|
| 05 Feb 2015 03:39 PM |
| they don't realise that they could build enormous airships which carry rockets into the upper atmosphere, saving 20 kilometres of burning fuel (20,000 metres) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 03:42 PM |
They'd need to move the enormous airship into space, using a lot of fuel, and they'd have to refuel the rockets on the airship, using fuel to move the fuel to the fuel-gussling enormous airship.
•••People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered. Love them anyway.••• |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 03:45 PM |
| @classy, do you even know how airships work? they have no fuel, they work due to buoyancy |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MadSanity
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41506 |
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 03:49 PM |
| Do you realize the carry capacity of airships? Relative to their size, hardly a thing. And how in the world are you going to suspend and launch a rocket from such a height? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 03:55 PM |
@mad, airships can go up to the edge of space and although expensive, an enormous one would definatley be useful for NASA in the long term considering that it would decrease the mass of the rocket due to less staging and fuel consumption (which would be good for the airship) and less fuel equals less money lost.
I'm not talking about the current NASA rockets of course, these rockets would be far smaller but due to the airships, more efficient. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 03:57 PM |
| adn what displaces the massive force when the rocket launches from the airship dingus |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 03:59 PM |
| when the rocket launches the airship falls and bounces back up hitting the rocket and adding 1000 delta v |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 04:01 PM |
| How would we get rockets to the ship without using fuel? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 11:15 PM |
Let's leave the math up to the rocket scientists ok
•••People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered. Love them anyway.••• |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 11:18 PM |
| It this guy serious? Does he actually think he's smarter than NASA? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 11:20 PM |
@floral
it might be possible to outsmart nasa
just because they are all smart with science and all doesn't mean they are the smartest in life and anyone who says crap about nasa is discarded as a 'wannabe' |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jasondee1
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 8002 |
|
|
| 05 Feb 2015 11:23 PM |
Ehem.
Newton's third law of motion.
Launch a rocket from an airship, airship goes plummeting into the ground. Buoyancy in the air does not work the same as buoyancy on water. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MadSanity
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41506 |
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 06:21 AM |
| It would actually by many times more effective to establish a launch pad on the moon and construct a rocket there. In the long term, it would also be more cost effective as well. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:12 PM |
This is actually a joke to see how gullible people actually are on OT, the results did not surprise me.
An airship could be used to perhaps launch a small satellite into orbit but nothing else really. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:17 PM |
| I was only pretending to be dumb guys!!! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:25 PM |
Ok, there are multiple problems with this.
1. Buoyancy- atmospheric density decreases drastically, rendering the balloon useless
2. Mass- You're still transporting over 100 tonnes of steel, titanium and LFO. Airships don't usually carry those.
3. Horizontal velocity- It's cool that you got up past the atmosphere, but you still need 8 km/s of DeltaV to get into orbit. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
rstw
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Feb 2015 |
| Total Posts: 357 |
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:26 PM |
they spy on u
they no u posted this there going to come arest u |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:26 PM |
"An airship could be used to perhaps launch a small satellite into orbit but nothing else really."
No. It's quite convenient that once someone proves you wrong, you weasle away and say you were trolling. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:29 PM |
Yeah, because this totally wasn't b8: "when the rocket launches the airship falls and bounces back up hitting the rocket and adding 1000 delta v" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:31 PM |
"Yeah, because this totally wasn't b8:"
An actual troll doesn't reveal that they were trolling. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MadSanity
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41506 |
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:33 PM |
| Bait this, bait that. How hard is it just hold an average discussion without being an uncreative slob? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 06 Feb 2015 12:35 PM |
| i revealed this was bait because i was getting bored of people bumping this |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|