![](images/Logos/ProVsCons.png)
A
Futures Market for Hydrogen .....
GJS, Hydrogen vs Ammonia, vs Methane
SECTION 1
Here’s why SpaceX uses Methane
in Starship.
![](images/images_09_19_2022/pic3.jpg)
SpaceX’s new Starship and Super Heavy rocket
uses the Raptor engine. Liquid Methane and Oxygen is the fuel of this
engine. No other rockets have ever used Methane as rocket fuel. The
Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy use kerosene (RP-1) as fuel. Moreover, for a
long time, Hydrogen has been used in various rockets. But, SpaceX
chose Methane for their Raptor.
So why does SpaceX use Methane?
GJS says, “Why they don’t use Methanol, Ethanol or Ammonia”?
Read on.
It’s because Methane (CH4) is cheap, a
passive cooling system is enough to store Methane in liquid form,
significantly denser than Hydrogen, storable for a more extended
period, does not leak, does not require insulation on the fuel tank,
and the rocket design is less complex compared to Hydrogen-powered
rocket.
Let’s elaborate.
SpaceX has developed the Raptor. It’s a
Methane powered full-flow staged combustion cycle engine. The Raptor
engine is the first-ever in history, a full-flow staged combustion
cycle engine ever flown on a rocket. No rocket engine that uses
Methane has ever reached orbit except SpaceX rockets.
SpaceX’s Starship is a rapidly reusable Mars
rocket. The Falcon rockets are not fully reusable. While the
first stage of this rocket is reusable, the upper stage is not.
Another problem with Falcon 9 and Falcon
Heavy rocket is it’s not rapidly reusable. After every flight,
this rocket needs extensive refurbishment before SpaceX can use it
again. The primary reason is the fuel of the Falcon rocket is Kerosene
(RP-1). The burnt fuel leaves soot in the Merlin engine compartment,
making it harder to reuse it without extensive cleaning.
Table of
Contents
SpaceX’s Mars Plan:
As we mentioned earlier, Elon Musk wants to
go to Mars. A spaceship will take more than 6 months to reach Mars
from Earth. The round trip is 12 months.
We know that the Mars atmosphere has CO2 and
has frozen water in the ground. On Mars, we can create Methane (CH4)
using these resources.
First, through electrolysis, we can split
water (H2O) into Hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2).
2H2O = O2 + 2H2
Oxygen and Hydrogen will be collected in
separate containers. Humans will use the Oxygen produced in this step.
On the next step, through a chemical process
known as the Sabatier process, Carbon dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2)
would create Methane (CH4).
CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O
The Methane (CH4) and water will be
collected in separate containers. Starship will use Methane (CH4) and
Oxygen (O2) as fuel. The Martians can drink water (H2O) produced in
this step or use it to make Oxygen and Hydrogen.
Astronauts already use these steps to
produce Oxygen from water and eliminate Carbon Dioxide at the
International Space Station (ISS). As this process has been tested;
therefore, we can also use it on Mars. The only difference is, ISS
releases Methane (CH4) into outer space, while on Mars, we will
collect it into containers as rocket fuel.
In the above-described process, we can make
both Methane (CH4) and Hydrogen (H2).
|
Kerosene (RP-1) |
Methane |
Hydrogen |
Density |
813 g/L |
422 g/L |
70 g/L |
Oxidizer vs. Fuel Ratio |
2.7 : 1 |
3.7 : 1 |
6 : 1 |
Efficiency |
370s |
459s |
532s |
Combustion Temp |
3670 K |
3550 K |
3070 K |
Boiling Point |
490 K |
111 K |
20 K |
Combustion Byproducts |
CO2, H2O, and black soot. |
CO2 and H2O |
H2O |
Manufacturable on Mars |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
In rocketry, the efficiency of an engine is
measured in specific impulse (ISP).
A simplified comparison would be the MPG of
our gasoline-powered vehicle. The higher the MPG of a car, the more
mileage it can go on 1 gallon of gas, and the more efficient it is.
