--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg and also US versions of dirigibles did
go on trans ocean jaunts... from Europe to Rio was one route...

sure, but their flights only lasted a week or 8 days max. these ppl
are talking about putting satelites into orbit. how are they going to
do that when the balloon cant reach that kind of speed in the
atmosphere and the ion engine they are talking about cant keep the
payload up without the balloon.
>
> The US experimented with flying aircraft carriers in which
dirigibles housed several smaller aircraft inside. That seems
significant. But its not so much volume as much as weight ; earlier
dirigibles carried bomb loads; higher density payloads rather than
spacious items.
>
yes. but the planes they used were lightweight recon planes. the
bombs the fist dirigibles used were more akin to granades, although a
few 20 and 30 pound bombs could be carried. they were only used like
this in ww1. even then they were not that heavy.
>
> 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...
>
it will not use any fuel... IF it only floats. the problem is that
they expect it to be near a second balloon, and to dock with it. that
means it has to stay close to it, or return to it. that means fuel.
yes there will be a few uses for it. i personally cant think of many.
the only one is where you want to watch a specific area for a
specific amount of time. mostly the balloon will have a flight time
of less than a month at best. not many uses for that.
>
> 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...
>
true. if they can make it work, great for them.
>
> 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.

the balloons they use are actually pretty big. nothing compaired to
the 2 cubic miles they are talking about, but big. to be able to
carry the 100 pound payload as high as 200000 feet (about 2 thirds
the way to space), they would need about a 10 times size balloon than
what they need to get to 100000 feet.

__,_._,_By 1914, state-of-the-art Zeppelins had lengths of 150-160 m and volumes of 22,000-25,000 m3, enabling them to carry loads of around 9 tonnes.__

In fleeing enemy fire, Zeppelins rose to altitudes up to 7600 m, and they also proved capable of long-range flights.

Prior to world war 2, airships of around 200 m in length (some even more) and with volumes of 56,000-69,000 m3. These dirigibles would carry loads of 40-50 tonnes

1) in fleeing, they would be light weight after they dropped their
loads. that easier to reach altitudes.

2) 8 thousand feed is still relatively low altitude.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> __,_._,_By 1914, state-of-the-art Zeppelins had lengths of 150-160 m
and volumes of 22,000-25,000 m3, enabling them to carry loads of
around 9 tonnes.__
>
> In fleeing enemy fire, Zeppelins rose to altitudes up to 7600 m,
and they also proved capable of long-range flights.
>
> Prior to world war 2, airships of around 200 m in length (some even
more) and with volumes of 56,000-69,000 m3. These dirigibles would
carry loads of 40-50 tonnes

7600 meters is a bit more than 8000 ft

:-))

From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:13 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator

1) in fleeing, they would be light weight after they dropped their
loads. that easier to reach altitudes.

2) 8 thousand feed is still relatively low altitude.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> __,_._,_By 1914, state-of-the-art Zeppelins had lengths of 150-160 m
and volumes of 22,000-25,000 m3, enabling them to carry loads of
around 9 tonnes.__
>
> In fleeing enemy fire, Zeppelins rose to altitudes up to 7600 m,
and they also proved capable of long-range flights.
>
> Prior to world war 2, airships of around 200 m in length (some even
more) and with volumes of 56,000-69,000 m3. These dirigibles would
carry loads of 40-50 tonnes
>

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> 7600 meters is a bit more than 8000 ft

your right i misread it. still that is not all that high. not for a
lightened airship that was carrying tons a couple of minutes before.

so they are carrying tons?

:-))

or hardly any payload worth mentioning...grenade size bombs?

which is it?

From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:26 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> 7600 meters is a bit more than 8000 ft

your right i misread it. still that is not all that high. not for a
lightened airship that was carrying tons a couple of minutes before.

i have done a little bit of research since i first posted.

the first ones did not carry much, mostly grandes and bombs with a 10
second fuse. they were not built to go higher since they were our of
range of the enemys guns and they did not have contact fuses. they
could not survive 25000 feet. if the balloons did not rupture, the
ppl would have a lot of trouble breathing.

later ones. could carry a lot more, and had to worry about planes
carrying guns. they also had contact fuses so they could be dropped
from any altitude.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

so we agree they can carry substantial payload at reasonable altitudes?

neat stuff out there among heavy lifters and such... too bad Europeans went BK on there recent attempt to get one started...

From: Robert
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Bye bye Space Elevator

i have done a little bit of research since i first posted.

the first ones did not carry much, mostly grandes and bombs with a 10
second fuse. they were not built to go higher since they were our of
range of the enemys guns and they did not have contact fuses. they
could not survive 25000 feet. if the balloons did not rupture, the
ppl would have a lot of trouble breathing.

later ones. could carry a lot more, and had to worry about planes
carrying guns. they also had contact fuses so they could be dropped
from any altitude.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> so they are carrying tons?
>
> :-))
>
> or hardly any payload worth mentioning...grenade size bombs?
>
> which is it?

If your talking about 40 to 50 thousand feet being reason able, yes.
any thing above that the air is a bit too thin to support much of any
weight. something you have to remember. the bigger the balloon, the
heavier the envelope needed to hold the air in. when you get higher,
there is less lift. at a certain point, it becomes the matterial that
is putting pressure on the gas, not the air outside. once you reach
that point, going higher is all but impossible.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> so we agree they can carry substantial payload at reasonable
altitudes?
>
> neat stuff out there among heavy lifters and such... too bad
Europeans went BK on there recent attempt to get one started...

Should be "Bye bye Bean Stalk", which for all the unwarranted hooplah
they've gotten, I take as a relief.

Omar E. Vega wrote:
>It seem we'll have to say good bye to space elevators for now.
>
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_nanotubes_060602.html
>
>Well, there still a chance scramjets work

What about the other devices which are loosely categorized as "space
elevators"? Not all of them are ruled out.
The article talks about, and most people think of the BeanStalk when you
mention "space elevators" or tethers. If buckytubes can ever be made in
industrial quantities in the first place, what do these new numbers say
about rotavators or hypersonic skyhooks? With nanotubes which work as this
article says they will, is a Hoytether of this better than one of
polyethylene or Kevlar or fiberglass from regolith? These materials are
perfectly fine for building "Space Elevators" that would seem like magic to
us, down here, with the only means of getting into space is to strap into a
pile of explosively combustible chemicals.

Beanstalks as well as SCRamjets seem to be the ultimate unobtainable result
we'd like to wish for, but they seem to rely on achieving breakthroughs
before we can even say they're possible. There are plenty of things less
sexy but which would work. Many things.
I like laser thermal assist for spaceplanes, also a horizontal track to
boost them HTO up to mach .8 or so. Each of these alone adds ~35% to the
payload, or alternatively makes it that much easier for a single vehicle to
get to orbit (or at least to the lower end of a hypersonic skyhook). Any
kind of airbreathing to get it from zero-airspeed-zero altitude would also
be another chip out of the imense problem we have getting something going
that fast.
The Big Dumb Booster also deserves a lot more attention. There's not much
better to answer our desires to get into space than the Sea Dragon. Even the
unmanned Shuttle-C with expendable engines in place of the SSMEs would
revolutionize things right now.

If the Nixon White House hadn't saddled us with USAF requirements for a
sub-orbital/exoatmospheric interceptor/bomber in the "Space Shuttle" flying
cost overrun, we'd have probably had something a lot more like a big dumb
"space truck" -a cheap reliable vehicle tog et stuff up, come back, and do
it again. Not stay in orbit doing experiments & racking up the cost to
operate it.

One problem with Pugno's study is that it assumes a
requirement for individual nanotubes to be very long.
However, imagine for a moment that a short nanotube is
bent around so that it forms a torus: a link in a
chain. Many of these can be arranged so that they
form a sort of 3-dimensional "chainmail" with many
interconnected links both vertically and laterally.
Then the individual nanotubes can be very small (and
thus less likely to be missing carbon atoms, which was
Pugno's objection) but the aggregate structure can be
very large, while still maintaining the 100GPa
strength of the small nanotubes.

Ed

--- John Frazer wrote:

> Should be "Bye bye Bean Stalk", which for all the
> unwarranted hooplah
> they've gotten, I take as a relief.
>
> Omar E. Vega wrote:
> >It seem we'll have to say good bye to space
> elevators for now.
> >
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_nanotubes_060602.html

the one problem i see is that the stake would have to be ridged which
chain mail would not give. i imagine there could be a way of having
several links supporting each other, but that would make it bigger.

anothe problem is getting them to link. how do you make the ends
connect, and esp how do you make them link where you want them too.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ed Minchau
>
> One problem with Pugno's study is that it assumes a
> requirement for individual nanotubes to be very long.
> However, imagine for a moment that a short nanotube is
> bent around so that it forms a torus: a link in a
> chain. Many of these can be arranged so that they
> form a sort of 3-dimensional "chainmail" with many
> interconnected links both vertically and laterally.
> Then the individual nanotubes can be very small (and
> thus less likely to be missing carbon atoms, which was
> Pugno's objection) but the aggregate structure can be
> very large, while still maintaining the 100GPa
> strength of the small nanotubes.
>
> Ed
>
> --- John Frazer wrote:
>
> > Should be "Bye bye Bean Stalk", which for all the
> > unwarranted hooplah
> > they've gotten, I take as a relief.
> >
> > Omar E. Vega wrote:
> > >It seem we'll have to say good bye to space
> > elevators for now.
> > >
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_nanotubes_060602.htm
l