1 (current)
2
# 8037 byoevega@... on June 6, 2006, 4:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_nanotubes_060602.html
Well, there still a chance scramjets work :)
Omar
# 8038 bypanamabob@... on June 6, 2006, 5:17 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
whats wrong with the two stage balloon concept? one that gets you to around 140,000 feet and the next that goes higher... once up there , air resistence is low and rocketing to high earth orbit should be easy... ??
# 8039 bylucioc@... on June 6, 2006, 5:30 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 6/6/06, panamabob@...
wrote:
(...)
> whats wrong with the two stage balloon concept? one that gets you to around 140,000 feet and the next that goes higher... once up there , air resistence is low and rocketing to high earth orbit should be easy... ??
(...)
amount of fuel needed...
# 8040 bydehammer@... on June 6, 2006, 5:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
no. we just need to keep looking for something better that the
nanotubes
>
> Hi,
>
> It seem we'll have to say good bye to space elevators for now.
>
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_nanotubes_060602.html
# 8041 bydehammer@... on June 6, 2006, 5:35 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
let me ask you t his. how does the first balloon get to orbital speed
(about 5 miles a second). if it does not, how does the transfer
station stay in orbit.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> whats wrong with the two stage balloon concept? one that gets you
to around 140,000 feet and the next that goes higher... once up
there , air resistence is low and rocketing to high earth orbit should
be easy... ??
# 8042 bypanamabob@... on June 6, 2006, 5:41 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
orbital speed?
your floating up there, what else do you want? To move about doesnt require getting to 17,000 mph...unless you want to circle the globe real fast...
from that platform you then go away as you wish... small amount of thrust continuously, no big bang needed.
Granted, you wont get to this point in under 10 minutes like present rockets, but what's the hurry? A space elevator won't do it that fast either...
:-))
From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
let me ask you t his. how does the first balloon get to orbital speed
(about 5 miles a second). if it does not, how does the transfer
station stay in orbit.
just getting to the correct altitude does not take care of the problem.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> whats wrong with the two stage balloon concept? one that gets you
to around 140,000 feet and the next that goes higher... once up
there , air resistence is low and rocketing to high earth orbit should
be easy... ??
>
# 8043 bylucioc@... on June 6, 2006, 6:09 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 6/6/06, panamabob@...
wrote:
(...)
> your floating up there, what else do you want? To move about doesnt require getting to 17,000 mph...unless you want to circle the globe real fast...
>
> from that platform you then go away as you wish... small amount of thrust continuously, no big bang needed.
(...)
altitude of 30Km. I am afraid to say that it will be basically the
same gravity at sea level, and so you will still need high thrust
rockets to counteract gravity.
# 8044 bypanamabob@... on June 6, 2006, 6:29 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
why would gravity be much lower at 30 kliks?
think of being in a boat on the sea...
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
On 6/6/06, panamabob@...
wrote:
(...)
> your floating up there, what else do you want? To move about doesnt require getting to 17,000 mph...unless you want to circle the globe real fast...
>
> from that platform you then go away as you wish... small amount of thrust continuously, no big bang needed.
(...)
It seems that you are assuming that gravity will be quite low at an
altitude of 30Km. I am afraid to say that it will be basically the
same gravity at sea level, and so you will still need high thrust
rockets to counteract gravity.
# 8045 bylucioc@... on June 6, 2006, 6:40 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 6/6/06, panamabob@...
wrote:
(...)
> counter acting gravity by buoyancy.. thrust just to move you over the earth surface...
>
> think of being in a boat on the sea...
(...)
proposing to have a low thrust system that would accelerate
horizontally an (air/space)ship "floating" on the "surface" of
atmosphere, until reaching orbital or escape velocity. Is that it?
Maybe that will work, though I am still skeptical. At an altitude of
30Km air is still thick enough to flame meteors or ships entering the
atmosphere, as far as I remember, which means that the air-space-ship
will have problems as it gets faster. Resistance of air increases
quadratically with speed, and it is also worth to remember that the
air resistance-to-mass ratio of balloons is quite unfavorable.
