![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the moment, there are two paragraphs of information on aerosol sprays at each of Aerosol#Aerosol spray and at Propellant#Aerosol sprays. I propose to create an article at Aerosol spray (currently a redirect to Aerosol, which is mainly about atmospheric particulates) and merge those four paragraphs to it, with appropriate links from Propellant, Aerosol and elsewhere. Any objections? -- Securiger 09:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent article that is well written and thorough while being remarkably concise. The only line that puzzled me was the listing of red fuming nitric acid as a mono-propellant. I am only aware of RFNA having been used as an oxidizer in bi-propellant combinations. I was somewhat surprised at the very brief list of references as the content of the article seems to reflect a more extensive knowledge and appreciation of the subject than could be obtain from such a limited number of sources. I also appreciate that the article was not diluted with a lengthy list of "possible" rocket propellant combinations the large majority of which are never actually used. Magneticlifeform ( talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Every rocket needs two distinct things: a supply of reaction mass and an energy source to accelerate that mass. Chemical rockets are only a special case in that reaction mass and energy storage are the same material. Some rockets separate these roles, e.g., in nuclear thermal, plasma or ion rockets a nuclear reactor or solar power is used to accelerate the reaction mass. In this case, the reaction mass is considered the propellant even though it may be inert and undergoes no chemical change in the rocket. 2602:304:B3CE:D590:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 12:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting point! If I understand right, you are saying that propellant means reaction mass and not fuel, but that they are all the same in the case of chemical rockets. If so, the articles should reflect that! Elias ( talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The OP of this thread is absolutely correct. I've rewritten and expanded most of the article to differentiate propellant from fuel and made a bunch of other improvements. And I've brought it up to the 21st century (there are hundreds of non-chemical, e.g., electrically powered, space vehicles in use today). The article still could use more sources though. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This article's header currently reads: This article is about propellants used in vehicles like rockets. For propellants used in aerosol sprays, see Aerosol_spray § Aerosol_propellants. For ballistic propellants, see Gun.
This is insufficient for the following reasons:
Note that Merriam Webster and dictionary.com both define propellant in the above three senses. The order of definitions in both is (1) projectiles/guns, (2) rockets, (3) aerosol and similar.
I am therefore taking the following actions:
I would like help with:
SSSheridan ( talk) 10:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This article fails to include the class of rocket propellants termed "electrically-controlled solid propellants", which have salient characteristics different from other propellants and offering some significant operational advantages. Mkudra ( talk) 02:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the moment, there are two paragraphs of information on aerosol sprays at each of Aerosol#Aerosol spray and at Propellant#Aerosol sprays. I propose to create an article at Aerosol spray (currently a redirect to Aerosol, which is mainly about atmospheric particulates) and merge those four paragraphs to it, with appropriate links from Propellant, Aerosol and elsewhere. Any objections? -- Securiger 09:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent article that is well written and thorough while being remarkably concise. The only line that puzzled me was the listing of red fuming nitric acid as a mono-propellant. I am only aware of RFNA having been used as an oxidizer in bi-propellant combinations. I was somewhat surprised at the very brief list of references as the content of the article seems to reflect a more extensive knowledge and appreciation of the subject than could be obtain from such a limited number of sources. I also appreciate that the article was not diluted with a lengthy list of "possible" rocket propellant combinations the large majority of which are never actually used. Magneticlifeform ( talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Every rocket needs two distinct things: a supply of reaction mass and an energy source to accelerate that mass. Chemical rockets are only a special case in that reaction mass and energy storage are the same material. Some rockets separate these roles, e.g., in nuclear thermal, plasma or ion rockets a nuclear reactor or solar power is used to accelerate the reaction mass. In this case, the reaction mass is considered the propellant even though it may be inert and undergoes no chemical change in the rocket. 2602:304:B3CE:D590:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 12:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting point! If I understand right, you are saying that propellant means reaction mass and not fuel, but that they are all the same in the case of chemical rockets. If so, the articles should reflect that! Elias ( talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The OP of this thread is absolutely correct. I've rewritten and expanded most of the article to differentiate propellant from fuel and made a bunch of other improvements. And I've brought it up to the 21st century (there are hundreds of non-chemical, e.g., electrically powered, space vehicles in use today). The article still could use more sources though. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This article's header currently reads: This article is about propellants used in vehicles like rockets. For propellants used in aerosol sprays, see Aerosol_spray § Aerosol_propellants. For ballistic propellants, see Gun.
This is insufficient for the following reasons:
Note that Merriam Webster and dictionary.com both define propellant in the above three senses. The order of definitions in both is (1) projectiles/guns, (2) rockets, (3) aerosol and similar.
I am therefore taking the following actions:
I would like help with:
SSSheridan ( talk) 10:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This article fails to include the class of rocket propellants termed "electrically-controlled solid propellants", which have salient characteristics different from other propellants and offering some significant operational advantages. Mkudra ( talk) 02:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)