Naval LOX usage?

It's a bit OT, but someone here must know this sort of thing.

Catching up on another newsgroup, I find a discussion of LN2, and
someone being very enthusiastic about anecdotes for it - they never had
a chance to play with it, only to be trained to handle it. And,
likewise, trained to handle LOX. (in a gratuitously paranoid manner -
up to and including mandating white clothing)

This was, apparently, in the US Navy, probably in the context of
flight-deck (or at least NAS) operations, circa 1990.

I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why?
I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle
this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is
it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid
missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason
naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to
me?

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:

I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why?
I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle
this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is
it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid
missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason
naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to
me?

Pilots breathe O2 through their masks; could it be stored as LOX
in some aircraft?

Paul

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
It's a bit OT, but someone here must know this sort of thing.

Catching up on another newsgroup, I find a discussion of LN2, and
someone being very enthusiastic about anecdotes for it - they never had
a chance to play with it, only to be trained to handle it. And,
likewise, trained to handle LOX. (in a gratuitously paranoid manner -
up to and including mandating white clothing)

This was, apparently, in the US Navy, probably in the context of
flight-deck (or at least NAS) operations, circa 1990.

I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why?
I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle
this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is
it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid
missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason
naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to
me?

Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of the
size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in
military aircraft (navy and air force).

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" writes:
Andrew Gray wrote:

I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why?
I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle
this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is
it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid
missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason
naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to
me?

Pilots breathe O2 through their masks; could it be stored as LOX
in some aircraft?

Indeed it is. To my direct knowledge, the F-4 and A-5 both stored
their breathing oxygen as LOX. (As do many other aircraft - F-16s use
LOX as well) It makes a lot of sense, if you can carry your LOX jenny
with you - it doesn't take up a lot of colume within the airplane, and
doesn't need to be stored at high pressure. Aviator's Breathing Oxygen
has to be incredibly pure & dry to avoid both physiological and
mechanical problems in flight. It's a lot wasier to make pure LOX,
since pretty much all of the contaminants freeze out as you squeeze
the LOX out of the air.
While LOX can be fairly dangerous to handle, it's not any less safe
than Big Honkin' Pressure Bottles. Those don't take damage well, and
cause all sorts of evil when they explode.

The use of LOX in aviation goes back to the 1930s at least. The
Martin B-10 bomber of the mid '30s used LOX as a means to store its
breathing oxygen (A fiarly new wrinkle, at htat time) Servicing a
B-10s LOX system consisted of dipping a pail into a Dewar (Fancy name
for Thermos) of LOX, and pouring it by hand into a container in the
airplane.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Alan Erskine wrote:

Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of the
size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in
military aircraft (navy and air force).

I have heard something about a zeolite O2 enrichment device, but I don't know
if it's been deployed in aircraft.

Paul

Andrew Gray wrote:

Is there a perfectly logical reason naval technicians would have
to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to me?

The O2 systems in the aircraft are charged with LOX, not HP GOX as you
might think. Why? Dammifino.

Googling on "CVN LOX" yields several interesting pages.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Alan Erskine wrote:

Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of
the
size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in
military aircraft (navy and air force).

I have heard something about a zeolite O2 enrichment device, but I don't
know
if it's been deployed in aircraft.

Not sure either. I know there's a nitrogen enrichment device on the C-17
for the fuel tanks, but I don't know what they do with the 'waste' gas -
mostly O2.


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

In article ,
"Alan Erskine" writes:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Alan Erskine wrote:

Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of
the
size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in
military aircraft (navy and air force).

I have heard something about a zeolite O2 enrichment device, but I don't
know
if it's been deployed in aircraft.

Not sure either. I know there's a nitrogen enrichment device on the C-17
for the fuel tanks, but I don't know what they do with the 'waste' gas -
mostly O2.

Some airplanes are carrying onboard oxygen generators, but I don't
know what technology they're using.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:

Some airplanes are carrying onboard oxygen generators, but I don't
know what technology they're using.


LOX is used by combat aircraft because of the amount of oxygen that can
be stored in a small area at low pressure by the use of cryogenic
liquefaction; during the fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal, everyone was
_very_ lucky that the shrapnel from the bombs that cooked off didn't
puncture the carrier's onboard LOX storage tank (she could manufacture
LOX while underway), as the contact between the LOX and burning JP-4
would have led to an severe explosion; the shrapnel missed the tank by a
few feet.
This was discussed on the History Channel (or Discovery Channel) show
about the fire on the Forrestal.
The use of LOX in regards to breathing at high altitudes goes clean back
to World War 1; it was used by the German dirigible crews for high
altitude Zeppelin attacks.

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery writes:


Peter Stickney wrote:

Some airplanes are carrying onboard oxygen generators, but I don't
know what technology they're using.


LOX is used by combat aircraft because of the amount of oxygen that can
be stored in a small area at low pressure by the use of cryogenic
liquefaction; during the fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal, everyone was
_very_ lucky that the shrapnel from the bombs that cooked off didn't
puncture the carrier's onboard LOX storage tank (she could manufacture
LOX while underway), as the contact between the LOX and burning JP-4
would have led to an severe explosion; the shrapnel missed the tank by a
few feet.

Uh, Pat, I mentioned that upthread in my reply to Paul Dietz's post.
The interesting part is, that despite LOX's dangers, it's actually
safer than storing compressed O2.

My statement above, which should have been more clear, was in
reference to the Onboard Oxygen Generating Systems used in the latest
airplanes. Those systems don't require much in the way od storage -
they pull O2 out of the ambient air as they go. I'm not sure what
technology those use. It may be Zeolites, but it could also be some
manner of Osmotic Membrane.

This was discussed on the History Channel (or Discovery Channel) show
about the fire on the Forrestal.

Then a fact may, by some accident, have slipped past their
researchers. (Not a slap at you, Pat. But I've found
Disovery/History/Whatever the Other Channe;'s Called to be sorely
lacking in readsonably well researched content. I'm not the only one,
either most of us in the AvHistory world have had to deal with their
"Fact Checkers", and found it to be pointless. (And yes, I know that
they don't produce most of theri content, but use stuff from
independants. That still doesn't absolve them from checking things
out.))

The use of LOX in regards to breathing at high altitudes goes clean back
to World War 1; it was used by the German dirigible crews for high
altitude Zeppelin attacks.

I thought they'd used compressed O2. But, thinking about it, the best
way to get that, back then, would have been to liquify the O2 out of
the air.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster