[HN Gopher] Bring back hydrogen lifting gas ___________________________________________________________________ Bring back hydrogen lifting gas Author : harporoeder Score : 135 points Date : 2021-08-09 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.thecgo.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thecgo.org) | fsckboy wrote: | this article reads like the "a world without zinc!" school | documentary spoof subplot on the Simpson's | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1iCZpFMYd0 | | and the spat He... no, that's helium... She has with helium and | in favor of hydrogen overshadows the more interesting suggestion | at the end, that airships might make a lot of sense for cargo | transportation. I wish the article made that case better! | joefigura wrote: | Interesting piece! I think the article makes some good points, | but I don't think that helium is the reason that airships have | failed to find use cases. The benefits of hydrogen do not change | the fundamentals of the business case. Hydrogen's cheaper, but | even using helium the lifting gas is <20% of the operating cost | of the airship. The hangar, cost of the vehicle, and maintenance | are all more impactful than the cost of the lifting gas. | | The bigger hurdle that airship startups have faced is the upfront | cost of developing a new vehicle with a many ton payload. | Projects trying to build very large airships have so far to get a | vehicle to market, because of the amount of capital it requires | and the lack of a strong, specific commercial case (Hybrid Air | Vehicles, Cargolifter, Lockheed's Hybrid Airships). Changing the | lifting gas to hydrogen does not address those challenges. But | airships are certainly underutilized - I'm optimistic for their | future! | CuriouslyC wrote: | One nice feature of hydrogen is that you can use it for lift and | also for fuel (and it has good energy density). | | I've been wondering for a while if hydrogen airships couldn't | make flying cars a reality. It seems like a hybrid jet/zeppelin | could find a sweet spot in terms of performance and | sustainability. | jandrese wrote: | The necessary bulk of the airship for human transportation is a | serious crimp in the practicality of such a solution. | Technology can't make the bag small enough because it is | limited by physics. | | Even if we could build ultra-rigid and outrageously light bags | that could have all of the air pumped out for a vacuum you | still need a fairly large balloon to carry people. One person | would displace 70 meter^3 of air, not counting anything else. | That's not going to fit in your driveway. | kozak wrote: | I've been thinking of it the same way since I learned that helium | is a non-renewable fossil resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. | aeternum wrote: | Only on earth. Helium is the 2nd most abundant element in the | universe. | Xylakant wrote: | You'll have a hard time extracting it from the sun, though. | [deleted] | bena wrote: | But an easier time from the Moon. The Moon's soil is | apparently lousy with Helium. | | There was a movie named Moon about a decade back where that | was the main character's job, helium mining on the Moon. | | That's not to say it would be easy, but it's closer than | the Sun. Because it _is_ everywhere. | | In the various Star Trek shows, ships are made with | something called "Bussard collectors" which basically scoop | up particles like helium and hydrogen from space for use in | the ship. | | Obviously both of those example are fiction. We don't have | the capability to mine on the Moon or catch elements free | floating in space. But those fictions are based on the fact | that those elements are that abundant. | perl4ever wrote: | >"Bussard collectors" | | I think I read somewhere that despite this being a | science fiction trope forever, there may not be a region | between "too thin to produce net power" and "thick enough | to blow up a spaceship at relativistic speeds". And in | practice, the interstellar medium turned out to be the | former, too thin. | | In fact, I'm not sure but what someone may have | calculated drag would exceed power generated, regardless | of density. | aeternum wrote: | Length contraction should also increase the apparent | density for a ship travelling at relativistic speeds. | Stevvo wrote: | The Busard collectors in Star Trek are based on a real | theoretical design; The Busard ramjet. I can't comment on | its feasiblilty, but it would've actually captured | elements free floating in space. | skannamalai wrote: | as an aside: a "fossil" resource implies the feedstock is | decayed organic matter. Trapped helium is finite, but it's much | more like a metal or ore than oil, LNG, or coal, which all were | formed from living things under time and pressure. | zabzonk wrote: | > I learned that helium is a non-renewable fossil resource | | It is renewed, by radioactive decay within the Earth, but very, | very slowly. | nradov wrote: | Helium is sort of renewable in that it's continuously produced | by radioactive decay underground. That will continue | effectively forever. But we're using the easily accessible | helium far faster than it's being produced. Much of the helium | we capture as part of natural gas extraction is totally wasted, | just vented into the atmosphere. | jandrese wrote: | As we necessarily transition away from fossil fuels we also | transition away from our primary source of helium. | xphos wrote: | So like I think the claim about the thermite coating could be | wrong. That is my only concern you can't have the ship burst into | flames in a minute. I don't know the truth of the hindenburg but | it does seem like you could mitigate the flammability risk under | good conditions but like security also comes to mind what if | these things get hijacked. Like they do move slow but are | basically a moving ball of death if they light on fire. | | https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths/ | csours wrote: | I thought the bigger safety problem with lighter than air travel | was weather? As in, anything less than perfect surface conditions | may result in disaster when you go to moor the aircraft. | FabHK wrote: | TLDR: | | > With modern engineering standards, there is no doubt that | hydrogen could be made a safe lifting gas. | | Disadvantages of hydrogen: | | * burns (but only with sufficient oxygen, eg a mixture of air and | 4% up to 75% hydrogen) | | Advantages of hydrogen: | | * lifts 8% more than helium (per volume). Not a huge difference, | but not trivial for an airship | | * costs 98.5% less than helium (!) (Airships have crashed because | helium was too expensive to vent: safety valves on the _USS | Shenandoah_ were capped, 14 crew members lost their lives.) | | > Airships are too slow for human travel | | Too slow for transportation, maybe. But leisure travel? Imagine a | one week air safari from Kilimandjaro and the Serengeti to Kruger | Park. It could be