Main Site | Join Robin Hood Coop | Projects | Events | Blog | Media | Forums | Mailing List | Twitter | Facebook

A simple way to make almost no cost space rocket

Intercontinental ballistic missiles, land launched, are rapidly becoming obsolete. There is hypersonic cruise missile projects in 2020s, and anti ballistic missile defences become better each year. Large number of ballistic missiles are becoming to be taken away from service and replaced with new models in 2020s in USA, Russia and China. Old missiles are scrapped. Because ballistic missiles can be shot down with ABM weapons, it is better to get rid of them. There can be left about 100 ICBMs and 100 IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missiles) if needed, because there still are cruise missiles, and submarine launched missiles, left. Best way to use phased old out missiles, that are to be scrapped, is to use them as satellite launching space rockets. They even in most basic form need no modification, they have normal missile payload fairing and normal missile last stage (warhead bus). There is small room for satellite and that missile last stage is not ideal for satellite launching, but it is the cheapest way. Missiles can even launch satellites from silos like missiles, or use their transporter ejector launcher. Adding more spacious payload fairing can be costly, and replacing missile last stage for proper space rocket last stage cost something too, but it is an option. Russians and ukrainians launch satellites using standard missiles with minimal modifications, in their silos, although they have more sophisticated from missiles to space rockets designs also.
Instead of scrapping old missiles, they can be launched to space with satellite. Payload of unmodified missile is not much, but it is cheap. Cost can be about 1000 dollar per kg or 1000 dollar per lb. Missiles are otherwise scrapped, if they are sold as cheap satellite launchers they can make some money. If modifications for missile are required price is more.
In USA missiles are used only for government or scientific missions. USA government can then offer to scientific institutions, universities etc. almost no cost launch systems for their scientific satellites, and for governments own satellites also. They are no threat to “new space” rocket firms, but opportunity. New space firms can get almost no cost space rockets, that they can modify with added rocket stages and payload fairings etc., and those rockets are reserved for only scientific non-commercial launches. Plans to launch internet satellites for cost free internet can use those cheap rockets, if hardware part of satellite project (satellites and their maintaince) is in some non-profit charity foundation supported and founded by satellite provider, and software (internet services) are in separate commercial system.
Also air launch to orbit that was studied early 2000s in USA (AirLaunch LLC), Russia and Ukraine, can be done, cargo aircraft can drop Minuteman 3 missile using parchute from its cargo bay, when rocket drops from plane it starts its engines and goes to space. Now limited satellite payload can be increased. Even small missiles like anti aircraft missiles that are becoming obsolete (US navy “Standard” missiles etc.) can be modified with extra stages to nano satellite (1 -10 kg) cubesat launchers, some fighter aircraft can carry them to high altitude and launch them to space from there, or U2 aircraft can be used as satellite rocket launcher. This small satellite / nano satellite modification of small obsolete missiles can be another opportunity to new space firms. There is post “Space rocket launch using vertical rocket sled” in Robin Hood Coop forums netpages.

Phased out missiles are in no way threat to “new space” firms, but opportunity. New space firms have very little capital, so if they get cheap rockets (old missiles) without last stage (warhead bus), they can then have powerful rocket at bargain price. Only last stage and payload fairing is needed. Those new space firms have little money, but they have to design and build space rocket from ground up themselves. When rocket is ready they don t know if they ever get orders, for satellite launches. Some firms perhaps never sell any rocket, although they have used lots of money to design and build it. Also when rocket is ready R&D costs must be amortified so rocket is costly. This high R&D cost of rocket leads to situation where few customers are interested buying expensive satellite launch.
But if basic rocket would be available at very cheap price, R&D costs are saved, they don t have to build rocket themselves, so they don need expensive factory manufacturing facilities where to build rocket, all machinery, workforce etc. Building a rocket that perhaps never gets any orders.
So cheap rocket without its last stage that can be bought cheaply is enormous money saving. No infrastructure for making rocket is needed and not even R&D costs. This would be big chance to make new space business profitable at last, not just billion dollar capital space firms like SpaceX, but very small space firms also that have lots of ideas how to make satellite business but no money fulfill their dreams. Cheap boosters would start flourishing new space business where hundreds of small space startups can have their own rocket and launch satellites to space. So this is no threat to new space business. Perhaps even USA legislation can be left unchanged. It prevents commercial launches using surplus missiles, but there are plenty of scientific satellite projects that can use those cheap rockets. It would start new era of cheap scientific satellites that can be launched to space with minimal cost. Cost can be 1000 dollar per kg or 1000 dollar per lb (2200 dollar per kg), in scientific satellites if unmodified missiles are used (small payload). Those unmodified rockets are launched by government only (in USA that is NASA). Rockets without last stage and without payload fairing can be sold to private space firms at same price than government charge their missile satellite launches, so private firms must pay that 1000 dollar kg or 2200 dollar kg payload price plus their own expenses for doing last stage of rocket themselves plus payload fairing. Last stage in missile is warhead bus, so for obvious reasons that cannot be given to some private firm. But satellite launching is still super cheap, and more heavier satellites can be launched. Those phased out missiles would otherwise be scrapped, so government makes money of those phased out old missiles that otherwise are sold as scrap metal. So it is profitable business to government also. Benefits for scientific community are enormous, cheap scientific satellites that any university or institute can afford can open way to explore universe in scale not seen before, although only relatively small loads can be lifted to space because missiles are not perfect for satellite launches, whatever additional stages they are fitted with.
Also trouble with new space firms is that they need orders to get their business going, and although there is lots of new space firms there are no enough satellite launch orders, because satellite launch prices are still too high. If new space firms could get large amount of rockets cheaply, they would also get their business going, lots of cheap satellite launches, they have profit with each launch of (cheap) rocket, which is better than no launch at all if launch prices are high as they are without cheap booster rockets. When those new space firms get their business going with cheap rockets, they can then use profit collected from those cheap satellite launches to make their own heavier rocket that is better suited to launch heavy satellites to orbit that old missile. So in this way also selling old surplus missiles to new space firms can be helpful to space business, it is no threat to business. Smaller old missiles like anti aircraft missiles that are being phased out, or even rocket like ASROC that no way is space rocket, can be used to make small nanosat (1-10 kg) launch platform. This small rocket with additional stages can be lifted using fighter aircraft to high altitude and high speed, near mach 3, and then launched to space. Aircraft can be modified to high altitude use, for example spraying liquid oxygen to airplane intakes, liquid oxygen turns to oxygen gas before it enters jet chamber and is burned in jet engine. Water injection can be also used in high altitude, and afterburner too. Aircraft converted that has instead of lots of fuel can have only small amount of fuel that is needed to climb into altitude, making short run of engines at full power and to launch satellite rocket. Fuel weight that is not needed can be turned to weight of space rocket (in external hardpoints, which must be hardened or their amount increased so that they can carry heavy space rocket of perhaps 15 tons or more weight). Also supersonic glider that is towed by fighter aircraft can be used to tow space rocket (rocket is inside glider and is launched from there). Glider has wings so more aerodynamic lift in rocket / aircraft combination than aircraft alone. More than one towing cable is needed if glider is heavy. MIG 31 was proposed to be used with “Aerospace rally system” that was supersonic glider to carry space tourists. Similar system can be used to carry space rocket, because wings in glider bring more wing area and lift than plane s wings alone. When plane/glider combination with space rocket is in maximum height rocket is launched to space and plane/glider combination goes back to earth. Fast supersonic bomber like TU 160, or old B1A prototypes can be used to lift space rocket and launch it when in high speed. Rocket carrier aircraft needs modifications, all military and heavy equipment is removed, more powerful engines perhaps changed to airplane, wings lengthtened etc. Now also smaller space rockets can be launched to space and they have good payload ratio. Also two fighter planes can be made to twin hull aircraft so lift capacity is then doubled, if wing section that connects two planes has additional jet engines twin hull plane now has three times more engines than regular plane and three times more payload, so heavier space rocket can be carried.
Russian and chinese governments have no law that forbids space firms to use ex- government rockets for commercial launches, so they have no “only for scientific satellites” restriction. Nor have european space firms such limitations. Other rockets than ICBMs can be used as satellite launchers, intermediate range missiles, short range missiles, anti aircraft missiles etc. but small missiles need perhaps additional booster stage and then upper stages so that they can be used to launch cubesats, nanosats etc. of 1-5 kg or more weight. Submarine launched missiles when they are replaced with new models can be used as space rockets instead of scrapping. In Russia/Ukraine had plans to air launch those surplus missiles turned to satellite rockets from cargo planes, and because submarine launched missiles are small and compact they are suitable for cargo plane air launch straight from cargo bay with parachute that pushes rocket out of cargo bay. Also ICBMs are becoming obsolete because submarine launched missiles have almost ICBM range, so instead of making ICBMs launched from ground submarine missiles can be put to ground launch silos (if needed, ICBM concept is becoming old fashioned anyway) so constant design and development of ground launched ICBMs is not even needed, no modernisation of old ICBMs if SLBMs can replace them. Those surplus ICBMs can be turned to space rockets. Even MX missile can be turned to space rocket satellite launcher and launched from cargo aircraft so that it has then more payload. Cannibalizing old missiles and making more powerful satellite space rockets like Minotaur or russian Start that use parts of two or three missiles to make one powerful space rocket makes old missiles better satellite launchers. If fighter aircraft that is used to launch satellites cannot turn most of fuel load to external load that it can carry heavy space rocket, it can use that remaining extra fuel to burn it in booster rocket that is in airplane, so aircraft gets higher before it launches rocket. Zip fuel can be used in jet afterburner and in booster rocket also that is in plane.
All the old types of missiles that are replaced of new types of missiles, are going to be scrapped, so they have value of scrap metal. But if they are sold as space rockets those governments that make those missiles can make some money when they are phased out. If for example payload capacity of missile to low earth orbit, 200 km, is counted per kilogram basis, and at 2200 dollar per kg, that is still more than scrap metal price of old missile? Price can be sometimes as low as 1000 dollar per kg, and old air to air missiles etc. can be sold at couple of thousand dollar price to new space firms that turn those otherwise scrapped missiles to nanosat satellite launchers. That kind of low prices per kg would have enormous boost to space industry, commercial space projects and scientific satellite projects, not only in the west but in Russia and China also, they have their own new space firms too.
For some odd reason selling missiles (that are going to scrap) to new space firms is considered to be thereat to new space business. But those new space firms have always wanted cheap booster rockets, and when they finally could have them, access to have them is denied, on basis that cheap and relatively efficient boosters (compared to small payload launchers that those new space firms develop because they have no money to develop and manufacture themselves bigger space rocket) someway is harmful for those new space firms (?) But those cheap booster rockets is all that those new space need to get their satellite business flourishing, and cheap surplus boosters in form of old missiles could really make possible cheap access to base and bring down barrier of cheap scientific and commercial satellites, and cheap rockets would enormously help scientific exploration of space and commercial use of it also, so turning old missiles to space rockets is no way “harmful” to burgeoning space business. Big firms like SpaceX are in different league and their “comsat” satellites weight much more than missiles can carry to space so those small payload cheap rockets is no threat to ordinary space firms that launch heavy satellites to geostationary orbit etc. So turning old missiles to space rockets can have only enormously positive results.

There can be perhaps method how to make rockets more efficient: they burn propellant whose decomposition (burning) products become another propellant and are then burned again. One example is hydrogen/oxygen which when burned becomes water vapor, this is burned with ALICE fuel aluminum, result of this “double burn” is oxygen and other burning product, this oxygen is burned with hydrogen, now it is “triple burn”. This hydrogen can be made burning hydrazine, now it is “quadruple burn”, or using hydrogen by burning hydrate metals like boron or lithium hydrates. So this rocket is hybrid solid/liquid rocket that needs four rocket engine chambers to burn its fuel?
Another way to make energy is to use thermoelectric materials that turn heat to electricity. Now has been invented thermoelectric materials that turn heat to electricity with very high efficiency. If rocket chamber is cooled not using liquid propellant but high efficiency thermoelectric elements, this produces high current, this electricity can be used to water splitting inside rocket, splitting water to oxygen and hydrogen that is burned in rocket engine. Now instead of liquid hydrogen and oxygen only water is needed in ambient temperature as rocket propellant. Another way to use electric current generated by thermoelectric elements that cool hot parts of rocket is to use thermolectric propulsion, some propulsion material is turned to hot plasma using electricity. This electric propulsion method can be used in same rocket that has chemical propulsion, at same time when chemical rocket engine is working, is also thermoelectric rocket engine working and this combined propulsion is used in rocket.
Another way to make efficient rocket is when rocket is lifted to high altitude using structure that is powered by turbofan or turbojet engines. This structure does the job of rocket booster, it rises and lands vertically, so it is VTOL platform that has no wings. Bypass turbofan engines that passenger airplanes have have high bypass ratio and less than mach 1 speed. Most powerful turbofans like GE 90 have 500 kn thurst or more. Those turbofans can be modified to high power output, unlike normal turbofan that is optimized for low fuel consumption. If instead of low fuel consumption turbofan is optimized for high power output, perhaps up to 1000 kn is available in turbofan engine.
Turbofan can use variable bypass turbofan principle. This is usually used only in supersonic turbofans. But slower than mach 1 turbofan can perhaps use simple venting system that directs all air to jet chamber in turbofan, when jet engine is in slow speed, or standstill like standing on the ground with rocket. When VTOL structure with rocket rises and gains speed, venting system directs more and more air to bypass and less to jet chamber. In high altitude where air is thin vents again direct all air that enters to turbofan directly to jet chamber and none to bypass. This venting system can be (?) more simple than variable bypass that is used in supersonic jet engines? Modern high bypass turbofans have 15 to bypass ratio and 70 to 1 compression ratio. In high altitude if all air that otherwise goes to bypass is directed to jet engine chamber even in high altitude jet engine works. More power can be available if afterburner is used in high bypass ratio passenger jet engine. This afterburner can use special zip fuel that is different from typical jet fuel, so it needs its own tank. Also water injection can be used in high altitude to make engine work when air is too thin. Garrett engine used methyl alcohol / water injection. Also liquid oxygen can be sprayed to jet engine intakes in high altitude, liquid oxygen turns to oxygen gas before it enters to jet engine chamber and is burned in there. Perhaps both water injection and liquid oxygen spraying can be used at same time in high altitude. Also propelling nozzle can be used in high bypass ratio turbofan, to give more efficiency in high altitude etc. If normal engine has 500 kn thrust, when it is optimized for high power it can have about 1000 kn thrust (?), and when afterburner and water injection is used (at same time?) power can be 2000 kn? From otherwise 500 kn engine. Because this VTOL platform uses engines only few minutes in full power, when it carries rocket to high altitude, afterburner, water injection etc. can be used all time during lift phase, Fuel (and
water / methyl alcohol) consumption is not so much during those few minutes than it would be if normal rocket engines are used. But now rocket has first stage that uses high bypass turbofans not rocket engines (and in altitude and in low speed those bypass jet engines turn to jet engines without bypass and use all air that otherwise goes to bypass to jet chamber power). 500 - 2000 kn thrust is in par with rocket engines. Also variable pitch fan principle can be used, if it brings more lift at high altitude. Supersonic jet engines can be used also, and supersonic variable bypass turbofans. Now VTOL platform can give rocket mach 2,5 speed? Thrust vector control can be used in supersonic aircraft if it gives more lift to aircraft in high altitude when it is carrying space rocket.
This VTOL platform, with high bypass turbofans or jet engines, is like airplane, it can carry variable size and variable weight rockets to high altitude, so it is like normal air launch from airplane system, but it is not airplane, it has no wings, it is just structure with jet engines / turbofans and fuel tanks. It carries rocket to altitude and comes then down with minimal fuel use and lands vertically. This structure is cheaper than big cargo airplanes that are used in air launch. But VTOL structure can carry different size and weight rockets too, like cargo airplane. This VTOL jet lifting service can be sold to different satellite rocket firms. VTOL structure can also be made to carry much heavier rockets than cargo planes do, up to 1000 - 2000 ton weight perhaps? Then this VTOL structure is used to lift very heavy rockets only, and is perhaps specific for one rocket only if 2000 ton rocket is carried. Even higher bypass ratios than 15 to 1 are planned in future bypass jet engines, so those engines can then direct even more air to jet chamber in high altitude if they have system that can direct all air that otherwise goes to bypass system to jet chamber.

If rocket is carried to high altitude using airplane or simply some VTOL structure with engines and fuel tank, jet engine that works in high altitude is needed. Using water (or some other liquid) injection in high altitude, and afterburner also, can give more power. Using variable bypass system in commercial high bypass ratio passenger jet engine, so that all air that enters engine in altitude goes to jet chamber. This system can be simple, not like supersonic variable bypass systems. Perhaps some system like propelling nozzle has, mechanical iris or some other variable area system will do, inside engine casing before air enters turbine. Or some simply venting system. Vents can be in engine casing also, so that air can be sucked inside engine casing not just from front of engine casing but around of it also. Those vents open in high altitude in engine casing, just before turbine. Another way is to use opened funnel in engine casing, that increases intake area. This funnel is like expanding nozzle in rocket motors, but it expands air intake, not nozzle. In launch pad when VTOL structure has no speed, and in high altitude air intake expands, is like mechanical iris system or other similar, that is used in propelling nozzles etc. So all air that goes to bypass can go to jet chamber and also air intakes become larger in altitude. Only subsonic vehicle can use these methods, so only less than 340 m/s acceleration for rocket, but rocket is now in high altitude, less air drag and rocket motors work more efficiently. Supersonic aircraft or supersonic VTOL structure can be used also, 2,5 - 3 mach speed so 750 m/s to 900 m/s acceleration. Most powerful supersonic fighter engine is 190 kn thrust so less than 500 kn of bypass turbofan. Jet engine can have thrust vectoring if that makes some improvement of its rocket carrying capability, and turbofan with afterburner can have propelling nozzle.
3D printed parts are used in jet engines, so perhaps old prototype aircrafts can be put to flying condition again if 3D manufactured spare parts are used. XB 70 Valkyrie (with Boeing 2707 engines), SR 71, Concorde, B1A Lancer modified as satellite rocket carriers, and some with more powerful engines that they originally had. Smaller aircrafts can be used also, figher aircrafts, U2, Myasischev M 55, Boeing Condor, Martin Canberra high altitude version (still used by Nasa). Modifications must be done so that fuel load weight can be used to external payload weight, because those space rocket carriers have only minimal amount of fuel, flight lasts few minutes only. In project Aldebaran was “MLE trimaran” concept, weight of rocket was distributed so that more than one hardpoint carries rocket. Liquid oxygen can be sprayed to air intakes in high altitude if air is too thin, liquid oxygen becomes gas before it enters turbine. Also SABRE engine precooler style system can be used in supersonic aircraft to increase airflow, but perhaps not so complicated system is needed, and cooling air to liquid is not needed, only making air cooler is enough. Skylon rocket sled with wheels type system can be used launching heavy aircraft with space rocket, normal airfield can be used, aircraft has lightweight landing gear that saves weight. Also JATO rockets can be used after rocked sled launch to lift aircraft and to increase its speed. In altitude also just before rocket is launched from aircraft rocket propulsion can be used in aircraft to make it high acceleration with rocket, if airplane has extra payload capacity for its own propulsion rocket and that available weight cannot be used for space rocket that is hanging plane s underbelly in external hardpoints (plane s own propulsive rocket is inside aircraft s structure).
Also space rockets, big and small, can be more efficient. If propellant is burned many times, so that decomposition product becomes propellant again and is burned again, propellant can be burned many times. Hydrogen and oxygen burn decomposes into water vapor, it is burned with ALICE aluminum, result is two decomposition products, one is oxygen. Hydrazine monopropellant burn makes three decomposition products, one is hydrogen. If extra hydrazine is added after burn to hydrazine monopropellant decomposition products, after exothermic reaction comes endothermic reaction that makes increased amount of hydrogen from hydrazine. Now oxygen from ALICE burn and hydrogen from hydrazine burn can be burned together. Propellant is burned three times, first hydrogen/oxygen is burned and becomes water, it is burned with ALICE propellant, it becomes oxygen, it is burned with hydrogen from hydrazine monopropellant “cold” burn, oxygen becomes water again. Propellant is burned three times, which leads to much higher payload in rocket when propellant can be reused and that weight which is saved can be used for payload weight increase.
Also thermoelectric materials can be used to make electricity from heat. Rocket engine and rocket outer casing can be cooled (air drag heat) using thermolectric elements. Every year more and more efficient thermoelectric materials are invented that multiple thermoelectric efficiency. Perhaps those materials can be so efficient that they can cool rocket engine, and produce high amount of electric current. One way is to use this current to make electric arch “aerospike” for less aerodynamic drag. Also electric current can be used for water splitting, making hydrogen and oxygen from water. So only water, ALICE propellant and hydrazine is needed in rocket, in ambient temperature (perhaps). Each year is invented more and more efficient water splitting methods, heat of rocket engine can be used together with electricity to make water splitting easier. Perhaps using hydrazine is too complicated, simpler would be if kerosine is burned with oxygen that comes from Alice propellantt burn. So then water, ALICE propellant and kerosene is needed in rocket, and system that splits water to oxygen and hydrogen, either electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting. Both can have energy from hot rocket engine, and water can be used as engine cooling at same time.
If somewhere still is Space shuttle advanced solid booster prototypes from early 1990s, if those are not used by Nasa they can be given to some new space firm, and it can make space rocket of them. Even filled with black powder or whatever propellant amateur rocketeers use, those boosters will be heavy payload rockets because they are so big, and although only two (?) were made they can be recovered after use, so they can be used many times. Nasa is reusing old Space shuttle boosters and engines (but only once, they are discarded after launch), but not those advanced boosters? There is also so many standard shuttle solid boosters available for Nasa that Nasa can easily give some of them to some new space firms and those firms can reuse them and make rockets using those, Nasa is not making those boosters reusable anymore so when they are launched they are lost forever. Nasa is gonna reuse old Space shuttle boosters but they are used only once, not many times, they are launched without their parachutes and they sink into the ocean. Or perhaps Nasa can offer deal for new space firms, if they pay cost of bringing back boosters from the sea where they drop after launch those new space firms can then keep those ex-shuttle boosters that Nasa is throwing away after each launch, if their Space Launch System ever becomes reality after over 40 billion dollars have been spend and no launch in sight. If boosters are recovered they need parachutes, but their weight is so small compared to SLS rocket that impact to payload weight is very small. There is less than 60 shuttle boosters left and they have combined about 850 possible launches left after shuttle flights and proposed SLS launches, if booster can be reused 20 times, they have average of 14 launches left per booster if they are gonna be reused. If Nasa does not need old shuttle boosters after they are launched with SLS rocket new space firms can then have them, Nasa is discarding them after launch so they have no value after that for Nasa.
What kind of rocket engine must be that it can burn rocket propellant three times (or two times, or more than three times)? And it uses both liquid and solid propellants (?), and needs more than one rocket chamber because it uses many different fuels? What is the specific impulse of this kind of rocket that reuses its own propelllant and burns it again to save fuel / oxidizer? Even carbon dioxide or monoxide etc. can be burned with magnesium? At least some Mars colonization plans make use of magnesium propellant plus those gases as rocket fuel? So rocket propellant burn that decomposes to those carbon products can be “burned again” and rocket then saves weight?