Now, let’s assume that we have 1lb of rocket
fuel. It could be Kerosene (RP-1), Methane (CH4), or Hydrogen (H2).
ISP is measured in seconds. It’s the
measurement for how many seconds the engine can push with 9.8 newtons
of force with a fixed amount of fuel. The higher it can push with 9.8
newtons with the same amount of fuel, the higher the efficiency or
ISP.
If we have one rocket engine with 100s ISP
and another one with 150s ISP, then the second engine with 150s ISP is
more efficient because it can do more work with the same amount of
fuel.
From the above table, we can see that
Hydrogen is efficient compared to Methane. However, Hydrogen has
several issues.
SpaceX wants their rocket to be simple,
cheap, and reliable. According to Elon Musk, “the best part is
no part; the best process is no process.”
Though Hydrogen is efficient compared to
other rocket propellants, it adds complexity to rocket engines and
rocket design.
Hydrogen is a cryogenic fluid. It’s melting
point is -259°C or -435°F, and its boiling point is -252°C or -423°F.
Hydrogen needs to be stored in extremely cold temperatures to keep it
in liquid form. Because of this, a hydrogen rocket needs insulation
around tanks, thus increasing rocket weight, production complexity,
and cost.
Furthermore, other problems arise because of
the Hydrogen’s low boiling point.
On a long trip to the Moon and Mars, the
Hydrogen will boil off and evaporate. Moreover, during the earth’s
re-entry of the Starship, the generated heat will cause a significant
technical challenge to keep Hydrogen liquified in the fuel tank.
However, Methane does not have these
problems.
From GJS, Hydrogen embrittlement is a serious issue in common steel
metallurgy that is required to hold 5,000 to 10,000 psi at low
temperatures. When metal comes into contact with cryogenic
Hydrogen, the metal becomes brittle. Therefore, a reusable rocket
design that uses Hydrogen is very complex and challenging. Hydrogen
engines need advanced metallurgy to prevent this embrittlement.
Methane (CH4) does not create this
embrittlement issue.
The density of Hydrogen is 70 g/L. In
contrast, the density of Methane is 422 g/L. As a result, a Hydrogen
rocket’s fuel tank needs to be significantly bigger than a Methane
powered rocket. A big tank means a heavier rocket.
Therefore, a Methane powered rocket would
be lighter compared to a Hydrogen rocket.
From GJS, Hydrogen is the smallest molecule on earth.
The problem is that H2 is not really a molecule of dissimilar atoms
but is considered a molecule of positive valence. It leaks
easily, primarily through the welded joints of the fuel tanks.
Therefore, it needs extraordinary precision and cares to make the fuel
tank leak proof. Ammonia
is difficult to seal but we can seal it with NPTF truncated threads
and common Teflon sealing compounds.
Methane does not have this leak issue.
Hydrogen is also expensive compared to
Methane (CH4).
From GJS, Today Green and locally built Hydrogen is $1.62 per Kilo if
built with wind and solar. The bill for the hydrogen to launch the
Artemis is now in the multiple millions to billions of dollars due to
the delay of the leaky systems.
There is no guarantee of successful launch at the Cape that is coming
up this week.
As we can see, though Hydrogen is more
efficient, it has many drawbacks.
From GJS, No it is not more efficient due to the drawbacks.
Therefore, SpaceX needs a rocket engine that
does not have these issues.
When they first started designing an engine,
SpaceX did not want to take any risk of creating a completely new type
of engine that no one developed. Therefore, they decided to use
Kerosene (RP-1) for their Falcon family rockets. When they were
successful with their Marlin engine, they started their R&D for the
Methane powered Raptor.
In short, liquid Hydrogen needs extreme
temperature control, leaks easily, less dense, thus requires a bigger
fuel tank, expensive compared to Methane, not suitable for a reusable
rocket and Mars mission, needs advanced metallurgy; hence, it
increases rocket complexity and cost.
