Why don't we fill an Airship with a Vacuum?

[@theCodyReeder]

Bet I can make one.

[@Soliloquy084]

Goodluck, I'd like to see it fly.

[@matrim1762]

Do it. But stay away from making the coating of the airship the same way they were originally made. It was not the hydrogen that cause the fire but the canvas cover covered with its many different chemical and material coatings.

[@lowdt]

yes. and i think you should start with very small ones that can hold the pressure. maybe even use the "tennis ball" trick to get a large body to float

[@jetison333]

Cody'sLab yes! Do it

[@liquidmasl]

wait for next week: "how much mercury can my vacuum airship carry?"

[@imperatorcaesardivifiliusa2158]

That scrap metal went through a lot.

[@Soliloquy084]

True

[@Saviliana]

The metal which hindenberg used went where after it crashed in New York? I think they might be sold to somewhere else, suggesting a search.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

The scrap metal was obviously cursed. We should probably burn some witches. Better safe than sorry.

[@blackgriffinxx]

it may have been used to make the Empire State Building . A B25 crush into it

[@quintincastro7430]

What if it was used to make the planes

[@luongmaihunggia]

Let me fix the title, it's "why don't we unfill an airship?"

[@thespanishinquisition4078]

you mean empty?

[@BrightBlueJim]

The term used in manufacture of tungsten light bulbs and vacuum tubes was "evacuate".

[@bruceleealmighty]

@@BrightBlueJim This is also true, and possibly one of the best answers many of these Einstein's should be reading.

[@herr_eissen]

based

[@JackBlack-qn7us]

Depends on how you look at it tbh.

[@nbartlett6538]

Rather than making the airship lighter, make the surrounding atmosphere heavier by pouring millions of tons of CO2 into it. Oh, wait...

[@ratemisia]

@Kiyo Senpai no, op MEANS heavier - less buoyant fluids will have a stronger effect if the atmosphere is denser, so there would be less drawbacks to using helium and other denser LTA gases

[@ratemisia]

@Kiyo Senpai ...But with something other than a vacuum (since we aren't talking about a vacuum) a conventional dirigible would be able to handle the additional pressure with no problem - if the pressure difference between helium and a CO2 laden atmosphere is the same as the pressure difference between hydrogen and our less CO2 laden atmosphere, a regular hydrogen dirigible can function with helium. That was the thing we were talking about, not the vacuum dirigibles in the video

[@ratemisia]

@Kiyo Senpai You are, but I and OP are not. That's what I'm trying to tell you - this hypothetical is different from the video in that it is not about vacuum airships, unlike the video and unlike your misconception of the hypothetical.

[@shaunawesoe]

Based

[@nbartlett6538]

@@ratemisia Yeah I did mean make the atmosphere heavier, increasing the buoyancy of a helium ship.

[@KB-er8bm]

CLEARLY the solution here is to fly a vacuum airship in space where it won't implode

[@the_donz]

Or just increase the atmospheres density

[@AvatarOfGames]

@@DavidLS1 D'oh!

[@naphackDT]

It's simple! Just reduce the gravitational constant of the universe!

[@stuchly1]

@@the_donz Denser atmosphere would create higher outside pressure.

[@generaldurchbruchmuller]

@@naphackDT Physic exams be like:

[@nein3405]

how can you _fill_ something with a vacuum to begin with? ;)

[@Soliloquy084]

You make a good point.

[@Conservator.]

My first thoughts too ;-)

[@niccatipay]

Well you dont fill, you exfill. It would be a b1t¢h to startup tho when considering the volume that needs to be evacuated of air.

[@kahlzun]

probably easier to assemble in orbit tbh

[@Jetsudo]

That's, actually pretty awesome. I mean, you do that and see where in the atmosphere it will go. Then you add more weight to make it closer to the ground. You don't have it to need to be close to the ground though and you could have literally, floating hotels or something to visit in the air.

