Airship to Orbit?

Terraformer · 2012-05-30 10:32:03

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship

The current proposal to use electric power is unlikely to be able to generate enough thrust, but what if we go with pure chemical, even storable propellant like Propane/Peroxide?

Advantages:
- the extremely low density would cause it to slow down mainly in the upper atmosphere, removing the need for a heat shield
- starting off at high altitude means the outside pressure is nearly vacuum anyway, so engines can be optimised for those conditions

Disadvantages:
- large size increases drag, thus increasing the required delta-V to orbit
- mass of the airship may remove all the advantages

If the airship can be designed to cope with an overpressure of say 20mb, it could start around 20km altitude, with an outside pressure of about 50mb, and use chemical engines burning Propane with H2O2 (my favoured storable combination) with a vacuum Isp of 345s; if thin film solar is light enough, this could perhaps be boosted using an Arcjet? With a delta-V of 9000m/s and the base Isp, I get a mass ratio of 15. If the delta-V is 8500m/s, it's 12.5.

The question is, how much would the system mass once you remove the fuel tanks and the heat shield?

Void · 2012-06-22 23:47:54

I looked it over now, rather entertaining if nothing else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship

http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf

http://www.jpaerospace.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Ascender

The PDF is nice to look at.

I guess the part I like the best is where if they do have the "Dark Sky Stations" at 140,000 feet then Oxygen could be collected to fuel the Orbital assender.

I wonder if those stations could also make a buck being communication relays, and also hotels? That might justify the stations and the ground to station airship.
The orbital assender is really outside of the box though.

I have plenty of reservations about how it could work, but I have thought of a few possible solutions for some problems.

I guess for the issue where space objects might puncture the orbital assender, I would speculate on small robots inside with patch kits, perhaps they would have Gecko feet to stick to the inside walls?

http://geckolab.lclark.edu/dept/geckostory.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -mark.html

I am not sure but I am speculating that the "Electric" propulsion for the orbital assender might be a process of compressing electrostatically charged gas and venting it?

If the propulsion were electric, I would think that a powersat in orbit might be able to beam energy to it. If it were microwave, however I guess I don't know how the airship could convert that to electricity. If it were laser, and the skin was solar cells of a very thin type, then perhaps that could work.

I guess some time ago there was talk about super strong Nano Materials in the future. Perhaps that would be required, to make a very thin but strong structure.

It is entertaining however far off it is to our current grasp. I am glad that people are thinking so way far out.

Last edited by Void (2012-06-22 23:55:02)

louis · 2012-06-23 08:55:40

Void wrote:

I looked it over now, rather entertaining if nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship
http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf
http://www.jpaerospace.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Ascender
The PDF is nice to look at.
I guess the part I like the best is where if they do have the "Dark Sky Stations" at 140,000 feet then Oxygen could be collected to fuel the Orbital assender.
I wonder if those stations could also make a buck being communication relays, and also hotels? That might justify the stations and the ground to station airship.
The orbital assender is really outside of the box though.
I have plenty of reservations about how it could work, but I have thought of a few possible solutions for some problems.
I guess for the issue where space objects might puncture the orbital assender, I would speculate on small robots inside with patch kits, perhaps they would have Gecko feet to stick to the inside walls?
http://geckolab.lclark.edu/dept/geckostory.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -mark.html

I am not sure but I am speculating that the "Electric" propulsion for the orbital assender might be a process of compressing electrostatically charged gas and venting it?
If the propulsion were electric, I would think that a powersat in orbit might be able to beam energy to it. If it were microwave, however I guess I don't know how the airship could convert that to electricity. If it were laser, and the skin was solar cells of a very thin type, then perhaps that could work.
I guess some time ago there was talk about super strong Nano Materials in the future. Perhaps that would be required, to make a very thin but strong structure.
It is entertaining however far off it is to our current grasp. I am glad that people are thinking so way far out.

