From: LFLekx@NOSPAM.rogers.com.retro.com   
      
   On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:31:45 GMT, "redneckj"   
    wrote:   
      
   >>    Only run some numbers on thrust, fuel-consumption, and Delta-V thus   
   >Suggest you consider some drop F1 class engines feeding off of the ET   
   > rather than SRBs. Might be a bit cheaper and safer while still boosting   
   > the available V.   
      
      When I started out this idea, I had in mind as few modifications to   
   the ET as possible... no extra feed-lines, etc., just the ability to   
   get rid of the insulation.   
      
      Now... I'm starting to think in terms of a flyback booster with a   
   three- or four-minute burn time.  Drop the size of the 'main' tank so   
   that it can be integrated into the orbiters' body.   
      
      Back to fuels... I was leafing through my copy of Rocket Propulsion   
   Elements the other night, and came up with references to nitroethane   
   and nitromethane.  Their density figures looked pretty good, they're   
   liquid at room-temperature, so storage wouldn't be a problem, and   
   (judging from my propcalc runs...) performance is slightly better than   
   kerosene.  I got to wondering why they weren't used in motors - are   
   they tough to manufacture, or toxic, or difficult to obtain, or   
   something else...?  Anyone?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)