|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Surely that should be Aniline-Nitric acid, not Hydrazine-aniline? PML.
"... the trend in ICBMs has been to move toward solid fuel boosters."
Oh man, this sounds almost sarcastic to me. There are trends in ICBMs, really? What's hot this year, haha.
Not funny. -- .~.
Article talks about "hyperbolic" engine. That's probably incorrect, but someone who actually knows should make the edit.
The fourth paragraph opens with the sentence: "They are less likely to explode when starting." But the previous sentence refers to both Solid Fuels and Hypergolic Fuels - so which is less likely to explode? I assume Solid Fueled rockets because the article implies they're more stable, but I'm not a rocket scientist.
- The article for hard start seems to focus on hypergolic fuels, so I would assume that they are more likely to explode than solid fuels. Solid propellants should not explode if the nozzle opening is sufficiently large to prevent a buildup of pressure inside the engine. I suppose a hypergolic engine could explode if the components were mixed too quickly, in the wrong proportions, etc. I am not going to make any changes until we can get a source. --126.96.36.199 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you misread the article. Hard start is particularly an issue with non hypergolic liquid fuels, as in addition to the fuel and oxidiser entering the chamber, ignition and associated timing is required. Ignition failure or delay is the normal cause of a hard start. Hypergolic fuels self ignite on mixing, so the ignition step is not required/not as critical.The specific inclusion of hypergolic fueled systems in the hard start article is, I believe, because although a hard start is less likely with a hypergolic fuelled rocket motor, it is by no means impossible. So my understanding is that in order of risk of startup is liquid fuel non hypergolic - hypergolic - solid fuel.
- Solid fuel rockets are essentially uncontrollable and fixed thrust, so lack flexibility. Liquid fuelled rockets can provide variable thrust, can to get higher specific impulse, and in some cases handling is easier than for hypergolic fuels. On the pad ignition is easier to control. Thus a common set up is solid booster/liquid fuelled first stage, with hypergolic upper stage(s) where ignition is required in flight. The Shuttle main engines are liquid fuelled, but the orbital manoeuvring system is hypergolic.
- (Fair use image removed by bot) Serious hard start --Shoka 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Linking to disambiguation pages
Perhaps the disambiguation page was created after this, but I'm so tired of articles linking to disambiguation pages, when it clearly should be linked to an article. Anyway, I linked MMH properly, and not to a disambiguation page.
HTP / kerosene
Why isn't this a "true" hypergolic? In an article on rocketry, the crucial factor making hypergolic propellants of interest is their simple and reliable ignition, without the need for separate igniters and the risk of hard starts. Although the British HTP / kerosene engines did use a prior catalytic decomposition, they had all the engineering benefits of being hypergolic engines (just look at their reliablilty record, compared to their contemporaries). In a purely chemical context, the question of whether cold HTP + kerosene is hypergolic is indeed arguable, their place in rocketry seems secure. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- hypergolic means the two propellants spontaenously chemically ignite on contact. Kerosene and H2O2 do not. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking it's the propellant combination that's hypergolic, not the propellants themselves. I've restored a sentence that stated that the term "hypergolic propellant" is commonly used, even though that's not strictly correct. John added a cn tag to this, but the title of the article itself presumes that it is in common use. If we don't want to state that, then we should perhaps rename the article to just "Hypergolic". Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hypergolic propellant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104061453/http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=121007 to http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=121007
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.