# 8046 byian.woollard@... on June 6, 2006, 7:01 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I've read the paper, and I'm not clear he's right though. It critically
depends on whether the assumptions behind the maths apply to all possible
space elevators (as in he might be right for the current design, but is it
possible to redesign it to avoid the problems he's found?)
kilometer for an object as big as a space elevator.
My reading of this is that a hoy tether construction such that the redundant
legs are longer than 1 kilometer would probably survive, so his maths would
not be correct.
(Hoy tethers are interesting because they have built in redundancy to
failure, so a single failure, like a crack can't propagate to failure of the
entire structure, unlike normal monolithic structures that his maths was
designed for.)
--
-Ian Woollard
"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as if
were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this Sunday.
They need to calibrate their system."
# 8047 bypanamabob@... on June 6, 2006, 7:51 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
aint communication a bitch on the emails?
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
On 6/6/06, panamabob@...
wrote:
(...)
> counter acting gravity by buoyancy.. thrust just to move you over the earth surface...
>
> think of being in a boat on the sea...
(...)
Okay, now I think that I understood what you are saying. You are
proposing to have a low thrust system that would accelerate
horizontally an (air/space)ship "floating" on the "surface" of
atmosphere, until reaching orbital or escape velocity. Is that it?
Maybe that will work, though I am still skeptical. At an altitude of
30Km air is still thick enough to flame meteors or ships entering the
atmosphere, as far as I remember, which means that the air-space-ship
will have problems as it gets faster. Resistance of air increases
quadratically with speed, and it is also worth to remember that the
air resistance-to-mass ratio of balloons is quite unfavorable.
# 8048 bylucioc@... on June 6, 2006, 8:09 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 6/6/06, panamabob@...
(...)
> first stage balloon goes to 140,000 , then second balloon goes higher from there, reaching potentially altitude of ISS at 200 miles or so...once at the upper level of atmosphere you move about horizontally, or outwards...
(...)
existant, will float up to 30Km only. It doesn' t matter if there are
two stages, the buyoancy forces will keep the second stage at the same
altitude of the first one.
# 8049 bylucioc@... on June 6, 2006, 8:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 6/6/06, panamabob@...
(...)
> first stage balloon goes to 140,000 , then second balloon goes higher from there, reaching potentially altitude of ISS at 200 miles or so...once at the upper level of atmosphere you move about horizontally, or outwards...
(...)
existant, will float up to 30Km only. It doesn' t matter if there are
two stages, the buyoancy forces will keep the second stage at the same
altitude of the first one.
# 8050 byoevega@... on June 6, 2006, 8:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> aint communication a bitch on the emails?
>
> first stage balloon goes to 140,000 , then second balloon goes
>higher from there, reaching potentially altitude of ISS at 200
miles >or so...once at the upper level of atmosphere you move about
>horizontally, or outwards...
>
It does not matter how high it goes, it will fall down once again.
What keeps satellites in orbit is speed, not altitude.
The speed necesary to keep then in orbit is around mach 25 and has
to be in a direction perpendicular to the earth. When you reach that
speed, the centrifugal acceleration balance with gravity, so it
seems gravity is not there anymore.
In fact astronouts are not really in zero g. They are just falling
to the ground but miss earth every time they turn around it.
A ballon won't do it.
Omar Vega
# 8051 bydante_feditech@... on June 6, 2006, 9:18 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: panamabob@...
> why would gravity be much lower at 30 kliks?
> counter acting gravity by buoyancy.. thrust just to move you
> over the earth surface...
> think of being in a boat on the sea...
air to support your balloon' are mutually exclusive. I've heard of this idea
before any it's interesting to note that noone has ever published an
engineering study explaining exactly how it's suppored to work and at what
altitude.
Nor do they explain how big the balloon woudl have to be in order to suport
a meaningful rocket.
