Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.Trantor wrote:those neocon-rats turned this planet into a casino, where everyone except the upper 10k loses.
14.12.1972
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: 14.12.1972
Re: 14.12.1972
Nope. Heads, I win. Tails, I win too.
Re: 14.12.1972
All right, for a moment I though you actually could provide an intelligent answer. You got meTrantor wrote:(bunch of one liners)
Please go return your degree.No, equatorial bases are only good for GTO, or equatorial LEO.
Re: 14.12.1972
You got your tenses wrong. Both already had their nasty surprises, the question is if they'll remain in a downward slide or manage to claw their way back up.Trantor wrote:This is BTW IMHO also relevant to outsider: I can see some parallels between the Loroi and the late Victorian society, both think they´re invincible, and both are on the brink of an upcoming unpleasant surprise.
Hey, it didn't spend all of it's time with it's nose down! (yes, I read the rest of the post)Trantor wrote:You misspelled "ugly" quite a little...Smithy wrote:Oh and she's gorgeous.
In a way, this is the fault of my home state. Back when they did the supersonic tests here, glass windows would shatter and drywall would crack. Suffice to say, there were complaints.Trantor wrote:tl,dr.Smithy wrote:Onwards to the defense of concord!
No, really, the Concorde was a fine plane, i loved the sound when her reheaters fired up at the take-off run, but she WAS a commercial failure.
How DID the Russians ever fit that many vacuum tubes in there ?Trantor wrote:Well, except the Concordsky, an even bigger commercial failure...Smithy wrote:with still no equal.
~2002 I found it hard to believe that Detroit would survive the next two decades, but Ford didn't even need a bailout. As long as you hold down "flush" hard enough, industries can often (I won't say always) recover.Smithy wrote:[snip]Trantor wrote:Yeah, that´s the british "Dolchstosslegende".
It may have contributed, but the main reasons were the constant ingnoring of customers demands (esp international) and the utterly lousy "quality" of british cars.
Or car-lookalikes.
It was a toxic environment for industry, and it's no surprise it kinda died. They're green shoots, but I find it hard to believe their will ever be a large "British" car company again.
That be said, there are Hondas and Toyotas that have been designed and constructed here in the Uk, and are now marketed in Japan as "British" because apparently they dig that kinda stuff.
WW2: because the Europeans got their way the first time (note: feel free to blame the French, us Americans always consider them fair game... "Victory Gardens" required a full-blown war, "Freedom Fries" didn't).Smithy wrote:Your country and Japan were virtually annihilated, at the cost of driving ourselves into total bankruptcy (hence the loss of Empire). With large American investment
I'm sure that in 50 years it'll be revisited.Trantor wrote:That´s why i hate the Cargolifter and von Gablenz and his thugs. And all the silly twats that helped to fund this POS.Smithy wrote:You Germans do like your airships
They effectively finished off serious investments in Zeppelins in Germany for all time. B****ds.
Unless you have an idea that's dubious enough to swing DARPA funding stuffed in your back pocket, of course. I myself have occasionally wondered if an airship could be used as a launch vehicle, though my general assumption is admittedly "no".
Oh? I though the reason was "because noone uses rocket fuel to weatherproof aircraft anymore"?Trantor wrote:Weather would not be of big concern to a real (new) Zeppelin, since there´s a pretty good forecast today, and shelters aren´t that expensive in comparison to those needed for the CL.Smithy wrote:(anything heavily dependent on the weather is always a bit suspect really).
Ugly ducklings traditionally turn out to be swans, try again .Trantor wrote:Well, the He178 with HeS3 was faster than your ugly duck. Go figure.
Having heard AM radio here in America, we seriously didn't shoot ourselves in the foot.Trantor wrote:Yes, the only way out was developing new ideas and products. Result was e.g. the VW Beetle, one of the best-selling cars of all time, FM-radio, since the allied blocked all frequencies (haha, talk about shooting yourself in the foot),
Re: 14.12.1972
<Stillstorm>Victor_D wrote:All right, for a moment I though you actually could provide an intelligent answer. You got me
Please go return your degree.
"It´s ad hominem is disappointing."
</Stillstorm>
sapere aude.
Re: 14.12.1972
I was merely commenting on your disappointing lack of credible arguments, which makes your arrogant demeanour even more baffling.Trantor wrote:(...)
I am new here, so I didn't know what to expect. Lesson learned.
Re: 14.12.1972
Can you specify your thought, please? Of which year, or let´s say decade are you refering? There´s sth lost in translation to me (not your fault!).Absalom wrote:You got your tenses wrong. Both already had their nasty surprises, the question is if they'll remain in a downward slide or manage to claw their way back up.Trantor wrote:This is BTW IMHO also relevant to outsider: I can see some parallels between the Loroi and the late Victorian society, both think they´re invincible, and both are on the brink of an upcoming unpleasant surprise.
