cbrarick
Wildman CT
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,155
- Reaction score
- 1,019
ok, P motor, maybe small Q. Not even out of the 8 inch motor range for AP, could even be a 6 inch motor.
Blushift Aerospace
- Thread starter Joe Scuti
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
ok, P motor, maybe small Q. Not even out of the 8 inch motor range for AP, could even be a 6 inch motor.
arconhi
Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see what they have coming up. I wonder how the lauch lugs go on the Stardust Gen.2
Last edited:
It seems like you see a lot of new companies doing some sort of small project with a lot of hype and big dreams to raise money for the future. The gap between what they've actually done and what they're claiming to be heading toward seems unusually large with this one, though.
rocketman328
Well-Known Member
The Isp of their fuel is 240sec, I've seen this number in a number of places, but don't know for a fact that its correct. Their Bio Fuel is proprietary and not much has been shared about it.
Last edited:
rocketman328
Well-Known Member
I have seen the Isp stated as being 240 sec. Don't know if thats correct or not.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,414
- Reaction score
- 7,964
Going from Wikipedia, it looks like most orbital liquid fuel engines have Isps above 300. Solid rocket boosters are around 260-280s. Given the tyranny of the rocket equation, it seems like it would be really hard to get to orbit with 10%-20% less Isp than the competition. Not impossible, but it seems like economics would dictate going to a higher Isp engine so that you're not stacking a giant pile of motors on top of each other.
The fuel is likely some sort of cellulose blend; as I recall anything that will burn can work in a Hybrid engine. The blend of LOX and Nitrous Oxide as oxidizers could be more unique than the biofuel, which may be just a gimmick.
Gotta give them credit though: it's cheap and relatively clean, and it might be even cleaner than Hydrogen when you consider that the most common way of making Hydrogen is by synthesis of natural gas (which releases carbon dioxide, I believe). Of course, Hydrogen could be made via electrolysis if electricity becomes abundant and cheap.
On the other hand, the exhaust from such a Hybrid has a higher carbon dioxide/monoxide content compared to a Methane / LOX engine like Spaceship's Raptor, and there might be some other nasty combustion products in there too.
Nytrunner
Pop lugs, not drugs
Whenever someone says 'biofuel' but refuses to detail further, I will automatically assume it came from a water treatment settling pond
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Messages
- 8,996
- Reaction score
- 3,523
Fizzy Nitrous was studied a fair bit by Space Propulsion Group ( they called it "Nytrox" ). I wonder if Blushift is a spinoff, licensee, new spin, or just waiting for the patent to expire.
Thanks, I didn't know about Nytrox.
It's really too bad that the HPR community largely abandoned Hybrid research after NAR / Tripoli won the case against Perchlorate composites being explosive. I can understand why though; I've been to a few Hybrid launches and there's a lot of prep time and safety issues involved with Nitrous compared to a composite.
Yeah, possible; but hardly clean. Even if they sanitized the fuel (which would be mostly cellulose), the exhaust products would still be pretty nasty!
Kinda like nuclear waste: the uranium fuel is relatively benign, but the fission products are REALLY nasty.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,414
- Reaction score
- 7,964
I would think that it would also be hard to get a consistent fuel grain from an inconsistent input. I would think that whatever they put in would have to be easily refined. I don’t think sewage solids would count.
There is a stereo company called Schiit https://www.schiit.com/home and it is pronounced just as you think it is, and is highly successful. I could imagine asking your friend, " want to come over and listen to my new piece of Schiit gear?"
JJSR
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 776
- Reaction score
- 65
It seemed to me these guys are a long way from hitting space. It took more then 8 hours for them to get off the ground.
Launch was scheduled for 10 am,
First, igniter lit but not the "fuel"
Next attempt was at 11 am igniter didn't light.They took lunch while repressuring main engine. Next attempt was too be at 1 pm they didn't say why but held off launching. Next attempt was at 2:30 had "technical problems" then finally at 3pm they got off the ground. Good launch, I couldn't tell if they actually got to the 5200 foot mark they planed on.
Recovery was simple, rocket landed not far from tower.
I have some photos I'll post if any one wants to see them.
On a different note, the closed air force base was assume, shame it's not useful anymore and falling apart.
Launch was scheduled for 10 am,
First, igniter lit but not the "fuel"
Next attempt was at 11 am igniter didn't light.They took lunch while repressuring main engine. Next attempt was too be at 1 pm they didn't say why but held off launching. Next attempt was at 2:30 had "technical problems" then finally at 3pm they got off the ground. Good launch, I couldn't tell if they actually got to the 5200 foot mark they planed on.
Recovery was simple, rocket landed not far from tower.
I have some photos I'll post if any one wants to see them.
On a different note, the closed air force base was assume, shame it's not useful anymore and falling apart.
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Those northern tier bomber and interceptor bases were almost obsolete as soon as they went operational it just took several decades for funding realities to catch up with budget priorities. Though I get what you mean about the physical plant stuff - runways, taxiways and support structures aren’t cheap to build. On the other hand without some rather pricey continual maintenance they deteriorate really quickly.
