Slashdot Mirror
NASA Announces Enviromentally Friendly Jet Fuel
drama writes "From the Press Release: 'Two years of collaboration between Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., and NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., have led to the development of a non-toxic, easily handled fuel made from a substance similar to what is used in common candles. The by-products of combustion of the new fuel are carbon dioxide and water; unlike conventional rocket fuel that produces aluminum oxide and acidic gasses, such as hydrogen chloride.' Or for pictures and more info, visit the site."
It gets better. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and it is also a product of combustion. You're contributing to global warming every time you boil water.
I think the innovation at hand is not that the fuels are eco-friendly per se, but that they are not toxic. What they've used for rocket fuel in the past was highly toxic. I remember reading a comparison on the relative toxicities of various materials. Anti-nuclear protestors like to exclaim that plutonium is "the most toxic substance on earth." In reality, a person can be exposed to and inhale a fair amount of plutonium and not show any symptoms for years. On the other hand, one good lungful of booster rocket fuel will kill a grown person. That's why boosters have to be filled in the factory; they'd be too toxic to be fueled in an open area like a launch pad.
I don't think you are supposed to ask about how much thrust it produces or ISP or packing density or anything like that. Don't you understand, this is about the ENVIRONMENT, and it is also probably FOR THE CHILDREN! There is no need to ask sensible questions, they used the "E" word. Just give them funding so you can feel good about yourself for caring about Mother Earth.
Now, isn't that easier than turning off unneeded lights or sorting your trash...
By doing so, us reckless Humans are just going to destroy yet another ecosystem. What happens the concentration of CO2 in the water starts increasing? Fish, sharks, whales, and who knows what else will start to suffocate.
Also, I don't think it would be very cost effective either, not to mention machines that would harvest CO2 from the air would just create more waste (most likely in the form of CO2 either directly, or indirectly).
The current approach of dealing with CO2 emissions by REDUCING them seems to be the most logical solution, right now.