Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-15-2013, 12:58 AM   #1 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 809 Times in 593 Posts
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:
The power generated by five of these engines was best conceptualized by author David Woods in his book How Apollo Flew to the Moon—"[T]he power output of the Saturn first stage was 60 gigawatts. This happens to be very similar to the peak electricity demand of the United Kingdom."
Quote:
As with everything else about the F-1, even the gas generator boasts impressive specs. It churns out about 31,000 pounds of thrust (138 kilonewtons), more than an F-16 fighter's engine running at full afterburner, and it was used to drive a turbine that produced 55,000 shaft horsepower. (That's 55,000 horsepower just to run the F-1's fuel and oxidizer pumps...
Or maybe it's just an extreme example of pulse & glide :-)

  Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jamesqf For This Useful Post:
mcrews (04-15-2013), mechman600 (04-15-2013), mikeyjd (07-05-2013), niky (04-15-2013), wmjinman (07-02-2013)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-15-2013, 01:48 AM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,502
Thanked 276 Times in 226 Posts
I thought the nasa space shuttle crawler had the top spot in worse fuel economy challenge?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 04:06 AM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mechman600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 1,226

Fusion - '16 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE
Thanks: 190
Thanked 272 Times in 166 Posts
I'm trying to wrap my mind around 60 gigawatts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 11:35 AM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,502
Thanked 276 Times in 226 Posts
I am sure there was a misplaced decimal as well as only an 80% efficiency when converting one source of energy to another.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 03:21 AM   #5 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: 4257 Johnny Lane Milwaukee, WI 53226
Posts: 5
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
__________________
structured settlement buyer
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 10:23 AM   #6 (permalink)
Master Novice
 
elhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SE USA - East Tennessee
Posts: 2,310

Josie - '87 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 27.96 mpg (US)

Felicia - '09 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 47.83 mpg (US)
Thanks: 424
Thanked 609 Times in 447 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechman600 View Post
I'm trying to wrap my mind around 60 gigawatts.
At full power during launch, a Saturn V generated power equivalent to the peak demand of Britain. All of Britain.

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.
__________________




Lead or follow. Either is fine.

Last edited by elhigh; 07-02-2013 at 10:38 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 11:25 AM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
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!!!

EDIT: fixed missing kg to lb conversion
DOH: the rocket in question uses Kerosene, not hydrogen!

Last edited by P-hack; 07-03-2013 at 02:54 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 01:27 PM   #8 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechman600 View Post
I'm trying to wrap my mind around 60 gigawatts.
...watch all the "BACK TO THE FUTURE" movies...Doc Emmett Brown has the answer already!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 03:05 PM   #9 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
You probably need to also factor the weight of Skylab into the equation... how many Buicks to a Skylab?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 03:31 PM   #10 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurcher
 
mort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 325
Thanks: 147
Thanked 103 Times in 75 Posts
OK
-mort


Last edited by mort; 07-03-2013 at 03:15 PM.. Reason: hydrogen => kerosene
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com