Probably the most stable of the exotic oxocarbons, with surprisingly complete data on Wikipedia, so I thought that would be a bit of fun. Possibly owing to a ~20kJ higher enthalpy of formation, the combustion reaction is a step up from the oxidation of carbon monoxide I made before; it's both denser and considerably more powerful, with 3.6km/s achieved in an engine which got 3.12km/s for carbon monoxide. Cost is 1.08 c/kg, just outside the 700-900 mc range for the conventional oxocarbons.
I wonder if there will be a more Adaptive system for chemical reactions, or it would be hard to just list out every possible reaction for so many chemicals we have in suggestion board(and in-game) already.
I made the Chinese Localisation. -- My Science Fiction -- The avatar picture has no relation to furry.
Since carbon suboxide has a pretty decently high boiling point and thus isn't really cryogenic, I figured I would try to pair carbon suboxide with a non-cryogenic oxidizer instead of LOX. I assumed that pairing carbon suboxide with hydrogen peroxide might be interesting, but it's performance is disappointing. A LOX/carbon suboxide switched to hydrogen peroxide/carbon suboxide goes from an exhaust velocity of 3.61 km/s to a mere 2.48 km/s. If expansion ratio is set to the maximum and expansion angle set to the minimum, it gives an exhaust velocity of 2.76 km/s while only offering moderate improvements in propellant density.
You're trading performance in for a slightly denser, non-cryogenic but much more unstable propellant mix. Not worth the trade-offs IMO.
Essentially just copy-pasted from the LOX Carbon Suboxide reactions with the Reactants line, the ReactantCounts line and the ProductCounts line adjusted. Reaction:
Since hydrogen peroxide didn't work out as an oxidizer for carbon suboxide, I tried with ozone next, even though ozone is cryogenic and less stable than LOX. I figured it might have better performance.
Result: switching from LOX/carbon suboxide to ozone/carbon suboxide results in an increase in exhaust velocity from 3.61 km/s to 3.92 km/s and a slight decrease in propellant density. Might be worth it, but ultimely less realistic than LOX/carbon suboxide but possibly more performant than fluorene/hydrocarbon (higher propellant density and higher exhaust velocity).
We got a disappointing performance of 3.33 km/s. This is probably because of an error in our chemical formula, it is probably more likely that carbon dioxide would be formed alongside tetrafluoromethane. So, using the following formula more likely to be correct:
Our exhaust velocity is 3.53 km/s compared to 3.61 km/s from LOX/carbon suboxide. On full expansion at minimum expansion angle we achieve an exhaust velocity of 3.9 km/s. This has a much lower exhaust velocity and propellant density compared to LOX/carbon suboxide.