Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion (IRRCE/IRRC) Engine

Dual rail H2O2/C12H26 hybrid IRRC engine that could replace most any fuel cell at not 10% the cost.

(by; Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA    updated: January 05, 2006)

In addition to the H2O2/Aluminum fuel cell energy density that's looking good, I believe C12H26(kerosene/diesel-No.1) offers a relatively clean 20 KW/kg worth of thermal energy when being properly oxidised and thereby boosted along by H2O2(hydrogen peroxide), especially better off as opposed to obtaining a mere 4.8 KW/kg (1.25 liter of c12h26 = 1 kg) as usable shaft/torque rotating energy when that's derived from a conventional air breathing IC engine which obviously isn't taking into account for the horific volume and subsequent density of the mostly N2 consumed atmosphere (<26 m3/1.25L or 21 m3/L or if you like 32.5 kg/kg), thus I tend to favor the actual/extractable and thereby comparable energy/kg of what c12h26/air becomes a rather pathetic 0.56 kw/kg, and that's only if you're excluding the portion of n2 density. Another factor of energy advantage on behalf of the h2o2/c12h26 is with regard to it's combustion velocity which exceeds 1500 m/s, thus a 2-cycle 0.1 m power stroke could theoretically exceed 450,000 rpm, suggesting upon a rather unrealistic example of what's entirely possible though mechanically could never be allowed to happen, thus all of that terrific energy expansion velocity must obviously go somewhere.

H2O2/c12h26 offers nearly 75% the energy potential of LH2/LO2 at not 10% the complications nor risk, less overall space taken up as well. If we're to be powering any sort of LM-1 metro bus, the stability and sheer density of fuel and oxidiser are fairly important issues, that is if there's any reasonable limitations upon space while desiring a good deal of cruising range. Obviously this is not something offered as a solution for morons, as even their atmospheric breathing and gasoline burning/polluting machine is well over their heads, though as for having an open container of h2o2 (hydrogen peroxide) on your desk is certainly a whole lot safer than if it were gasoline, as well as for c12h26 (kerosene) being far more stable and environmentally safer than is gasoline.

Remember that it takes relatively expensive and even potentially explosive fuel such as h2 and atmosphere for operating a spendy and fairly massive infrastructure per KW worth of fuel-cell, and perhaps a car should require 15~25 kw. Perhaps this IRRCE topic shouldn't have become rocket science, as it's mostly offering an IC alternative form of applied common sense for obtaining extremely clean mechanical energy, and for thereby offering a whole lot of applied "what ifs" that are far better than any air breathing engine. Of one of the more significant "what if" considerations is having to do with the task of operating a rather substantial piece of machinery within a hostile environment that's not directly suitable for the conventional IC engine, in that there's either too little atmosphere such as the near vacuum of the moon or Mars, or there's simply way too much of the wrong type of atmosphere, such as Venus.

Though perhaps before you flush, you might want to rethink upon the potential attributes of the Venus atmosphere, as offering too much of a darn good thing, at least as opposed to trying to operate most any conventional IC engine under water, whereas the thick and relatively dense Venus atmosphere is damn near as hostile to the needs of any conventional IC process as for being under water is here on Earth. Although, at least on Venus there's an already preheated option of CO2-->CO/O2 conversion which is hardly as bad off as for that of having too much H2O to deal with, as well as there being another little side benefit, of anything that weighs less than 65 kg/m3 becomes buoyant, in other words, the Venus environment is rigid airship heaven, and then some.

Another page is building on this IRRCE utilization of h2o2/c12h26, plus the following insert/update is of something that'll likely become further revised as others can inform the likes of myself, or as I manage on my own to gather more data, as I'll correct and upgrade whatever I can. The more I discover/learn, the more I'll share.

RCE/ROTARY, Rand Cam Rotary, TRICE or Quasiturbine on steroids

"Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion Engine (IRRCE = 15+KW/kg from C12H26)"

This IRRCE (Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion Engine) of direct energy conversion as a topic is simply not about something all that weird nor of what can't possibly be accomplished, as it's entirely within the knowledge base and expertise of at least those few individuals interested in making a meaningful difference that (God forbid) actually counts for something. Whereas even our resident warlord(GW Bush) is wishing there was a quick fix for the outrageous oil prices and of our failing refinery industries that are dying off somewhat faster than getting upgraded and/or replaced.

In comparision to operating hydrogen/air powered machines, or of just plain old c12h26/air (diesel engine) of technology that obviously works just fine and dandy here on Earth, as long as friendly global energy resources hold out and are not otherwise planning upon attacking us via stealth donkey-carts, plus whatever the size and overall weight and for whatever global warming pollution isn't a deciding factor, whereas the hybrid h2o2/c12h26 engine, especially of the 2-cycle verity that no longer utilizes air (thus no atmospheric intake whatsoever) offers a solid win-win per overall energy density as well as per volume of oxidiser/fuel, as well as for the necessary machinery itself.

I'll suppose this could become rather embarrassing if the 225 KW IRRC engine weighs all of 20 kg, while least overall polluting per KW at that. That "least overall polluting" factor is accounting for the entire process from energy birth to grave, as it doesn't do all that much good to operate a conventional IC engine upon h2/air if the overall production, storage, shipping and delivery of the h2 becomes more polluting than not, especially since we have absolutely no surplus energy by which to produce h2, that's not even to mention the potential of explosive disasters and eventual disposal of embritalment damaged alloys. Physical harm from liquified hydrogen should place an entirely new meaning upon the term "freezer burn", whereas utilizing the relative safety of h2 simply takes up way too much volume in relationship to that of h2o2. I also have recently learned of a relatively passive alternative for creating relatively pure h2o2, thus external process energy becomes nearly a non issue.