How about magnetic antennae to attract any stray bits of metal.

louis · 2012-06-23 09:08:15

Void wrote:

I looked it over now, rather entertaining if nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship
http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf
http://www.jpaerospace.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Ascender
The PDF is nice to look at.
I guess the part I like the best is where if they do have the "Dark Sky Stations" at 140,000 feet then Oxygen could be collected to fuel the Orbital assender.
I wonder if those stations could also make a buck being communication relays, and also hotels? That might justify the stations and the ground to station airship.
The orbital assender is really outside of the box though.
I have plenty of reservations about how it could work, but I have thought of a few possible solutions for some problems.
I guess for the issue where space objects might puncture the orbital assender, I would speculate on small robots inside with patch kits, perhaps they would have Gecko feet to stick to the inside walls?
http://geckolab.lclark.edu/dept/geckostory.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -mark.html

I am not sure but I am speculating that the "Electric" propulsion for the orbital assender might be a process of compressing electrostatically charged gas and venting it?
If the propulsion were electric, I would think that a powersat in orbit might be able to beam energy to it. If it were microwave, however I guess I don't know how the airship could convert that to electricity. If it were laser, and the skin was solar cells of a very thin type, then perhaps that could work.
I guess some time ago there was talk about super strong Nano Materials in the future. Perhaps that would be required, to make a very thin but strong structure.
It is entertaining however far off it is to our current grasp. I am glad that people are thinking so way far out.

Couldn't the DSS be a solar power station with thin PV film which then separates out oxygen to use as fuel?

I remember looking into JP a few years back and someone here did as it were "shoot them down in flames". They seem a lot more credible now. At least they're busy! And I like the way they mix the show business with the tech side of things. It's important if space commerce is going to take off.

I would be v. concern about puncturing of what appears as v. flimsy material, but I guess it might be OK for cargo, as you could carry that risk.

Impaler · 2012-06-24 05:42:13

Super high altitude ballons com-relay acting as a psudo-satilite is an idea which will certainly come to pass and likely soon.

But the idea of floating to space with a lighter-then-air craft just demonstrates a total lack of understanding of orbital mechanics. Going Up is the smallest, least important part of achieving orbit, you need massive horizontal velocity and if it's chemical propulsion that means the rocket-equation and a ~90% propellant fraction no matter what altitude you start at.

I'm a big fan of electric propulsion but it just wont work in the atmosphere, I've seen studies that show that current SEP systems can't even go below the altitude of the ISS without suffering drag greater then the thrust they can generate, the figure of merit is W/m^2. Contrary to popular belief their is still a lot of atmospheric drag up their at orbital altitude and a big low density balloon is going to get pulled down so fast it ain't funny.

Terraformer · 2012-06-24 09:41:20

They're not claiming to be able to float to orbit.

I don't think the current JPA proposal is going to work. What I'd like to know is if a Propane/H2O2 Arcjet system, with maybe 400s Isp, could function as the propulsion. Granted, your talking about putting in an extra 35% energy into your exhaust to get an Isp that could, so you're still going to have to hope solar is good enough (my very rough calculations suggest you need ~2MJ/kg, so you're looking at several megawatts at least), but it's still a lot more manageable than relying on solar electric for all your power.

One of the more interesting aspects of Airship to Orbit is that it doesn't need a heat shield or landing system. That's a major mass saving right there, though likely to be eliminated due to the mass of the airship. Using storable propellants, however, also saves you a lot of mass on your fuel tanks, and the lower outside pressure and reduced T/W requirements saves you mass on your engines. We're still looking at ~90% of the craft being fuel, but if we can fit the hardware into the remaining 10% and have some left over...

Void · 2012-06-24 14:12:57

As I said, I find this entertaining, and if you did not criticise it I would, but since you are somewhat taking the con, I will attempt to give it a little pro.

Impaler said:

I'm a big fan of electric propulsion but it just wont work in the atmosphere, I've seen studies that show that current SEP systems can't even go below the altitude of the ISS without suffering drag greater then the thrust they can generate, the figure of merit is W/m^2. Contrary to popular belief their is still a lot of atmospheric drag up their at orbital altitude and a big low density balloon is going to get pulled down so fast it ain't funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

If I am not mixed up, I have seen video's of actual devicis "levitating" (Actually being thrusted by ion flow). As the article implies, short circuits are an issue, but perhaps that is more true when you use it in a sea level air pressure environment. Perhaps the voltages don't have to be so high at 140,000 to 200,000 feet. So, the confusion is totally understandable, but I think it is a different type of electrical propulsion than the ion rocket. I also recall a reference to yet another device to propell airships, that woud involve charging a volume of gass electrostatically, and then compressing that and venting it. So, perhaps I am still confused. I am sure that they have some notion that they can build a device to thrust with. Otherwise I wouldn't think they would mention it for fear of being discredited.

Teraformer said:

One of the more interesting aspects of Airship to Orbit is that it doesn't need a heat shield or landing system. That's a major mass saving right there, though likely to be eliminated due to the mass of the airship.

I thought that might be true. So, return at least could make sense, if lifting does not.

I wonder if the device could plane in the air like an airplane, to get to 200,000 feet, only going 50-100 mph faster than the spin of the air at that height, and with a burst of propulsion elivate (Perhaps a small chemical rocket), pointing the nose up, and then pointing horizontal (More or less) then being above the worst drag, begin propulsion to have an orbit? I am imagining that if you are going to use electrostatic thrust for most of it even in "Sub-Orbit to Orbit mode" you would need to be able to feed a propulsion gas to the "Ionic Propulsion" once you were very much above 200,000 feet. They do talk about sending it to other places in the solar system, so, it must need a plan for that propulsion.

While magic tricks and camera tricks could easily produce the following references, I do believe that the effect is real. I have seen these before. Some people like to say it is antigravity (But it is not), and some think UFO's might use it. (Aliens) I guess if they exist, and if they have assender vehicles, then yes they might use it for some methods of travel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWJFQ3eF2HY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrfBrrDf … re=related

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 239AAdGmat

Perhaps it could make sense, since if you can lift a mostly balsa wood model against the Earth gravitational field there could be a thrusting method which would work in the very dry ionosphere, where the lifter would actually "Plane" to a higher altitude than it's floatation characteristics would allow, so it would encounter increasingly thinner air as it increased velocity, and planed upwards. I don't know what would happen to molecules impinging on the leading edge. Would they be sucked into the thrust process? Of course if the impact released heat, then that heat would be at the expense of sub-orbital movement. It would have to be made up for just to stay at the same altitude, and more would have to be added to increase altitude.

Alright, I guess I will read the manual:

Quote:

The third part of the architecture is an airship/dynamic vehicle that flies directly to orbit. In order to utilize the few
molecules of gas at extreme altitudes, this craft is big. The initial test vehicle is 6,000 feet (over a mile) long. The
airship uses buoyancy to climb to 200,000 feet. From there it uses electric propulsion to slowly accelerate. As it
accelerate it dynamically climbs. Over several days it reaches orbital velocity.

So, OK then Ionic? propulsion from 200,000 feet, which is different from what I said, so I was a bit wrong, or a lot wrong.

But I might be learning something new!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 706AAVxNJV

Nevertheless, several boundaries have been designated:
~ The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has established the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 kilometers (62 mi) as a working definition for the boundary between aeronautics and astronautics. This is used because above an altitude of roughly 100 km, as Theodore von Kármán calculated, a vehicle would have to travel faster than orbital velocity in order to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself.
~ The United States designates people who travel above an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) as astronauts.
~ NASA's mission control uses 76 miles (122 km) as their re-entry altitude, which roughly marks the boundary where atmospheric drag becomes noticeable, (depending on the ballistic coefficient of the vehicle), thus leading shuttles to switch from steering with thrusters to maneuvering with air surfaces.

This is a difficult question to answer because at some level, there is always stuff in space.
The space between our planets has some lingering dust and gas in it. So does the space between our sun and the next star. In fact, even the space between galaxies has SOME stuff in it.
I guess the best answer would be, at what point does the gas and dust cease to be gravitationally associated with the earth?
Well, that's actually closer than you think. At about 73 miles up most of the "stuff" that is zipping around in space is dominated by charged particles of solar wind and by gas/dust that is in a SOLAR orbit, not an earth-bound system.
So that's the best answer I can give. There really is no point at which there is NOTHING up there. However, the point at which the stuff up there is space stuff and not earth stuff is around 73 miles.

