"fluorine is a better oxidizer than oxygen" this is one of those simple sentences that masks an absolute horror for basically any organic substance that doesnt want its oxygen ripped off.
If fluorine had been more abundant during Earth's formation would life than be based around carbon, fluorine and hydrogen instead of oxygen? Than fourine would be completely safe and we would have more powerfull rockets :D
I heard about theories explaining how silicon could replace carbon in the formation of life, but I doubt you could make the same case for flourine since differences in chemistry of flourine vs. oxygen are much more pronounced than chemistry of carbon and silicon. Different groups in the periodic table for the former pair.
ScottManley can you please do a video about the Helios Space Station form Borderlands 2, and LaGrange points. It is MASSIVE, sitting between Pandora and its Single Moon, and it and the moon appear to be tidally locked towards the planet. They regularly launch robots and artillery from it onyo the planet.
If you want to learn more about the fine reagents covered in this book, head over to Derek Lowe's block "In The Pipeline", and take a peek at his "Things I Won't Work With" section. It covers pretty much all of the nasties that have been described here, and in Lowe's inimitable style. "Sand Won't Save You This Time" is probably his most read article in that section. :) Oh, and mercury wasn't the only heavy metal toyed with as a rocket propellant. There's a US patent for using a mixture of, wait for it, *mercury and uranium* in a rocket engine. Oh, and that's before we get into the hilarity that was Project Pluto, a plan to build an unmanned hypersonic cruise missile that would remain on station for decades, powered by a nuclear ramjet. A nuclear ramjet that was powered by an *unshielded nuclear reactor* operating at temperatures around 3,000°C. American engineers actually built a prototype of that ramjet and tested it, and it developed 35,000 pounds of thrust in 1964. I'll let the astute readers work out why this project was cancelled. :)
Hydrofluoric acid is no joke. When I was younger, I worked in a wafer fab (a facility for making integrated circuits) and inadvertently got some 100% HF on the sleeve of my jumpsuit. I only noticed it after about 20 minutes when I saw that the material of the suit was flaking off and disintegrating. I didn't feel any pain until another 10 or 15 minutes while I was on the way to the hospital. The doctors had to inject my arm with a silver solution to try to get the HF to bond to that instead of my bones - my arm was ballooned out to about twice its normal, scrawny size due to the HF and the injected treatment. The pain was almost indescribable. They said I probably only got a few milliliters on me. I was VERY careful of HF after that.
I once managed a small lab at a teaching institute. My direct supervisor (totally ignorant of chemistry) allowed another researcher to “do his stuff” in our lab. Ultimately several people were grateful I did the research & was ready for “the accident”......... the researcher using the HF did not know any of emergency procedures, or how to clean up & decontaminate... aah those were the days
P N my high school chemistry teacher powered a tin turbine with steam generated by Hydrogen peroxide reaction with potassium permanganate I one demo he covered Newton’s Third Law, exothermic reactions and catalysts.
Yeah, electronics PhD student here, HF is a bastard. Luckily we now have RIE gas etching (basically fancy microwave which creates plasma from gas, the plasma then etches the wafer), so we don't have to use it in liquid form.
@P N a friend of mine in high school would dig up all the old 1950s and 1960s chemistry texts and make things like NI3. We found that the key problem was obtaining some of the reagents, even the things used to derive them. Seems in the 1950s and 1960s certain chemicals were simply easier to get. Our lab techniques were poor though, and the books didn't give you step-by-step how to do it, but assumed some theoretical and practical background and NI3 was probably the most exciting thing we made.... although a friend of ours did a backyard fireworks show with DIY ignitors etc... he tried carefully to get purple fireworks working, but seems the chemistry for the colour was extremely sensitive to contamination. These are all things high school chemistry should be able to help with, but I'm quite sure the teachers have no clue at all and are only concerned about children graduating with all their fingers.
"It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood and test engineers." Drat, there goes my revolutionary plan to line a rocket's interior with test engineers.
@@nikkiofthevalley At least nuclear weapons abide by the always never principle. It won't go off accidentally, dimethylmercury probably won't abide by that principle.
The chapter on Monopropelants has my favorite overall quote. "Any intimate mixture of a fuel and an oxidizer is a potential explosive, and a molecule with one reducing (fuel) end and one oxidizing end, separated by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, is an invitation to disaster."
@@williamchamberlain2263 Considering this is the same book which outlines people putting aluminium, mercury, and chlorine triflouride in rockets to get better specific impulse values...
They actually managed to persuade _five_ fluorine atoms to huddle around a single chlorine, to make chlorine pentafluoride, an even more energetic compound.
@@drtidrowChemically speaking, ClF5 still has 2 electrons left to form covalent bonds with yet two more fluorine atoms.. It just takes an even madder scientist
Zero time-lost accidents, even. Given what he was working with, and the potential for mishaps, and those mishaps he *did* have that thankfully avoided leading to people getting seriously hurt, that's damn impressive. And he's not even entirely sure how he managed it.
Favourite bit in the book; Clark weeding out applicants by having a massive bang go off in the middle of the interview; the ones still with clean undies at the end got the job.
Having ADHD, I would probably never be allowed to work with such chemicals. I would enjoy it too much. "Hey, what happened to my ozone? That Rubix guy better not be playing with cesium again!"
This incident resulted in a single casualty, who suffered a heart attack while running from the scene. Casualty continued running for a further hundred yards or so before collapse.
"It is hyperbolic with test engineers." How was THIS fact discovered? Aren't test engineers rather expensive to use as rocket fuel? "Hello, could you make 100 lbs of dimethyl mercury?" "Are you *INSANE*?"
Him: "If liquid Fluorine wasn't reactive enough, how about you try to put even more Fluorine in?" Me: "Oh, no, he's going to talk about Chlorine Trifluoride, isn't he?" Him: "Chlorine Trifluoride!" Me: "I knew it!"
I LOVE that book! And you didn't even mention the monopropellant madness! "Any intimate mixture of a fuel and an oxidizer is a potential explosive, and a molecule with one reducing (fuel) end and one oxidizing end, separated by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, is an invitation to disaster!" He then goes on about how the first monopropellant engines ran on nitroglycerin, and other monoprops that they had "never been able to fire them in a motor, since they invariably detonated before they could be poured into the propellant tank".
Derek Lowe's 'Things I Will Not Work With' blog led me to Ignition. Also worth a read. A quote: "The general rule is, if you’re looking for the worst organic derivatives of any metal, you should hop right on down to the methyl compounds. That’s where the most choking vapors, the brightest flames, and the most panicked shouts and heartfelt curses are to be found. Methyl organometallics tend to be small, reactive, volatile, and ready to party."
Hydrogen-fluorine combo: "... there is a niche for upper stages - where the rocket is far enough down-range that the exhaust" ... would be falling on _someone else._
Just another example of what is ok in small amounts but deadly in large quantities. Even oxygen is toxic if you get too much. (2bar of pure O2 will kill you.) And nitrogen will get you drunk at high enough pressure, (nitrogen narcosis). Drink too much water and you die. How much is often far more important, than what.
"...it is also hypergolic with things such cloth, wood and test engineers" You should defintiv do more voiceacting (like audiobooks), we will listen to you and enjoy for hours (or even days).
Which came in handy when the first industrial-sized batch of ClF3 was being tanked, and the tank supports started giving way. Luckily, the only casualty in the accident was a non-fatal heart attack suffered by one of the crew as they set new records in the To the Horizon Dash. (When I was teaching computer techs who were going to have to work in a high energy chemistry lab (Somebody has to pull network cables, fix the systems, and make sure the PhD in the lab isn't trying to log in with the shift lock key toggled) the Last Rule was "If you see me running, try to keep up."
You missed one nasty fuel ... Pentaborane (aka: the "green dragon")! A complex mixture of boron and hydrogen atoms with a nasty garlic smell, burnt with a brilliant green flame, and had acute toxicity that rivaled some nerve agents. And it was produced in massive quantities to be used as "zip fuels". The remaining unused kegs of the chemical were either burned off or dissociated with hot water / steam yielding hydrogen and far less toxic boric acid solution (the "dragon slayer" process). You briefly touched the subject of zip fuels in the XB 70 video in mid 2018.
In the old west, Cowboys rode horses and had pistols and rifles. Engineers drove iron&steel trains and had double-barreled shotguns; 12, 10, and sometimes even 8-gauge. Space cowboys use nukes and pusher-plates with giant hydraulic systems. Space engineers use antimatter or other exotic fuel and a drive system that would be about as intelligible to 18th-century science as the vision of the four wheels was to Ezekiel.
@@abhinavgirish1609 Wasn't it one of the Glushko's experiments? There was an even worse one, where pentaborane/hydrazine fuel mixture was doped with beryllium.
Simon Ingram I would say "walk a mile in another man's shoes" but it was really an embarrassing combination of shaking, running, and tip-toeing my way out of there.
One of my favourite lines from the book comes from the chapter on the experimental high-energy liquid monoprops: "On paper, it sounds ideal... But! Any intimate mixture of a fuel and an oxidiser is a potential explosive. And a molecule with one reducing (fuel) end and one oxidising end, separated by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, is an invitation to disaster". This humorously understated comment (in keeping with the rest of the book) confirms the fact that yes, quite a lot of early experimental propellant research involved the chemical equivalent of crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best!
When I worked at Rockwell in eighties we lost a couple of engineers that were cleaning a rocket fuel tank, hydrazine (?) and forgot the safety requirements at KFC. Those kind of mistakes are fatal.
For discussion of more chemicals whose structures make you want to scratch out your eyes in horror, I would like to recommend a blog called "In The Pipeline," by Derek Lowe. Specifically, look for a series of entries under the category "Things I Won't Work With."
Found the blog years ago through XKCD, and then followed from there to the book. To the best of my recollection, that blog and that book are the only things that have literally had me rolling on the floor laughing.
You want to see Lowe's blog post on "Satan's kimchi", i.e., FOOF (here: blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride). Now 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 an oxidiser.
He has an amusing post on Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane and the synthesis of other compounds with far more nitrogen in them than any sane man would wish for. (If I recall, it becomes MORE stable when mixed 1:1 with Trinitrotoluene.)
@@kamuroshow4884 Presumably because during their tests with it, an accident meant they were in the unenviable position of being able to inhale the stuff.
Our catchphrase at XCOR was, "If you can't spill it on your shoe, we don't want to use it." During a pump test, Dan Delong actually detected a small LOX leak when his foot got cold, so he took his shoe off and let it warm up to allow the oxygen to dissipate- so it's a rule we really did use.
Hi I work on the RL10 and back in the 60-70's Pratt an Whitney did extensive testing using the RL10 with hydrazine and fluorine. On the E-7 test stand (deactivated in 1974 torn down in 1995 still had hydrazine trapped in the 1000 gallon tank found out the hard way) We had a whole Fluorine passivation area to treat the hardware. I was to young but saw many test tapes ran very well but when it blew it did so impressively. They also did Hydrogen and fluorine, and hydrazine and oxygen. Take care.
The most entertaining book on chemistry I’ve ever read. The section on hydrogen peroxide is a real eye-opener for anyone who thinks of this compound as merely the incredibly diluted solution sold in stores as a hair bleach or (somewhat incorrectly) as an antiseptic.
Ordered the book in Feb direct from the publisher. Still waiting. :(. It has shipped though. Just turns out the remarkably low shipping price to the other side of the planet may have involved actual ships.
Ignition is a superb book, although I've only read the PDF version--didn't realise they'd reprinted it! Just ordered my copy now (Amazon UK aren't out of stock...).
For a *really* nasty propellant, look up "Nuclear salt-water rocket" on Wikipedia... When I read this, my first thought was: "Could Dr. Strangelove please refrain from inventing stuff when he's *that* drunk...?"
Just checked them out per your recommendation. Absolutely amazing stuff if we can figure it all the way out. The theoretical aspects are fascinating and the numbers produced are staggering.
ANY test need to be conducted no closer to the Earth that on the Moon. The location need to be chosen so that the exhaust is directed well away from the Earth and ANY satellite or active space station.
I wonder if the book mentions the various types of nuclear rockets. Nuclear pulse propulsion, where you use nuclear bombs behind a pusher plate, would actually be fairly safe "fuels" to handle in the sense that the bomb devices would be hard to accidentally detonate. Nuclear thermal rockets like NERVA are a different story; once the reactor has gone critical the fuel becomes pretty lethal stuff to be around. My favorite has to be the nuclear salt water rocket, which uses an open cycle liquid fuel core. The liquid is basically water with uranium or plutonium salts dissolved in it, which are injected into a reaction chamber and mixed to become supercritical, heating the water to steam and blowing it out the nozzle as reaction mass, along with all the fission products. High Isp and high thrust, it's almost a torch drive but using it in atmosphere would be unconscionable, since it's basically a giant flying Chernobyl disaster.
I guess robots could use for aerospace vehicles and rockets, like, when AI will rebel against humans. They can cut expenses on concentration camps that way.
As far as I remember nuclear salt water rocket engines are more like taking the most powerfull milisecond of Chernobyl, multply that my 64 if I remember correctly, and then just have that running for a few minutes instead of a milisecond.
How about crush mercury temprometers as teenager on the floor and not able to clean in it up from the synthetic carpet that cover the whole bedroom -I lived there 10 years .I guess this why im wierd ,( i slighty remember this happened twice ) ; Next malfuntion as teenager -My father ( dead by now) found a a discharged pot of selfglowing yellow green power on a local city dump,, physorus ? used to make signs glow i belive -some of it ended up on same carpet - a lot ...
Hah, I got hold of a digital copy some years ago. Excellent book. My favourite bit is probably the reaction test where two tiny droplets were placed on a watch glass and allowed to touch, and the reaction reduced the watch glass to powder. Talk about high explosive...
One of my favourite bits is when Clark happened to notice a particular lab sample (some exotic nitrate or other) turning brown rather rapidly, with just enough time to yell "everybody get down!" before the beaker exploded and shot across the top of table they were all sitting around.
If you're talking about Apollo 1 (and you must be, there wasn't any other such disaster), they were going to fly on Stautn I, not Saturn V (and no, not Saturn IB either). still, there were two unmanned test flights of Saturn V before Apollo 8, and of course last ever flight of Saturn V launched Skylab, but this one used shroud with the same diameter as the 3d stage (which Was the Skylab, converted from SIVB third stage, and not actually a rocket stage BTW)
also, Apollo 1 did have an escape tower, which was a problem during the disaster because they were worried that it might get set off by the heat and flames and make an even bigger disaster.
I worked in the semiconductor industry as a technician. We used hydrofluoric acid in several processes. It is seriously nasty stuff, we used to have first aid drills SPECIFICALLY for hydrofluoric acid. We were told a palm print sized exposure was fatal. Every first aid kit in the whole 40 football pitch sized factory had calcium cream for hydrofluoric acid exposure.
6:00 "Putting more fluorine into the system" isn't the full story. Teflon, PFTE, has lots of fluorine, but makes for a horribly bad rocket fuel (even though it would allow the rocket to slide to the launch pad really easily...). No, what does matter is the reactivity of the fluorine. Fluorine itself tries very VERY hard to get an additional electron. And it is reactive exactly when it doesn't have one. Like in F2, where both fluorine atoms hold on to their electrons with the same strength, and in ClF3, where the central chlorine can hold on to its electrons pretty well too, making the Cl-F bonds tentative at best. On the other hand, if you have fluorine in a compound in which it has sated its hunger for an eighth electron, like in HF or in PTFE, it's fairly docile stuff actually, because you have to invest huge amounts of energy to get it away from that extra electron it has managed to grab...
Yes, THX much for that clarification. My grandfather illustrated reactivity by explaining salt. Chlorine gas is corrosive, toxic, and acidic, and Sodium reacts violently with oxygen. But Sodium Chloride is one of the most ubiquitous and useful substances on the planet (below water, oxygen, chlorophyll, hemoglobin, and DNA).
Actually, PTFE makes a pretty decent oxidizer. It's used in a thermite-like composition with magnesium to make flares and pyrotechnic igniters for solid rockets. www.vti.mod.gov.rs/ntp/rad2009/1-09/bosk/bosk.pdf
And then he gets around to talking about fluorine combined with chlorine... A chemical so aggressive that the German chemical weapons program discontinued their study in it because they realized that it could never be transported. Should a passing airstrike happen any containment vessel with chlorine trifluoride would simply delete anything that the bomber had missed.
Let's add the famous quote from Isaac Asimov's foreword (I've seen a part of it on doors at the ESTEC ESA center in Holland): "Now, it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of far-out insanity. There are, after all, some chemicals that explode shatteringly, some that flame ravenously, some that corrode hellishly, some that poison sneakily, and some that stink stenchily. As far as I know, though, only liquid rocket fuels have all these delightful properties combined into one delectable whole."
Seconded! The CD video was very well presented, but I'd also like to hear Scott's opinion on the technology from a real-world, not Kerbal, perspective (although he's undoubtedly chatted about them before during livestreams etc.)
Reprinted ? My word, I have ordered it immediately! Ignition! is the best chemistry book I've read during my lifetime (on par with Gergel's "Excuse me sir, would you like to buy a kilo of isopropyl bromide ?")
Fifteen hundred comments so far. Enjoying reading some of them. For two years, 1965-67, I was a chemist at the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base. Worked with much more dangerous chemicals than you mentioned. Shock sensitive explosives, and toxins like beryllium fluoride. One chemist, a Major, became incapacitated and had to retire. Two years were also spent contributing to the Skunkworks, 1963-65. That’s another story.
Derek Lowe, in his series on "things I won't work with", mentioned one compound that was sensitive to air movement (as in breathing on it) and would proceed to explode.
I always remember the dimethylmercury bit, its a potent reminder that what someone is asking for and what they want are two different potentially life saving things
In my old textbook, the example for that lesson was someone accidentally buying oxalic acid for a rhubarb dish, instead of the substance marketed as "anti-oxalic acid" back in the day.
My thermo/gas dynamics and propulsion professor in the early '90s at Ohio State was Rudolph Edse, an honest-to-God German rocket scientist. While doing some background research in grad school, I found some reports he wrote in the '50s and '60s describing hilariously dangerous rocket fuel experiments that his research group at OSU did. IIRC, they did a couple tests of a hydrogen/fluorine fueled rocket engine in an empty lot across the river from campus before somebody asked them if they could please stop killing the grass...
well, the main advantage of ozone would be more energy density - because it is unstable - when burning a fuel on ozone you'd essentially get energy from the ozone decomposing to oxygen AND from the fuel burning with that oxygen thus potetially higher specific impulses - and yes, its also denser and thus takes up less space but hte necessities for storing it are impracitcal and yes - its also incredibly unsafe - there's a reason most of our atmosphere contains oxygen rather then ozone
4:44 : "I'm not one of them." Neither am I. There's no way to eliminate the possibility of spontaneous decomposition. Ever seen hyperboiling water? Same principle.
Ted Archer Hmmm. If you consider that as a “rocket fuel” then you might have to consider all explosives used to propel ballistic projectiles at a significant speed. Unless you define “rocket” in a more casual way like “something used to get near space”. In that case, the “nuclear manhole cover” might be the only ballistic projectile that counts.
Another problem with liquid ozone / oxygen mixture is the tendency for ozone to separate out due to its higher density. One then obtains nearly pure liquid ozone at the bottom yielding a large KABOOM.
Safety Time Machine Key Points 1. Automatic door lock. 2. Goes invisible. 3. Moves objects out of the way. 4. Can stand extreme weather. 5. Has solar panels. 6. Has camera/TV inside so the time travellers can only observe history. 7. Has rocket fuel. 8. Rocket fuel fades extremely fast in the sky. 9. Automatic probability control so history doesn't change on it's own. 10. Uses wormholes to time travel.
I feel ashamed, looks like I finally caved in and bought a product after I saw it on a UA-cam video. Actually the video didn't even finish when the order went out.
I've wanted a copy of that book since I read "Excuse me, sir ..." I'm surprised you omitted the ClF3 spill story, that is one of my favorite anecdotes.
But something more potent than alcohol was needed for the X-15 rocket-driven supersonic research plane. Hydrazine was the first choice, but it sometimes exploded when used for regenerative cool- ing, and in 1949, when the program was conceived, there wasn't enough of it around, anyway. Bob Truax of the Navy, along with 104 Winternitz of Reaction Motors, which was to develop the 50,000 pounds thrust motor, settled on ammonia as a reasonably satisfactory second best. The oxygen-ammonia combination had been fired by JPL, but RMI really worked it out in the early 50's. The great stability of the ammonia molecule made it a tough customer to burn and from the beginning they were plagued with rough running and combus- tion instability. All sorts of additives to the fuel were tried in the hope of alleviating the condition, among them methylamine and acetylene. Twenty-two percent of the latter gave smooth combustion, but was dangerously unstable, and the mixture wasn't used long. The com- bustion problems were eventually cured by improving the injector design, but it was a long and noisy process. At night, I could hear the motor being fired, ten miles away over two ranges of hills, and could tell how far the injector design had progressed, just by the way the thing sounded. Even when the motor, finally, was running the way it should, and the first of the series was ready to be shipped to the West Coast to be test-flown by Scott Crossfield, everybody had his fingers crossed. Lou Rapp, of RMI, flying across the continent, found him- self with a knowledgeable seat mate, obviously in the aerospace busi- ness, who asked him his opinion of the motor. Lou blew up, and de- clared, with gestures, that it was a mechanical monster, an accident looking for a place to happen, and that he, personally, considered that flying with it was merely a somewhat expensive method of sui- cide. Then, remembering something he turned to his companion and asked. "By the way, I didn't get your name. What is it?" The reply was simple. "Oh, I'm Scott Crossfield."
My late grandpa, Vic Horton, worked for Thiokol's Reaction Motors Division prior to his long NASA career. One of the projects he worked on was the XLR-99 engine for the X-15 and was present during its first successful test firings and throttling demonstrations. Later, after he joined NASA in 1958, he became involved in the actual X-15 flight tests.
I cannot think of anything I want to encounter less than Dimethylmercury. Hell, any chemical with a name in the format methyl is very likely something that is just waiting for a chance to kill you horribly. Also, read Ignition! guys. It's amazing.
In theory it would densify the propellant, resulting in a lower specific impulse but with the trade-off that you could store more energy inside a given tank volume. In practice, it would spread really nasty combustion byproducts of dimethylmercury far and wide across the countryside, and lots of people would be dead. Clark determined that the only vaguely practical use for such a propellant would be in something like an air-to-air missile which has a fairly low ratio of dry mass to fuel tank volume and could get the most benefit from the densified propellant. It would be of no use in an orbital rocket which has to carry a decent payload, the loss of Specific Impulse would be crippling.
Simply injecting Hg into the combustion chamber wouldn't increase the SI because elemental Hg is not very reactive. It would have to be an organo-mercury compound. Triethyl aluminum would work much better and would be much less toxic. Apparently they used that in the hypergolic chamber in the F1's that powered the Saturn V.
what effect did the mercury have on performance, I'd imagine it would cool the exhaust but probably increase mass flow rate, but lower the specific impulse by lowering the kinetic energy of the exhaust products.
I believe the intention was the opposite; to increase thrust/specific impulse by densifying the propellant and therefore INCREASING the velocity of the exhaust gas (while also doing useful things like keeping chamber temps under control, as you mentioned). But it's been a while since I last read the book, so I might have that arse-backwards... don't quote me. ;) EDIT: Yep, I had it backwards, you were correct. Specific Impulse dropped sharply, but Density Impulse (Isp x Propellant Density) increased significantly to the point where there might have been major performance benefits in applications with a low "tank loading factor" (e.g. air-to-air missiles, which have a fairly low ratio of dry mass:tank volume), if only the stuff wasn't so damn toxic. In any case, it wouldn't have had any major benefits for an orbital launcher with a high mass:volume ratio, where Isp is king.
My (relatively) near-experience with such substances occurred in college, when--for my elective "X experiment" in chemistry--I expressed interest in liberating fluorine. "No, you don't want to liberate fluorine," said my professor. Some years earlier, he related, another student of his had done that, and the experiment was successful--WAY too successful. "Seeing laboratory glassware burning with green flames," he said, "is not something I care to experience again!" When I suggested synthesizing dinitrogen tetroxide as an alternative "X experiment," he smiled at me and muttered something about a death wish (perhaps fortunately, I was unaware of Hydyne at that time)... :-)
Missed out on Hydrogen Peroxide. The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet fighter fueled by it sometimes exploded on takeoff, sometimes exploded on landing, and sometimes just exploded.
John Francis Doe An important question here is, was he arrested before or after the explosive risk to innocent life detonated in inevitable fashion? Hopefully "before"?
@@scottmanley I liked the part on using boron in rocket fuels. On paper it seems ideal because it's heavy. In practice boron compounds proved to be impossible to make work because they left tarry deposits everywhere inside the test engines. The worst part was how the deposits would build up in the nozzle throat, despite the high velocity hot gas flowing through, building up until choking the combustion chamber down to the point where the pressure would make it explode if the fuel supply wasn't cut off. Has me wondering if there are any newer alloys or surface treatments that would be non-stick to boron compound combustion byproducts - in the hot inside of a rocket engine. Or might there be newer chemistry knowledge that could keep a boron compound fuel from producing those sticky byproducts?
Great review of a very interesting book. I've always had a fascination with the darker side of chemistry (from my love of true crime) and I've heard of the lethality of some of these compounds before. I didn't realise there is such crossover in uses haha!!!
If you ever can get ahold of it, there is a book which is long out of print titled, "Some Birds Don't Fly" by Gary Paulsen. It was published in 1968, and is filled with hilarious accounts of early engineering and testing of rockets and missiles.
30 tons of potatoes to make the ethanol to fuel one V2 rocket. 60,000 lbs of food to deliver 2000 lbs of explosives on an impact explosion. Might as well have built a trebuchet to throw gold bars!
"Organic mercury is't that bad, only two chemists died while working with it in a lab and one of those didn't follow proper safety procedure" -my organic chem professor, paraphrased
@@tog3334 lol missed reply back then, sitting here building a ridiculous robotic KSP contraption as we speak. I might just have to follow through on this and get KSP-UA-camr-Famous or some shit. 😉
Ah, the guys at Eastman Kodak...I think at one point they even accidentally discovered the fact that there was the first ever nuclear explosion....because the wood that was eventually made into paper and cardboard packaging for films was slightly radioactive from the Trinity explosion‘s fallout. That in turn ruined a bunch of film.
"fluorine is a better oxidizer than oxygen" this is one of those simple sentences that masks an absolute horror for basically any organic substance that doesnt want its oxygen ripped off.
If fluorine had been more abundant during Earth's formation would life than be based around carbon, fluorine and hydrogen instead of oxygen? Than fourine would be completely safe and we would have more powerfull rockets :D
@@Music_Engineering I want this question to be answered
I heard about theories explaining how silicon could replace carbon in the formation of life, but I doubt you could make the same case for flourine since differences in chemistry of flourine vs. oxygen are much more pronounced than chemistry of carbon and silicon. Different groups in the periodic table for the former pair.
I work in water treatment. By far the nastiest chemical we have on hand
@Jeremiah Allen reported for spam
ScottManley can you please do a video about the Helios Space Station form Borderlands 2, and LaGrange points.
It is MASSIVE, sitting between Pandora and its Single Moon, and it and the moon appear to be tidally locked towards the planet.
They regularly launch robots and artillery from it onyo the planet.
Love your videos, Scott! Let's watch this :)
I need to buy that book
His chemicals I won’t work with paper is also a hoot.
"Like Hunter S. Thompson, but with a completely different kind of chemistry."
I see what you did there!
Oh dear, sounds like someone said a joke. Tee hee
If you want to learn more about the fine reagents covered in this book, head over to Derek Lowe's block "In The Pipeline", and take a peek at his "Things I Won't Work With" section. It covers pretty much all of the nasties that have been described here, and in Lowe's inimitable style. "Sand Won't Save You This Time" is probably his most read article in that section. :)
Oh, and mercury wasn't the only heavy metal toyed with as a rocket propellant. There's a US patent for using a mixture of, wait for it, *mercury and uranium* in a rocket engine.
Oh, and that's before we get into the hilarity that was Project Pluto, a plan to build an unmanned hypersonic cruise missile that would remain on station for decades, powered by a nuclear ramjet. A nuclear ramjet that was powered by an *unshielded nuclear reactor* operating at temperatures around 3,000°C. American engineers actually built a prototype of that ramjet and tested it, and it developed 35,000 pounds of thrust in 1964. I'll let the astute readers work out why this project was cancelled. :)
2:34 Is that "backpack" thing on his back on rebreather??? :/
Hydrofluoric acid is no joke. When I was younger, I worked in a wafer fab (a facility for making integrated circuits) and inadvertently got some 100% HF on the sleeve of my jumpsuit. I only noticed it after about 20 minutes when I saw that the material of the suit was flaking off and disintegrating. I didn't feel any pain until another 10 or 15 minutes while I was on the way to the hospital. The doctors had to inject my arm with a silver solution to try to get the HF to bond to that instead of my bones - my arm was ballooned out to about twice its normal, scrawny size due to the HF and the injected treatment. The pain was almost indescribable. They said I probably only got a few milliliters on me. I was VERY careful of HF after that.
I once managed a small lab at a teaching institute. My direct supervisor (totally ignorant of chemistry) allowed another researcher to “do his stuff” in our lab. Ultimately several people were grateful I did the research & was ready for “the accident”......... the researcher using the HF did not know any of emergency procedures, or how to clean up & decontaminate... aah those were the days
P N my high school chemistry teacher powered a tin turbine with steam generated by Hydrogen peroxide reaction with potassium permanganate
I one demo he covered Newton’s Third Law, exothermic reactions and catalysts.
Yeah, electronics PhD student here, HF is a bastard. Luckily we now have RIE gas etching (basically fancy microwave which creates plasma from gas, the plasma then etches the wafer), so we don't have to use it in liquid form.
The usual tratment is calcium gluconate; that wasn't available or suitable for some reason?
@P N a friend of mine in high school would dig up all the old 1950s and 1960s chemistry texts and make things like NI3. We found that the key problem was obtaining some of the reagents, even the things used to derive them. Seems in the 1950s and 1960s certain chemicals were simply easier to get. Our lab techniques were poor though, and the books didn't give you step-by-step how to do it, but assumed some theoretical and practical background and NI3 was probably the most exciting thing we made.... although a friend of ours did a backyard fireworks show with DIY ignitors etc... he tried carefully to get purple fireworks working, but seems the chemistry for the colour was extremely sensitive to contamination. These are all things high school chemistry should be able to help with, but I'm quite sure the teachers have no clue at all and are only concerned about children graduating with all their fingers.
"It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood and test engineers."
Drat, there goes my revolutionary plan to line a rocket's interior with test engineers.
I'm sure the Soviets probably considered doing this. After all if the problem can't be solved by throwing men at it, clearly your not using enough! XD
Or making an engine bell out of wood :/
What would be the specific impulse of such an engine LOL?
@@hakankarakurt1100 Depends on whether they're flailing around in pain or not
Or a cloth fuel valve.
"can you make us 100 pounds of dimethylmercury?"
- You guys want 20 nukes with launch codes as an extra?
Honestly i'd feel safer around nukes than around pure Hg(CH3)2. And i'm a professional chemist
Yes
@@ericlev2987 Yea, one can poison you and kill you, the other is meant to _not_ do that when it's not meant to.
@@nikkiofthevalley At least nuclear weapons abide by the always never principle. It won't go off accidentally, dimethylmercury probably won't abide by that principle.
@@georgeu6994 Yep. I don't even want to know what 100 kg of dimethylmercury would do to you, but I know it won't be pretty..
“Persuaded to huddle around a chlorine atom” is my favorite chemistry phrase.
The chapter on Monopropelants has my favorite overall quote. "Any intimate mixture of a fuel and an oxidizer is a potential explosive, and a molecule with one reducing (fuel) end and one oxidizing end, separated by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, is an invitation to disaster."
@@VallornDeathblade ah, but the _efficiency!_
@@williamchamberlain2263 Considering this is the same book which outlines people putting aluminium, mercury, and chlorine triflouride in rockets to get better specific impulse values...
They actually managed to persuade _five_ fluorine atoms to huddle around a single chlorine, to make chlorine pentafluoride, an even more energetic compound.
@@drtidrowChemically speaking, ClF5 still has 2 electrons left to form covalent bonds with yet two more fluorine atoms.. It just takes an even madder scientist
for all his success with propellants, Clark's proudest accomplishment was *zero* deaths for the program he ran for so many years.
Zero time-lost accidents, even. Given what he was working with, and the potential for mishaps, and those mishaps he *did* have that thankfully avoided leading to people getting seriously hurt, that's damn impressive. And he's not even entirely sure how he managed it.
That book taught me that rocket propellant researchers have similar ball diameter requirements as test pilots.
Or, at least good times in any olympic races.
parachute testers.
Laurence Bell And nuclear physicists. :-P
Favourite bit in the book; Clark weeding out applicants by having a massive bang go off in the middle of the interview; the ones still with clean undies at the end got the job.
@Terry Wilson Why can't I upvote you more...
