Sixties view of the underwater future

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

The main NASA source for hydrogen is natural gas wells, not electrolysis of water.

But it wasn't purified, compressed, transported and stored by hand :-)

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by rwatson

But it wasn't purified, compressed, transported and stored by hand :-)

I wasn't attempting to describe the process. I was just stating the source.

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

I wasn't attempting to describe the process. I was just stating the source.

I got the impression that you were trying to mitigate the huge carbon dioxide production caused by space vehicle launches - by stating that hydrogen was a major propellant source.

My point is, that hydrogen is a very small part of the fuel component - and that even the production of the 'pure hydrogen' creates a huge carbon bill.

[mydauphin]

Electrolysis as a means of getting hydrogen is the most expensive method, requires lots of power. Easier, cheaper done chemically.

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by mydauphin

Electrolysis as a means of getting hydrogen is the most expensive method, requires lots of power. Easier, cheaper done chemically.

Its even cheaper if you do it the way the Germans did it for their Zeppelins - passing water over very hot steel plates.

[mydauphin]

Originally Posted by rwatson

Its even cheaper if you do it the way the Germans did it for their Zeppelins - passing water over very hot steel plates.

Doesn't that just get steam. There must be something else to it.

[viking north]

Rwatson -- Standard brands cheaper than 10 yrs ago ?? Not when the total package is included I.E. the warranty and replacement parts price. The longer warranties look good on paper but to maintain them you must endure dealer inspections and servicing at $85 an hour. In addition they nickle and dime you to death--shop supplies( towels-hand cleaner-oil absorbant and so on.) Dealer brand name parts have gone sky high.The machines are so complicated you are locked into the dealer servicing so forget saving a buck by doing your own work. Example I have a newer ford van with a 7.3 diesel, in a year or so i will have to replace the oil pan (N.S. salt air)--In my past dodge vans i could simply crawl under remove and install a new pan(2 to 3 hrs work)-- In the newer ford i have to remove the engine completely a 900lb. chunk of steel involving a weeks work. Approx $3000.00 taxes in at the dealers. Luckely i am not a bad back yard mechanic with a son who is a licenced mechanic. Not a typical do it yoursel job that sure adds to the cost of owning some of these machines. When the total package is includesd(dealer service, parts,complicated machines and so on)i would estimate the cost of new machines has doubled for the average buyer and thats not including the plumeting depreciation brought on by vehicle leasing leftovers.

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by mydauphin

Doesn't that just get steam. There must be something else to it.

No, at very high steel temperatures, its creates Oxidisation (rust). 2400 C

The oxygen combines with the steel, and all that is left is Hydrogen. The best reference i have found is :

1903 - Lane hydrogen producer (info attached)

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200522.html




The Oxygen conversion also works with Oxy torches cutting steel - the rich Oxygen cuts (rusts) the steel, not the heat

"A stream of oxygen is then trained on the metal, and metal burns in that oxygen and then flows out of the cut (kerf) as an oxide slag"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fue...ng_and_cutting

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by viking north

Rwatson -- Standard brands cheaper than 10 yrs ago ?? Not when the total package is included .....

Very good point there - depreciation would be a big component as you say.

Its a bit like $50 computer printers, but $35 ink cartridges.

Certainly I notice that the components are poorer quality and require special tools to repair.

[daiquiri]

Reviving the thread with this interesting video, I share this man's point of view:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da3_1331394029

[bntii]

I do as well.
My father was a great lover of science and its insights into our world. He had always said that he wanted to live till we made it to mars. He has passed but his enthusiasm is shared by many and lives on.

[rwatson]

Sending people to the horrors of space to breed is a cruel and expensive fantasy.

Even the astronauts on the little speck of metal called a 'Space Station' suffer severe physical debilitation in their short little trips (loss of bone density) , and the radiation exposure is a real cause of concern.

"The health risks to astronauts from space radiation are a major problem for space exploration, perhaps representing a limiting factor on the maximum mission length under current risk acceptance levels. Health risks of concern (NRC, 2005) include cancer, acute radiation sickness, damage to the central nervous system and degenerative effects including cataracts (Cucinotta et al., 2001a) and heart disease (Preston et al., 2004)."

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2007005310.pdf

While the space exploration program provides great insights into engineering and the cosmic mysteries, the chances of ever getting a large healthy population into space are very small. We would do much better developing sophisticated cities in desert wastelands of the oceans.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by rwatson

Sending people to the horrors of space to breed is a cruel and expensive fantasy.

Even the astronauts on the little speck of metal called a 'Space Station' suffer severe physical debilitation in their short little trips (loss of bone density) , and the radiation exposure is a real cause of concern.

"The health risks to astronauts from space radiation are a major problem for space exploration, perhaps representing a limiting factor on the maximum mission length under current risk acceptance levels. Health risks of concern (NRC, 2005) include cancer, acute radiation sickness, damage to the central nervous system and degenerative effects including cataracts (Cucinotta et al., 2001a) and heart disease (Preston et al., 2004)."

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2007005310.pdf

While the space exploration program provides great insights into engineering and the cosmic mysteries, the chances of ever getting a large healthy population into space are very small. We would do much better developing sophisticated cities in desert wastelands of the oceans.

Part of the urgency for the timing in the Apollo program was getting astronauts on the moon during an ebb in the solar cycle to decrease their chances of being fried by a solar flare.

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Part of the urgency for the timing in the Apollo program was getting astronauts on the moon during an ebb in the solar cycle to decrease their chances of being fried by a solar flare.

and other info

"Space flight may be bad for your eyesight. Changes found in astronauts' eye tissue may cause vision problems, and possibly even blindness. As well as threatening the health of astronauts, this could jeopardise long-haul missions into space.

Larry Kramer of Texas Medical School in Houston and colleagues carried out MRI scans on 27 NASA astronauts after they had spent an average of 108 days in space. Four had bulging of the optic nerve, three had kinks in the nerve sheath, and six had flattening of the eyeball."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...auts-eyes.html

Having said that, the Moon may very well end up being permanently manned for the mining of Helium 3 - a product not found in quantity on earth.

It has the potential for powering the entire energy needs for earth for thousands of years via a safer Atomic Fusion process.

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3


"There is 10 times more energy in Lunar Helium 3 than all the economically recoverable Coal, Oil and Natural Gas on Earth"

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture25.pdf