If need be, I believe that I can still locate a full technical description of those mining machines operating their IC engines on Hydrogen/Air, where actually those machines required a rather substantial cart chuck full of those high pressure containments of hydrogen, and where I believe there were either 36 or 64 bottles worth on the attached cart (several tonnes worth of cart and bottles) following the digging machine. Though the exhaust is respectfully clean, there's still the mater of the beast consuming mass quantities of atmosphere in order to accommodate a sufficient oxidiser/fuel ratio, as well as sheer volumes of the necessary oxygen (O2).

In the case of appreciating a well turbocharged diesel engine, that volume of air per volume of fuel is 21,000:1. In other words, especially for any 2-cycle diesel the consumption of one liter of fuel requires 21,000 liters of air (21 m3), which weighs in at 26 kg as opposed to the fuel (c12h26) that weighing in at roughly .795 kg, an atmospheric density to fuel density ratio of 32.75:1, of which I believe this ends up by providing 7.8:1 worth of O2/C12H26, along with lots (25 kg) of absolutely useless N2 and other useless stuff to boot.

Also worth taking into account is contemplating the relatively limited portion of a conventional power stroke that's actually combusting at a proper mixture, perhaps all of 10%, of which this portion represents a mere 2.5% of an overall 4-cycle event and still only 5% of any 2-cycle event, thus if striving for a good/clean burn is somewhat mechanically inefficient to be saying the least.

If we literally plug-off the air intake, thereby eliminating any blower and/or turbocharger, then apply a dual rail of pressurized fuel (including the likes of c3h4o) and one of h2o2 oxidiser, apply similar computer control over injector timing and volumes of each and, lo and behold, we've got ourselves an extremely compact engine that'll work regardless of the external environment, especially if it's of the ROTARY format which can obviously be engineered to represent 2-cycle functionality, thus every rotation offers a power stroke, possibly even two power impulses per rotation. Actually as for operating on Mars or the moon is even better, as having the vacuum of what's exterior will only further improve upon the exhaust portion of every cycle, of somewhat adding another minor power stroke based upon exhaust extraction via vacuum.

The h2o2/c12h26 emissions may be somewhat worse off than the H2/air IC engine, though at least of whatever usable atmosphere there is within the working environment/zone isn't being consumed and thereby contaminated at the voracious rate of 21,000:1.

I believe the sheer volumes of fuel (c12h26 or c3h4o) and oxidiser (h2o2) isn't going to be 1/10th that of dealing with the LH2-->H2/air breathing demands, especially since those bottles of hydrogen are per m3 of usable product so freaking bulky as well as heavy, making a fairly large SUV having limited seating of 4 into a 200 mile range at best (the FORD and GV solutions seem to suggest that 75 miles is good enough), seems more like we're going those 75 miles in reverse.

Though some R&D of the IRRCE is to be required, the size and/or volume requirements for the engine itself, per KW output, isn't all that likely to being 10% that of the conventional IC alternative, and most certainly the same goes for the advantage over fuel-cell alternatives, as a 225 KW fuel cell alone is downright huge, not to mention spendy.

For the record, the IRRCE combustion cycle can efficiently consume all of 90% out of every power stroke, as opposed to the 10% worth of a two-cycle diesel and a mere 5% of the four-cycle engine if you include the fact that there an entire exhaust stroke being wasted. Actually, of the conventional two-cycle engine mechanical motion, per cycle there's but 5% out of every revolution operating at peak energy performance, while the 4 cycle becomes all of 3%.

With either h2o2 or c12h26, their storage need not be frozen nor under high pressure, thus even less volume, considerably less infrastructure mass as well as less complexity gets involved.

Containment safety is certainly another improvement over pure hydrogen.

There's obviously far less if any hydrogen embritalment issues to deal with.

The 7.25:1 combustion is relatively clean, thus engine wear and tear factors are minimized.

As compared to the H2 powered fuel-cell, there's absolutely no contest, as the IRRCE will win by achieving far greater energy output upon less volume, while operating from far less fuel/oxidiser density per kwh, having less to go wrong at perhaps not 1% the overall cost, especially for speaking of lunar environments, and far less than 1% if we're speaking of accomplishing such energy logistics on Mars.

I could go on an on about advantages of the IRRC engine that'll work just fine and dandy without our having to reinvent the wheel, although the opposition has so far demonstrated their distain for anything and/or anyone working outside their proverbial "status-quo" box. Sorry if that upsets your ego, as I've been honestly attempting to show others the more likely than not alternatives to what our NASA has merely overlooked for more than a decade, and otherwise moderating the truth to death, as in literally to the demise of a few too many nice folks, and always at the expense of humanity.

This energy topic only seems to get itself overly complicated because the vast bulk of technical references as to any form of atmospheric derived IC created energy has intentionally excluded the consumption of said atmosphere, of which is by far the greater volume and density of what's being consumed, thereby significantly skewing the energy output/kg, not to mention responsible for the vast bulk of CO2 being created. When we try to honestly compare upon the benefits of the h2o2/c12h26 cocktail as opposed to those of air breathing technologies, there's actually no contest whatsoever, as the h2o2/c12h26 wins. Though apparently to the average soul there's still no good reason to even bother thinking outside their global warming box, call it the three monkey PAGWEB (Patriot Act Global Warming Energy Bomb) nondisclosure box of "hear no evil", "see no evil" and "smell no evil".