awesome. | | Edit to add: | | (Leisure air travel/Safari is my own pipe dream. The article | suggests cargo): | | > If airships were to make a major comeback, it would be in cargo | service. | | > Cargo airships would need to be big--bigger than the | Hindenburg. [...] "'the lift-to-drag ratio, a critical parameter | in aircraft performance, gets better as the airship gets bigger) | | > Ginormous airships require a lot of lifting gas--perhaps a | million cubic meters | | > FAA has discouraged the return of the airship in the use case | that makes the most sense | dr_dshiv wrote: | I completely agree with the leisure air travel scenario for | airships. It would be incredible anywhere. Massive windows, | tons of interior space, and quiet. Here is a deck I prepared | luxury airships and opportunities for hydrogen airships: | | https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r6CPFJ1AX1ZULacguTf6... | pitaj wrote: | Airships are being investigated as a method of shipping to | remote locations without ship, train, or truck access. | R0b0t1 wrote: | Airships would be good for freight. Far less carbon footprint | than airplanes. | throw37388 wrote: | Source needed! Airships are quite inefficient, have high air | drag and are slow. | | They are more comparable to ships, trains or cars. And here | their inefficiency is very bad. | himinlomax wrote: | ... as long as you don't need that freight while the weather | is even slightly bad. | romwell wrote: | Just like shipping things doesn't work because of storms, | right? | himinlomax wrote: | Airships just don't work in strong winds, no need for a | storm. And a plane can quickly move out of a hazardous | location. An airship cannot move quickly. | chrisco255 wrote: | Is that true even if it has a large mass from cargo? | jfk13 wrote: | I suspect airships are much more vulnerable to bad | weather than most other forms of transport. | jvanderbot wrote: | Well certainly that's an edge case. I don't know anything, | honestly, but seems to me TFA is talking about wholesale | distributor type cargo, not pizza deliveries. I guess | waiting a day for a storm to pass doesn't kill anything, | and airships can actually loiter in that time. | | I'm trying to think of a (non aquatic) case where rail is | worse than airships though. If we were to invest in | thousands of vehicles for distributing machinery, I'm | guessing the average joe like me would vote rail. Unless | we're talking going to a place where the infrastructure | isn't good enough to support traditional delivery. | | For setting up a base in Greenland or the antarctic, I bet | airships are really attractive. Or delivering bulk cargo to | hawaii, perhaps. | jcims wrote: | One downside of rail is that new routes seem to always be | decade long, multi-billion dollar projects. | fanf2 wrote: | Airships are better than trains at crossing the sea | jvanderbot wrote: | Sure, I was thinking any nation that wants to move cargo | over the sea would use ships. | | So what conditions other than unestablished areas make | airships better than sea ships? | vineyardmike wrote: | > I'm trying to think of a case where rail is worse than | airships though | | You can ship non-standard cargo via air easier than rail | if its wide. Eg. Moving a wide machinery, or parts to | large construction project. | outworlder wrote: | If only we had a way to monitor the weather patterns in the | entire globe and maybe even predict them... | solarkraft wrote: | Except they don't compete with planes, but with water ships. | chrisco255 wrote: | Except not really, as it's quite difficult to float a barge | across a continent. | aww_dang wrote: | Especially for oversize or awkwardly shaped items. | drivers99 wrote: | That's what the article actually said. I think the parent | post switched from summarizing to contributing their own | thought instead. | FabHK wrote: | (you're right, I clarified) | newsclues wrote: | I've been thinking they are a good idea to help with | overloaded ports, as they can pick up cargo cans and move | them without any of the current bottlenecks. | lb1lf wrote: | -The airship would likely be the bottleneck; a 40ft | shipping container may weigh anything up to approx. 30 | metric tons. | | You wouldn't be able to put many of those under an airship, | hence you'd need a lot of rather space-hogging airships. | newsclues wrote: | But there are ships moored waiting for their turn for the | cranes to unload. | | If you have swarms of these unloading, a few cans, it | helps right? | | I'm sure it would be very handy for edge cases where only | a few cans need to be offloaded at a specific port. | | You can also setup secondary drop off zones that avoid | bottlenecks, like straight transfers from ship to train. | manigandham wrote: | Unlikely to help given how big and slow they are. These | cargo ships carry thousands of containers. | xphos wrote: | Airships would probably be much fast than cargo ships | though. Ships cut through the water at like maybe 30 mph | in good conditions. Airships could easily keep as they | are dealing with so much less drag. In the 1930 they | moved at like 70 mph aka 2x the speed of container ships. | I mean there cargo space would be like 1/40 but with the | difference in speed thats only 1/20 in the rate of moving | cargo not to mention that you aren't bound by water which | is the major issue with ports. They are just very | congested and ships are stuck in ship lanes. The air is | much more limitless in terms of shipping paths. | lb1lf wrote: | -It would help; the question is more whether it would be | worth it in the grand scheme of things; seeing as the | weight differential between air and hydrogen is | approximately 1.15kg/cubic meter at sea level, ignoring | any weight in the airship itself, you're going to have to | displace on the order of 25,000 cubic meters of air to | lift one 20/40ft container (the max gross weight is only | a couple of tons larger in a 40ft than in a 20ft unit). | | This volume of hydrogen is a cube with 30m sides. For one | container. Neglecting the weight of the ship itself. | | The big container ships can carry upwards of 20,000 20ft | units - so you're going to need a lot of airships (which | will require a lot of airspace) to make an appreciable | dent in the cargo unloading time. | | (The main issue really being that container ships are | absurdly large!) | vineyardmike wrote: | > This volume of hydrogen is a cube with 30m sides. For | one container | | This is actually smaller than i was imagining. | FabHK wrote: | FWIW, the article contemplates cargo airships with a | million m^3, which would carry around 40 containers. That | would be a cube with 100m sides, and you'd need 500 of | those to replace one big container ship. | | Seems not a realistic option to replace container ships, | but might be realistic for specific use cases. | xphos wrote: | So like to move a shipping container weighing 40 tons | requires what 32x32x32 cubic meter space