4 ms·

Hydrogen isn't that dangerous. Creating hydrogen gas through electrolysis is a common chemistry class activity, or at least was back when I was a teenager. Per

Hydrogen isn't that dangerous. Creating hydrogen gas through electrolysis is a common chemistry class activity, or at least was back when I was a teenager. Perhaps the salesperson was paid on commission, and helium would result in a much more profitable sale for them.

dylan604 4y ago
It's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. Why would you even try to whitewash it like that? It's just silly. The amount of gas produced in a high school chemistry lab compared to a full tank is just silly. To compare a high school lab environment with safety equipment and assuming a trained teacher to a couple of knuckleheads with no safety training or equipment doing a balloon launch in a very drought striken part of the state is so not even close to the same. But thanks for trying to make it seem so much less dangerous than what it is
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  Or perhaps you're trying to make it seem so much more dangerous than it is.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  > It's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. Well yeah, but inert gas doesn’t really help you accelerate massive objects to orbital velocity. It is good for taking up space in the tanks as you burn the propellant though. Edit: nevermind, should probably understand the context of the discussion before joining it.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    huh? i'm launching a friggin balloon. what story thread are you reading that i'm lifting payload into orbit?
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      Ah, my bad. Hadn’t read all the way back to the beginning of the thread
- moeris 4y ago
  > It's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. I dunno, some inert gases can be dangerous. You don't want to inhale an inert gas that's heavier than air.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    It's not a nitrous tank. What kind of backwoods hillbilly do you take me for to think I'd be huffing a tank of inert gas?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- peerpan123 4y ago
  As far as propellants go it is relatively safe. If you want dangerous, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Rocket_propellant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Rocket_pr...
- oliwarner 4y ago
  > Why would you even try to whitewash it like that? Because non-flammable, inert gases aren't that useful for pushing things into space. The window of discussion here (in the broader sense, obv) is inherently explosive. Yes, there's an important safety aspect here but NASA aren't taking advice from HN threads. I happen to agree with GP. While hydrogen provides certain challenges, the human race has to embrace it. It's possibly the only workaround for a near-time methane shortage, especially as it can be generated locally (and cheaply) via PV. A much cheaper "battery" than Li-based batteries, and possibly a fuel for CCGT power stations to run from (blended and not).
  - dylan604 4y ago
    the actual window of discussion was launching a weather balloon. the weight of the payload was less than 16oz. it was not attempting to achieve orbit. its sole purpose was to go as high as the expansion of the balloon material would allow at whatever speed it could before falling back to terra firma. it was tale of how me personally had a near experience using hydrogen, but was convinced that might just be a bad idea. the fact that a NASA rocket is experiencing an issue with hydrogen is what prompted me to share the story. everyone else seeems to think i'm launching rockets with hydrogen as a fuel source.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Well, it was handling a tank of compressed hydrogen. In your story the balloon was just a foil.
gh02t 4y ago
It's pretty damn dangerous when there is a potential for a combined 90000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen in close proximity... the presence of concentrated oxygen GREATLY increases the explosive power of hydrogen and Artemis carries a LOT of both. Compare on just the scale of a few milligrams: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_RKdWYqgu3Y https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_RKdWYqgu3Y Source: https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fired-up-engines-and-motors-put-artemis-mission-in-motion.html https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fired-up-engine...
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  It's not "explode just because you looked at it funny" dangerous. Hydrogen is not hypergolic. With basic safety precautions (ventilation and making sure there are no ignition sources in the vicinity) I'd be happy to let my kids play with a tank full of hydrogen.
  - gh02t 4y ago
    I mean you're right I'd rather deal with hydrogen than hydrazine or HF, but I'll respect your parenting choices from a safe distance.
    - CrazyStat 4y ago
      Hydrazine and HF can both kill you by skin contact or inhalation. The comparison isn't even close. The dangers of hydrogen are basically "oops I breathed so much hydrogen that I got no oxygen for several minutes" or "oops I accidentally ignited it", both of which are easily avoided by basic safety precautions. In the context of filling a high altitude balloon that started this thread, asphyxiation is easily avoided by doing it outside, and ignition sources can be eliminated with a little care. This kind of fear-mongering--"could explode just because you looked at it funny" etc.--is irresponsible.

