.  If you just think bad thoughts, it's enough to detonate the stuff.

As for hydrogen, it still would be better to store it in some kind of solid matrix, a H2 sponge, for safety's sake and ease of transport. 

Hehe...One bullet into the fuel supply and BOOM there goes the ship...


yep, like that one. 

[Bonk]

This is just intended as a proof of concept.  Prove that cyclic ozone can be made and that it has the expected properties, then work on an affordable method of bulk manufacturing for rocket fuel.

I'd like to see them make solid hydrogen myself.  It is believed to have some interesting properties.   

As a rocket fuel it should have a much larger propulsion benefit than cyclic ozone (combine the two and compound the effect).  I believe that compared to liquid hydrogen it delivers 5x the specific impulse.  Add 1/3 of that for cyclic ozone and you have a propulsion system 6.7 times as efficient as the shuttles main engines with current Liquid hydrogen/LOX mixture.

It is also believed to be stable at room temperatures and pressures, you could hold a chunk of solid hydrogen in your unprotected hand.

Finally solid hydrogen is believed to be a super conductor at room temperatures, perhaps higher.  Many uses for that, even if highly flamable.

  I can only imagine solid hydrogen being something like a metal. Keep it under argon or oil for circuits etc and it would be fine...

As far as combustion driven propulsion goes, I've always wondered why lighter fuels are chosen... I would imagine that "combustion" impulse engines with heavier "combustion"/reaction products would be better, no? (perhaps depending on the size and range of ship) Maybe controlled decomposition of tetrasulfur tetranitride or something like that would be more appropriate.

I like what I see of "ion" drives... plasma torches make perfect sense to me as an impulse engine, only problem is the excess gas required to sustain the torch that would vent (somewhat) wasted to space... hmmm, how to keep the neutral species and allow the charged ones to "push off"... a micro dc plasma might be the best approach... but then perhaps the standard inductively coupled plasma configuration would be better suited for recovery of unconsumed gas... then there's the energy source for the RF to power the plasma...

Perhaps a heavier product decomposition would make a better "ion" impulse engine. It might prove easier than managing plasmas.

There was another post (of yours?) recently about using a microwave beam to boil volatiles off a "sail" thus producing an impulse engine... problem is the beam and line of sight... (limiting).

I just had an interesting idea for a micro (to prototype it) impulse engine.. very simple, safe and practical (?). Think of it as a solar powered light bulb creeping through space. Not sure of the actual feasibility, but I like the idea: The idea is to take a standard light bulb filament (tungsten or similar rhenium) apply a current to it collected by solar panels, and direct the electrons boiled off the filament with a small field to acheive propulsion... you'd need a slow steady supply of filament.. (on a reel? an array?) hehe, I like this idea... worth exploring... 

Again, thanks for the interesting post, got me thinking...

[E_Look]

The filament idea is neat, akin somewhat to that of an ion engine, however, like it, it doesn't look to produce much thrust anytime soon.  But, it's not bad for perhaps unpiloted craft like satellites and probes.

For maneuvering near planets or objects with a big magnetic field, perhaps a spaceship could take advantage of that to push off with a field of the same polarity.  And consider, all matter naturally has an inherent diamagnetism.

[Nemesis]

I can only imagine solid hydrogen being something like a metal. Keep it under argon or oil for circuits etc and it would be fine...

As far as combustion driven propulsion goes, I've always wondered why lighter fuels are chosen... I would imagine that "combustion" impulse engines with heavier "combustion"/reaction products would be better, no? (perhaps depending on the size and range of ship) Maybe controlled decomposition of tetrasulfur tetranitride or something like that would be more appropriate.

I like what I see of "ion" drives... plasma torches make perfect sense to me as an impulse engine, only problem is the excess gas required to sustain the torch that would vent (somewhat) wasted to space... hmmm, how to keep the neutral species and allow the charged ones to "push off"... a micro dc plasma might be the best approach... but then perhaps the standard inductively coupled plasma configuration would be better suited for recovery of unconsumed gas... then there's the energy source for the RF to power the plasma...

Perhaps a heavier product decomposition would make a better "ion" impulse engine. It might prove easier than managing plasmas.

There was another post (of yours?) recently about using a microwave beam to boil volatiles off a "sail" thus producing an impulse engine... problem is the beam and line of sight... (limiting).

I just had an interesting idea for a micro (to prototype it) impulse engine.. very simple, safe and practical (?). Think of it as a solar powered light bulb creeping through space. Not sure of the actual feasibility, but I like the idea: The idea is to take a standard light bulb filament (tungsten or similar rhenium) apply a current to it collected by solar panels, and direct the electrons boiled off the filament with a small field to acheive propulsion... you'd need a slow steady supply of filament.. (on a reel? an array?) hehe, I like this idea... worth exploring... 

Again, thanks for the interesting post, got me thinking...

Solid hydrogen is (in theory) a metal.  Metallic hydrogen (liquid phase) circulating on Jupiter is what is believed to give the planet its magnetic field.  Just as the circulating iron and nickel in the Earths core is believed to give the magnetic fields here.

It is not the density that is relevant in the efficiency of a rocket fuel but the energy release.  The oxygen/hydrogen combo is the best to date.   In theory the metallic hydrogen/cyclic ozone beats that hands down.  The fact that the major result of the combustion is water, not a pollutant is a useful side benefit.

