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


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2013, 01:19 PM   #1 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SC Lowcountry
Posts: 1,644

Geo XL1 - '94 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Boat tails and more mods
90 day: 72.22 mpg (US)

Big, Bad & Flat - '01 Dodge Ram 3500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 21.13 mpg (US)
Thanks: 214
Thanked 1,271 Times in 653 Posts
Least fuel efficient vehicle ever...

.

This has to be the least fuel efficient vehicle ever...



Saturn V



Quote:
S-IC first stage


The S-IC was built by The Boeing Company at the Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, where Space Shuttle External Tanks would later be built by Lockheed Martin. Most of its mass of over two thousand metric tonnes at launch was propellant, in this case RP-1 rocket fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer with a fuel efficiency of just under 5 inches per US gallon (just under 4 cm per liter) overall.[15] It was 42 metres (138 ft) tall and 10 metres (33 ft) in diameter, and provided over 34 meganewtons (7,600,000 lbf) of thrust to get the rocket through the first 67 kilometres (220,000 ft) of ascent. The S-IC stage had a dry weight of about 131 tonnes (290,000 lb) and fully fueled at launch had a total weight of 2,300 tonnes (5,100,000 lb). The initial design included four F-1 engines, which provided just enough force to lift the spacecraft and rocket. A fifth F-1 engine was added in the center of a quincunx to provide additional thrust to accommodate the growing weight of the Apollo payload.[8] That center engine was fixed, while the four outer engines could be hydraulically turned (gimballed) to control the rocket.[15] In flight, the center engine was turned off about 26 seconds earlier than the outboard engines to limit acceleration. During launch, the S-IC fired its engines for 168 seconds (ignition occurred about 7 seconds before liftoff) and at engine cutoff, the vehicle was at an altitude of about 67 kilometres (42 mi), was downrange about 93 kilometres (58 mi), and was moving about 2,300 metres per second (7,500 ft/s).



More stats here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V





I was in grade school during the Apollo missions. Back then the teachers would roll in a TV anytime there was a launch, landing or anything important. I remember when Neil Armstrong spoke the first words to Mission Control and the world from the lunar surface were, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." and "I'm going to step off the LEM now" (referring to the Apollo Lunar Module). He then turned and set his left boot on the surface at 2:56 UTC July 21, 1969, then spoke the famous words "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." are things I will never forget.


The feelings of national pride were everywhere back then.


Another quote:


Quote:
"The Apollo program had a tremendous impact on the United States," said Space Foundation Chief Executive Officer Elliot Pulham. "It built national pride and, more importantly, it influenced a whole generation of children to study hard to become scientists, engineers, and astronauts. We could use another program like that today to jumpstart the economy and reverse the disturbing trend of falling U.S. student proficiency in math and science."

I couldn't agree anymore with that statement.


Funny, back then we could invent new technologies and processes in order to achieve the goals of the Apollo program in a few short years.



But somehow, over the last 100 years we can't figure out how build a fuel efficient automobile...



>

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-24-2013, 02:25 PM   #2 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,761

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,548 Times in 2,215 Posts
Quote:
But somehow, over the last 100 years we can't figure out how build a fuel efficient automobile...
We can if the motorists demand it.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 12:02 AM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
It's been mentioned in another thread.

But really... we have the ability, now, to build 100+ mpg motor vehicles that are rain-proof and won't break the bank. In fact, they'll be cheaper than regular cars.

The problem is, safety regulations, environmental regulations and customer demands (every vehicle needs to fit seven 6'5" 400 lb people and tow five tons at 80 mph) mean that you won't be seeing cars like that soon.

A small, four passenger three-cylinder diesel with decent aero (meaning: not a tall-boy design) should be able to accomplish 100 mpg (US) with no sweat at 50 mph. But such a device, despite potentially costing less than a Honda Civic, would never be able to make it to the US.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:13 AM   #4 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 10,500
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,275 Times in 1,129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by niky View Post
A small, four passenger three-cylinder diesel with decent aero (meaning: not a tall-boy design) should be able to accomplish 100 mpg (US) with no sweat at 50 mph. But such a device, despite potentially costing less than a Honda Civic, would never be able to make it to the US.
Slap the engine out of the Diesel-powered Indian version of the Chevrolet Spark into a Brazilian Chevrolet Onix, strip it down a little more for weight reduction, replace some body panels with lighter ones made out of composite materials, and some slight aeromods would also be needed

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:49 AM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
justme1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ff
Posts: 459
Thanks: 59
Thanked 38 Times in 30 Posts
I was going to say dodge Dakota R/T lol
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 11:46 AM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
vskid3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 975

Civic DX (sold) - '97 Honda Civic DX
90 day: 34.15 mpg (US)

GTO (sold) - '04 Pontiac GTO
90 day: 22.62 mpg (US)

Green Brick (sold) - '06 Ford Escape Hybrid
90 day: 31.93 mpg (US)
Thanks: 193
Thanked 312 Times in 221 Posts
That 5 inches per gallon is just for the pulse, right? When you factor in the glide that followed, it probably isn't too bad.
__________________


Camry Thread
E-Bike Thread
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vskid3 For This Useful Post:
darcane (07-25-2013), wdb (07-26-2013)
Old 07-26-2013, 08:11 AM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SC Lowcountry
Posts: 1,644

Geo XL1 - '94 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Boat tails and more mods
90 day: 72.22 mpg (US)

Big, Bad & Flat - '01 Dodge Ram 3500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 21.13 mpg (US)
Thanks: 214
Thanked 1,271 Times in 653 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vskid3 View Post
That 5 inches per gallon is just for the pulse, right? When you factor in the glide that followed, it probably isn't too bad.
Sort of. That was the first stage. There were two more just to get it into orbit.

Quote:
The first stage burned for about 2 minutes and 41 seconds, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles (68 km) and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour (2,756 m/s) and burning 4,700,000 pounds (2,100,000 kg) of propellant
S-II second stage
Quote:
After S-IC separation, the S-II second stage burned for 6 minutes and propelled the craft to 109 miles (175 km) and 15,647 mph (25,182 km/h– 7.00 km/s), close to orbital velocity. The S-II had a dry weight of about 80,000 pounds (36,000 kg) and fully fueled, weighed 1,060,000 pounds (480,000 kg).
S-IVB third stage
Quote:
The S-IVB had a dry weight of about 23,000 pounds (10,000 kg) and, fully fueled, weighed about 262,000 pounds (119,000 kg). During Apollo 11, a typical lunar mission, the third stage burned for about 2.5 minutes until first cutoff at 11 minutes 40 seconds. At this point it was 1,640 miles (2,640 km) downrange and in a parking orbit at an altitude of 118.8 miles (191.2 km) and velocity of 17,432 mph.

All in all, approximately 6,000,000 lbs. of fuel just to get into orbit around the Earth.

The glide portion came after further acceleration of the Command and Lunar Modules, which were then directed towards the moon.

Anyway you look at it, the numbers are impressive.

>
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 05:19 PM   #8 (permalink)
wdb
lurker's apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: the Perimeter
Posts: 876

PlainJane - '12 Toyota Tacoma Base 4WD Access Cab
90 day: 20.98 mpg (US)
Thanks: 449
Thanked 198 Times in 151 Posts
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind"

</nitpick>

  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