Military Review

Are there any prospects for liquefied gas as the main rocket fuel in Russia?

78
In Samara TsSKB Progress, which is the largest manufacturer of rocket technology in the Russian Federation, expressed the idea of ​​creating a promising super-heavy rocket, the basis of which fuel could be liquefied natural gas. Such a rocket, according to representatives of TsSKB Progress, which lead "News", can be used for flights to the natural satellite of the Earth - the Moon (as part of a special program).


Are there any prospects for liquefied gas as the main rocket fuel in Russia?


An important advantage of liquefied gas, as stated in TsSKB Progress, is that it has a relatively low cost and a wider resource base in comparison with kerosene. The prospect of such an idea is also related to the fact that for the production of rocket fuel used today, special grades of oil are needed that are extracted from strictly defined fields. One of these deposits is located in the Krasnodar Territory (Anastasievsko-Troitskoe deposit), whose reserves are depleted. The development of oil in about 125 km from Krasnodar began in 1954 year. The composition of oil with a density from 830 to 908 kg / cubic meter is such that it is this raw material that is ideally suited as the basis for the production of kerosene, which is used as an integral part of rocket fuel.

If kerosene fuel is replaced by fuel, the basis of which will be liquefied natural gas, this will ensure a reduction in startup costs of about 1,5-2 times. In this new fuel will be of high environmental friendliness.

Talk about the fact that, for example, methane can be used as the main rocket fuel for a long time. But so far, the development of experimental samples of rocket engines capable of operating on liquefied gas is not progressing.

In Roskosmos a new idea did not arouse much enthusiasm. According to the official, if you start switching to LNG as fuel for super-heavy rocket engines today, the process of creating such a taxiway no earlier than 2030 will be completed, while the Americans are preparing to launch their Space Launch System at the end of 2017.

For reference. Space Launch System is a super-heavy launch vehicle manufactured by the American company Boeing. According to information NASA, the rocket is intended for manned flights beyond the Earth’s orbit. The basic version of the rocket will allow you to display about 70 tons of payload on a predetermined path. A special modification makes it possible to increase this value to 130 tons.
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. e_krendel
    e_krendel 16 May 2014 16: 13
    +6
    Of course it is necessary to do such an engine! More engines, good and different! good
    1. KuigoroZHIK
      KuigoroZHIK 16 May 2014 16: 24
      +7
      It is necessary that it is necessary. That's just there the work is "not an open edge". And the effectiveness is in doubt. Gas even for cars is a "problem fuel": if it is normal to drive on the plain, then a little uphill - and you can hardly crawl.
      Here you have to think. Analyze efficiency first, and only then make a decision. And then our bureaucratic apparatus likes to rush from one extreme to another. Specifically in this issue - such "leaps" are fraught with billions of dollars in losses.
      1. nikolaev
        nikolaev 16 May 2014 17: 04
        -9
        An important statement by Igor Strelkov on May 16, 2014.summer56May 16th, 14:43
        As many already know, in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the Bandera underground is preparing a new so-called. "playpen". The reason for her was the murder of a football fan in the city of Pushkino. This event was immediately raised "on the flagpole" by pseudo-nationalists of the Russian Federation, who secretly are fan of their friends from the "Right Sector" of Ukraine.
        The slogans of this "manezhki" are already known: "Down with Putin from the Kremlin!"

        At the same time, excerpts from Igor Ivanovich’s early notes and statements regarding Putin V.V appeared in the network, where he (to put it mildly) criticizes him.

        I informed Igor Ivanovich about the potential possibility of using his very popular name in order to propagandize this action of the enemies of Russia.

