Airship reaches 95,000 ft

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


I hope these links will restore your faith, I like the magentoplasmadynamic thruster

What about a hybrid craft that can float up on helium then use that gas as fuel?

MPD technology also has the potential for thrust levels of up to 200 newtons (N) (45 lbf), by far the highest for any form of electric propulsion, and nearly as high as many interplanetary chemical rockets. This would allow use of electric propulsion on missions which require quick delta-v maneuvers (such as capturing into orbit around another planet), but with many times greater fuel efficiency.

magentoplasmadynamic thruster


Ion Thruster

I hope this sparks your imagination

Propellers at that height won't do any good. It has to be some electromagnetic device.
This project is probably more secretive than it appears to be.

Originally posted by weirdguy
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

 

I hope these links will restore your faith, I like the magentoplasmadynamic thruster

What about a hybrid craft that can float up on helium then use that gas as fuel?

MPD technology also has the potential for thrust levels of up to 200 newtons (N) (45 lbf), by far the highest for any form of electric propulsion, and nearly as high as many interplanetary chemical rockets. This would allow use of electric propulsion on missions which require quick delta-v maneuvers (such as capturing into orbit around another planet), but with many times greater fuel efficiency.

magentoplasmadynamic thruster


Ion Thruster

I hope this sparks your imagination

Ah, yes...I forgot about the Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster idea! It does indeed work where there is no atmosphere...In a sense...It sort of carries it's atmosphere with it, as fuel, then ejects it electrically to produce thrust. It's very efficient...though not very powerful. I researched many of these Ideas a long while back. I was looking into the claims of some sort of suppressed electrical propulsion technology....I even went so far as to build my own little lifter (pretty easy...all you need is some copper wire, a High Voltage power source, and some Tin Foil and Balsa Wood). I never got much farther than that, though. I'd love to take up the research again....I know T.T.Brown, one of the early original tinkerers with electrostatic propulsion had some theories and claims in his notes and papers that didn't jive exactly with what is officially claimed about such devices today. He claimed the thrust could be seen when his devices were immersed in non-ionizable oil, and called his devices 'asymmetric capacitors'. I never got to the point of trying to replicate any of his more controversial claims, though I think it would be a really interesting thing to try.

reply to post by DangerDeath


Look up NASA's Helios Solar-Powered Aircraft.

The Propeller design used on the Tandem was based on the Helios propeller...All "Props" to NASA!

The biggest worry is that at such high altitudes, Mach speed is drastically reduced. Mach-induced turbulence becomes a serious concern at relatively low speeds and the prop tips, which can easily approach Mach at this altitude at very low RPM's, cause a destructive vibration to ripple through the entire craft.

Originally posted by weirdguy
reply to post by Bhadhidar

 

Wow, so you have worked on this project? That's cool!

Has the big V shaped airship ever flown?

I remember reports of big V shaped ufo's and was wondering if you
are the culprit

Do you think this tech being developed will ever help to get us into space,
even if its only most of the way there?

One of the bigger V-ships was launched several years ago under the guidence of the US Air Force.

Unfortunately, they ignored our advice to delay the launch until a storm front with tornado force winds had left the area.


As you can imagine, the craft was torn to bits (all of which was quickly gathered up by the AF personnel and trucked to an unannounced location).


Yes, eventually, with developments in material science advancing daily, and with gov/mil interest now being piqued by the success of this project, I'm pretty certain we'll see "Airships to Orbit" sooner than later.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


No - I dont' think there will ever be "airships to orbit" - fixed wing aircraft can do that job better and faster too.

This blog gives fairly succinct reasons why heavy lift airships are simply never going to happen.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Faster isn't necessarily always better.

Consider: the vast majority of current air travel (passenger and commercial) operates at speeds far below what is currently possible. Military aircraft routinely fly in excess of Mach 1, yet commercial aircraft for the most part still fly at sub-Mach speeds.

In fact, there has yet to be a commercial airliner that was able to fly faster than Mach 1 Profitably.

(the fabeled Concord SST never broke even on its flights; however, its value as a promotional aircraft was seen to out-weight its money-losing operational expenses).


When slow is cheap, slow is the best business model.


I read over the referenced blog.


What you need to understand is that we are not talking here of a conventional airship, which is designed to operate at relatively low altitudes.


Such vehicles are, of course hampered by the limitations outlined in the blog. But the Airships we are discussing are meant to operate high above the stratosphere for the majority of their flight profiles; passing quickly through the lower atmosphere only long enough to reach flight ceiling, or landing.


True, even these airships will be sensitive to wind and weather conditions on the ground.


But consider; conventional rocket launches share the same weather-related limitations for launch. And yet no one argues that rockets will never be a viable means of reaching space.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


It's is not a mater of fast - it is a mater of economics - if slower is more expensive, then slower is not economical.

And barring some sort of revolution in airship technology, airships are simply more expensive as lifters of large loads.

To lift any load into the stratosphere an airship would have to be massive - look at the size of the balloons that were used for the high altitude jumps, and to circumnavigate the globe - they had to have massive amounts of expansion space for starters - how are you going ot do that on an airship?

And their actual lift capacity at high altitude was quite small?

Airships are for romantics, and small loads - it's just physics.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Hi mr.Gaul, thanks for your post the blog is a very interesting read.

However I am starting to lean towards this subject being possible once the
tech becomes more matured.

Please take the time to check out these guys who are also developing a
heavy lift airship. 150 tonnes straight up is there aim.

SkyLifter

The heavy-lift version of SkyLifter is designed to fly in the lower atmosphere (breathable for pilots) but, with the right configuration, can float up to the stratosphere at the edge of space.

The diameter of the aerostat is 150 metres. (It is a coincidence that this is the same number as the payload of 150 tonnes). The height of the aerostat in the middle is around 38 metres and the total height of the aircraft from top to bottom is around 120 metres.

Peace

reply to post by weirdguy


Now, what if we were to take the circular shape of the pictured craft and change it slightly to improve its aerodynamic directionality; to make it easier to "drive" in a desired direction.

I'm thinking something like the shape of a planchette, or the shape of the rotor used in a Wankle rotory engine.
o
That way you could also maximize the upper and lower profiles of the craft to maximize the aerodynamic lift generated by forward motion.

And bring the flight deck into the body of the craft.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

It's is not a mater of fast - it is a mater of economics - if slower is more expensive, then slower is not economical.

It kind of depends upon the application.

As a "station keeping" solution, or one capable of lifting pre-assembled structures, it works nicely.

Even aircraft, at the types of altitudes balloons reach, are functioning as much off of ballistics as they are off of the lift from their wings (thinner air applies to air-breathers and fixed wings, as well).

Replacing commercial airliners, likely not. However - they have several niche roles in which they will be far better than rockets or orbiting satellites.

To lift any load into the stratosphere an airship would have to be massive - look at the size of the balloons that were used for the high altitude jumps, and to circumnavigate the globe - they had to have massive amounts of expansion space for starters - how are you going ot do that on an airship?

Only partial expansion would be necessary at lower altitudes. After you clear 500 meters, you should be pretty free to fully expand with just about any size balloon that can be engineered - you'll be well outside of its inflated radius before it can reach full inflation.

reply to post by weirdguy


it looks very pretty - but i would like to see it actualy deal with the inertia and pendulum effect of a 150t load

This is a great idea that I myself have put a lot of thought into. But here is my question.

Why not just use a balloon setup like this one to lift a mission control platform and a reusable spacecraft that can dock with the ISS to the edge of space, have the mission control platform do a system check on the spacecraft and start the countdown, fire up the engines, when the countdown hits zero, disengage a quick release that will separate the spacecraft from the balloon and the mission control platform, throttle up the engines and from there go into orbit from there?

I think this method would at least be able to deliver supplies to and crew to and from the ISS, it would cut cost, and we wouldn’t have to rely on and pay the Europeans, Japanese, Russians and private companies to get our ISS crew to and from and their supplies to orbit.

Granted, we would still have to rely on them to launch the large payloads such as satellites and the larger ISS components.

But like I said, it’s just a thought.

After I posted my last reply I went and did some internet surfing and ran across this. Looks like someone beat me to the punch with my idea……well…..kind of….but not really.



That looked like some fun, and it gave me a new idea!

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It's is not a mater of fast - it is a mater of economics - if slower is more expensive, then slower is not economical.

It kind of depends upon the application.