[@kurumi394]

How to make physicists upset "Filling a box with vacuum" "Removing coldness to make it warm" "Electrons in a circuit travel at the speed of light" "The Imperial System"

[@moomoocowmaster8427]

Terrible

[@semi-useful5178]

Imagine not inventing your own customary system just to confuse and Enrage euros

[@wurlmon5191]

@@semi-useful5178 That's... Completely not how it went

[@tokiWren]

@@semi-useful5178 imagine not changing to the more convenient, more modern system that almost everyone else uses

[@semi-useful5178]

@@wurlmon5191 I know, the US didn't but I did.

[@yetidynamics]

me and a friend did the math on this decades ago, it wasn't just theoretically impossible it was sooo waaay beyond theoretical in order of magnitudes impossible that we didn't bother figuring it out for composites, but now i have something to do this weekend.

[@Meyr3356]

good luck mate.

[@NapoleonGelignite]

You’ll need to use diamond as the material and a large size of vacuum.

[@SeanKubin]

Would it work in a thin atmosphere such as mars or high altitude earth? I'm thinking something like a frozen soap bubble then carefully evacuate the air with a heated syringe. Would that float?

[@Thaumatichthys]

@@SeanKubin I doubt it would make much of a difference, as you could do the same thing by just not evacuating it as much

[@wiztwas]

Not sure you need a full vacuum, you just need to remove more weight of air than the weight of the airship.

[@AntonFetzer]

There was a time when people dreamed about vacuum airship fleets like the big naval fleets of the colonial empires. There is a book called "the world in 100 years" which was written in 1910. And it makes a lot of assumptions that sound ridiculous in retrospective, like for example that in 2010 the "German Colonial Empire" would have a massive vacuum air ship fleet that would wage war with a rebellious Chinese vacuum airship fleet.

[@Elia-Burani]

It looks like the plot of a steampunk game

[@davidtucker9498]

That totally would have happened at some point if Germany had won either World War...

[@theexam7394]

@@davidtucker9498 bruh, airships were already starting to be phased out after both wars.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@davidtucker9498 Ah the myth of German technological superiority. No they weren´t and with fascism there was always a huge brain drain and increasing amounts of pseudoscience.

[@deeznoots6241]

There is a pretty cool book series with airships featured prominently in an alt-history ww1 called Leviathan, and they’re not just airships, they are full on biological constructs

[@pauldzim]

Because making it strong enough to withstand 15 PSI of air pressure would make it WAY to heavy. You're welcome.

[@Ze_N00B]

Depends on size though. PSI, Pressure per Square Inch depends on surface area, whilst the durability and weight depend on the thickness of the hull, aka volume. Through square cube law, the volume of an object scales far more rapidly than it's surface area. This means that it could be possible if the airship was simply large enough.

[@billbergen9169]

-15

[@SimonBuchanNz]

@@billbergen9169 you withstand pressure from the direction you're getting it.

[@samuelmatheson9655]

@@Ze_N00B floating city ship, dozens of kilometers across

[@samuelmatheson9655]

@@SimonBuchanNz yes, in an atmosphere that's every direction

[@deldarel]

How do you convert Tesla Model 3's to the much more common metric of Toyota Corolla?

[@Soliloquy084]

it's about 1.5 ... so ten normal cars or so.

[@MrJay_White]

go to a body shop with a toyota corolla. swap the panels on the corolla for those from a tesla. pay and leave.

[@gundism]

Mr Jay White that's not how cars work

[@MrJay_White]

have i missed a meme?

[@digital21centuryentity98]

Simply convert electricity to a hydrolic pumping, mimic a fuel piston in slow motion strength to speed = Telsa power and Toyota fossil breed, but you only save 15x more 🔋 battery storage.

[@marshroverv5632]

Godamnit I wish hydrogen airships were safer. They look so cool.

[@brucetucker4847]

So do radial engine biplanes, but their day has passed.

[@Galejro]

I'd say it isn't a problem to make hydrogen safe today. Non-flamable or electrostatic inducing fabrics, Balloons of water bubble rubber to self-quench fire, emergency hydrogen-neutralizing gas ready to release inside a balloon, Emergency Air-Bag like explosive replacement buoyancy balloons and so on. The problem is airships are weak light structures that are already a miracle to fly at all. Increasing hull integrity = less empty mass weight = no cargo to hold = no point to an airship and so on. Even with vacuum filling an airship wouldn't be that strong. So airships are just a bad idea for Earth. Planets with denser atmosphere are a different story.

[@luongmaihunggia]

Why are you talking as if hydrogen airships loom cooler than other airship? All airships look the same from outside. Wtf are you talking about?

[@magapiff1]

@@Galejro Silence your reasoning and logical points! Airships are totally worth it no matter how impractical they are!

[@TheArklyte]

Hindenburg was designed for helium thought, they've just been hit with embargo by US during construction. So it would actually look and operate the same when filled "properly".

[@Jacob-bi1oq]

I hope some day we’ll see Airships again. They were beautiful vehicles.

[@invaderraven1]

They never went away

[@CamStLouis]

I wonder if this couldn't be achieved with an aerogel. They're mostly air, yet insanely strong under compression, which is exactly what a material for this purpose must be. What if they were evacuated of air in a vacuum chamber, and an impermeable membrane was applied to the outer layer?

[@davidegaruti2582]

This sounds intresting and kinda promising tbh , it's this sort of lateral thinking that may make these things possible , Idk if it could work , and i am not saying it would , but it sounds intresting

[@anon-iraq2655]

My idea was hydrogen aerogel

[@Neon-ws8er]

@@anon-iraq2655 then it’ll be even lighter than air! *what if it could be made even lighter though?* vacuum aerogel

[@anon-iraq2655]

@@Neon-ws8er would be amazing if such a material can be made unfortunately don't see it ever happening as aerogel doesn't have anywhere near the strength to hold a vacuum, the force air pressure exert on a vaccum is enormous, something like 10000kg/m^2 iirc Using hydrogen would negate a large part of this force and aerogel can be impregnated with a fire retardant

[@MusikCassette]

@@anon-iraq2655 I think their are easier ways, to make hydrogen safe as a lifting gas.

[@atigerclaw]

People: "Why don't we make a vacuum airship?" ME: _Laughs at fourteen pounds per square inch._

[@ultra.based.27]

*laughs in metric system*

[@aiosquadron]

Can somebody please convert it into IS units?

[@atigerclaw]

@@aiosquadron One Standard Earth Atmosphere

[@TheCaptNoname]

Because it won't be an airship anymore. It would become a vacuumship!

[@dogwalker666]

@@ultra.based.27 1 Bar

[@staalman1226]

I would like to add that helium is fully capable of being used for commercial airships. The USS Shenandoah, a rigid airship, flew on helium, and the Hindenburg itself was designed to fly with helium, but America was reluctant to give Hitler any.

[@crackedemerald4930]

Staalman12 so... They gave him super flammable electron-proton gas?

[@staalman1226]

Shockwave Shockwave You can synthesize hydrogen very easily. Just look it up, there are tons of videos of people doing just that. However, the only place you could get helium in the 30s was the USA. That's the main reason the Zeppelin Company used hydrogen, because it was so readily available. (BTW, I'm an airship nerd, if you couldn't already tell.)

[@bigdickpornsuperstar]

Timecode 1:10 calls bullshit on you, Staalman. The Hindenburg would have been over 6000 kilos overweight for helium. He at least showed his math so for now, I'm taking the video's word over yours. While the Germans were certainly forced into hydrogen use for their airships, no way the Hind was "designed" for helium just given the numbers.

[@bigdickpornsuperstar]

Shockwave ~ "Super flammable electron-proton gas" is now my Go-To name for hydrogen.