First things first; In spite of my dyslexia and calculations being unintentionally skewed from time to time, I don't believe I've specifically invented any new form of internal combustion engine, and certainly the usage of pure hydrogen and of pure oxygen beats anything h2o2/c12h26, though perhaps if we're going to identify upon this variation, we might start off by replacing the old the IC terminology with IRC or perhaps IRCE or even IRRCE for Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion Engine, as that's basically the plan of converting a series of rocket like controlled explosions into accomplishing mechanical work.

Obviously if overall equipment and operating cost, space and safety remained as non issues, of LH/LO alternatives or perhaps even hydrogen/fuel-cells would be best, even though the process of creating, packaging or storage and of safely delivering such to anywhere remote such as on the moon becomes rather spendy and thoroughly testy, not to mention the much greater dangers associated with the logistics of various on location handling and utilizing anything LH/LO are of many issues pushing your luck. Whereas h2o2/c12h26 offers many production as well as packaging, storage stability, delivery and user friendly advantages that will not freeze nor vaporise yourself on the spot, nor cost so many arms and legs in order to implement. Even the spent O2 derived from the crew which offers CO becomes more fuel. Actually the cool lunar nighttime or via earthshine offers a near ideal cool environment for storing of and for obtaining the most usable density of either h2o2 or c12h26. Insulating those same products from the solar influx is not the least bit of any problem for the likes of basalt composites and microspheres, and besides all of that, as those volumes of h2o2/c12h26 are being utilized, a little expansion is exactly what the doctor ordered.

In the simplest of terms, of which I'm quite certain yourself and others can explain this phase a whole lot better than I can; if you think you understand the basic principals of a conventional 2 cycle diesel engine, the fact that it usually takes a forced draft of atmosphere (air) so that upon every cycle the incoming air delivery displaces the exhaust, of which this air is then further compressed in order to increase the O2 density as well as for creating the desirable ignition heat, subsequently the fuel is timed as to being directly injected/atomized into the compressed combustion chamber, then obviously the fire/explosion takes place and is briefly sustained based upon the dwell or duration and thereby volume of fuel injection, meanwhile down goes the piston and out with the old and systematically in with the mostly new batch of atmosphere.

Unfortunately, even though there's often a blower and/or turbocharger huffing and puffing away with reguard to a conventional IC diesel engine, especially of the 2 cycle verity since there's also an overlap timing of exhaust-out verses air-in, as well as for some of the cylinder chamber that remains sort of exhaust dirty or contaminated, as well as there being only a relatively slight moment in the actual power cycle that's receiving the near ideal air/fuel mixture, thus a 2 cycle engine typically can not operate itself as fuel efficient nor as clean running as a 4 cycle, though even a good 4 cycle engine must contend with a similar limitation of a relatively short combustion duration per cycle when the air/fuel ratio is actually correct (perhaps representing not 10% of the power stroke).

In either 2 cycle or 4 cycle engines, because there's only 21% O2 and the rest of which is mostly a non oxidiser (non-combustible N2 product that's almost as usable as "clumping moon dirt"), and unless there's some other form of artificial ignition, as without considerable compression the O2 portion is simply way too thin and cold for creating the proper firing environment for the injected fuel (even if the fuel were super heated), thus a rather considerable compression stroke is required, whereby a great deal of energy is expended for creating every stroke and then some. Roughly the typical diesel engine consumes 21,000 times as much atmospheric volume as for volume of fuel, and it must obviously accommodate that volume in order to effectively combust the c12h26 by having a sufficient supply of O2, whereas the abundance of equally compressed N2 isn't worth squat, except for getting in the way while using up valuable energy which then only creates more pollution.

Under good conditions and using the best of diesel engine engineering, it's possible to obtain a maximum usable shaft energy of 15.5 kw per gallon (3.7854 L or 3.22 kg) of diesel No.2, that's roughly a maximum usable shaft horse power of 21 per 3.22 kg/hr. Most engine manufacturers will nearly always claim as good or better, but their net usable shaft energy is often far less than 15 kw/gal once their essential accessories are taken into account, thus 15 kw/gal or 3.963 kw/L which becomes 4.66 kw/kg (excluding the o2 density) for being about as good as it gets at sealevel or below.

Thermally that's roughly a little better than 36% efficient, though if we drop into diesel No.1 or worse yet is Kerosene, at which point the best we're getting is typically 33% thermal efficiency. In other words, from the same volume of lighter weight fuel begets less molecular mass and thereby of consuming roughly 3 kg instead of 3.22 kg of diesel No.2 = 158,000 x 0.935 = 147,730 BTU for that of Kerosene. Of course, as the air ratio and/or compression is reduced, so are those available BTUs reduced until there's more soot and smoke than usable energy.

Establishing and then maintaining the fuel/oxidiser ratio seems like a perfectly great notion

This is where some of those "what ifs" come into play; What if in place of using that externally and inefficient atmosphere of relatively piss poor oxidiser that's only offered as a small portion of the package, what if there were to be a rather nicely pressurised supply of toasty hot oxidiser as well as for one offering an H2 boost, as for being just as capable of being timely injected along side the equally high pressure kerosene injector?

