Unfortunately HTP is somewhat similar to most specialized chemicals at the
industrial scale. Price wise, the down-pack is terrible.
LOX isn’t really like that if you can accept its
few shortcomings. LOX is also a product that if you use enough a site plant has
a reasonable ROI.
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: Saturday, October 2, 2021 12:39 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Introduction to Aphelion Aerospace and a new RGHP system
Very true Anthony, we at Space Launch Corp, got certified by FMC and bought 98%
HTP by the 30 gal alum. drum.
Caveat, $5K for the product and $5K for the deposit, each drum that is/was.
Nicely hypergolic with TEA as a starting slug in a HTPB/Al hybrid motor.
Ken
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:40 PM Anthony Cesaroni
<anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I could never get my head around trying to make or concentrate HTP if you could
simply purchase it from FMC. We went through the “process” years ago and it
wasn’t that big of deal. FMC were great to work with although they seemed to be
spooked by other types of oxidizers while on site. As I’ve said previously, I
guess it’s what you’re used to.
That said, it’s not practical or possible to purchase by individuals or small
companies due to cost or liability issues. I like HTP and I’m comfortable with
it providing the rules are strictly adhered to. It’s also a bit more polite
than HNF and ADN. 😊
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<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> On Behalf
Of Matthew Travis
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 11:21 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: Introduction to Aphelion Aerospace and a new RGHP system
Manufacturing in-house is impractical if it's done from scratch. Lower-grade
HTP can be processed into RGHP pretty readily. Take a look at our partner
Frontier Astronautics. We're working extremely closely with Tim Bendel.
In our early days, we purchased rotary evaporators to condense our own peroxide
and found it relatively simple, inexpensive and handling/storage was never an
issue for us. No negatives except a few bleached pairs of jeans.
Best,
Matthew
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Introduction to Aphelion Aerospace and a new RGHP
system
From: roxanna Mason
<rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, October 01, 2021 7:49 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Yes I do Anthony, it was death by 1000 cuts because they manufactured their own
HTP in house which put an unnecessary strain on their resources which otherwise
could have been eliminated with an OTS propellant. At least their hydrocarbon
fuel was OTS.
Ken
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:34 PM Anthony Cesaroni
<anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> On Behalf
Of roxanna Mason
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 9:43 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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.).