Another way to make rocket efficient is to use solid propellant that is launched with great speed to rocket nozzle and exploded there. “Multi chamber gun” principle like german V3 cannon can be used, propellant gets boost of successive explosions push in “gun barrell” inside rocket. Those multi chamber explosions generate boost to rocket and at same time propel piece of propellant to several km/s speed. When propellant explodes in rocket nozzle its hot explosion gases have combined speed of propellant projectile and hot explosion gases. Also air drag, that otherwise is harmful, can be used to aid propellant projectile speed. From air intake goes air inside rocket when rocket is in high speed, several kilometres per second, and this very fast air pushes propellant projectile to rocket nozzle in “gun barrel”. At same time multi chamber “gun” can be used to propel propellant projectile to even greater speed. In start rocket uses only multichamber gun to fire propellant to rocket nozzle, when rocket gains acceleration and it moves fast through air, air intake can be opened and from then on combined push of air and multichamber gun push propellant projectile to high speed. In high altitude where is no air only “gun” propels propellant then. But when rocket rises through atmosphere air drag that otherwise is harmful can be used to propel rocket propellant, to several km/s speed. Air intake can be designed such that it compresses high speed air as rocket travels fast through air, so this fast airflow that pushes propellant projectile inside “gun barrel” in rocket has high pressure also. Also multi chamber gun that fires propellant projectiles gives additional push to rocket. Rocket lift is generated with combined force of multi chamber gun recoil force and projectile propellant that explodes in rocket nozzle when it has high speed.
If VTOL structure is used to lift rocket with jet engines, jet engine in high altitude can use hydrogen peroxide / jet fuel mix, it does not then need oxygen from air or oxygen sprayed to air intakes. It can be made altitude variable mix of hydrogen peroxide and jet fuel, if hydrogen peroxide and jet fuel are in different fuel tanks and mixed in engine. In low altitude only jet fuel is used, when air becomes too thin hydrogen peroxide is gradually added until in high altitude it replaces oxygen from air intakes completely. Hydrazine can be another option? Or some else fuel / oxidizer? Those fuel mixes can be used in afterburner also, in low altitude only jet fuel goes to jet chamber and jet fuel / hydrogen peroxide mix goes to afterburner. Instead of hydrogen peroxide some other liquid can be used.
Instead of jet engines propeller engines can be used, turboprop or piston engine. Piston engines have small power but in altitude they are more efficient than jets or turboprops. In high altitude fuel can be changed to some fuel that has oxidizer included, so piston engine does not need air at all in altitude. Those fuels with oxidizer for high altitude piston engines have been studied but not actually used in any high altitude piston aircraft? Piston powered aircraft can lift only light rocket. But that may be economical way to lift light rocket to altitude, instead of using jet fighter etc.
If propeller driven solution is used, then “ducted fan” principle can be used to give more power to propeller. Ducted fan propeller is larger than turbofan so more air goes through it in altitude, and if ducted fan is powered by turboprop engine same methods (water injection, oxygen spraying, afterburner, propelling nozzle, thrust vectoring nozzle, variable area funnel air intake in ducted fan that changes when altitude changes, special fuel mixes) can be used as can be used in high altitude turbofan.
“Propfan” is another option, VTOL platform that lifts rocket is unmanned (perhaps) so vibrations that are typical to propfan and noise do not matter. Perhaps even “ducted propfan” can be made.
If VTOL platform is propeller driven then similar propellers that tilt rotor aircrafts use can perhaps be used, without tilt and without ducted fan if propellers are big enough, VTOL platform goes straight up and not sideways so it does not need tilt. Or it can ascend using some angle that is not straight vertical, if that is better. Perhaps it needs wings too so it then becomes sort of big VTOL aircraft platform?
Perhaps helicopter propeller is best in high altitude? Supersonic bladespeed helicopter propeller in high latitude? So VTOL platform that lifts rocket is like big many - propeller helicopter that can lift thousands of tons load (rocket) to high altitude.
“Could hydrazine be used as scramjet propellant” 2018 where is that hydrazine can produce more hydrogen if after monpropellant burn extra hydrazine is added. But if some rocket propellant needs some fuel that burns oxygen perhaps kerosene is better, hydrazine can generate hydrogen, but what is specific impulse of hydrazine monopropellant burn and then burning hydrogen that hydrazine has produced compared to plain kerose / oxygen burn?
Another fighter aircraft that can carry space rocket (besides F15 and Mig 31) is F111, and FB 111 is even better. F111 is phased out, but in Australia has some examples in flying condition stored? If spares are needed to get plane flying condition, like Concorde or other plane, spare parts can be 3D printed. 3D printing is used in aircraft industry. Even old Concorde, XB70 Valkyrie, SR71 etc. can be modified to space rocket launch and put back to flying condition. There is also new supersonic passenger aircrafts coming, “Boom Overture” etc., but those have less powerful engines than jet fighters have. Engines however can be changed if Boom Overture etc. is used as satellite rocket launcher. Best is however Tu 160 as modern supersonic satellite rocket launcher. “Aevum Ravn” is concept of spaceplane, but it has no significant funding? Stratolaunch is ready space rocket launch platform but it has no customers? Which is odd when now is finally ready 250 ton lifting airplane for space rockets, and it can lift any rocket (max. 250 ton) to altitude and there is plenty of space rockets below 250 ton weight in the world. But nobody is interested to use this groundbreaking service? Why? Now air lunch is possible at last. Air launch can increase payload of rocket, and increased payload is what rocket builders always want, but when air launch is finally ready they are not interested using this air launch service. Why?
“Bridging-droplet thermal diodes”. Quantized anomalous Hall effect QAHE. “Podcast: When rocket chemistry blasted off and came back to earth”, Sciencemadness com netpage: “Exotic solid rocket propellant” 2018. India is building ramjet / ducted rocket missiles, including Astra-2. Increasing size of ducted rocket to first stage of satellite rocket means that first stage of satellite rocket can then use air as oxidizer.