        Here is a comment I just received. I quote:

        “I, of course, do not know anything about the next manezhka.
        For my part, I can say the following (you can publish it): my most harsh anti-Putin statements refer to the period 3-4 years ago, when I finally lost faith in the very possibility of changing politics and refusing to thoughtlessly follow to Hell in the tail of the so-called. "the world community". At present, in my opinion, there is a "revolutionary situation" initiated by Putin personally. And his recent steps directly indicate a radical change of course. Very late, but still. These steps should be followed by serious personnel reshuffles aimed at real cleansing the environment from the current and potential agents of the world oligarchy, as well as from the most thieving people of the "inner circle" who are nothing but ballast.
        Nevertheless, there is hope for a change of course within the country. And the alternative to Putin in the form of a “swamp opposition” with poorly-sane and incapacitated screamers-leaders somehow does not inspire. In the current situation of the deployment of border war and the growth of confrontation with the world oligarchy, supporting a radical revolution means following the path of the Social Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks in 1916-17, ready to destroy everything — the country and the army — even in league with direct enemies.
        The logic of the war itself will push Putin to the right decisions. Already pushing. The annexation of the Crimea is only the first step, but it is just such a step, to “slow down” after which it is no longer possible. The logic of events will now inevitably push the Russian president to new contradictions with the country's external and internal enemies. conflicts with them will grow. I hope he himself understands that there is no going back and that no one will forgive him and his surroundings an "unexpected rebellion."
        In this situation, I believe that patriotic forces should at least not oppose the government in alliance with a liberal bastard sponsored by a foreign and domestic financial oligarchy. "By their fruits you shall know them." There are "reference points", the relation to which is the "litmus paper" for any patriot. You can not go to alliances with Satanists and sodomites, no matter what "tactical goals" such alliances would not be covered. Never true patriots of Russia will not come to power in the same column with the "rainbow-blue" and "followers of Chubais." At best, they will be prepared for the fate of the current militants of the Right Sector, who, under ultra-patriotic slogans, were thrown to kill their own people by terry warlords, homosexuals and sectarians Yatsenyuk, Turchinov and Co. "

        The maximum repost !!!
        http://summer56.livejournal.co...
        1. Signaller
          Signaller 16 May 2014 17: 07
          +5
          Do nothing???? There are no holes on another topic ?????? Guys need to filter the market, here we are talking about something else.
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 16 May 2014 17: 18
          +3
          Quote: nikolaev
          Important statement Strelkova Igor Ivanovich

          nikolaev! Are you working on kerosene or liquefied gas? A maybe on heptyl?
      2. northern
        northern 16 May 2014 17: 45
        +1
        Gas is a problem fuel if you try to burn it in an engine designed for gasoline. On engines optimized for the fuel system, the compression ratio for gas is no problem with riding uphill.
      3. Bepdukt
        Bepdukt 16 May 2014 18: 41
        +2
        Gas for cars is the most, but for the benefit of the pocket. And if a little uphill and crawling, then the engine for repair. My Chevrolet on the fifth uphill gaining without problems. So learn the mat.chast.
    2. SS68SS
      SS68SS 16 May 2014 16: 25
      +1
      If economically and environmentally beneficial and real, then it is necessary ....
      1. Canep
        Canep 16 May 2014 16: 29
        +10
        Gazprom decided to put space on a gas needle. laughing No where did not find the specific impulse of the engine on methane and oxygen, it seems that even no experimental work was carried out by anyone. On the other hand, the atmosphere of Titan is continuous methane, it could be used for refueling.
        1. Locksmith
          Locksmith 16 May 2014 16: 56
          +3
          Yes fully http://aviapanorama.su/1998/08/metanovye-zhrd-npo-energomash-im-vp-glushko/
          http://is2006.livejournal.com/687581.html
        2. I do not care
          I do not care 16 May 2014 18: 08
          +1
          in 70, the Union had a promising topic - the use of hydrogen fluoride.
          It was even realized, who is the thread in the know, how are things now?
          1. saag
            saag 16 May 2014 19: 25
            0
            Glushko experimented with ammonium fluoride, but then things didn’t go well, otherwise fluorine is such a muck
          2. Canep
            Canep 16 May 2014 19: 27
            0
            Quote: me by
            the use of hydrogen fluoride.
            Run this rubbish on your East as much as you like, but we do not need such poison in Kazakhstan. Everything that starts from Baikonur flies over Ekibas. I don’t feel like breathing the exhaust of these engines.
            1. sv68
              sv68 16 May 2014 20: 04
              0
              fluorine as a fuel is very promising, BUT the main problem is its toxicity and high aggressiveness in its pure form. then the work was interrupted, but the operating time was very large I assure a lot of things at that time and the backlog remained unclaimed
              1. Aleksandr2012
                Aleksandr2012 16 May 2014 20: 47
                +2
                By the way, the most active element of the periodic table of non-metals. Extremely chemically aggressive, moody and toxic.
  2. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 16 May 2014 16: 16
    +1
    An important advantage of liquefied gas, as stated in TsSKB Progress, is that it has a relatively low cost and wider raw material base compared to kerosene.,