Of course if we're still contemplating upon the same fundamental IC engine scheme of merely modified as a IRC (Internal Rocket Combustion) variation by having those dual injectors, the pistons will still need to go up and down in much the same manner, although there's obviously no longer any necessity for that blower nor turbocharger and, there's obviously no further need of an atmospheric intake, only that of an exhaust port obtaining as a rather terrific power boost by releasing the spent combustion exhaust into a vacuum, thus even the final portion of the down stroke offers somewhat of another power stroke. A sufficiently modified exhaust cycle or dwell could actually capitalize upon this vacuum aspect, thus extracting even more thermal energy per stroke.

In order to facilitate the initially cool and liquid H2O2 as well as for the C12H26 into maximum expansion on a moments notice, it'll be a good thing as to having said h2o2 and c12H26 up to a good deal of temperature as well as under a rather terrific amount of pressure, say 575k (575F) and at least 1000 Bar (14,700 psi) at the disposal of their respective injector should accommodate this task. The most revent of pressure boosting injectors can deliver at 2000 bar.

On top of all that expansion benefit, once the piston is nearing what would considered the top of a compression stroke, whereas just a few calculated degrees prior to TDC is where the H2O2 injection could be initiated and perhaps even pre-ignited, shortly thereafter the C12H26 plus continued h2o2 is introduced and sustained as for whatever power stroke is necessary in order to suit the energy demand/load. Thus unlike the fixed volume of compressed air intake of the conventional IC engine, the IRC engine can offer an exact ratio of 7.5:1 or of whatever desired mixture throughout the combustion dwell, which can consume <90% of the power stroke.

Furthermore; because this being a forced fed fuel/oxidiser situation, there's actually no compression stroke requirement unless the injection timing is such as to permit further compression of those recently atomized deliveries of H2O2/C12H26, thus any piston stroke can be relatively short, perhaps not half that of a comparable IC diesel engine, allowing RPM to being proportionally that much greater. That greater RPM alone should enable the overall package to being smaller for the amount of shaft energy created, where three cylinders may become worth delivering what 8 conventional cylinders would otherwise have taken. Actually an opposing 2 cylinder 2-cycle IRC engine of 9000 rpm might easily outperform the conventional V8 IC diesel engine that operated on pathetically compressed air (o2/n2) rather than having pure H2O2 as it's energy boost and oxidiser.

Without my involving cloak and dagger or of some other stealth motives, I believe I've nicely introduced the IRC or IRCE variation of a dual-rail supply of H2O2/C12H26 injections, delivering whatever is necessary via computer timing as well as for creating the necessary high pressure (1000 bar) injections and thereby atomising for achieving the desired affect of combustion duration as well as volume. I've located specifications indicating as much as 8.5 MJ/kg which computes into 2.361 MW or 8.056e3 btu/kg of the h2o2/c12h26.

All and all we're probably looking at 80% or better energy conversion efficiency, minus the rolling friction of certain engine auxiliary and transmission components and of dealing with the residual but extremely clean exhaust heat, although another thermal expansion piston/chamber or perhaps power turbine could extract further energy if space and weight were not a factor. I'd say we looking at obtaining at least an overall 75% energy conversion into rotating shaft energy, all of which fueled from the H2O2/C12H26 (7.5:1) cocktail that in itself is offering < 8.5 Mj/kg, thus accommodating a fairly good combination of fuel/oxidiser and of engine proficiency.

I'd like to think this has created a sufficient amount of controlled IRC energy, say if we needed 300 Kw (1,024,000 btu), from which we should be able to extract at least 225 kw worth in the form of true shaft torque energy. I'm not certain what the MPG of your typical lunar 25 or 50 tonne metro buss is going for these days but, I'm fairly certain it'll pass California emissions without a hitch, while also passing just about every other bus/truck stop along the way. In order for this LM-1 to circumvent the moon, for that feat the bus will either require a healthy range of 12,500 km or a drop point of having fuel/oxidiser stashed along the way, though some of the smooth going (less meteorite strewn) and if it's mostly down hill could be supported via PV energy, as these panels should offer at least 48 m2 worth of cells, thus perhaps 12 kw worth as long as the sun is up, those panels are directed at the sun and there's not a cloud in the star spangled sky, nor more likely of dark basalt moonscape shading your path.

Unless these auxiliary PV panels become meteorite impacted and/or radiation damaged as could have happened this last October/November, their added energy support per expedition could represent as much as 10% unless they're having to work in the dark or even via earthshine. Earthshine might offer all of 1% or 120 watts from 48 m2.

The Rotary IRC or IRRC Engine offers some impressive advantages

Perhaps only by thinking a little further outside the box, there's always been an even better IRC solution; since there's no atmospheric intake nor any significant compression requirement (H2O2 as well as C12H26 being injected from their high pressure common rails, could even be spark ignited if need be just slightly prior to the c12h26 injection, thus there's damn little or no compression requirement). For this sort of energy conversion enterprise there's been a well proven rotary engine concept (IRRC) that'll offer an even better density package, and obviously a smoother operating machine than pistons that's still entirely sealed except for the exhaust port, giving this IRRCE version of providing energy into rotation with the least possible moving parts. As per kg and volume of machinery requirements, whereas this rotary application may also offer the most suitable of ceramic composite compatibility while permitting the most sustainable output per volume of space utilization to boot.

Within certain rocket terminology references, we're still looking at ratios of at least 7:1 to as much as 8:1, though 7.5 parts H202 per C12H26 seems somewhat of an average, thus the total available combustion energy should remain rather substantial, and it certainly should be fairly clean energy at that.

