Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank












19












$begingroup$


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.






fuel







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
    Mar 21 at 20:48






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 1:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you use a cryogenic monopropellant mixture, how do you avoid that the ignition front in the combustion chamber is creeping back to turbo pump, pipes and finally the propellant tank? Ignition front may be much faster than creeping, it may be as fast as an explosion.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Mar 22 at 11:58






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    Mar 22 at 15:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @BobJarvis explosive expansion is actually a well defined behaviour, just like isothermic expansion and isobaric expansion are. So explosions are indeed something "special" in the thermodynamic side of things. On the T-S curve an exposive expansion is a linear
    $endgroup$
    – paul23
    yesterday


















19












$begingroup$


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.






fuel







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
    Mar 21 at 20:48






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 1:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you use a cryogenic monopropellant mixture, how do you avoid that the ignition front in the combustion chamber is creeping back to turbo pump, pipes and finally the propellant tank? Ignition front may be much faster than creeping, it may be as fast as an explosion.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Mar 22 at 11:58






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    Mar 22 at 15:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @BobJarvis explosive expansion is actually a well defined behaviour, just like isothermic expansion and isobaric expansion are. So explosions are indeed something "special" in the thermodynamic side of things. On the T-S curve an exposive expansion is a linear
    $endgroup$
    – paul23
    yesterday
















19












19








19


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.






fuel







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




fuel






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 21 at 23:17







SpaceInMyHead

















asked Mar 21 at 17:20









SpaceInMyHeadSpaceInMyHead

17829




17829








  • 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
    Mar 21 at 20:48






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 1:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you use a cryogenic monopropellant mixture, how do you avoid that the ignition front in the combustion chamber is creeping back to turbo pump, pipes and finally the propellant tank? Ignition front may be much faster than creeping, it may be as fast as an explosion.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Mar 22 at 11:58






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    Mar 22 at 15:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @BobJarvis explosive expansion is actually a well defined behaviour, just like isothermic expansion and isobaric expansion are. So explosions are indeed something "special" in the thermodynamic side of things. On the T-S curve an exposive expansion is a linear
    $endgroup$
    – paul23
    yesterday
















  • 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
    Mar 21 at 20:48






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 1:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you use a cryogenic monopropellant mixture, how do you avoid that the ignition front in the combustion chamber is creeping back to turbo pump, pipes and finally the propellant tank? Ignition front may be much faster than creeping, it may be as fast as an explosion.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Mar 22 at 11:58






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    Mar 22 at 15:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @BobJarvis explosive expansion is actually a well defined behaviour, just like isothermic expansion and isobaric expansion are. So explosions are indeed something "special" in the thermodynamic side of things. On the T-S curve an exposive expansion is a linear
    $endgroup$
    – paul23
    yesterday










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
Mar 21 at 20:48




$begingroup$
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
Mar 21 at 20:48




2




2




$begingroup$
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
Mar 22 at 1:51




$begingroup$
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
Mar 22 at 1:51




1




1




$begingroup$
If you use a cryogenic monopropellant mixture, how do you avoid that the ignition front in the combustion chamber is creeping back to turbo pump, pipes and finally the propellant tank? Ignition front may be much faster than creeping, it may be as fast as an explosion.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Mar 22 at 11:58




$begingroup$
If you use a cryogenic monopropellant mixture, how do you avoid that the ignition front in the combustion chamber is creeping back to turbo pump, pipes and finally the propellant tank? Ignition front may be much faster than creeping, it may be as fast as an explosion.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Mar 22 at 11:58




3




3




$begingroup$
Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
$endgroup$
– gwally
Mar 22 at 15:01




$begingroup$
Why not premix them? One word: kaboom. A stray spark and you could have all the monoprpellant ignite at once.
$endgroup$
– gwally
Mar 22 at 15:01




2




2




$begingroup$
@BobJarvis explosive expansion is actually a well defined behaviour, just like isothermic expansion and isobaric expansion are. So explosions are indeed something "special" in the thermodynamic side of things. On the T-S curve an exposive expansion is a linear
$endgroup$
– paul23
yesterday






$begingroup$
@BobJarvis explosive expansion is actually a well defined behaviour, just like isothermic expansion and isobaric expansion are. So explosions are indeed something "special" in the thermodynamic side of things. On the T-S curve an exposive expansion is a linear
$endgroup$
– paul23
yesterday












7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















16












$begingroup$

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
    Mar 22 at 15:52






  • 2




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










  • $begingroup$
    "vaguely disturbing" - almost poetic!
    $endgroup$
    – Volker Siegel
    yesterday



















44












$begingroup$

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
    Mar 21 at 20:41






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    Mar 21 at 20:42






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Mar 21 at 20:53






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 21 at 20:55






  • 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
    Mar 21 at 21:16





















30












$begingroup$

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









$endgroup$









  • 22




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 18:39






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    Mar 22 at 12:06



















16












$begingroup$

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 $text{C}_n text{H}_{2n+2}$ 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
    Mar 21 at 23:12










  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 21 at 23:16












  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 21 at 23:48






  • 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
    Mar 22 at 4:52






  • 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
    Mar 22 at 11:41





















10












$begingroup$

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
    Mar 21 at 20:17






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    -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
    Mar 21 at 22:22








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Mar 22 at 2:02






  • 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
    Mar 22 at 4:47






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 12:09



















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
      Mar 21 at 18:52






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 19:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 22:25






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 22:52






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 23:08











    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









    16












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 22 at 15:52






    • 2




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










    • $begingroup$
      "vaguely disturbing" - almost poetic!
      $endgroup$
      – Volker Siegel
      yesterday
















    16












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 22 at 15:52






    • 2




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










    • $begingroup$
      "vaguely disturbing" - almost poetic!
      $endgroup$
      – Volker Siegel
      yesterday














    16












    16








    16





    $begingroup$

    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 Mar 22 at 14:17









    Jon CusterJon Custer

    27615




    27615




    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
      Mar 22 at 15:52






    • 2




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










    • $begingroup$
      "vaguely disturbing" - almost poetic!
      $endgroup$
      – Volker Siegel
      yesterday


















    • $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 22 at 15:52






    • 2




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










    • $begingroup$
      "vaguely disturbing" - almost poetic!
      $endgroup$
      – Volker Siegel
      yesterday
















    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 15:52




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 15:52




    2




    2




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




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












    $begingroup$
    "vaguely disturbing" - almost poetic!
    $endgroup$
    – Volker Siegel
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    "vaguely disturbing" - almost poetic!
    $endgroup$
    – Volker Siegel
    yesterday











    44












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 21 at 20:41






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      Mar 21 at 20:42






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      Mar 21 at 20:53






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 21 at 20:55






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 21:16


















    44












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 21 at 20:41






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      Mar 21 at 20:42






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      Mar 21 at 20:53






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 21 at 20:55






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 21:16
















    44












    44








    44





    $begingroup$

    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 Mar 21 at 20:34









    cjmcjm

    596135




    596135








    • 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
      Mar 21 at 20:41






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      Mar 21 at 20:42






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      Mar 21 at 20:53






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 21 at 20:55






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 21:16
















    • 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
      Mar 21 at 20:41






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
      $endgroup$
      – cjm
      Mar 21 at 20:42






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      Mar 21 at 20:53






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 21 at 20:55






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 21:16










    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
    Mar 21 at 20:41




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 20:41




    8




    8




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    Mar 21 at 20:42




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe, obviously he meant "until you want a raging fire" but thought it unnecessary to say.
    $endgroup$
    – cjm
    Mar 21 at 20:42




    9




    9




    $begingroup$
    That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Mar 21 at 20:53




    $begingroup$
    That's a great quote! "...by shining a light on it..." Yowza.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Mar 21 at 20:53