If rocket has water in its propellant tanks, and water splitting is used to make hydrogen and oxygen, then if rocket engine chamber is cooled using water, it becomes hot steam, this hot steam goes to steam turbine generator, steam turbine and electric generator, hot steam makes electricity when it goes through steam turbine generator, this electricity is used for water splitting, and for other things if rocket needs electric power to operate. Rocket can have water, ALICE propellant and kerosene in three propellant tanks. Water when used with ALICE can be used to heat rocket chamber first. When it is hot water cools chamber and becomes hot steam that goes to steam turbine, after that hot steam is used in high temperature electrolysis or thermoelectric electrolysis, or both at same time. Now it is split to hydrogen and oxygen that is burned in one rocket chamber, it becomes hot steam again, that goes to next chamber where it becomes oxygen and aluminum product when steam is burned with ALICE, oxygen (and aluminum burning product) goes to third chamber where it is burned with kerosene (or with monopropellant hydrazine burn hydrogen, now rocket engine needs four chambers).
But simplest version of this rocket is when some small amount of some propellant is first used to start rocket engine, when chamber is hot water is used as coolant and goes to steam turbine generator, it is split to hydrogen and oxygen that are burned in rocket chamber, and burning of hydrogen and oxygen makes heat that is used in water splitting, when hot steam that is used to cool rocket chamber goes to steam turbine (generator), that makes electricity used in high temperature water splitting.
There is “Endo - atmospheric tether” principle, “Kinetics interchange tether (KITE)” launcher. Electric propulsion through electric wire to spacecraft and endoatmospheric tether can be combined, at same time when spacecraft is using kinetic energy (speed) from tether, spacecraft also have electric propulsion that goes through cable that holds small spacecraft and big airplane together. Big airplane is the mass that uses kinetic energy (speed) to throw spacecraft upwards, and at same time airplane sends electric power through cable to spacecraft. From big airplane electric cable can go to ground where electric power comes. Electric propulsion and endoatmospheric tether combined.
From netpage: “halfbakery com / idea space _ 20kite” is another atmospheric speed tether.
“Sub-orbital tethered balloon launch system” from “arc aiaa org” netpage.
“Some tether applications with with small launch vehicles” 1988.
There was also study to use microwaves inside rocket chamber to heat hydrogen peroxide? If microwaves can be used to heat water in water splitting? If microwaves can be used in electrothermal rocket, heating some propellant to hot plasma? Those microwaves are not send from ground to rocket, but inside rocket is microwave device? And electricity can be brought using long cable from ground.
Hydrazine and aluminum were put together in “alumizine” rocket propellant.
“Historical perspective on inflatable wing structures” 2009. Reusable rocket stage can use inflatable wings and fly back to earth.
From Quora netpage: “Would it be practical to build a second generation space shuttle but instead of solid booster use return to earth style booster like on Falcon Heavy”. There is mentioned “External tank derived heavy lift reusable launch vehicle” ETDHLRLV. It is also on scribd netpage: “Heavy lift reusable launch vehicle” by William Mook. It can lift 600 - 700 ton load to space and development cost is 6 billion dollars (it uses Space shuttle main tanks and aerospike engines).
From Quora netpage: “Does an air augmented rocket give extra thrust than a normal rocket from take off?” There is mentioned air augmented rocket with aerospike engine in one combined vehicle. If modern space shuttle is to be made then airlifting it with carrier aircraft (Stratolaunch) to 11 km height, from there to 30 km height air augmented aerospike carrier vehicle is used that fly back to earth, and from 30 km upwards shuttle rises using propellant from external fuel tank like MAKS spaceplane. External fuel tank is discarded in high altitude. So carrier aircraft must carry air augmented carrier vehicle, shuttle external tank and shuttle itself, all in piggyback. But this arrangement is most efficient for space shuttle (spaceplane)? Now air from atmosphere can be used as propellant (oxidizer) up to 30 km high (or even higher). “Precooled jet engine” type system can be used in air augmented rocket, ATREX, hypersonic turbojet etc., SABRE engine precooler, LACE precooler etc.
Krylo-SV rocket.
“Balloon fuel tanks” are used in rocket. Why whole racket can t be so light that only internal pressure of fuel tanks keeps it from collapsing. “Filament-wound” cases were used in Space shuttle boosters, gravity held that booster together, it was so light weight? Modern rockets can be so light that internal pressure of fuel tanks and gravity keeps rocket together, otherwise it would collapse?
From universetoday com netpage “A one-way, one person mission to Mars”.
From science slashdot org / story: “Engineer thinks we could build a real starship Enterprise”.
Patent “Simple solid propellant and super-staged rocket”.
Poly atomic oxygen (up to O20, 20 oxygen atoms together), as rocket propellant. “Prospects of O4 as rocket fuel oxidizer”. “Could biodiesel power future rockets?”. Rocket fuel from myrcene.
Exotic propulsion means: from netpage halfbakery com / idea rocket _ tube20 " Rocket tube laser air heater reasons why not". Scienceforums net topic: “The Laudight experiment - light propulsion / force field technology theories”. Greenoptimist com: “How to build a UFO-like antigravity spaceship”. Google groups sci space policy: “Meet the SR-72”, 2015. “Scientist behind the navy s UFO patents has now filed one for a compact fusion reactor”. “Docs show navy goes UFO patent granted by warning of similar chinese tech advances”. “Navy s advanced aerospace tech boss claims key UFO patent is operable”. “Unified Gravity Corporation is to manufacture and sell a fusion-based ion thruster and power generator”.
Both thermolectric elements and steam generator can be used to make electricity in rocket. First rocket chamber is cooled with water, steam goes to turbine generator, but also rocket chamber, pipes and steam turbine are surrounded by thermoelectric elements that collect waste heat and turn that to electricity. If that amount of energy is not enough for water splitting, some amount of additional fuel is in rocket that provides heat when it is burned in rocket chamber, to produce heat for coolant steam and thermoelectric elements, and propulsion for rocket too.

Magnetohydrodynamic drive (MHD) can be used in rocket. But it needs energy, so for example fusion reactor in rocket has been proposed. But there is also magnetohydrodynamic generator principle, and MHD generators have been build. If MHD generator takes energy from rocket nozzle exhaust stream, and generates electricity, this electricity can go to MHD drive in the same rocket, and MHD drive gives propulsion thrust too. So rocket is combined chemical and MHD drive rocket, chemical rocket exhaust nozzle is used as MHD generator, Electricity from MHD generator goes to MHD drive. Propulsion of rocket is from both chemical rocket engine and MHD drive combined. It is also possible that both MHD generator and MHD drive are combined in one chemical rocket nozzle? So firstly MHD generator takes away energy from rocket nozzle exhaust, and then gives it back to rocket exhaust gases and propels exhaust gases to plasma speeds and heat, using MHD drive principle?
Or simpler(?) is that there are separate rocket engines, one is chemical rocket engine with MHD generator and another is MHD drive, both propelling rocket.
MHD generator electricity can also be used for water splitting. So water splitting in rocket uses electricity from MHD generator, and also from steam turbine generator if water us used for cooling rocket chamber, and also from thermoelectric elements that collect waste heat thats left.
Also MHD generator can be in hot steam stream, first hot steam goes to MHD generator, from there to steam generator, and thermoelectric elements surround both and collect waste heat. So it is possible that rocket has two MHD generators, one in rocket nozzle and another in hot steam that comes from rocket chamber cooling?
If there is not enough energy for water splitting in rocket, additional hydrogen/oxygen tanks can be in rocket, if water splitting takes more energy than burning hydrogen and oxygen gives, this additional propellant (additional hydrogen and oxygen) can be burned in rocket chamber, it gives heat, MHD power etc. that is used for water splitting and also for rocket propulsion. Now is enough energy for water splitting inside rocket, and water can be in fuel tanks, and additional tanks for liquid hydrogen and oxygen (if needed). But each year more efficient water splitting methods have been invented. Hot temperature electrolysis water splitting can be used, perhaps together with thermochemical water splitting (if needed) if electrolysis is not efficient enough. Also perhaps batteries can be used for electric power, some battery types release hydrogen that can be used as rocket propellant, and some battery types produce heat also, that heat can be used to make electricity. Some battery types release high amount of electricity very fast.
New catalysts have been invented for hydrogen peroxide that have high temperature monopropellant burning, but for hydrazine new catalysts have not been invented, so highest monopropellant hydrazine burning temperature is still 1000 C? Alane (aluminum hydrite) can perhaps be used like alumizine uses aluminum together with hydrazine? If that makes more efficient hydrogen production for hydrazine or increases monopropellant burn temperature or something.
“External tank derived heavy lift reusable launch vehicle” ETDHLRLV has about 700 ton payload capacity, that is much higher than SLS 130 ton, and launch price is less because first stage(s) are reusable, or second stage also is reusable. That would be real “starship”. 700 ton spacecraft can be used in commercial flights, flying tourists to space, earth orbit, to moon and perhaps it can fly tourists to Mars. So USA government, instead of losing money 500 million dollar for each SLS launch could earn money using this high payload capacity for commercial personnel transport to space. Commercial tourist flights using this super-heavy spacecraft would help making launch schedule very fast, so when rocket is used constantly with minimal turnaround time cost per launch is small, BFR/Starship rocket has capacity to only 2 million dollar per launch cost if minimal turnaround time is used. So commercial launches are not bad for USA government, and ultra-heavy payload rocket like ETDHLRLV could make really cheap price per kg true. It is even based on Space shuttle components so it is cheap (shuttle tank used in all stages, first stage boosters are reusable, perhaps second stage too). Much better solution than SLS that has less payload than Saturn 5 from almost 60 years ago and about similar launch cost, because SLS is not reusable. Development cost is 6 billion dollars for ETDHLRLV, less than all 40 billion dollars USA has spend to make space launch system after Space shuttle: Constellation, Ares etc. that were discarded and now SLS that is not reusable (high launch price) and has less performance than Saturn 5. ETDHLRLV could be build using Space shuttle tanks with rocket engines as first stage and SLS core stage as second stage, and third stage derived from SLS core stage etc. So components for it exist already, they must only be put together.
If rocket uses water splitting MHD generator in rocket nozzle can be used only to make electricity for elecrolysis, not for MHD drive. MHD generator can also be in hot steam before it enters steam generator. Both MHD generators can be in rocket, and thermoelectric elements that collect waste heat that is left.
From netpage abovetopsecret com: “Poly atomic oxygen, page 1”.
If more energy is needed to split water than resulting hydrogen and oxygen have, this additional energy can come from multiple burning of propellant. Hydrogen and oxygen are burned, becomes steam, steam goes to ALICE propellant, becomes oxygen, oxygen is burned with kerosese or hydrogen again. This additional energy that multiple burn of original propellant (hydrogen and oxygen) has, can give additional energy in form of heat and steam (cooling of rocket chambers and nozzle) that is enough for water splitting, and no extra liquid hydrogen and oxygen is needed in rocket? This extra hydrogen and oxygen is needed to give extra energy that makes water splitting possible (if there is no other way to make enough energy for water splitting). There are many ways to make “multiple burn” of rocket propellants, not just that one in this text.
Netpage Quora com: “What advantage does launching a spacecraft from 35,000 feet at 800 mph have? How much fuel is saved by launching high altitude and speed?”
“A study on new composite thermoplastic propellant” If rocket uses small “bullets” of solid propellant that are shoot to rocket nozzle using V3 cannon type arrangement at high speed and propellant explodes there, combined speed of propellant bullet and exhaust velocity of exploded propellant can be used to propel rocket. Also air pressure can be used to drive propellant “bullets” in “gun barrel” that is inside rocket, air at speed several km/sec is used, directed from air intake to “barrel” and it pushes propellant “bullet” to high speed. Rapid firing cycle is needed so that explosions in nozzle makes almost constant thrust.
Perhaps also liquid propellants can use this air pressure driven speed increase of propellant, liquid propellant becomes hot gas at speed of several km/sec, together with air that pushes it to high speed, before it enters rocket chamber or just to rocket nozzle, there it meets another propellant and then burns (if it is bipropellant). Burned propellant has combined speed of the velocity it enters rocket camber or nozzle (several km/sec) and velocity of hot exhaust gases that burn when propellant is burned. There are scramjet and air augmented rocket designs, but this is almost ordinary rocket, only difference is that when in normal rocket propellant goes to some preburner and becomes gas, in this rocket air intakes are open before liquid propellant becomes gas and goes to rocket chamber, and high speed air mixes with propellant gases, and because that airflow has speed of several km/sec, also propellant gases have that speed. Propellant gases pushed by airflow enter rocket or nozzle at tremendous speed, several km/sec, and this extra velocity is combined with velocity of hot gases when they are burned. Fuels will propably burn with air in high speed temperature, but oxygen or other oxidisers perhaps can be speeded up with airflow. This may be close to ordinary scramjet, but performance of this is less than scramjet or air augmented rocket, it only takes advantage of high speed of propellant which may be several km/sec, but burned rocket propellant has much higher km/sec gas exhaust speed, so advantage of this system is smaller than in air augmented rocket or scramjet. But is simpler to build almost ordinary rocket engines than scramjet or air augmented rocket? Also extra air comes with intakes and air has oxygen, but air is just used to speed up oxidiser, so advantage of using some amount of air oxygen instead of oxidiser in propellant tank is not much, oxidiser in tank is still needed because high speed air is just speeding rocket propellant, mostly.
If Nasa would give used Space shuttle boosters to new space firms when they are launched with SLS and drop to sea, new space firms could use them, and make rockets like Ares or Athena that was made of shuttle booster components and MX missile components. Those booster segments can be used in different combinations in rockets, so that would be good for new space firms that could make different kinds of rockets using those segments.

