Yes indeed, LOx plants are a common infrastructure item with large
operations. The F-1 development and certification programs at Edwards AFB
had its own LOx plant on top of 100's even 1000's of tankers brought in
from the valley. The Germans had LOx plants in various locations to support
the V-2 test and launch operations.
Ken
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 9:48 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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>
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 <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Matthew Travis
*Sent:* Friday, October 1, 2021 11:21 PM
*To:* 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>
Date: Fri, October 01, 2021 7:49 pm
To: 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>
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 <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.