republican-creole
site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
391
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
kudos:1
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southeast

Power?

With something this big and the weight of batteries. How do they plan on keeping them charged alot of solar panels?

Tho the tech has changed for solar in years i dont see how the panels are going to charge and run everything in one shot. Very low voltage ring a bell maybe?

raythompsontn

join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

There is no problem with cloud cover that far up and the sun is actually quite strong. The SKYLAB and current space station operated on nothing but solar panels and probably consumed more power than the equivalent of a satellite. Satellites operate on solar panels and are much smaller than what could be placed on a blimp.

There is also not a lot of wind 12 miles up. There is not even a lot of atmosphere that high up. The biggest problem would be what do you use to keep the blimp in position? Without air there is nothing for a propeller system to pull against. Rocket propulsion would quickly run out of fuel.

There are daunting problems. Not the same problems that normal blimps would have to deal with in operation. There is extreme cold that must be overcome but that is already done in satellites so the same technology may be used.

What happens when a blimp fails? It will fall to earth and will probably no burn up in the atmosphere as a satellite does. What if the thing deflates and comes down on I-405 in SoCal during rush hour?

Daunting problems for sure. But so was putting a man on the moon and returning the person to earth. The technology and space knowledge of today is much more advanced than the 60's when the moon was conquered. Time will tell.



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

said by raythompsontn:

There is no problem with cloud cover that far up and the sun is actually quite strong. The SKYLAB and current space station operated on nothing but solar panels and probably consumed more power than the equivalent of a satellite. Satellites operate on solar panels and are much smaller than what could be placed on a blimp.

There is also not a lot of wind 12 miles up. There is not even a lot of atmosphere that high up. The biggest problem would be what do you use to keep the blimp in position? Without air there is nothing for a propeller system to pull against. Rocket propulsion would quickly run out of fuel.

There are daunting problems. Not the same problems that normal blimps would have to deal with in operation. There is extreme cold that must be overcome but that is already done in satellites so the same technology may be used.

What happens when a blimp fails? It will fall to earth and will probably no burn up in the atmosphere as a satellite does. What if the thing deflates and comes down on I-405 in SoCal during rush hour?

Daunting problems for sure. But so was putting a man on the moon and returning the person to earth. The technology and space knowledge of today is much more advanced than the 60's when the moon was conquered. Time will tell.
Solar, and engines running off solar, makes sense to me.

vinnie97
Premium
join:2003-12-05
US
kudos:1

2 edits

reply to raythompsontn

said by raythompsontn:

The technology and space knowledge of today is much more advanced than the 60's when the moon was conquered. Time will tell.
As it should, we've got to account for that almost 50 years in some way, right?


calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

reply to Cheese

said by Cheese:

Solar, and engines running off solar, makes sense to me.
OK, so you're talking electric engines running propellers--but at 63,000 feet, there isn't much air for the propellers to work against. Any propeller engine would be very inefficient at such an altitude.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

said by calvoiper:

said by Cheese:

Solar, and engines running off solar, makes sense to me.
OK, so you're talking electric engines running propellers--but at 63,000 feet, there isn't much air for the propellers to work against. Any propeller engine would be very inefficient at such an altitude.

calvoiper
I never said propellers, I just said engines.

tkdslr

join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
Reviews:
·Speakeasy

reply to hayabusa3303

said by hayabusa3303:

With something this big and the weight of batteries. How do they plan on keeping them charged alot of solar panels?

Tho the tech has changed for solar in years i dont see how the panels are going to charge and run everything in one shot. Very low voltage ring a bell maybe?
Solar cells have dramatically improved.. and there is a very large and useful surface area on the blimp. (plenty of excess power during daytime).

As for batteries.. fuel cells feed by bladders inside the blimp. The bladders can also be used to control buoyancy by adjusting relative volume (pumping H2 to/from higher pressure semi ridged bladders). Additional water can be exacted from the atmosphere(or ships surface) when needed.



calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

reply to Cheese
All right--how are the "engines" going to move the craft?

If they're solar powered, they can't expel matter like rocket engines. They can't burn fossil fuel like a ramjet or scramjet. There's too much atmosphere for a Bussard Ramjet Design (ignoring that BRJs are still science fiction at this point, that BRJs are nuclear in nature--thus politically impossible, and that BRJs aren't suitable for maneuvering.)

You can't just say "solar powered." You have to come up with some kind of solar powered engine that would actually work--and there isn't one.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!



tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

reply to calvoiper

said by calvoiper:

there isn't much air for the propellers to work against. Any propeller engine would be very inefficient at such an altitude.
True, but remember the only thing the engine needs to do is perform station keeping. The same rarefied atmosphere that reduces propeller efficiency also means winds aloft don't have much energy. The engines only need to be powerful enough to counteract wind so it stays in the same location.

/Tom

Monday, 28-May 06:56:35 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics