From: joshua geller (dclxvi_at_best.com)
Date: 02/25/98
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:01:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199802260001.QAA14111@shell5.ba.best.com> From: joshua geller <dclxvi_at_best.com> Subject: Helios: zero mass balloon
The Butterfly writes:
> -C. McCoy writes:
> - > Problem with this is creating a vacume chamber strong enough to
> - > maintain its area without collapse. You would need something
> - > like a submarine, but larger, and lighter.
> -and if you succeed, you don't get that huge of a win.
> Well, it depends. If you use geodesic architecture, you get
> EXTREMELY strong structures, with very light, mass-producible parts. And
> the larger you build a geodesic, the stronger it gets.
sorry, I wasn't clear.
vacuum is does not provide all that much more lift than helium or
hydrogen.
> - > Some of the new carbon compounds (C60) might be strong enough, but the
> - > as far as I know, c60 is RARE. They make it one at a time. Until mass
> - > production is figured out, It would be too expensive.
> -in other words: it is not possible to make the materials at this
> -time.
> Not true. C60 *used* to be really expensive, about 8-10 years ago,
> when they were still just learning about it. Nowadays, they churn it
> out. It's quite easy to do, and they're making all sorts of novel nanoscale
> structures out of it. (C70, C90, etc.). Working this stuff into
> macro-scale materials is still the trick,
in other words: it is not possible to make the materials at this
time.
patrick, we are building airships *now*. on a budget.
I am *not* trying to discourage you here. theory is nice.
josh