No-one except the guys who are already set up to deal with it, who don't
really understand what the fuss is about, because they're so used to
hydrazine's hassles that they can't imagine what it would be like to use
something better.
Perhaps because the dirty work is done by the technicians who don't make
major decisions like changing a propellant systems.
Ken
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:26 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Lou G wrote:
I feel like we are far from the end of the in space propellant wars.
Yeah, unfortunately none of the oxidizer choices is really entirely
satisfactory. Fuels are a minor problem by comparison (unless you really
insist on a monopropellant, in which case again there's nothing that's
really completely satisfactory).
No-one wants to deal with hydrazine anymore, and people are afraid it
will get banned in the EU
No-one except the guys who are already set up to deal with it, who don't
really understand what the fuss is about, because they're so used to
hydrazine's hassles that they can't imagine what it would be like to use
something better. ("The shit a man never sees is the shit he's standing
in." -- Paul Kavanagh.) (The LLNL piston-pump guys, who switched from
hydrazine to peroxide for their experimental work, were surprised and
impressed by just how much easier it made everything -- for example, they
could do quick tests on the lab bench, instead of having to go out to a
hazmat test site every time.) Lots of people are still in that category.
Mind you, although hydrazine has a lot of things wrong with it (starting
with being both toxic and carcinogenic, as are its derivatives), the
really big problem is its partner, N2O4, which is the one that's really
bent on climbing out of the tank and killing you *right away*.
Henry