No, I don't. The science is on my side, especially if the passenger compartment is a detachable aluminum shell with drogue parachutes, as Scott suggested.
Also, a high-strength mylar envelope should do fine to mitigate the fire risk, and a carbon-fibre shell is suitably fireproof for holding the envelopes.
EDIT: I'm kind of interested in this. Considering building a small, arduino-based UAV as a proof of concept.
It's not up to the public. Hydrogen dirigibles are still as legal as helium blimps. You can build and fly one right now, but no one does because helium is cheap in the US.
It's not up to the public. Hydrogen dirigibles are still as legal as helium blimps. You can build and fly one right now, but no one does because helium is cheap in the US.
It's up to the public whether or not to patronize your hydrogen dirigible transportation service.
No, I don't. The science is on my side, especially if the passenger compartment is a detachable aluminum shell with drogue parachutes, as Scott suggested.
Science is on our side for nuclear power, too, and look how well that's going.
No, I don't. The science is on my side, especially if the passenger compartment is a detachable aluminum shell with drogue parachutes, as Scott suggested.
Science is on our side for nuclear power, too, and look how well that's going.
Japan was a pretty brutal demonstration that the science is all well and good, but (lack of) human accountability and sabotage-through-greed is gonna fuck you in a big way, and that's what sensible people worry about more so than OMGZ! Radiation!
The public is stupid, and they don't know what's good for them. That is history's overriding lesson. ~_^
Anyway, who says the public has to patronize it? Use them as superlifters for cargo containers!
Private industry is dumb, too. All the freight rail lines in my area are being paved over and turned to walking/biking trails and it's being heralded as a victory for ecofriendly, green thinking. Meanwhile fuel efficient, safe freight trains are being replaced with nasty, dangerous, 18 wheelers.
My town is the only town in the state not doing this. The lumberyard and propane company have insisted on keeping their operating rail line.
It should be possible to fill a balloon with vacuum. Instead of keeping the hydrogen in, all you have to do is keep the atmosphere out, the only problem I can think of is how to keep it from collapsing on itself without ridiculously heavy supports.
Vacuum dirigibles are the holy grail of lighter-than-aircraft, ever since Francesco Lana de Terzi proposed them in the 17th century.
Perhaps a Fullerene-shaped monopod of graphene? It'd have the tensile strength necessary to hold a partial vacuum, but the point of interface between the vessel and the vaccuum pump would be a major point of failure.
What's wrong with the old hot air balloon? Just get some fire and heat that shit. No special gasses needed.
You need to keep pumping heat into the balloon to keep the air hot (not continuously, but you do need to periodically reheat the air). That requires some sort of fuel over and above the fuel needed to control the propellers/turbines/etc. that you're using to move the airship in a particular direction as opposed to just letting it drift along with the wind. The advantages of using a lighter-than-air gas (or vacuum, if physically possible with the right materials and such) is that it'll float pretty much indefinitely so long as the gas isn't leaking. No extra fuel is needed except for the fuel required to operate the propellers. There's a reason why hot air is really only used for hobbyist balloons (and only in the US -- Europe apparently prefers gas-filled balloons) whereas blimps, military airships (used more frequently during World War II than nowadays) and such all use lighter-than-air gasses, such as helium.
We should really be using hydrogen for weather balloons. Helium is pretty wasteful for something with no potential for a fire.
And here's Ali Williams with the weather.
Fire fallin' from the sky!
Actually, they apparently already use hydrogen for them, because it's super cheap. The balloons don't have any parts that generate sparks or flame, usually.
We should really be using hydrogen for weather balloons. Helium is pretty wasteful for something with no potential for a fire.
And here's Ali Williams with the weather.
Fire fallin' from the sky!
Actually, if a hydrogen balloon were to catch fire, the fire would float up, not fall down, assuming that the only flammable material in the balloon was the hydrogen gas.
Comments
Also, a high-strength mylar envelope should do fine to mitigate the fire risk, and a carbon-fibre shell is suitably fireproof for holding the envelopes.
EDIT: I'm kind of interested in this. Considering building a small, arduino-based UAV as a proof of concept.
Joe Bob from Ohio says no way! They use hydrogen to make bombs! Are you crazy?!
Polls show 85% of the Midwest and south have rallied behind Joe Bob.
Anyway, who says the public has to patronize it? Use them as superlifters for cargo containers!
My town is the only town in the state not doing this. The lumberyard and propane company have insisted on keeping their operating rail line.
Perhaps a Fullerene-shaped monopod of graphene? It'd have the tensile strength necessary to hold a partial vacuum, but the point of interface between the vessel and the vaccuum pump would be a major point of failure.
Fire fallin' from the sky!