dylan604 4y ago

It's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. Why would you even try to whitewash it like that? It's just silly. The amount of gas produced in a high school chemistry lab compared to a full tank is just silly. To compare a high school lab environment with safety equipment and assuming a trained teacher to a couple of knuckleheads with no safety training or equipment doing a balloon launch in a very drought striken part of the state is so not even close to the same. But thanks for trying to make it seem so much less dangerous than what it is

CrazyStat 4y ago
Or perhaps you're trying to make it seem so much more dangerous than it is.
bandyaboot 4y ago
> It's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. Well yeah, but inert gas doesn’t really help you accelerate massive objects to orbital velocity. It is good for taking up space in the tanks as you burn the propellant though. Edit: nevermind, should probably understand the context of the discussion before joining it.
- dylan604 4y ago
  huh? i'm launching a friggin balloon. what story thread are you reading that i'm lifting payload into orbit?
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    Ah, my bad. Hadn’t read all the way back to the beginning of the thread
moeris 4y ago
> It's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. I dunno, some inert gases can be dangerous. You don't want to inhale an inert gas that's heavier than air.
- dylan604 4y ago
  It's not a nitrous tank. What kind of backwoods hillbilly do you take me for to think I'd be huffing a tank of inert gas?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
peerpan123 4y ago
As far as propellants go it is relatively safe. If you want dangerous, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Rocket_propellant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Rocket_pr...
oliwarner 4y ago
> Why would you even try to whitewash it like that? Because non-flammable, inert gases aren't that useful for pushing things into space. The window of discussion here (in the broader sense, obv) is inherently explosive. Yes, there's an important safety aspect here but NASA aren't taking advice from HN threads. I happen to agree with GP. While hydrogen provides certain challenges, the human race has to embrace it. It's possibly the only workaround for a near-time methane shortage, especially as it can be generated locally (and cheaply) via PV. A much cheaper "battery" than Li-based batteries, and possibly a fuel for CCGT power stations to run from (blended and not).
- dylan604 4y ago
  the actual window of discussion was launching a weather balloon. the weight of the payload was less than 16oz. it was not attempting to achieve orbit. its sole purpose was to go as high as the expansion of the balloon material would allow at whatever speed it could before falling back to terra firma. it was tale of how me personally had a near experience using hydrogen, but was convinced that might just be a bad idea. the fact that a NASA rocket is experiencing an issue with hydrogen is what prompted me to share the story. everyone else seeems to think i'm launching rockets with hydrogen as a fuel source.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Well, it was handling a tank of compressed hydrogen. In your story the balloon was just a foil.

gh02t 4y ago

It's pretty damn dangerous when there is a potential for a combined 90000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen in close proximity... the presence of concentrated oxygen GREATLY increases the explosive power of hydrogen and Artemis carries a LOT of both. Compare on just the scale of a few milligrams: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_RKdWYqgu3Y https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_RKdWYqgu3Y Source: https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fired-up-engines-and-motors-put-artemis-mission-in-motion.html https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fired-up-engine...

CrazyStat 4y ago
It's not "explode just because you looked at it funny" dangerous. Hydrogen is not hypergolic. With basic safety precautions (ventilation and making sure there are no ignition sources in the vicinity) I'd be happy to let my kids play with a tank full of hydrogen.
- gh02t 4y ago
  I mean you're right I'd rather deal with hydrogen than hydrazine or HF, but I'll respect your parenting choices from a safe distance.
  - CrazyStat 4y ago
    Hydrazine and HF can both kill you by skin contact or inhalation. The comparison isn't even close. The dangers of hydrogen are basically "oops I breathed so much hydrogen that I got no oxygen for several minutes" or "oops I accidentally ignited it", both of which are easily avoided by basic safety precautions. In the context of filling a high altitude balloon that started this thread, asphyxiation is easily avoided by doing it outside, and ignition sources can be eliminated with a little care. This kind of fear-mongering--"could explode just because you looked at it funny" etc.--is irresponsible.