Had me wondering what the Saturn V burned. Looks like the upper stages used hydrogen, while the main stage burned kerosene.
Posted on 07/31/2019 3:57:54 PM PDT by amorphous
OK, and where are all the filling stations so I can rush right out and buy one and take that cross country trip I have been dreaming of?
No need to be curious. The market has made its choice and aircraft turbines burn kerosene - cheap, safe, efficient and a high specific energy density (btus/lb).
“OK, and where are all the filling stations so I can rush right out and buy one and take that cross country trip I have been dreaming of?”
Yeah. There won’t be either unless hydrogen cars sell more.
There are some now, of course, and the time and cost are comparable to gas.
Unlike charging a battery.
Had me wondering what the Saturn V burned. Looks like the upper stages used hydrogen, while the main stage burned kerosene.
Agree...
Interesting that this was posited in the article as an alternative fuel for Aircraft...
Let that sink in
I understand that it is a viable fuel, but it is also extremely volatile
That’s why we switched from Hydrogen to Helium
Not true. Hydrogen boils at -423 F. Because of heat leakage into the tanks there will be a. constant steady conversion of hydrogen liquid to hydrogen gas. So you won’t be able to keep it in an enclosed garage without some sort of venting system. You also won’t be able to leave it while you go on a trip and Expect anything but an empty tank when you get back.
Most economical, given a better way of storing 'em, would be electrons themselves. Storage capacity of batteries and capacitors are steadily improving.
And that is with brand new seals and O-rings in place.
Challenger failed in '86 due to bad O-rings.
On the solid fuel booster joint, not on the external tank which contained the LH2 and LO2.
Hydrogen sure does put rockets in orbit. I am sure it could do the same for cars.
No, not really. The hydrogen must be under pressure, the gasoline does not.
Thanks
p
:)
It was still a bad O-ring...that was known at the time before launch.
-——————————————————————\
But what really brought down the Shuttle was sheer bad luck. If the burn-thru had happened anywhere in the 270-degree arc facing away from the ET, the Shuttle would have made orbit with no problems, even with the burn-thru.
Only the bad luck that the burn-thru was facing inwards towards the ET and the mounting brace was the problem.
Lol, right you are and should be a placard requirement for every side of this machine.
The leakage is due to the small atomic size of hydrogen, or you would get the same thing with liquid oxygen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.