Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tankWhy did it take so long for methane to be used as a rocket propellant?Final conclusion/description of the cause of the SpaceX Sept. 1, 2016 anomaly? What's a “buckle”?Why doesn't carbon fiber overwrapping in LOX catch fire? (watch this video first)How much fuel would one need to launch a 1kg object from 100,000 feet?In a cryogenic fuel rocket, at what pressure is the fuel injected into the engine?How long is it feasible to store cryogenic fuels?How are fuel tanks filled with cryogenic hydrogen?How did the Space Shuttle keep its cryogenic fuel cold?Pros and Cons of LH2/LOX vs Other FuelsManufacturing H2 and O2 rocket fuel components?Why is one of these two concurrent fuel-dump spirals blue?Safety regulations for storing, handling, and using rocket fuels?What methods are proposed for storing cryogenic fuels (esp. hydrogen) in space for months or years?

What is going on with 'gets(stdin)' on the site coderbyte?

How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character

Lowest total scrabble score

A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?

When were female captains banned from Starfleet?

Calculating total slots

Picking the different solutions to the time independent Schrodinger eqaution

Does malloc reserve more space while allocating memory?

Why "had" in "[something] we would have made had we used [something]"?

Why is it that I can sometimes guess the next note?

Is aluminum electrical wire used on aircraft?

Can a College of Swords bard use a Blade Flourish option on an opportunity attack provoked by their own Dissonant Whispers spell?

How do apertures which seem too large to physically fit work?

Does the Linux kernel need a file system to run?

Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?

I'm the sea and the sun

Do the primes contain an infinite almost arithmetic progression?

Store Credit Card Information in Password Manager?

Multiplicative persistence

Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?

Yosemite Fire Rings - What to Expect?

Sums of entire surjective functions

Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?

How to cover method return statement in Apex Class?



Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank


Why did it take so long for methane to be used as a rocket propellant?Final conclusion/description of the cause of the SpaceX Sept. 1, 2016 anomaly? What's a “buckle”?Why doesn't carbon fiber overwrapping in LOX catch fire? (watch this video first)How much fuel would one need to launch a 1kg object from 100,000 feet?In a cryogenic fuel rocket, at what pressure is the fuel injected into the engine?How long is it feasible to store cryogenic fuels?How are fuel tanks filled with cryogenic hydrogen?How did the Space Shuttle keep its cryogenic fuel cold?Pros and Cons of LH2/LOX vs Other FuelsManufacturing H2 and O2 rocket fuel components?Why is one of these two concurrent fuel-dump spirals blue?Safety regulations for storing, handling, and using rocket fuels?What methods are proposed for storing cryogenic fuels (esp. hydrogen) in space for months or years?













16












$begingroup$


A methalox engine is fed from two cryogenic fuel tanks. Why can't the methane and oxygen be mixed as gases, in the desired proportions, and then chilled to a temp that liquefies both? From a single tank a single turbo pump could then feed this into the combustion chamber (part of flow going thru the nozzle cooling channels). Yes, a bit of same mix would be tapped off to power the turbo pump.



Saves the weight of tank bulkheads, separate plumbing, reduces turbo pump complexities. Must be a reason or the rocket scientists would already be doing this, but would like to know what it is.



Edit: Thank you to all who answered. Even the imperfect answers helped, as the comments helped me work through the whys and wherefores. I did know a methalox mixture, if it could exist, would be highly dangerous, but unsure how dangerous compared to a failure/fire of one tank causing the other tank to rupture, mixing the two. Even I can now see why the rocket scientists got it right.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    But what if there is no temperature were both oxygen and methane are liquid? You may look for melting and boiling points of both methane and oxygen in wikipedia.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?; you may want to keep an eye on it.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't the pre-mixing of fuels - solid ones in this case - exactly what was done with the Shuttle solid rocket boosters? Even the components of that solid propellant aren't exactly safe: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    23 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wow. NASA of all people actually looked into this!
    $endgroup$
    – slebetman
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    14 hours ago















16












$begingroup$


A methalox engine is fed from two cryogenic fuel tanks. Why can't the methane and oxygen be mixed as gases, in the desired proportions, and then chilled to a temp that liquefies both? From a single tank a single turbo pump could then feed this into the combustion chamber (part of flow going thru the nozzle cooling channels). Yes, a bit of same mix would be tapped off to power the turbo pump.



Saves the weight of tank bulkheads, separate plumbing, reduces turbo pump complexities. Must be a reason or the rocket scientists would already be doing this, but would like to know what it is.



Edit: Thank you to all who answered. Even the imperfect answers helped, as the comments helped me work through the whys and wherefores. I did know a methalox mixture, if it could exist, would be highly dangerous, but unsure how dangerous compared to a failure/fire of one tank causing the other tank to rupture, mixing the two. Even I can now see why the rocket scientists got it right.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    But what if there is no temperature were both oxygen and methane are liquid? You may look for melting and boiling points of both methane and oxygen in wikipedia.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?; you may want to keep an eye on it.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't the pre-mixing of fuels - solid ones in this case - exactly what was done with the Shuttle solid rocket boosters? Even the components of that solid propellant aren't exactly safe: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    23 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wow. NASA of all people actually looked into this!
    $endgroup$
    – slebetman
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    14 hours ago













16












16








16


2



$begingroup$


A methalox engine is fed from two cryogenic fuel tanks. Why can't the methane and oxygen be mixed as gases, in the desired proportions, and then chilled to a temp that liquefies both? From a single tank a single turbo pump could then feed this into the combustion chamber (part of flow going thru the nozzle cooling channels). Yes, a bit of same mix would be tapped off to power the turbo pump.



Saves the weight of tank bulkheads, separate plumbing, reduces turbo pump complexities. Must be a reason or the rocket scientists would already be doing this, but would like to know what it is.



Edit: Thank you to all who answered. Even the imperfect answers helped, as the comments helped me work through the whys and wherefores. I did know a methalox mixture, if it could exist, would be highly dangerous, but unsure how dangerous compared to a failure/fire of one tank causing the other tank to rupture, mixing the two. Even I can now see why the rocket scientists got it right.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




A methalox engine is fed from two cryogenic fuel tanks. Why can't the methane and oxygen be mixed as gases, in the desired proportions, and then chilled to a temp that liquefies both? From a single tank a single turbo pump could then feed this into the combustion chamber (part of flow going thru the nozzle cooling channels). Yes, a bit of same mix would be tapped off to power the turbo pump.



Saves the weight of tank bulkheads, separate plumbing, reduces turbo pump complexities. Must be a reason or the rocket scientists would already be doing this, but would like to know what it is.



Edit: Thank you to all who answered. Even the imperfect answers helped, as the comments helped me work through the whys and wherefores. I did know a methalox mixture, if it could exist, would be highly dangerous, but unsure how dangerous compared to a failure/fire of one tank causing the other tank to rupture, mixing the two. Even I can now see why the rocket scientists got it right.







fuel






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







SpaceInMyHead

















asked yesterday









SpaceInMyHeadSpaceInMyHead

16329




16329







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    But what if there is no temperature were both oxygen and methane are liquid? You may look for melting and boiling points of both methane and oxygen in wikipedia.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?; you may want to keep an eye on it.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't the pre-mixing of fuels - solid ones in this case - exactly what was done with the Shuttle solid rocket boosters? Even the components of that solid propellant aren't exactly safe: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    23 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wow. NASA of all people actually looked into this!
    $endgroup$
    – slebetman
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    14 hours ago












  • 5




    $begingroup$
    But what if there is no temperature were both oxygen and methane are liquid? You may look for melting and boiling points of both methane and oxygen in wikipedia.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?; you may want to keep an eye on it.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Isn't the pre-mixing of fuels - solid ones in this case - exactly what was done with the Shuttle solid rocket boosters? Even the components of that solid propellant aren't exactly safe: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    23 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wow. NASA of all people actually looked into this!
    $endgroup$
    – slebetman
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    14 hours ago







5




5




$begingroup$
But what if there is no temperature were both oxygen and methane are liquid? You may look for melting and boiling points of both methane and oxygen in wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday




$begingroup$
But what if there is no temperature were both oxygen and methane are liquid? You may look for melting and boiling points of both methane and oxygen in wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?; you may want to keep an eye on it.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday




$begingroup$
I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?; you may want to keep an eye on it.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday












$begingroup$
Isn't the pre-mixing of fuels - solid ones in this case - exactly what was done with the Shuttle solid rocket boosters? Even the components of that solid propellant aren't exactly safe: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
23 hours ago




$begingroup$
Isn't the pre-mixing of fuels - solid ones in this case - exactly what was done with the Shuttle solid rocket boosters? Even the components of that solid propellant aren't exactly safe: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
23 hours ago












$begingroup$
Wow. NASA of all people actually looked into this!
$endgroup$
– slebetman
22 hours ago




$begingroup$
Wow. NASA of all people actually looked into this!
$endgroup$
– slebetman
22 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
$endgroup$
– gwally
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
$endgroup$
– gwally
14 hours ago










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

Urged on at a similar question on Chemistry SE, it seems that the idea of mixing liquid oxygen and liquid methane is an old one. And one that, using some of the answers above, seems to be cloaked in at least some hyperbole.



Of relevance is R.L. Every and J.O. Thieme, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 2(5) 787-789 (1965) titled "Liquid oxygen and liquid methane mixtures as rocket monopropellants". In the introduction the authors note that previous work shows that the liquids are miscible in all proportions above 90K. Their tests show a specific impulse of almost 300 sec, and an exhaust velocity near 6000 fps.



In addition, since "shock sensitivities were reported" in the earlier work, they did some, well, vaguely disturbing experiments (hey, it was the 60's). "Tests were conducted to determine whether violent stirring or agitation, as found in an impeller-type pump, would detonate the mixture", although they didn't have any explosions there. They then went on to quantify the impact sensitivity, dropping a weight onto a stainless steel beaker of different liquid mixtures from increasing heights until an explosion occurred. Impact sensitivities of 20-60 ft-lb were discovered (these experiments were performed with open beakers of the cryogenic liquids, with light from the room shining on them - hence the hyperbole bit). They also looked at adiabatic compression as a cause of explosion and found the liquid oxygen/methane mixtures were safer than some other things like nitromethane (which really isn't that comforting).



So, it would appear that the idea of using the liquid mixture as a monopropellant isn't totally off the wall, but please do it somewhere far from me...






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The Every & Thieme (1965) paper seems likely to be the "article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant" mentioned by John D. Clark in the excerpt quoted by cjm. Nice find!
    $endgroup$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    13 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    +1 for but please do it somewhere far from me... ;-)
    $endgroup$
    – MaxW
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This is the most useful answer yet. And - safer than nitromethane, which is used at many drag race tracks. Especial thanks for winnowing out some incorrect info in some replies.
    $endgroup$
    – SpaceInMyHead
    3 hours ago


















39












$begingroup$

To quote John D. Clark's great book Ignition! (Chapter 11: The Hopeful Monoprops):




If Tannenbaum's mixtures were bad, that proposed at a monopropellant conference in October 1957 by an optimist from Air Products, Inc., was enough to raise the hair on the head of anybody in the propellant business. He suggested that a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid methane would be an extra high-energy monopropellant, and had even worked out the phase diagrams of the system.* How he avoided suicide (the first rule in handling liquid oxygen is that you never, never let it come in contact with a potential fuel) is an interesting question, particularly as JPL later demonstrated that you could make the mixture detonate merely by shining a bright light on it. Nevertheless, ten years later I read an article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant! Apparently junior engineers are allergic to the history of their own business.







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you want to obey that first rule, an engine using liquid oxygen may never be started. The combustion chamber is the place were oxygen must be mixed with fuel.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    yesterday






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    yesterday






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @OrganicMarble, that's not even close to the best quote from that book. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thanks! I was also going to post an answer quoting that exact passage (again), but you saved me the effort. Have a +1.
    $endgroup$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    yesterday



















27












$begingroup$

In addition to what the other answer said, it would take very little provocation for such a situation to turn into a good way to test the blast resistance of nearby facilities.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 20




    $begingroup$
    Put another way: If there exists a tank of premixed liquid CH4 and LOX, I desire to be as far away as physically possible.
    $endgroup$
    – Tristan
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    17 hours ago


















14












$begingroup$

At STP:



  • LOX's boiling point is 90.19 K

  • Methane's freezing point is 90.7 K

This does not a priori prove that a solution of the two can not exist. However it does mean that they can not be handled as liquids at the same temperature, making mixing the two more difficult.



And so I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?



We know that liquid air exists which shows that LOX and LN2 can mix together. But methane is an organic molecules and we know that heavier $textC_n textH_2n+2$ hydrocarbons include oils and waxes don't like to dissolve in non-organic solvents.



The argument against premixing is the danger of ignition due to a spark or tiny localized generation of heat. As @Tristan and @PearsonArtPhoto both mention 1, 2 the SpaceX explosion "fast fire" occurred because of the presence of a combustible material in direct contact with LOX and a localized source of mechanically produced heat. See this answer and note that the situation is discussed at length in Scott Manley's video The Dumbest Mistakes In Space Exploration



Also watch the video below, discussed in more detail in Why doesn't carbon fiber overwrapping in LOX catch fire? (watch this video first)











share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    There are explosives made by mixing liquid oxygen with a fuel see. A mixture of lampblack with liquid oxygen was even stronger than dynamite.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Liquid oxygen and charcoal briquettes was a really popular stupid YouTube trick for a while. So Mythbusters wanted to do a "LOX tanker spills load on asphalt road, boom" item but the small tests where so violent that they couldn't get insurance coverage for the full-scale.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh Just include the links from me into your excellent answer. Here is another one: NASA oxygen safety manual. See page 9-1 or 143: "liquid oxygen spills on pavements such as asphalt have resulted in impact-sensitive conditions that caused explosions from traffic or dropped items." The string explos is found 161 times in this document of 288 pages.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    17 hours ago



















11












$begingroup$

They would stratify.



Think of oil and water.



Liquid oxygen is much denser than liquid hydrogen, with 1.141 g/cm3 for LOX vs. 0.07099 g/cm3 for LH.



Thus, you need to install equipment to ensure proper mixing of the two liquids. This adds not only complexity to an already complex machinery, it also adds weight.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Furthermore at liquid oxygen temperatures, methane is solid. It might be possible to put them both in the liquid phase by using higher pressures, but still sounds like a very bad situation.
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Walsh
    yesterday






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    -1 for several problems. 1) answer is based on the wrong gas to try to make a false point about different densities. 2) answer uses false analogy because oil and water do not mix due to molecular incompatibility (oil is hydrophobic), it's got nothing to do with density, 3) answer forwards false science that density difference is the reason liquids could not mix.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Liquids only stratify if they're immiscible. LOX and methane dissolve in each other; at cold enough temperatures they've got a unity molar fraction so you can dissolve as much of one in the other as you'd like.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Oh, right. So the significantly different densities of ethanol and water are why vodka stratifies into two layers. Now I understa... What was that? Vodka doesn't stratify, you say?
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    17 hours ago


















9












$begingroup$

On the chemical/physical question of whether such a mixture can exist: Yes it can.



