• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hydrogen bomb vs Atomic Bomb vs Shuttle

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Paratus said:
One cool factoid.

If I remember correctly the Apollo 11 Saturn V released energy equivalent to 1/200 of the entire worlds energy use for 1969. 😱
Click to expand...


Not even remotely close to 1/200 the worlds energy use for 1969, not even within several orders of magnitude.

The power output, on the other hand, would be pretty significant.

The fuel used in the F1 engines that power the Saturn V is a variant of kerosene and is therefore much like diesel fuel. The energy content, therefore, would be equal to the quantity of RP-1 in it's tanks. The RP-1 tanks held something over 200,000 gallons of fuel and many jets carry more than 25,000 gallons or over 1/10 of the capacity of the Saturn V so just ten commercial jets would consume as much energy as a Saturn V.

On any given day the worlds airlines consume something over 1000X the fuel of a Saturn V so over the course of a year that would be something like 400,000X as much fuel. Assuming the airline industry was 1% or current numbers in 1969 we'd still be looking at 4000X as much fuel by the airling industry alone -- a fraction of world energy use.

So I'm not sure where you got your figures, but it's no where near reasonable.


Brian
 
John Connor said:
I do read Wikipedia and I appreciate for the most part the non liberal indoctrination. But if you type in Bill O'reilly you will see that the morons that edit Wikipedia label him a conservative when he has stated himself on his show he is an Independent. Why label someone who says they are not? See how this shit works?
Click to expand...

Lulz...I guess I can agree O'Reilley is not conservative, he just caters to right wing nuts.
 
Brian Stirling said:
Not even remotely close to 1/200 the worlds energy use for 1969, not even within several orders of magnitude.

The power output, on the other hand, would be pretty significant.

The fuel used in the F1 engines that power the Saturn V is a variant of kerosene and is therefore much like diesel fuel. The energy content, therefore, would be equal to the quantity of RP-1 in it's tanks. The RP-1 tanks held something over 200,000 gallons of fuel and many jets carry more than 25,000 gallons or over 1/10 of the capacity of the Saturn V so just ten commercial jets would consume as much energy as a Saturn V.

On any given day the worlds airlines consume something over 1000X the fuel of a Saturn V so over the course of a year that would be something like 400,000X as much fuel. Assuming the airline industry was 1% or current numbers in 1969 we'd still be looking at 4000X as much fuel by the airling industry alone -- a fraction of world energy use.

So I'm not sure where you got your figures, but it's no where near reasonable.


Brian
Click to expand...

I must have misremembered the anecdote. It was probably power output. NASA pegged it as equal to 85 Hoover dams or roughly 170GW. So 1/200 would be about 34TW.

Quite a bit of power.
 
BladeVenom said:
Yep, with just today's technology we could have safer more efficient nuclear plants. Instead due to politics we keep old outdated plants running past their designed life expectancy.

Environmental extremist who say the sky is falling due to CO2, refuse to allow CO2 free nuclear plants to be built.
Click to expand...

It has been said that "to be anti nuclear means being pro fossil fuels..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top