to be supported | that's pretty tiny considering the other advantages. They | could travel fast and in basically all weather. | Lightening is a worry but if you isolate your hydrogen | well it shouldn't be a problem. Not to mention they would | be much more fuel efficient. Heck you could probably slap | solar on them and get net zero energy discharge for low | container ship speeds. The only issue being is I don't | know if they would alleviate unloading issues if there | was high winds. I don't really know the method for | securing an airship but if they just let down a big rope | and tie themselves done you can do that anywhere. | lb1lf wrote: | -Also, much slower and lower cargo capacity. | | That being said, I can see them being used where roads are | sparse, inland (so shipping is not an option) and far away | from the nearest railroad. | | We definitely need more green-tinged options; I root for | airships! | elcritch wrote: | Not necessarily slower than cargo ships, and possibly | significantly faster. This paper claims that by using the | jet streams a hydrogen blimp could circumnavigate the globe | in about 14-16 days [1]. Google gives about 77 days to do | the same on cargo ship. Of course there would be lots of | details to consider on the exact route taken, but from | first principles it seems plausible. | | 1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S25901 | 7451... 2: https://arimotravels.com/how-long-does-it-take- | a-cargo-ship-... | pharke wrote: | They could conceivably be very cheap if the gas pockets | were mass produced. Everything else on board for propulsion | and housing the pilot would be on the scale of a small prop | aircraft. As long as the cargo can be easily managed, | perhaps in a shipping container, then these would be easy | to deploy en masse. They can land in any suitable field | that has a crew on hand to guide them in with ropes. You | might not even need pilots since these would be perfect | targets for automation. | | As for speed, you can optimize the shape of the aircraft | and the position of the propeller for this. I've seen a | number of videos that show surprisingly good performance | for pointier fuselage with a pusher prop on the tail. | scarby2 wrote: | > Everything else on board for propulsion and housing the | pilot would be on the scale of a small prop aircraft | | It's likely that any cargo airship would fly for | days/weeks at a time and would require at least 4 crew- | members and everything they would need for the length of | the voyage. So less a small prop and more something akin | to facilities available on a yacht/Large RV. | | > You might not even need pilots since these would be | perfect targets for automation. | | This would perhaps be the best solution | kemiller wrote: | With a huge balloon and flexible solar panels + fuel cell | (they've already got to carry H2) they could be nearly zero. | dragontamer wrote: | > Too slow for transportation, maybe. But leisure travel? | Imagine a one week air safari over the Serengeti, Ngoro Ngoro | crater, and Kruger Park. It could be awesome. | | Well, if we're talking about weird Sci-Fi ideas (that might be | possible), lets just go all in on it. | | Rocket launches are extremely expensive, and most of it is in | the lifting costs. Would it be cheaper to "lift" a rocket with | hydrogen slowly? | | Yeah, we also need to get enough kinetic energy to enter orbit. | But surely getting rid of a huge chunk of "Gravity" costs could | lead to substantial rocket-fuel savings? | vkou wrote: | It's not expensive to go to space because you have to go up. | Going up into space is 'easy'. | | It's expensive to _stay_ in space because you have to go | sideways, really, really fast. 8 km /s fast, in fact. | klyrs wrote: | This is fun to think about. You only need that horizontal | velocity to stay in orbit, right? But what about getting to | the moon? Turns out it only goes about 1km/s. Still bloody | fast, but it's a bit less scary. Daydreams of capturing | that energy on descent to power a moonbase... but then the | moon is quite a long way away, and you need to escape over | 99% of the earth's gravity, opposed to the 10% needed to | reach space. Phooey, lunch is never free. | evan_ wrote: | That would also let us do the rocket launch from the middle | of the ocean rather than near inhabited areas. | wantoncl wrote: | I can't find it now, but there was previous discussion on HN, | about the amount of atmospheric drag a balloon-launched | rocket would save as not being worthwhile. Most of the | orbital velocity is spent going horizontally, the vertical | part is <20% of even the most aggressive orbital trajectory, | and the drag is virtually nil past 150K feet. And the delta-v | needed to reach orbit is some very high percent of the total | fuel and thrust. | | Basically balloon launches would only benefit small sub- | orbital sounding type rockets. | dylan604 wrote: | >Basically balloon launches would only benefit small sub- | orbital sounding type rockets. | | So you're saying Jeff Bezos should look into this for Blue | Origin since you essentially described his capabilities? | ;-) | Ajedi32 wrote: | JP Aerospace has an interesting concept where the entire | balloon would get slowly accelerated to orbital velocity | using electric/chemical hybrid propulsion: | http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf | | That could potentially be viable, as it'd save fuel over | more traditional rockets by allowing for the use of high | efficiency, low thrust engines which would otherwise be | infeasible for an orbital rocket due to gravity losses. | | Not sure though, I haven't done the math. It might be that | the losses due to drag exceed what a more traditional | rocket would lose to gravity. | londons_explore wrote: | There is a big benefit... Rocket nozzles that are most | efficient in a vacuum don't work at sea level (oscillations | cause the whole thing to shake apart). Therefore launching | from high up means you can skip the less efficient rockets | and just have a single type of more efficient rocket | engine. | sfblah wrote: | This is a very interesting point. Is there a | counterargument to this? | onethought wrote: | Vacuum optimised rockets require a vacuum. Balloons | require atmosphere... so there is a gap where the balloon | can't go higher and the engine isn't in vacuum yet | bin_bash wrote: | somewhat unrelated but wouldn't this also defeat the | purpose of a space elevator? It seems that also would only | save on the vertical part. I realize I'm almost certainly | wrong but I'm curious why. | ajford wrote: | The idea of a space elevator usually requires an orbital | anchor point, in which case lifting yourself up the | tether would pull you fully out of the gravitational | well. | | I've not done the mechanics in a long time (not since | college), but I believe the tether itself would be | providing all horizontal propulsion. Essentially by | riding the tether up, it