Well, the engineers answer would have been V 2.0 with less noise and better subsonic efficiency.Absalom wrote:In a way, this is the fault of my home state. Back when they did the supersonic tests here, glass windows would shatter and drywall would crack. Suffice to say, there were complaints.Trantor wrote:No, really, the Concorde was a fine plane, i loved the sound when her reheaters fired up at the take-off run, but she WAS a commercial failure.
Well, at least this thingies were EMP-proven.Absalom wrote:How DID the Russians ever fit that many vacuum tubes in there ?Trantor wrote:Well, except the Concordsky, an even bigger commercial failure...Smithy wrote:with still no equal.
Hm, how about abandoning the idea of "too big to fail" and just let them crash? After the first shock the competiton profits, business returns to normal within three or four years, but no taxmoney is wasted.Absalom wrote:~2002 I found it hard to believe that Detroit would survive the next two decades, but Ford didn't even need a bailout. As long as you hold down "flush" hard enough, industries can often (I won't say always) recover.
Cargolifter? Hopefully not.Absalom wrote:I'm sure that in 50 years it'll be revisited.
Zeppelins? Hopefully earlier.
Well, Zeppelins are no universal answer, but they can serve in many niches. I could see a market big enough to be profitable. At least a little.Absalom wrote:I myself have occasionally wondered if an airship could be used as a launch vehicle, though my general assumption is admittedly "no".
Helium?Absalom wrote:Oh? I though the reason was "because noone uses rocket fuel to weatherproof aircraft anymore"?
Not in mad-cow-disease-country. scnr.Absalom wrote:Ugly ducklings traditionally turn out to be swans, try again .
This (still big market share of AM radio in the US) is a phenomenon to me. I visited the states (in the 80ies) and AM radio to me was lousy sounding and utterly backwards. You couldn´t even listen to it in the car, except when it stood still. No comparison to European FM and especially (now defunct) German "Travel-ARI"-system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofahrer ... ionssystem).Absalom wrote:Having heard AM radio here in America, we seriously didn't shoot ourselves in the foot.Trantor wrote:Yes, the only way out was developing new ideas and products. Result was e.g. the VW Beetle, one of the best-selling cars of all time, FM-radio, since the allied blocked all frequencies (haha, talk about shooting yourself in the foot),
sapere aude.
Re: 14.12.1972
So i guess it would be utterly easy to instantly come up with far better arguments, no?Victor_D wrote:I was merely commenting on your disappointing lack of credible arguments
"Don´t get distracted by the staging, it´s all for the entertainment purpose."Victor_D wrote:which makes your arrogant demeanour even more baffling.
(BTW: Again ad hominem?)
Yes, welcome to ze internets.Victor_D wrote:I am new here, so I didn't know what to expect. Lesson learned.
Plus a Carrie Mistmass! And a Yappy! You Hear?
sapere aude.
Re: 14.12.1972
The British Empire is already dead, and the Loroi have already had two massive blows to their military might. You used future tense, I think that past tense would work and be guaranteed accurate.Trantor wrote:Can you specify your thought, please? Of which year, or let´s say decade are you refering? There´s sth lost in translation to me (not your fault!).Absalom wrote:You got your tenses wrong. Both already had their nasty surprises, the question is if they'll remain in a downward slide or manage to claw their way back up.Trantor wrote:This is BTW IMHO also relevant to outsider: I can see some parallels between the Loroi and the late Victorian society, both think they´re invincible, and both are on the brink of an upcoming unpleasant surprise.
I believe the tests were done with unrelated fighter jets. Besides, there's also the competitors we dream about every once in a while, so the politicians would likely have fought against it regardless.Trantor wrote:Well, the engineers answer would have been V 2.0 with less noise and better subsonic efficiency.Absalom wrote:In a way, this is the fault of my home state. Back when they did the supersonic tests here, glass windows would shatter and drywall would crack. Suffice to say, there were complaints.Trantor wrote:No, really, the Concorde was a fine plane, i loved the sound when her reheaters fired up at the take-off run, but she WAS a commercial failure.
I favor taking a chainsaw to them and reinstating the old regulations. Banking regulations don't exist to be fair to banks, nor to allow them to do business naturally, they exist to keep banks from nuking the economy every twenty years.Trantor wrote:Hm, how about abandoning the idea of "too big to fail" and just let them crash? After the first shock the competiton profits, business returns to normal within three or four years, but no taxmoney is wasted.Absalom wrote:~2002 I found it hard to believe that Detroit would survive the next two decades, but Ford didn't even need a bailout. As long as you hold down "flush" hard enough, industries can often (I won't say always) recover.
