Science Fiction Becoming Science Fact

[Larry Zarus]

World's largest aircraft unveiled and hailed 'game changer' - Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greene ... anger.html

Remind anyone of anything?

[PS Power]

Yes, it does.

I worked up a similar design to that one years ago. (Which isn't odd, since I cribbed off the same basic plan that they did for it, using a partial airfoil formed from the balloon in order to create massive lift, even at slow speeds.)

On the good side there is incredible amounts of lift that can be generated. On the negative, everyone keeps wanting, even insisting that we use helium for the darned things, but we're running out.

Hydrogen is the plain way to go, but the public doesn't trust it yet.

On the good side, the things can travel into a lot of places that we'd never send a plane at all. They don't do well in storms however.

[John Baughn]

Technically a vacuum offers the best displacement, just need some materials that we can use to maintain an empty volume big enough...

[Ronald Dukarski]

How absolutely amazing John, I've got a pretty good background in science, and it never occurred to me that a vacuum was far and away lighter than air. Not only more bouyent in our atmosphere, but also totally non-combustible. So how do we contain it, and harness its lifting capability to our needs? From prior experience, trying to contain a vacuum for insulation purposes is viable for only brief instants, and requires extraordinarily sturdy structure ( nature abhors a vacuum ) that's why Windows contain argon gas rather than nothing. I think it would need a repulsive force field to push away all matter from a specific point, but if we could do that we'd basically have an anti-gravitational engine and wouldn't need a vacuum at all. So think every one, how do we contain a vacuum in a lightweight container strong enough to not collapse?

[John Baughn]

Just need a rigid material that can contain a reasonable vacuum, not quite there yet but maybe soon...

[PS Power]

Rigid, lightweight and scalable. It's a tall order. yes, well, get there, eventually, but for now I think that hydrogen with good safety procedures is the most cost effective option by far. We can make the stuff out of sunlight and sea water! (With some help from photovoltaics.)

We don't need perfect containment, since it's nearly harmless when it leaks. And it will leak. Much like a vacuum, total containment is difficult to achieve.

So, rather than wait fifty to three hundred years to work it out, we can have cheap heavy lifting devices up in a year or two, that can work almost anywhere in the world.

The big problems with airships to my way of thinking are:

1. Public perception. "Oh, the humanity!"

Everyone expects them to explode, even if we have much better controls in place now.

2. Speed. Or the lack of it.

An airship can travel at about twenty miles per hour, under power, in calm winds. Less in most cases. At least if they're going to remain cost effective. On the good side, we can run them off of solar, using the latest materials.

On the bad, we're used to getting everything now. Now I said!

3. Initial investment for uncertain payoff. Without a large and obvious economic payday in the winds, few large companies (i.e. the ones with the cash to back such a project.) will attempt large scale airship practices. This may eventually change, if something better doesn't come along to replace fossil fuels, but until/unless that takes place, this will remain in the category of "interesting hobby."

4. Poor overall handling compared to modern aircraft.

They can't really outrun weather, and it's a bigger factor for them than for an airplane of helicopter. This means having the ability to tie down and deflate (Or go into a hangar) and good weather services, in most locations that the ships run in. This is really hard to do over the ocean, at the moment. That means being very aware of the weather. This is a thing we can do now, however, which will help prevent loss.

On the pro side:

1. They can carry very large payloads. Much more, far more cheaply, than any other form of air, or ground, travel. Especially if the system is worked out to run without fossil fuels.

2. They are in less danger of crashing and harming civilians than planes. They can crash, normally due to weather, but that was always rare. Once the explosion problem is taken out of the picture. They just move to slowly for that to be a vast issue.

3. Very smooth ride, making pleasure craft far more enjoyable. Comparable to a cruise ship, if done right.

4. Child friendly. Even a toy blimp or airship will be much to big to swallow! Yep, kids will love these things!

[ArgyrosfeniX]

What if the hydrogen was mixed with another inert gas to prevent combustion? Maybe Nitrogen? Don't remember my gas chemistry real well, but it might be something to look into...

[PS Power]

That might work, as long as the overall weight stayed low enough. It would need to be something that was inert, but mixed well, and was still lighter than air.

I have no idea if anything would work for that! It sounds reasonable, if anything can be found.

[ArgyrosfeniX]

For kicks and giggles, I did some research on Hydrogen gas. Seems that it is able to escape containment easily as it is the smallest atom. It has explosive potential at only 4% concentration. It will increase its pressure by a factor of 8 with the explosion. It also requires a very low amount of energy to ignite ~ 20 micro-joules at 16% concentration.

Kinda scary...

[PS Power]

Right, but it can be made easily and cheaply from sea water, which we have a lot of, doesn't pollute and things only explode if they can't release the pressure they are under. Stopping the possible fire first, is the key, of course.

Helium is stable, but we're running out.

(What, you haven't heard about the great helium shortage? No joke, Google that one.)

It's dangerous, but getting around explosions is something we're sort of good at, as a people.