“During the liquid rocket propellant era, a major incident involving ClF₃ occurred the first time a one-ton steel container was loaded with liquid ClF₃ for bulk shipment. The container had been cooled with dry ice to perform the liquid transfer and help make the product safer to handle, since the ClF₃ vapor pressure would only be about 0.007 kg/cm² (0.1 psia) in the subcooled state. However, the dry ice bath embrittled the steel container wall, which split while it was being maneuvered onto a dolly, instantaneously releasing 907 kg (2,000 lb) of cold ClF₃ liquid onto the building floor. The ClF₃ dissolved the 30 cm (12 inch) thick concrete floor and another 90 cm (36 inches) of gravel underneath the spill. The fumes that were generated (chlorine trifluoride, hydrogen fluoride, chlorine, hydrogen chloride, etc.) severely corroded everything that was exposed. One eyewitness described the incident by stating, ‘The concrete was on fire!’” -Safetygram 39: Chlorine Trifluoride © Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., 2004
... wow.
A nightmare for any chemist or firefighter.
Having ADHD, I would probably never be allowed to work with such chemicals. I would enjoy it too much. "Hey, what happened to my ozone? That Rubix guy better not be playing with cesium again!"
🤣
@@rubixtheslime Trust me, u'll do gud.
This incident resulted in a single casualty, who suffered a heart attack while running from the scene. Casualty continued running for a further hundred yards or so before collapse.
I've always pictured one of those "IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, BREAK GLASS" boxes in the hallway, with a pair of running shoes behind the glass.
Sand won't save you this time.
How to tell if someone reads Pipeline.
But it's rough and coarse and it gets everywhere
FOOF
And FOOM.
Derek Lowe is brilliant.
blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time
I'd like an Audiobook version of that ... Read by Scott Manley!
I'd buy that
Me too! And I'd talk it up to people.
I'd buy that. Tell friends about it. Buy copies for friends.
Make it happen, please
I just downloaded the audio book but sadly it's not narrated by Scott Manly.
Near the top of my list of things I never want to hear in real life: "the concrete is on fire"
Next on Nile Red: how to make ClF3
Underrated comment!
He'd probably end the video with yeeting ClF3 onto the wall.
@@PaiSAMSEN In its liquid state it is yellow.
And you know yellow = bad except Chlorauric acid.
Or "this stuff is so powerful it can set water on fire".
@@MichaelClark-uw7ex All yellow chemistry is TRASH
I'm a simple man, I see dangerous and rocket in the title I click.
I see you're a man of culture as well.
AverageGeek
Indeed, Scishow has a great and interesting video on the most dangerous chemicals in the world I recommend 👍
They are the best kind, I'm sure.
i feel like all scott manley fans have a bit of the arsonist's twinkly eyed loved of great sheets of flame XD
oldfrend
When in a controlled and spacey way yes lmao
"It is hyperbolic with test engineers." How was THIS fact discovered? Aren't test engineers rather expensive to use as rocket fuel?
"Hello, could you make 100 lbs of dimethyl mercury?" "Are you *INSANE*?"
Ever watch the episode of Mythbusters, where they use sausage as rocket fuel?
@@buckstarchaser2376 I hadn't but I'm looking for it now!
g*
"What am I doing?! I'm making a rocket out of meat!"
hypergolic*
Him: "If liquid Fluorine wasn't reactive enough, how about you try to put even more Fluorine in?"
Me: "Oh, no, he's going to talk about Chlorine Trifluoride, isn't he?"
Him: "Chlorine Trifluoride!"
Me: "I knew it!"
What about iodine heptafluoride? Lol
@@coopergates9680 That sounds like "Uh-oh..."
@@Roxor128 Although it is more fluorinated it's less potent than ClF5 or BrF5
..
*slaps roof of molecule* "This baby can hold so many fluorines in it..."
Meanwhile, the concrete floor has ignited.
I LOVE that book!
And you didn't even mention the monopropellant madness! "Any intimate mixture of a fuel and an oxidizer is a potential explosive, and a molecule with one reducing (fuel) end and one oxidizing end, separated by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, is an invitation to disaster!"
He then goes on about how the first monopropellant engines ran on nitroglycerin, and other monoprops that they had "never been able to fire them in a motor, since they invariably detonated before they could be poured into the propellant tank".
Hahahaha
Even if it detonated *after* being poured into the propellant tank, that still wouldn’t be much use.
Ignition ≠ detonation.
Not unless you are talking about an Orion Drive!
Trying to imagine a full-sized rocket loaded with nitroglycerin - and who the hell would want to get within two miles of it.
now THAT reminds me of an old movie, _The War Wagon_ , and just how unstable nytroglycerin was; it's why TNT was invented.
Listen, if somebody tries to tell you that asbestos is """""inflamible""""" then they're obviously just not trying hard enough.
Derek Lowe's 'Things I Will Not Work With' blog led me to Ignition. Also worth a read. A quote:
"The general rule is, if you’re looking for the worst organic derivatives of any metal, you should hop right on down to the methyl compounds. That’s where the most choking vapors, the brightest flames, and the most panicked shouts and heartfelt curses are to be found. Methyl organometallics tend to be small, reactive, volatile, and ready to party."
Methyllithium .. see the Sheri Sangji case. Pyrophoric lab tragedy
"Also worth a read."
Omg had me dying here!!
That's the best damned endorsement of a blog I've seen yet.
@@CyberiusT Given the subject matter, I'm not sure that's a good thing...
Hydrogen-fluorine combo: "... there is a niche for upper stages - where the rocket is far enough down-range that the exhaust" ... would be falling on _someone else._
Meanwhile, somewhere in orbit:
"Why have we lost all our sensors!?"
"I think we flew through someones exhaust plume..."
Meanwhile back on planet Earth, people are drinking water with up to 4 PPM of hydrofluorocilicic acid, courtesy of your local water authority.
Just another example of what is ok in small amounts but deadly in large quantities. Even oxygen is toxic if you get too much. (2bar of pure O2 will kill you.) And nitrogen will get you drunk at high enough pressure, (nitrogen narcosis). Drink too much water and you die. How much is often far more important, than what.
@@NemoConsequentae "The dose makes the poison."
@chris younts yeah. where its already reacted with stuff
Free flourine is an entirely different animal than a lot of flourine compounds
See chlorine triflouride on thumbnail
*I CLICK*
I was not disappointed
My favorite phrase Clark uses in "Ignition!" is "spontaneous disassembly" for "explosion."
Another good one is RUD=Rapid Unplanned Disassembly
"...it is also hypergolic with things such cloth, wood and test engineers"
You should defintiv do more voiceacting (like audiobooks), we will listen to you and enjoy for hours (or even days).
An audiobook... of this very book. I would gladly give anything for *that*.
I second that motion! Scott Manley reading this book would be well worth the money! :-)
I mean isn't that what we are watching here? Him talk about a book?
"...a good pair of running shoes." LMFAO
Which came in handy when the first industrial-sized batch of ClF3 was being tanked, and the tank supports started giving way. Luckily, the only casualty in the accident was a non-fatal heart attack suffered by one of the crew as they set new records in the To the Horizon Dash.
(When I was teaching computer techs who were going to have to work in a high energy chemistry lab (Somebody has to pull network cables, fix the systems, and make sure the PhD in the lab isn't trying to log in with the shift lock key toggled) the Last Rule was "If you see me running, try to keep up."
You missed one nasty fuel ... Pentaborane (aka: the "green dragon")! A complex mixture of boron and hydrogen atoms with a nasty garlic smell, burnt with a brilliant green flame, and had acute toxicity that rivaled some nerve agents. And it was produced in massive quantities to be used as "zip fuels". The remaining unused kegs of the chemical were either burned off or dissociated with hot water / steam yielding hydrogen and far less toxic boric acid solution (the "dragon slayer" process). You briefly touched the subject of zip fuels in the XB 70 video in mid 2018.
Toxic and explosive - how Kerbal!
Rocket scientists: "What's the most dangerous chemicals we got? Put that in there. Yeah, and some cobra venom. And diamonds!"
In the old west, Cowboys rode horses and had pistols and rifles. Engineers drove iron&steel trains and had double-barreled shotguns; 12, 10, and sometimes even 8-gauge.
Space cowboys use nukes and pusher-plates with giant hydraulic systems. Space engineers use antimatter or other exotic fuel and a drive system that would be about as intelligible to 18th-century science as the vision of the four wheels was to Ezekiel.
There was a pentaborane-hydrazine propellant that would release Boron Nitride and hydrogen. Boron Nitride being harder than diamond.
@@abhinavgirish1609 Wasn't it one of the Glushko's experiments? There was an even worse one, where pentaborane/hydrazine fuel mixture was doped with beryllium.
