"SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to SUBorbit"
in [Physics]
|
Prev: O/T: Will Google Groups ever fix its search function?
Next: Chapt 3, can the Hubble Space telescope see #74; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Fevric J. Glandules on 20 May 2010 16:49 Alain Fournier wrote: > of gaseous hydrogen. So the Shuttle uses about 6 times more > hydrogen that the Hindenburg. Fabbo factoid. Now we just need to get it on Wikipedia and then see how many news reports it features in during the shuttle retirement flights.
From: Bob Myers on 20 May 2010 18:21 On 5/20/2010 2:49 PM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote: > Alain Fournier wrote: > > >> of gaseous hydrogen. So the Shuttle uses about 6 times more >> hydrogen that the Hindenburg. >> > Fabbo factoid. Now we just need to get it on Wikipedia and then > see how many news reports it features in during the shuttle > retirement flights. > > > Of course, someone should point out that the Hindenburg didn't really "use" ANY hydrogen; it was pretty much all still there whenever the thing got where it was going, save for that little mishap in New Jersey. Were it not for the fact that they wanted to make round trips, it could have been used as a hydrogen delivery system. Bob M.
From: Fevric J. Glandules on 20 May 2010 19:57 Bob Myers wrote: > On 5/20/2010 2:49 PM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote: >> Alain Fournier wrote: >> >> >>> of gaseous hydrogen. So the Shuttle uses about 6 times more >>> hydrogen that the Hindenburg. >>> >> Fabbo factoid. Now we just need to get it on Wikipedia and then >> see how many news reports it features in during the shuttle >> retirement flights. > > Of course, someone should point out that the Hindenburg didn't > really "use" ANY hydrogen; it was pretty much all still there whenever > the thing got where it was going, save for that little mishap in > New Jersey. Were it not for the fact that they wanted to make round > trips, it could have been used as a hydrogen delivery system. Let's not confuse the factoid with facts.
From: Pat Flannery on 21 May 2010 02:34 On 5/20/2010 2:21 PM, Bob Myers wrote: > > Of course, someone should point out that the Hindenburg didn't > really "use" ANY hydrogen; it was pretty much all still there whenever > the thing got where it was going, save for that little mishap in > New Jersey. Were it not for the fact that they wanted to make round > trips, it could have been used as a hydrogen delivery system. I would have to check to see if Hindenburg ever did it, but it wasn't unusual for Zeppelins to vent hydrogen to reduce their buoyancy, as hydrogen was pretty cheap to replace, unlike the very expensive helium used on US airships. That used to be standard practice as they burned off fuel on the Zeppelins, but after WW I they used water recovered from the engine exhaust to act as ballast to replace the weight of the burned fuel. The really odd one was the first Graf Zeppelin (Hindenburg sister ship was also named Graf Zeppelin) which had some of its gas bags filled with coal gas instead of hydrogen, and used the coal gas to power its engines to eliminate the fuel weight loss problem. Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 21 May 2010 03:01
On 5/20/2010 3:57 PM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote: > Bob Myers wrote: > >> On 5/20/2010 2:49 PM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote: >>> Alain Fournier wrote: >>> >>> >>>> of gaseous hydrogen. So the Shuttle uses about 6 times more >>>> hydrogen that the Hindenburg. >>>> >>> Fabbo factoid. Now we just need to get it on Wikipedia and then >>> see how many news reports it features in during the shuttle >>> retirement flights. >> >> Of course, someone should point out that the Hindenburg didn't >> really "use" ANY hydrogen; it was pretty much all still there whenever >> the thing got where it was going, save for that little mishap in >> New Jersey. Were it not for the fact that they wanted to make round >> trips, it could have been used as a hydrogen delivery system. > > Let's not confuse the factoid with facts. Here's a photo of the Hindenburg showing the hydrogen vents along the top of the hull: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hindenburg_at_lakehurst.jpg The fire was first seen near the furthest aft of these, just in front of the vertical fin. Pat Pat |