Not really - if it is uneconomic it is uneconomic.

As a "station keeping" solution, or one capable of lifting pre-assembled structures, it works nicely.

Slow is good for station keeping - but lifting "pre-assembled structures is still a matter of ability to lift weight - nothing more or less.

Even aircraft, at the types of altitudes balloons reach, are functioning as much off of ballistics as they are off of the lift from their wings (thinner air applies to air-breathers and fixed wings, as well).

Which is why they have ceilings.

Replacing commercial airliners, likely not. However - they have several niche roles in which they will be far better than rockets or orbiting satellites.

as I have said previously....but lifting heavy weights is not one of them.

To lift any load into the stratosphere an airship would have to be massive - look at the size of the balloons that were used for the high altitude jumps, and to circumnavigate the globe - they had to have massive amounts of expansion space for starters - how are you going ot do that on an airship?

Only partial expansion would be necessary at lower altitudes. After you clear 500 meters, you should be pretty free to fully expand with just about any size balloon that can be engineered - you'll be well outside of its inflated radius before it can reach full inflation.

I'm not sure you're really talking about he same thing as me - expansion occurs due to the balloons being built large, but only filled with a partial "load" of gas - as they climb higher the lower air density allows the gas to expand, eventually filling the envelope.

So at ground level the balloons look under inflated, only becoming "full" at high altitude.

Having to carry the weight of extra material for the envelope actually makes them less efficient than they would be if it didn't have to be like that.

And because the amount of gas they carry is limited they do not have great lifting capacity in the first place - that is the problem and always will be.

Back to the blog page I linked to above - Hindenburg was as big as the Titanic - but could only lift 19 tons!! A 747 can lift 400 tons, and do it more reliably and with fewer infrastructure hassles.

There is already an aircraft launched commercial satellite system - Pegasus - this is just for a 400kg satellite, but Hindenburg wouldn't be big enough to carry it and also crew and its own fuel!!

Here is a couple of other heavy lift airships.

Firstly the Walrus. It was being developed by the Americans to carry upto 1000 tonnes.

The goal was to create an airship capable of traveling up to 12,000 nautical miles (about 22,000 km) in range, while carrying 500-1000 tons of cargo

DARPA said advances in envelope and hull materials, buoyancy and lift control, drag reduction and propulsion combined to make this concept feasible.

The Walrus HULA

more Walrus HULA

Unfortunately this project was canned due to funding cuts, but it's concept was picked up
by Boeing who are now working on a sky freighter called Skyhook and is more of a hybrid.

According to company spokepeople, the aircraft will combine the best features of a blimp and a helicopter, and will be capable of carrying a 40 ton load up to 200 miles (320 km) without refueling.

Skyhook

Originally posted by Aim64C
Honestly, I'd ditch the idea of trying to get a balloon to go into space.

It would be, by my estimation, a much better idea to use a "flying fortress" of balloons to place a mid-way station.

That's exactly the concept from JP aerospace.

The group believes airships could be a ladder to space, lifting cargo and passengers to sub-orbital Dark Sky Stations parked at 140,000ft.

These would be jumping off points for another vehicle that flies to orbit.

UPDATE

U.S. Patent #8,061,647 B1

High Altitude Two Balloon Airship

Has just been issued this date November 22, 2011


To JP Aerospace for the Tandem Airship.


Congratulations!

reply to post by Bhadhidar


Very clever attempt to minimise structural weight and hence maximise lift. It might well get small payloads for surveillance and simlar tasks to greather heights than conventional airships which carry greater structural weight.

But being that it derives it's lift from the displacement of air, it still isn't going to be lifting any massive payloads to great heights - that is the fundamental problem with all airships.

Atmospheric conditions with height - for a "standard" atmosphere - note the density values - that is an absolute limit for any air displacement lifting system.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


If you are refering to the Tandem in this posting, you do understand that the Tandem is only a prototype, and not primarily intended as a mass-market vehicle.

Yes, it will be made availible to commercial interests willing to pay for a ride to near-space; but its primary purpose is as a flying "test-bed" for the technologies needed for the larger "airship-to-orbit" program.


Why then, would they bother to patent what is, in essence, a "test mule"?


If you make you competetors path to development more difficult, you go a long way toward locking up the market for yourself.