Poor rattlesnakes in the desert.
I once jumped onto a rock right next to a rattlesnake. Those scary fuckers can all die horrible deaths for all I care.
I believe that this snake felt the same way to you)
LOL
Simon Ingram I would say "walk a mile in another man's shoes" but it was really an embarrassing combination of shaking, running, and tip-toeing my way out of there.
@@ericsiemienczuk7217 Rattlesnake is tasty, and skins make a good belt. Waste not, want not. Can you say the same for humans?
One of my favourite lines from the book comes from the chapter on the experimental high-energy liquid monoprops:
"On paper, it sounds ideal... But! Any intimate mixture of a fuel and an oxidiser is a potential explosive. And a molecule with one reducing (fuel) end and one oxidising end, separated by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, is an invitation to disaster".
This humorously understated comment (in keeping with the rest of the book) confirms the fact that yes, quite a lot of early experimental propellant research involved the chemical equivalent of crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best!
well that goes for technolgoy after that too
When I worked at Rockwell in eighties we lost a couple of engineers that were cleaning a rocket fuel tank, hydrazine (?) and forgot the safety requirements at KFC. Those kind of mistakes are fatal.
@Ho Lam YIU my guess and do note this is a complete guess. Normalization of devation from standard practice.
Kentucky Fried Chicken was a space facility?
@@johndododoe1411 It goes a long way to explain why the French fries taste the way they do...
For discussion of more chemicals whose structures make you want to scratch out your eyes in horror, I would like to recommend a blog called "In The Pipeline," by Derek Lowe. Specifically, look for a series of entries under the category "Things I Won't Work With."
This blog regularly quotes from Ignition
Found the blog years ago through XKCD, and then followed from there to the book. To the best of my recollection, that blog and that book are the only things that have literally had me rolling on the floor laughing.
That blog is hilarious.
You want to see Lowe's blog post on "Satan's kimchi", i.e., FOOF (here: blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride). Now 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 an oxidiser.
He has an amusing post on Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane and the synthesis of other compounds with far more nitrogen in them than any sane man would wish for. (If I recall, it becomes MORE stable when mixed 1:1 with Trinitrotoluene.)
I was eating cereal when he said about using liquid fluorine as a rocket fuel and I spat then choked in quick succession.
“sweet, pungent, irritating, suffocating”... what ClF3 smells like according to Wikipedia. My question is:
WHO THE HELL WOULD SMELL ClF3 ON PURPOSE?!
Those are the chemists that tell the world NOT to do it.
@@kamuroshow4884 Presumably because during their tests with it, an accident meant they were in the unenviable position of being able to inhale the stuff.
Maybe the same kind that willingly eat Cyanide capsules while their every word is being recorded.
Our catchphrase at XCOR was, "If you can't spill it on your shoe, we don't want to use it." During a pump test, Dan Delong actually detected a small LOX leak when his foot got cold, so he took his shoe off and let it warm up to allow the oxygen to dissipate- so it's a rule we really did use.
Rocketplumber how did you get into your career?
5000mahmud
He had LOx spilled on his shoes.
XCOR eh? I was just reading about their involvement with the still hasn't had a real race yet Rocket Racing League.
Doesn't that rule out most structural metals during casting?
so THAT'S why rocket videos show strange white stuff flaking off...they get covered with FROST!
7:15 When he said the words "metal flourine fire", the only thing I thought was RUN AWAY. And the author thought so too.
Same
Hi I work on the RL10 and back in the 60-70's Pratt an Whitney did extensive testing using the RL10 with hydrazine and fluorine. On the E-7 test stand (deactivated in 1974 torn down in 1995 still had hydrazine trapped in the 1000 gallon tank found out the hard way) We had a whole Fluorine passivation area to treat the hardware. I was to young but saw many test tapes ran very well but when it blew it did so impressively. They also did Hydrogen and fluorine, and hydrazine and oxygen. Take care.
Do you have any links to digital versions of those tapes anywhere? They sound really interesting!
The most entertaining book on chemistry I’ve ever read. The section on hydrogen peroxide is a real eye-opener for anyone who thinks of this compound as merely the incredibly diluted solution sold in stores as a hair bleach or (somewhat incorrectly) as an antiseptic.
2:50 Liquid Ozone
4:50 Liquid Fluorine
5:55 ClF3
7:30 Li + H + F
8:15 Hg
No more liquids...
Is it just me or is Scott reading excerpts of this in his best kiddies bedtime rocket tales voice?
I don't know if he has kids, but I can imagine after being read aerospace books at bedtime, they will all become scientists or engineers.
Ordered the book in Feb direct from the publisher. Still waiting. :(. It has shipped though. Just turns out the remarkably low shipping price to the other side of the planet may have involved actual ships.
That book sounds like the opposite of "Fly Safe!" :)
There is no “safe” around hypergolic propellants, it’s all relative.
Ignition is a superb book, although I've only read the PDF version--didn't realise they'd reprinted it! Just ordered my copy now (Amazon UK aren't out of stock...).
d2factotum I may have accidently read the free epub version floating around lol
For a *really* nasty propellant, look up "Nuclear salt-water rocket" on Wikipedia...
When I read this, my first thought was: "Could Dr. Strangelove please refrain from inventing stuff when he's *that* drunk...?"
Just checked them out per your recommendation. Absolutely amazing stuff if we can figure it all the way out. The theoretical aspects are fascinating and the numbers produced are staggering.
ANY test need to be conducted no closer to the Earth that on the Moon. The location need to be chosen so that the exhaust is directed well away from the Earth and ANY satellite or active space station.
@@Kualinar I call it the "don't point it at my planet" engine. I do love the combination of thrust and ISP it delivers though.
My favorite line is “In many ways NSWRs combine the advantages of fission reactors and fission bombs”. Super cool stuff
I wonder if the book mentions the various types of nuclear rockets. Nuclear pulse propulsion, where you use nuclear bombs behind a pusher plate, would actually be fairly safe "fuels" to handle in the sense that the bomb devices would be hard to accidentally detonate. Nuclear thermal rockets like NERVA are a different story; once the reactor has gone critical the fuel becomes pretty lethal stuff to be around. My favorite has to be the nuclear salt water rocket, which uses an open cycle liquid fuel core. The liquid is basically water with uranium or plutonium salts dissolved in it, which are injected into a reaction chamber and mixed to become supercritical, heating the water to steam and blowing it out the nozzle as reaction mass, along with all the fission products. High Isp and high thrust, it's almost a torch drive but using it in atmosphere would be unconscionable, since it's basically a giant flying Chernobyl disaster.
I guess robots could use for aerospace vehicles and rockets, like, when AI will rebel against humans. They can cut expenses on concentration camps that way.
IIRC only very tangentially as something that might eventually make chemical propellants obsolete, at least when you are already in orbit.
Lovely.
Oh come on, it's the equivalent of a chest X-ray
As far as I remember nuclear salt water rocket engines are more like taking the most powerfull milisecond of Chernobyl, multply that my 64 if I remember correctly, and then just have that running for a few minutes instead of a milisecond.
chubbyemu has a good youtube video of that dimethylmercury incident you spoke of.
ua-cam.com/video/NJ7M01jV058/v-deo.html for those too lazy to search it out, and it is a great, albeit somber, video.
argh, the coma part is horrifying
They're ususaly a bit happier
Great watch, that is.
My computer monitor and I are happy that I wasn't drinking when Scott first mentioned dimethylmercury as a rocket fuel.
"its like hunter s thompson but with a completely different kind of chemistry" XD
What could be worse than mercury paint? Mercury rocket fuel!
How about crush mercury temprometers as teenager on the floor and not able to clean in it up from the synthetic carpet that cover the whole bedroom -I lived there 10 years .I guess this why im wierd ,( i slighty remember this happened twice ) ; Next malfuntion as teenager -My father ( dead by now) found a a discharged pot of selfglowing yellow green power on a local city dump,, physorus ? used to make signs glow i belive -some of it ended up on same carpet - a lot ...
"Hypergolic with cloth, wood, and test engineers ..." cracked me up.
Hah, I got hold of a digital copy some years ago. Excellent book.
My favourite bit is probably the reaction test where two tiny droplets were placed on a watch glass and allowed to touch, and the reaction reduced the watch glass to powder. Talk about high explosive...
One of my favourite bits is when Clark happened to notice a particular lab sample (some exotic nitrate or other) turning brown rather rapidly, with just enough time to yell "everybody get down!" before the beaker exploded and shot across the top of table they were all sitting around.
Awesome book!
Interesting fact that the really vicious stuff tends not to be the fuel, but instead the oxidiser.
I am distracted by your escape-towerless Saturn V
Chris Hunter They actually made at least one of those. The crew didn't survive a dry test, that the LES couldn't have saved them from.
If you're talking about Apollo 1 (and you must be, there wasn't any other such disaster), they were going to fly on Stautn I, not Saturn V (and no, not Saturn IB either). still, there were two unmanned test flights of Saturn V before Apollo 8, and of course last ever flight of Saturn V launched Skylab, but this one used shroud with the same diameter as the 3d stage (which Was the Skylab, converted from SIVB third stage, and not actually a rocket stage BTW)
I think the CM and escape tower are sitting on the shelf in front of the rocket.
also, Apollo 1 did have an escape tower, which was a problem during the disaster because they were worried that it might get set off by the heat and flames and make an even bigger disaster.
I worked in the semiconductor industry as a technician. We used hydrofluoric acid in several processes. It is seriously nasty stuff, we used to have first aid drills SPECIFICALLY for hydrofluoric acid. We were told a palm print sized exposure was fatal. Every first aid kit in the whole 40 football pitch sized factory had calcium cream for hydrofluoric acid exposure.
> one drop of dimethylmercury kills scientist
"hey there ol pal could you make me 100 lbs and send it through the mail?"
When you said liquid ozone, I visibly cringed at the thought.
Edit; I spoke too soon, liquid fluorine made me audibly cringe.
Yup. I beat Scott to the punch with "Uhhh, Hydroflouric acid, anyone?"
@chris younts And most often industrial application have water curtains in case of a release of HF.
Its the only way to combat a spill, dilute it.
6:00 "Putting more fluorine into the system" isn't the full story. Teflon, PFTE, has lots of fluorine, but makes for a horribly bad rocket fuel (even though it would allow the rocket to slide to the launch pad really easily...).
No, what does matter is the reactivity of the fluorine. Fluorine itself tries very VERY hard to get an additional electron. And it is reactive exactly when it doesn't have one. Like in F2, where both fluorine atoms hold on to their electrons with the same strength, and in ClF3, where the central chlorine can hold on to its electrons pretty well too, making the Cl-F bonds tentative at best.
On the other hand, if you have fluorine in a compound in which it has sated its hunger for an eighth electron, like in HF or in PTFE, it's fairly docile stuff actually, because you have to invest huge amounts of energy to get it away from that extra electron it has managed to grab...
Yes, THX much for that clarification.
My grandfather illustrated reactivity by explaining salt. Chlorine gas is corrosive, toxic, and acidic, and Sodium reacts violently with oxygen. But Sodium Chloride is one of the most ubiquitous and useful substances on the planet (below water, oxygen, chlorophyll, hemoglobin, and DNA).
Actually, PTFE makes a pretty decent oxidizer. It's used in a thermite-like composition with magnesium to make flares and pyrotechnic igniters for solid rockets.
www.vti.mod.gov.rs/ntp/rad2009/1-09/bosk/bosk.pdf
HF is hardly "docile stuff". It dissolves human tissue from the inside out.
With my (extremely limited) knowledge of chemistry:
"Oh god, FLUORINE?! Are you INSANE?"
And then he gets around to talking about fluorine combined with chlorine... A chemical so aggressive that the German chemical weapons program discontinued their study in it because they realized that it could never be transported. Should a passing airstrike happen any containment vessel with chlorine trifluoride would simply delete anything that the bomber had missed.
I'll see your flourine and raise you dimethyl mercury... 😵😵😵
Let's add the famous quote from Isaac Asimov's foreword (I've seen a part of it on doors at the ESTEC ESA center in Holland):
"Now, it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of far-out insanity.
There are, after all, some chemicals that explode shatteringly, some that flame ravenously, some that corrode hellishly, some that poison sneakily, and some that stink stenchily. As far as I know, though, only liquid rocket fuels have all these delightful properties combined into one delectable whole."
Now count how many of those properties are found in the classic ethanol-water based fuel?
Can you talk about aerospike engines? Curious droid did an excellent piece. I'd like to see what would change if it had to be widely adopted.
Seconded! The CD video was very well presented, but I'd also like to hear Scott's opinion on the technology from a real-world, not Kerbal, perspective (although he's undoubtedly chatted about them before during livestreams etc.)
Who wants a audio book or something on this channel where Scott reads this book and explains the more advanced stuff. Because I really wand that
Reprinted ? My word, I have ordered it immediately! Ignition! is the best chemistry book I've read during my lifetime (on par with Gergel's "Excuse me sir, would you like to buy a kilo of isopropyl bromide ?")
Fifteen hundred comments so far. Enjoying reading some of them. For two years, 1965-67, I was a chemist at the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base. Worked with much more dangerous chemicals than you mentioned. Shock sensitive explosives, and toxins like beryllium fluoride. One chemist, a Major, became incapacitated and had to retire.
Two years were also spent contributing to the Skunkworks, 1963-65. That’s another story.
Derek Lowe, in his series on "things I won't work with", mentioned one compound that was sensitive to air movement (as in breathing on it) and would proceed to explode.
I always remember the dimethylmercury bit, its a potent reminder that what someone is asking for and what they want are two different potentially life saving things
In my old textbook, the example for that lesson was someone accidentally buying oxalic acid for a rhubarb dish, instead of the substance marketed as "anti-oxalic acid" back in the day.
In customer service, you always have to balance "Give people what they want" and "Give people what they actually need"...
1k likes and 0 dislikes? HECK YEAH!
My thermo/gas dynamics and propulsion professor in the early '90s at Ohio State was Rudolph Edse, an honest-to-God German rocket scientist. While doing some background research in grad school, I found some reports he wrote in the '50s and '60s describing hilariously dangerous rocket fuel experiments that his research group at OSU did. IIRC, they did a couple tests of a hydrogen/fluorine fueled rocket engine in an empty lot across the river from campus before somebody asked them if they could please stop killing the grass...
well, the main advantage of ozone would be more energy density - because it is unstable - when burning a fuel on ozone you'd essentially get energy from the ozone decomposing to oxygen AND from the fuel burning with that oxygen thus potetially higher specific impulses - and yes, its also denser and thus takes up less space but hte necessities for storing it are impracitcal and yes - its also incredibly unsafe - there's a reason most of our atmosphere contains oxygen rather then ozone
4:44 : "I'm not one of them."
Neither am I. There's no way to eliminate the possibility of spontaneous decomposition.
Ever seen hyperboiling water? Same principle.
A nice bonus of ozone is that your rocket exhaust would smell of flowers.
Nukes. The most dangerous rocket fuel
But it has never been tested as a "fuel".
Napishtim except that one time when a test stolle lid was blown away at a considerable percent of c
Project Orion FTW.
I'm not sure. Some of these fuels sound way more nasty than nuclear radiation :D
Ted Archer
Hmmm. If you consider that as a “rocket fuel” then you might have to consider all explosives used to propel ballistic projectiles at a significant speed.
Unless you define “rocket” in a more casual way like “something used to get near space”. In that case, the “nuclear manhole cover” might be the only ballistic projectile that counts.
Another problem with liquid ozone / oxygen mixture is the tendency for ozone to separate out due to its higher density. One then obtains nearly pure liquid ozone at the bottom yielding a large KABOOM.
Rocket fuel has to be reactive but not too reactive :-)
My copy of the book should arrive in early July.
It doesn't get much more reactive than Project Orion.
I'm reading the book now. Damn, they tested a lot of crazy stuff!
The channel "Today i found out" has put it best with their title:
*_The "Nope" Chemical That is Chlorine Trifluoride_*
Lets face it, the Kerbal's would just say "What's the worst that can happen?"
@@anarchyantz1564 "We lose more Kerbals that way" ;)
_It's sodium chloride_
If you want *_”nope”_* in a different meaning, try azidoazide azide, which literally cannot stand existing
That's the sexiest video title i've seen in years, and i kinda live on youtube so this says somethin
Safety Time Machine Key Points
1. Automatic door lock.
2. Goes invisible.
3. Moves objects out of the way.
4. Can stand extreme weather.
5. Has solar panels.
6. Has camera/TV inside so the time travellers can only observe history.
7. Has rocket fuel.
8. Rocket fuel fades extremely fast in the sky.
9. Automatic probability control so history doesn't change on it's own.
10. Uses wormholes to time travel.
Sounds like Werner Kerman wrote a book.