John
# 8052 byspace.action@... on June 6, 2006, 9:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Spiral-shaped Carbon nano-tubes just discovered --
# 8053 bydehammer@... on June 6, 2006, 10:46 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
one description of a stable orbit ive heard and think is pretty good,
is that situtation where you move far enough forward (perpendicular
to the earth closest surface) while falling (towards the earth), so
that the earth falls away the same distance. of course this is a
completely circular orbit, there are other orbits that are a bit more
complicated. when your in zero g in the neighborhood of a relatively
large object, such as near earth or inside the orbit of the oorts
cloud is to the sun, what you are actually doing is falling around it
at the same speed as things near you.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> >
> > aint communication a bitch on the emails?
> >
> > first stage balloon goes to 140,000 , then second balloon goes
> >higher from there, reaching potentially altitude of ISS at 200
> miles >or so...once at the upper level of atmosphere you move
about
> >horizontally, or outwards...
> >
> Hi,
>
> It does not matter how high it goes, it will fall down once again.
> What keeps satellites in orbit is speed, not altitude.
>
> The speed necesary to keep then in orbit is around mach 25 and has
> to be in a direction perpendicular to the earth. When you reach
that
# 8054 bydehammer@... on June 6, 2006, 10:48 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
the difference in a space elevator is that you would go up until you
reach the geo stationary orbit, accelerating very slowly as you go up.
>
> orbital speed?
>
> why?
>
> your floating up there, what else do you want? To move about
doesnt require getting to 17,000 mph...unless you want to circle the
globe real fast...
>
> from that platform you then go away as you wish... small amount of
thrust continuously, no big bang needed.
>
> Granted, you wont get to this point in under 10 minutes like
present rockets, but what's the hurry? A space elevator won't do it
that fast either...
>
> :-))
> From: Robert
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 1:33 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
>
> let me ask you t his. how does the first balloon get to orbital
speed
> (about 5 miles a second). if it does not, how does the transfer
> station stay in orbit.
>
> just getting to the correct altitude does not take care of the
problem.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> >
> > whats wrong with the two stage balloon concept? one that gets
you
> to around 140,000 feet and the next that goes higher... once up
> there , air resistence is low and rocketing to high earth orbit
should
# 8055 bypanamabob@... on June 7, 2006, 6:51 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
a balloon wont do what? hang around up there and not "fall"?
many as you say mistakenly call zero g what is really endless free fall... lots of misconceptions.
it may be huge, but it would seem that a balloon could stay up in definitely floating on upper levels of atmosphere .... moving from one spot over the earth to another doesnt require any high speed per say, albeit the movement would be appropriately slow. Of course the ISS is somewhat ungainly and hardly aero dynamic and yet whips around at 15,000+ mph. Although a higher elevation than the 140,000 base suggested altitude.
For the moment it seem more attainable than space elevator dreams...
From: Omar E. Vega
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:23 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> aint communication a bitch on the emails?
>
> first stage balloon goes to 140,000 , then second balloon goes
>higher from there, reaching potentially altitude of ISS at 200
miles >or so...once at the upper level of atmosphere you move about
>horizontally, or outwards...
>
Hi,
It does not matter how high it goes, it will fall down once again.
What keeps satellites in orbit is speed, not altitude.
The speed necesary to keep then in orbit is around mach 25 and has
to be in a direction perpendicular to the earth. When you reach that
speed, the centrifugal acceleration balance with gravity, so it
seems gravity is not there anymore.
In fact astronouts are not really in zero g. They are just falling
to the ground but miss earth every time they turn around it.
A ballon won't do it.
Omar Vega
# 8056 bydehammer@... on June 7, 2006, 10:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> a balloon wont do what? hang around up there and not "fall"?
