Fun! How guys at Cia (and the other agencies, they don't differ much...) spend their time.
During early rocketry times, developers did try many thousand oxidisers and fuels that showed very concrete drawbacks; it's possible that spooks took advantage of the situation by claiming responsibility.
One nasty combination that has survived is N2
and its monomethyl and dimethyl variants. Yuk for real when using 200t of Udmh in a rocket. Many people seek a 1-to-1 replacement for hydrazine and Mmh (it must catch fire in milliseconds with the tetroxide, for tiny thrusters that push 1N*1s at satellites to control the orientation), but the replacement is presently under way by ionic propulsion, and if needed, I proposed a sort of Diesel glowplug equivalent to use kerosene.
The other horrors of that time have disappeared. For instance N≡C-C≡C-C≡N was tried, OF2
as well. 98% H2
is still in use occasionally and 70% regularly at Soyuz. Recently, after I suggested a (harmless) amine recomposition pre-chamber to power the turbopumphttp://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83156-exotic-pumping-cycles-for-rocket-engines/?p=805383
(drawing with green tank)
a group began to develop "azetam", a liquefied acetylene plus ammonia mix - apparently they stopped on time.
(And a new forum member here asked how to handle ethylene diamine, if you remember).
When handling such quantities, even nitromethane is dangerous. Since Saturn V was 100m tall, the rocket guy answered the fuel guy "try a drop on concrete from 100m height" and the result was "better not with 200t". Recently, even N2
O created an accident.A funny text on the Internet: "Ignition!" by John D. Clarkhttp://web.gccaz.edu/~wkehowsk/ignition.pdf
incredible, what they all tried.