what kind of chemicals do they put in a space rocket?
106668
The external tank on the space shuttle uses liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen.  I hope that helps.
631298
by going to space in  a rocket.
355914
hydrazine isn't an element but works really well in propulsion :)
843106
Liquid hydrogen (fuel) and liquid oxygen (oxidizer) are used in many applications for rockets. The one that comes to mind is the Centaur upper stage on Atlas-Centaur and Titan-Centaur expendable launch vehicles launced by NASA.\n\nThe fuel and oxidizer, which are gases at normal atmospheric pressure, are compressed to liquids under high pressure and low temperatures.
736823
You need to specify what kind of propellent: eg, smokeless powder, solid rocket fuel, spray paint propellent, etc.
604767
The shuttle initially lifts off using solid rocket boosters(those tanks that are blown off) which are usually filled with an ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6 % by weight), aluminum (fuel, 16 %), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4 %), a polymer (such as PBAN or HTPB - a binder that holds the mixture together, 12.04 %), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96 %). After the tanks are blown off with explosive bolts, the shuttle uses its own engines, which are fueled with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.
928895
It would be Iridium and if you need a small sample of it, they use very very small amounts of it in spark plugs because it supposedly produces better spark and combustion.
22780
Thank you punnet pundit. I was thinking the same thing. \n\nWhen combining Hydrogen and Oxygen one will get water or hydrogen peroxide. Simple enough. But that's not all there is to it. Just mixing the two doesn't cut it. The mixture must first gain enough energy to react. This is called it's Activation Energy. Which is the amount of energy it needs to absorb in order to carry out a chemical reaction. In the case of water the reaction is spontaneous and once started will continue until there is no longer enough reactants to form products. \n\nIn the case of water the reaction is explosive and quite violent. Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen are used in space ships, because the reaction is enough to give the rocket a signifigant amount of upward force. The product is steam really because the water is way above 212 degrees F. but if this is condensed onto something below that temperature you get pure water.\n\nHydrogen peroxide slowly over time can break down in light. That's all I really know about it.
677158
Well the obvious one about explosions and fires.\n\nThen you have that some of the propellants used can be pretty nasty to handle.  Liquid Oxygen, Liquid Hydrogen, etc are very cold and if you spill on yourself you won't live very long.  Liquid Oxygen (along with pretty much any other oxidizer) will allow things to burn very well.\n\nThe hypergolics are the really nasty ones though.  They tend to be toxic and if you mix them they burn (which is why they're called hypergolic and is an advantage in many cases) and some of them are known carcinogens.
187416
Naturally.\nIts like a rocket.  Fuel and oxygen are all self-contained.\nWhen a sealed shell casing detonates, where is the oxygen supposed to come from?  The oxygen is already in the nitrate.\n\nA bullet would work exceptionally well in space.  No wind resistance and no gravity to bend the trajectory.\n\nYah, ray guns are an option.  The ones we have with currrent technology are to heavy to pick up, but in space...
542320
I would just recommend looking at a can and seeing what is the propellant.  We could guess all day, but as long as we don't work in a silly string factory we couldn't be absolute.  Alot of that kinf od informations i proprietary.  But how about this:\nPropellant\nSomething that dries fast (isopropyl)\nA plasticizer to keep the goo gooey\nsome other stuff
973514
Pollution caused by space launches:\n\nThe magnitude of space launch combustion products can be illustrated by a \ncomparison of the amount of fuel consumed by a  space shuttle launch with \nthe amount of gasoline consumed in the United States in one day:\n\nSpace shuttle fuel consumed in a launch:  3.5 million pounds\nGasoline consumed in one day in the US - 2,500 million pounds\nIn other words, one space shuttle launch is equivalent to about two minutes \nof gasoline consumption in the United States.\n\nThere were 78 space launches worldwide in 1999, almost all much smaller \nthan the space shuttle.\n\nThe pollution caused by space launches depends not only on the total \nquantity of the fuels used, but on their chemical composition..\n\n Propellants used for powering space launches are of four types:\n\n1. Solid  - Propellants that are a mixture of solid chemicals - a fuel and \nan oxidizer - that burn at a rapid rate when ignited, expelling hot gasses \nfrom a nozzle to achieve thrust. Fireworks are an example of the use of \nthis kind of propellant. The combustion products depend on the chemicals \nused. The space shuttle uses potassium perchlorate (KClO4) and powdered \naluminum. The combustion products are  potassium chloride and aluminum \noxide  \n\n2. Cryogenic - In space propellants, this refers to liquid hydrogen (LH) \nand liquid oxygen (LOX), which burn when mixed and ignited. LOX is a liquid \nbelow -298 degrees F and LH is a liquid below  -423 degrees F. They are \nstored in the space vehicle in insulated tanks and pumped into the rocket \nengines where they burn to expel hot gases.  The LOX/LH combination is by \nfar the most efficient in the amount of thrust per pound of fuel.  The \ncombustion product is water vapor.\n\n3. Petroleum - Instead of liquid hydrogen, a purified kerosene is used as \nthe fuel and is mixed with liquid oxygen and burned in the engine. The \ncombustion products are carbon dioxide and water vapor. This fuel system is \nusually used in launches of smaller rockets where the complications of \nhandling liquid hydrogen are not justified. \n\n4. Hypergolic - fuels and oxidants that ignite on contact without an \nignition source.  These are generally used for maneuvering after the soak \nvehicle has reached orbit. The combustion products depend on the chemicals \nused.  The space shuttle uses monomethyl hydrazine (N2CH6) and nitrogen \ntetroxide (N2O4).  The combustion products are nitrogen, water vapor and \ncarbon dioxide.\n\nThe pollution effects of the four types of fuels are:\n\nSolid fuel - The major combustion products of potassium chloride and \naluminum oxide and relatively innocuous.  Potassium chloride is used as a \nfertilizer and has medicinal uses.  Aluminum oxide is an unreactive \ncompound and is used as an abrasive.\n\nCryogenic - The only combustion product of LH/LOX is water.\n\nPetroleum - The combustion products of water and carbon dioxide are \nharmless except of any possible contribution of carbon dioxide to global \nwarming, but the carbon dioxide from this source  would be infinitesimal \ncompared to the energy produced by burning  coal and petroleum\n\nHypergolic - The combustion products of this kind of fuel are not a \npollution problem. In any event this fuel is used only in small quantities \nfor maneuvering.\n\nThe space shuttle uses about 2.3 million pounds of solid propellant in the \nlaunch boosters and about 1.2 million pounds of LH/LOX in the main engines. \nA relatively small amount of hypergolic fuel is used for controlling the \nshuttle once in orbit. Kerosene/LOX propellant is not used.\n\nWith regard to possible effect on the ozone layer, the only combustion \nproduct that would be suspect is the chloride ion of potassium chloride. \nStudies have shown that in contrast to organic chlorine (as in banned \nrefrigerants) inorganic chloride does not persist in the altitudes of the \nozone layer and is not a factor in ozone depletion.
491647
They carry their own.\nEither in the form of liquid oxygen, or they use a fuel that  will liberate oxygen as part of the combustion reaction, like hydrogen peroxide.\n\nNote that these are very inefficient, because you have to haul large masses of oxidizers up out of the gravity well...  This is going to put an effective stop to long-haul space travel until a better form of propulsion is well established.\n\n(For extra points...)\nIon drives, mass reaction drives and things like hydrogen "ramjets" are being worked on as alternatives -  and, my favourite concept, the solar sail, is in the wings...  :-)\nI've sailed the oceans, I would really love to sail space, but I doubt I'll live that long.
406464
Yes.  There is a very small amount of matter that enters the atmosphere from space (meteorites), but essentially it is all just being recycled. Some atoms of oxygen you breathe in may have been breathed by a dinosaur, or one of the pharoahs!
1056111
I used to make rockets when I was young. A lot of them exploded, but I used many different oxidiser/fuel combinations - fuels including aluminium,red phosphorous, carbon, icing sugar, etc and oxidisers like ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, potassium chlorate, potassium perchlorate, nitrocellulose (home made and lots of fun) but these are not readily availible. The easiest way of making a rocket from readily availible items (not really household items but easy to obtain) would be to use gunpowder (made from flowers of sulphur, sulpheter (potassium nitrate) and charcoal powder). Do an internet search for gunpowder. Tips - be very careful (I take no responsiblity if you hurt yourself), grind the powders as fine as possible - the finer the better - use a pestle and motar, use some sort of binder if possible - even if it's sugar). The rocket shell must be strong and light - learn from the rockets in fireworks - it is easiest to use a cardboard shell with a plaster of paris plug at the top and a plaster of paris nozzle on the other end. I tried metal shells - they heat up quickly, weaken and burst open. Ignite electronically from a distance (use a battery, a long cable and fuse wire in the fuel at the exit nozzle of the rocket). \n\nThere are some general guide lines - you will have to experiment with nozzle design, length/diameter ratios of rocket, fuel composition (burn speed) and ways of packing the fuel. One can make a hollow along the center of the rocket from top to bottom to facilitate gas flow and uniform  burning - check out basic solid fuel rocket designs on the google and the net. There are also various types of launch pads you can use to make sure your rocket is going in a straight line with enough velocity to keep on a straight path. You should also put stabilising fins on the base of your rocket. \n\nWhen you get more advanced, you can include some kind of parachute to deploy when the fuel is spent (using a secondary charge to pop open the cone and release it)\n\nBe sure to launch the rockets in an open field of green grass (to avoid possible fires) and away from any houses or people. There are lots of amature rocket clubs. I suggest you join one and get some advice there. They generally buy their rocket engines off the shelf with fixed burn rates, burn times and total thrust. These are more reliable, more consistent and safer than home made engines. You will have to do lots of research to get all the information you need - and the internet is great for that.\n\nGood luck and remember - safety first!
879412
iron would be much denser and would increase the weight load of the fuel, changing the power requirements for the rocket.  Also, iron tends to oxidize much faster.
78131
Right now there isn't much. The idea of nuclear power for spacecraft isn't too attractive, given the radiation, fallout, and potential mess after an accident. \n\nThe old chemical rockets have experienced an upgrade recently, thanks to the Russian technology of the closed cycle motor. The energy used to run the pumps used to be jettisoned outside the motor bell, but the Russians needed that extra bit of power for their N1 moon ship, and designed the NK33 closed cycle motor. Thankfully, some of the motors survived the cold war, and ended up in the hands of researchers who used them to construct the closed cycle motors that power the Atlas 5. The New Horizons spacecraft rode out on the Atlas 5, which was the fastest launch in history. The Apollo ships took three days to cover the distance between Earth and Moon; New Horizons did it in 9 hours. That's an improvement.