Caught, Those Who Allegedly Cut Down The...
News1 min ago
Going Back To The Moon, Good News?
63 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not sure what Khandro's going on about fossil fuels for. Two of the three stages of the Saturn V rocket (used in the Apollo mission) were based on burning hydrogen; the Space shuttle program also didn't touch fossil fuels at all.
But even if they did then the "damage" to the supply, at least, of fossil fuels would be negligible. I'm not an advocate of fossil fuel use if it's possible to avoid it for environmental reasons, but those aside the supplies of such fuels are not in nearly as much danger of running out as is often made out. (Not that this thrills me, but) in general it's stated that eg oil will "run out in about 40 years", but funnily enough this statement can be made pretty much every year for the last 30-odd.
But even if they did then the "damage" to the supply, at least, of fossil fuels would be negligible. I'm not an advocate of fossil fuel use if it's possible to avoid it for environmental reasons, but those aside the supplies of such fuels are not in nearly as much danger of running out as is often made out. (Not that this thrills me, but) in general it's stated that eg oil will "run out in about 40 years", but funnily enough this statement can be made pretty much every year for the last 30-odd.
"Rockets require an enormous amount of fossil fuel to get into space."
Although some smaller devices for separation and guidance used solid fuel, only the first stage of the Saturn V vehicles which launched the Apollo Missions used masses of Fossil Fuel. Stages 2 and 3 used Liquid Hydrogen as the propellant. I think the first stage got through about 2,000 tons of fuel but this included the liquid oxygen required to make it burn. So say about 1,000 tons of Liquid Rocket Fuel required. This is about 2.5 million gallons. The USA consumes getting on for 400 millions of petrol and diesel a day, so perhaps the odd mission to the moon will not see the pumps run dry. Of course energy is required to produce Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen, but once again compared to the energy consumed for other purposes, the amount must be trivial.
I think this scheme is a good idea simply, as jim says, "because it's there". The trouble I foresee is not so much with the amount of fuel required but more with the enormous sums of cash it will consume. I remember "Project Apollo" very well and there were huge protests in the USA about the amount of money being used to fund it when the USA had social problems that required cash. It was cash that caused the programme to be curtailed and the final three missions were cancelled. The other problem is that few people would envisage any benefits from it. Even if it was a forerunner to mission to Mars many people will simply say "So what?" But a return to the heady days of the late 1960s and early 70s, watching a giant rocket blast off from Cape Canveral would be quite something.
BTW - I knew someone was pulling my plonker about the velcro !! :-)
Although some smaller devices for separation and guidance used solid fuel, only the first stage of the Saturn V vehicles which launched the Apollo Missions used masses of Fossil Fuel. Stages 2 and 3 used Liquid Hydrogen as the propellant. I think the first stage got through about 2,000 tons of fuel but this included the liquid oxygen required to make it burn. So say about 1,000 tons of Liquid Rocket Fuel required. This is about 2.5 million gallons. The USA consumes getting on for 400 millions of petrol and diesel a day, so perhaps the odd mission to the moon will not see the pumps run dry. Of course energy is required to produce Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen, but once again compared to the energy consumed for other purposes, the amount must be trivial.
I think this scheme is a good idea simply, as jim says, "because it's there". The trouble I foresee is not so much with the amount of fuel required but more with the enormous sums of cash it will consume. I remember "Project Apollo" very well and there were huge protests in the USA about the amount of money being used to fund it when the USA had social problems that required cash. It was cash that caused the programme to be curtailed and the final three missions were cancelled. The other problem is that few people would envisage any benefits from it. Even if it was a forerunner to mission to Mars many people will simply say "So what?" But a return to the heady days of the late 1960s and early 70s, watching a giant rocket blast off from Cape Canveral would be quite something.
BTW - I knew someone was pulling my plonker about the velcro !! :-)
Sure you did, NJ...
It's a story that has, to be sure, done the rounds. Usually embellished as a US v. Russia Space program thing, I think, ie "The Russians used a pencil", presumably as a snub to American ingenuity, which is a shame because I think in reality everyone was glad when someone in America came up with an alternative to pencils.
It's a story that has, to be sure, done the rounds. Usually embellished as a US v. Russia Space program thing, I think, ie "The Russians used a pencil", presumably as a snub to American ingenuity, which is a shame because I think in reality everyone was glad when someone in America came up with an alternative to pencils.
jim; //Not sure what Khandro's going on about fossil fuels for.//
From where do you think the hydrogen burnt as a propellant comes from?
'Rockets use FOSSIL fuels, there are two main kinds, hydrogen and
RP-1. RP-1 is highly refined kerosene, which is one of the products made by refining crude oil. Hydrogen is made by reforming natural gas, which is manly methane (CH4), the Hydrogen atoms are stripped off, and the carbon is released into the atmosphere. It is possible to produce hydrogen by electrolyzing water, but it is far more expensive, so most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.'
From where do you think the hydrogen burnt as a propellant comes from?
'Rockets use FOSSIL fuels, there are two main kinds, hydrogen and
RP-1. RP-1 is highly refined kerosene, which is one of the products made by refining crude oil. Hydrogen is made by reforming natural gas, which is manly methane (CH4), the Hydrogen atoms are stripped off, and the carbon is released into the atmosphere. It is possible to produce hydrogen by electrolyzing water, but it is far more expensive, so most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.'
The US idea of putting humans on the moon before the Russians did so was purely for prestige. ("I can do anything better than you," as it says in the song.) Putting a human on Mars is exactly the same, but vastly more expensive and vastly more dangerous. Spacecraft cannot be sufficiently shielded to stop all radiation from penetrating, and lack of gravity could mean that by the time they reach Mars, the astronauts have so little bone density left that they break their legs by the simple act of climbing down to the martian surface. And by then they may well already be suffering from cancer from all the radiation. It's the most expensive pie-in-the-sky that humans could ever attempt.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
If The Local Elections In England Aren't...
News21 mins ago
Could The Nefarious Hand Of Antifa Be...
News23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.