    It would be nice to have such an engine ... There you look and "You could swing at our moon ..))))
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 16 May 2014 16: 33
      +2
      Quote: MIKHAN
      It would be nice to have such an engine

      The technologies of the same hydrogen engines apparently want to save some money, the methane engine’s UI doesn’t reach hydrogen, and the hemorrhagia is exactly the same, such desires are incomprehensible, possibly due to the cost of the hydrogen infrastructure itself and the prospective marketing of LNG when used in transport and for wide sale -the plant is almost ready for DV-not far and the spaceport.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 16 May 2014 17: 23
        0
        Quote: Locksmith
        The technology of the same hydrogen engines, apparently they want to save

        The highest specific impulse in the class of chemical rocket engines (over 4500 m / s for oxygen-hydrogen pair, for kerosene-oxygen - 3500 m / s). Besides oxygen - hydrogen, which is much more environmentally friendly?
        1. I do not care
          I do not care 16 May 2014 18: 09
          0
          three times as much oxidizer
  3. Signaller
    Signaller 16 May 2014 16: 20
    +1
    And then. "Energia" Buran brought all types of top. And the hydrozine that is in Protons = this is yesterday. It is in the ICBM that the ampullized ones can stand for years, but here, any leak and that's it. Correctly, Korolev refused to use hydrozine. This is not for space travel. And then, in case of a catastrophe, you are so tortured to wash the earth, which, by the way, show the last fall of the Protons. Kazakhstan will cut off all oxygen for us. They have pastures there. Cows or sheep will have nothing to eat - a problem.
  4. Uncle
    Uncle 16 May 2014 16: 20
    +1
    A propane-butane rocket engine? I admit that its caloric content is approximately equal to the calorie content of kerosene, but kerosene can be poured into a tank from any material, and for LNG a steel or composite "gas holder" is required. The weight will increase dramatically.
    1. e_krendel
      e_krendel 16 May 2014 16: 31
      0
      but nothing that is also required (and already has) for liquefied oxygen? The calorific value of LNG per 1 kg is approximately the same as kerosene.
      1. aleks 62
        aleks 62 16 May 2014 16: 40
        0
        ... Even I didn’t see propane-butane being poured into buckets, and methane too, but oxygen, yes, I saw ... It only soars ... Will methane behave like that - that’s the question ... The whole question is boiling point as I understand it ..
        1. mejik
          mejik 16 May 2014 17: 14
          +1
          Quote: aleks 62
          .Odd I did not see that propane-butane was poured into buckets

          with -20 it’s quite real,
          I saw it myself.
          1. kosmos1980
            kosmos1980 16 May 2014 19: 38
            0
            Quote: mejik
            Quote: aleks 62
            .Odd I did not see that propane-butane was poured into buckets

            with -20 it’s quite real,
            I saw it myself.

            LNG has a boiling point of about - 160 degrees. Celsius. The thermometer lied a little.)
        2. mejik
          mejik 16 May 2014 17: 14
          0
          Quote: aleks 62
          .Odd I did not see that propane-butane was poured into buckets

          with -20 it’s quite real,
          I saw it myself.
        3. Aleksandr2012
          Aleksandr2012 16 May 2014 20: 52
          0
          The question is the specific energy of vaporization. Evaporating oxygen cools itself. Methane does not liquefy under ordinary conditions. In general, no way !!
        4. Aleksandr2012
          Aleksandr2012 16 May 2014 20: 56
          0
          Critical temperature: methane −82,4 ° C. Only maintaining it below this point can you store it in liquid form.
      2. Uncle
        Uncle 16 May 2014 16: 47
        0
        Proton payload with a geostationary orbit of 3,7 tons, subtract the tank from approx. 1,5 tons, get a payload reduction.
      3. Locksmith
        Locksmith 16 May 2014 16: 58
        +1
        Quote: e_krendel
        The calorific value of LNG per 1 kg is approximately the same as kerosene.