starts pushing you faster and | faster. Since the payload's mass would be small compared | to the anchor, the drag on the anchor would be | negligible. | | There's likely some need for thrust compensation on the | anchor over time to counteract the delta V lost to the | lifting of payloads, but that would all be part of | station-keeping and would be there for tether drag as | well. | Retric wrote: | The anchor is past geosynchronous orbit so it's applying | a constant upwards force. The energy for horizontal | motion comes from the rotation of the earth, much like | how a rotating ice skater slows down when they spread | their arms. | | Station keeping may be used to dampen oscillations, but | managing climbing rates works just as well. | ajford wrote: | So the constant upwards force is providing enough tension | to keep the cable in the realm of a rigid body | approximation? I would have assumed the force applied to | accelerate the payload would also deflect the tether and | anchor backwards (in a miniscule amount) and would have | built up over successive payloads. | | Not arguing, just curious. It's been at least a decade | since I've messed with orbital mechanics. | Retric wrote: | It does defect the anchor from pure vertical, but like a | ball on a pendulum the vertical force from the anchor | translates into a horizontal force. | | EX: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312934526/fi | gure/do... | | Of course if you really dig into things it's more | complicated, but the basic principle is very similar. | [deleted] | [deleted] | jameshart wrote: | Space elevators get you all the way out to geosync orbit | (and beyond) - as you climb you accelerate as you move | away from the surface of the earth, and so by the time | you reach geosync height you are traveling at orbital | velocity. | MobiusHorizons wrote: | To be effective, a space elevator would have to deliver | the payload all the way out to geostationary orbit | altitude. At that hight, the payload would already be in | orbit without adding any additional horizontal velocity. | But almost all of the height is higher than you can float | a lighter than air craft (42164km vs ~40km for lighter | than air craft). | bialpio wrote: | My guess would be: top of the space elevator needs to | stay in orbit so it already needs to have appropriate | "horizontal" part. | inglor_cz wrote: | With the space elevator, you can get to _space_ easily, | but getting to _orbit_ is much harder. Basically, you | only achieve orbital speed once you have crawled to the | geostationary orbit, e.g. 35,786 km above the Earth. | Crawling that far from the Earth costs a lot of energy. | | If you crawl only to the LEO altitude (e.g. 300 km) on | the space elevator, you will be in space, but not in | orbit. If you let go of the elevator there, you will | immediately start falling to a gruesome death. | adolph wrote: | It could become a thing. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_diving | jbotz wrote: | Because a real space elevator would go all the way to | geostationary orbit where the orbital speed is the same | as the rotation of the planet. Remember that the further | up you go, the slower the orbital velocity, i.e. the | "horizontal part" shrinks until the "vertical part" | becomes the whole thing. | | In fact, the way to build a space elevator is not to | build a "tower to space", but to put an anchor rock into | geostationary orbit and then hang a cable down to earth | from it. You can then connect the cable to terra firma so | that it doesn't sway, but in terms of the main forces | involved it's hanging down, not standing up. | fanf2 wrote: | The tether needs to go past geosynchronous orbit to act | as a counterbalance | foxyv wrote: | A space elevator not only raises payloads, but also | accelerates them to geostationary orbital velocities | (~3000 m/s). Luckily these velocities are much much lower | than LEO orbits (7600 m/s). | | Ideally the energy to perform this acceleration comes | from the rotation of the planet below, transmitted via | the tether. The anchor station would have to be | stabilized to prevent oscillation and rotation. However | that technical challenge is minor compared to the tether | material itself. | | Another advantage of a space elevator is that we can use | electrical power from a base station instead of onboard | power on the vehicle alone. Also the power can be much | lower than a comparable rocket. To ascend on the | rail/tether you can accelerate much slower. It doesn't | need to lift fast or fall. It can just slowly accumulate | altitude and velocity. | thatguy0900 wrote: | A space elavator would also lend alot of centrifugal | force past the atmosphere due to the tethered rotation | that you wouldn't get with a balloon, if it's high enough | it will be able to escape just by virtue of that when | released | dylan604 wrote: | What about doing the 2-stage system similar to Virgin | Galactic? Use the "balloon" to lift the system to upper | altitudes, and then fire off the rocket to do orbital | insertion type stuff. | jvanderbot wrote: | I asked this question once and got laughed at. My | embarrassment burned it into me: Going fast is the challenge | with orbiting, not going up. | IntrepidWorm wrote: | Certainly no need to feel bad. Orbital mechanics are | counterintuitive to us ground dwellers- even astronauts | sometimes need a refresher course! | frosted-flakes wrote: | Well, if you could go high enough, you could be in a | geosynchronous orbit without moving horizontally at all. I | think that's how space elevators would work. But then to | move to a lower orbit you would actually need to speed up. | jvanderbot wrote: | If you "fell" from geosync, wouldn't you speed up? | Angular momentum needs to be conserved, right? | | Edit:my terrible wording created answers to a different | question. | [deleted] | jameshart wrote: | If you 'fall' from geosync orbit, you fall in a circle | and wind up where you started. Orbiting _is_ falling. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | That's my understanding, geosync is the point at which | you continually fall toward the Earth and miss, closer | and you'd eventually hit, farther and you would move | away. | jameshart wrote: | That's not really correct. | | Geosync is the altitude at which a circular orbit takes | 24 hours - meaning it takes as long to complete one orbit | as it takes the earth to complete one revolution. | | But there's an orbital velocity at EVERY altitude, and | therefore there's an orbital period at every altitude | too. | | If you are at a particular altitude and you are going at | a different speed than the one needed for a circular | orbit, you are either going too fast (in which case you | are in an elliptical orbit and you will gradually | increase altitude and lose speed until you reach the top | of that ellipse) or you are going too slow to stay in a | circular orbit (in which case you will follow an ellipse | down to a lower altitude and gain speed). | | In that 'too slow' case, if it's _much_ too slow then the | ellipse you follow will take you low enough to hit the | surface or atmosphere of whatever you're orbiting (ie you | will crash into it) | frosted-flakes wrote: | I think GP means that _if you are stationary relative to | the ground_ (such as on a space elevator or a rocket | going straight up), 35786 km up is the only height which | is a stable orbit. If you let go of the elevator too | early, you 'll fall to the ground; too high and you'll | fly off into space. | tialaramex wrote: | I _think_ you knew this but it wasn 't obvious from how | you wrote it. Your orbit is _not_ required to be a | circle. The diagrams we draw for children are nice | circles, but most things that we know are orbiting | something do not travel in a circle, e.g. the Earth -- if | the orbit was circular our seasons would be very | different and the insight that the orbits can be non- | circular ellipses was critical to the reasoning that | eventually got us a heliocentric model of our solar | system. | | Geostationary communications satellites do have a | basically circular orbit, as you said, but many other | birds do not. | | Russia has a bunch of stuff in orbits that "linger" very | high over Russian territory for much of their orbital | period then shoot right around close to the back side of | the planet quickly and linger again, these are called | Molniya orbits. | | The US has a bunch of secret (presumably spy) satellites | that fly less obvious orbits like this too, for | presumably similar reasons. | kempbellt wrote: | Theoretical geosync means zero velocity in any direction | relative to ground. Zero up, down, forward, back, left, | or right. You're stuck above a single point of | dirt/water, over the equator, at a fixed altitude. | | The only way to "fall" (lower your altitude) from here | would be via some sort of acceleration force _towards_ | ground (like a burn). So yes, your speed would have to | increase. | jvanderbot wrote: | Well fine. I meant that orbital speed (the "along track | part") would increase if you lowered the altitude of a | geosync object with rockets, string, or any other force, | I think. | mLuby wrote: | Nobody should have laughed--your misconception was one 99% | of the population shares! | | Nature is enough of a gatekeeper to space, she doesn't need | mortal deputies. | jvanderbot wrote: | The learning journey has been more good than bad. My | favorite was that orbit seems far away, until you look | out from an aircraft and realize you're 30% of the way | there. Usually, from where you live, the next major town | is further than LEO. | rejectedandsad wrote: | This is a brilliant turn of phrase and I'm definitely | going to steal it | solarkraft wrote: | Nope. I don't have numbers but according to Elon Musk (who we | probably at least agree on has a grasp of the basic | principles) "space is easy, orbit is hard". | toomanybeersies wrote: | You're describing rockoons [1], which were used for launching | (non-orbital) sounding rockets back in the 1950s. | | I think they fell out of use as high altitude jet aircraft | became more common and economical as a launch platform. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockoon | josephcsible wrote: | > Rocket launches are extremely expensive, and most of it is | in the lifting costs. Would it be cheaper to "lift" a rocket | with hydrogen slowly? | | No: https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ | aww_dang wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockoon | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Stratolaunc | h | josephcsible wrote: | It's not impossible, sure. It's just usually not worth | it. | R0b0t1 wrote: | The idea is that this gets you above the densest atmosphere | and that could save you fuel. I used to think this, but if | you run the numbers it doesn't work out. | soperj wrote: | >Getting to space[1] is easy. It's not, like, something you | could do in your car, but it's not a huge challenge. You | could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket | the size of a telephone pole. The X-15 aircraft reached | space[2] just by going fast and then steering up.[3] | | Loved that line. Puts the Branson/Bezos thing into | perspective. | toomanybeersies wrote: | These days there are even amateur rocket clubs that have | managed (unmanned) suborbital space launches [1]. | | [1] http://www.uscrpl.com/traveler-iv | radeck wrote: | You would save around 5% fuel and multiply costs by 10. | People have tried and tested, much better to just make the | rocket reusable. | RobertoG wrote: | Never mind how crazy is your idea, there is always somebody | that it's already trying it: | | https://www.zero2infinity.space/bloostar/ | | Of course, you still have to accelerate to orbit, but you | don't have to deal with the atmosphere. | soperj wrote: | From linked xkcd what if: Gravity in low Earth orbit is | almost as strong as gravity on the surface. The Space Station | hasn't escaped Earth's gravity at all; it's experiencing | about 90% the pull that we feel on the surface. | parineum wrote: | Parent isn't talking about gravity, he's talking about | alleviating the rocket equation by not having to lift your | fuel with fuel. | [deleted] | dghlsakjg wrote: | Yes, but... | | The majority of energy expended in getting to orbit is | spent in getting to orbital velocity (going sideways), | rather than getting to orbital altitude (going up). | Balloons only help in going up, and only to where the | density of the atmosphere is so low that the balloon is | no longer lifting, they are still far short of the | altitude necessary for orbit. Balloons top out at around | 20-30 miles while LEO is ~100 miles. | | So launching using a balloon only really gives you a very | small fuel savings | jandrese wrote: | That's the issue though. The hard part about achieving | orbit isn't the height, it's the speed. In both a ground | launch and a balloon launch you are starting at 0. | | This article does a better job explaining it than just | about anything else on the web: https://what- | if.xkcd.com/58/ | | So complex schemes to lift the rocket to the edge of | space don't end up buying you very much. | postalrat wrote: | Imagine an open deck on an airship. Or at least being able to | open your window. | | Propellers far away from passengers to minimize any noise. | DelightOne wrote: | That and a Starlink not bound to a location - would be awesome. | Would it be possible to live on such a ship? | [deleted] | findthewords wrote: | A clear example how money in the military-industrial complex (or | DARPA) directs innovation paths. The military does not approve of | hydrogen blimps, and so neither can the civilian sector use them. | jeffreyrogers wrote: | None of the other countries are doing it either, so it isn't | just DARPA. I think it just doesn't have an obvious use case. | | Everyone says cargo, but