4 ms·
Wouldn't the early iterations of something generally be pretty lame? Seems possible in 50 years or so things could be more mobile or advanced in other manners.
by codyb 4y ago
Wouldn't the early iterations of something generally be pretty lame?
Seems possible in 50 years or so things could be more mobile or advanced in other manners.
Either way, certainly interested in seeing what the USAF will be doing to get to 0 emissions. I have a sense they may be able to harness resources towards goal a bit more effectively than some of our more fractured systems of governance.
- bequanna 4y agoOnly if you can also make energy storage super small and portable for those times when the sun isn’t shining. Seems easier to invest in micro reactors.
- ncmncm 4y agoMicro reactors are an obvious dead end. "Super small" energy storage is called synthetic fuel, something that has already been demonstrated practical for military deployment.
- nine_k 4y agoUSAF can go carbon-neutral by sourcing synthetic fuel. Zero-emission, never.
- ncmncm 4y agoEmitting only water vapor is well within foreseeable development. LH2 fuel would provide better range, besides. In certain circumstances, ammonia as fuel would make more sense.
- nine_k 4y agoReplacing compact, lightweight, low-maintenance kerosene tanks with larger cryogenic containers and fighting hydrogen's propensity to penetrate metals and rubbers and make them brittle is not an easy sell. It may make sense in some cases (like large cargo planes), but in a lot of others, like small, high-g semi-autonomous combat aircraft of the future, it may not be practical. Or maybe metallic hydrogen at standard conditions will be attained soon enough.
- ncmncm 4y agoPeople will do whatever makes better sense according to experience and instant circumstances. There is no need to speculate. But LH2 aircraft, wherever actually deployed, will be impossible to compete with.