There's a NASA report that looks into this: "ON THE SOLUBILITIES AND RATES OF SOLUTION OF GASES IN LIQUID METHANE", Hibbard and Evans, 1968 and concludes that such mixtures are possible.



Starting on page 8:




Figure 5(a) presents the curves for oxygen, argon, carbon monoxide,
and nitrogen. Also shown are the two experimental values for nitrogen.
Agreement is excellent at 99.83K and good at 110.9K. The curves for
these gases show that solubility should decrease with increasing
temperature and the nitrogen data confirm this. This figure shows the
mole fraction solubility of oxygen to be 1.0 at 90K. This means that
oxygen, which has a normal boiling temperature of 90.1K would
continuously condense in, and be miscible in all proportions, with
liquid methane at 90K.
This is confirmed by reference 11 where, in a
study of the solubility of methane in liquid oxygen, it was concluded
that these formed a near-ideal solution at -297 F (90K)




(emphasis added)



Figure 5 is reproduced below. Note how the solubility of oxygen rises rapidly as temperature drops.



Reference 11 mentioned in there is "Hydrocarbon-Oxygen Systems Solubility", McKinley and Wang, 1960 (unfortunately paywalled) which also has interesting discussion of the stability (i.e. presence or absence of a tendency to explode) of various mixtures. That covers, in delightfully calm terms, why such mixtures are not commonly used: "A composition as pictured at point A (n.b. mostly one component) is safe whereas the composition at point B (i.e. rocket fuel) can be exploded".



enter image description here






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    6












    $begingroup$

    For the static fire test of AMOS-6 it is believed that the oxygen and RP1 fuel combined together due to a failed bulkhead. Even a smaller bit of fuel in oxidizer can cause enough of an explosion to start things moving, part of the reaction was with the carbon overwrap and oxygen, which had a small spark and started the larger explosion seen. In your proposed condition, only a small spark is required to cause a large explosion, as seen in the below video.








    Mixing fuel and oxidizer is bad, even the slightest spark will cause it all to go up in flames. Plus there is a lot of things that can be done to optimize the flow for different conditions, flowing more oxidizer or fuel for certain conditions.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
      $endgroup$
      – SpaceInMyHead
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Now imagine that happening orders of magnitude faster due to premixing. It’s essentially a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor of several thousand.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX. The bulkhead failed later, due to the violent reaction between the carbon overwrap + LOX.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Bob Jacobsen, this may be the key! Propose to the Pentagon it can be weaponized, that finding a way to mix and store methalox would produce "a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor several thousand." Mega-funding will ensue. :-) :-)
      $endgroup$
      – SpaceInMyHead
      yesterday










    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "508"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34973%2fpre-mixing-cryogenic-fuels-and-using-only-one-fuel-tank%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    7 Answers
    7






    active

    oldest

    votes








    7 Answers
    7






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    7












    $begingroup$

    Urged on at a similar question on Chemistry SE, it seems that the idea of mixing liquid oxygen and liquid methane is an old one. And one that, using some of the answers above, seems to be cloaked in at least some hyperbole.



    Of relevance is R.L. Every and J.O. Thieme, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 2(5) 787-789 (1965) titled "Liquid oxygen and liquid methane mixtures as rocket monopropellants". In the introduction the authors note that previous work shows that the liquids are miscible in all proportions above 90K. Their tests show a specific impulse of almost 300 sec, and an exhaust velocity near 6000 fps.



    In addition, since "shock sensitivities were reported" in the earlier work, they did some, well, vaguely disturbing experiments (hey, it was the 60's). "Tests were conducted to determine whether violent stirring or agitation, as found in an impeller-type pump, would detonate the mixture", although they didn't have any explosions there. They then went on to quantify the impact sensitivity, dropping a weight onto a stainless steel beaker of different liquid mixtures from increasing heights until an explosion occurred. Impact sensitivities of 20-60 ft-lb were discovered (these experiments were performed with open beakers of the cryogenic liquids, with light from the room shining on them - hence the hyperbole bit). They also looked at adiabatic compression as a cause of explosion and found the liquid oxygen/methane mixtures were safer than some other things like nitromethane (which really isn't that comforting).



    So, it would appear that the idea of using the liquid mixture as a monopropellant isn't totally off the wall, but please do it somewhere far from me...






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      The Every & Thieme (1965) paper seems likely to be the "article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant" mentioned by John D. Clark in the excerpt quoted by cjm. Nice find!
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      13 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      +1 for but please do it somewhere far from me... ;-)
      $endgroup$
      – MaxW
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      This is the most useful answer yet. And - safer than nitromethane, which is used at many drag race tracks. Especial thanks for winnowing out some incorrect info in some replies.
      $endgroup$
      – SpaceInMyHead
      3 hours ago















    7












    $begingroup$

    Urged on at a similar question on Chemistry SE, it seems that the idea of mixing liquid oxygen and liquid methane is an old one. And one that, using some of the answers above, seems to be cloaked in at least some hyperbole.



    Of relevance is R.L. Every and J.O. Thieme, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 2(5) 787-789 (1965) titled "Liquid oxygen and liquid methane mixtures as rocket monopropellants". In the introduction the authors note that previous work shows that the liquids are miscible in all proportions above 90K. Their tests show a specific impulse of almost 300 sec, and an exhaust velocity near 6000 fps.



    In addition, since "shock sensitivities were reported" in the earlier work, they did some, well, vaguely disturbing experiments (hey, it was the 60's). "Tests were conducted to determine whether violent stirring or agitation, as found in an impeller-type pump, would detonate the mixture", although they didn't have any explosions there. They then went on to quantify the impact sensitivity, dropping a weight onto a stainless steel beaker of different liquid mixtures from increasing heights until an explosion occurred. Impact sensitivities of 20-60 ft-lb were discovered (these experiments were performed with open beakers of the cryogenic liquids, with light from the room shining on them - hence the hyperbole bit). They also looked at adiabatic compression as a cause of explosion and found the liquid oxygen/methane mixtures were safer than some other things like nitromethane (which really isn't that comforting).



    So, it would appear that the idea of using the liquid mixture as a monopropellant isn't totally off the wall, but please do it somewhere far from me...






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      The Every & Thieme (1965) paper seems likely to be the "article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant" mentioned by John D. Clark in the excerpt quoted by cjm. Nice find!
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      13 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      +1 for but please do it somewhere far from me... ;-)
      $endgroup$
      – MaxW
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      This is the most useful answer yet. And - safer than nitromethane, which is used at many drag race tracks. Especial thanks for winnowing out some incorrect info in some replies.
      $endgroup$
      – SpaceInMyHead
      3 hours ago













    7












    7








    7





    $begingroup$

    Urged on at a similar question on Chemistry SE, it seems that the idea of mixing liquid oxygen and liquid methane is an old one. And one that, using some of the answers above, seems to be cloaked in at least some hyperbole.



    Of relevance is R.L. Every and J.O. Thieme, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 2(5) 787-789 (1965) titled "Liquid oxygen and liquid methane mixtures as rocket monopropellants". In the introduction the authors note that previous work shows that the liquids are miscible in all proportions above 90K. Their tests show a specific impulse of almost 300 sec, and an exhaust velocity near 6000 fps.



    In addition, since "shock sensitivities were reported" in the earlier work, they did some, well, vaguely disturbing experiments (hey, it was the 60's). "Tests were conducted to determine whether violent stirring or agitation, as found in an impeller-type pump, would detonate the mixture", although they didn't have any explosions there. They then went on to quantify the impact sensitivity, dropping a weight onto a stainless steel beaker of different liquid mixtures from increasing heights until an explosion occurred. Impact sensitivities of 20-60 ft-lb were discovered (these experiments were performed with open beakers of the cryogenic liquids, with light from the room shining on them - hence the hyperbole bit). They also looked at adiabatic compression as a cause of explosion and found the liquid oxygen/methane mixtures were safer than some other things like nitromethane (which really isn't that comforting).



    So, it would appear that the idea of using the liquid mixture as a monopropellant isn't totally off the wall, but please do it somewhere far from me...






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$



    Urged on at a similar question on Chemistry SE, it seems that the idea of mixing liquid oxygen and liquid methane is an old one. And one that, using some of the answers above, seems to be cloaked in at least some hyperbole.



    Of relevance is R.L. Every and J.O. Thieme, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 2(5) 787-789 (1965) titled "Liquid oxygen and liquid methane mixtures as rocket monopropellants". In the introduction the authors note that previous work shows that the liquids are miscible in all proportions above 90K. Their tests show a specific impulse of almost 300 sec, and an exhaust velocity near 6000 fps.



    In addition, since "shock sensitivities were reported" in the earlier work, they did some, well, vaguely disturbing experiments (hey, it was the 60's). "Tests were conducted to determine whether violent stirring or agitation, as found in an impeller-type pump, would detonate the mixture", although they didn't have any explosions there. They then went on to quantify the impact sensitivity, dropping a weight onto a stainless steel beaker of different liquid mixtures from increasing heights until an explosion occurred. Impact sensitivities of 20-60 ft-lb were discovered (these experiments were performed with open beakers of the cryogenic liquids, with light from the room shining on them - hence the hyperbole bit). They also looked at adiabatic compression as a cause of explosion and found the liquid oxygen/methane mixtures were safer than some other things like nitromethane (which really isn't that comforting).



    So, it would appear that the idea of using the liquid mixture as a monopropellant isn't totally off the wall, but please do it somewhere far from me...







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    New contributor




    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered 15 hours ago









    Jon CusterJon Custer

    1864




    1864




    New contributor




    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Jon Custer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.











    • $begingroup$
      The Every & Thieme (1965) paper seems likely to be the "article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant" mentioned by John D. Clark in the excerpt quoted by cjm. Nice find!
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      13 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      +1 for but please do it somewhere far from me... ;-)
      $endgroup$
      – MaxW
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      This is the most useful answer yet. And - safer than nitromethane, which is used at many drag race tracks. Especial thanks for winnowing out some incorrect info in some replies.
      $endgroup$
      – SpaceInMyHead
      3 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      The Every & Thieme (1965) paper seems likely to be the "article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant" mentioned by John D. Clark in the excerpt quoted by cjm. Nice find!
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      13 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      +1 for but please do it somewhere far from me... ;-)
      $endgroup$
      – MaxW
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      This is the most useful answer yet. And - safer than nitromethane, which is used at many drag race tracks. Especial thanks for winnowing out some incorrect info in some replies.
      $endgroup$
      – SpaceInMyHead
      3 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    The Every & Thieme (1965) paper seems likely to be the "article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant" mentioned by John D. Clark in the excerpt quoted by cjm. Nice find!
    $endgroup$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    13 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    The Every & Thieme (1965) paper seems likely to be the "article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant" mentioned by John D. Clark in the excerpt quoted by cjm. Nice find!
    $endgroup$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    13 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    +1 for but please do it somewhere far from me... ;-)
    $endgroup$
    – MaxW
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    +1 for but please do it somewhere far from me... ;-)
    $endgroup$
    – MaxW
    7 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    This is the most useful answer yet. And - safer than nitromethane, which is used at many drag race tracks. Especial thanks for winnowing out some incorrect info in some replies.
    $endgroup$
    – SpaceInMyHead
    3 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    This is the most useful answer yet. And - safer than nitromethane, which is used at many drag race tracks. Especial thanks for winnowing out some incorrect info in some replies.
    $endgroup$
    – SpaceInMyHead
    3 hours ago











    39












    $begingroup$

    To quote John D. Clark's great book Ignition! (Chapter 11: The Hopeful Monoprops):




    If Tannenbaum's mixtures were bad, that proposed at a monopropellant conference in October 1957 by an optimist from Air Products, Inc., was enough to raise the hair on the head of anybody in the propellant business. He suggested that a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid methane would be an extra high-energy monopropellant, and had even worked out the phase diagrams of the system.* How he avoided suicide (the first rule in handling liquid oxygen is that you never, never let it come in contact with a potential fuel) is an interesting question, particularly as JPL later demonstrated that you could make the mixture detonate merely by shining a bright light on it. Nevertheless, ten years later I read an article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant! Apparently junior engineers are allergic to the history of their own business.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you want to obey that first rule, an engine using liquid oxygen may never be started. The combustion chamber is the place were oxygen must be mixed with fuel.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @OrganicMarble, that's not even close to the best quote from that book. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! I was also going to post an answer quoting that exact passage (again), but you saved me the effort. Have a +1.
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      yesterday
















    39












    $begingroup$

    To quote John D. Clark's great book Ignition! (Chapter 11: The Hopeful Monoprops):




    If Tannenbaum's mixtures were bad, that proposed at a monopropellant conference in October 1957 by an optimist from Air Products, Inc., was enough to raise the hair on the head of anybody in the propellant business. He suggested that a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid methane would be an extra high-energy monopropellant, and had even worked out the phase diagrams of the system.* How he avoided suicide (the first rule in handling liquid oxygen is that you never, never let it come in contact with a potential fuel) is an interesting question, particularly as JPL later demonstrated that you could make the mixture detonate merely by shining a bright light on it. Nevertheless, ten years later I read an article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant! Apparently junior engineers are allergic to the history of their own business.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you want to obey that first rule, an engine using liquid oxygen may never be started. The combustion chamber is the place were oxygen must be mixed with fuel.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @OrganicMarble, that's not even close to the best quote from that book. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! I was also going to post an answer quoting that exact passage (again), but you saved me the effort. Have a +1.
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      yesterday














    39












    39








    39





    $begingroup$

    To quote John D. Clark's great book Ignition! (Chapter 11: The Hopeful Monoprops):




    If Tannenbaum's mixtures were bad, that proposed at a monopropellant conference in October 1957 by an optimist from Air Products, Inc., was enough to raise the hair on the head of anybody in the propellant business. He suggested that a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid methane would be an extra high-energy monopropellant, and had even worked out the phase diagrams of the system.* How he avoided suicide (the first rule in handling liquid oxygen is that you never, never let it come in contact with a potential fuel) is an interesting question, particularly as JPL later demonstrated that you could make the mixture detonate merely by shining a bright light on it. Nevertheless, ten years later I read an article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant! Apparently junior engineers are allergic to the history of their own business.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    To quote John D. Clark's great book Ignition! (Chapter 11: The Hopeful Monoprops):




    If Tannenbaum's mixtures were bad, that proposed at a monopropellant conference in October 1957 by an optimist from Air Products, Inc., was enough to raise the hair on the head of anybody in the propellant business. He suggested that a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid methane would be an extra high-energy monopropellant, and had even worked out the phase diagrams of the system.* How he avoided suicide (the first rule in handling liquid oxygen is that you never, never let it come in contact with a potential fuel) is an interesting question, particularly as JPL later demonstrated that you could make the mixture detonate merely by shining a bright light on it. Nevertheless, ten years later I read an article seriously proposing an oxygen-methane monopropellant! Apparently junior engineers are allergic to the history of their own business.








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    cjmcjm

    546135




    546135







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you want to obey that first rule, an engine using liquid oxygen may never be started. The combustion chamber is the place were oxygen must be mixed with fuel.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @OrganicMarble, that's not even close to the best quote from that book. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! I was also going to post an answer quoting that exact passage (again), but you saved me the effort. Have a +1.
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      yesterday













    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you want to obey that first rule, an engine using liquid oxygen may never be started. The combustion chamber is the place were oxygen must be mixed with fuel.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @OrganicMarble, that's not even close to the best quote from that book. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! I was also going to post an answer quoting that exact passage (again), but you saved me the effort. Have a +1.
      $endgroup$
      – Ilmari Karonen
      yesterday








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    If you want to obey that first rule, an engine using liquid oxygen may never be started. The combustion chamber is the place were oxygen must be mixed with fuel.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    If you want to obey that first rule, an engine using liquid oxygen may never be started. The combustion chamber is the place were oxygen must be mixed with fuel.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday




    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    yesterday




    9




    9




    $begingroup$
    That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    yesterday




    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    @OrganicMarble, that's not even close to the best quote from that book. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @OrganicMarble, that's not even close to the best quote from that book. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    yesterday




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Thanks! I was also going to post an answer quoting that exact passage (again), but you saved me the effort. Have a +1.
    $endgroup$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    yesterday





    $begingroup$
    Thanks! I was also going to post an answer quoting that exact passage (again), but you saved me the effort. Have a +1.
    $endgroup$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    yesterday












    27












    $begingroup$

    In addition to what the other answer said, it would take very little provocation for such a situation to turn into a good way to test the blast resistance of nearby facilities.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 20




      $begingroup$
      Put another way: If there exists a tank of premixed liquid CH4 and LOX, I desire to be as far away as physically possible.
      $endgroup$
      – Tristan
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago















    27












    $begingroup$

    In addition to what the other answer said, it would take very little provocation for such a situation to turn into a good way to test the blast resistance of nearby facilities.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 20




      $begingroup$
      Put another way: If there exists a tank of premixed liquid CH4 and LOX, I desire to be as far away as physically possible.
      $endgroup$
      – Tristan
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago













    27












    27








    27





    $begingroup$

    In addition to what the other answer said, it would take very little provocation for such a situation to turn into a good way to test the blast resistance of nearby facilities.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    In addition to what the other answer said, it would take very little provocation for such a situation to turn into a good way to test the blast resistance of nearby facilities.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    TristanTristan

    10.9k13856




    10.9k13856







    • 20




      $begingroup$
      Put another way: If there exists a tank of premixed liquid CH4 and LOX, I desire to be as far away as physically possible.
      $endgroup$
      – Tristan
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago












    • 20




      $begingroup$
      Put another way: If there exists a tank of premixed liquid CH4 and LOX, I desire to be as far away as physically possible.
      $endgroup$
      – Tristan
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago







    20




    20




    $begingroup$
    Put another way: If there exists a tank of premixed liquid CH4 and LOX, I desire to be as far away as physically possible.
    $endgroup$
    – Tristan
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Put another way: If there exists a tank of premixed liquid CH4 and LOX, I desire to be as far away as physically possible.
    $endgroup$
    – Tristan
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    17 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    17 hours ago











    14












    $begingroup$

    At STP:



    • LOX's boiling point is 90.19 K

    • Methane's freezing point is 90.7 K

    This does not a priori prove that a solution of the two can not exist. However it does mean that they can not be handled as liquids at the same temperature, making mixing the two more difficult.



    And so I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?



    We know that liquid air exists which shows that LOX and LN2 can mix together. But methane is an organic molecules and we know that heavier $textC_n textH_2n+2$ hydrocarbons include oils and waxes don't like to dissolve in non-organic solvents.



    The argument against premixing is the danger of ignition due to a spark or tiny localized generation of heat. As @Tristan and @PearsonArtPhoto both mention 1, 2 the SpaceX explosion "fast fire" occurred because of the presence of a combustible material in direct contact with LOX and a localized source of mechanically produced heat. See this answer and note that the situation is discussed at length in Scott Manley's video The Dumbest Mistakes In Space Exploration



    Also watch the video below, discussed in more detail in Why doesn't carbon fiber overwrapping in LOX catch fire? (watch this video first)











    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      There are explosives made by mixing liquid oxygen with a fuel see. A mixture of lampblack with liquid oxygen was even stronger than dynamite.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquid oxygen and charcoal briquettes was a really popular stupid YouTube trick for a while. So Mythbusters wanted to do a "LOX tanker spills load on asphalt road, boom" item but the small tests where so violent that they couldn't get insurance coverage for the full-scale.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh Just include the links from me into your excellent answer. Here is another one: NASA oxygen safety manual. See page 9-1 or 143: "liquid oxygen spills on pavements such as asphalt have resulted in impact-sensitive conditions that caused explosions from traffic or dropped items." The string explos is found 161 times in this document of 288 pages.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      17 hours ago
















    14












    $begingroup$

    At STP:



    • LOX's boiling point is 90.19 K

    • Methane's freezing point is 90.7 K

    This does not a priori prove that a solution of the two can not exist. However it does mean that they can not be handled as liquids at the same temperature, making mixing the two more difficult.



    And so I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?



    We know that liquid air exists which shows that LOX and LN2 can mix together. But methane is an organic molecules and we know that heavier $textC_n textH_2n+2$ hydrocarbons include oils and waxes don't like to dissolve in non-organic solvents.



    The argument against premixing is the danger of ignition due to a spark or tiny localized generation of heat. As @Tristan and @PearsonArtPhoto both mention 1, 2 the SpaceX explosion "fast fire" occurred because of the presence of a combustible material in direct contact with LOX and a localized source of mechanically produced heat. See this answer and note that the situation is discussed at length in Scott Manley's video The Dumbest Mistakes In Space Exploration



    Also watch the video below, discussed in more detail in Why doesn't carbon fiber overwrapping in LOX catch fire? (watch this video first)











    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      There are explosives made by mixing liquid oxygen with a fuel see. A mixture of lampblack with liquid oxygen was even stronger than dynamite.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquid oxygen and charcoal briquettes was a really popular stupid YouTube trick for a while. So Mythbusters wanted to do a "LOX tanker spills load on asphalt road, boom" item but the small tests where so violent that they couldn't get insurance coverage for the full-scale.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh Just include the links from me into your excellent answer. Here is another one: NASA oxygen safety manual. See page 9-1 or 143: "liquid oxygen spills on pavements such as asphalt have resulted in impact-sensitive conditions that caused explosions from traffic or dropped items." The string explos is found 161 times in this document of 288 pages.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      17 hours ago














    14












    14








    14





    $begingroup$

    At STP:



    • LOX's boiling point is 90.19 K

    • Methane's freezing point is 90.7 K

    This does not a priori prove that a solution of the two can not exist. However it does mean that they can not be handled as liquids at the same temperature, making mixing the two more difficult.



    And so I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?



    We know that liquid air exists which shows that LOX and LN2 can mix together. But methane is an organic molecules and we know that heavier $textC_n textH_2n+2$ hydrocarbons include oils and waxes don't like to dissolve in non-organic solvents.



    The argument against premixing is the danger of ignition due to a spark or tiny localized generation of heat. As @Tristan and @PearsonArtPhoto both mention 1, 2 the SpaceX explosion "fast fire" occurred because of the presence of a combustible material in direct contact with LOX and a localized source of mechanically produced heat. See this answer and note that the situation is discussed at length in Scott Manley's video The Dumbest Mistakes In Space Exploration



    Also watch the video below, discussed in more detail in Why doesn't carbon fiber overwrapping in LOX catch fire? (watch this video first)











    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    At STP:



    • LOX's boiling point is 90.19 K

    • Methane's freezing point is 90.7 K

    This does not a priori prove that a solution of the two can not exist. However it does mean that they can not be handled as liquids at the same temperature, making mixing the two more difficult.



    And so I've just asked Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?



    We know that liquid air exists which shows that LOX and LN2 can mix together. But methane is an organic molecules and we know that heavier $textC_n textH_2n+2$ hydrocarbons include oils and waxes don't like to dissolve in non-organic solvents.



    The argument against premixing is the danger of ignition due to a spark or tiny localized generation of heat. As @Tristan and @PearsonArtPhoto both mention 1, 2 the SpaceX explosion "fast fire" occurred because of the presence of a combustible material in direct contact with LOX and a localized source of mechanically produced heat. See this answer and note that the situation is discussed at length in Scott Manley's video The Dumbest Mistakes In Space Exploration



    Also watch the video below, discussed in more detail in Why doesn't carbon fiber overwrapping in LOX catch fire? (watch this video first)




















    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    uhohuhoh

    39.2k18144498




    39.2k18144498







    • 3




      $begingroup$
      There are explosives made by mixing liquid oxygen with a fuel see. A mixture of lampblack with liquid oxygen was even stronger than dynamite.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquid oxygen and charcoal briquettes was a really popular stupid YouTube trick for a while. So Mythbusters wanted to do a "LOX tanker spills load on asphalt road, boom" item but the small tests where so violent that they couldn't get insurance coverage for the full-scale.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh Just include the links from me into your excellent answer. Here is another one: NASA oxygen safety manual. See page 9-1 or 143: "liquid oxygen spills on pavements such as asphalt have resulted in impact-sensitive conditions that caused explosions from traffic or dropped items." The string explos is found 161 times in this document of 288 pages.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      17 hours ago













    • 3




      $begingroup$
      There are explosives made by mixing liquid oxygen with a fuel see. A mixture of lampblack with liquid oxygen was even stronger than dynamite.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquid oxygen and charcoal briquettes was a really popular stupid YouTube trick for a while. So Mythbusters wanted to do a "LOX tanker spills load on asphalt road, boom" item but the small tests where so violent that they couldn't get insurance coverage for the full-scale.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @uhoh Just include the links from me into your excellent answer. Here is another one: NASA oxygen safety manual. See page 9-1 or 143: "liquid oxygen spills on pavements such as asphalt have resulted in impact-sensitive conditions that caused explosions from traffic or dropped items." The string explos is found 161 times in this document of 288 pages.
      $endgroup$
      – Uwe
      17 hours ago








    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    There are explosives made by mixing liquid oxygen with a fuel see. A mixture of lampblack with liquid oxygen was even stronger than dynamite.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    There are explosives made by mixing liquid oxygen with a fuel see. A mixture of lampblack with liquid oxygen was even stronger than dynamite.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday





    $begingroup$
    @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday













    $begingroup$
    @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Liquid oxygen and charcoal briquettes was a really popular stupid YouTube trick for a while. So Mythbusters wanted to do a "LOX tanker spills load on asphalt road, boom" item but the small tests where so violent that they couldn't get insurance coverage for the full-scale.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Liquid oxygen and charcoal briquettes was a really popular stupid YouTube trick for a while. So Mythbusters wanted to do a "LOX tanker spills load on asphalt road, boom" item but the small tests where so violent that they couldn't get insurance coverage for the full-scale.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    yesterday




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh Just include the links from me into your excellent answer. Here is another one: NASA oxygen safety manual. See page 9-1 or 143: "liquid oxygen spills on pavements such as asphalt have resulted in impact-sensitive conditions that caused explosions from traffic or dropped items." The string explos is found 161 times in this document of 288 pages.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    17 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @uhoh Just include the links from me into your excellent answer. Here is another one: NASA oxygen safety manual. See page 9-1 or 143: "liquid oxygen spills on pavements such as asphalt have resulted in impact-sensitive conditions that caused explosions from traffic or dropped items." The string explos is found 161 times in this document of 288 pages.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    17 hours ago












    11












    $begingroup$

    They would stratify.



    Think of oil and water.



    Liquid oxygen is much denser than liquid hydrogen, with 1.141 g/cm3 for LOX vs. 0.07099 g/cm3 for LH.



    Thus, you need to install equipment to ensure proper mixing of the two liquids. This adds not only complexity to an already complex machinery, it also adds weight.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Furthermore at liquid oxygen temperatures, methane is solid. It might be possible to put them both in the liquid phase by using higher pressures, but still sounds like a very bad situation.
      $endgroup$
      – Blake Walsh
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      -1 for several problems. 1) answer is based on the wrong gas to try to make a false point about different densities. 2) answer uses false analogy because oil and water do not mix due to molecular incompatibility (oil is hydrophobic), it's got nothing to do with density, 3) answer forwards false science that density difference is the reason liquids could not mix.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquids only stratify if they're immiscible. LOX and methane dissolve in each other; at cold enough temperatures they've got a unity molar fraction so you can dissolve as much of one in the other as you'd like.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Oh, right. So the significantly different densities of ethanol and water are why vodka stratifies into two layers. Now I understa... What was that? Vodka doesn't stratify, you say?
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago















    11












    $begingroup$

    They would stratify.



    Think of oil and water.



    Liquid oxygen is much denser than liquid hydrogen, with 1.141 g/cm3 for LOX vs. 0.07099 g/cm3 for LH.



    Thus, you need to install equipment to ensure proper mixing of the two liquids. This adds not only complexity to an already complex machinery, it also adds weight.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Furthermore at liquid oxygen temperatures, methane is solid. It might be possible to put them both in the liquid phase by using higher pressures, but still sounds like a very bad situation.
      $endgroup$
      – Blake Walsh
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      -1 for several problems. 1) answer is based on the wrong gas to try to make a false point about different densities. 2) answer uses false analogy because oil and water do not mix due to molecular incompatibility (oil is hydrophobic), it's got nothing to do with density, 3) answer forwards false science that density difference is the reason liquids could not mix.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquids only stratify if they're immiscible. LOX and methane dissolve in each other; at cold enough temperatures they've got a unity molar fraction so you can dissolve as much of one in the other as you'd like.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Oh, right. So the significantly different densities of ethanol and water are why vodka stratifies into two layers. Now I understa... What was that? Vodka doesn't stratify, you say?
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago













    11












    11








    11





    $begingroup$

    They would stratify.



    Think of oil and water.



    Liquid oxygen is much denser than liquid hydrogen, with 1.141 g/cm3 for LOX vs. 0.07099 g/cm3 for LH.



    Thus, you need to install equipment to ensure proper mixing of the two liquids. This adds not only complexity to an already complex machinery, it also adds weight.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    They would stratify.



    Think of oil and water.



    Liquid oxygen is much denser than liquid hydrogen, with 1.141 g/cm3 for LOX vs. 0.07099 g/cm3 for LH.



    Thus, you need to install equipment to ensure proper mixing of the two liquids. This adds not only complexity to an already complex machinery, it also adds weight.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    Dohn JoeDohn Joe

    49929




    49929







    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Furthermore at liquid oxygen temperatures, methane is solid. It might be possible to put them both in the liquid phase by using higher pressures, but still sounds like a very bad situation.
      $endgroup$
      – Blake Walsh
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      -1 for several problems. 1) answer is based on the wrong gas to try to make a false point about different densities. 2) answer uses false analogy because oil and water do not mix due to molecular incompatibility (oil is hydrophobic), it's got nothing to do with density, 3) answer forwards false science that density difference is the reason liquids could not mix.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquids only stratify if they're immiscible. LOX and methane dissolve in each other; at cold enough temperatures they've got a unity molar fraction so you can dissolve as much of one in the other as you'd like.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Oh, right. So the significantly different densities of ethanol and water are why vodka stratifies into two layers. Now I understa... What was that? Vodka doesn't stratify, you say?
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Furthermore at liquid oxygen temperatures, methane is solid. It might be possible to put them both in the liquid phase by using higher pressures, but still sounds like a very bad situation.
      $endgroup$
      – Blake Walsh
      yesterday






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      -1 for several problems. 1) answer is based on the wrong gas to try to make a false point about different densities. 2) answer uses false analogy because oil and water do not mix due to molecular incompatibility (oil is hydrophobic), it's got nothing to do with density, 3) answer forwards false science that density difference is the reason liquids could not mix.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      yesterday







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Liquids only stratify if they're immiscible. LOX and methane dissolve in each other; at cold enough temperatures they've got a unity molar fraction so you can dissolve as much of one in the other as you'd like.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Oh, right. So the significantly different densities of ethanol and water are why vodka stratifies into two layers. Now I understa... What was that? Vodka doesn't stratify, you say?
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      17 hours ago







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Furthermore at liquid oxygen temperatures, methane is solid. It might be possible to put them both in the liquid phase by using higher pressures, but still sounds like a very bad situation.
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Walsh
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Furthermore at liquid oxygen temperatures, methane is solid. It might be possible to put them both in the liquid phase by using higher pressures, but still sounds like a very bad situation.
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Walsh
    yesterday




    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    -1 for several problems. 1) answer is based on the wrong gas to try to make a false point about different densities. 2) answer uses false analogy because oil and water do not mix due to molecular incompatibility (oil is hydrophobic), it's got nothing to do with density, 3) answer forwards false science that density difference is the reason liquids could not mix.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday





    $begingroup$
    -1 for several problems. 1) answer is based on the wrong gas to try to make a false point about different densities. 2) answer uses false analogy because oil and water do not mix due to molecular incompatibility (oil is hydrophobic), it's got nothing to do with density, 3) answer forwards false science that density difference is the reason liquids could not mix.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    yesterday





    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    yesterday




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Liquids only stratify if they're immiscible. LOX and methane dissolve in each other; at cold enough temperatures they've got a unity molar fraction so you can dissolve as much of one in the other as you'd like.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Liquids only stratify if they're immiscible. LOX and methane dissolve in each other; at cold enough temperatures they've got a unity molar fraction so you can dissolve as much of one in the other as you'd like.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    yesterday




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Oh, right. So the significantly different densities of ethanol and water are why vodka stratifies into two layers. Now I understa... What was that? Vodka doesn't stratify, you say?
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    17 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Oh, right. So the significantly different densities of ethanol and water are why vodka stratifies into two layers. Now I understa... What was that? Vodka doesn't stratify, you say?
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    17 hours ago











    9












    $begingroup$

    On the chemical/physical question of whether such a mixture can exist: Yes it can.



    There's a NASA report that looks into this: "ON THE SOLUBILITIES AND RATES OF SOLUTION OF GASES IN LIQUID METHANE", Hibbard and Evans, 1968 and concludes that such mixtures are possible.



    Starting on page 8:




    Figure 5(a) presents the curves for oxygen, argon, carbon monoxide,
    and nitrogen. Also shown are the two experimental values for nitrogen.
    Agreement is excellent at 99.83K and good at 110.9K. The curves for
    these gases show that solubility should decrease with increasing
    temperature and the nitrogen data confirm this. This figure shows the
    mole fraction solubility of oxygen to be 1.0 at 90K. This means that
    oxygen, which has a normal boiling temperature of 90.1K would
    continuously condense in, and be miscible in all proportions, with
    liquid methane at 90K.
    This is confirmed by reference 11 where, in a
    study of the solubility of methane in liquid oxygen, it was concluded
    that these formed a near-ideal solution at -297 F (90K)




    (emphasis added)



    Figure 5 is reproduced below. Note how the solubility of oxygen rises rapidly as temperature drops.



    Reference 11 mentioned in there is "Hydrocarbon-Oxygen Systems Solubility", McKinley and Wang, 1960 (unfortunately paywalled) which also has interesting discussion of the stability (i.e. presence or absence of a tendency to explode) of various mixtures. That covers, in delightfully calm terms, why such mixtures are not commonly used: "A composition as pictured at point A (n.b. mostly one component) is safe whereas the composition at point B (i.e. rocket fuel) can be exploded".



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      9












      $begingroup$

      On the chemical/physical question of whether such a mixture can exist: Yes it can.



      There's a NASA report that looks into this: "ON THE SOLUBILITIES AND RATES OF SOLUTION OF GASES IN LIQUID METHANE", Hibbard and Evans, 1968 and concludes that such mixtures are possible.



      Starting on page 8:




      Figure 5(a) presents the curves for oxygen, argon, carbon monoxide,
      and nitrogen. Also shown are the two experimental values for nitrogen.
      Agreement is excellent at 99.83K and good at 110.9K. The curves for
      these gases show that solubility should decrease with increasing
      temperature and the nitrogen data confirm this. This figure shows the
      mole fraction solubility of oxygen to be 1.0 at 90K. This means that
      oxygen, which has a normal boiling temperature of 90.1K would
      continuously condense in, and be miscible in all proportions, with
      liquid methane at 90K.
      This is confirmed by reference 11 where, in a
      study of the solubility of methane in liquid oxygen, it was concluded
      that these formed a near-ideal solution at -297 F (90K)




      (emphasis added)



      Figure 5 is reproduced below. Note how the solubility of oxygen rises rapidly as temperature drops.



      Reference 11 mentioned in there is "Hydrocarbon-Oxygen Systems Solubility", McKinley and Wang, 1960 (unfortunately paywalled) which also has interesting discussion of the stability (i.e. presence or absence of a tendency to explode) of various mixtures. That covers, in delightfully calm terms, why such mixtures are not commonly used: "A composition as pictured at point A (n.b. mostly one component) is safe whereas the composition at point B (i.e. rocket fuel) can be exploded".



      enter image description here






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        9












        9








        9





        $begingroup$

        On the chemical/physical question of whether such a mixture can exist: Yes it can.



        There's a NASA report that looks into this: "ON THE SOLUBILITIES AND RATES OF SOLUTION OF GASES IN LIQUID METHANE", Hibbard and Evans, 1968 and concludes that such mixtures are possible.



        Starting on page 8:




        Figure 5(a) presents the curves for oxygen, argon, carbon monoxide,
        and nitrogen. Also shown are the two experimental values for nitrogen.
        Agreement is excellent at 99.83K and good at 110.9K. The curves for
        these gases show that solubility should decrease with increasing
        temperature and the nitrogen data confirm this. This figure shows the
        mole fraction solubility of oxygen to be 1.0 at 90K. This means that
        oxygen, which has a normal boiling temperature of 90.1K would
        continuously condense in, and be miscible in all proportions, with
        liquid methane at 90K.
        This is confirmed by reference 11 where, in a
        study of the solubility of methane in liquid oxygen, it was concluded
        that these formed a near-ideal solution at -297 F (90K)




        (emphasis added)



        Figure 5 is reproduced below. Note how the solubility of oxygen rises rapidly as temperature drops.



