On 4/22/2018 11:51 AM, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
Never say never, but the history of such things seems to be full of liquid monprops that could be babied into behaving right up until that essential final step of firing it in an engine. I am inclined to consider any hot new monoprop candidate coming along as a long shot (possibly a worthwhile one, but nevertheless) until proven otherwise.
"Since practical monopropellants of relatively high specific impulse are,
no doubt, much more hazardous than [nitromethane, which despite poor performance has had major explosions], there is serious doubt that the
term 'monopropellant' is really more than an optimistic rocketryman's
terminology for a dangerous liquid high explosive."
-- M.A. Cook, "Explosion Hazards in Liquid Bipropellants", in
Vance&Duke, "Applied Cryogenic Engineering", 1962.