[@staalman1226]

Jerry VanNuys I can see why you'd think that. A few things. The chief of the Zeppelin Company was Hugo Eckener. He saw the potential for helium on airships as a much safer lifting gas, so when he designed his newest airship, DLZ-129, he made be able to fly with helium. I can see that you're probably thinking I have no proof. Second point. As mentioned previously, the American airship Shenandoah used helium, if you don't believe me, than look it up. It was also a rigid dirigible. Thirdly, where were the numbers in his math retrieved from? And if his numbers were accurate, many of them seemed variable, like passengers or fuel. When designed to use helium, the ship was probably designed to fit less people and fuel. The company might've even added more accommodations when refused helium by Roosevelt's administration. There is a 3 part documentary on it, which I will use as my pseudo-citation.

[@IAmNumber4000]

the KSP music is so fitting for talking about ludicrous engineering projects

[@jackspade5316]

The bigger you make it, the more volume it has relative to area. That means more lift/displaced air relative to area under pressure. That means you could make the walls thicker and thicker as size increases. With a big enough blimp, it would work, although it wouldn't be practical and would have other issues.

[@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456]

So what about some carbon fiber and say, a quarter of the usual amount of hydrogen instead of total vacuum?

[@FourthRoot]

Wrong. You're assuming the wall thickness would be the same. The problem is that the wall thickness would have to scale in proportion to the diameter. As such you can't solve the problem by scaling it up.

[@jackspade5316]

@@FourthRoot You're not holding in a volume of gas where the pressure inside increases as a cube compared to the sphere's area, which increases as a square. You're just excluding the atmosphere. The outside atmospheric pressure isn't going to change (appreciably.) Every square unit of area is going to have to resist a certain amount of pressure, regardless of how much area you have. Since the thickness won't increase, the proportion of empty space to filled space increases with the size of the sphere. Eventually, it will displace enough air to lift it. Not saying it's practical (yet), but it's theoretically possible.

[@geryz7549]

3:03 KSP Music? A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one

[@ObjectsInMotion]

KSP uses royalty-free music from Incompetech (Kevin Macleod), and so you would have heard it from many places both before and after the game was released.

[@geryz7549]

@@ObjectsInMotion Cool, didn't know that before

[@enquiryplay]

I'm surprised Elon Musk still hasn't announced his HyperVac Pod that magically solves all these issues.

[@robertmartin8907]

I mean, he has solved a ton of "unsolvable" problems already. Hell Starship can even be an SSTO if you launch it empty, just as a *side* effect.

[@vinigretzky97]

Elon musk is a fraud. Can't believe people are still believing the gay hype.

[@FourthRoot]

@@vinigretzky97 He has a tendency to give impracticality optimistic projections, but his approach to solving problems is sound.

[@Max_Jacoby]

@@vinigretzky97 Care to elaborate?

[@vinigretzky97]

@@Max_Jacoby EVs are born to die. Purely making money off the idiots who are buying into the hype.

[@davidmurphy563]

There could be a future for vacuum airships on Mars where the numbers add up.

[@Soliloquy084]

I actually linked that NASA concept in the description.

[@davidmurphy563]

Ah quite right, I missed that link. I can't help but feel a hybrid between their drone design (www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7121) and the vacuum balloon to provide neutral buoyancy would be the way forward but it's a major engineering challenge either way. The same applies to the Hyperloop on Earth, storing that much potential energy is a recipe for disaster.

[@Soliloquy084]

No problem, most people don't read the description. You may be right that a hybrid system could work best, interesting idea.

[@Shardok42]

I suspect as well that on Earth we may be able to create a vacuum/hydrogen (separate chambers) hybrid balloon to greatly increase lift to allow for greater safety in design. Though, this will likely not get tested until we have better tech for lightweight support (nanotubes...)

[@michietn5391]

I saw this mentioned in a Curious Droid post, and made a comment to the effect that the "latticework" pressure hull could be made simply by having an inner balloon pressured higher than an outer balloon, and chemical sprayed in between that turns into rigid foam. When the foam has hardened, pump the gas out of the inner balloon.

[@alfredshitcock260]

"An equally devastating implosion" Um. No. A far less devastating and completely fireless collapse under pressure.

[@LordSandwichII]

You're forgetting the high speed plummet to earth...