Since the H2O2 is already sufficiently dense (<1.45 g/kg of 99+% H2O2) as well as initially obtaining a relatively cool substance via lunar ambient nighttime/earthshine coolness should offer as much as -240F (122K) and thereby creating even greater storage density, and of those volumes of what's necessary being 7.5:1, so there seems like an even better chance that this sort of dense flow worth of H2O2 (at least 7.5 LPH) plus the initially cool c12h26 (at least 1 LPH) could provide for all of the necessary IRRCE block cooling wherever it's deemed necessary, as well as for subsequently resolving the much needed thermal expansion (pre-heating) of fluid substances prior to their being injected at 1000 bar, or even if necessary by way of a circulating a portion of such through the IRC block and back into the external storage tanks would obviously more than suffice, although with some good use of ceramics and other composites, allowing this hybrid IRC ROTARY engine block as permitted to run relatively hot, say 575K, whereas only the areas of the firing chambers and modified exhaust port will require some additional thermal management.

It also seems highly logical that such relatively stable volumes of C12H26 and H2O2 can each be robotically delivered to the moon with fairly low technology (I wouldn't even be all that surprised if this turns out being another good application for those stealth WMD donkey-carts), especially if there's an LSE as for to making the final decent from orbit into a slam dunk, as then only minor scheduling is necessary and of darn little if any risk for astronauts, unless you consider those donkeys as full fledged astronauts, in which case there could be some rather considerable carnage.

I'm also thinking along the lines of employing those fairly low cost though proficient Chinese space technologies which can make such robotic deliveries for pennies on the dollar, even via lunar landers should be perfected and able to make those speedy descents and robotic down-range landings with out a hitch, and best of all, without all the fuss over keeping some TBI-proof crew alive and of sufficiently unradiated to death, not to mention avoiding their being otherwise perforated to death.

The further thought of retrofitting something like those V-22 Ospreys, from being pilotted cruise missile death traps, converting them into robotic lunar landers might actually work, of course getting rid of those inefficient blades and going with purely H2O2/C12H26 rocket thrust, capable of sufficient thrust for delivering 100 t (16.7 t lunar gravity + whatever the modified V-22 weight of perhaps another 15.3 t as for requiring a grand touchdown thrust of 32 lunar tonnes), a thrust total of nearly 13 times that of our manned lunar landers that supposedly managed perfectly at 6000+ lbs. You'd think that nearly 4 decades and of those V-22 with their dozen or so flight stabilisation computers and hundreds of sensors just might even be sufficient. Actually of incorporating a few relatively small flywheels (say 50 kg each operating at 20,000 rpm or perhaps 30,000 rpm and perhaps having 3 if not 4 of these devices) should replace those two human chopping rotors, creating the artificial flight essential airframe stabilisation via gyros, as of the one sure-fire thing that our previous lunar landers lacked was anything in the way of a sufficient gyroscopic mass for those fly-by-wire modulated maneuvering rockets to push against, especially important since their total mass and CG was dynamically and rapidly shifting by the second.

100 tonnes of delivering either C12H26 (kerosene) or H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is certainly making for a good start, although we'll need roughly 8 units worth of those H2O2 deliveries per unit of C12H26. Actually we'll require a mere 13.5 tonnes of C12H26 per 100 tonnes of H2O2, and that alone should be enough for an entire years worth of extended expeditions (180 days worth of being on the bumpy meteorite strewn road). Of course, as for the obtaining of and of subsequently getting those 100 tonnes of anything off Earth in the first is going to create as much as 10,000 tonnes of global warming artificial CO2 just for Earth. Although, if those nice Chinse folks can produce the H2O2 and C12H26 efficiently, then utilize their robotic (fly-by-wire) rockets for the initial deliveries into lunar orbit, that overall CO2 impact upon Earth may be cut by at least half as opposed to any viable alternative we seem to have to work with and, best of all is that we're talking of at most 10 cents on the dollar as opposed to our spendy as well as cloak and dagger American alternatives, whereas everyone is happy except a few culvert Americans associated having those hidden NASA/NSA/DoD (DHS) cold-war agendas, along with all of that "world energy domination" issue as ulterior motivation.

Actual EPA mileage may vary;   At perhaps 50 lunar tonnes (300 Earth tonnes) and of conservatively obtaining 10 km/liter of C12H26 plus accounting for the other 7.5 liters of the H2O2 (total of consuming 8.5 liters H2O2/C12H26 per 10 km = 2.767 MPG). By having but 1000 liters (1 m3) of the C12H26 and 7500 liters (7.5 m3) worth of the H2O2 (plus hauling another few thousand liters of just plain old O2 on hand for the crew), the cruising range of this triple track driven LM-1 bus should have no problem in exceeding 10,000 km (6,213 miles), in other words more than 42 days worth on the meteorite strewn and bumpy lunar road, as in nearly circumventing the moon, that is unless someone is cooking pizzas while utilizing the hot-tub, in which case they'll be getting 1/10th that mileage if they're lucky. Though even 1000 km (621 miles) still isn't all that bad for a 50 lunar tonne bus, as long as there's numerous pitstops along the way.

I actually would like to believe, perhaps via wishful thinking, the LM-1 EPA mileage could achieve 5.5 MPG (2.3 km/L). At 8,500 L = 19,550 km.

As I've previously mentioned about the 12 KW available from those 48 m2 worth of PV cells; with this energy added in for a given outing, chances are good that circumventing the moon is safely within spec as long as the mission isn't headed into lunar nighttime, though there's a somewhat testy trade off of having to survive considerably more lethal solar weather of radiation flak, of potential dosages which would severely limit those external EVAs down to a few hours worth unless someone has their privet stash of banked bone marrow back at the LSE Cyrogentic-Biological-Vault.