If water splitting uses photovoltaic method, rocket can split water if it has some sort of photon (light) source, lamp, electric arch light, or laser, inside rocket. This photon source must be powerful enough for fast water splitting. Electricity can be used also with it (electrochemical water splitting). High temperatures are available if water is used as rocket chamber coolant. High amount of photon flux makes water splitting efficient?
Rocket can also increase velocity of propellant burning gases if propellant is injected at high speed to rocket chamber. If area of (propellant) pipe decreases the fluid in the pipe goes faster. This can be used in high speed liquid propellant injection to rocket chamber. If liquid propellant speed is 3 mach ( 1 km/sec) in propellant injection pipe which has larger area first but it squeezes to smaller until at the injection moment, speed is mach 3 of fluids. This 1 km/sec speed can perhaps be retained in final speed of exhaustion gases in the nozzle so they have 1 km/sec more speed and so rocket has more propulsion power.
“RIME: Rocket induced magnetohydrodynamic ejector”. “Integrated pulse detonation propulsion and magnetohydrodynamic power”. “MHD augmented chemical rocket propulsion for space applications”. “A computational magnetohydrodynamic model of gas dynamic fusion space propulsion”. “Combined MHD airbreathing and IEC rocket propulsion for earth-to-orbit flight”. “Helicon injected inertial plasma electrostatic rocket HIIPER”. “Combustion and magnetohydrodynamic processes in advanced PDTRS”. “On the track of unconventional superconductivity, researchers are charting unknown territory”. Also QAHE quantized anomalous Hall effect works like superconductor, and can perhaps work in room temperature, so it can be alternative to superconductors.
Also ram air turbine is used in airplanes to make electric power, if rocket has sort of hypersonic wind turbine, that generates power, or many hypersonic wind turbines, rocket can then use that electric power to water splitting etc. duties. Hypersonic wind turbine generator must have dart or arrow- shaped blades so that it can work in wind speeds of several km/sec? Or hypersonic wind generator is like Dyson vacuum cleaner? Dyson cleaner reversed? Then rocket can use air drag to make electric power.
“New superconductors raise hope for fast development of compact fusion reactor”. “Superconducting wind turbine passes first test”.
Revolution-green com netpage: “Magnetic advanced generation jet electric turbine” 2013, Hypermach com. “Electrogravitics systems”.
Fanwing airplane (Fanwing com netpage), that can carry rocket to high altitude.
Gyrodyne or gyrocopter can carry rocket to altitude, it can be ordinary aircraft that has added helicopter propeller.
In explosion work (mining etc.) explosive wire is used. If solid propellant is like explosive wire, very long explosive wire inside solid rocket, that detonates at explosive speed but because explosive is inside thin wire it is controlled explosion that can last many minutes depending how long wire is used. So then explosives can be used as solid rocket propulsion?

If air augmented rocket (there are many different designs), aerospike engine principle (plug nozzle etc.), and precooler air intake are combined, that would make efficient space rocket at least first stage of multi stage rocket? That first stage can be reused. If air augmented rocket is second stage too in multi stage rocket then heavy shroud of air intake can be discarded in altitude and rocket goes as normal rocket then on?
In netpage Bernd-Leitenberger de : “Chemische raketen treibstoffe teil 3”. There is that oxygen / hydrogen / beryllium hydrite mix has 6377 m/sec specific impulse, which means about 630 sec rocket engine impulse? 40% more specific impulse than just hydrogen / oxygen. And hydrogen / oxygen / lithium hydrite mix is 6088 m/sec, so 600 sec rocket engine impulse? 33% more specific impulse than hydrogen/oxygen (450 sec in rocket engine).
Beryllium is rare metal, only perhaps 80 000 ton in earth. But much more lithium is in earth. Lithium hydrite is easier (safer) material than pure lithium? And beryllium is easier than lithium? There is article “Lithium-beryllium hydrites: the lightest reversable metal hydrites” in “Journal of alloys and compounds”, 2000. There is that lithium-beryllium hydrite compound is safe material that can be used in fuel cells. If it is safe then it can be used as rocket propellant also, with hydrogen and oxygen (in separate tanks). This hydrite is metal so it is powder fuel? So rocket is hybrid solid-liquid powered. But percentage of hydrogen needed in propellant load is about same amount or more than in hydroge/oxygen rocket? So large tanks are needed? If this hydrogen and oxygen can be made using water splitting in rocket then tanks will be smaller, using MHD generator in rocket chamber/nozzle or some sort of hypersonic ram air turbines to provide electricity, for high temperature elecrolysis, photovoltaic electrolysis with laser (?), thermoelectric water splitting, electro-chemical water splitting etc. “Metal hydrite materials for solid hydrogen storage” 2007. Lithium hydrite must be used in large and heavy rocket stages and only last stage perhaps can use lithium-beryllium hydrite compound, or just beryllium hydrite if rocket is small?
Single stage to orbit spaceplane is perhaps now possible, using air launch (jumbojet aircraft airlift) to save fuel. Or hypersonic carrier aircraft plus spaceplane. It is then two - stage to orbit.
Also chinese miracle propellants made from nitrogen that have now been invented, can be used, if they can be manufactured large amounts and they have price that is not too super-expensive. Some of those propellants have almost 3000 kj/mol energy density compared to less than 300 kj/mol of hydrogen / oxygen rocket propellant mix? So 10 times more powerful than hydrogen/oxygen, and more dense matter. That super-propellant would make possible rockets with thousands of tons payload to orbit, or even 20 000 ton payload proposed for “modern Sea Dragon launch vehicle” in scribd netpage. And rocket would be much lighter than Sea Dragon if it uses those chinese miracle propellants. “Polymeric nitrogen”, “pentazolate anion”, “nitrogen N14 and N18”.
“A symmetric Co(N5) 2 (H2O) 4 4H2O high nitrogen compound formed by cobalt cation trapped of a cyclo-N5 anion”. “Packing high-energy together: binding the of pentazolate and high-valence metals with strong bonds”. “Theoretical studies of the new high-nitrogen explosives N14 and N18”. “Exotic stable cesium polynitrides at high presure”. “Computational discovery of new high-nitrogen energetic materials”. “New route to high-energy density polymeric nitrogen”. “Metal-nitrogen frameworks new nitrogen compounds open up energy storage”. “Dinitropyrazole fused hydrogen azide”. “Stable zigzag and tripoidal all-nitrogen anion”.
If spaceplane uses those chinese propellants, it can with jumbojet piggyback to China, fuel tanks are connected there to spaceplane, or perhaps complete fuel tank/engine system, then spaceplane rises to space using chinese airfield and jumbojet air launch, and comes back to China from space, empty fuel tank is separated from plane (if it does not use expendable fuel tank), and spaceplane with jumbojet then flies home. If there is something “secret” in those chinese superpropellants. Also rockets can be made outside China, they only go to China for launch, in some special space rocket launch place which is specially for foreigners, rocket tanks are filled with chinese miracle fuel and rocket rises to space. But chinese themselves would probably offer lower price per payload kg than western space rockets. If rocket is some big rocket or payload is such that it cannot use chinese space rockets then also western rocket could use chinese miracle fuels. This if there is something secret in those rocket propellants. If not, then chinese can simply sell them to the outside world at whatever price they want.
Other: “Hydrazine analysis” Dong Myong. “Lithium hydroxide monohydrate” LiOH. “Dihydridoberyllium”. Beryllium is soluble in hydrogen? Patent US6619031B1 “Multi-mode multi-propelled liquid rocket”. Netpage space stackexchange com : “Why does Sabre engine have ramjets?” Also “Fenris engine” with few moving parts. Netpage forum nasaspaceflight com Dynamic compression 2016. “Combined engine for reusable launch vehicle (Klin cycle)”. “Pre-cooled and fuel-rich pre-burned mixed-flow turbofan (PFPMT)” . Nextbigfuture com netpage “Nuclear thermal turborocket with supercharged air augmentation”. If that rocket uses just electric power, not nuclear power, heavy nuclear reactor is not needed in rocket and electric power can come from the ground using long superconductive electric cable (special cable carrier rocketplane carries the cable so that rocket does not have to). Also chemical rocket /MHD generator combination can be used to make electric power instead of nuclear reactor. Kerbal space program forum: “Limits of air augmentation in rocket engine” 2016. Google groups sci space policy: “RC rocketry - ready to fly to orbit” 2014. There is “supersonic propellor rocket first stage” and “aerospike is easily converted to an air-augmented rocket”. Netpage spacedeck info / SSTO project on Space Dock. Patent “Super-staged and continuously staged rocket”. Patent “Propulsion from combustion of solid propellant pellet-projectiles”. Google groups sci space policy: “Three stage, completely reusable spaceplane, reaching not only LEO, but moon, Mars, asteroids”. Netpage forum nasa spaceflight com: “Aerospike engines by kraisee” 2006.
Those lithium or beryllium hydrites with oxygen and hydrogen, if they produce decomposition products when burned that can be burned again (water, oxygen, or hydrogen), then those decomposition products can be perhaps burned again with hydrogen, oxygen or other material and so make specific impulse even higher than 600 sec in rocket engine. And water splitting is not perhaps needed in rocket, over 600 sec impulse (in rocket engine) is so high that even with large tanks of liquid hydrogen and oxygen those rockets are better than anything else (except chinese miracle propellants). Chinese miracle propellants, if they can be made at reasonably price, could be the next big thing. But making those super-propellants is relatively expensive? And double-burning of nitrogen decomposition products, although it might be possible, makes no sense because those super-propellants are so effective that double-burning with some other much less powerful fuel only makes rocket performance worse, not better. Also even carbon products (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide) that comes from burning kerosene etc. can be burned again, with magnesium or other metal?

