Vacuum Airship

What if it implodes?!

What would be the use?

What's the point?

>>8248902
>>8248908
They would use less energy than planes, would be less likely to explode (though they could implode like >>8248897 mentioned) than hydrogen airships, wouldn't waste helium like helium airships.

>>8248902
>>8248908
Airships without lift gas. So, same use as airships used today.

>>8248897
Then it implodes.

>>8248897
>>8248902
>>8248908
You don't know the answer to the OP then.

>>8248912
Making and maintaing a vacuum negates both of those points. Also, a vacuum could implode. Imagine that, for a moment. Dare I say, it's more dangerous then hydrogen.

>>8248918
>>8248897
Do you know what an implosion is?

>>8248918
>Dare I say, it's more dangerous then hydrogen.
I think the passengers' death would be quicker and less painful, though.

>>8248922
an instance of something collapsing violently inward:
"the star undergoes a violent implosion caused by gravity"

>>8248927
Depends on how the airship is cpnstructed. Also doesn't negate the fact that they die.

>>8248929
Airships are not stars.

>>8248942
"The airship undergoes a violent implosion caused by issues with the pressure vessel"

>>8248944
And?

I really don't get it. Things break. Normal airships break too.

>>8248950
My point is that >>8248912 is wrong in stating that an advantage of vacuum airships is that they don't use hydrogen, when they do use a something dangerous.

>>8248912
>>8248915
Why not launch a satellite?

>>8248952
>hydrogen
nobody uses fucking hydrogen
helium is expensive and we're running out

>>8248888
Not yet, any material strong/thick enough to maintain a vacuum makes the enclosed volume heavier than the air it displaces.

>>8248952
>when they do use a something dangerous.

I still don't get it. You don't use lift gas. Most airships have multiple chambers so that if one rips they will be able to safely land. I'd imagine a vacuum ship would be built in the same manner.

>>8248956
My point is that >>8248912 is wrong when claiming a degree of safety in vacuum airships

>>8248958
Finally, someone that isn't retarded, thank you.

>>8248912
>They would use less energy than planes
And also be a shit tonne slower, so why bother? Why not use a fucking plane?

>>8248967
I've got some bad news.

>>8248963
They are more dangerous than helium airships. An implosion would cause more damage than a burst envelope.

>>8248970
About what?

>>8248972
Are you an idiot?

>>8248973
I'm actually retarded, but at least I'm not dumb?

>>8248972
The worst that would happen is you hear something akin to a farting thunderclap and the airship would fall out of the sky. More likely, you'd see the ship list and come down under power with minimal injury to passengers.

>>8248976
Not being able to speak would be a plus for most people.

>>8248983
Ha!

We don't use airships for a few reasons
1. Slower than jets
2. More expensive than jets
3. Practically less useful than jets


People don't give a fuck about an airship because getting from A->B is more important than going 30 mph X000 feet up, not to mention descents would be fucking horrible

>>8248888
>Ask 1 question.
>get internet diarrhea posted
>1 out of 30 posts is a legit answer
>at least it hasn't devolved into /pol/shit

>>8248897
Taking the volume of the Hindenburg as an estimate, (200,000 meters cubed) and assuming that the vacuum-ship is located on the ground (Pressure is one atmosphere) the amount of energy released by a full implosion can be estimated at 2*10^10 joules, or approximately 5 tons of TNT.

How about instead of airships we work on a sub orbital flights or something that would make a concord like plane more practical?


Outside of military purposes, which all can be done with satellites or just a small drone ship the only thing you are left with is commercial. If you were to go to commercial how would you explain it taking a week to get from LA to NY to any paying customer when for 2-400 bucks they could get a ticket that gets you there and back in <8 each way.

>>8248991
This reminds me of the flying houses they were going to make in Russia;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knb6lVUY1tU

>>8248888
I think Buckminister Fuller designed something like that. I saw something about a really strong material made with some sort of boron carbon allotropes but I'm not sure if even those can make a vaccum airship practical.

>>8249081
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON1j2TJCoQU

No probably more like this, this channel reminds me of the thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k7iN9VR-rA

FUCKING WHY

>>8248888
Just wait for anti-gravity engines.

>>8248929
The reason that star's implosion is so powerful is because gravity is suddenly and violently overwhelmed by electromagnetic interacion, and it causes a nova.

An airship is not gonna fucking go nova.

>>8249149
Yeah it won't go nova because because it will never be built in the first place

>>8249149
See
>>8249021
If a vacuum ship were to collapse, enough energy would be released by the atmospheric pressure overcoming the mechanical strength of its container to level a city block.

>>8248995
100% this.

>>8248888
>Has mankind developed materials that will allow for vacuum airships to be feasible?
No.

>>8248991
How did this post not end the thread already?

>>8248956
We're not running out. Surprise surprise, when you actually look for it, you can find big deposits of it.

http://www.livescience.com/55204-huge-cache-of-ancient-helium-discovered.html

>"We sampled helium gas (and nitrogen) just bubbling out of the ground in the Tanzanian East African Rift valley," Chris Ballentine, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences at Oxford University, said in a statement. "By combining our understanding of helium geochemistry with seismic images of gas-trapping structures, independent experts have calculated a probable resource of 54 billion cubic feet [1.5 billion cubic meters] in just one part of the rift valley."

>>8248991
Airship are useful for getting to locations without any infrastructure. Which is why they are currently making a comeback. Especially for military use.

File: natmat875[1].jpg (570KB, 875x500px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 875x500px

>>8248888
I'd bet on some sort of nano lattice doing the trick.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com./2016/07/unlocking-potential-for-ultra.html

www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/supermaterial-with-weight-and-density.html

File: superlattice1[1].png (188KB, 798x389px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 798x389px

>>8249348
90kPa @ 10.2 kg/m3

Density of air is 1.275 kg/m3 @ STP, so it needs to get about 8 times stronger, maybe ten to be conservative.

>>8249334
Wow it's like drones and high powered satellites don't exist!

>>8248952
>wrong in stating that an advantage of vacuum airships is that they don't use hydrogen, when they do use a something dangerous.
The two things have nothing to do with each other, your perceived threat has nothing to do with the fact that this doesn't need hydrogen as a fuel source

>>8248954
Why not build a moon base?

>>8248888
No. Materials to contain the vacuum are too heavy.

/thread

No. That's retarded and infinitely less useful than a plane or a drone.

Gas yourself, futurefag.

>>8248918
>Making and maintaing a vacuum negates both of those points
lol?

maintaining a vacuum takes no energy.

making a vacuum takes very little energy.

fuck off retard

>>8249117
love those ideal conditions:
no wind, no rain, no snow

>>8249560
>i have no idea how vacuum pumps actually work so ill just shit out of my mouth and act like that is normal

Airships could be useful in construction as you wont have to haul heavy as fuck cranes o the construction site

File: Get Well Soon!.jpg (138KB, 615x411px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 615x411px

>people say "boooo" to airships
>same people want airship cities on Venus

>>8249523
Don't /thread yourself, it's gauche

>>8249486
For transporting heavy cargo to remote locations?
No there isn't a drone that can do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO76dkzV28k
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/lockheed-has-liftoff-sells-new-airships-in-480m-deal.html

>>8250422
>for when you need to transport bearded lumberjacks and dozer drivers to a remote wilderness location so they can destroy nature and make way for hydro fracking wells
>Lockheed Martin is there for you

>>8250550
kys hippie

File: Marillyn Hewson.jpg (140KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 620x350px

>>8250553
GB2ur hugbox Marillyn Hewson

>>8250173
>/sci/ is a single person

Anyway, airships in general ≠ vacuum airships. Comparing the weight of helium to vacuum is dishonest, as they'd need to be much sturdier to withstand the pressure, and thus heavier.

There's a chance the new Magnesium based alloy stuff could do it.

>At 0 °C and normal sea level pressure a mole of gas occupies 22.4 liters, so a cubic meter of air has a mass of: 1000 / 22.4 × 0.02896 = 1.293 kg."

What material could hold back 1atm or pressure, encompassing 1 cubic meter of space, and have a mass of less than 1.293 kg? You wouldn't be able to have a complete vacuum, it'd only be an area of low pressure. If you can get it to 28inHg I'd be surprised.

The lightest and strongest material seems to be a magnesium-alloy syntactic foam that is 1 gram per cubic centimeter (density of water.) You'd be limited to less than 1293 grams of this material to make an enclosure that can withstand 28inHg.

I'm not seeing that happening any time soon.

>>8250581
Why is some of the coolest shit the most sci-fi >>>/x/ related?

Vacuum Ships
Space Elevators
Overunity Machines
Long lasting electronics made after 1985

>>8250589
Why did you put the first two that are merely engineering challenges together with the physically impossible ones?

>>8250693
All of them are impossible you /x/tard.

>>8250422
>deliver a bunch of heavy equipment to job site out in the middle of no where
>no roads or rail to deliver supplies to it
>bound to only air travel for exporting and importing supplies

Sounds really useful...

>>8250959
>deliver construction equipment
>use it to build road/railway/airstrip/ship dock

Yeah. Quite useful.

Fucking retard

File: spoon-fed.jpg (94KB, 1200x794px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x794px

>>8250959
Imagination really only goes so far these days. You have to spoonfeed literally everyone everything.

>>8250975
>road way
Deliver it on road already being paved behind it.
>railway
They already do this by backing up supplies on the railway they are building
>airstrip
Pray tell why would you build an airstrip with no access roads?
>Ship dock
See airstrip reason

>>8251085
>Pray tell why would you build an airstrip with no access roads?
Because there are no access roads, and you need to bring supplies, peopleor equipment to a location?

>>8250581
>What material could hold back 1atm or pressure, encompassing 1 cubic meter of space, and have a mass of less than 1.293 kg?
Probably nothing.
Enclosing a thousand cubic meters would be much easier though - you would only need a hundred times as much structure, but you would produce a thousand times more lift.