Since such fuel and oxidiser deliveries should become robotic, such raw fuel and raw oxidiser stashes could be those previously deployed and or even sent on demand, while those robotic deliveries could be somewhat minimally shielded, as there's no biological radiation hazard issue (just those pesky meteorites), though taking a chance upon not being targeted by some spiffy meteorite could be the least of the overall difficulties as compared to navigating and of robotically remote landing any significant tonnage onto such a meteorite shard strewn lunar surface. Although, a payload suspended by cable (basalt composite cable) would insure the utmost of flight stability, as the CG would obviously remain situated far below the actual rocket powered transporter (LV-22 Delivery Express).

The resurrected LV-22(DE) now having the trio benefit of those outboard rocket pods should give sufficient thermal clearance for the suspension cable, as for keeping out of the thermal exhaust blast would be somewhat essential, even though the Basalt cable itself could sustain a good full-load safety margin at 1000K (intermittently 1500K).

If luck isn't on your side, perhaps a little spillage might be unfortunate but, since there's no lunar Greenpiece anywhere in sight, there's a fairly good chance that once the sun rolls around and bakes whatever was spilt and hadn't already evaporated and/or been thoroughly irradiated from the hundreds of rads worth of solar and cosmic flak plus lunar surface secondary hard x-ray class dosage, that such spillage should vanish in no time at all, or perhaps become part of the thin lunar sodium atmosphere (I'd tend to think a little H2O2 tonnage set free might do quite nicely, either that or it'll react with a few of those exotic elements within lunar basalt and proceed to set the moon on fire).

Blocking radiation requires mass, stoping a pesky meteorite takes dumb luck plus lots more mass.

I'm now thinking if this LM-1 metro bus has been constructed in order to survive those typical lunar inbound meteorite impacts, of at least one of something per hour making contact somewhere on the upper half of this machine (offering a target zone of as much as 48 m2 worth of upper hull exposure), chances are fairly good that the required composite build-up will more than suffice for whatever radiation abatement issues.

Fortunately for mother Earth, most meteorites never reach the surface, even large ones are significantly reduced, and of micro-meteorites that would have been potentially lethal in space or on the moon are at most merely space dust by the time those of less than 1 mm reach the surface of Earth. So, even if a micro-meteorite were to be standing perfectly still while Earth encountered it at 30 km/s, our atmosphere would pretty much eliminate the threat, though that's NOT the case for our moon, or of anything situated on and/or above the surface. That's almost as true for Mars, though at least there's some atmosphere, though not hardly enough to protect yourself from those pesky meteorites as clearly depicted in those surface images of Mars, where every square meter was strewn with shards and debris. Guess what? Our lunar environment is far worse off than Mars, or at least it should have been in more ways than you can shake that flaming stick at.

Unfortunately, since the moon acts very much like a meteorite magnet, whereas a given lethal projectile (size not necessarily being a factor here) that would have slipped safely past ISS without even altering speed nor course would surely have gone out of their way to target the moon. It's called gravity attracts and, in the case of the moon not having any significant atmosphere, those pesky little buggers are not slowing down. In fact, if you were such a meteorite just poking along at say 5 km/s, chances are that upon encountering the lunar gravity influence of 1.62 m/s will have caused that 5 km/s into becoming at least 10 km/s if not a whole lot more likely to exceeding 15 km/s depending upon the combined speeds plus mutual gravity influence. Certainly of a 10 kg package isn't ever going to be impacting at much less than 15 km/s, no matters what, unless it's one of those coming up from the rear.

Of course the only reasons why anyone would even suggest otherwise is only because this sort of information is not supporting those Apollo documented landings, images of a relatively bright lunar surface reflective index (exceeding 50% in many images), of clumping moon dirt having damn few meteorites and of never a single impact realized during all of their combined surface expeditions and EVAs, as well as there being little if any radiation. In other words, a walk in the park.

Speaking of kinetic energy imposed by those pesky meteorites: = .5 m * v2
    m = kg (*.5)
    v = m/s (squared)

10 kg moving along at 10 km/s = 50e7 joules
  1 kg moving along at 10 km/s = 50e6 joules
  1 g moving along at 10 km/s = 50e3 joules (36,878 force/sec)

10 kg moving along at 30 km/s = 4505e7 joules
  1 kg moving along at 30 km/s = 450e6 joules
  1 g moving along at 30 km/s = 450e3 joules (332,000 force/sec)

An extremely small pebble or spec of sand, or of any other micro debris;
0.1 g moving along at 30km/s = 450 joules (332 force/sec)

A mm3 worth of Earth like sand = 1.766 g
1.766 g moving along at 30 km/s = 794.7e3 joules (586,141 force/sec)

A note as to Earth sand: typical density = 1.766 tonne/m3

According to Zook, H. A.; HYPERVELOCITY IMPACT, Average velocities at the moon thus obtained range from 13 to 18 km/sec.

From: Ron Baalke (
"Watching meteorites fall on the moon ... is within reach of (modest) amateur telescopes. Because the Moon doesn't have a substantial atmosphere, meteorite impacts there are much more violent than here on Earth liberating much more energy: 20 million joules for a 1-kg block."