In netpage Bernd-Leitenberger de Chemische raketentreibstoffe teil 3 is that lithium hydrite with oxygen and hydrogen has over 6000 m/s specific impulse (600 s in rocket motor?). And beryllium hydrite with hydrogen and oxygen almost 6400 m/s (about 630 s in rocket motor?). 600 s specific impulse is 33% more than 450s of hydrogen oxygen mix alone. If 33% of specific impulse increase means that payload fraction percentage from total weight of rocket then has 33% of its weight capacity to lift payload to space, compared to rocket that uses only hydrogen and oxygen? BFR rocket has 4400 ton weight (?), and it uses methanol, 380 s specific impulse, so 600 s compared to 380 s is about 55% more, so 4400 ton rocket can then lift about 2400 ton load to space? That is much more than 180 ton of BFR that uses methane and oxygen. If increased specific impulse can be directly turned to increased payload? But it is not so? Hydrogen needs big tanks so this lithium hydrite BFR has then diameter closer to Sea Dragon rocket that was 23m diameter. In Scribd netpage is “Sea Dragon derived launcher” by William Mook, it has 20 000 ton payload capacity. Using high specific impulse fuels perhaps 20 000 ton load capacity rocket can be build. Lithium and beryllium are rare metals, but if moon and Mars are colonized, mining of rare metals from other planets can help, so beryllium and lithium is in moon and Mars also. Because lithium is relatevely rare metal, if rocket uses aerospike engines, air augmented rocket principle, with jet precooler principle, all those three methods together can help to make fuel consumption to minimum, so saving lithium. And making rocket lighter still and even more efficient. Heavy shroud of air augmented rocket can be made using composite materials, graphene hardened composites? So air shroud is then light? More powerful than metal hydrites are chinese miracle propellants made from nitrogen. Nitrogen is cheap but those new propellants aren t (?), their manufacturing is expensive? But even small quantities of “miracle propellant” can propel small space rocket, or spaceplane, not thousands of tons weighting big rocket. Metal hydrites need oxygen and hydrgen to become efficient propellants, so perhaps water splitting in rocket can be done so only ambient temperature water is needed and lithium hydrite (or lithium-beryllium safe hydrite, or beryllium hydrite). Water splitting can be done using hypersonic ram air turbines in rocket or MHD generator in rocket nozzle, making electricity, or both methods together. If miracle propellants can be manufactured only small quantities, then only last stage of rocket uses them, third stage (or fourth stage) of rocket is very small compared to rocket total weight. Nasa spend 40 billion dollar for SLS and also has began making nuclear propulsion studies again. But Nasa has not invested much to study new chemical propellants. Chinese instead of investing to new rockets, have invested in studies of more powerful chemical propellants. Those can perhaps be more powerful than nuclear rockets (nuclear rockets need heavy nuclear reactor which makes rocket ineffective). If Nasa would have invested 40 billion dollars not for SLS but new chemical propellants during past 30 years, what would the results have been? There would be colony in Mars right now and rockets that can carry 20 000 ton load to space, not just SLS that can carry 70 ton, half of Saturn 5 payload of 140 ton.
In netpage “bernd-leitenberger de chemische raketentreibstoffe teil 3” has been many years (?) information how to make rocket propellants with over 600s specific impulse in rocket engine, and those same facts have been around for perhaps many decades in professional rocket making circles, but no one has build a rocket that uses lithium hydrite or lithium-beryllium hydrite as fuel. Why? Over 600 s specific impulse is huge improvement from 450 s plain hydrogen-oxygen rocket motors. And lithium-beryllium hydrite is safe material (if it can be used as rocket fuel). Not perhaps whole rocket, but rocket upper stages can use those high performance fuels. Lithium hydrite is safer than just bare lithium? Or not?
Chinese are also making energetic materials from petrovskite and from other things that are not based on nitrogen, although that nitrogen super-explosive is the most famous. So perhaps rockets powered by petrovskite etc. can be made.
If “double burning” principle of rocket propellants can be used with metal hydrite fuels, or with other propellants, if it gives some improvement, it can be used.
Netpage Quora com: “Why does Nasa insist on continuing to build SLS when cheaper, better rockets are being build such as SpaceX Starship?”
“DIRECT launcher group Leviathan”. Patent US 20150375875A1 “Space launch apparatus” 2014.
But those new rocket propellants, if lithium hydrite or other efficient propellants are used, make rockets smaller, but they still can carry huge loads because they have high specific impulse, so Sea Dragon derived launcher, “External tank derived heavy lift reusable launch vehicle” ETDHLRLV or Leviathan rocket need not to be such big, smaller rocket will carry same payload if propellant is effective, and if air augmented rocket principle with precooler and aerospike engines are used rocket is even smaller still, although perhaps able to carry 20 000 ton load to low earth orbit, in biggest of those heavy rocket designs. Spaceplanes, and also small rockets that new space firms design and build can also use those efficient propellants (but lithium hydrite, or beryllium hydrite, or lithium-beryllium hydrite propellant needs cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen tanks, if water splitting inside rocket is not used).

In Quora netpage is “Why isn t lithium hydrite used as rocket propellant?” There is that very cold liquid hydrogen can contain solid oxygen nanoparticles and solid lithium nanoparticles, and this “monopropellant” has specific impulse about 6000 m/s, same as liquid hydrogen / oxygen / (solid?) lithium hydrite in separate tanks propellant. That hydrogen/oxygen monopropellant with lithium has density of about 0,45g/cc. But can lithium changed to lihium hydrite, if it is safer? Or has LiH some negative impact to specific impulse in this monopropellant? What if lithium, hydrogen and oxygen are in different tanks, not mixed? Lithium cooled to liquid hydrogen temperature? Is it safer or not than all together in one supercold tank?
Specific impulse of monopropellant (or tripropellant in one tank) is 6000 m/s and density 0,45g/cc so it would be excellent rocket propellant. But what safety hazards? It can still be used in rockets that are not manned? Or spacecraft is launched without crew using rocket that has unsafe rocket propellant and crew arrives using space capsule that has no similar safety hazards in fuel. Again, 6000m/s (600s in rocket engine) is such advantage over just plain hydrogen/oxygen that although fuel may be unsafe it can be used to launch unmanned rockets and spacecrafts that have no crew on board.
In patent US20150375875A1 Space launch apparatus 2014 is large pyramid-like spacecraft that can be build in shipyard (old Sea Dragon concept). It can weight tens of thousands of tonnes. It has spherical tanks like LNG cargo ship, and can use liquid natural gas or methane. So instead of costly rocket manufacturing in aircraft manufacturing quality, shipyard can build this craft that even looks little like LNG cargo ship (short and pyramid-like structure, like SERV Space shuttle launcher from 1960s). So if ship building techniques can be used, building even over 10 000 ton rockets is relatively cheap. Because USA government failed with Space shuttle and now with SLS, should it give next generation space launch system order to some shipyard instead of aircraft / missile firms? Ship building is advanced nowdays, aluminum is used and even composite materials (boats and yachts) are used. Large big steam boilers are build that can withstand 800 C heat without cooling and 150 bar (15 megapascal) pressure (for coal powerplants etc.), as high pressure as rocket engine has pressure, and gas turbines build for ships. So what stops using shipyard instead of aircraft / missile factory to build a large rocket? Using modern shipbuilding techniques building big space rocket (thousands of tons) is cheap and quality is suitable. They have experience building LNG ships with their large cryogenic tanks, building spaceship instead of seaship with methane tanks is possible, it is like LNG ship that is launched to space, what that patent describes is something like that. Even rocket engines can be build in same factory that builds steam boilers or steam/gas turbines for industry. Simple pressure fed designs with low pressure? Liquid hydrogen tanks can be build also, liquid hydrogen tanks are build for industrial purposes, same builder can build them for space rocket cheaply.
“ESA moves ahead on reusable rocket engine” “Amur reusable rocket”.
If water splitting is used in rocket, and water decomposes to 8:1 weight ratio to oxygen and hydrogen, but if 4:1 is optimal ratio of rocket engine burning oxygen and hydrogen, then additional oxygen can be burned with kerosene. Rocket has then water and kerosene in its tanks. There is similar amount of oxygen available for both hydrogen and kerosene. Usually rockets use 6:1 ratio of oxygen and hydrogen but 4:1 is optimal for rocket engine?
Hypersonic ram air turbine that generates electricity for water splitting can be in top of payload fairing, it is like arrow on top of payload fairing, and it has superconductive generator similar to superconductive wind turbines. This arrow like structure whirls at high speed when rocket goes through atmosphere. When air is too thin additional hydrogen and oxygen must be in tanks in rocket so that rocket engine works in vacuum. Ram air turbine is like in Me 163 rocket fighter, but it is sharp arrowlike for hypersonic speeds.
SERV was designed to use aerospike engines. Simple ducted rocket / aerospike engine with precooler can help to make rocket smaller.
Quora com “Why are rockets so expensive?” 2013.
“Single catalyst water splitter produces clean-burning hydrogen” 2015. Lithium can be used also to make electricity for water splitting, lithium ion battery or lithium oxygen battery, and at same time it can be propellant in rocket.
“Whip it good! Amazon patents a launch system for snapping payloads into the air - or even into orbit”. Similar system can be used in electric spacecraft, it receives electricity from electric cable and that cable at same time is used to send spacecraft to space using kinetic energy.
Rocket can use simple solid boosters that accelerate rocket fast from launch to 450 m/s acceleration, so rocket does not have to spend 40% or more fuel to gain that acceleration. Those simple solid boosters burn only slightly less than 10 seconds or slightly more than 10 seconds, and together with rocket s own engines accelerate rocket fast to 450 m/s speed, in about 1 km - 2 km high solid simple boosters separate and use parachutes to land. Big thousands of tons weighting rocket can save 40% or more fuel weight because it is accelerated fast to 450 m/s speed.
Airbus Adeline.
Patent US6619032B1 “Multi-mode multi propellant liquid rocket engine”. “Multi-propellant multi-mode rocket engine MPLRE, Multi-propellant multi-mode liquid air augmented engine LAARE”.
Rocket can be assembled right on launch pad, assembly building covers launch pad, when rocket is ready, assembly building moves away using railroad tracks and rocket is launched. Assembly building is moving using railroad tracks, it moves to safe distance when rocket is launched. Rocket can be assembled in launch pad, no need to move it as complete unit from assembly hall to launch site, because rocket is assembled right on spot.
Quora “How much would it cost to develop and build the Sea dragon rocket today?” Although rocket is build in shipyard it can be launched from land like normal rockets are launched from ground. “What is the highest temperature that steam can attain in boiler?” Commercial boilers have specs close to rocket engines (?) and they are much bigger.
Launching from Chimborazo plateau in Equador is like air launch from ground, at 4000m high near equator air pressure is only 60% what it is in sea level, in top of Chimborazo mountain pressure is only 45% of sea level, light rockets can be launched from there.
From netpage wodeshu gitee io: “Rocket exhaust plumes”. If burning of lithium with hydrogen and oxygen makes decomposition product that can be burned again (decomposition product is hydrogen, oxygen, or other burning material) then that material can be burned in air augmented rocket using atmospheric oxygen with decomposition product (hydrogen etc.) and burn it in “afterburner” air augmented rocket ejector etc., so hydrogen / oxygen / lihium mix when burned can be partially “burned again” and rocket has then even higher specific impulse than 6000 m/s? Even just water, if it reacts exothermically with some material, can be used as rocket fuel. ALICE fuel uses this principle. Is lithium hydrite better (or worse?) or safer than bare lithium with hydrogen and oxygen in fuel mix? And lithium-beryllium hydrite or beryllium hydrite with hydrogen and oxygen? In monopropellant mix, all in one fuel tank? So liquid hydrogen can have solid oxygen particles and then either solid lithium particles, (solid particle?) lithium hydride, lithium-beryllium hydrite, or just beryllium hydrite?
Robin Hood Coop forums: “Useful way to use hydrogen in space station”, “Space rocket launch using vertical rocked sled” and “Cheap astronomical telescopes”.
Lithium is cheap now? So cheap that for example 1000 ton fuel load of lithium hydrite in some super-heavy rocket costs only 7 million dollars if price is 7 dollar for kg? Super heavy rocket costs much more than 7 million dollars, although it is reausable. Rocket can use ducted rocket / air augmented and aerospike principles so lithium can be used efficiently, with hydrogen and oxygen, and use short-burning solid boosters to gain 450 m/s acceleration from the beginning, saving fuel.
To save lithium for rocket fuel only, using lithium in batteries and in chemical industry can be forbidden, and alternative chemicals used instead of lithium in industry and batteries. So available lithium in earth can be saved as rocket propellant. In moon and Mars can also be lithium and beryllium, so it can be mined from there when moon and Mars are colonized. Lithium must also be forbidden from military missiles and saving all lithium for space rockets only for peaceful purposes, colonizing moon and Mars etc. This if lithium is gonna be used as rocket fuel in grand scale. Same for beryllium, minimal amount of beryllium is in earth. Lithium carbonate “spot price” is about 7 dollar / kg, and lithium carbonate is material that industry uses most. Lithium per ton price (not per kg price) is slightly over 10 000 dollar, so about 12 - 15 dollar (?) per kg if ton not kg is used as buying price? If lithium hydride or bare lithium becomes the main usage of lithium in industry (used as rocket fuel) then price of those will become as low as lithium carbonate, 7 dollar per kg.
New super - propellants from China can also be used, if their price is so low that it is realistic to use them as rocket propellant. CL-20 costs 1300 dollar per kg. That would make expensive rocket propellant. But some small space rocket can use chinese wonder propellants if they are at same price range? Or some spaceplane air launched to orbit, if spaceplane is two stage system that has hypersonic carrier launched from jumbojet and only last stage (spaceplane) uses superpropellant. Those wonder propellants have so high performance that although they might be expensive they can be used because they have good specific impulse.

If new superpropellants are expensive, they can still be used as rocket propellants even in big rockets. Each Space shuttle flight cost 1,5 billion dollars, even more than inflation adjusted Saturn 5 launch price. And each SLS launch will cost 2 billion dollars per launch, not 500 million dollar which is official price (official price for Space shuttle was 450 million dollar per launch, but actually cost 1,5 billion, closer to 2 billion in 2020 inflation adjusted prices). Space shuttle was launched 135 times, and USA government was quite happy with its launch price.
If some superpropellant costs more than CL-20, more than 1100 - 1300 dollar per kg, it still is not too much even for large rocket. 1000 tons of some super-propellant that costs 1300 - 1500 dollars is then 1,3 - 1,5 billion dollars. But USA is still prepared to use SLS that will cost 2 billion per launch. So actually rocket that has 1000 tons of some superpropellant, and then also some other fuel or oxidizer in the mix, will cost same than SLS, for that 2 billion dollar 1,3-1,5 billion dollar (or more) can be price of super propellant. If Space shuttle was launched 135 times, this massive super-propellant rocket with superpropellant and other propellant, weighting several thousand tons, can be launched also over 100 times, and price is about same than was using Space shuttle. But because it uses some miracle propellant it has huge specific impulse and huge payload capacity. Those miracle propellants are being made already, they only have high price, but USA government has shown that price is not problem when it pays for rocket launches. So not even high price is not obstacle for using expensive superpropellants. They can make possible massive spaceships, making journeys to moon, Mars or Titan, perhaps even tourist trips with space tourists to those celestial objects. And those superpropellants can be in massive big rocket weighting thousands of tons. And still it will cost as much as average SLS launch. USA government has prepared to use SLS 10 - 20 years, and many launches. Same money can be used to make really super heavy payload space launch system, at about same launch price.
“Concept of high energy hybrid rocket thruster using XeF2: injected magnesium cartridges” (tumble thruster module, TTM, MAX rocket propellant, although MAX is not exactly superpropellant). “Noble gas florides as rocket fuel”. Nasa (NTRS) High energy-density liquid rocket fuel performance.
If rocket uses water splitting in rocket and hypersonic ram air turbine to make electricity for electrolysis, in high altitude there is no air and nothing to propel ram air turbine. It is possible that there is two tanks in rocket, in launch both are filled with water. Before rocket rises to vacuum it has split all water, spend most of it during rise (hydrogen and oxygen), but unused hydrogen and oxygen is now in those two tanks, cooled to liquid form, and it is enough that rocket can rise to orbit using that liquid oxygen and hydrogen that are in tanks. Hydrogen is very non-dense material and needs large tanks but most of needed fuel is already spend when rocket rises to vacuum so liquid hydrogen that is needed to last step for rising to space is in one tank and liquid oxygen in another, although tank for hydrogen is small (it previously had water) it is enough. After water splitting hydrogen and oxygen must be made to cold liquid but in high altitude is very cold, it is almost space, so very cold and cryogenic tank is easier to made and maintain the cryogenic temperature than tank on earth. Most hydrogen and oxygen made by water splitting has however already spend during rise, spend immediately after they are formed using water splitting. If MHD generator is used in rocket it does not need air pressure so water splitting can continue in space as long engines are used so MHD generator can generate electricity from rocket engines. If water splitting makes too much oxygen compared to hydrogen for rocket engine to use, additional oxygen can be used with kerosene, then kerosene tank is in rocket and water tank too. Those two tanks can perhaps be used as (liquid) hydrogen and oxygen tank in high altitude when all kerosene is used and all water turned to hydrogen and oxygen.
“Smart cast metal - cast metal with sensors”.
Lithium carbonate price is about 7 dollar/kg (?), and it is lithium material that industry uses most. Lithium or lithium hydride has about 10 000 - 15 000 dollar (?) price per ton basis (not per kg), so slightly over 10 dollar per kg if several tons are bought (not just few kilos)? If lithium is used as rocket fuel massive amounts, its price will be same that lithium carbonate is now, about 7 dollar per kg?

Space shuttle program cost 200 billion dollars to USA, without inflation adjustment, (so much mare than 200 billion in 2020 prices). Shuttle was launched 135 times, price per launch 1,5 billion dollars without inflation adjustment, so price close to 2 billion in 2020 prices. SLS launch will cost over 2 billion according to estimates, even just 5 liquid rocket engines of SLS cost 560 million, so whole SLS launch cannot cost 500 million dollar that is the official launch price.
If USA government makes rocket that uses new superpropellants, that are expensive, it is possible and cost the same as SLS or Space shuttle. If superpropellant cost 1100 dollar per kg, and rocket uses it 1700 tons (rocket can use liquid hydrogen, oxygen etc. normal propellants also, so rocket can weight 5000 tons of which 1700 tons is superpropellant). Price is 1100 dollar kg / 1700 tons so 1,87 billion is just superpropellant price in rocket. BFR / Starship rocket manufacturing, if made at series production is estimated to be 20 million, 14 million or even low as 5 million dollars, Starship is made of commercial steel and series production brings down cost. This is non-reusable cost, reusable Starship cost per flight can be as low as 2 million dollars. BFR/ Starship weights and SLS weight are almost same. If launch schedule is same like Space shuttle (8 launches per year max. launch rate) then 16 billion dollars are spend per year (if rocket costs about 2 billion), and cost is the same as Space shuttle program launches (about 2 billion per launch in 2020 prices) and forthcoming SLS lunches. From this 16 billion 15 billion is spend to make superpropellant, 12 500 - 14 000 tons per year. If superpropellant is manufactured at 15 billion dollar budget, and about 12 500 tons per year (or more), mass manufacturing will bring down down superproepellant price dramatically. This price example (1700 tons with 1100 dollar price per kg) expects that although superpropellant is mass manufactured at 15 billion dollar budget per year and 12 500 - 14 000 tons or over it still has price of about 1100 dollar per kg (less or more), It can be much cheaper than 1100 dollar if made at 15 billion dollar manufacturing each year, tens of thousands of tons. 1,87 billion is propellant price and rocket costs about 100 - 150 million. Even BFR rocket made of composites, non-reusable and fast launch schedule, would have price of less than 100 million dollars. Whole 5000 ton rocket with its conventional propellant and superpropellant has cost of about 2 billion, same as SLS if BFR/Starship manufacturing techniques are used and superpropellant 1700 tons or more. Huge specific impulse is available from modern superpropellants whose manufacturing is expensive (but still every 5000 ton rocket that uses them will cost only same as Space shuttle or SLS launch). Shuttle was launched 135 times, if super propellant rocket does the same, then cost is same as Shuttle program but now massive loads, perhaps up to 20 000 tons, can be lifted to space at same cost as Shuttle or SLS.
20 000 ton payload from 5000 ton (or more) rocket with fuel, so combined weight 25 000 tons. 20 000 ton “spaceship” can go to moon, Mars, Titan, asteroid belt etc. carrying cheap payload per kg price loads cheaply.
1100 dollar per kg is the price of CL-20, but this CL-20 price was before any serious mass manufacturing of CL-20 took place? So mass manufacturing of any superpropellant can be as low as CL-20 or much cheaper if manufactured at 15 billion dollar / year budget. Chinese have developed superpropellants (and superexplosives) because they can then compete in space race not using hi-tech like expensive composite materials in rocket but simple brute force approach like Sea Dragon, if propellant has very high specific impulse rocket can be build at shipyard with inexpensive manufacturing techniques and still it has much more payload than rocket that uses usual propellants like hydrogen / oxygen.
5000 ton rocket that is capable of lifting 10 000 - 20 000 ton to low earth parking orbit like Saturn 5, from there 10 000 - 20 000 spacecraft can go to Mars, moon, asteroid belt or Titan with huge payload. This spacecraft can use some other method than chemical propulsion, plasma propulsion or other, it is out of atmosphere. Spacecraft has very low price of payload kg / dollars even if payload is ferried to Mars or Titan. Also huge space stations that are like small cities can be lifted to orbit, inflatable huge stations that are like Bigelow space hotels, but those inflatable structures weighting 10 000 tons or more are like ordinary hotels or even small cities in space if inflatable structures are used. So space tourists can be lifted thousands of them to earth orbit in huge space hotels. And so earn money for rocket launches. Even interstellar probes that are assembled in orbit (not in ground) and weight over 100 000 tons can be build, and huge space telescopes and other space observatories, gamma astronomy etc. that can weight thousands of tons, not about ten ton class that are the planned next generation space telescopes. If this superpropellant rocket is launched 135 times it has the same cost that Space shuttle program had, but it would make true colonization of solar system possible, and it can lift scientific instruments to space that weight 10 000 tons of more, making possible new era of scientific research that has never been possible before in human history. It is chemical rocket, and cost per launch is the same as Space shuttle or SLS.
If USA does not use this opportunity chinese will use it. SLS can send small expeditions to Mars and moon, but chinese cheap rockets with superpropellants can carry thousands of people, so when americans are making their space colony in Mars with some dozens of people chinese will be there too and they come there with thousands of people, so Mars will become red planet indeed. Same about moon colonization, if payload capacity is much higher than just some dozen people in moon mission then when other nations have some dozen or hundred people in moon, there will be at same time perhaps 100 000 chinese inhabitants in moon. That is the reason why chinese have made so much research about superpropellants.
If 5000 ton rocket uses 1700 tons of superpropellant, rocket s first stage can use hydrogen / oxygen / lihium hydride propulsion, and simple ducted rocket principle / aerospike engine. This 5000 ton is rocket without payload, payload is much heavier than weight of fuel. 10 000 to 20 000 tons of payload to low earth parking orbit 160 - 180 km high? So rocket weights 15 000 - 25 000 tons with payload. Some chinese paper mentioned almost 3000 kj/mol energy of some material, and hydrogen with oxygen is 286 kj? So over 10 times more energy / weight ratio than hydrogen/oxygen. There is also explosive called TAAT that has 4 times more energy density than HMX?
“Physics discover a tri-anion particle with colossal stability”. “LiNa(N5)2(H2O) 4 H2O a novel heterometallic cyclo-N5-framework”. “Pressure-induced stable BeN4 as high energy-density material”. “Novel lithium-nitrogen compounds at ambient and high presures”. “A series of energetic metal pentazole hydrates”. “Direct reaction of nitrogen and lithium up to 75 Gpa”. “Facile hydrogen reverse on the composites of lithium hydride”. “Computational evaluation of metal pentazolate frameworks”. “The polymetrization of nitrogen in Li2N2 at high pressures”. “A novel polymetrization of nitrogen in beryllium tetranitride at high pressure”. “A high-pressure synthesized lithium pentazole metastable compound at ambient conditions”. “Review of the current synthesis and properties of energetic pentazolate and…”.“Researchers create and stabilize pure polymeric nitrogen using plasma for first time”. “Healable and mechanically super-strong polymeric composites derived from hydrogen-bonded…”, so not only rocket structures, but hydrogen-based solid propellant can be perhaps be made that has great strength and does not need casing, solid booster just burns away like cigarette? Continuously staged rocket.
Patent US20090113873 Continuously airbreathing assisted jet engine linear aerospike rocket.
“X15 with supercharged ejector ramjet” “Helicon yield plasma electromagnetic scramjet-ramjet”. “Aquajet: the space thruster”, Momentus plasma propulsion. Atmosphere-breathing electric propulsion ABEP. Clean lithium fission rocket. “Splitting water molecules for renewable energy future”. “Floppy atomic dynamics help turn heat into electricity”. “Low-temperature plasma device may lead to more efficient…”. So plasma rocket can then be powered by diesel engines inside rocket if mechanical energy (motion) can be turned to plasma. Diesel fuel that has oxidizer included because this diesel engine works in space. “Manufacturing living metals with cold-spray technology” Tri-D Dynamics TerraForma.

