Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft == Anti-Terrorist Device?

Posted by Cliff on from the safer-usually-means-better dept.

maladroit asks: "Today on NPR's Talk of the Nation/Science Friday , Harry Braun of the Phoenix Project said that a hydrogen-powered airplane would not have produced the fire and intense heat that brought down the World Trade Center towers. Is this true ? What are the other advantages and disadvantages of hydrogen fuel ? Details on the Phoenix Project's website are a bit sketchy, but I'm sure the Slashdot crowd has some answers (and Richard Dean Anderson jokes)." Sounds like a good theory, it doesn't account for the hostage aspect, but it would prevent the use of aircraft as cheap bombs. Would there be any drawbacks? How much would such a refit cost for your average commercial aircraft?

11 of 701 comments (clear)

  1. Hindenburg by agrounds · · Score: 1, Funny

    yeah, hydrogen-filled aircraft have proven so safe in the past...

  2. Why stop there? Bring back blimps. by torpor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whoa, someone's trying to crash a blimp into the Sears tower!

    *BOOOOIIIINNNGGGGGG*

    Well, there he goes again...

    *BBBBOOOOIIIINNGGGG*

    And again ... Sheesh. This is getting boring.

    Change the channel.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  3. Project Phoenix??? by kisrael · · Score: 3, Funny

    Project Phoenix??? You would think they could choose a more reasuring name for hydrogen powered aircraft, given people's perceptions!

    Of course, by now it's also a bit of a cliché...

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  4. Nevermind that hydrogen had nothing to do with it. by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hindenburg exploded because its envelope was coated in the same chemicals that Morton-Thiakol uses in the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters.

    It doesn't matter if I've eaten Taco bell or not, wearing boxers soaked in rocket fuel is a bad idea.

  5. Re:low energy density by TheTomcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    A simpler method may be simply to install nose radar in *all* sizable airplanes, and automatically engage the autopilot when flying within 1000m of an object (building, mountain, etc.) to avoid it.

    How would a plane equipped suchly ever land?

  6. another alternate energy source... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I believe coal-powered aircraft would be a better compromise. Although possible, a coal-fire would be much less likely.

  7. At least it won't end up like this picture (funny) by antdude · · Score: 3, Funny

    A Dr. Fun cartoon with ants and a blimp. :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Re:just floating down by jmauro · · Score: 5, Funny

    H2 falls slower that H20. H20 is heaver, so it must fall faster! Or at least Aristole said so and he's never, ever wrong. Just ask the church and Gaileo on this one.

  9. Re:New anti-terroristic way of travel! by rbruels · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear hippie Earth child,

    I'M NOT GOING TO WALK FROM NEW YORK TO LOS ANGELES!

    Thank you.

    --

    "All your base are belong to this file I send in order to have your advice."
  10. Re:actually, you're right. by Besa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please explain yourself. Isn't helium a noble gas?

  11. Best use of H as fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hydrogen is very light so even in liquid form you need a large tank to hold it. The solution is to compress it so that it occupies a smaller space. If you can, squeeze it so much that the atoms start fusing. The advantage of this process is that you get lots of energy out and don't have to burn the hydrogen at all.