Therefore, SpaceX made the right decision by
not developing a Hydrogen rocket engine.
Interesting Findings:
How much does Elon Musk own of SpaceX?
SpaceX is a privately held company, and Elon
Musk is the principal shareholder of SpaceX. During a recent FCC
filing, SpaceX revealed that Elon Musk owns 54% of the company with
78% voting control in the SpaceX board.[1] Moreover,
Elon Musk is the only person who owns more than 10% share of this
company.
Can SpaceX or Elon Musk claim Mars?
In 2020, SpaceX’s Starlink started their
service. Like every other product, a new Starlink customer has to sign
a legal document. In that legal document, there is a term which states
that:
“For Services provided on Mars, or in
transit to Mars via Starship or other colonization spacecraft, the
parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based
government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities.
Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing
principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian
settlement.”
Therefore as you can see, if you want to get
the Starlink internet, you have to declare, Mars is a free planet.
So, can SpaceX or Elon Musk claim Mars?
Yes, SpaceX can claim Mars because
according to a 2015 federal law 114-90, the US government allows a
private entity to mine, own, possess, and sell a celestial body, even
though the US does not claim it. Therefore, according to that federal
law, Elon Musk and SpaceX can claim and mine Mars.
To learn more, please click
here.
Bottom Line:
SpaceX made the right decision by abandoning
Kerosene and Hydrogen and embracing Methane for their Starship. One
day, this Starship would take humans to Mars.
Post navigation
GJS. Comments.
Why Hydrogen? My guess, This is just a guess….Some
Scientific groups have implemented the Law of Hydrogen about 1962 when
they made several mistakes in rocket fuel. Engineers had the perfect
fuel which was Ammonia and LOX circa the X-15. There is no CO2
emission and low NOX emission. Technical papers are available.
It was not long before NASA discovered the first
mistake…pure oxygen in the manned capsule is a killer.
They have finally made their final mistake in 2022.
Hydrogen is difficult to work with and it is very expensive. What does
it cost when they miss your last space launch.
Back here on earth…..Better economics can be achieved
with low cost solar and wind Ammonia…called Green Ammonia. Methane is
fine for Mars…but on planet earth methane is the problem.
There are several documents that support ammonia as the
good rocket fuel and now very low cost since it is Green and Non
Fossil built locally.
Green Ammonia can be stored easily. Three hydrogens
atoms are bonded to form a bonded dissimilar nitrogen molecule
producing 160 kilograms of hydrogen per ton of ammonia.
Green Ammonia is not explosive. Green Play Ammonia is
not corrosive to steel nor does it cause hydrogen embrittlement like
hydrogen does to steel, Green Play Ammonia is .001 water which makes
17.48 % hydrogen.
Just add a little water and keep it dilute from .005 to
.001 water and you have a better rocket fuel and great way to store
energy for years and years.
Hydrogen must be used in Government Space Projects to
support an Industry that has failed to solve the storage problem let
alone the control problem.
NASA is an industry within itself that has made a
mistake. They keep pounding the hydrogen program out to the rest of
the economy.
It just won’t go to the top of the reliability curve.
Somebody in Florida needs money now just like the Count Graf Zeppelin,
Hindenburg in 1938.
Hydrogen is a bomb. The leakiest molecule on the
planet. H2, Hydrogen is not an economic viable product found in
storage or transport systems,
The most unsafe choice for storage and transport is
Hydrogen as H2, Build three H with one N and build it up as a true
molecule. It is non explosive and loaded with societal benefits.
.
Green Play Ammonia meets and exceeds expectations with
it’s 100 year history of safest transport of concentrated energy with
reusable storage batteries and bunkers.
Section 2 Click Here
Green Play Ammonia™, Yielder® NFuel Energy.
Spokane, Washington. 99212
www.exactrix.com
509 995 1879 cell, Pacific.
exactrix@exactrix.com
|