|
Posted by Chance on December 13, 2005, 1:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options
I was reading about the airship to orbit idea, and how it is probably
impossible. This got me to thinking, are there any materials like
carbon nanotubes that could concievably be used produce a large volume
vacuum container or "balloon"? I recently asked one of those
ask-a-physicist sites and was told that an airtight "ballon" with a
volume of near vacuum should float even higher than a hydrogen balloon,
but that no existing materials are at the same time strong enough and
light enough to ever produce such a device. Such a device should be
much simpler and cheaper to create than a space elevator, and could
(hopefully) be mass produced. So is this is just a crazy idea, or is
it possible?
|
|
Posted by beanstalkr on December 18, 2005, 6:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Chance wrote:
So is this is just a crazy idea, [[a vacuum-filled balloon]] or is
show/hide quoted text
> it possible?
It's neither. It's not crazy and it's not possible with any balloon
current flight profile. Vacuum is cheaper than helium. But most people
don't realize the implosive force of one bar on a vacuum container. A
bar is 14.7 pounds per square inch, multiplied by the hundreds of
thousands of square inches on the surface of a large lifting tank.
So, the reinforced, honeycombed vacuum container would have to be
lifted to the stratosphere and then vacuumed-out where it could rise to
near space but not, of course, to space, which is a vacuum itself.
Similar to a two stage rocket, this would be a "two-stage balloon."
In practice, a partial vacuum would be drawn slowly during ascension
so as to maintain a safe pressure differential on the vacuum tank.
|
|
Posted by David Given on December 20, 2005, 3:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
show/hide quoted text
> It's neither. It's not crazy and it's not possible with any balloon
> current flight profile. Vacuum is cheaper than helium. But most people
> don't realize the implosive force of one bar on a vacuum container. A
> bar is 14.7 pounds per square inch, multiplied by the hundreds of
> thousands of square inches on the surface of a large lifting tank.
It also doesn't help much --- hydrogen has about 1/18 the density of air at a
given pressure. Vacuum, of course, has 0/18 the density of air. So by using a
vacuum balloon, you end up making your life considerably more complex for only
an extra 6% boost in lifting capability.
- --
+- David Given --McQ-+
| dg@cowlark.com | Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
| (dg@tao-group.com) |
+- www.cowlark.com --+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDqB4rf9E0noFvlzgRAtg0AJ9XeyJdkKrmHDA4T22r2Ux9MeNJIgCgk5oM
qEBYGp+Hx1pgvNLsyIF7wCk=
=AHSN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
Posted by Chance on December 21, 2005, 7:51 am
Please log in for more thread options
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Airship to Orbit question | December 13, 2005, 2:02 pm |
| Parking Orbit Question | March 15, 2006, 2:40 pm |
| An efficient orbit to fly a space craft from the L1 lagrange point to mars sun-synchronous orbit? | November 8, 2005, 3:09 am |
| question on Shenzhou 5 | October 12, 2005, 10:57 am |
| Question about air processing on ISS | October 28, 2005, 1:53 pm |
| Space Station Question | February 20, 2006, 4:51 pm |
| Space Station Question | February 25, 2006, 6:59 pm |
| Hydrogen Peroxide Question | June 17, 2005, 7:02 am |
| Shuttle tile replacement question | March 28, 2009, 4:16 pm |
| Re: Light year distance question | April 13, 2005, 11:14 pm |
|
XML Sitemap