        Just above http://is2006.livejournal.com/687581.html
  5. Yellow white
    Yellow white 16 May 2014 16: 22
    +6
    They didn’t listen to Korolev at one time, it’s a problem with the environment and the fall of Protons, it’s true that we must try to create new things, the main thing is not to sell anything to the Americans, let them then add peat ...
    1. Signaller
      Signaller 16 May 2014 16: 37
      +1
      Korolev categorically refused to make such missiles. Hydrosine plus kerosene. Yangel and Chelomei spared this road. They mainly worked on military topics. After us, at least a flood.
      1. Signaller
        Signaller 16 May 2014 17: 09
        0
        Makeev also joined them. The military theme, however.
  6. Alez
    Alez 16 May 2014 16: 24
    +2
    Again, UAV UAV UAV. Storytellers from Roskosmos, Proton rockets fall over time with proven technology, and then liquefied gas. Also offer shale gas or coal as fuel.
    1. SS68SS
      SS68SS 16 May 2014 16: 27
      +2
      Better firewood .....
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 16 May 2014 17: 26
      +2
      Quote: Alez
      Proton fall over time with proven technology,

      We have already spoken about this - it is not a matter of technology, but of execution! Protons were considered one of the most reliable.
  7. inkass_98
    inkass_98 16 May 2014 16: 26
    +2
    Again, I am not an expert, but the Energia launch vehicle was powered by environmentally friendly fuel - hydrogen and oxygen. Those. the fuel was liquefied gas - hydrogen, only with a lower temperature in the liquid state than LNG. What prevents you from using the same technology or at least documentation to create an LNG engine, if it is so profitable? True, I have doubts about its calorie content in comparison with the same kerosene, but I, again, am not an expert, I will not go into reference books. And what is the comparison of the ratio of the gas outflow rate for these two types of fuel (kerosene and LNG)? As I understand it, the higher this speed at the exit from the nozzle, the more efficient the engine and the faster the speed is gained.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 16 May 2014 17: 14
      +1
      Quote: inkass_98
      about the rocket "Energia" was on environmentally friendly fuel - hydrogen and oxygen

      Not the whole first step is kerosene.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 16 May 2014 17: 28
      0
      The largest specific impulse for a pair of oxygen - hydrogen!
      1. sv68
        sv68 16 May 2014 20: 12
        0
        The hydrogen bayonet, as you know, is very explosive and very volatile — they rocket the rocket just before launch, the fuel is very expensive for its storage, special tanks with constant cooling temperature control are needed. In addition, the use of hydrogen is terribly expensive and also terribly dangerous
  8. Stiletto
    Stiletto 16 May 2014 16: 26
    +2
    Quote: Black and White
    the main thing is not to sell anything to the Americans, let them then season with peat ...


    So the Americans have a pichalko not in fuel, but in the fact that they have nothing to refuel except for Russian engines. they themselves are only capable of exporting "democracy" and churning out dollars.
  9. e_krendel
    e_krendel 16 May 2014 16: 28
    +3
    Quote: Kuygorozhik
    Gas even for cars is a "problem fuel": if it is normal to drive on the plain, then a little uphill - and you can hardly crawl.

    I have gas in the car, so I didn’t notice any difference in a few years, that it’s gas, that it’s gas powered. And there are many slides in our city wink
  10. GRAY
    GRAY 16 May 2014 16: 28
    0
    Which cheaper is understandable, but what about efficiency? For reference: Space Launch System will use oxygen + hydrogen and, in an enhanced version, solid fuel boosters. The Americans are not talking about any natural gas.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 16 May 2014 17: 03
      +1
      Quote: GRAY
      The Americans are not talking about any natural gas.

      Not true, as it goes http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-advances-drive-mars-rocket-raptor-
      power /, methane is several times cheaper than hydrogen, several times lighter than kerosene, it cools KS at times better than kerosene, but it does not reach hydrogen a little in terms of ionization, this will essentially improve the characteristics of kerosene rockets and will train the entire industry to work with hydrogen technologies are almost identical.
  11. mig31
    mig31 16 May 2014 16: 30
    +2
    If yes, if only - it's time to experience innovation ...
  12. Signaller
    Signaller 16 May 2014 16: 33
    0
    By the way, what does kerosene have to do with it.: ??? As a fuel, yes, but an oxidizer ????? Oxygen??? There is no hydrozine or its derivatives, which, when mixed, self-ignite, and naturally burn. Only turbo pumps provide thrust and critical section of the engine. Well, cooling, yes, that's a disposable rocket for heads with a nuclear charge. "At least the grass won't grow after us." Need to work. Energy or Atlas that Apollo threw on the moon or Buran all worked on liquefied gas and oxygen. So why not rejoice. ???? What has everyone forgotten ????? I personally. "I remember what happened to me," but the pros have already forgotten ????? It's funny.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 16 May 2014 17: 32
      +1
      Quote: Signaller
      Atlas that Apollo threw to the moon

      Apollo threw Saturn-5 to the moon.
      1. Signaller
        Signaller 16 May 2014 18: 45
        0
        I agree, well, sometimes it happens as a memory. It was also thought, but it all will come down one no one understands.
        1. kosmos1980
          kosmos1980 16 May 2014 19: 49
          0
          Dear signalman, RN Energia worked on a mixture of hydrogen - oxygen and kerosene - oxygen. So far, there is no way to do without heptyl and amyl in astronautics. Generally. Spacecraft in space use only this type of fuel. LNG needs ground infrastructure, alteration of LV engines, etc. In fact, all this is mouse fuss, engines on other physical principles are simply necessary. And finally: after all, someone understands.
  13. Arh
    Arh 16 May 2014 16: 43
    0
    The main thing is that there are no accidents !!!
  14. Signaller
    Signaller 16 May 2014 16: 46
    +1
    There is generally one problem - liquefied gas. Like hydrogen, like oxygen, but this is space. Everything is on schedule here. There is no need to run in "five minutes". Everything is scheduled here by hours, minutes, seconds. Everything is known in advance. Why military technology. Proton is a military technology. Proton was generally prepared for Diamonds, who forgot. Military stations. Like to shoot down satellites and other bad objects in space. Well, then the world and everything was covered with a copper teapot. Developed, do not waste the good ???? So they use it.
  15. Signaller
    Signaller 16 May 2014 16: 52
    +1
    Since military technology is about to fall with a probability of 10%. For a warrior, this is it. He left the start, and of course.
    1. kosmos1980
      kosmos1980 16 May 2014 20: 25
      0
      Oh, those signalmen. The mechanics have a good saying: if you see a telemetrist, kill him. If there was a need to detach the launch vehicle from the launch pad, then there would be no saying. And so the babble - you have prepared, started you sit rejoicing here the disheveled comrade comes running to you and yells with good obscenities that "there was some kind of failure at 33 seconds" and everything was gone. But in fact, the device is already in orbit, whistling loudly, and there either the signal was bad, or some insignificant nonsense. And when it appears, you already start to sweat. After all, what a jamb happen to you :-)
  16. shitovmg
    shitovmg 16 May 2014 16: 54
    -5
    Samara has already shown itself with PROTONS. May be enough??? Article, unambiguous "-" !!! Someone threw it in as a provocation.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 16 May 2014 17: 11
      +2
      Quote: shitovmg
      Samara has already shown herself with PROTONS

      the blizzard does not need to be carried, in Samara NEVER made protons, this does Khrunichev.
    2. Signaller
      Signaller 16 May 2014 17: 12
      +1
      Samara rivets the Angara and the Union, if not mistaken. Do not la la
      1. Locksmith
        Locksmith 16 May 2014 17: 19
        +2
        Quote: Signaller
        Samara rivets Angara and the Union

