0
since the rockets are supposed to carry the oxygen (required for burning the fuel) of their own, oxidizer comes here into the scene as it is the one which provides that oxygen. in case of a turbojet engine or a simple automobile engine, this oxygen is sucked into the engine as air but in case of rockets as they have to travel in space (obviously no air there so no oxygen) they carry with them the amount of oxygen which will be required to burn the loaded fuel to produce exhaust gases which in turn provides thrust to the rocket...... the oxidizer can be in liquid or solid state depending upon the type of rocket i.e solid, liquid or hybrid rocket..... some typical examples are AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE, AMMONIUM NITRATE, AMMONIUM DINITRAMIDE, HYDRAZINE, NITROUS OXIDE, HYDROGEN PEROXIDE, POTASSIUM PERCHLORATE, LIQUID OXYGEN (BEST ONE).......
Except for LIQUID OXYGEN the above mentioned oxidizers liberate OXYGEN when heated... this liberated oxygen is used for the combustion of fuel....
I Hope I were clear and of help....
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What has the author J M Deur written?
J. M. Deur has written: 'Steady state one-dimensional pyrolysis of oxidzer-binder laminates' -- subject(s): Pyrolysis, Solid propellants, Combustion
Chlorine cost vs. ozone cost?
Chlorine will always be used for secondary sterilization in drinking water, so further discussion will be based on general oxidzer needs. Chlorine requires very inexpensive equipment to dispense. Chlorine is very dangerous to handle, but these dangers are well understood and capable of being mitigated by trained personnel. Chlorine is more expensive in the long run (> 5years usually, depending on oxidizer needs and power costs). Chlorine should not be used in any application that will be offgassing routinely (see ozone depletion, and simply wasting applied dollars) Ozone is very capital intensive to set up. Ozone is also dangerous to handle, but if you turn off the power, ozone is quickly gone back to oxygen. Ozone is less expensive in the long run. Some of the savings comes from the fact that ozone does what it does faster, and requires less C*T (concentration times time) to complete a given reaction. Control systems costs for either system will roughly equivalent.