“Ayaks hypersonic waverider”. It uses heat of air drag and complex chemical method to make hydrogen from water using kerosene and methane. And plasma - assisted propulsion. Also from netpage ufo-blogger com Nasa video: UFO docked at international space station 2014. From physics stacexchange com Lift using electricity to create pressure difference.
From netpage sciencemadness com Highly laminated rocket propellants. There id list of high energy propellants combinations, but also claims that metals like lithium hydride etc. cannot be used as rocket propellants because they are too dangerous and rocket engine will “explode”. Earlier oxygen-rich ordinary rocket engines were considered too dangerous to be used because they will “explode”. However russians manufactured and used oxygen rich rocket engines since 1960s, and they worked, using 1960s technology. In early 2000s russians sold this technology to west and technology transfer program was made and “secrets” of oxygen rich rocket engines was learned in the west also. Now exactly same arguments are used against using lithium and other metals with oxygen oxidizer that earlier was used against oxygen rich rockets, they are too dangerous, will explode etc. Material technology has progressed since 1960s, and since 1980s etc. That which was too difficult in the 1980s is perhaps now possible, 40 years later. If lithium and other metals with hydrogen were discarded as rocket propellants in 1970s or 1980s, because it was then too difficult, that does not mean that it will be forever too difficult to make rocket engine that works with lithium hydride (or other metal material) and hydrogen and oxygen. It is possible perhaps right now. Over 600 s specific impulse is so great that it is worth trying. Perhaps even more energetic material than lithium hydride can be used. Rocket engine using lithium, fluor and hydrogen was made already in 1960s, and oxygen is safer than fluorines.
In that netpage “Highly laminated rocket propellants” is also “augmentor” mentioned (aardvark co nz). Augmentor can be simpler than aerospike engine? It can be used like ducted rocket?
Everywhere is claimed that world s best chemical rocket fuel is already invented, and it is hydrogen, and that never will be any better chemical rocket fuel (not in next 100 years? Not in million years from now?), so no need to study alternatives for hydrogen as rocket fuel. But is the hydrogen / oxygen really the best rocket propellant, and that never will be better than 450s specific impulse chemical propellant? Adding lithium hydride in the mix already over 600 s can be achieved. If fuel cannot be changed perhaps then oxidizer can be improved. Instead of oxygen oxygen/ozone mix can be used, with some amount (5 or 9 %) of fluor to stabilize, or use cyclic ozone, tetraoxygen, red oxygen, or trinitramide as oxidizer. “Liquid ozone instead of liquid oxygen as rocket oxidizer!”. In Sweden not only trinitramide, but also HGP101 and rocket propellant called “AND” has been invented.
“Engine originally designed for Nasa s Space shuttle key to low-cost spaceplane”.
“The emissive membrane ion thruster concept”.
China has been developing large solid propellant rockets recently, including world s largest solid propellant booster. At same time chinese laboratories invent almost daily new super-energetic materials. Just coincidence?
There are also perhaps more conventional materials suitable for propellants: hydrazinium nitride, hydrazinium nitroformate, nitronium tetrafluoride, hydroxylamine nitrate.
“Sodium pentazolate: A nitrogen-rich high energy density material”. Patent DE102008048015A1 Verfaren zur herstellung von alkali metal cyanoborat. Cyanogen as rocket propellant has been studied, it is dense, and can be used in Mars. Patent US6430920 Nozzless rocket motor. Patent US3295321A Method and apparatus for injection secondary propellant in multi-heat release combustors. “All-nitrogen ring crystallized”. “A novel polymetrization of nitrogen in beryllium magnesium nitride”. “New polynitrogen molecules - energetic air as next generation propellant?” “New polynitrogen hyperbranched polymers”. “Synthesis of magnesium-nitrogen salts of polynitrogen”. “Corallistine, a new polynitrogen compound”. “Synthesis of novel polynitrogen anions in prediction of new inorganic quantum chemical methods”. “Pentanitrogen (1+) cation and salt”. “The synthesis of carborane - oxetane DTIC - ADA 198596”.
From forum nasaspaceflight com: “Externally-fueled rocket using det-cord-like guide tether”. “Random idea: boron-proton fusion ramjet?” “Hybrid sub-critical fission-fusion rector?”
“Boeing just patented a laser-powered nuclear fusion”.
Aluminum hydride with hydrogen peroxide has also proposed as rocket propellant, over 400 s specific impulse.
If mechanical energy can be turned to plasma propulsion, then perhaps internal combustion engine can be used inside rocket to make mechanical energy that is turned to plasma. Like “Anyoon rotary engine”, “Mazda hybrid rotary”, “A new heat engine and its applications in concentrating solar power (CSP)” There was also patent somewhere where was described nuclear-power (uranium fuel) internal combustion engine, piston powered like diesel engine, when piston reaches top of cylinder block it becomes critical and nuclear reaction begins that throws piston back and nuclear reaction ends and uranium powered motor works like ordinary piston engine. But if mechanical energy can be turned to plasma propulsion then simplest solution will be human - powered spacecraft. Astronauts inside spacecraft use exercise bikes and other physical exercise methods to power spacecraft. Mechanical energy of their physical exercises is turned to plasma drive, low thrust like ion propulsion, but propulsion comes from human muscle power, not rocket fuel. If even low amount of thrust can make great speed if thrust continues long, then even human-powered plasma rocket can be made. And astronauts stay in good shape and get more physical exercise than they ever wanted.
“Fission-fragment rocket”. “Mixing properties of coaxial jets with large velocity ratios and large inverse density ratios”.
“Reversed hybrid rocket” principle. “Field reversed configuration (FRC) fusion rocket”. From sciencemag org 2016: “What this here compound needs is some hydrogen peroxide”. Netpage io9 gizmodo com: “How humanity will conquer space without rockets”. Quora com: “Which is the most efficient rocket fuel?” 2017. "The theoretical specific thrust of a rocket for the carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen-oxygen-fluorine system 1956. Chlorine pentafluoride. “Energetic salts of the binary 5-cyanotetrazole anion ( C2N5 ) with nitrogen-rich cations”. "Energetic ethylene- and propylene-bridget bis salts 2009. If plasma rocket is used in atmosphere, like clean lithium fission rocket, plasma rocket can use water to augment thrust in low altitude and switch to hydrogen in high altitude. So perhaps plasma rocket can be used to launch rocket from ground to space, and not using plasma rockets in space only. “A simple way to make payment free internet in third world” in Robin Hood Coop forums netpage.

In “Low temperature plasma device may lead to more efficient engines” is that mechanical force can be turned to plasma. So plasma rocket then needs engine that uses mechanical force, like internal combustion engine. Or humans (astronauts) can be the power source. Patent US20130005200A1 Nuclear energy generation using piston-based systems. In it is also other previous methods and patents that use nuclear power and piston engines. Patent WO 2015026878A1 Nanofuel engine apparatus and nanofuel.
“Ignition and burn in a hybrid nuclear fuel for a pulsed rocket engine”. Pulsejet engine can use “augmentor” principle in atmosphere, but can augmentor rocket engine be used outside atmosphere, using some propellant material?
Also in cars can be used motors that use compressed air as power source, no other fuel than just compressed air. If in spacecraft this air engine principle can be used to make (mechanical) energy from gases of rocket propellants or making energy from air/oxygen generation inside spacecraft? If oxygen making gas generator inside spacecraft has enough power (gaseous oxygen generating capacity) for air engine.
Air engine can also make electric power using superconductive electric generator. This is air engine electric generator. Atmospheric drag can be used for water splitting inside rocket. Fast airflow of air drag when rocket rises through atmosphere goes to air engine (generator) and electric current generated is used for water splitting.