        Reference 11 mentioned in there is "Hydrocarbon-Oxygen Systems Solubility", McKinley and Wang, 1960 (unfortunately paywalled) which also has interesting discussion of the stability (i.e. presence or absence of a tendency to explode) of various mixtures. That covers, in delightfully calm terms, why such mixtures are not commonly used: "A composition as pictured at point A (n.b. mostly one component) is safe whereas the composition at point B (i.e. rocket fuel) can be exploded".



        enter image description here






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        On the chemical/physical question of whether such a mixture can exist: Yes it can.



        There's a NASA report that looks into this: "ON THE SOLUBILITIES AND RATES OF SOLUTION OF GASES IN LIQUID METHANE", Hibbard and Evans, 1968 and concludes that such mixtures are possible.



        Starting on page 8:




        Figure 5(a) presents the curves for oxygen, argon, carbon monoxide,
        and nitrogen. Also shown are the two experimental values for nitrogen.
        Agreement is excellent at 99.83K and good at 110.9K. The curves for
        these gases show that solubility should decrease with increasing
        temperature and the nitrogen data confirm this. This figure shows the
        mole fraction solubility of oxygen to be 1.0 at 90K. This means that
        oxygen, which has a normal boiling temperature of 90.1K would
        continuously condense in, and be miscible in all proportions, with
        liquid methane at 90K.
        This is confirmed by reference 11 where, in a
        study of the solubility of methane in liquid oxygen, it was concluded
        that these formed a near-ideal solution at -297 F (90K)




        (emphasis added)



        Figure 5 is reproduced below. Note how the solubility of oxygen rises rapidly as temperature drops.



        Reference 11 mentioned in there is "Hydrocarbon-Oxygen Systems Solubility", McKinley and Wang, 1960 (unfortunately paywalled) which also has interesting discussion of the stability (i.e. presence or absence of a tendency to explode) of various mixtures. That covers, in delightfully calm terms, why such mixtures are not commonly used: "A composition as pictured at point A (n.b. mostly one component) is safe whereas the composition at point B (i.e. rocket fuel) can be exploded".



        enter image description here







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen

        5,6851128




        5,6851128





















            6












            $begingroup$

            For the static fire test of AMOS-6 it is believed that the oxygen and RP1 fuel combined together due to a failed bulkhead. Even a smaller bit of fuel in oxidizer can cause enough of an explosion to start things moving, part of the reaction was with the carbon overwrap and oxygen, which had a small spark and started the larger explosion seen. In your proposed condition, only a small spark is required to cause a large explosion, as seen in the below video.








            Mixing fuel and oxidizer is bad, even the slightest spark will cause it all to go up in flames. Plus there is a lot of things that can be done to optimize the flow for different conditions, flowing more oxidizer or fuel for certain conditions.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Now imagine that happening orders of magnitude faster due to premixing. It’s essentially a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor of several thousand.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX. The bulkhead failed later, due to the violent reaction between the carbon overwrap + LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Bob Jacobsen, this may be the key! Propose to the Pentagon it can be weaponized, that finding a way to mix and store methalox would produce "a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor several thousand." Mega-funding will ensue. :-) :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday















            6












            $begingroup$

            For the static fire test of AMOS-6 it is believed that the oxygen and RP1 fuel combined together due to a failed bulkhead. Even a smaller bit of fuel in oxidizer can cause enough of an explosion to start things moving, part of the reaction was with the carbon overwrap and oxygen, which had a small spark and started the larger explosion seen. In your proposed condition, only a small spark is required to cause a large explosion, as seen in the below video.








            Mixing fuel and oxidizer is bad, even the slightest spark will cause it all to go up in flames. Plus there is a lot of things that can be done to optimize the flow for different conditions, flowing more oxidizer or fuel for certain conditions.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Now imagine that happening orders of magnitude faster due to premixing. It’s essentially a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor of several thousand.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX. The bulkhead failed later, due to the violent reaction between the carbon overwrap + LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Bob Jacobsen, this may be the key! Propose to the Pentagon it can be weaponized, that finding a way to mix and store methalox would produce "a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor several thousand." Mega-funding will ensue. :-) :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday













            6












            6








            6





            $begingroup$

            For the static fire test of AMOS-6 it is believed that the oxygen and RP1 fuel combined together due to a failed bulkhead. Even a smaller bit of fuel in oxidizer can cause enough of an explosion to start things moving, part of the reaction was with the carbon overwrap and oxygen, which had a small spark and started the larger explosion seen. In your proposed condition, only a small spark is required to cause a large explosion, as seen in the below video.








            Mixing fuel and oxidizer is bad, even the slightest spark will cause it all to go up in flames. Plus there is a lot of things that can be done to optimize the flow for different conditions, flowing more oxidizer or fuel for certain conditions.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            For the static fire test of AMOS-6 it is believed that the oxygen and RP1 fuel combined together due to a failed bulkhead. Even a smaller bit of fuel in oxidizer can cause enough of an explosion to start things moving, part of the reaction was with the carbon overwrap and oxygen, which had a small spark and started the larger explosion seen. In your proposed condition, only a small spark is required to cause a large explosion, as seen in the below video.








            Mixing fuel and oxidizer is bad, even the slightest spark will cause it all to go up in flames. Plus there is a lot of things that can be done to optimize the flow for different conditions, flowing more oxidizer or fuel for certain conditions.















            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 15 hours ago

























            answered yesterday









            PearsonArtPhotoPearsonArtPhoto

            83.3k16239455




            83.3k16239455







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Now imagine that happening orders of magnitude faster due to premixing. It’s essentially a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor of several thousand.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX. The bulkhead failed later, due to the violent reaction between the carbon overwrap + LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Bob Jacobsen, this may be the key! Propose to the Pentagon it can be weaponized, that finding a way to mix and store methalox would produce "a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor several thousand." Mega-funding will ensue. :-) :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday












            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Now imagine that happening orders of magnitude faster due to premixing. It’s essentially a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor of several thousand.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX. The bulkhead failed later, due to the violent reaction between the carbon overwrap + LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Bob Jacobsen, this may be the key! Propose to the Pentagon it can be weaponized, that finding a way to mix and store methalox would produce "a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor several thousand." Mega-funding will ensue. :-) :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              yesterday







            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – SpaceInMyHead
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – SpaceInMyHead
            yesterday




            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            Now imagine that happening orders of magnitude faster due to premixing. It’s essentially a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor of several thousand.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Now imagine that happening orders of magnitude faster due to premixing. It’s essentially a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor of several thousand.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            yesterday




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
            $endgroup$
            – uhoh
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
            $endgroup$
            – uhoh
            yesterday




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX. The bulkhead failed later, due to the violent reaction between the carbon overwrap + LOX.
            $endgroup$
            – uhoh
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX. The bulkhead failed later, due to the violent reaction between the carbon overwrap + LOX.
            $endgroup$
            – uhoh
            yesterday




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Bob Jacobsen, this may be the key! Propose to the Pentagon it can be weaponized, that finding a way to mix and store methalox would produce "a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor several thousand." Mega-funding will ensue. :-) :-)
            $endgroup$
            – SpaceInMyHead
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Bob Jacobsen, this may be the key! Propose to the Pentagon it can be weaponized, that finding a way to mix and store methalox would produce "a fuel-air explosive enhanced by a factor several thousand." Mega-funding will ensue. :-) :-)
            $endgroup$
            – SpaceInMyHead
            yesterday

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34973%2fpre-mixing-cryogenic-fuels-and-using-only-one-fuel-tank%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

            Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition

            Marilyn Monroe Ny fiainany manokana | Jereo koa | Meny fitetezanafanitarana azy.