The book was out of print for a while, and this PDF was the only way to,read it for less than $400. But now it's back in print for $17: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0813595835/ Basically the same content, highly worth reading in either format.
He addresses the calamity that engineers don't read several times in the book - formulations are attempted a few years after someone proved it didn't work. Makes me wonder if a similar approach wouldn't be advisable in programming...
My favorite quote from Ignition is this description of Chlorine Trifluoride (CTF):
It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that’s the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.
I've forgotten the reference but read an engineer mention they tried stainless steel tanks for some application. And they all developed pin hole leaks from pit corrosion in less time than it took a plain steel tank to rust through.
Also a suspended concrete ceiling above a swimming pool that fell into the pool, thankfully at night when it was closed. The designer thought stainless tiebars wouldn't rust in the humid environment above the pool. They didn't. They developed chlorine mediated stress crack corrosion.
Me every time I've seen someone naive deal with a materials problem it's been sadness and tears.
> "A fluorine-aluminum fire is something to see - from a safe distance"
When I was about 11, I first got some sodium. OK, so throwing sodium in water was dramatic. Then I did a crude hack to remotely drop it in warm concentrated nitric acid.
An amazing read which makes Kerbal Space Program look like a documentary based on real life events. See also: Things I Won’t Work With [0] series by Derek Lowe, another long time HN favorite on dangerous chemistry.
I’d like to throw out a mention for a book that takes one of the topics from Ignition! and covers it in depth. The Green Flamehttps://www.amazon.com/Green-Flame-Andrew-Dequasie-ebook/dp/... is a book about the Borane fuels project, which is covered briefly in the chapter of Ignition! on exotic fuels, and will probably be a worthwhile read for anyone who loves Ignition!.
The introduction is by Isaac Asimov (!), who says that John Clark was a great science fiction writer, who, when he stopped writing, allowed lesser authors like Asimov (!!!) to come to prominence. An amazing (and amazingly gracious) statement.
The full title has a bang (!) in it, pun most assuredly intended. One of my favorite books about science of all time, and don't miss the author of the forward.
Yes, the bang was there when I submitted it, removed by the submission process, and so I edited the title to put it back. The title as I eventually submitted it was:
IGNITION! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants by John D. Clark
Aaaand it's still "one of the best technical books ever written."
Anyone marginally interested in the periodic table of the elements or rockets needs to read this.
"if you, gentle reader, have never seen a nervous rocket mechanic, complete with monkey suit, being buzzed by nine thousand demented bats and trying to beat them off with a shovel, there is something missing from your experience. "
Think about it this way: are cells in the business of needing the maximum amount of energy per volume / weight, at the expense of explosive instability?
Or would the be better off making a trade off for less efficient performance in exchange for more stability and biocompatibility?
biochemical compounds suffer from all sorts of annoying limitations which stem from being made by a living creature (such as not turning aforementioned living creature into a cloud of steam.)
Yes, you can, much better in fact. ATP makes sense in the specific context of the inside of cells, but it doesn't compare to e.g. methane + liquid oxygen in terms of cost or performance.
Ignition! devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 7) to the topic of propellant performance.
One crucial point is that you are aiming for as high an exhaust velocity as possible, and that means that all else being equal you want exhaust products with both a high heat of formation and low molecular weight. It's not just about the energy balance (not that ATP is particularly outstanding on that measure anyway).
ATP is closer to a battery than a fuel. Most enzymes use an ATP->ADP+P step to deliver energy, so the respiration process in the mitochondria produces ATP from ADP+P. The actual biological fuel is glucose, and the oxidation of glucose in successive stages is turned into usable energy.
I briefly remember April Fools article about using pure adrenaline as a rocket fuel. Comparative tests suggested it's so potent, that just the amount of adrenaline produced by astronauts during launch could lift whole rocket 4m off the ground.
He addresses the calamity that engineers don't read several times in the book - formulations are attempted a few years after someone proved it didn't work. Makes me wonder if a similar approach wouldn't be advisable in programming...