Moon race fans

[pa.]

Sent an email regarding the fuels to a person who worked at NASA for many years.

Any of you fellas know why the first stage F-1s on the Saturn V was kerosene fuelled

Well, actually, RP-1 -- which stands for "Rocked Propellant-1" or "Refined Petroleum-1", depending on who you ask. It is, essentially, kerosene, but very highly refined. Regular kerosene often got too hot and polymerized, and/or caused tank wall ruptures, which is a Bad Thing during launch. :-)

The military likes/liked RP-1 since it's typically made alongside regular jet fuel, is relatively cheap, and could sit "ready" for long periods of time. NASA likes cryogenic fuels since they're more powerful, and the launch windows are pretty specific, so onboard storage isn't that big of an issue.

but the other J-2 stages were Hydrogen fuelled?

There has been suggestions that it was to do with weight distribution in the

rocket.

I wouldn't think so.

My thought was the first stage was fuelled by a fuel that would burn in the atmosphere and the second stage would burn fuel that would need to burn in the high altitude and space.

Not a bad theory, but generally, you burn both RP-1 and LH with LOX -- liquid oxygen -- so I'm not sure that the atmosphere matters that much. Pretty much every fuel choice has an associated oxidizer, including solids. NASA doesn't like solids too much because they can't be shut down after ignition, which is problematic when you have humans onboard.

This is just a guess, but probably the bottom line was when each stage was designed, by whom, and for what. They were in a hurry to get someone to the moon to beat the Russkies, so "so what?" was probably the key: strap things together that would work to meet the objectives within the timeline, and go with it.

NASA has a not-recently-updated page with generic propellant info -- http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm -- but it's not all that detailed, and doesn't discuss the specific issue you're asking about.

Not sure if that helps; I definitely didn't work with fuels. When we did talk about fuel, it was usually hydrazine! And that, mainly, due to discussions of its toxicity, and that it could foul instruments if you hit them with a nozzle blast....

[copemech]

All that said, I think Wayne needs to go out and spend some dosh on one them H2 systems for to increase the mileage on his car!

I have seen one or two installed, with respective blokes trying to sell them. Look really good!

If these things do generate any H2 out of water, witheir bottles and electrodes, I figure they probably consume more electrical energy than they produce in mechanical energy as I think I seen somewhere that in regular commercial H2 generation, the process was only something like 40% efficient.

[ham2]

Sent an email regarding the fuels to a person who worked at NASA for many years.....

.....This is just a guess, but probably the bottom line was when each stage was designed, by whom, and for what. They were in a hurry to get someone to the moon to beat the Russkies, so "so what?" was probably the key: strap things together that would work to meet the objectives within the timeline, and go with it......

Alan Shepard :-

"...it's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract." -

Not sure if that helps; I definitely didn't work with fuels. When we did talk about fuel, it was usually hydrazine! Hydrazine?YIKES ! ....

Great posts, thank you fellas....more

[ham2]

Ok I know it's early days but a 50/50 chance of landing the right way up?

Where's the escape hatch again?

That's right..on the top !

1m 55 s

[houseape1000]

I'd just like to say thanks. After the video there are the suggestions, I clicked on one about aliens and then about palestine and then the illuminati and the whole bohemian grove thing.

02:15 I went to bed, more confused than ever.

Andy.

[ham2]

Phew, I thought it was only me who worried about the Muslim-Martian-Hippy-World Order

In the last few years I have swapped mindlessly watching bilge on the TV to mindlessly watching internet bilge (admittedly a bit more 'educational bilge')..my head is so full of useless information that I now fancy my chances on a game show (I've registered for 'Million £ drop but Tarrant never rings me back after I get through to the first stage of 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire').

I love YouTube suggestions,it's like that parlour game 'Six Degrees of Seperation' ...but you end up at the extreme opposite of what you originally searched for, from my toe-nail clippings to...a thermo-nuclear weapon.

On that subject do you know what's the deadliest weapon? :-

The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle. It is your killer instinct which must be harnessed if you expect to survive in combat. Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill. You will become dead Marines. And then you will be in a world of ****. Because Marines are not allowed to die without permission! Do you maggots understand?

[ham2]

..But do we really want to go back?

http://www.universetoday.com/96208/the-moon-is-toxic/

[ham2]

I got my Sherco out from under its blanket recently and started it up on the drive...but NASA had to go one better, admittedly it couldn't be a full throttle run up but its great to see such hardware and brute force just limbering up outdoors:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp1jm1mmd-A