Hi Ken,
actually over here in Europe FMC doesn't seem to produce and market 90 -
98 % HTP - EVONIK is quite present in this market.
Pricing however is a complete desaster: according to our experience it
is about $13 / lbs (87,5 %) and $100 / lbs (98 %). Unneccessary to
mention, that a price level that high is hardly compatible with the
consumption needed to develope larger rocket motors... .
(99,5 % HTP is not available at all.)
Shipping restrictions and non-constant availability does impose
additional burden. All of the above did trigger development of our own
production technology with respect to HTP.
We did start in 2014 to offer this to customers on a world wide basis.
All the best,
Paul Peter
------------------------------------
Dr.-Ing. Paul P. Weuta
CEO
WEPA-Technologies GmbH
Germany
peter.weuta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.wepa-technologies.de
+49-151-11657345
Am 03.10.2021 um 01:05 schrieb roxanna Mason:
Paul, I may have missed it but have you contacted FMC about their 98%
HTP? It was back in 2003/4 when I was involved using it as a rocket
propellant but I assume it's still available.
Thanks,
Ken
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 7:17 AM Paul <cnc-engineering@xxxxxx
<mailto:cnc-engineering@xxxxxx>> wrote:
Reliable production of larger quantities of RGHTP indeed might
transform into a major issue, in case the whole production process
will have to be developed in-house.(...and constantly requires
many manual operatations.)
This rationale has been for us the starting point – many years ago
- to develop and offer commercial RGHTP production plants in
different sizes starting from 25 kg / day up to 1500 kg / day.
(90, 95, 98 %. Also 99,5 % of exceptional purity / stability
suited for in-space applications are available.)
( As these plants are able to operate on a fully automatic basis (
24/7 basis ), only a single operator is required on a part time
basis. At least this is our customers’ conclusion running these
plants on a daily basis : -) ! )
Further details pls see here:
https://www.wepa-technologies.de/services/aerospace-and-rocket-technology/rocket-grade-hydrogen-peroxide-rghtp/
<https://www.wepa-technologies.de/services/aerospace-and-rocket-technology/rocket-grade-hydrogen-peroxide-rghtp/>
*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/ ;<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.).
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.