        Only Soyuz-Angara also rivet Khrunichev
        1. Signaller
          Signaller 16 May 2014 17: 29
          0
          The manufacturing plant for the Proton rocket engine will find out the reason for the failure ... - this is about the Khrunichiv company. Engines rivet, but Protons, Unions and Angars are not, that's for sure. Engines, yes.
    3. saag
      saag 16 May 2014 17: 21
      0
      TsSKB "Progress" Samara has never dealt with protons, their theme is unions, protons are produced by the Khrunichev plant in Moscow
  17. APS
    APS 16 May 2014 16: 56
    0
    We would have to master the moon - we can find something more interesting there, but there you look and move on. And in space, the energy of the Sun and planets would be appropriate to use together with our fuels to save.
  18. Oml
    Oml 16 May 2014 17: 01
    0
    Innovation is certainly good, but equally important is the quality of what is available.
  19. Rus2012
    Rus2012 16 May 2014 17: 03
    0
    For reference. Space Launch System is an ultra-heavy launch vehicle manufactured by the American company Boeing. According to NASA, the rocket is intended for manned flights outside the Earth's orbit. The basic version of the missile will allow you to display on a given trajectory about 70 tons of payload. A special modification makes it possible to increase this value to 130 tons.


    Space Launch System (SLS, Russian Space Launch System) is an American super-heavy launch vehicle for manned expeditions beyond Earth orbit and the launch of other cargoes, developed by NASA instead of the Ares-5 launch vehicle, which was canceled together with the Constellation program. The first test flight of the launch vehicle is scheduled for the end of 2017 year.
    It is planned that in terms of the mass of cargo brought to low Earth orbits, the SLS will be the most powerful active launch vehicle by the time of its first launch, as well as the fourth in the world and second in the USA super-heavy launch vehicle - after the Saturn-5, which was used in the program Apollo for launching ships to the moon, and the Soviet N-1 and Energy. The rocket will launch the spacecraft MPCV manned spacecraft, which is designed on the basis of the Orion spacecraft from the closed constellation program.
    The system in the basic version will be able to display 70 tons of cargo in the reference orbit. The design of the launch vehicle provides for the possibility of increasing this parameter to 130 tons in the enhanced version.

    It is assumed that the first stage of the rocket will be equipped with solid propellant boosters and RS-25D / E hydrogen-oxygen engines from the shuttles, and the second with J-2X engines designed for the Constellation [3] project. Work is also underway with the old F-1 oxygen-kerosene engines from Saturn V.

    The cost of the SLS program is estimated at $ 35 billion. The cost of one launch is estimated at $ 500 million - one and a half times less than at the time each shuttle flight cost.
  20. shitovmg
    shitovmg 16 May 2014 17: 12
    0
    Quote: e_krendel
    I have gas in the car, so I didn’t notice any difference in a few years, that it’s gas, that it’s gas powered. And there are many slides in our city

    I have a driver class 1 and all categories, I go on a gas. Believe me, no gas can compare with gasoline !!! Adjust the ignition, and you immediately understand that gas is the earth, and gasoline is air, throttle response and speed !!!
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 16 May 2014 17: 21
      +1
      Quote: shitovmg
      Believe me, no gas can compare with gasoline

      Tell it to the Germans and the French, here it will be a laugh, they have 70 percent of the cars on gas.
      1. kosmos1980
        kosmos1980 16 May 2014 20: 00
        0
        And they have gameparades, wild taxes, etc. The Germans mainly use diesel engines. Gas is simply cheaper, that's what they think. But 70 percent of the cars — you turned a little. And most importantly: they practically do not have gas equipment installed at the plant (he was on business trips at factories in Germany, and not only on one).
  21. e_krendel
    e_krendel 16 May 2014 17: 16
    +1
    Quote: shitovmg
    Adjust ignition

    Do you have a carburetor? On EFI + HBO 4 generations nothing needs to be regulated.