"Compared to Lunar Prospector, Leonid meteoroids are light weight and tiny, but they move a lot faster," Goldstein continued. "The mass of Lunar Prospector was 160 kg and it was moving 1.7 km/s when it hit the moon on July 31. Leonid particles are going about 72 km/s. That means that a Leonid the mass of a golf ball (about 0.1 kg) would deliver the same kinetic energy as the Lunar Prospector crash."

I've since learned of our man-made space-junk that was initially barely moving itself along at the E/M null point, had it's horrific impact upon the moon, though even the following seems somewhat skewed if the 1 kg meteorite impact as mentioned above created 20 Mj worth of energy release, as there's no lunar atmosphere and if the 1.62 m/s of lunar gravity pull is applied all the way to impact, though sort of speak if catching up from the rear will have significantly reduced their impact velocity:
Impact Sites of Apollo LM Ascent and SIVB Stages. SIVB is the Saturn upper stage which was targeted towards the Moon after separation from Apollo.
Impact Velocity (km/s): 2.55
Impact Energy (ergs): 4.71e17 (47 GW)

Since 1 gram traveling at 10 km/s is about the upper limit that's nicely survivable without worry of penetrating the outer portion an overall 65~70 g/m2 worth of basalt composite fibers and a 5 cm sandwich of basalt microspheres, though if to be going by what others are stipulating as 18 km/s to 72 km/s, I'm thinking the 25 cm of any mostly solid basalt composite may need to be further reinforced with somewhat greater density of titanium and tungsten filaments, not so much for their strength as for their sheer density and their subsequent energy absorbing/distributing differentials, as otherwise applying another 25 cm worth of solid of basalt composite may offer an even better job, at least as good as whatever any 25 mm worth of alloy metal, though creating a half meter worth of basalt composite may become a wee bit bulky. In order to cut this overall thickness down, perhaps a good density of having sandwiched uranium alloy might become just the ticket for at least the upper 180 interior cab portion of this LM-1 bus, of perhaps pertaining mostly to protecting the forward crew-cab area (seating for up to 8 in their full survival moon suits).

A full kg (2.205 lbs) impacting at 10 km/s is going to take out a hefty chunk of the outer shell (perhaps worse), though possibly several of such impacts could likely be sustained within a good safety margin and, if need be a temporary field repair patch of basalt fibers and epoxy could be implemented for dealing with those that created significant impact erosions into the microsphere zone, which would have represented more than a 50% penetration.

The notion of the LM-1 surviving any 1+kg meteorite impacting at 30 km/s is something that'll take all of the added 25 cm worth of alloy reinforced basalt composite (a grand total of 50 cm @150 g/cm2) and then some, as this would be a serious impact of 450e6 joules (332e6 force/s). In spite of all this added reinforcement, chances are most likely that we'd have a rather serious hole in one, perhaps even a clean through-shot with an even bigger exit wound unless the impact was sufficiently deflected.

Even if this LM-1 bus should end up amounting to 300 tonnes, that's still only 50 tonnes worth of lunar machinery application that somewhat larger track drives of perhaps offering a total support track area of 12 m2 should do just fine and dandy, though undoubtedly cutting into our SOA, knocking this metro bus down to 25 km/h instead of the proposed 50 km/h of cruising the 25 lunar tonnage version I'd planed on, while knocking the initial cruising range of 15,000 km down to perhaps 12,500 km.

Because there's no significant lunar atmosphere, those incoming meteorites are cold and sharp as a tack, and incoming at a gravitational acceleration pull worth < 1.62 m/s, there's obviously no slowing down nor being in anyway deflected except for impact, thus a broadside shot is just about as likely as from above, with the exception of those coming at you from the horizon being perhaps a bit slower, though not likely of anything below 10 km/s unless they've already bounced off the lunar surface or coming at you from an aft side or back door.

Of what an upper speed limit is for a good meteorite these days; this is anyone's guess, as 30 km/s is merely 0.001% light speed and, I believe we know for a fact that solar flak can exceed that and then some by a factor of 1000 fold, thus surely there's other incoming cosmic debris (sub micron) plus a few larger bits from outside our solar system that's not been slowing itself down, at least not if it's been inward bound towards the core of our solar system, a small fraction of which must be worth at least as much as 30e3 km/s (1/10th light speed), in which case having 3+ meters worth of solid basalt between yourself and whatever has your name on it would become highly advisable.

A most interesting UV spectrum video tape, not even all that recently acquired from NASA, reproduced by researcher David Sereda, certainly clocked just that sort of incoming flak and a of whole lot more if you actually give a tinkers damn about knowing the truth. Of course don't bother asking NASA because, they're acting just exactly like all their other members being trained at their official "Hogan's Heroes" camp, by Sgt. Schultz and Col. Wilhelm Klink, whom continually "see nothing" as well as "hear nothing", whereas all members of Club NASA must receive their 3-Monkey doctorate degrees in "nondisclosure-101" as a standard prerequisite before ever being accepted into the NASA/NSA/DoD cult.
David Sereda:

Here's some other notes of what I've learned about various fuel/oxidiser cocktails.

JP4/Kerosene = 6.625 lb/gal (3.005 kg)
Diesel No.1 or c12h26 < c16h26 provides roughly 140,000 btu/gal or 46,667 btu/kg (excluding air volume/density consumption)
(based upon roughly 26 kg of air @30% humidity and 21% O2 as oxidiser)

H2O2-98% as monopropellant Density: 1.43 g/cc (cold <1.45 g/cc)
C12H26 (JP4 / Kerosene) Density: 0.79384 g/cc (cold <0.85 g/cc)

H2O2/C12H26 =  < 8.5 MJ/kg which computes into 2.36 KW or 8.056e3 BTU/kg.