I'm sure that within areas with poor access & low wind speeds something with the business plan of Cargolifter could work.Trantor wrote:Cargolifter? Hopefully not.Absalom wrote:I'm sure that in 50 years it'll be revisited.
Zeppelins? Hopefully earlier.
Personally, I'd probably just go with a Blimp, but I'm sure that it could work. If you meet both those criteria.
Ah, but can they actually get beyond the atmosphere? I figure the rule is probably "enough fuel to leave the atmosphere, or enough lift to float: choose one".Trantor wrote:Well, Zeppelins are no universal answer, but they can serve in many niches. I could see a market big enough to be profitable. At least a little.Absalom wrote:I myself have occasionally wondered if an airship could be used as a launch vehicle, though my general assumption is admittedly "no".
No, seriously, cloth skinned aircraft of the time were coated in a mixture that apparently resembles the fuel in the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters. Those flames while the Hindenburg went down? Not hydrogen. There might have still been a fire, but I recall reading that if they were using modern weatherproofing materials then the Hindenburg would have landed softly enough that everyone could have escaped.Trantor wrote:Helium?Absalom wrote:Oh? I though the reason was "because noone uses rocket fuel to weatherproof aircraft anymore"?
Sounds like you had a weird radio tuner, but yes, the quality is horrible. The reason why it still exists (at least as far as I can tell) is that there's less demand from the various radio industries, so low-fidelity stuff like e.g. Rush Limbaugh has an easier time getting a station allocation.Trantor wrote:This (still big market share of AM radio in the US) is a phenomenon to me. I visited the states (in the 80ies) and AM radio to me was lousy sounding and utterly backwards. You couldn´t even listen to it in the car, except when it stood still. No comparison to European FM and especially (now defunct) German "Travel-ARI"-system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofahrer ... ionssystem).Absalom wrote:Having heard AM radio here in America, we seriously didn't shoot ourselves in the foot.Trantor wrote:Yes, the only way out was developing new ideas and products. Result was e.g. the VW Beetle, one of the best-selling cars of all time, FM-radio, since the allied blocked all frequencies (haha, talk about shooting yourself in the foot),
After all, if it's just Limbaugh, who cares how high the audio quality is?
Re: 14.12.1972
Ah, this. No, i said "late Victorian society", and by that i meant England at the dawn of WW2. Sorry for the confusion.Absalom wrote:The British Empire is already dead, and the Loroi have already had two massive blows to their military might. You used future tense, I think that past tense would work and be guaranteed accurate.
Yes, Boeing also had a SST project.Absalom wrote:Besides, there's also the competitors we dream about every once in a while, so the politicians would likely have fought against it regardless.
I have the distinct feeling that currently they are doing exactly this.Absalom wrote:Banking regulations don't exist to be fair to banks, nor to allow them to do business naturally, they exist to keep banks from nuking the economy every twenty years.
Not CL.Absalom wrote:I'm sure that within areas with poor access & low wind speeds something with the business plan of Cargolifter could work.
But a Zeppelin can be used to tow an unmotorized freightblimp or -balloon.
No, it is even uneconomic to go above 2500ft.Absalom wrote:Ah, but can they actually get beyond the atmosphere?
Ah, the skin, yes. Aluminium and ironoxide. But the fire was hydrogen.Absalom wrote:No, seriously, cloth skinned aircraft of the time were coated in a mixture that apparently resembles the fuel in the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters. Those flames while the Hindenburg went down? Not hydrogen.
When hydrogen once starts to burn it burns way too fast to stop it.Absalom wrote:There might have still been a fire
Well, if they were allowed to buy Helium, there wouldn´t have been a catastrophe at all...Absalom wrote:but I recall reading that if they were using modern weatherproofing materials then the Hindenburg would have landed softly enough that everyone could have escaped.
Had to google him, from what i read i don´t like him. A showpiece of an ugly stupid american.Absalom wrote:Sounds like you had a weird radio tuner, but yes, the quality is horrible. The reason why it still exists (at least as far as I can tell) is that there's less demand from the various radio industries, so low-fidelity stuff like e.g. Rush Limbaugh has an easier time getting a station allocation.
After all, if it's just Limbaugh, who cares how high the audio quality is?
sapere aude.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: 14.12.1972
But Absalom, the Invisible Hand will make us all prosperous and rich if we just remove all the regulations! Why do you hate America?! Are you a Communist?!?!? BURN HIM!!!!!!!Absalom wrote:I favor taking a chainsaw to them and reinstating the old regulations. Banking regulations don't exist to be fair to banks, nor to allow them to do business naturally, they exist to keep banks from nuking the economy every twenty years.
