Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 22:27:38

RE: The Hindenberg

It wasn't Nitrate based paints. It was a powder consisting of aluminium and iron oxide. The same electrically fired stuff they use in the shuttle's solid fuel boosters. That is why it burned. It was Thermite.

C M Edwards · 2005-03-29 16:55:03

The cloth sealant paint did not cause the Hindenburg airship fire.

Materials research using the same sealant formula that was used on the Hindenburg's outer envelope has shown that the ingredients in the sealant correspond only to the catalyst and stabilizer used by the Space Shuttle SRB's - not the oxidizers. The Hindenburg's sealant contains no oxidizer and will not autoignite under normal operating conditions.

In fact, it meets federal standards for a flame retardent material.

The sealant did not start the infamous fire. Photographs reveal that the sections of sealed fabric separated from the gas cells by the derigible's superstructure survived well past the point where the hydrogen fueled fire front had burned past.

Thermite? Balderdash!

srmeaney · 2005-03-30 00:47:21

the coating was iron oxide and aluminium powder and it was electricaly ignited by the discharge of static electricity. that is the requirements for a thermite mixture as used to weld steel railway tracks together because they are too cheap to use pins and plates.

The hindenberg burned because it was coated in a rocket fuel/oxidiser mix. this fact was recorded in British military records at the time because they "stole" a sample for testing and analysis.

In fact, it meets federal standards for a flame retardent material.

There is the kiss of death right there.

In fact, why dont you coat the ball of a lightning rod with some and watch as electric discharge ignites it in a flash of light.

dicktice · 2005-03-30 09:16:56

Enough, already, about the poor old Hindenberg. It's materials and systems were primitive compared with now. This is about dirigibles on Mars--why, or why-not feasible, at least eventually?

srmeaney · 2005-03-30 20:01:39

Can be done, yet sporty at best. Team of four land in 7-crew lander. unpack frame, fit control fans, inflate dirigible. Harness in the crew. fly to Target habitat.

Unless we use the new seven crew ORV as a gondola for the dirigible. You will need satellite guidance rather than crew on the look out.

The first option is one that could be tested here. Any volunteers to hang in space suits from beneath an aluminium frame (a multipurpose folding ladder) with fans and dirigible?

Let them test that in the Arctic.
It will be the new adventure toy.

dicktice · 2005-03-31 12:29:17

Now that's more like it! But don't stop there: How about the modern systems of rising and descending statically without disposing dead-weight or valving lift-gas, energy collection and storage without fuel, power and propulsion ... not to mention structure, envelope, aerodynamics, docking and tie-down--all being developed currently by Zeppelin GmbH, in Germany, and as far as I know, feasible for use (with obvious appropriate allowances) on Mars? Start with what "we've" already got today, and extrapolate!

C M Edwards · 2005-03-31 17:10:56

In fact, it meets federal standards for a flame retardent material.
There is the kiss of death right there.

:laugh: Yeah, it's not saying much. But it's not saying "thermite" either...

In fact, why dont you coat the ball of a lightning rod with some and watch as electric discharge ignites it in a flash of light.

Why, when I can shave off a little metal beforehand and watch the lightning rod do the same? (Exploding wire experiments are great fun.) That's its own source of ignition, though, and the composition of the material is irrelevant as long as it will hold a charge. No thermite required.

The problem is the static, not the fabric.

Static electricity would be a serious problem, though - more so under near vacuum conditions. It might be a major design problem to come up with a Marsian airship that could handle incident sunlight without acting as a giant Leyden jar.

srmeaney · 2005-04-02 06:38:18

Considering that the Fabric determines the ability of the Static to become Dynamic, The fabric is of consequence.

srmeaney · 2005-04-02 06:46:59

Back to Astronauts hanging beneath a non-rigid dirigible: The Size is greatly reduced by the elimination of an internal frame which contained the shape of the dirigible. Hot air dirigibles may be the better option to the lighter than air gas variety. Rather than a large spherical shape, a series of vertical cells each heated by an element at the bottom, making up the total lift power of the dirigible.

dicktice · 2005-04-02 19:23:18

Let's have a little more or your thoughts re. hot-air lift cells, before any arguments. I may be missing something.

srmeaney · 2005-04-02 21:13:54

I was thinking the baloon component would be easier to pack away yet be just as efficient (although possess less drag in wind) if it were a series of long, narrow cylinders. Wind would blow through it like "wind through reeds" with less effect than wind would have on a single large body. The cylinder would have a second outer layer where the cool air would be able to convect downwards.

