Comments on: Hydrogen-Burning Hypersonic Airplane: Going Green at Mach-5

By: Maxim

Maxim — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:58:57 +0000

Its an awesome concept, but with no windows? That can be a huge problem, i.e. it can cause motion sickness in some passengers. I believe something must be done about that. Better R&D in the window department is a must.

By: dan

dan — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:50:05 +0000

it is interesting at how smart the human race thinks it is, and how amazingly dumb and lacking in any intellectual idealisms they are, except for the occasional einstien that can truly see through it all.
why not create a more efficient way to remove hydrogen from water rather than crude oil? it is already being done on smaller scales. then alot of your problems discussed no longer exists
dan

By: Pepito Grillo

Pepito Grillo — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:15:02 +0000

Hydrogen being no more dangerous than common fuel???? Hydrogen at high speeds burns with oxygen just by itself. A crack on a seal on a pressurized tank is enough.
Anyway I would love to see this thing flying

By: dave

dave — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:02:08 +0000

HI how about the destruction of humans afterall we are parisites to this beloved earth. How about we lower the worlds population thus cutting enormous emissions and polution all together. China rising will do ten times the amount of damage the USA has done. Something to think about. Maybe there is nothing we can do but just sit back and watch our polar caps melt thus destroying the earths axis and putting us in a death spin.

By: Frank Eggers

Frank Eggers — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:18:30 +0000

This may have possibilities, but what about safety?

The plane would be carrying a large quantity of liquid hydrogen. If the plane crashed, the hydrogen would be released and almost certainly burn. Probably there would be no survivors on the plane, but usually there aren't survivors with tradtional jet fuel anyway. But what about people on the ground? Would they be in greater danger?

Would refueling be safe? What about the large liquid hydrogen tanks at airports? Would they be safe?

It may be that all these problems could be adequately dealt with, but they must be considered.

By: ret

ret — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:31:11 +0000

No more energy is used to make hydrogen than to regular fuel….probably less….and making the aircraft ain’t going to add anything. As airplanes are being manufactured at the present moment it aint adding anything new. Again due to manufacturing developments it might even be less of a carbon problem. Whats not to say spin offs like smaller cheaper hydrogen engine wont happen. Some people wont be happy till we go back to the horse and cart and candles.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:59:56 +0000

It’s only really zero emission if the hydrogen that’s powering it was created using zero emissions. Otherwise, it’s just transferring the emissions from the plane to the power plant producing the energy required to produce hydrogen.

By: apple pie recipe

apple pie recipe — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:06:44 +0000

Zero carbon emissions? Wow. Now if we can only get airlines to adopt it. Thats the problem. Most airlines are cash strapped.

By: Nadia

Nadia — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:20:26 +0000

It is as if many of you have not read the fine print. This is a “concept” aircraft, a long ways off from production if ever. With time comes advanced technology, perhaps in time there will be a way to produce hydrogen fuel at low carbon emission price compared to current methods. Happy to see industries and organizations thinking out of the box to improve our world. It is a wonderful idea, great article.

By: Axel H√•ll√©n

Why is the human race so fixated on flying? There are ways to go 3000 km/h in maglev trains in low pressure tunnels.
check this link out:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/suppes.htm

By: Pat

Pat — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:12:15 +0000

Just something to think about: While this plane has no carbon emmision, so does the factory that produces the hydrogen liquid. And the emmision of the factory to produce the required hydrogen is greater than what the plane would produce by flying with kerosin. The only thing that “might be better” is that the factory can filter the carbon and then pump it beneath the earth. (Thats how factories store the filtered carbonoxide)

By: Takko

Takko — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:15:07 +0000

BRing back the airship! Slower, yes, but sooooo much more comfy

By: James Haselip

James Haselip — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:11:55 +0000

Indeed this does not appear to propose any radical solutions to the air transport dilemma, not least of all because of the known greenhouse effect of high-altitude water vapour emissions. More importantly (and despite the hype) hydrogen technology is decades away from commercial viability, while solutions will be required over the next 5-10 years.
From a short to medium term commercial perspective, the drive to develop and test biofuel aviation is likely to prove popular among increasingly ‘carbon conscious’ air passengers. And while biofuel initiates such as those launched by Virgin and Air New Zealand last year are limited to working within the confines of existing technology and a culture of high speed air travel, the mere fact that airlines are seeking to move beyond what is currently an unsustainable industry is a positive step which could lead to a number of as yet unknown future technology options, perhaps radically different from the dominance of today’s jet-engine travel.
But by thinking bigger, faster and more hi-tech, we may be overlooking more simple technological solutions. For example, a new generation of low-energy airships that could transport passengers and goods at lower altitudes, albeit at slower speeds!
http://www.global-risks.com

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:05:27 +0000

The amount of Nitrous Oxide released is negligible, nothing to raise serious concerns over comparatively. Also, forget not that this concept could take you from New York to London in only 2 hours, that is a remarkable leap in efficiency.
And water vapor discharge is far more friendly to the skies than carbon emissions, in the classic definition of the term it is slated to be a truly ZERO “carbon” emissions aircraft.
Nothing can be produced without something being wasted, let’s not get carried away with picking apart truly advanced, higher efficient and significantly more eco-friendly innovations.
The negativity among many in the green industry is alarming, I say cheers to this concept, I would gladly support something that is far greener than the conventional airliners.