So, what does burning Kerosene produce in the real atmosphere?

— Donald

So, what does burning Kerosene produce in the real atmosphere?

— Donald

Aluminum Oxide makes up a large part of the Earth’s crust, so I’m sure it is not too toxic, but I do recall the people who worked at the Aluminum reduction plant did wear repirators to keep the stuff (Bauxite) out of their lungs.

I once wrote an Op Ed piece arguing that we should use LOX – H2 rocket engines because there is relatively little environmental cost. So, you could launch the very large numbers that a serious space program may require.

I received a physical letter (giving an idea of how long ago this was!) by a retired Rocketdyne engineer arguing that Kerosene rockets were in fact cleaner because (as I recall) the real LOX -H2 reaction in the real atmosphere created a lot more than water and that a lot of what it did create was toxic and long-lived.

It all seemed rather improbable to me, but I did not have the chemical background to argue. We had a friendly but short-lived correspondence after that.

Unfortunately, at this late date I doubt I can recover either the man’s name (he’s unlikely to be alive) or the details of his argument. I recently moved to a smaller house and many of my oldest files went into the recycling bin. Nonetheless, would any of that make sense to you?

— Donald

Sample letter requesting a meeting – [Word format].:

Space Exploration Alliance
Summer 2005 Legislative Action Plan

Who We Are

The Space Exploration Alliance is an unprecedented partnership of the nation’s premier non-profit space organizations with a combined membership of more than 1.2 million people throughout the United States.

SEA Vision

We support the Vision for Space Exploration as a bold and substantial mandate for human and robotic exploration of the solar system that will help assure American technological and scientific preeminence in the 21st century.

…

http://www.nss.org/legislative/

//////////////////////////

If you go to http://www.spaceexplorationalliance.org/, I think you’ll see the list of PREMIER non-profit space orgs. This list includes outfits such as the Aerospace States Association and the NASA Alumni League. These are the types of associations where one might find people who can accurately be described as well paid lobbyists. Hmmm, the AIAA is also on that list.

http://www.chem.queensu.ca/chembook/articles/ColumbiaDisaster.htm
…

(2) There are two solid fuel booster rockets attached to the side of the large tank. These rockets are filled with a mixture of ammonium perchlorate, NH4ClO4, and powdered aluminum metal. When ignited electrically, ammonium perchlorate decomposes to produce hot gas. The reaction can be represented approximately by the following equation:

NH4ClO4(s) ® ½ N2(g) + HCl(g) + 1½ H2O(g) + 1¼ O2(g)

In a sense, this is a redox reaction between the ions of the salt; you can check this by calculating oxidation numbers for all the elements. Notice that all of the products are gases, and the reaction is highly exothermic, so it is ideal for rocket propulsion.

Oxygen is produced in the decomposition of ammonium perchlorate, just as in the decomposition of ammonium nitrate (CHEMBOOK, page 213). The energy release is greatly increased by adding aluminum powder, which reacts with the oxygen:

2 Al(s) + 1½ O2(g) ® Al2O3(s)

This is a highly exothermic reaction. (Compare with Problem 9.7 in CHEMBOOK) In addition, the powdered ammonium perchlorate and aluminum are mixed with a polymer ( a.k.a. rubber — DD ), which also burns and adds to the release of energy.

The solid rocket boosters are a source of serious pollution around the launch site, depositing many tonnes of hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide into the atmosphere and on the countryside.

…

Anyway, NSS had released a press release I assume based on the “template”, with quotes from executive director George Whitesides… it’s up on the NSS site now (delay due to vacation and other distractions) – http://www.nss.org/

The other organizations in SEA are listed on the SEA website – though that seems to be down right now. I think the aerospace workers are the bulk of the “1.2 million” quoted; don’t recall the organization names.

Arthur Smith

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Archives.cfm?ArchiveIssueid=66

THE GREENING OF ROCKET PROPULSION (217k)
Efforts to limit the environmental effects of rocket launches continue
at home and abroad, but funding remains an issue.

…

According to the report, the emissions released into the atmosphere during UDMH-fueled launches deplete the ozone layers in small but measurable ways, as do the chlorine emissions released by solid-fueled boosters firing during ascent. …

The report says that overall, in the course of the study, the atmospheric impact caused by the launchers that burned solid fuels during atmospheric ascent was greater from the
chlorine emissions they generated than from the nitrogen radicals released by the UDMH vehicles. ….

“Though the two approaches provide slightly different results, it is clear that the nitrogen oxide emissions of 10 annual Proton launches caused much less global ozone losses than the chlorine [emissions] from SRMs [solid rocket motors],” the study
says. …