>
lose gas on a constant bases since there is no material that usual-
able that is completely airtight. also at that altitude it would
constantly be at risk to tiny meteroids that constantly bombard our
atmosphere and burn up. even one would require maintenance or the
balloon would fall. also the balloon would require the atmosphere to
be able to stay up. this would block the ability of anything inside
the gondola from being able to see to the side, and the balloon would
block its ability to see upwards. this removes a large amount of the
usefulness of the satellite. the fact that the wind would cause it to
constantly be moving, unless you carry a considerable amount of fuel,
in unpredictable directions takes away the ability of it to be used
for naviagation and communications. any use for military would be
short term.
> it may be huge, but it would seem that a balloon could stay up in
definitely floating on upper levels of atmosphere .... moving from
one spot over the earth to another doesnt require any high speed per
say, albeit the movement would be appropriately slow. Of course the
ISS is somewhat ungainly and hardly aero dynamic and yet whips around
at 15,000+ mph. Although a higher elevation than the 140,000 base
suggested altitude.
the difference in the altitude is what takes away the need for aero
dynamics. it will not hit the atmosphere and survive. that means it
can travel at 15000+ mph.
>
> For the moment it seem more attainable than space elevator
dreams...
it depends on what your trying to do. a short (week at the most)
flight at that altitude would not be out of the question. if your
looking at something that is suppose to be there for years, then its
about the same chance as the space elevator.
# 8057 bypanamabob@... on June 7, 2006, 11:05 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
interesting thoughts on balloon
have you checked out the website ? seems they have gotten up to 100,000 ft. looks similar to "space" pix at that point...earth curve, black "sky" ...
the zeppelin folks talked about aircraft shooting the dirigibles and noted that the holes were relatively small considering the volume of the airships...and that was a WHOLE bunch smaller volume than this 2 mile behemoth.
I think the size of the platform has to do with the air density at that elevation...not a lot of air to provide buoyancy, and by that same token, not much internal gas to have high pressure to leak out.
ISS or space station has to constantly get boosted up because of drag (even at its altitude) or it will lose position, drop into higher density air , create more drag and "fall" ... nothing is permanent... :-))
I just think since so far space elevators materials are not even on the horizon, and this IS doable now, that it would be interesting to consider this more likely as reachable in next 10 years than anything else I have heard of...
From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 6:11 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> a balloon wont do what? hang around up there and not "fall"?
>
sorry no. the balloon would require constant maintenance. it would
lose gas on a constant bases since there is no material that usual-
able that is completely airtight. also at that altitude it would
constantly be at risk to tiny meteroids that constantly bombard our
atmosphere and burn up. even one would require maintenance or the
balloon would fall. also the balloon would require the atmosphere to
be able to stay up. this would block the ability of anything inside
the gondola from being able to see to the side, and the balloon would
block its ability to see upwards. this removes a large amount of the
usefulness of the satellite. the fact that the wind would cause it to
constantly be moving, unless you carry a considerable amount of fuel,
in unpredictable directions takes away the ability of it to be used
for naviagation and communications. any use for military would be
short term.
> it may be huge, but it would seem that a balloon could stay up in
definitely floating on upper levels of atmosphere .... moving from
one spot over the earth to another doesnt require any high speed per
say, albeit the movement would be appropriately slow. Of course the
ISS is somewhat ungainly and hardly aero dynamic and yet whips around
at 15,000+ mph. Although a higher elevation than the 140,000 base
suggested altitude.
the difference in the altitude is what takes away the need for aero
dynamics. it will not hit the atmosphere and survive. that means it
can travel at 15000+ mph.
>
> For the moment it seem more attainable than space elevator
dreams...
it depends on what your trying to do. a short (week at the most)
flight at that altitude would not be out of the question. if your
looking at something that is suppose to be there for years, then its
about the same chance as the space elevator.