what is it better at at than rail, | truck, ship, or air (cargo jet)? If you want cheap you go with | rail or ship. If you want fast you go with jet and then truck | for the last mile. Airship would be cheaper than air, but | noticeably slower, so it basically has to compete with truck on | price. Can it do that? Maybe, I have no idea. | epistasis wrote: | This is really interesting... I am suspicious of fossil fuel | based hydrogen, but as electrolyzed hydrogen gets cheaper, this | could be very useful for some applications. | ajuc wrote: | Interesting. I did some back of the envelope calculations. | | A 100% efficient electrolyser requires 39 kWh of electricity to | produce 1 kg of hydrogen. Best practical ones need about 50 kWh | [1]. | | Hinderburg had about 18 metric tons of hydrogen [2], filling it | would require about 1 GWh of energy. The good thing is - it | could be used as a way to balance the electric network because | we don't particularly care when we fill it as long as it's | done. So we can do it when there's overproduction only. The | energy would be quite cheap - in some cases you can get paid | for using energy when electrical network needs balancing. Same | thing is done with other energy-intensive industrial processes | like smelting. | | In Germany (not particularly sunny but a lot of solar panels so | effects of scale are there) the low bounds for price of 1 MWh | of solar energy in 2018 was about 37 euro [3], let's round that | up to 50 - filling Hindenburg would require about 50 000 euro | of renewable energy. | | Additionally it would require about 9 * 18 ~= 162 tons of water | and some additives to make it conductive. Maybe sea water could | be used as is? | | [1] http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/3157/hydrogen- | produ... [2] https://www.history.com/news/the-hindenburg- | disaster-9-surpr... [3] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... | epistasis wrote: | Current cost of electrolyzed hydrogen is EUR2.5-EUR5.5/kg, | and the EU hopes to get that to less than half by 2030: | | https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype- | from-h... | | $100k for a filling, with many many re-uses, could maybe be | feasible today, and $20k should definitely be. | | One note about hydrogen production, as I understand it, is | that electrolyzers are enough of a capital expense that you | want to be running them at fairly high capacity factors. | Cheaper energy helps, but cheaper electrolyzers would | probably help more. | fire wrote: | There are some really interesting chemical methods of creating | hydrogen gas using like, aluminum and sodium ( or potassium? ) | in water that might be able to allow for on demand gas | generation with otherwise solid/condensed fuel sources; | | it's "simple" enough of a concept that creators[1] are doing it | to power their own systems, though I imagine scaling it up | carries its own set of difficulties ( e.g., using aluminum | nanoparticles for greater surface area to more rapidly generate | gas, but keeping it cool enough to avoid problematic side | effects, or like, you know, exploding in general ) | | Edit: it looks like MIT is actually actively working[2] on this | type of clean hydrogen production from the viewpoint of | creating a scalable system! | | 1: https://youtu.be/LKfbZvpoQ0g?t=5m23s | | 2: https://energy.mit.edu/news/using-aluminum-and-water-to- | make... | Baeocystin wrote: | Hydrogen gas leaks through _everything_ , and embrittles most | metals. It is not an easy substance to work with. Combine that | with having one of the widest ignition ranges of any flammable | material, and I'll just stay on the dubious side of it ever | getting used as a large-scale lifting gas again. | jeffreyrogers wrote: | It doesn't embrittle aluminum at normal temperatures and | stainless steel is significantly less affected. I agree it is | hard to work with, but think the reason it isn't used in this | sort of application is more due to economics than inherent | properties of hydrogen. | trenning wrote: | I've found it interesting that power plant generators are sealed | and cooled with hydrogen gas. A hundred tons of steel and copper | generating thousands of volts of electricity is cooled with | hydrogen. | | Sounds like a recipe for an explosion movie style, yet there | aren't any. | jeffbee wrote: | There aren't any because hydrogen cooled turbomachinery is | complex and high-touch. There are systems that circulate the | gas out of the generator and into separators that remove the | inevitable air contaminants and dryers to remove the water. | They aren't really seal-and-forget systems like a helium-filled | hard disk drive might be. | renewiltord wrote: | An entertaining read | https://twitter.com/RealhumanSchwab/status/14219494217810616... | | Very related. I won't spoil it for you but it's entertaining. | | Edit: Responders, please! You're spoiling the fun! If | https://twitter.com/RealhumanSchwab/status/14219496075426160... | doesn't give it away I don't know what will. | jandrese wrote: | That thread went down the insane conspiracy rabbit hole in a | hurry. | stickfigure wrote: | Disappointing. The first 2/3 of the thread was pretty good, | nice narrative with pictures. The twitter format sucks | though. | itsyaboi wrote: | https://threader.app/thread/1421949421781061633 | paxswill wrote: | Echoing a sibling comment, that thread goes down the conspiracy | rabbit hole _very_ quickly. A few inaccuracies I noticed before | giving up: | | * "Remember, only 13 deaths out of the 36 passengers on the | airship died." This skips the crew deaths (who also died at | about the same rate). | | * There were a bunch of photographers present at Lakehurst as | it was the first crossing of 1937. The audio recording was not | scripted, the original disc records a pressure wave which is | followed by Morrison exclaiming that the Hindenburg is on fire. | | * "Mary Jane" can be a real person's name. | | * "Hugo Eckener, former head of the Zeppelin Company, Charles | Rosendahl, commander of the Naval Air Station at Lakehurst, Max | Pruss, captain of the Hindenburg and most of the surviving crew | believed the airship had been sabotaged.". Eckener stated that | it could be sabotage when he was first told the Hindenburg had | gone down. He later backed the static spark theory. | foota wrote: | Out of curiosity, would it be feasible to produce enough helium | for commercial use through fusion (either power generating or | not)? | ckastner wrote: | Hydrogen is probably not as unsafe as the general population | might think it is, but it find it bizarre just how much the | article downplays the flammability issue. For example: | | > _Fun fact: pure hydrogen doesn't burn. It needs an oxidizer-- | like the oxygen in air._ | | Airships literally float in that oxidizier! | TinyBig wrote: | "Floating in oxidizer" doesn't matter - airships are under such | low pressure that leaks are too slow to maintain a flame front. | I researched this quite a bit for the Army back in the day, | even worked with a vendor who fired 50 caliber tracer rounds | through an airship to try to get it to catch on fire, and it | did not. | MichaelZuo wrote: | There are rumours that because of this fact, that the | Hindenburg disaster was not from natural causes. | solarkraft wrote: | Okay, what's the alternative scenario and how do we ensure | that doesn't happen? | ElijahLynn wrote: | Do you mean that it was sabotaged? | aww_dang wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomeroy_bullet | | The British anti-zeppelin forces researched this problem and | were unable to come up with a method of reliably igniting the | hydrogen gas. | Retric wrote: | Crashing aircraft into them was quite reliable, it just | wasn't cheap. | JulianMorrison wrote: | But they only burn easily at the interface. The trick would be | to control fire there - keep them from mixing, keep the flame, | if one were to start, from enlarging the hole. | minikites wrote: | Good point. I remember a science demonstration where lighting | a balloon filled with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen caused | a much more violent eruption compared to a balloon of pure | hydrogen. | GauntletWizard wrote: | Not only control where the fire is, but do so with materials | light enough for an airship. It's a hard problem. | JulianMorrison wrote: | Not necessarily. Remember, you only need to control the | interface. A bag, not a wall. | R0b0t1 wrote: | The burning plume escapes upward. It's probably safer than | aviation fuel. | varjag wrote: | Right, seen that in Hindenburg footage. | R0b0t1 wrote: | The Hindenburg was covered in aluminum paint. | varjag wrote: | Aluminium must be really exotic material in airspace | applications? | | Also: | | _The truth is that the dope used on the Hindenburg was | specifically chosen for its low flammability, and the | composition of the dope had almost nothing in common with | the formula used to make rocket fuel._ | | https://www.airships.net/hindenburg-paint/ | [deleted] | kurthr wrote: | Even that wouldn't be such a big issue, if the flammability | limit of hydrogen is from 4% to 74% in air (~20x). For | comparison gasoline vapor is 1.4% to 7.6% (~5x) | | In an open space that's not so bad since the flammable material | literally floats away (while gasoline vapor settles), but it's | still an issue in any contained area. | contravariant wrote: | Yeah it kind of defeats the point when your definition of | 'doesn't burn' covers every single substance. | dragontamer wrote: | Except Li-ion batteries, which burn with their own oxidizer. | hobs wrote: | Well there's plenty of monoprops that supply their own | oxidizer, and oh boy are they absolutely dangerous as hell. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopropellant | yellow_lead wrote: | And rocket fuel? Technically | dragontamer wrote: | Rocket fuel is more of a "pre-mixed with oxidizier" sorta | thing. | | Although I am enjoying the side discussion about | monopropellants. | gpm wrote: | Most modern rockets are liquid and mix the fuel and | oxidizer only at the point of combustion, burning H2/O2, | Kerosene/O2 or more recently CH4/O2. | | Mono-propellant, and solid (not hybrid) rocket fuel fits | the description though | crazydoggers wrote: | > _Mono-propellant, and solid (not hybrid) rocket fuel | fits the description though_ | | Decomposition doesn't count as "burning" which means | combustion. Fusion and fission release energy as well, | but I don't think anyone calls fusion "burning" hydrogen. | gpm wrote: | Generally I don't think this type of language debate is | useful, we aren't debating what is happening, just what | to call it, and that's pretty boring. If you want to call | it not burning, ok, be my guest. Hopefully my answer is | still an interesting point about the kinds of violent | chemical reactions that exist and could make a substance | dangerous to work with in an environment without | (outside, in the case of solid rocket fuel) oxidizing | agents. | | I'll make an exception and reply about the language in | this case because I there's a broader point I want to | make: | | English isn't a language defined based of "X happens if | chemical reactions Y happens behind the scenes", because | we didn't even know about chemical reaction Y when | English was invented. Moreover if you tried to define it | as oxidation you'd fail, rust isn't burning, meanwhile | (non-oxidizing) chemical burns, sunburns, etc all exist | because they were just analogous enough to the concept of | fire. If people knew about some chemical that decomposes | into plasma in the 1600s, they definitely called it | burning even if there was no oxidation. | | Meanwhile people definitely refer to fusion as "burning", | e.g. see this stackexchange question with lots of links | to wikipedia and the like which refer to different kinds | of fusion as burning [1] or ctrl-f burning in this | wikipedia article [2] (which is linked from [1]). | | [1] https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/43907/h | ydrogen... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis | crazydoggers wrote: | I don't really take this as a language debate though. It | clearly is about the fact that people don't understand | what an oxidizer is at a chemical level. | | Someone who says the following isn't just using language | inaccurately, it actually shows a fundamental | misunderstanding of combustion: | | > _pure hydrogen doesn't burn. It needs an oxidizer--like | the oxygen in air._ | | That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an | assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen | without oxygen, which is again a fundamental | misunderstanding of chemistry. | | In addition calling something "self oxidizing" doesn't | make sense. There are always mixtures of fuel and | oxidizers... whether those are gas and fuel, solid and | fuel, mixed in gunpowder form, mixed as gasoline and air | in a carburetor, etc. So if I supply you a balloon with | the proper stoichiometric ratio of gasoline and air, is | that "self-oxidizing"? If so then everything is self | oxidizing. | | And while I would agree that people do refer to hydrogen | as "burning" I actually thing this is a again a prime | example of people not understanding the underlying | physics. Most people don't understand how fusion works, | so calling it "burning" is a lazy way to conceptualize | what the sun is doing. Leading to yet another source of | scientific illiteracy. | | Words are tools. They should be used wisely. | gpm wrote: | Self oxidizing mixtures exist. Gun powder is probably the | classic example. | | Monopropellants, that aren't mixtures, exist and "burn" too, | high concentration H2O2 for instance. | toomanybeersies wrote: | T-Stoff/High-Test Peroxide doesn't actually burn, but | rather decomposes into water and oxygen. | rbanffy wrote: | They can still burn in the presence of an