I feel ashamed, looks like I finally caved in and bought a product after I saw it on a UA-cam video. Actually the video didn't even finish when the order went out.
"..'reacts with Asbestos..."
All I can say is 'Wow'. :o
I've wanted a copy of that book since I read "Excuse me, sir ..." I'm surprised you omitted the ClF3 spill story, that is one of my favorite anecdotes.
But something more potent than alcohol was needed for the X-15
rocket-driven supersonic research plane. Hydrazine was the first
choice, but it sometimes exploded when used for regenerative cool-
ing, and in 1949, when the program was conceived, there wasn't
enough of it around, anyway. Bob Truax of the Navy, along with
104 Winternitz of Reaction Motors, which was to develop the 50,000
pounds thrust motor, settled on ammonia as a reasonably satisfactory
second best. The oxygen-ammonia combination had been fired by
JPL, but RMI really worked it out in the early 50's. The great stability
of the ammonia molecule made it a tough customer to burn and from
the beginning they were plagued with rough running and combus-
tion instability. All sorts of additives to the fuel were tried in the hope
of alleviating the condition, among them methylamine and acetylene.
Twenty-two percent of the latter gave smooth combustion, but was
dangerously unstable, and the mixture wasn't used long. The com-
bustion problems were eventually cured by improving the injector
design, but it was a long and noisy process. At night, I could hear the
motor being fired, ten miles away over two ranges of hills, and could
tell how far the injector design had progressed, just by the way the
thing sounded. Even when the motor, finally, was running the way it
should, and the first of the series was ready to be shipped to the West
Coast to be test-flown by Scott Crossfield, everybody had his fingers
crossed. Lou Rapp, of RMI, flying across the continent, found him-
self with a knowledgeable seat mate, obviously in the aerospace busi-
ness, who asked him his opinion of the motor. Lou blew up, and de-
clared, with gestures, that it was a mechanical monster, an accident
looking for a place to happen, and that he, personally, considered
that flying with it was merely a somewhat expensive method of sui-
cide.
Then, remembering something he turned to his companion
and asked. "By the way, I didn't get your name. What is it?"
The reply was simple. "Oh, I'm Scott Crossfield."
FortyBot why is your comment typed out like that
Cut&paste quote from the book.
@RayDT correct
That's about as crazy as the story of Jim Henson's first big break.
My late grandpa, Vic Horton, worked for Thiokol's Reaction Motors Division prior to his long NASA career. One of the projects he worked on was the XLR-99 engine for the X-15 and was present during its first successful test firings and throttling demonstrations. Later, after he joined NASA in 1958, he became involved in the actual X-15 flight tests.
I cannot think of anything I want to encounter less than Dimethylmercury.
Hell, any chemical with a name in the format methyl is very likely something that is just waiting for a chance to kill you horribly.
Also, read Ignition! guys. It's amazing.
What about chlorine pentafluoride?
how would mercury work in a rocket? can't google it because everything comes up about project mercury instead
In theory it would densify the propellant, resulting in a lower specific impulse but with the trade-off that you could store more energy inside a given tank volume.
In practice, it would spread really nasty combustion byproducts of dimethylmercury far and wide across the countryside, and lots of people would be dead.
Clark determined that the only vaguely practical use for such a propellant would be in something like an air-to-air missile which has a fairly low ratio of dry mass to fuel tank volume and could get the most benefit from the densified propellant. It would be of no use in an orbital rocket which has to carry a decent payload, the loss of Specific Impulse would be crippling.
Simply injecting Hg into the combustion chamber wouldn't increase the SI because elemental Hg is not very reactive. It would have to be an organo-mercury compound. Triethyl aluminum would work much better and would be much less toxic. Apparently they used that in the hypergolic chamber in the F1's that powered the Saturn V.
what effect did the mercury have on performance, I'd imagine it would cool the exhaust but probably increase mass flow rate, but lower the specific impulse by lowering the kinetic energy of the exhaust products.
I believe the intention was the opposite; to increase thrust/specific impulse by densifying the propellant and therefore INCREASING the velocity of the exhaust gas (while also doing useful things like keeping chamber temps under control, as you mentioned). But it's been a while since I last read the book, so I might have that arse-backwards... don't quote me. ;)
EDIT: Yep, I had it backwards, you were correct. Specific Impulse dropped sharply, but Density Impulse (Isp x Propellant Density) increased significantly to the point where there might have been major performance benefits in applications with a low "tank loading factor" (e.g. air-to-air missiles, which have a fairly low ratio of dry mass:tank volume), if only the stuff wasn't so damn toxic. In any case, it wouldn't have had any major benefits for an orbital launcher with a high mass:volume ratio, where Isp is king.
My (relatively) near-experience with such substances occurred in college, when--for my elective "X experiment" in chemistry--I expressed interest in liberating fluorine. "No, you don't want to liberate fluorine," said my professor. Some years earlier, he related, another student of his had done that, and the experiment was successful--WAY too successful. "Seeing laboratory glassware burning with green flames," he said, "is not something I care to experience again!" When I suggested synthesizing dinitrogen tetroxide as an alternative "X experiment," he smiled at me and muttered something about a death wish (perhaps fortunately, I was unaware of Hydyne at that time)... :-)
Missed out on Hydrogen Peroxide. The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet fighter fueled by it sometimes exploded on takeoff, sometimes exploded on landing, and sometimes just exploded.
There’s a whole chapter in peroxide. It’s not that dangerous compared to this stuff.
It's a testament to just how dangerous "this stuff" is, that 90% High Test Peroxide was considered to be fairly benign by comparison. :)
sixstringedthing I recall a local rocket enthusiast having his own miniature H2O2 refinery. He's safely behind bars now.
John Francis Doe An important question here is, was he arrested before or after the explosive risk to innocent life detonated in inevitable fashion? Hopefully "before"?
@@scottmanley I liked the part on using boron in rocket fuels. On paper it seems ideal because it's heavy. In practice boron compounds proved to be impossible to make work because they left tarry deposits everywhere inside the test engines. The worst part was how the deposits would build up in the nozzle throat, despite the high velocity hot gas flowing through, building up until choking the combustion chamber down to the point where the pressure would make it explode if the fuel supply wasn't cut off.
Has me wondering if there are any newer alloys or surface treatments that would be non-stick to boron compound combustion byproducts - in the hot inside of a rocket engine. Or might there be newer chemistry knowledge that could keep a boron compound fuel from producing those sticky byproducts?
I misread the title as "Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever TASTED." Great video, regardless of my imagined craziness.
Great vídeo!
"I asked them if they'd make 100 lbs of dimethylmercury and ship it to me."
😳
I moved a solid 18 inches further away from my phone screen
SO
MUCH
NOPE
The dislikes are from rattle snakes.
Rattle snakes? Like the animal? No. Just snakes :)
Did he just say " ...TEST ENGINEERS"!?!?
Great review of a very interesting book. I've always had a fascination with the darker side of chemistry (from my love of true crime) and I've heard of the lethality of some of these compounds before. I didn't realise there is such crossover in uses haha!!!
If you ever can get ahold of it, there is a book which is long out of print titled, "Some Birds Don't Fly" by Gary Paulsen. It was published in 1968, and is filled with hilarious accounts of early engineering and testing of rockets and missiles.
The moment I heard the words "Chlorine trifluoride" produced an audible whimper from me. Not enough NOPE in the world...
30 tons of potatoes to make the ethanol to fuel one V2 rocket. 60,000 lbs of food to deliver 2000 lbs of explosives on an impact explosion. Might as well have built a trebuchet to throw gold bars!
This is really cool cause I just did a end of the year project on RP-1 fuel used in Space X and the chemistry behind it.
"Organic mercury is't that bad, only two chemists died while working with it in a lab and one of those didn't follow proper safety procedure"
-my organic chem professor, paraphrased
Alrighty then... so who's gonna make the KSP "Ignition" mod?
Do I have to go and learn the Kerbal mod API or what?
I'd love to see the Kerbal's faces when they get the CTF fuel rocket.
@@tog3334 lol missed reply back then, sitting here building a ridiculous robotic KSP contraption as we speak. I might just have to follow through on this and get KSP-UA-camr-Famous or some shit. 😉
Ah, the guys at Eastman Kodak...I think at one point they even accidentally discovered the fact that there was the first ever nuclear explosion....because the wood that was eventually made into paper and cardboard packaging for films was slightly radioactive from the Trinity explosion‘s fallout. That in turn ruined a bunch of film.