My grandpa loves him. It's why I avoid talking to him when I can (which is thankfully almost always).Trantor wrote:Had to google him, from what i read i don´t like him. A showpiece of an ugly stupid american.
Re: 14.12.1972
Over here in America they certainly are. From a certain perspective we can even blame the current mess on Clinton, because he actually reduced US regulations (specifically, some that dated to the Great Depression).Trantor wrote:I have the distinct feeling that currently they are doing exactly this.Absalom wrote:Banking regulations don't exist to be fair to banks, nor to allow them to do business naturally, they exist to keep banks from nuking the economy every twenty years.
Other than the CL having less structural reinforcement (by virtual of being a semi-rigid instead of a rigid), I'm not really certain what the big difference was.Trantor wrote:Not CL.Absalom wrote:I'm sure that within areas with poor access & low wind speeds something with the business plan of Cargolifter could work.
But a Zeppelin can be used to tow an unmotorized freightblimp or -balloon.
Why tow, though? Do Zeppelins not have the needed lifting capacity?
The hydrogen was surely burning (I can't imagine how it wouldn't be) but the flames captured in the photos were apparently the color of burning aluminum (either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics published a letter written by someone that worked in NASA, that they got in response to an article about the Hindenburg). Furthermore, the skin was obviously struck first, so the fire logically started there. A modern skin with lightning protection likely wouldn't have had the problem.Trantor wrote:Ah, the skin, yes. Aluminium and ironoxide. But the fire was hydrogen.Absalom wrote:No, seriously, cloth skinned aircraft of the time were coated in a mixture that apparently resembles the fuel in the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters. Those flames while the Hindenburg went down? Not hydrogen.
I'm saying that I'm not certain if the fire actually would have started, not whether any fire could have been stopped.Trantor wrote:When hydrogen once starts to burn it burns way too fast to stop it.Absalom wrote:There might have still been a fire
The next generation of Zeppelins probably won't be able to get helium either, since some idiot (US government) started selling it on the open market where it gets used for party balloons all the time.Trantor wrote:Well, if they were allowed to buy Helium, there wouldn´t have been a catastrophe at all...Absalom wrote:but I recall reading that if they were using modern weatherproofing materials then the Hindenburg would have landed softly enough that everyone could have escaped.
Guess someone better start working out how to build a Zeppelin based on vacuum bags, instead of helium gas bags.
Before I'd ever heard him, I saw a book that he apparently wrote called "I told you so". I disliked him immediately. Then I heard him say that in response to the US government banning the sale of incandescents he was going to stockpile them (or something along those lines, I forget the details), which just clinched the deal.Trantor wrote:Had to google him, from what i read i don´t like him. A showpiece of an ugly stupid american.Absalom wrote:[snip]
After all, if it's just Limbaugh, who cares how high the audio quality is?
Actually I love America, that's why I dislike the Invisible Hand, they're all Neo-Royalists .fredgiblet wrote:But Absalom, the Invisible Hand will make us all prosperous and rich if we just remove all the regulations! Why do you hate America?! Are you a Communist?!?!? BURN HIM!!!!!!!Absalom wrote:I favor taking a chainsaw to them and reinstating the old regulations. Banking regulations don't exist to be fair to banks, nor to allow them to do business naturally, they exist to keep banks from nuking the economy every twenty years.
More seriously, they tend to be either idiots who don't know about the actual economics (Ayn Rand fans!), or greedy. A rising tide does indeed lift all boats, but the boats are the upper class, which means that if the lower and middle class don't "rise", the upper class starts to lose money. Every time I hear someone support anarchism or libertarianism (or even financial deregulation) I wind up thinking "that idiot".
Re: 14.12.1972
It´s worse here in Europe. Just look how Adolf Merkel and the banksters rob out everyone. Look how they clobber the greek. I´m really ashamed of this thugs and this sick system.Absalom wrote:Over here in America they certainly are. From a certain perspective we can even blame the current mess on Clinton, because he actually reduced US regulations (specifically, some that dated to the Great Depression).Trantor wrote:I have the distinct feeling that currently they are doing exactly this.Absalom wrote:Banking regulations don't exist to be fair to banks, nor to allow them to do business naturally, they exist to keep banks from nuking the economy every twenty years.
Lotsa details - aerodynamics be the first.Absalom wrote:Other than the CL having less structural reinforcement (by virtual of being a semi-rigid instead of a rigid), I'm not really certain what the big difference was.Trantor wrote:Not CL.Absalom wrote:I'm sure that within areas with poor access & low wind speeds something with the business plan of Cargolifter could work.
But a Zeppelin can be used to tow an unmotorized freightblimp or -balloon.
Gah, the whole concept was crap.
