Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BenLurkin

I think these things were filled with hydrogen peroxide.

They would release jets of gas to alter the positioning of the satellite. It was not really a rocket burn.


18 posted on 10/19/2018 12:28:20 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Buckeye McFrog

Well, I think the most common monopropellant nowadays is hydrazine instead of hydrogen peroxide, and that is a lot more toxic.


51 posted on 10/19/2018 3:04:05 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“I think these things were filled with hydrogen peroxide...” [Buckeye McFrog]

As rocket propellant, hydrogen peroxide went out decades ago. It wouldn’t store too well in systems meant to stay on orbit for 15 years or more. And it’s not terribly energetic: causes less change in velocity per pound of propellant.

On-orbit maneuvering thrusters have used a hypergolic combination: some formulation of hydrazine as fuel, and nitrogen tetroxide as oxidizer. “Hypergolic” means they ignite on contact with each other - reduces weight & complexity, as igniter subsystems aren’t needed.

Some maneuvering systems have used hydrazine-based monopropellants: fuel and oxidizer mixed as one liquid. These do need an igniter to get them going.

More recently, ion propulsion systems have been used. Available thrust isn’t very high, but they are extremely efficient in fuel consumption.


65 posted on 10/20/2018 6:29:56 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson