I don't believe the demise of Beal had anything to do with propellant selection, which is an arbitrary choice to meet whatever design and/or business objectives. Beal had a fundamentally flawed view of the industry and distaste for NASA. Blaming NASA for not progressing beyond full-scale engine tests to me demonstrated lack of commitment, understanding of the nascent private industry and scapegoating. In the end, he just gave up. I don't think it's too dissimilar to Bigelow, although there were some financial and covid factors involved.
Billionaire Space Syndrome.... it's a bunch of BSS.
Best,Matthew
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Introduction to Aphelion Aerospace and a new RGHP
system
From: Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, October 01, 2021 7:34 pm
To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Ken, Do you believe the choice of the oxidizer was a contributing factor? If so, how? Thanks. Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of roxanna Mason
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 9:43 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Introduction to Aphelion Aerospace and a new RGHP system For most uses, though, torch
igniters seem quite satisfactory. I second that with >1000 successful torch ignitions under my belt. Years ago I turned down a job with Beal Aerospace because he wouldn't budge from HTP as his main/only oxidizer. When I suggested he think about alternative oxidizers like LOx, he nearly got angry. With such a closed mind attitude I felt the company's days were numbered. The rest is history. Ken On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:20 PM Norman Yarvin <yarvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:58:10AM -0700, Matthew Travis wrote:
>... a new “green” non-toxic and environmentally-friendly hypergolic
>bipropellant in an operational system. This will enable very low
>system cost, minimal infrastructure requirements and low launch
>costs. A lot of our tech is proprietary but I can say that our
>oxidizer uses RGHP and the fuel is NOT petroleum-based (e.g. RP1,
>Kerosene, etc.).
I take it RGHP is "rocket grade hydrogen peroxide"?
To me, the main market for hypergolics seems like it's orbital
maneuvering. Brief pulses of thrust which have to be precise are a
scenario where self-ignition can be a big plus, and since less fuel is
involved, fuel cost is less of an issue. For most uses, though, torch
igniters seem quite satisfactory.