Gross energy release (large turbine/air engine combustion) 43 MJ/kg of C12H26 (excluding air consumption)

A reference to a well turbocharged 4-cycle diesel engine consumes 21,000 times air volume per volume of fuel. In other words, per liter of fuel there's 21,000 liters (21 m3) worth of atmosphere consumed. At 1.225 kg/m3 that's 25.7 kg air per 0.794 kg of c12h26, for an overall air density to fuel density ratio of 32:1, but since only 21% of that compressed atmosphere is of the O2 and having 14% more molecular mass than the N2 component, the actual component or mass of the O2 element per kg of fuel might thereby become worth 7.68:1.

Maximum energy from Diesel No.2 = 45.75 MJ/kg (43,315 btu/kg)
Maximum energy from Kerosene/JP4 = 42.85 MJ/kg (40,614 btu/kg)
c12h26/air (N2 and 21% O2 + 30% humidity) = 48,991 btu/kg excludes the volume of air density)
Maximum energy of C12H26 if being boosted by H2O2 = 72.25 MJ (68,000 btu/kg)
c12h26/h2o2 can produce 4054K and up to 8.5 MJ/kg (8.056e3 BTU/kg of combined fuel/oxidiser)

CO/O2 (1 delta) = 48.9 kj/mol ( 260+ ISP )
CO/O2 ( w/H2O2 ) = 81.5 kj/mol ( 433+ ISP )

Extracted from Jeff Levy; a typical mid-sized car uses about 0.1 L per km, approximately 3,800 kj/km.
Maximum energy derived from gasoline/air provides up to 38,000 kj/l (36,000 btu/l or 48,000 btu/kg)

Obtained from other resources I've learned somewhat similar but as usual differing numbers;
Gasoline/air produces:     44,754 btu/kg
Hydrogen/O2 produces: 134,550 btu/kg
Gasoline density = 0.725 < 0.75 gm/cc = 0.725 < 0.75 kg/liter

Of some further references; Molecular Weights of:
H2O2 = 34.02
  H20 = 18.02
    O2 = 32.00
    N2 = 28.00
    CO = 28.01
C12H26 = 170.34

In a little retrospect; perhaps we shouldn't be all that concerned over our minimal petroleum resources, as if we developed a reasonably low cost alternative of producing and distributing H2O2 of sufficient purity, as then we'd have not only more than doubled the energy from whatever fuel, while the combustion would have become more efficient and relatively non-polluting to boot, which seems like at least a four fold improvement in overall energy while improving our environment along the way. All that we'll need are those dual fuel/oxidiser injected rotary engines in place of our clunky and relatively massive piston engines and even of turbines that are currently weighing us down while CO2 polluting just about everything in sight.

Producing, storing and distributing H2O2 is unlike the far testier aspects of pure hydrogen, as the H2O2 is relatively stable in Earth's environment, just as it would be on Venus. The sheer density alone is another win-win over pure hydrogen, as wherever volume counts as for storing something, unless space as well as safety of storing the necessary oxidiser (O) and/or fuel (H) is of no consideration. At least H2O2 can be safely stored and distributed as piped alongside diesel fuel pipe lines, and/or via similar tankers, whereas LNG is a pathetic energy density joke, as well as dangerous as holy hell.

Of course, if it weren't for the pathetically piss poor if not skewed education we Americans received on behalf of hydrogen and even nuclear energy, we wouldn't be so paranoid and thus energy dependent upon others, nor would those Arabs have become so filthy rich.

It's true that I'm still firmly believing we should have been operating a lunar space elevator as of at least a decade ago, as well as recognizing the more likely than not existence of other life still existing on Venus, just as firmly if not more so than I did nearly 3 years ago, as that's when I bothered to inform officials within NASA and, I even informed as many I could discover on my own outside of those "nondisclosure cults", only to further discover that way too many nice folks (including myself) had been snookered into falsehoods of worshiping our infamous cloak and dagger pagan religion of cold-war tit for tats which obviously included our Apollo ruse/sting, though always at the expense of all humanity that wasn't entirely on our side, even though disinformation surmounted to paranoia which subsequently contributed to secondary carnage, just as much as our friendly-fire certainly inflicted it's fair share upon anyone standing too close to our blazing hearth, or that of a stealth donkey-cart.

All of this talk about the LM-1 metro bus is eventually pointing towards accommodating a Venus shuttle/rigid-airship that's somewhat, more or less, going to become obtainable by way of our firstly having established a Lunar Space Elevator and/or GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express) depot, plus having a rather substantial LSE-Lobby, as for offering a perfectly valid means to an end (actually many ends), as opposed to the ESE fiasco and/or of just blowing those hundreds of billions directly into the nearest space toilet as for anything Mars. although even though their ESE fiasco is somewhat less risky but not less costly than for those insisting upon walking on the moon or Mars, unfortunately there's nothing that their ESE provides (at least not for decades to come) that can't be better accommodated as of today at not 1/10th the cost by creating the LSE-CM/ISS:
To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of recently posted UPDATES)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000/2001/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA   ~  1-253-8576061
created: December 07, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS
(due to officially sanctioned email bashing, as well as unauthorized moderation of my email, if push should come down to shove, you can post your reply in Google using "bradguth-email" or simply include "guthvenus" within your subject line, in that way I'll find you, though even GOOGLE postings can be moderated/excluded by you know who)