Well, that's pretty cool. But boy is that shit gonna go bang when the power goes out.
I've heard similar claims about metallic hydrogen as an energy storage medium.
I guess if we can just make shit up, neutronium would be even better.
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
86 points (98.9% liked)
science
19840 readers
1306 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a single-component rocket fuel, which means the rocket will not explode in a huge slow-burning red fireball, but detonate like a nuclear explosion, minimal visual effects but maximum shockwave, and a mushroom cloud of vapor.
This one behaves like Acetone peroxide. Is it similiar unstable/unusable?
Edit: well...
lifetime at room temperature of around 36 milliseconds
… what causes the radiation to heat things up? Surely not a detonation event that compresses fissile material.
Well ok. Edited it out.
Dope.
Get Elon on that rocket at once
Me when I see a new super compact rocket fuel: 😃
Me when world is at war and rocket fuel can also be untraceable high explosive: 🤐
Is uranium a rocket fuel? Us Space Force probably:
Sounds like time for another "Things I won't work with".
I read an article a good 20 years ago called Flourine: The Tiger of Chemistry. I'm certain it was by this guy. But I recall some cursing. I don't think it was on science.org. Haven't been able to find the piece in years, but it was funny as hell.
The blog series, for the uninitiated:
Derek Lowe's blog on science.org
https://www.science.org/topic/blog-category/things-i-wont-work-with
N6 would not burn with a flame: it’s just a burst of energy that generates a large volume [of gas] – so a lot of thrust, and it is non-corrosive
Reminds me of the time I ran a 100m dash 30 minutes after eating a kilo of Taco Bell.
Bro was running on fumes 💨