thermal, you launch the reactor fuel piecemeal in Soyuz or Dragon capsules with a man-rated launch escape system, then fuel the reactor once itâs in orbit. No, nuclear-thermal is fine. Not very efficient, but itâs not going to kill anyone. If you want efficient propulsion technology, youâve got to look elsewhere. But unfortunately the best rocket tech we know of is far too dangerous to use.â
âHow dangerous?â
Jim winked at me. âLet me introduce you to Leonard,â he said as we drifted toward the poolside cocktail bar. âHeâll fill you in on itâ¦â
Leonard Hansenânot his real nameâis a tanned seventy-something rocket scientist who spent the 1950s in California and New Mexico, as a graduate student researching rocket fuels under John D. Clark and then as a fuels scientist working on various missile programs. Today he lives in semiretirement in Florida, but he retains a keen interest in the field of rocket fuel design.
âWhat you need to understand is that in order to go faster, you need to increase the exhaust velocity,â he explained. âYou can do this by making it much hotter, or by using lighter exhaust particles. If you want to make it hotter, however, you need to pump more energy into it. So if youâre using chemical rockets, you need to use very energetic reagentsâfuel and oxidizer.â
He paused for a mouthful of lime margarita. âTake the space shuttle,â he said wistfully. âWith just two tweaks, we could have put a hundred tons into its payload bay!â
âTwo tweaks?â I asked doubtfully. A hundred-ton payload (in a vehicle already massing close to a hundred tons) would have put the shuttle in the same bracket as the Saturn V.
âYes.â He smiled sourly. âThey could have stretched it, given it a bigger thermal protection system as wellâthe Columbia disaster wouldnât have happened. But they rejected my proposal. The first part, to upgrade the SRBs, would have been trivially easy! Although the alternate oxidizer for the space shuttle main engines would have presented certain handling difficulties, that much is trueâ¦â
âTell him about the SRBs first,â Jim suggested. He leaned forward expectantly; at a guess, heâd heard this before.
âAll right. First, the solid rocket boosters. Regular SRBs run on a mixture of ammonium perchlorateâthe oxidizerâand finely powdered aluminum, suspended in a rubbery polymer that holds everything together and provides additional reaction mass. When they ignite you get aluminum oxide and ammonium chloride and lots of energy. But itâs not really enough! We could make them about twenty percent more efficient if we just replaced the aluminum with powdered beryllium. Itâs a lighter atom and the redox reaction is more energeticââ
âHang on!â I stared at him. âBeryllium is really poisonous. Wouldnât thatââ
Leonard shook his head. âNonsense.â A small smile. âYou see, then there was my second proposal. If you replace the oxidizer in the space shuttle main engines with liquid fluorine, you could also get an extra twenty percent out of them. And I know what youâre going to say next: wouldnât that give rise to an exhaust plume of extremely hot hydrofluoric acid? Youâre absolutely right: it would! But hydrofluoric acid reacts with beryllium oxide to give you beryllium fluorideâwhich is almost inert in comparisonâand hydrochloric acid, which is neither here nor there.â A shadow crossed his face. âItâs totally safe, compared to some of the other projects Iâve worked on. But NASA took one look at the environmental impact statement and, andâ¦â His shoulders began to shake; whether with laughter or tears, I couldnât tell.
Now, I have a background in chemistry. And I think I should explain at this point that