    In addition, the rocket engine still works differently than the internal combustion engine, and the comparison is inappropriate.
  22. Signaller
    Signaller 16 May 2014 17: 20
    0
    By the way about the birds. The most high-calorie product is SPIT. (our dream) Kerosene is not suitable for soles. The whole problem is in the oxidizing agent. OXYGEN is liquid itself. But the problem is with liquefaction and storage. And with kerosene hydrosine, spontaneous combustion occurs. From here, and all is short-lived. This is also a problem to LIGHTEN the mixture .. Everything has been coming from here since the 30s. An elementary simple and at the same time complicated thing is IGNITION of the mixture. They decided to get around this problem. Kerosene-hydrosine-itself burns.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 16 May 2014 17: 29
      0
      Quote: Signaller
      Kerosene is not suitable for soles.

      Kerosene is "more high-calorie" - but alcohol cools the CC better, the Germans were engaged with alcohol, after the war a lot of captured equipment got into our design bureaus, ours played around and created our own, but not on alcohol. 70% solution wink , and this, as practice shows, is much more interesting laughing
    2. saag
      saag 16 May 2014 17: 31
      +1
      nonsense what is the specific impulse of alcohol for about 250 s, and the calorific value is the highest for kerosene 440 of something there
    3. kosmos1980
      kosmos1980 16 May 2014 20: 44
      0
      Please in more detail. About kerosene, arson of a mixture, hydrazine with kerosene and their spontaneous combustion. That's the news, but I think how rumors are born. Kerosene has an oxidizing agent, oxygen. Heptyl is a fuel - not a semimetric dimethyl hydrazine and its oxidizing agent is amyl (nitrogen tetraxide) so they are self-igniting components. Believe me, setting fire to a pair of kerosene - oxygen is so simple and uncomplicated that you are only amazed. And even iron burns in oxygen. And you don’t know why, when working with him, they try to remove the oil?
  23. Signaller
    Signaller 16 May 2014 17: 22
    0
    ALCOHOL-Sori-Error-
    The dream of all men. As usual Sleep - whether they sold the alcohol tank, but drank the money.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 16 May 2014 17: 53
      0
      Quote: Signaller
      ALCOHOL-