[@thediplomasta5891]

I've got it! Anti-vacuum! That's the answer! I'm a genius! 😃

[@DwAboutItManFr]

@@LordSandwichII More survivable that on one explosion, also it can be made multichamber, preventing total failure.

[@wroughtiron7258]

@@LordSandwichII Vacuum airship proposals use honeycomb chambers, so a breach of one would only be a loss of one module worth of buoyancy, be a slow leak, not cause any cascading failure of other modules, and lead to a controllable emergency landing, not a crash. Disappointing that this video doesn't cover the modern 21st century proposals for vacuum airships.

[@garychap8384]

Then there's advanced graphene aerogels ... now 7% lighter than air, and a self-constraining solid. These materials are only going to improve over time. Sure, 7% lighter than air would mean a larger airship than under hydrogen... but it's doable. And as regards lighter stronger materials, we're getting there! The beauty of these advanced aerogels is that they do not present the tricky containment problem that hydrogen _(or a vacuum)_ does. So, the arguments about skin weight are irrelevant. Aerogels needn't be constrained - and we have strong polymers which could restrain aerogel at the very tiniest fraction of the weight of historic airship skins. Basically, I see this video aging very poorly as we make further advances in material sciences. The "near-vacuum" of the future, may well come as a tough machinable solid : )

[@cortster12]

Vacuum ships sound so much cooler than airships, really.

[@JustinTopp]

Bose-Einstein yea they do

[@General_Eisenhower1945]

Bose-Einstein "if I had a week, I couldn't explain all the reasons that wouldn't work"-Batman

[@philtripe]

of course we've all opened up old radios just to have the vacuum tubes float around the room...pretty sure steam boat willy's first cartoon was that scene

[@General_Eisenhower1945]

zimtower cool transformer An old zepplin they call airhead

[@the_worst_of_friends924]

Why don’t we combine the vacuum airship with dolor powered electric helicopter propulsion. We wouldn’t need helium’s or hydrogen then so it solves one problem.

[@Brooke-rw8rc]

My thought was always to use a scaled decrease. Like balloons inside balloons inside balloons, each with a slightly lower pressure than the surrounding layer. You'd probably never reach a true vacuum (or close enough by human standards), but it could provide additional buoyancy. Another thought I had was to create this structure with a foam substance that had bubbles created with helium or hydrogen. The foam in the middle would be created in a vaccuum, then surrounded by a layer created in very low pressure, again creating a gradient from core to skin.

[@lightningfirst689]

It's like I went through the stages of competence with this video. I started having never considered the question before. Then I was made aware of the question, but didn't know the answer. Then I learned the answer from the video. And finally, I realized that the answer is actually obvious on an intuitive level.

[@Dracopol]

That was mentioned in Larry Niven's science-fiction books, where a stasis field was formed in space and then towed down to Earth. The stasis field's battery burned out after a second, but because time was slowed in stasis, this gave the balloon an operational life of 50 years.

[@fitrianhidayat]

What's a stasis field?

[@Dracopol]

@@fitrianhidayat A stasis field is a science fiction concept where time is stopped (or extremely slowed) within the volume of a field.

[@noneurbisness6521]

General products hull might make a vacuum ship

[@BewareTheCarpenter]

Partially it depends on scale. When something gets bigger the volume increases exponentially to it's surface area so if you were going to make a vaccumeship it would work better the more massive it was.

[@jeebus6263]

was thinking the same, also the entire volume does not need to be vacuum... i could imagine different compartments, and the delta could adjust based on altitude.

[@fk2106]

Every square foot of its surface area would have 14.7 x 144 pounds of outside air pressure crushing it to the max. How to build something to withstand that, like a bathysphere, would outweigh its bouancy factor by a large amount!

[@Elric509]

@@fk2106 what about gradual compartments, russian doll style, each new layer with less pressure untill vacuum?

[@fk2106]

The first layer is still sbjected to the pressure of all layers above it since each kayer does not isolate it from the pressures above it.

[@Elric509]

@@fk2106 ah, i see, thanks for the reply

[@ARTiculations]

I was totally wondering why wouldn't a vacuum ship work when I saw a photography exhibition on airships a few weeks ago. Thanks for answering this question!!