oxidiser. They | don't need it, but that won't stop them from burning, or | blowing up, or doing whatever they want to do, as | monopropellants are really (no pun intended) impulsive. | crazydoggers wrote: | Gunpowder still requires an oxidizer, it just happens to be | mixed in. The potassium nitrate is the oxidizer, KN03, | whereas the sulphur and charcoal are the fuels that burn. | | Pretty much any combustion requires a molecule with oxygen | to accept the electrons: exceptions exist with halogens | like chlorine... but these are still called "oxidizers" | | So saying hydrogen doesn't burn without an oxidizer still | makes little sense. Hydrogen will combust with either | oxygen or chlorine for example, both oxidizers. Without | those then nothing happens because nothing can combust | without an oxidizer... You may just not realize the | oxidizer is mixed with the fuel. | jandrewrogers wrote: | Technically speaking, sulfur is an oxidizer in gunpowder, | not fuel. Sulfur is even in the same elemental group as | oxygen. | | Sulfur is commonly used as an oxidizer for metal fuels. | In the case of gunpowder, that would be the potassium in | potassium nitrate. | Retric wrote: | Mixtures aren't single substances. Monopropellants don't | burn, their just one of many exothermic reactions. | gpm wrote: | > Monopropellants don't burn, their just one of mangy | exothermic reactions. | | Gave a fairly full reply to this over here | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28121336 | Retric wrote: | No offense intended, but the fact language evolves isn't | an excuse to be imprecise. As arch discharge lighting | became popular the idea of burning began to separate from | the creation of plasma because nothing was being used up. | We still say electrical components "burned out" because | of this idea of fire as something that consumes. | | Anyway, as long as you understand that's not what is | meant by the term burning I don't really think there is | anything worth arguing about here. And hey in 100 years | your definition might win. | gpm wrote: | I guess I got into this argument, so to be clear, I am | not conceding this (nor do I particularly want to | continue this part of the argument, so I won't and ask | the others do not take a lack of reply as you conceding | the opposite) | | > that's not what is meant by the term burning | | Monopropellants may not agree with your use of the term | burning, but I deny that they do not agree with the | majority of english speakers use of the word burning, or | the definition of the word burning that you will find in | common dictionaries [1]. | | [1] For example merriam-webster defines "burning" as | "being on fire", "fire" as "the phenomenon of combustion | manifested in light, flame, and heat" and "combustion" as | "a usually rapid chemical process (such as oxidation) | that produces heat and usually light". | Retric wrote: | Fair enough, I will not try and persuade you. I am sure | you can find people using the term burning in association | with monopropellants. | | For anyone reading this I will say Wikipedia and at no | point is combustion or burning used do describe them. | "Monopropellants[1] are propellants consisting of | chemicals that release energy through exothermic chemical | decomposition" | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopropellant | dragosmocrii wrote: | Although there's a slight difference in meaning, I prefer the | term zeppelin to blimp. | | fyi: the difference is in the frame construction. A zeppelin has | a rigid frame that keeps it's shape if the gas is lost, whereas a | blimp has a semi-rigid frame that will deflate if the gas isn't | present. | newbie789 wrote: | This article is interesting. "Hydrogen doesn't explode without | being mixed with air first then ignited" is a kind of funny | statement. I read that as "hydrogen doesn't explode outside of | when it does" | | I'd ask "was this written by a hydrogen sales team?" but it'd be | mind boggling if it weren't. The blaming of special interest | groups right off the bat, and the blaming the lower-performing | helium as the cause for a crash (that iirc, involved a leak so | I'm not sure how that 8% difference could've saved everyone) are | naked examples of sales speech. | | "Maybe you'll blow up! Who cares? You get 8% more lift and stick | it to the uh, Bureau Of Mines" | iso1210 wrote: | Fossil fuel companies getting PR to spin everything they can into | trying to improve hydrogen's image. | jeffreyrogers wrote: | Hard to imagine a solution to climate change that doesn't | involve the fossil fuel companies given their enormous | political importance. | toiletaccount wrote: | What's wrong with hydrogen? You can produce it with renewables, | it basically works with existing IC technology and the exhaust | is just water. The only hangup is the energy/volume ratio, | which is an area of ongoing research. | throw37388 wrote: | Hydrogen burns and produces greenhouse gas! | jbotz wrote: | Although water vapor is technically a "greenhouse gas", it | is not responsible for forcing any global warming. That's | because at the temperatures we're interested in water is a | liquid, not a gas, and what small amount of water remains | gaseous is entirely determined by the air's temperature. So | water vapor can't force any warming, it can only amplify | other forcings. | detaro wrote: | uh, no? | iso1210 wrote: | Well technically yes | throw37388 wrote: | Yes | | >> Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant | greenhouse gas | | https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming. | htm... | toiletaccount wrote: | Run it through a condenser, feed it into a holding tank | and dispose of the water at each filling station? | jbotz wrote: | No need, the atmosphere is a sufficient condenser. Unless | you heat the atmosphere with a lot more energy than the | little bit you get from combusting the hydrogen in | question... but then you'll have bigger problems as your | oceans begin to evaporate. | detaro wrote: | Large-scale hydrogen production is commonly based on fossil | fuels right now, and that's what many fossil fuel companies | push when they talk hydrogen. End-to-end efficiency is also | not that great. That doesn't necessarily disqualify hydrogen, | but it's not as obvious as often presented. | toiletaccount wrote: | It seems like a good hydrogen chain could look like: solar | panels floating in the ocean split the water and store it, | a tanker picks it up and takes it to port. Burn hydrogen at | a power plant for the grid, condense the vapor and use it | for drinking or farming. | | It seems like a great fit for...a lot of use cases. (if we | can get over some of the storage hurdles) | namibj wrote: | Even then it's comparatively trivial to capture the carbon | dioxide from steam reforming, as opposed to gasoline in a | car. | binbag wrote: | Is this a reprint from April 1st? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-09 23:00 UTC)