    8




    8




    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 21 at 20:55




    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 21 at 20:55




    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
    Mar 21 at 21:16






    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 21:16













    30












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$









    • 22




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 18:39






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Mar 22 at 12:06
















    30












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$









    • 22




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 18:39






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Mar 22 at 12:06














    30












    30








    30





    $begingroup$

    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 Mar 21 at 17:42









    TristanTristan

    10.9k13856




    10.9k13856








    • 22




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 18:39






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Mar 22 at 12:06














    • 22




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 18:39






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Mar 22 at 12:06








    22




    22




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 18:39




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 18:39




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    Mar 22 at 12:06




    $begingroup$
    Good news! It's on its way to the moooon!
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    Mar 22 at 12:06











    16












    $begingroup$

    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 $text{C}_n text{H}_{2n+2}$ 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
      Mar 21 at 23:12










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:16












    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:48






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:52






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 11:41


















    16












    $begingroup$

    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 $text{C}_n text{H}_{2n+2}$ 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
      Mar 21 at 23:12










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:16












    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:48






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:52






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 11:41
















    16












    16








    16





    $begingroup$

    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 $text{C}_n text{H}_{2n+2}$ 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 $text{C}_n text{H}_{2n+2}$ 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 Mar 22 at 1:51

























    answered Mar 21 at 22:42









    uhohuhoh

    39.3k18144500




    39.3k18144500








    • 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
      Mar 21 at 23:12










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:16












    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:48






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:52






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 11:41
















    • 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
      Mar 21 at 23:12










    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:16












    • $begingroup$
      @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – uhoh
      Mar 21 at 23:48






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:52






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 11:41










    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
    Mar 21 at 23:12




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 23:12












    $begingroup$
    @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 21 at 23:16






    $begingroup$
    @Uwe write an answer!! Just block-quote that source and it will be perfect!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 21 at 23:16














    $begingroup$
    @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 21 at 23:48




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe if you are not going to write that answer let me know, and I'll include a block quote here. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 21 at 23:48




    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
    Mar 22 at 4:52




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 4:52




    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
    Mar 22 at 11:41






    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 22 at 11:41













    10












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 21 at 20:17






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      -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
      Mar 21 at 22:22








    • 9




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      Mar 22 at 2:02






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:47






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 22 at 12:09
















    10












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 21 at 20:17






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      -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
      Mar 21 at 22:22








    • 9




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      Mar 22 at 2:02






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:47






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 22 at 12:09














    10












    10








    10





    $begingroup$

    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 Mar 21 at 17:36









    Dohn JoeDohn Joe

    50529




    50529








    • 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
      Mar 21 at 20:17






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      -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
      Mar 21 at 22:22








    • 9




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      Mar 22 at 2:02






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:47






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 22 at 12:09














    • 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
      Mar 21 at 20:17






    • 9




      $begingroup$
      -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
      Mar 21 at 22:22








    • 9




      $begingroup$
      It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
      $endgroup$
      – Ingolifs
      Mar 22 at 2:02






    • 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
      Mar 22 at 4:47






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 22 at 12:09








    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
    Mar 21 at 20:17




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 20:17




    9




    9




    $begingroup$
    -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
    Mar 21 at 22:22






    $begingroup$
    -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
    Mar 21 at 22:22






    9




    9




    $begingroup$
    It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Mar 22 at 2:02




    $begingroup$
    It would stratify into CO2, H2O and debris
    $endgroup$
    – Ingolifs
    Mar 22 at 2:02




    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
    Mar 22 at 4:47




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 4:47




    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 12:09




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 22 at 12:09











    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 Mar 22 at 5:08









        Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen

        5,7001128




        5,7001128























            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
              Mar 21 at 18:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 19:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              Mar 21 at 22:25






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 22:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 23:08
















            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
              Mar 21 at 18:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 19:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              Mar 21 at 22:25






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 22:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 23:08














            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 Mar 22 at 13:26

























            answered Mar 21 at 17:51









            PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto

            83.3k16239455




            83.3k16239455








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              Mar 21 at 18:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 19:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              Mar 21 at 22:25






