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?

3 of 701 comments (clear)

  1. Hydrogen Fuel? by Gryffin · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hydrogen as safe alternative fuel... Um... Hindenburg, anyone? =:{o

    No, it wouldn't burn for a sustained time, like jet fuel did, but it would burn even more violently, hence causing more initial injuries.

    In fact, a more violent explosion mith have collapsed the towers right away, and those 10,000 or so folk wouldn't have had the chance to escape like they did.

    Then there's the issue of storage... wouldn't high-pressure crtyogenic fuel tanks be prohibitively heavy for an aircraft?

    --
    Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
  2. Um...the what was that Zepplin? by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 0, Troll

    Am I the only one who remembers why they stopped building hydrogen blimps? You know that problem with them being _highly explosive_?

    Sure, you'd avoid the problem of burning jet fuel after the crash, but wouldn't having a compressed and concentrated supply of hydrogen on board equate to a bigger boom from the start?

  3. How to tell a troll from an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    You can't. Seriously. There is no qualitative difference between the post of a troll and the post of a stumbling, fumbling, blundering, dick-brained, slope-headed, bow-legged, knuckle-dragging thunderfuck moron. A troll and a guy named Stu Pedasso are one and the same, as far as you are concerned. If a troll tripped over Forrest Gump, no one would be able to tell who was who. The only difference is that a troll knows that he's posting nonsense, where an idiot does not. But to the reader, there is no difference because you can't tell whether the poster means what he says or is just trying to get your goat.

    So I recommend that -1 Troll be changed to -1 Idiot so that we can clarify that there is no difference and we don't need to spend a lot of time passing anti-troll legislation. Instead we'll just let Darwin sort 'em out.

    Trolls (and idiots): We know you think you're enormously clever. Realize that we cannot tell. We just think you're a lot of dumbshits.