Think about the whole process, especially loading and unloading. A Zeppelin is expensive, and dawdling around while lifting gas and freight are being transferred costs money. For comparable reasons the semi-trailer trucks were invented.Absalom wrote:Why tow, though? Do Zeppelins not have the needed lifting capacity?
More important, it is dangerous, because the lifting body has to be rigged in the middle (or exactly above the freight-COG) in that process, and a rigid airship doesn´t respond to that very well, especially in windy circumstances (In fact it doesn´t even work well in still air).
A balloon is way easier to handle. You can even just blow off the gas (depends on the price though, it´ll be better hydrogen) and fold the ballon on-site for re-use.
And even if there´s a mishap while handling, it´s only the balloon, not the expensive Zep.
Hydrogen burns way faster than aluminium, i think it´s the gas igniting the hull.Absalom wrote:The hydrogen was surely burning (I can't imagine how it wouldn't be) but the flames captured in the photos were apparently the color of burning aluminum
I´m pretty sure it´s easier to develop anti-grav...Absalom wrote:Guess someone better start working out how to build a Zeppelin based on vacuum bags, instead of helium gas bags.
It is a relieve to see that obviously not all americans stopped thinking for themselves. Kudos!Absalom wrote:Actually I love America, that's why I dislike the Invisible Hand, they're all Neo-Royalists .fredgiblet wrote:But Absalom, the Invisible Hand will make us all prosperous and rich if we just remove all the regulations! Why do you hate America?! Are you a Communist?!?!? BURN HIM!!!!!!!
More seriously, they tend to be either idiots who don't know about the actual economics (Ayn Rand fans!), or greedy. A rising tide does indeed lift all boats, but the boats are the upper class, which means that if the lower and middle class don't "rise", the upper class starts to lose money. Every time I hear someone support anarchism or libertarianism (or even financial deregulation) I wind up thinking "that idiot".
sapere aude.
Re: 14.12.1972
Oh, from a certain perspective they're right, it's just that it's a perspective that's doing to the Greeks what the French & British did to Germany at the end of WW1. Apparently Europe never changes.Trantor wrote:It´s worse here in Europe. Just look how Adolf Merkel and the banksters rob out everyone. Look how they clobber the greek. I´m really ashamed of this thugs and this sick system.Absalom wrote:Over here in America they certainly are. From a certain perspective we can even blame the current mess on Clinton, because he actually reduced US regulations (specifically, some that dated to the Great Depression).Trantor wrote:I have the distinct feeling that currently they are doing exactly this.
Largely from the lack of nose and tail reinforcements, right?Trantor wrote:Lotsa details - aerodynamics be the first.Absalom wrote:Other than the CL having less structural reinforcement (by virtual of being a semi-rigid instead of a rigid), I'm not really certain what the big difference was.Trantor wrote:Not CL.
But a Zeppelin can be used to tow an unmotorized freightblimp or -balloon.
All good points, except that I would expect the actual rigging to consist of preparing the cargo-side lines first, grounding the Zeppelin when it arrives, and then quickly attaching the Zeppelin-side harness to the Cargo-side harness. So, speed shouldn't be of much concern (you did remember to stipulate that every minute that the sender requires to rig their cargo TO the Zeppelin is charged to them, right ? ), though I don't know that this would help much (if at all) with stability. And, of course, it would require semi-standardized tie points, which might get you stuck with a fixed size of airship if it's poorly thought out.Trantor wrote:Think about the whole process, especially loading and unloading. A Zeppelin is expensive, and dawdling around while lifting gas and freight are being transferred costs money. For comparable reasons the semi-trailer trucks were invented.Absalom wrote:Why tow, though? Do Zeppelins not have the needed lifting capacity?
More important, it is dangerous, because the lifting body has to be rigged in the middle (or exactly above the freight-COG) in that process, and a rigid airship doesn´t respond to that very well, especially in windy circumstances (In fact it doesn´t even work well in still air).
A balloon is way easier to handle. You can even just blow off the gas (depends on the price though, it´ll be better hydrogen) and fold the ballon on-site for re-use.
And even if there´s a mishap while handling, it´s only the balloon, not the expensive Zep.
Yeah, I guess cheapo-blimps would make more sense for the actual carrying portion. And, for that matter, that would actually increase the cargo capacity of the zeppelin, in much the same way that barges (vastly) increase the carrying capacity of tugs.
