Absolute top non-economy vehicle...
Ran across an interesting article on people reverse-engineering the Saturn V engines: How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 “moon rocket” engine back to life | Ars Technica Interesting quotes:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I thought the nasa space shuttle crawler had the top spot in worse fuel economy challenge?
|
I'm trying to wrap my mind around 60 gigawatts.
|
I am sure there was a misplaced decimal as well as only an 80% efficiency when converting one source of energy to another. :thumbup:
|
NASA people are simply genius as far the talent for mechanics and electronics is concerned. So doing this must not have been a great deal for them.
|
Quote:
Granted, it took five motors to do that. Still: dang. [edit] Whoops, OP already pointed this tidbit out. Ah well. It bears repeating in my opinion. Pulse and glide: heh. Skylab was lofted by a Saturn V and covered approximately 900,000,000 miles during its lifetime. That is, shall we say, one hell of a glide. Skylab was a modified S-IVb stage, so it launched atop a S-I and S-II for a combined fuel consumption of (guessing wildly with a little reference help) about 2,500,000 kilos. 560km per kilo of fuel is pretty good. |
starting here: 560km per kilo
Kerosene has about 0.93 times as much energy by weight as gasoline gas weighs 6 lbs/gallon energy wise 1kg Kerosene=1/0.93=1.08 kg of gas 1.08kg of gas = 2.38 lb of gas volume wise 2.38 lb of gas /6 = 0.4 gallons 560km=347miles. so 347mi/0.4 gal = 867 MPG FTW!!! :D EDIT: fixed missing kg to lb conversion DOH: the rocket in question uses Kerosene, not hydrogen! |
Quote:
|
You probably need to also factor the weight of Skylab into the equation... how many Buicks to a Skylab? :D
|
OK
-mort |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com