We could even send a single cell as a payload to Mars for real conditions testing with a small lander that would test it's lift force, amongst other experiments.

The only argument is whether I should continue to hold out my hand so it can be bitten by the hungry wolves or stuff it down their mouth to get their whole and undivided attention.

dicktice · 2005-04-03 10:14:05

That's all a bit too poetic for my engineering background to deal with and come up with a feasible product. The ballon scheme reminds me of the landing balloons already proven twice on Mars, so we don't have to start from Square One, eh?
A multiple cylindrical configuration would present more drag if tethered, to wind, or forward motion through the air, than a single, Zeppelin shaped envelope. You avoided the hot-air aspects that I was most interested in. What did you have in mind, starting with a single balloon robotic surveillance aerostat (your second paragraph)? Your third para is mystifying, which I guess is a key to your personality, and our age-gap which I presume is considerable. That's interesting in itself, but back to hot-air ballooning on Mars, how would it work?

srmeaney · 2005-04-03 22:00:43

Assuming that you see the Lower part of the Dirigible as little more than an aluminium folding ladder which is used as a support frame that gets locked in place from which the Cosmonauts hang. Attatched to the frame is the electric fans and battery pack/fuel cell. The control mecanism would simply be a stick-in-a-box control grip with accelerator button (I can only assume you understand what I mean when I say this, the Basis of technology for the Data glove and other hand control interfaces). Rather than expanding the heated air radially and convecting upwards into a large balloon, it would expand along the cloth cylinder. While the individual lift cells would be connected at certain points, there is a gap between them to allow wind to have reduced resistance.

Send me your email address to seanrobertmeaney@bigpond.com.au
That way I'll do a drawing in word and show you what Words cannot convey.

That way the death threats from cindy wont be the only mail I get.

srmeaney · 2005-04-03 22:08:42

I suggest you watch a doccumentary called Airships. In it they talk about the US Airship developed by Zeppelin which had an ability to store on board five Biplanes. It was the Aircraft Carrier of the Skies which I thought was most impressive.-I saw Sky captain and the World of tomorrow, despite the propaganda, The Skyships were cool.

I know folks are impressed by the whole airbus civilization, but until We bring back the big Passenger Zeppelins so the trip is as much of a sight seeing expedition as the destination, It won't be a Civilization worth living.

dicktice · 2005-04-04 08:39:13

Re. dirigibles, I'm entirely with you, having grown up when they were passing overhead. The trouble was, they were made of, and controlled by, 1920-30 technology under politically conditions between the two world wars. Post-war, then, they were bypassed by heavier-than-air craft leading to where we are now. Zeppelin GmbH is progressing in the right direction now, modern in every way, and they deserve all the encouragement we can muster. Commercially, they may make it on their own, even. But, hot-air balloon/derigibles on Mars, as opposed to gas-filled ones, I find hard to understand. (By the way, Cindy is the only female contributing to these forums. If she intimidates you, look inside yourself, because she represents the kind of rational argument you would get outside the Mars Society, if you ever dare go public.)

Dook · 2005-04-04 09:25:02

Cindy used to wrestle in the WWF.

She chews up nails and spits them out.

She fights barehand against world champs.

She once jumped out of a plane without a parachute.

Don't mess with her.

srmeaney · 2005-04-05 02:14:16

However, If we go with the 'Dirigible on Mars' approach, will it be a valid choice? Is turning the Seven crew Lander into a Gondola/Dirigible valid over the idea of simply bringing the Rover to the crew by remote operator? The prospect of landing outside the 100 mile elipse is a scary one. That then moves us into the prospect of living out of a mobile habitat that comes when called.
Would it be better than a stationary base?

Oh, and ps, I went to school with six girls who had the brains to be Astronauts and rocket Scientists, By the end of their final Year five were pregnant and dropped out to become wives and mothers to individuals who despised the fact that I was the only guy who would talk to them for the conversation (basicly they did it to destroy the future of six very intelligent girls). The sixth killed herself because she got a 98% in her final physics exam rather than the 100% she had been getting the entire year to that point.

I think it's great that cindy is even interested in space at all, but you dont get there by burning Heretics.

C M Edwards · 2005-04-06 13:31:11

I think it's great that cindy is even interested in space at all, but you dont get there by burning Heretics.

That depends. Do they have a high specific impulse?

Seriously, though: When separating wheat from chaff, it pays to remember that the goal is to get the grain, not to arbitrarily abuse the stalks. Whether you're threshing or getting threshed, it's not about how hard you hit the floor but about what gets knocked loose.

Actually, I like the idea of airborn exploration and settlement. It would be a great idea for Earth, where the resources and markets are available to support such a scheme (though the same claim would be questionable for Venus). In theory, it could be good for Mars, too. Unfortunately, on Mars the atmospheric conditions are such that material and structural constraints become major limitations in ways that terrestrial versions would never need to worry about. It's a good idea, but I literally don't know how we would make a suitably sized Martian airship fly.

dicktice · 2005-04-06 15:16:05

Have you looked at Zeppelin GmbH latest developments? Minimal rigid structural components, capable of being "knocked down" as with a blimp, but capable of being scaled up in size to make lift practicable even on Mars.

srmeaney · 2005-04-06 20:10:55

All I get is a redirect to Zeppelin NT and an unfinished website

Shaun Barrett · 2005-04-06 22:24:44

CM:-

(srmeaney @ April 05 2005, 04:14)
I think it's great that cindy is even interested in space at all, but you dont get there by burning Heretics.
That depends. Do they have a high specific impulse?

:laugh: Beautiful .. I love it!!

[P.S. SR:-

I think it's great that cindy is even interested in space at all ..

Hmmm. Are females statistically less likely to be interested in space? ??? ]

SpaceNut · 2005-04-07 06:18:43

If you were asking my wife then it would be a yes hence that is why I am on during the day hours for nearly 90% of the time. My wife says that I should volunteer for a one way flight and it does not matter to where...
But honestly there is no difference it is all a matter of like or dislike when it comes to space just like any other interest or hobby.
Back to the question of Dirigibles for Mars. Where ever possible we need to use composite or material lighter than there metal conterparts in its construction.

dicktice · 2005-04-07 15:07:55

All I get is a redirect to Zeppelin NT and an unfinished website

I looked up "zeppelin nt construction details" for the internal layout of the NT's structure. Looks very adaptible for Mars, to me.

srmeaney · 2005-04-07 19:04:51

Based on the look of the Zeppelin NT, For a Mars Mission, you will need the X-38? Seven crew capsule with a four cosmonaut crew. Control fans on the 'gondola' itself. And the ability to store and inflate the non-rigid Dirigible once a good landing has happened. In the end it will probably be two vehicles at every landing. A cargo block with the dirigible and gas plant, and the X-38 'gondola' with Crew. That means following the cargo block to it's landing site and traveling by dirigible from there to the final habitat location.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-21 07:35:43

Well here is an article to indicate that work is ongoing in this field.
Propulsion Motors Demonstrated For LockMart's High Altitude Airship Program

AeroVironment has developed a 40-plus kilowatt ironless core electric motor prototype as part of Lockheed Martin's High Altitude Airship (HAA) development contract with the Department of Defense's Missile Defense Agency.

Interesting concept of ironless core for motor design.
Plus the motor technology is applicable to a wide variety of products and industries, including air conditioning, electric and hybrid vehicles, electric airplanes, small wind turbines and deep space.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-03-24 22:27:38

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#27 2005-03-29 16:55:03

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#28 2005-03-30 00:47:21

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#29 2005-03-30 09:16:56

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#30 2005-03-30 20:01:39

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#31 2005-03-31 12:29:17

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#32 2005-03-31 17:10:56

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#33 2005-04-02 06:38:18

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#34 2005-04-02 06:46:59

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#35 2005-04-02 19:23:18

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#36 2005-04-02 21:13:54

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#37 2005-04-03 10:14:05

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#38 2005-04-03 22:00:43

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#39 2005-04-03 22:08:42

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#40 2005-04-04 08:39:13

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#41 2005-04-04 09:25:02

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#42 2005-04-05 02:14:16

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#43 2005-04-06 13:31:11

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#44 2005-04-06 15:16:05

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#45 2005-04-06 20:10:55

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#46 2005-04-06 22:24:44

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#47 2005-04-07 06:18:43

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#48 2005-04-07 15:07:55

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#49 2005-04-07 19:04:51

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

#50 2005-04-21 07:35:43

Re: Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport?

Board footer