[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 69 KB, 630x354, aeros-airship-630-0208-de.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4354728 No.4354728 [Reply] [Original]

Why are airships filled with leaky and flammable hydrogen, or expensive helium, instead of simply vacuum in a rigid module?

Why we use rigid modules for spaceflight and inflatable (non-rigid) baloons for buoyant flight, when the exact opposite makes more sense?

>> No.4354732

3/10 almost responded seriously

>> No.4354734

because filling it with vaccums would make blimps far too heavy. vaccuum cleaners are usually made of like plastic and shit, and a bit of metal. it would weigh the blimp down far too much and it wouldnt even fly.
helium is far better to use.

>> No.4354735

>vacuum in a rigid module
1/10

>> No.4354742

Not possible with current tech. Air pressure is high, yo.

For a fictional imagining of this idea in the future, see Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age".

>> No.4354756

>>4354734

Wouldnt the decreased internal density due to vacuum instead of still somewhat dense H/He outweight the little increased weight due to rigid enclosure needed? Lets say we make it off some uber-hightech strong and still lighweight composite.

>> No.4354767

Just try to engineer an enclosure that is strong enough to resist 1 Atm, large enough to lift an airship, and yet be light enough. It can't be done.

>> No.4354770

>>4354732
>>4354735

>thinking mildly misguided questions are trolls.

damn /sci/, why are you guys such miserable insufferable faggots?

>> No.4354776

>>4354756
well uber-hightech strong and still lighweight composite vacuum cleaners are still going to have weight, and the fabric surrounding the blimp will add a little to that weight, and i really cant see how the blimp would even get off the ground...

plus, this would take up a lot of vaccuum cleaners, maybe several hundred. Lots of families would have dusty houses and they're would be a shortage of vacuum cleaners.
Using helium is definitely better.

>> No.4354782

>>4354756

Not a bit. Hydrogen and Helium are so light compared to air, that the improvement gained by using a vacuum would be tiny. The requirement to have solid walls would greatly outweigh the buoyancy of the vacuum.

>> No.4354780

>>4354770
because our daddies touched us inappropriately when we were kids...
:(

>> No.4354785

The pressure drop from 100 km/h winds (as, say, in a hurricane) is about 0.5 kPa. This is enough to rip off the roofs of houses in Florida.

Atmospheric pressure is 100 kPa.

>> No.4354788

>>4354776
Vaccuum cleaners? What?

>> No.4354792
File: 6 KB, 210x173, 4colourtheoremtroll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4354792

>>4354788

>> No.4354800

>>4354728

Because buoyancy. You're a troll or stupid and I'm too drunk to share intellect. Fuck off. Reported.

>> No.4354814
File: 18 KB, 342x289, 4587648633.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4354814

>>4354800
i lol'd

>> No.4354815

There should be tanks of Nitrogen Gas to keep boats buoyant

>> No.4355728

The fact is people have tried and failed with this idea since 1670 when Francesco Lana de Terzi introduced it. This has lead many to conclude it is impossible, thus everyone just gave up and the very idea is mocked without any real thought. It not like new technologies have been developed that could fix this. Clearly if some expert tried and failed long ago we must conclude it can never be done.

Having studied Material Engineering I am very annoyed by this as we have material and processes that can fix this problem. Vacuum airships can be made right now if we wanted to. It could be made even better if we actually researched it.

I made plans for two different types of vacuum airship, both work with a large margin for error for safety, but I could not sell the ideas as a 15000ft ceiling is unacceptably low for a flying fortress of doom and the other did not have landing capabilities. That was only for the few that stopped laughing long enough to check my numbers, But instead of applauding my genius, they made those complaints along with the cost. 7 Billion of one and 567 Billion for the other fully loaded with low maintenance costs, both are made with planetary conquest in mind. It would cost about 40 Million if you just wanted a simple one for a flying house or to move stuff around.

>> No.4355736

>>4355728

lol

>> No.4355958

Because it's like a lead balloon; possible, but terribly inefficient.