The hydrogen wouldn't have been exposed to air, so unless the lightning blew out the skin without igniting it (which I find highly dubious), the hull caught fire first. Also worth noting is that another letter that they published was from someone who had flown cloth-skinned airplanes at some point after metal had become the norm. At one point, an instructor took a piece of cloth with roughly the same coating as the Hindenburg had, and dropped it onto their stove. The coating was sufficiently temperature-sensitive that it immediately burst into flames. Seriously, the Hindenburg was coated in "rocket" fuel, the hydrogen was just gasoline thrown onto an already-lit fire.Trantor wrote:Hydrogen burns way faster than aluminium, i think it´s the gas igniting the hull.Absalom wrote:The hydrogen was surely burning (I can't imagine how it wouldn't be) but the flames captured in the photos were apparently the color of burning aluminum
If we can get sufficient production of carbon nanotubes going then we'll have the structural portion of the vacuum bag ready, which will leave a sealant for the bag (which might not be needed, depending on how the structural portion is built), the internal tension members (to keep the bag from collapsing), cables to keep the tension members in the correct alignment (imagine a tank-trap made from three I-beams), and the cushioning that you stick onto the ends of the tension members to keep them from ripping the bag.Trantor wrote:I´m pretty sure it´s easier to develop anti-grav...Absalom wrote:Guess someone better start working out how to build a Zeppelin based on vacuum bags, instead of helium gas bags.
Whereas we can't yet confirm that anti-grav can work :p .
A vacuum-zeppelin would be (technologically, at least) easier than a true anti-grav device.
Re: 14.12.1972
And the general shape, especially under load.Absalom wrote:Largely from the lack of nose and tail reinforcements, right?
Ah, i detect a fundamental misunderstanding: Zeppelins do not "fly", so they do not "land". Zeppelins sail, and they do this without so-called aerodynamic "weight". So you can´t just attach cargo without transferring gas.Absalom wrote:All good points, except that I would expect the actual rigging to consist of preparing the cargo-side lines first, grounding the Zeppelin when it arrives, and then quickly attaching the Zeppelin-side harness to the Cargo-side harness.
And ballast is no solution, because where to get ballast from at the unloading site? When you can haul ballast, you can haul freight also. No need for a blimp then. This was also a fundamental flaw to the Cl.
And then: A Zeppelin is called "rigid" per definition, but in fact it isn´t.
No chance of simply attaching a huge weight to a point.
You have to distribute the weight over the better part of the whole length.
The CL would have "solved" this problem by it´s carbon-fiber backbone (which in reality doesn´t work, because there will never be autoclaves big/long enough to produce them; heck, detaaails!).
Exactly. There are already commercial solutions for up to 75 metric tons of lift, and they´re used as cranes on very remote construction sites. With little modification they can be used as trailers.Absalom wrote:Yeah, I guess cheapo-blimps would make more sense for the actual carrying portion. And, for that matter, that would actually increase the cargo capacity of the zeppelin, in much the same way that barges (vastly) increase the carrying capacity of tugs.
Yes, but it remains to be proved if/how far a fire on the skin would have damaged the lifting cells, if they were filled with helium.Absalom wrote:Seriously, the Hindenburg was coated in "rocket" fuel, the hydrogen was just gasoline thrown onto an already-lit fire.
You underestimate vacuum and pressure issues quite a little. Differential pressure is a strong power, i once saw a test, where they blew open a safe with only a few hundred millibar (!) internal pressure peak. So i´m pretty sure that nano-thingies won´t work because of too much structural weight.Absalom wrote:If we can get sufficient production of carbon nanotubes going then we'll have the structural portion of the vacuum bag ready, which will leave a sealant for the bag (which might not be needed, depending on how the structural portion is built), the internal tension members (to keep the bag from collapsing), cables to keep the tension members in the correct alignment (imagine a tank-trap made from three I-beams), and the cushioning that you stick onto the ends of the tension members to keep them from ripping the bag.
Whereas we can't yet confirm that anti-grav can work :p .
A vacuum-zeppelin would be (technologically, at least) easier than a true anti-grav device.
Remember, a cubic metre of air is roughly only 1,1 kg of weight on sea level, and a cubic metre of helium has roughly only 1 kg of lift at the same level. If you ascend, this capability decreases quickly. That´s why it is even uneconomic to go above 2500ft.
sapere aude.
Re: 14.12.1972
Ah, they would curve like a banana, got it.Trantor wrote:And the general shape, especially under load.Absalom wrote:Largely from the lack of nose and tail reinforcements, right?
Why would I suggest ballast, don't zeppelins normally have the capability to compress their lift gas while pumping normal atmosphere into additional gas cells contained inside the normal ones? I was certain that I'd seen a mention somewhere of at least some lighter-than-air craft using a system like this.Trantor wrote:Ah, i detect a fundamental misunderstanding: Zeppelins do not "fly", so they do not "land". Zeppelins sail, and they do this without so-called aerodynamic "weight". So you can´t just attach cargo without transferring gas.Absalom wrote:All good points, except that I would expect the actual rigging to consist of preparing the cargo-side lines first, grounding the Zeppelin when it arrives, and then quickly attaching the Zeppelin-side harness to the Cargo-side harness.
And ballast is no solution, because where to get ballast from at the unloading site? When you can haul ballast, you can haul freight also. No need for a blimp then. This was also a fundamental flaw to the Cl.
I imagine that a "cargo spine" could be done, but I certainly wouldn't want to try to integrate it into the actual airship. Better to design it as an accessory that you connect to standardized mounting points, and then use to redistribute the weight of whatever you're moving. And, of course, the weight would count against the allocated weight, and the customer would be required to supply the spine.Trantor wrote:And then: A Zeppelin is called "rigid" per definition, but in fact it isn´t.
No chance of simply attaching a huge weight to a point.
You have to distribute the weight over the better part of the whole length.
The CL would have "solved" this problem by it´s carbon-fiber backbone (which in reality doesn´t work, because there will never be autoclaves big/long enough to produce them; heck, detaaails!).
I haven't done the math (I don't care enough to do it), but remember that I'm talking about the stuff that they're proposing to eventually build a space elevator out of. I've never heard if it's any good in compression, but it's apparently the best that we know of for tension. Mere iron or steel (or aluminum, or whatever else was used) is not nearly as strong as this stuff is. As I said, I haven't done the math for it, but if anything could stand the tension, then it would be carbon nano-tubes. Just not the current stuff, since the production stuff is apparently weaker than some of the stuff that they can make in labs.Trantor wrote:You underestimate vacuum and pressure issues quite a little. Differential pressure is a strong power, i once saw a test, where they blew open a safe with only a few hundred millibar (!) internal pressure peak. So i´m pretty sure that nano-thingies won´t work because of too much structural weight.Absalom wrote:If we can get sufficient production of carbon nanotubes going then we'll have the structural portion of the vacuum bag ready, which will leave a sealant for the bag (which might not be needed, depending on how the structural portion is built), the internal tension members (to keep the bag from collapsing), cables to keep the tension members in the correct alignment (imagine a tank-trap made from three I-beams), and the cushioning that you stick onto the ends of the tension members to keep them from ripping the bag.
Whereas we can't yet confirm that anti-grav can work :p .
A vacuum-zeppelin would be (technologically, at least) easier than a true anti-grav device.
Remember, a cubic metre of air is roughly only 1,1 kg of weight on sea level, and a cubic metre of helium has roughly only 1 kg of lift at the same level. If you ascend, this capability decreases quickly. That´s why it is even uneconomic to go above 2500ft.
Really, the carbon nanotubes aren't the weak point of that particular idea. The weak point is the internal bracing, which I didn't even bother to suggest a material for. As far as I know, we don't have anything that can tolerate compression nearly as well as the stuff that we have for tension.
I'm not certain that your point about the lifting capacity of helium is particularly relevant, since I was suggesting vacuum bags as a solution to the inevitable helium shortage, not as a way of achieving Space Zeppelins! We're expected to run out within the foreseeable future, because the US government started selling it too widely.
Re: 14.12.1972
No, they pushed air in to expel the lift gas (the valves were on the belly for safety reasons). But only in the older models. Later they invented "Blaugas" for fuel, which had the same specific weight as air, and they experimented with exhaustgas-condensers to obtain ballastwater from the engine-exhaust. But they had massive corrosion issues with these.Absalom wrote:Why would I suggest ballast, don't zeppelins normally have the capability to compress their lift gas while pumping normal atmosphere into additional gas cells contained inside the normal ones?
Nono, you´re missing the point: A "rigid" airship has to be flexible to a certain degree, a rigid spine would damage it.Absalom wrote:I imagine that a "cargo spine" could be done
Nah, too complicated. PAY for such a thing, maybe, but not provide their own.Absalom wrote:and the customer would be required to supply the spine.
But since it doesn´t work that way anyway, there´s no point.
Nope, a balloon to tow is IMHO the only way to go.
Space elevators will never work, at least not here on earth, because only one hit from an orbiting satellite, and that thing is toast. 28000km/h = ~8000m/s, that´s 10x faster than 16" shells from a battleship. Do the math.Absalom wrote:I haven't done the math (I don't care enough to do it), but remember that I'm talking about the stuff that they're proposing to eventually build a space elevator out of.
Too much construction weight. That´s for. Even if there´s a vacuum, the whole construct will be waaay too heavy to even lift itself.Absalom wrote:I'm not certain that your point about the lifting capacity of helium is particularly relevant, since I was suggesting vacuum bags as a solution to the inevitable helium shortage
Couldn´t work anyway, since Zeps are limited to the lower atmosphere.Absalom wrote:not as a way of achieving Space Zeppelins!
That´s a shame.Absalom wrote:We're expected to run out within the foreseeable future, because the US government started selling it too widely.
sapere aude.