# 8058 bydehammer@... on June 8, 2006, 2:05 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> have you checked out the website ? seems they have gotten up to
100,000 ft. looks similar to "space" pix at that point...earth
curve, black "sky" ...
photograph of a person on mars. how many starts do you see in the
back ground of that photo
>
> the zeppelin folks talked about aircraft shooting the dirigibles
and noted that the holes were relatively small considering the volume
of the airships...and that was a WHOLE bunch smaller volume than this
2 mile behemoth.
even cross atlantic dirigibles did not stay up more than a few days.
they were also close to the ground so that the difference between the
air density of the hydrogen bags (yes they used flamable hydrogen)
and the dense air did not matter if they lost a little bit. have you
ever noticed how small the "car" was to the dirigible used then.
since they use helium now, its even smaller in compairison
>
> I think the size of the platform has to do with the air density at
that elevation...not a lot of air to provide buoyancy, and by that
same token, not much internal gas to have high pressure to leak out.
the amount of bouyance previded is determined by the difference in
the weight of the gas inside the gas bag, and the same amount of air
it replaces. if there is not much air, it does not matter how much of
a difference there is in the gas (helium compaired to normal air) it
will not be much of a difference, even with a 2 cubic mile balloon.
the size of the gondala will be small, meaning that it will not be
able to carry much fuel to accelerate the payload to orbit speed.
unless it can obtain orbital speed, it cant stay there more than a
matter of months at the best, days more likely.
>
> ISS or space station has to constantly get boosted up because of
drag (even at its altitude) or it will lose position, drop into
higher density air , create more drag and "fall" ... nothing is
permanent... :-))
not even the moon. the thing is that its a matter of how long it will
be there. the ISS will stay there for a year without a boost, and
they are talking about moving it even higher.
>
> I just think since so far space elevators materials are not even on
the horizon, and this IS doable now, that it would be interesting to
consider this more likely as reachable in next 10 years than
anything else I have heard of...
>
like I said. it depends on what you expect it to do. put something up
for a few days or perhaps even a month, with no control over where it
goes to, no problem. put something into orbit, or to a space station,
or to the moon, sorry. the space elevator will be here first. not
unless they come up with a better ion engine.
# 8059 bypanamabob@... on June 8, 2006, 2:35 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
wow zeppelins stay up for only a few days... wonder how they did the round the world flights
>From what I see "something else" will be around and operating before current ideas for space elevators will come around.
Healthy questioning is good, but one must also accept a certain amount without challenging... I think there is not much doubt that balloons have reached 100,000 ft and that the pics shown are "real" .
Oh well, discussing "balloons" is fun but they will either be doing something within a couple of years or not. Short enough time frame to see where these things go.
the gondola or control room seen hanging below the old dirigibles is deceptive, since the payload area was usually inside the airframe, not exterior.
Check out details sometime on the Hindenburg and you you'll see quite a bit of "stuff' including staterooms, salon, and more.
Modern day helium blimps like the advertising ones seen over sporting events etc. are in volume quite small in comparison to the huge dirigibles of old. Still, its pretty amazing to ride in one...
:-))
I'm a long time aficionado of lighter than air vehicles...
From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> have you checked out the website ? seems they have gotten up to
100,000 ft. looks similar to "space" pix at that point...earth
curve, black "sky" ...
yes ive checked it out. ive also checked out a site that had a
photograph of a person on mars. how many starts do you see in the
back ground of that photo
>
> the zeppelin folks talked about aircraft shooting the dirigibles
and noted that the holes were relatively small considering the volume
of the airships...and that was a WHOLE bunch smaller volume than this
2 mile behemoth.
even cross atlantic dirigibles did not stay up more than a few days.
they were also close to the ground so that the difference between the
air density of the hydrogen bags (yes they used flamable hydrogen)
and the dense air did not matter if they lost a little bit. have you
ever noticed how small the "car" was to the dirigible used then.
since they use helium now, its even smaller in compairison
>
> I think the size of the platform has to do with the air density at
that elevation...not a lot of air to provide buoyancy, and by that
same token, not much internal gas to have high pressure to leak out.
the amount of bouyance previded is determined by the difference in
the weight of the gas inside the gas bag, and the same amount of air
it replaces. if there is not much air, it does not matter how much of
a difference there is in the gas (helium compaired to normal air) it
will not be much of a difference, even with a 2 cubic mile balloon.
the size of the gondala will be small, meaning that it will not be
able to carry much fuel to accelerate the payload to orbit speed.
unless it can obtain orbital speed, it cant stay there more than a
matter of months at the best, days more likely.
