-1

So I was looking at old airships and a thought crossed my mind. Would a rocket that benefited from being lighter than air travel faster than standard rockets. I know the current designs are pretty quick - something like 8 minutes from Earth's surface to orbit. However, they are extremely expensive to make and dangerous. I always find lighter than air, aircraft to be fascinating. I know society seems to think it is an obsolete method for air travel but I would argue the exact opposite. The old USS Akron aircraft carrier seems like to coolest thing built in the last 100 years and one only need look at the amazing interior of Hindenburg to realize what mankind is missing out on.

As most know, the old airships used propellers for propulsion. Everybody says how they don't fare well in wind and storms. It seems like the answer is simply in new propulsion methods.

I imagine the answer could go either way. If the ship or rocket was small enough than perhaps we would see something really fast, maybe not though. I think the issue then would be not ripping apart from the g forces.

Grigori Rasputin
  • 1
  • 2
    There are many flawed ideas in your question. Lighter than air machines don't fare well in winds and storms for the very reason that they are lighter than air. Changing the propulsion (presumably you are thinking about going faster) will not change the fact that they are lighter than air and will be "pushed around" by the wind. They will simply fly diagonally faster. Inertia and momentum are the problems, not speed. If your rocket is lighter than air (even assuming that this is constant, which it is not, it must become heavier than air at some point), what payload are you proposing to lift? – Simon Jan 18 '17 at 08:35
  • 1
    The closest studied concept is the "airship to orbit" (ATO) idea: JP Aerospace. The future satellite slowly climbs to low orbit. It's feasible, but so far there are no use case, it's easier to climb with a rocket. However like Cubsats are a new way to access space for small relatively inexpensive applications, or drones are used to deliver pizzas, airship cannot be discarded entirely for future uses. – mins Jan 18 '17 at 09:23

1 Answers1

3

No.

To orbit you need lots of speed. To get lots of speed you need lots of mass (propellant)

Lots of mass and lighter than air are antinomic.

Look up this site and space.stackexchange for lots of other negative answers about orbit and blimps.

Ex: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2876/can-we-make-a-space-blimp

Community
  • 1
Antzi
  • 4,222
  • 4
  • 25
  • 46
  • I am fairly confident I answered what the OP meant. – Antzi Jan 18 '17 at 07:41
  • That may be true, but you have done this from an arguable assumption: "To go to orbit you need lots of speed" is not correct in theory. Velocity is required only to orbit when the engines are shutdown. You may go to orbit altitude at 1 mm/s if you have engines able to run the required time, or positive buoyancy. – mins Jan 18 '17 at 08:18
  • I don't think orbit is considered as a "place" rather than a state. I'm not sure which one of us is being awfully pedantic, but maybe we should wait for the OP's clarifications. – Antzi Jan 18 '17 at 08:38
  • 4
    @mins: Going to orbit is not about going high, it is about going sideways really fast. – Jörg W Mittag Jan 18 '17 at 10:57
  • Yeah, this question seems to be based on the incorrect notion that "orbit" is just a physical location. – David Schwartz Jan 18 '17 at 11:32
  • 1
    I clarified the answer in case someone else don't know the definition of orbit. – Antzi Jan 18 '17 at 13:00
  • @mins There are some misconceptions, indeed. It is safe to assume that the question is not about those partial orbits that terminate on the surface of Earth, but about common orbits which happen to be regular and repetitive. Some free fall trajectory are orbits, all orbits are free fall trajectories. Following an orbital path through the means of propulsion does not mean to "be in orbit". Proper orbital speed makes all the difference. – Jenc Jan 18 '17 at 16:33
  • There is ONE orbit that is a location though (assuming that the misconception is that we can climb vertically to orbit). Geo-synchronous orbit is the only orbit that requires zero horizontal velocity. So if one can find a way to get to that height slowly one can avoid needing high velocity. But minus a space elevator, the most fuel-efficient way to get there is to accelerate to a transfer orbit and then adjust. Trying to climb slowly at constant velocity requires even more fuel thus would necessitate an even bigger, heavier aircraft. – slebetman Jan 19 '17 at 17:49
  • @slebetman That's untrue; the orbital speed is 11 068 km/h for GEO; while the ground speed at the equator is 1 670km/h. So you don't just need to climb, you also need lots of sideway acceleration. – Antzi Jan 20 '17 at 02:41
  • Hey, thanks to all the responses. Wasn't really looking for answers on orbits and all that. It just seems like it would make sense. I watched a video of a guy propelling a blimp in a similar manner as one rides a bicycle. It seems like you could push a blimp for propulsion. I bet it would be incredibly fast. Who knows though, it just seems like that would be the case. Airships are different than blimps. Most people I talk to don't seem to understand that. However, both become heavier than air at some point. The whole idea is to get going fast. Interesting idea nonetheless – Grigori Rasputin Jan 31 '17 at 06:03