> 4) Rocket fuel is not anhydrous alcohol.

It would esentially be if you used alcohol. Few rockets do nowadays. 
It has some advantages but it is a relatively low performance 
propellant compared to viable alternatives. eg even LOX and Kerosene* 
has substantially superior performance. (* "Jetex" and "RPx" and 
similar are special kerosenes chosen for their relative purity and 
absence of fractions which polymerise when heated and goo up your 
injectors and chamber).

> V2 rockets used 75% ethyl alcohol + 25% water

This was mainly to lower the combustion chamber temperature to suit 
the materials used. It also helped a relatively rare resource go 
further. It also didn't overly hurt net performance in this 
application but modern methods tend (not always wisely) to optimise 
performance. [[Truax et al BDB** approach compared with systems like 
eg STS/Shuttle]]

> And unlike hydrogen it is not really really dangerous or hard to 
> handle.

Unless you drink it (whether 85% or anhydrous).
But, then, liquid Hydrogen is also dangerous to drink, and has no 
taste that you will ever taste if you do :-)



        Russell
        (*REAL* men drink slush-Hydrogen).


** BDB = Big Dumb Booster.
High relative performance is replaced by low tech, low cost, ease of 
design and manufacture and shorter time to market leading to BIG but 
cheap first stages in particular.  NASA hasn't fully 'got it' yet, 
alas. Truax was doing this in 1958.
"Just because they won't listen doesn't mean you are wrong" :-).
Gargoyle
        robert truax sea dragon ....
Not to mention
        snake river evil knievel <sp?>  steam rocket ...



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist