21–30 of 38 posts
So, 12,8m/3,78541178l or EU standard combined: 29573,53l/100km? I wish at least sciency articles used SI.
The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. I'm sure I'll get downmodded to hell for expressing this opinion here, but I really do prefer imperial measurements.
So, 12,8m/3,78541178l or EU standard combined: 29573,53l/100km? I wish at least sciency articles used SI.
The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. I'm sure I'll get downmodded to hell for expressing this opinion here, but I really do prefer imperial measurements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be about 3 miles from most of the launch pads to the VAB, so about 377 gallons for a one-way trip ( http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/nasafact/count3teaf.htm ) The crawler can travel about 1 MPH loaded; the tour guide at KSC (at least when I was there several years ago) made a big deal about the blazing 2 MPH it can do when unloaded. :)
The closest observation point is three miles from the launch pads, so yes, the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building; it's insanely large) is probably around three miles as well. Why the three mile distance? Back during the Apollo program, engineers determined that if the Saturn V were to explode on the launch pad, the resulting fireball would be around four or file miles in diameter. I think it's a similar radius for the S…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only something you can visualise if you grew up with imperial units; "42 feet per gallon" is not inherently easier than "3.4 meters per liter", nor "125.7 gallons per mile" than "296 liters per km".
But all of those are far more accessible than 29573.53L/100km, which most people would just round up to "a hell of a lot". Using conventional units doesn't really help when the magnitude is so high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because external combustion engines (boiler + turbine) are more efficient and cheaper to build at large scale
So why not use those in ships?
The steam turbine has until recently been the first choice for very large power main propulsion units. Its advantages of little or no vibration, low weight, minimum space requirements and low maintenance costs are considerable. In steam turbines high pressure steam is directed into a series of blades or vanes attached to a shaft, causing it to rotate. This rotary motion is transferred to the propeller shaft by gears. Steam is produced by boiling water in a boiler, which is fired by oil. Recent developments in steam turbines which have reduced fuel consumption and raised power output have made them more attractive as an alternative to diesel power in ships. They are 50 per cent lighter and on very large tankers some of the steam can be used to drive the large cargo oil pumps. Turbines are often used in container ships, which travel at high speeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The closest observation point is three miles from the launch pads, so yes, the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building; it's insanely large) is probably around three miles as well. Why the three mile distance? Back during the Apollo program, engineers determined that if the Saturn V were to explode on the launch pad, the resulting fireball would be around four or file miles in diameter. I think it's a similar radius for the S…
So the fireball would still engulf the buildings? Doesn't that still seem too close?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The low speed (90 rpm) diesels in those ships are by far and away the most thermally efficient internal combustion engines on the planet. The biggest ones approach 50% efficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96...
Why is that? Why don't they use these to generate electri ity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The closest observation point is three miles from the launch pads, so yes, the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building; it's insanely large) is probably around three miles as well. Why the three mile distance? Back during the Apollo program, engineers determined that if the Saturn V were to explode on the launch pad, the resulting fireball would be around four or file miles in diameter. I think it's a similar radius for the S…
So the fireball would still engulf the buildings? Doesn't that still seem too close?
So 4-5 miles diameter = 2-2.5 miles radius.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The numbers you just put above mean nothing to me. Feet per Gallon is something humans can visualize. I'm sure I'll get downmodded to hell for expressing this opinion here, but I really do prefer imperial measurements.
It's only something you can visualise if you grew up with imperial units; "42 feet per gallon" is not inherently easier than "3.4 meters per liter", nor "125.7 gallons per mile" than "296 liters per km".
In this case 1000/3.4 = 294 (Approx)