Honestly, as long as we use petroleum-based rocket fuels, the cost of going up to space will be too high for any meaningful progress in that frontier.
Err, we don't really use petroleum-based rocket fuels. We use liquid hydrogen and oxygen to boost and nitrogen once in orbit.
Incorrect! The solid fuel boosters at launch on the space shuttle use an aluminium borate compound similar (in fact almost identical) to the coating they used on the Hindenburg (it blew because it was covered in rocket fuel, not from the relatively small amount of hydrogen on board). Once the solid boosters detach then the shuttle switches over to LOx and LH, and then yeah - in orbit it's the nitrogen or whatever as a reaction mass.
ege is right. We hit the performance upper limit for chemical rockets decades ago. I think it's long past time to switch to nuclear rocketry. So many problem just vanish when you have that kind of performance. You don't need super large rockets to go to the moon anymore. And in the space business, smaller = cheaper.
Oh, and by performance I mean specific impulse.
xraydog on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
It's great how I can use a concrete example as a metaphor for an entire idea, and people focus on the concrete example and think that knocking over that means the whole idea is void. Sorry guys, there's lots more examples I can use. Thousands of them. Try tackling the idea instead, which in this case is almost any research in these fields have the potential for resulting in useful stuffs.
But I'm gonna leave that up to electricity cos he and I seem pretty much on the same page here. Plus he knows more about the actual concrete examples than I do. I'm more of an ideas man. :P
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
...compound similar (in fact almost identical) to the coating they used on the Hindenburg (it blew because it was covered in rocket fuel, not from the relatively small amount of hydrogen on board).
Well, there's some disagreement on this point among whoever is actually a specialist for these kinds of things. When the Mythbusters tested it out they determined the hydrogen was in fact the (main) culprit, but you definitely could see the paint adding to the effect.
The main problem with the paint theory is that you need a pretty exact mix, othewise the reaction will be muted or gone entirely. With the proportions used on the Hindeburg's top or bottom halves there was some reaction, but it wasn't anywhere near rocket fuel levels.
Then again, they might also have fucked up somewhere, wouldn't be the first time. ;-)
...compound similar (in fact almost identical) to the coating they used on the Hindenburg (it blew because it was covered in rocket fuel, not from the relatively small amount of hydrogen on board).
Well, there's some disagreement on this point among whoever is actually a specialist for these kinds of things. When the Mythbusters tested it out they determined the hydrogen was in fact the (main) culprit, but you definitely could see the paint adding to the effect.
The main problem with the paint theory is that you need a pretty exact mix, othewise the reaction will be muted or gone entirely. With the proportions used on the Hindeburg's top or bottom halves there was some reaction, but it wasn't anywhere near rocket fuel levels.
Then again, they might also have fucked up somewhere, wouldn't be the first time. ;-)
My source was a documentary where in a guy from NASA obtained a sample of the cloth from the Hindenburg and hit it with a spark. It ignited and burned more or less instantly.
His other point was good as well - hydrogen doesn't burn orange, and in the footage the flame propagation isn't really consistent with an internal explosion.
Obviously the hydrogen didn't help matters, but I believe the idea was that the hydrogen didn't start the fire - the coating did.
EDIT: Oh ha ha, seems that is being pretty heavily contested between people anyway.
Can't find the videos of the "just hydrogen" and "air with historical record paint" burns, but here's the final one where they literally coated the thing in rocket fuel. Another con to the paint theory is that, even if the records are wrong and they painted the thing with a mixture that wasn't just flammable but actually thermite, the end result is very ridig and very heavy.
Posts
Incorrect! The solid fuel boosters at launch on the space shuttle use an aluminium borate compound similar (in fact almost identical) to the coating they used on the Hindenburg (it blew because it was covered in rocket fuel, not from the relatively small amount of hydrogen on board). Once the solid boosters detach then the shuttle switches over to LOx and LH, and then yeah - in orbit it's the nitrogen or whatever as a reaction mass.
Oh, and by performance I mean specific impulse.
But I'm gonna leave that up to electricity cos he and I seem pretty much on the same page here. Plus he knows more about the actual concrete examples than I do. I'm more of an ideas man. :P
The main problem with the paint theory is that you need a pretty exact mix, othewise the reaction will be muted or gone entirely. With the proportions used on the Hindeburg's top or bottom halves there was some reaction, but it wasn't anywhere near rocket fuel levels.
Then again, they might also have fucked up somewhere, wouldn't be the first time. ;-)
His other point was good as well - hydrogen doesn't burn orange, and in the footage the flame propagation isn't really consistent with an internal explosion.
Obviously the hydrogen didn't help matters, but I believe the idea was that the hydrogen didn't start the fire - the coating did.
EDIT: Oh ha ha, seems that is being pretty heavily contested between people anyway.