PDA

View Full Version : Spaceship design: oxygen storage



jeric_synergy
10-02-2014, 12:42 PM
Hi guys: some science news that could affect spaceship design:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930113254.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

Even if the oxygen density is lower than compression or liquification, the simplicity and safety of storing a SOLID rather than a liquid or gas has obvious benefits.

shadowlock
10-02-2014, 02:39 PM
It reminds me something the size of the breathing apparatus from Star Wars.

Davewriter
10-02-2014, 08:17 PM
It reminds me something the size of the breathing apparatus from Star Wars.

Wouldn't it be great to actually make one that small now?
I know a bunch of folks who would love it!
Kool share.

jeric_synergy
10-03-2014, 12:24 PM
Rats: the scientist made an error on efficiency- a 'bucket' (10ltrs), not a spoonful. --Shoulda known that was too good to be true. :( (An order of magnitude? Sheesh.)

Still: solid vs. gas. I THINK that means the O2 containers for spacecraft could be QUITE a bit lighter. That means either faster speeds or more cargo capacity. That kind of advantage cascades thru the system.

spherical
10-03-2014, 03:13 PM
I'd be interested to learn more about how this process works.


"When the substance is saturated with oxygen, it can be compared to an oxygen tank containing pure oxygen under pressure -- the difference is that this material can hold three times as much oxygen,"

Ok, so you can get rid of the tank. Still, the mass of O2, plus the mass of the crystals binding with it, will be at least three times greater than that which was contained in the tank. An O2 atom is an O2 atom. Atomic Mass is Atomic Mass. Recombining with other elements moves this mass around but doesn't alter it. All that is gained is a reduction in the mass, and perhaps dimensions, of the "container". The substance itself remains the same or it is no longer O2. Re-reading the account, this indeed may be what is happening. The O2 is reorganized into a different structure within the crystalline structure. This still presents the issue of what happens to the O2 atoms, and their atomic mass, however. Unless some heretofore threshold has been crossed, there still is no free lunch; other than the lunch box it comes in.

Where did you find the error correction?

jeric_synergy
10-03-2014, 04:17 PM
On one of the articles covering it. (On another machine/another browser.) Did you make the calculation with the formula.... dang it, can't find the formula-- thought I saw it this morning.

Well, the original article said:
"When the substance is saturated with oxygen, it can be compared to an oxygen tank containing pure oxygen under pressure -- the difference is that this material can hold three times as much oxygen," says Christine McKenzie.
I don't know if that's still true after the correction.

Here's the article w/the correction:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-new-oxygen-hoarding-crystal-is-the-future-of-breathing-underwater

Here's something I don't understand, it's barely English, may include the formula which would allow calculation of the weight:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2014/SC/C4SC01636J#!divAbstract

Even if it's only comparable to the weight of O2 in tanks, the safety factor of a solid vs. gas is very compelling. I like not worrying if my breathing air is escaping into space because a grain of sand holed the tanks. :)

No high pressure. No (crazy) refrigeration. Heck, it's a bit early, but a big sloppy DUMP of this stuff, front loaders and conveyor belts--- it's all very Heinlein Golden Age type stuff, no? :D

pinkmouse
10-03-2014, 04:19 PM
Indeed, extra mass is extra mass. Any decent future spaceship is going to need some sort of O2 recycling, not storage.

jeric_synergy
10-03-2014, 04:22 PM
I think it's going to need both.

And it's not just mass: it's ....dang, what's the elegant word here..... phase (???)-- handling a solid MAY have huge advantages over a fluid or gas.

spherical
10-03-2014, 05:45 PM
Here's the article w/the correction:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-new-oxygen-hoarding-crystal-is-the-future-of-breathing-underwater

Interesting that the other article hasn't reflected this. Now, it's a statistic of two.


Here's something I don't understand, it's barely English, may include the formula which would allow calculation of the weight:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2014/SC/C4SC01636J#!divAbstract

What's a bit alarming is the sub-second uptake that is possible. One wrong, or in some cases deliberate, move and you're on the floor.

jeric_synergy
10-03-2014, 05:57 PM
Yeah, that's some scarey sh!t right there. Non-concussive disabilitating interiors-only grenade. I did a safety film on oxygen-depleted workspaces once-- pretty easy to kill yourself, and a couple other people, if you don't know what you're doing. (Also saw a Kasey Kasum (!!!) narrated animated film on same: "Two Breaths To....". Memorable.)

So, if you're averse to blowing up the bad guys' bunker with all its possible intelligence, toss in a bunch of this stuff. Hell, you might even be able to save them, if you get in in less than 4 minutes.

I predict a run on canaries.

XswampyX
10-03-2014, 06:21 PM
Yep, imagine carpet bombing some city with sugar lump sized cubes of this stuff. It's a wet dream for TPTB. :(

jeric_synergy
10-03-2014, 06:31 PM
Nah, it's strictly a confined-spaces sorta thing.

Hell of a booby trap though: one of the issues with those confined-spaces safety films (I did a bunch of research) was the responders' mortality. One farm in the midwest lost seven people, covering 3 generations, in just one incident. They kept trying to rescue their relatives. Awful.

Oftentimes rookie welders inside tanks fall prey to this. Then somebody climbs in to rescue them. --Even a fairly shallow declivity (4'!) can accumulate CO2 on a still, hot day. Bend over, your head goes under the C02, and that's all she wrote. :(

But generally, that is, almost always, there's enough wind to prevent this.

XswampyX
10-03-2014, 06:37 PM
Ah well, that's ok then. *breathes out*

jeric_synergy
10-03-2014, 06:52 PM
But you REALLY don't want a security service with access to this to know where your air intakes to your bunker are. Just sayin'.

regular
10-03-2014, 07:01 PM
Reminds of the tiny part I played in the "On Board Oxygen Generating System" for fighter aircraft back in the 1980s.
http://www.airliquideadvancedtechnologies.com/en/our-offer/aeronautics/on-board-oxygen-generating-systems/obogs-avions-de-chasse.html

shrox
10-03-2014, 07:08 PM
Yeah, that's some scarey sh!t right there. Non-concussive disabilitating interiors-only grenade. I did a safety film on oxygen-depleted workspaces once-- pretty easy to kill yourself, and a couple other people, if you don't know what you're doing. (Also saw a Kasey Kasum (!!!) narrated animated film on same: "Two Breaths To....". Memorable.)

So, if you're averse to blowing up the bad guys' bunker with all its possible intelligence, toss in a bunch of this stuff. Hell, you might even be able to save them, if you get in in less than 4 minutes.

I predict a run on canaries.

I worked in a federal data center with Halon gas fire suppression, 12 people, but only 4 oxygen bottle/masks...and I was on the other side of the room.

spherical
10-03-2014, 07:17 PM
<Guy>"Hey, don't open that! Is there air!? You don't know!" [holds breath]</Guy>