Re: 14.12.1972
You're missing my meaning, the "cargo spine" would be for the cargo, not the zeppelin. It would only be connected to the zeppelin (or blimp, more likely) with cables. The only real point of it would be to redistribute the weight of the cargo more evenly. For that matter, it presumably wouldn't be a monolithic structure anyways, I assume that any such things would be designed as a series of beams, each hanging from either two points on the airship, or from the centers of two beams a "level" closer to the airship. Only the "final" beam would be, itself, rigid, and it (like the others) would probably be a truss instead of a monolithic beam.Trantor wrote:Nono, you´re missing the point: A "rigid" airship has to be flexible to a certain degree, a rigid spine would damage it.Absalom wrote:I imagine that a "cargo spine" could be done
Though even that is only one of any number of possible designs.
It would be applicable for blimps as well (though presumably not for balloons). And the customer "supplies" it because the cargo is attached to the spine, and the spine then cabled to the blimp. If the spine isn't already on-site and loaded with cargo when the zeppelin arrives, then it has to wait while the cargo is attached. The spine is the equivalent of a standard-size cargo container (though probably for out-size cargo), the lifting vehicle is the equivalent of a flatbed trailer.Trantor wrote:Nah, too complicated. PAY for such a thing, maybe, but not provide their own.Absalom wrote:and the customer would be required to supply the spine.
But since it doesn´t work that way anyway, there´s no point.
Nope, a balloon to tow is IMHO the only way to go.
Though this does assume a cargo that either requires alignment control, or is "support point dense" (such as a windmill tower held vertically).
There's obviously some debate on that, since it's being worked on anyways (at least the last time I checked), but honestly, whether space elevators will work isn't relevant. I was pointing out that carbon nanotubes aren't the weak point in the proposal, the internal compression bracing is.Trantor wrote:Space elevators will never work, at least not here on earth, because only one hit from an orbiting satellite, and that thing is toast. 28000km/h = ~8000m/s, that´s 10x faster than 16" shells from a battleship. Do the math.Absalom wrote:I haven't done the math (I don't care enough to do it), but remember that I'm talking about the stuff that they're proposing to eventually build a space elevator out of.
Are you saying that the force exerted on the skin will scale with the volume of the bag, rather than the surface area? I was under the impression that surface area was what mattered, implying that once a specific design exceeds the "break even" size, it obtains net lift. If my understanding of basic gas physics is wrong, then please feel free to correct me.Trantor wrote:Too much construction weight. That´s for. Even if there´s a vacuum, the whole construct will be waaay too heavy to even lift itself.Absalom wrote:I'm not certain that your point about the lifting capacity of helium is particularly relevant, since I was suggesting vacuum bags as a solution to the inevitable helium shortage
No problem, I thought it was unlikely that they'd have the hydrogen capacity to get through the upper atmosphere anyways.Trantor wrote:Couldn´t work anyway, since Zeps are limited to the lower atmosphere.Absalom wrote:not as a way of achieving Space Zeppelins!
Hence the vacuum-bag idea.Trantor wrote:That´s a shame.Absalom wrote:We're expected to run out within the foreseeable future, because the US government started selling it too widely.
Re: 14.12.1972
I got that, but it still doesn´t work. A Zeppelin despite it´s huge dimensions is a very fragile object, and it must be that fragile and flexible to react on winds, windshear, lift differences due to air pressure, sunlight, weather, or internal changes like burning fuel or even people wandering around.Absalom wrote:You're missing my meaning, the "cargo spine" would be for the cargo, not the zeppelin.
It is a static system of it´s own, and a spine or what ever is totally different. Too many variables, cannot compute.
You will still imply contractive force. It is pretty impossible to construct a "spine" that could serve as you think.Absalom wrote:I assume that any such things would be designed as a series of beams, each hanging from either two points on the airship
Sure, you can throw money at that problem, but the outcome would still be unsatisfactory, either in terms of complexity, or in cost, or in net lift, since the spine eats up payload.
A Zep is only able to haul bulk cargo which can be distributed over the whole ship.
KISS-priciple. ---> Balloon.Absalom wrote:Though even that is only one of any number of possible designs.
No. But all the details make it fail. One bird pinching the surface - Kaboom. One faulty weld - Kaboom. One redneck firing upon it - Kaboom.Absalom wrote:Are you saying that the force exerted on the skin will scale with the volume of the bag, rather than the surface area?
Zeps don´t have that problem. Even in WW1, when they were hit by multiple rounds they were able to maintain flight (except when they were hit with tracers). Since there´s no overpressure they bleeded gas only slowly, and so you just fixed that with stickers.
But with a difference of 1000mBar a hole always results in a catastrophic implosion.
sapere aude.