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 22:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 23:08














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
              $endgroup$
              – SpaceInMyHead
              Mar 21 at 18:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 19:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
              $endgroup$
              – uhoh
              Mar 21 at 22:25






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 22:52






            • 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
              Mar 21 at 23:08








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – SpaceInMyHead
            Mar 21 at 18:52




            $begingroup$
            Yes, but it was only an anomaly. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – SpaceInMyHead
            Mar 21 at 18:52




            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
            Mar 21 at 19:31




            $begingroup$
            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
            Mar 21 at 19:31




            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
            Mar 21 at 22:25




            $begingroup$
            Ignition happened between the carbon overwrap of the helium tanks inside the LOX tank, not between RP-1 and LOX.
            $endgroup$
            – uhoh
            Mar 21 at 22:25




            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
            Mar 21 at 22:52




            $begingroup$
            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
            Mar 21 at 22:52




            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
            Mar 21 at 23:08




            $begingroup$
            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
            Mar 21 at 23:08


















            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

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            Image
            FæreyjarHestar færeyskahjaltlandshestinumíslenski hesturinnBretlandskolanámumenskuWikipediafæreyskuWikipediaRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeysku Færeyskur hestur Úr Wikipediu, frjálsa alfræðiritinu Jump to navigation Jump to search Rani og Grani. Grani í vetrarfeldi. Færeyski hesturinn (færeyska: Føroyska rossið ) er hestur sem hefur lifað í Færeyjum í hundruði ára. Hann er smágerður, 120-132 cm á hæð, og helst skyldur hjaltlandshestinum. Hlutverk hans var að draga vagna og plóg og bera klyfjar. Hann hefur fjórar gangtegundir eins og íslenski hesturinn (þar með talið tölt) og er með fjölda litaafbrigði. Nú til dags er hann notaður til frístunda. Í lok 19. aldar voru til um 800 hross. Mö...
            Read more

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Image
            Engineer refusing to file/disclose patents Extending the spectral theorem for bounded self adjoint operators to bounded normal operators Do varchar(max), nvarchar(max) and varbinary(max) columns affect select queries? Why is it that I can sometimes guess the next note? What linear sensor for a keyboard? Why don’t women say שלא עשני גויה and שפחה, according to Ashkenazim? Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets? anything or something to eat Query about absorption line spectra Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship? Fuse symbol on toroidal transformer Create all possible words using a set or letters Does the Mind Blank spell prevent the target from being frightened? Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face? When quoting, must I also copy hyphens used to divide words that continue on the next line? ...
            Read more

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029

            Image
            SlayerMusikgrupper bildade 1981Amerikanska thrash metal-grupper amerikansktthrash metalHuntington Park1981gitarristernaJeff HannemanKerry KingbasistenTom ArayatrummisenDave LombardoGary HoltPaul Bostaphcertifierats med guldMetallicaAnthraxMegadeththrash metal1986extrema metalgenrerdeath metal22 januari2018USAKanadaEuropaHuntington ParkKalifornien1981gitarristernaJeff HannemanKerry KingbassångDave Lombardoheavy metalbrittiskaIron MaidenJudas PriestthrashMetallicaRattSteeler1982demoundergroundMetal Blade1983high schoolGene HoglanDeathStrapping Young Ladkassettvinyl1984LondonMarquee Club1984Eldorado StudiosTrack Record StudiosLos Angelesmastrade1985CDCombat Recordsextreme metalVenomExodusStudio 54 club1985VHSCombat RecordsBelgienUFORick RubinDef Jam Recordship hoprockakterThe Black CrowesRun–D.M.C.LL Cool JBeastie BoysthrashbpmAngel of DeathRaining BloodAndy WallaceHowie Weinberg1986bildskivaBillboard 200RIAAMetal HammerKerrang!Angela Gossowdeath metalArch Enemythrash metalOverk...
            Read more