>
> ISS or space station has to constantly get boosted up because of
drag (even at its altitude) or it will lose position, drop into
higher density air , create more drag and "fall" ... nothing is
permanent... :-))
not even the moon. the thing is that its a matter of how long it will
be there. the ISS will stay there for a year without a boost, and
they are talking about moving it even higher.
>
> I just think since so far space elevators materials are not even on
the horizon, and this IS doable now, that it would be interesting to
consider this more likely as reachable in next 10 years than
anything else I have heard of...
>
like I said. it depends on what you expect it to do. put something up
for a few days or perhaps even a month, with no control over where it
goes to, no problem. put something into orbit, or to a space station,
or to the moon, sorry. the space elevator will be here first. not
unless they come up with a better ion engine.
# 8060 bydehammer@... on June 8, 2006, 4:43 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> wow zeppelins stay up for only a few days... wonder how they did
the round the world flights
>
simple they used refueling stops. the first nonstop around the world
flight occurred during the 90's but Dick Ratan and his partner.
>
> From what I see "something else" will be around and operating
before current ideas for space elevators will come around.
>
very possible. but i believe this will be about the same time. or
perhaps not even that soon.
>
> Healthy questioning is good, but one must also accept a certain
amount without challenging... I think there is not much doubt that
balloons have reached 100,000 ft and that the pics shown are "real" .
>
> Oh well, discussing "balloons" is fun but they will either be doing
something within a couple of years or not. Short enough time frame to
see where these things go.
that they indicate that a large amount of cargo is possible. to my
understanding, there is still not real cargo ever carried up. the
balloons they used are extremely large, yet they can barely carry
the equipment to do the study of the atmosphere near the balloon.
that equipment is not that heavy. the picture suggest that the sign
is big, but it could just as easily be less than a mm big.
>
> the gondola or control room seen hanging below the old dirigibles
is deceptive, since the payload area was usually inside the airframe,
not exterior.
>
actually the majority of that space is filled with huge air bags.
there is little room for cargo there.
> Check out details sometime on the Hindenburg and you you'll see
quite a bit of "stuff' including staterooms, salon, and more.
unless I'm mistaken, those were almost all in the the Hindenburg is
one of the few airships to have the passenger area inside the
envelope.
>
> Modern day helium blimps like the advertising ones seen over
sporting events etc. are in volume quite small in comparison to the
huge dirigibles of old. Still, its pretty amazing to ride in one...
>
the thing is that they are all low lvl vehicles. the reason for that
is that their lift is created by replacing a volume of air with a
lighter gas. what ever the pressure is on the outside, the pressure
on the inside will be the same. since none of them ever get more than
a couple thousand feet off the ground at most, the air outside is
heavy and its easy to get a large difference between that amount of
air (7 million cubic feet for the Hindenburg) and the gas. one of the
big advantages Hindenburg had was that it used hydrogen instead of
helium. h2 is considerably lighter than he2. for that reason they
were able to carry 10 percent more. no balloon launched today would
carry hydrogen.
a 2 cubic mile balloon would have the same lift at that altitude as a
considerably smaller balloon in lower altitude. its unlikely it could
carry even half the capacity of the shuttle. much of that would have
to be used to carry spare helium, otherwise any punture would cause
it to quickly return to the earth. another point is that this airship
would have to be under full power or it could not return to the
exchange station, which must also be under full power. this means
constant use of fuel, which eats into cargo space.
what i still dont see is the use of putting something up that high
for that short of a time frame, since it would either have to be
dropped by parachute or come back down on the ship soon afterwords.
the shuttle can launch a hundred satelites, while this can only have
one thing up at a time.