So, if you accept 62 miles, then the thing stops being a balloon at 200,000 feet, and must be a plane from there to 327,360 feet (127,360 feet higher), and then must be an orbital object above that. Since they say that the things are expected to be interplanetary, then I would think they would want to get to a higher altitude as fast as possible to reduce drag. Otherwise, I would think that having an orbital vehicle dock and take the load off their hands would make sense, ASAP, and then just drop back down.

I am interested in how such a system might be used on Mars. Slower oribital speeds needed, thinner atmoshere. And Venus, and Titan.

Oh and one more trick has occured to me. Could the wings that are actually balloons up to 200,000 feet be flattened as it transistions to a plane? Perhaps if it were filled with hydrogen, could you burn some of that off with Oxygen, and compress it into water? This might reduce drag, if the wings become thinner, and flatten out. Of course then they still have to be rigid. Then before return you would have to re-inflate the wings with Hydrogen.

Last edited by Void (2012-06-24 15:10:23)

Void · 2014-03-04 09:09:26

I liked this article, it is about a probe that would enter the Venus atmosphere, and glide and float also as an airship, and it has propulsion.

So, I thought it could be an encouragement to explore Airship from Oribit, and maybe some day the reverse where such an airship could go to orbit.

http://www.space.com/24847-venus-explor … craft.html

I am thinking that for Venus this is a real potential, because Hydrogen is not as explosively dangerous there. If you were to have floating cities, you might want this anyway.

But I am thinking that with newer materials far in the future, something like this might have a carrier plane, which would move it upward in the atmopheric column, and that "Airship to orbit" could have a booster attached to it, sufficient to send it to suborbital, and then a small onboard propulsion system to circularize the orbit.

The booster might have a balloon which would deploy after it is used, to keep it from dropping so low that it is damaged by heat. The carrier ship might be able to go get it after it has launched the airship to orbit, and the carrier ship would bring the booster back to the floating city for reuse.

It is mentioned that the probe proposed has such a surface area to weight ratio, that it does not experience extreme heating on re-entry.

Anyway, due to the dense atmosphere of Venus, I think it could be considered as a good fit. Obviously those who want to do that mission, though so.

tahanson43206 · 2020-01-01 21:57:50

For SpaceNut re JPAerospace ... I ran a search for posts containing this reference, and found posts going back to 2005

In the past there has been quite a bit of discussion of the concept, so I'm hoping there is room in the current time period for an update.

I wrote to Mr. Powell via email. It is unlikely he would have time to reply, but perhaps one of the volunteers who helps with the enterprise will be able to spare a few minutes to send an update.

For Mr. John Powell
JP Aerospace
2020/01/01

Mr. Powell,
Thank you for your interviews with Dr. Livingston on The Space Show.
It is primarily thanks to your interviews that I am familiar with your work, and interested in your continued success with the long term goals you've been working toward.
Recently, in "conversation" with other correspondents in Dr. Zubrin's NewMars.com/forum, I thought of your work as the group was considering the challenges of landing on Mars, or of departing from Mars back to Earth.
I thought about the atmospheric conditions on Mars, and compared them to the flight regime which I understand you are working from for your high altitude flights.
You may well have been thinking about Mars as a possible venue for your concept.
It seems to me that your concept might work more safely and more reliably for landings on Mars and for return to orbit, than the methods currently under discussion or used (for landing) in practice.
You may not have time to reply to this message, but if you do, I would be delighted to report your thoughts on this to the members of the NewMars forum.
If you care to visit the forum, I am posting there as tahanson43206.
Best regards, and Best Wishes for continued success!
tahanson43206

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-01-01 21:58:52)

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-17 12:32:47

The new topic about airships, created by Calliban, reminded me of this one.

The two topics are quite different from each other.

As a reminder, this forum contains a number of posts about airships on Mars. My recollection is that they ** are ** possible, using Hydrogen, but they would be huge for paltry lift capability.

