Hi,
Propellant selection is actually rather arbitrary for most, but for us it's not based on biases or like most companies just using LOX/RP-1 by default because that's what everyone else uses and the only prop university students get taught in-depth about. Our business model relies on and takes advantage of our prop selection.
Our goals are to 1) have cost-effective fully mobile launch system and GSE and 2) meet the DoD's desire for rapid deployment and launch on extremely short notice from non-traditional and non-spaceport locations. We don't believe that cryogenic systems can adequately meet these objectives. First, the expense and time involved in utilizing a LOX farm or storage adds tremendously to the cost for a very small launch vehicle such as ours and eliminates the possibility for rapid call-up, deployment and launch. Just look at what Astra goes through to transport and setup in Kodiak. Additionally, the costs and time expense for insurance, legal paperwork, etc associated with cryogenic systems and storage (that can fail) also preclude the use of LOX for the system we are developing.
We have agreements with and are working with Alaska Aerospace and The Launch Company to help us design, build and operate our GSE and the processes involved. We're also in discussions with Space Florida.
Best,Matthew
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Introduction to Aphelion Aerospace and a new RGHP
system
From: roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, October 01, 2021 6:43 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.