      Now it’s not even considered as fuel, here in pedagogy there is a good nameplate for pairs http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C6%E8%E4%EA%EE%F1%F2%ED%FB%E9_%F0% E0% EA% E5% F2% ED% F
      B%E9_%E4%E2%E8%E3%E0%F2%E5%EB%FC
  24. thinker
    thinker 16 May 2014 17: 25
    0
    Topic for "well-known specialists in narrow circles". What is there to discuss? request
    1. Signaller
      Signaller 16 May 2014 17: 38
      0
      Correctly. We have a job pecking there, and now I think a bummer. Well, we will wait for the next normal launches when the loot appears.
  25. pts-m
    pts-m 16 May 2014 17: 32
    0
    YES, all the same, they’ll come up with a thought about why it’s not possible, it’s possible to slam some private company and everything will be tip-top!
  26. Orc-xnumx
    Orc-xnumx 16 May 2014 17: 38
    0
    It’s necessary to do, not to seduce!
  27. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 16 May 2014 18: 40
    0
    In terms of cutting money, the prospects for a methane rocket are crazy. It is planned that for 16 years, at the expense of the state, qualified personnel will receive not small salaries, the authorities will receive excellent bonuses for the year, everyone is happy. Despite the fact that they want to "develop" no one really needs it, as if no one asked them about it. They asked for something completely different, but after all, they will have to do the necessary thing, for which they will ask the results, why does not fly, who is to blame. And then pure creativity, then they will say - it did not work out, or they say the obtained characteristics did not reach the calculated ones and it makes no sense to build such missiles, but people worked, received money, spent time, everything is honest. With such a "space program" the Americans will send greetings from Mars in 16 years, and we will think the "union" with the satellite will take off or how the previous 6 times will fall, but 7 seems to be a lucky number and the pop was supposed to take off.
    1. Signaller
      Signaller 16 May 2014 18: 50
      0
      Will go to subcontract = money will be washed, and then at rest. Radish grow. Swam-know.
  28. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 16 May 2014 18: 56
    +1
    There is some ambiguous impression from the article ... all sorts of facts. Everything is very superficial ...
    Kerosene with only a limited number of deposits ???? ... that’s what ... I’ll also agree that it is necessary to reconfigure the mode of primary processing plants and select the kerosene fraction only within certain limits ... it is probably expensive ... and it must be done at the Refinery specifically.
    Liquefied gas ... cheaper starts ... what did the author mean ??? ... and ensuring the gas storage temperature ... a pressure regime to preserve it only in the form of a liquid phase ...
    Not a word about energy potential of liquefied gas and its fractional composition (and this is a mixture of hydrocarbons) ... maybe only certain types will be needed ???
    Speaking about heavy and superheavy rockets / launch vehicles ... I don’t understand ... but why do not I like the experience and approaches to creating the LV Energy ... and the environmental friendliness of the Oxygen and Hydrogen pair is simply not in doubt.
  29. nstarinsky
    nstarinsky 16 May 2014 18: 58
    +1
    Both kerosene and other types of natural gases as rocket fuel are a technological impasse that we have not yet reached, but we are persistently moving forward. In principle, all such jet engines must be huge in order to launch massive bodies into orbit. All this is due to the relatively low flow rate of combustion products. We need active searches in new directions. And with such a level of education, which is now observed all over the world, we will all soon be jumping into space on a trampoline. No one else has specialists who are not only talented from the start, but also irrepressible dreamers and enthusiasts. Educational journals for children have more than halved their output! Children no longer dream of space, physics, new biochemistry. Everything has been replaced by some trifle like nanotechnology and petrika filters. Who knows the names of the astronauts who visited the International Space Station in the last three shifts? What - went to Google to look? That's the same ... I don't know myself. Who was the last time a child built a real small rocket model with his own hands? The one that we built in the school years of the USSR? All polls are on the "smartest" phones. So smart that half of the people write with terrible mistakes! What are the liquefied gases in figs ?! There is a complete destruction of nuclear engineering. The horror stories of Chernobyl and Fukushima, instead of creating new improved personnel, set fire to the world fire of abandoning nuclear technology. And this is where the path to new rocket engines lies! It is here that the groundwork for future thermonuclear energy is being created. Instead, Geyropa tries hard to blow on the windmills and burn lighters in front of the solar panels. Complete engineering idiocy! Protons don't go into orbit. But this is an old proven technology. Shame ... you have to start over. And you have to start with the children.
    1. Signaller
      Signaller 16 May 2014 19: 37
      0
      Thanks. It became clear. It is necessary to teach children from childhood to pea soup. And to eat more. Then, without accelerators, they will immediately fly to the moon. Children's tales, however.
      1. nstarinsky
        nstarinsky 16 May 2014 20: 27
        0
        A country that forgets about its childhood generation cannot even grow peas.
    2. kosmos1980
      kosmos1980 16 May 2014 19: 51
      0
      You hit the nail on the head. TOTALLY FOR
  30. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 16 May 2014 19: 20
    0
    It's good to be smart sooner than my wife later. Superheavy rockets must fly on hydrogen, we were leaders in this matter (Energy), and now we are losing ground.
  31. saag
    saag 16 May 2014 19: 31
    0
    RD-0410 would be reanimated, it’s true you can only launch it in space, but the specific impulse is 900 s, and from this you can make an atomic tug
  32. Aleksandr2012
    Aleksandr2012 16 May 2014 19: 47
    0
    If natural gas is the main component of methane. Under normal conditions, it does not liquefy and is stored under tremendous pressure. The calorific value is lower than kerosene. The lower constituent is propane. It is stored in liquid form at a relatively low pressure. The calorific value is also lower than kerosene. In my understanding, the use of both types of fuel is a huge hemorrhoids, both in technical terms and in terms of safety. A rocket using ordinary fuel is essentially a huge flying tank with fuel and oxidizer. A rocket using gas fuel will be flying gas bottle!
  33. Dimsanych
    Dimsanych 16 May 2014 21: 25
    0
    Yes, all this is the last century, old technologies. A breakthrough is needed, something completely new. A radically new type of engine or teleport in general. Maybe there is already ...
  34. Dimsanych
    Dimsanych 16 May 2014 21: 29
    0
    And the fact that the proton went off the trajectory in the 10th minute. It’s somehow strange, maybe he put into orbit what is supposed to be, but disguised as an accident.