Reminder of JP Aerospace ...

tahanson43206 wrote:

For SpaceNut re JPAerospace ... I ran a search for posts containing this reference, and found posts going back to 2005
In the past there has been quite a bit of discussion of the concept, so I'm hoping there is room in the current time period for an update.
I wrote to Mr. Powell via email. It is unlikely he would have time to reply, but perhaps one of the volunteers who helps with the enterprise will be able to spare a few minutes to send an update.
For Mr. John Powell
JP Aerospace
2020/01/01

Mr. Powell,
Thank you for your interviews with Dr. Livingston on The Space Show.
It is primarily thanks to your interviews that I am familiar with your work, and interested in your continued success with the long term goals you've been working toward.
Recently, in "conversation" with other correspondents in Dr. Zubrin's NewMars.com/forum, I thought of your work as the group was considering the challenges of landing on Mars, or of departing from Mars back to Earth.
I thought about the atmospheric conditions on Mars, and compared them to the flight regime which I understand you are working from for your high altitude flights.
You may well have been thinking about Mars as a possible venue for your concept.
It seems to me that your concept might work more safely and more reliably for landings on Mars and for return to orbit, than the methods currently under discussion or used (for landing) in practice.
You may not have time to reply to this message, but if you do, I would be delighted to report your thoughts on this to the members of the NewMars forum.
If you care to visit the forum, I am posting there as tahanson43206.
Best regards, and Best Wishes for continued success!
tahanson43206
(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-17 20:00:31

JP Aerospace was trying to reduce the size of the rocket that would be needed to finish getting to orbit by getting a lift part way.

Calliban · 2021-12-18 05:29:06

Stratospheric balloon launch has been discussed before. It could be done and air launch has indeed been done before. But airships fly too low to be very useful in this regard.

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-18 08:38:41

For Calliban re #12

Thanks for your post here .... it helps us to refresh our memory of the objective of JP Aerospace.

Because some of our readers ( readers of the forum who are not yet members ) may not be familiar with JP Aerospace, I'll take a moment here to offer what I hope will be enough information so that readers will want to explore the topic further.

The subject has been the subject of numerous interviews on TheSpaceShow with Dr. David Livingston.

The JP Aerospace concept is to fly a balloon all the way to orbit. The concept has nothing to do with launching something from a flying balloon.

In the absence of frequent reminders of what JP Aerospace is attempting, it is natural for less ambitious concepts to take precedence in the public discussion.

In the latest iteration of the concept with which I am familiar, there would be a "permanent" floating stage above the great part of Earth's atmosphere. That location would be supplied from below by ordinary airships (or perhaps other suitable vehicles). The upper stage of the concept would use a specially designed balloon that would "fly" through the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere, until it gains sufficient momentum to enter orbit.

A member of the JP Aerospace (volunteer) support team has published about the company in Analog.

John J. Vester is the name that pops up when I asked Google who the author of the JP Aerospace article was.

In addition, Google offers this:

John J. Vester (@JohnJVester2) / Twitter
twitter.com › johnjvester2
My fact article, “The Venus Sweet Spot:Floating Home,” is a finalist in the Analog Readers poll (AnLab) ... JP Aerospace flights Ascender 26 airship again ...
JP Aerospace has an interesting concept where the entire balloon ...
news.ycombinator.com › item
JP Aerospace has an interesting concept where the entire balloon would get slowly accelerated to orbital velocity using electric/chemical hybrid propulsion: ...

I sure hope that is at least ** one ** member of the forum who is interested in pursuing this topic further, and (hopefully) will report on what they learn.

I'd be interested in seeing an update on how work is coming. This is a decades-long, step by small step development effort.

It is not particularly helpful for members to post about the topic without doing any research whatsoever.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-05-30 10:32:03

Airship to Orbit?

#2 2012-06-22 23:47:54

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#3 2012-06-23 08:55:40

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#4 2012-06-23 09:08:15

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#5 2012-06-24 05:42:13

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#6 2012-06-24 09:41:20

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#7 2012-06-24 14:12:57

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#8 2014-03-04 09:09:26

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#9 2020-01-01 21:57:50

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#10 2021-12-17 12:32:47

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#11 2021-12-17 20:00:31

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#12 2021-12-18 05:29:06

Re: Airship to Orbit?

#13 2021-12-18 08:38:41

Re: Airship to Orbit?

Board footer