# 8061 bypanamabob@... on June 8, 2006, 5:44 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg and also US versions of dirigibles did go on trans ocean jaunts... from Europe to Rio was one route...
Will lighter than air compete with heavier than air vehicles? I guess they have different roles, so its hard to say they compete... the "balloons ability is to stay aloft with out expenditure of any fuel... that's a GREAT thing...and it will be very useful I'm sure...
well this has been fun, but perhaps we need to wait a few years and see what really develops to have the final proof of what is or is not doable, and to what degree...
perhaps this company is using a small mm high sign to try and fool us all... after all that's what is needed to gain credibility these days...illusions and lies..
:-))
Admittedly many of the payloads of many balloons so far has been under 100 lbs. -- not a whole lot but then again huge volumes have not been considered, and again possibly the huge volumes will meet with engineering or other issues that will keep them from happening... Personally, I have a hard time wrapping my head around 60,000 ft long cables...all wondrous to me.
From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:42 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> wow zeppelins stay up for only a few days... wonder how they did
the round the world flights
>
simple they used refueling stops. the first nonstop around the world
flight occurred during the 90's but Dick Ratan and his partner.
>
> From what I see "something else" will be around and operating
before current ideas for space elevators will come around.
>
very possible. but i believe this will be about the same time. or
perhaps not even that soon.
>
> Healthy questioning is good, but one must also accept a certain
amount without challenging... I think there is not much doubt that
balloons have reached 100,000 ft and that the pics shown are "real" .
>
> Oh well, discussing "balloons" is fun but they will either be doing
something within a couple of years or not. Short enough time frame to
see where these things go.
100000 feet is one thing. the thing about what was said and shown, is
that they indicate that a large amount of cargo is possible. to my
understanding, there is still not real cargo ever carried up. the
balloons they used are extremely large, yet they can barely carry
the equipment to do the study of the atmosphere near the balloon.
that equipment is not that heavy. the picture suggest that the sign
is big, but it could just as easily be less than a mm big.
>
> the gondola or control room seen hanging below the old dirigibles
is deceptive, since the payload area was usually inside the airframe,
not exterior.
>
actually the majority of that space is filled with huge air bags.
there is little room for cargo there.
> Check out details sometime on the Hindenburg and you you'll see
quite a bit of "stuff' including staterooms, salon, and more.
unless I'm mistaken, those were almost all in the the Hindenburg is
one of the few airships to have the passenger area inside the
envelope.
>
> Modern day helium blimps like the advertising ones seen over
sporting events etc. are in volume quite small in comparison to the
huge dirigibles of old. Still, its pretty amazing to ride in one...
>
the thing is that they are all low lvl vehicles. the reason for that
is that their lift is created by replacing a volume of air with a
lighter gas. what ever the pressure is on the outside, the pressure
on the inside will be the same. since none of them ever get more than
a couple thousand feet off the ground at most, the air outside is
heavy and its easy to get a large difference between that amount of
air (7 million cubic feet for the Hindenburg) and the gas. one of the
big advantages Hindenburg had was that it used hydrogen instead of
helium. h2 is considerably lighter than he2. for that reason they
were able to carry 10 percent more. no balloon launched today would
carry hydrogen.
a 2 cubic mile balloon would have the same lift at that altitude as a
considerably smaller balloon in lower altitude. its unlikely it could
carry even half the capacity of the shuttle. much of that would have
to be used to carry spare helium, otherwise any punture would cause
it to quickly return to the earth. another point is that this airship
would have to be under full power or it could not return to the
exchange station, which must also be under full power. this means
constant use of fuel, which eats into cargo space.
what i still dont see is the use of putting something up that high
for that short of a time frame, since it would either have to be
dropped by parachute or come back down on the ship soon afterwords.
the shuttle can launch a hundred satelites, while this can only have
one thing up at a time.
1 (current)
2