The only known chemical propellants that could achieve that in theory are octaazacubane and charged high field superconductors backed by atomically perfect carbon nanotubes (there was also speculation about metastable metallic hydrogen being capable of this, but it's since been experimentally shown to not be metastable at useful pressures).

While perhaps one of these could be synthesized before 2030, it seems very unlikely that either could be put into bulk production fast enough to be used as a rocket propellant before that point.

@AlphaCoronae I assume that all of the energy has to come from chemical reactions, though? A hydrazine fueled arcjet or MET thruster should be capable of exceeding 600s Isp, and a moderate fraction of the thrust power would come from the chemical decomposition of the hydrazine - though most of it would come from the electrical supply.

@AlphaCoronae Yeah, it has to come from the chemicals, no additional infusion of energy.

The Li-Fl-H rocket was in the 60s and research on flourine rockets was quickly scrapped because of the ecological and cooling issues. I dont see the r&d happening for propellants that are harder to store and more hazardous and heavier than nuclear fuels.