The problem of ion drives is simple.  To date no ion drive can expell mass quick enough to achieve liftoff from the Earh.  Not even close.  I'm not totally up to date on the ion drive but as I recall .01 g is considered a good acceleration for them.   Ion engines also tend to use cesium.  Not something that you want to throw around in bulk.  Get an ion engine that can feed on Oxygen or Nitrogen in volume and you will really have something.

The microwave sail post was mine.  The line of sight need not be a major problem.  Place 3 arrays on the moon (6 would be better).  One of the arrays will always be able to target the sail.

If you really want to see some interesting info you should look at some SciFi novels by Robert L. Forward.  Particularly his Rocheworld series.  Forward is (was R.I.P.) a phyiscist and "rocket scientist" with several related patents to his credit.   In the appendices to his novels he goes over the science behind his propulsion systems.   He gives a great deal of information on laser driven light sails and antimatter rockets. 

I would like to see a magnetic catapault system, such as described by Heinlien in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.  Segments of such a catapault have been made at lab scale and the design can work.  Cheap  metallic hydrogen super conductors would make it very affordable.  Add a cheap fusion power plant that can be turned on and off quickly and you have a winner.

There are other designs such as a (ground based) laser driven jet for launch with the onboard rocket not igniting until after the atmosphere is already behind you. 

Imagine a 20 mile long catapault system accelerating a 100 ton craft at 6g for the length of the track until after leaving the track the laser jet system is activated and continues until the atmosphere is left behind when the (metallic hydrogen/cyclic ozone)  rocket finally ignites carrying the single stage rocket high enough to deploy the microwave sail and go off to Mars 30 days later.

There are many theoretical systems that are one or two engineering/science breakthroughs away from revolutionizing space travel. 

[Bonk]

It is not the density that is relevant in the efficiency of a rocket fuel but the energy release.  The oxygen/hydrogen combo is the best to date.   In theory the metallic hydrogen/cyclic ozone beats that hands down.  The fact that the major result of the combustion is water, not a pollutant is a useful side benefit.

I'm not so sure, rocket propulsion (an impulse engine) is based on Newton's third law and the mass of the matter being pushed out the back must have a bearing on the efficiency/application of force pushing the rocket forward. You say it is the energy release, that makes sense, but the efficiency of that energy is what is important. The typical hydrogen oxygen rocket is a fast burn or on-off situation. I can see scenarios where rockets that push out heavier matter slower might be more useful.

I would not even consider ion drives for achieving earth orbit (lol). Strictly for medium distance space travel. The most efficient way to achieve orbit will eventully prove to be a pretty standard "spaceplane" shuttle type arrangement that takes off and lands horizontally like an airplane. Funny you'd mention Heinlein's catapault - I imagine accelerators as the other solution (like a big version of that superman ride run by a supercomputer...) for unmanned high-g tolerant cargo launches preferably.

Anti-matter rockets - I got theories on that too... I'll look for that Sci-Fi author... ( Robert L. Forward - sounds familiar) I love that stuff! 

[Stormbringer]

Closed cycle TAC Engines may be the way to go for an impulse engine. But regarding plasma engines an induction coil around the exhaust path would allow the ship to recoup much of the waste energy and likely even add to the usable thrust as well as provide electrical power.

I posted an article on closed cycle TAC engines here a few months a ago.

[Stormbringer]

Actually Stephen posted the tac wave article first. http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html

[Nemesis]

I'm not so sure, rocket propulsion (an impulse engine) is based on Newton's third law and the mass of the matter being pushed out the back must have a bearing on the efficiency/application of force pushing the rocket forward. You say it is the energy release, that makes sense, but the efficiency of that energy is what is important. The typical hydrogen oxygen rocket is a fast burn or on-off situation. I can see scenarios where rockets that push out heavier matter slower might be more useful.

The key term is "Specific Impulse".  "Specific impulse is the amount of thrust you get for the weight of fuel you burn."

Code: [Select]

Propellant                                  Exhaust                    typical Isp (seconds)
zinc/sulfur                                   zinc sulfide                     240
aluminum/ammonium perchlorate *                               287 (Shuttle)
hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide        *                              313 (Shuttle)
ethanol/oxygen                             water/carbon dioxide 330
methane/oxygen                           water/carbon dioxide       370
hydrogen/oxygen                           water                               465 (Shuttle)
xenon (ion drive)                            xenon                               3000
* Contains many chemicals in exhaust.
Notice that zinc/sulfur has only slightly more than 1/2 the specific impulse of hydrogen/oxygen.  You would need to exhaust twice the mass of  zinc/sulfur to equal the propulsive effect of LOX/H2.  The percentage of the craft dedicated to carrying fuel would have to increase enormously for the zinc/sulfur propellant. 

[Bonk]

Cool stats... interesting to see the numbers -  so heavier exhaust products might only be useful in slow burn situations or where the fuel used is limited by other factors... I have more thoughts on this to post... too late and muddled now though... I want to come back to it.


That TAC engine looks cool    - neat idea... I wonder if it will go faster if you play "Space Truckin'" on the regenerator foils...

[Nemesis]

Add 1/3 of that for cyclic ozone and you have a propulsion system 6.7 times as efficient as the shuttles main engines with current Liquid hydrogen/LOX mixture.

I was thinking of this later and realized something that would show the potential of cylcic ozone + solid hydrogen.

Take that 6.7 multiply it by the 465 specific impulse that the shuttle gets for LOX/H2 and you end with 3115, just slightly greater than the xenon ion drive stats.  This would be a launch capable engine with the ability to be used for interplanetary travel as well. 

Of course at present solid hydrogen and cyclic ozone can't be made let alone cheaply in quantity.  But the potential is there.