[@ARTiculations]

Anton. Lol your profile pic too. Nice.

[@MRA_3]

Get a room fellas 😂😂😂 jk man

[@phitsf5475]

Not a joke. I hate you because you give me the impression that you're fucking stupid.

[@Jaden-lv7kx]

Not to different than the impression your making.

[@kimjunguny]

You must not have passed middle school.

[@aftonline]

Here's an idea: Make an airship with a rigid inner compartment filled with hydrogen, surrounded by an outer protective compartment filled with helium. Any crash will impact the outer helium compartment first, causing no fire, and the inner compartment will still remain intact. That way you get buoyancy that is better than a helium dirigible, possibly enabling it to be built as a rigid airship, allowing for better crash protection and better aerodynamics.

[@samuelmendoza9356]

In short, the Rozier balloon shoehorned to be an airship?

[@flyboy152]

Have you ever seen pictures of an airship crash? They are often ripped apart by weather or other factors, they don't just lightly bounce on the ground. Neither the USS Macon or USS Akron caught fire, but they were ripped to pieces long before they hit the water.

[@piperg6179]

You are making this way too complicated. We all know that helium and hydrogen both have lifting power. So the right approach would be to put lots of hydrogen or helium into big scuba tanks and pack them into a small airship.

[@aftonline]

@@piperg6179 Hydrogen and helium only have lifting power if not compressed, and you also need to minimize the weight of an airship to maximize the lifting power, so adding lots of heavy steel scuba tanks full of compressed hydrogen and helium to your airship is not going to help.

[@piperg6179]

@@aftonline i never let physics get in the way of a good theory. Boyle’s law was ok in its day but we know bwtter now.

[@TeionM83]

I read the title and immediately thought"No way! It would immediately implode."

[@americankid7782]

Bet you where thinking soft body airship.

[@yanislahtal6253]

yeah, i was like "it would just get crushed" then clicked on the video to see if there was more to it then got disappointed when all I got was ensentially "it would get crushed"...

[@TeionM83]

@@americankid7782 He says in the video that a hard body airship would be too heavy if it would stand the surrounding air pressure or, if it was made of lighter materials, it would simply implode.

[@TeionM83]

@1betterthanyou1 There are tutorial videos about wiping your arse, closing/opening doors with supposedly _MILLIONS_ of views and a few hundred k likes_, so... I've heard about them a few times from multiple sources, but since curiosity hasn't gotten the better of me yet, I can't say for sure whether they exist or not. I consider them to be urban legends for as long as I can resist looking them up.

[@Superbug-tf8zy]

@1betterthanyou1 well, the thing is that with new advances, it may become possible *soon*

[@petrkos164]

"Fill with vacuum" didnt think i would ever hear these words together

[@bruceleealmighty]

It's used to describe criminal enterprises. Other than that, many of the Einsteins on this thread are having some problems solving a problem without elements. ha ha ha

[@vojtechsrom3327]

sees *fill* and *vacuum* me: okay

[@benrobertson1255]

KSP music for the win

[@rossh2386]

Ben Robertson but the real question is why lol

[@MisterSquid1]

Because it's good

[@zlcoolboy]

That was so distracting lol.

[@ahobimo732]

I had this _exact_ question a few years ago. It's so great to see an in depth discussion of the actual viability.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Why don't we fill an Airship with a Vacuum?" Because *vacuum* isn't a thing; it is a not-thing. Not-things occupy no space, therefore you could fill the airship for all eternity and still not *fill* it up.

[@starlight8260]

How about "pockets" of vacuum embedded within an aerogel? Strong, lightweight, fireproof.

[@luongmaihunggia]

Strong? Aerogel is not strong.

[@starlight8260]

Not true, although they can sometimes be brittle. The Wikipedia article even shows an image of a 2 gram aerogel supporting a 2500 gram brick!

[@luongmaihunggia]

Starlight I haven't heard anyone refer to Aerogel as strong, normally people refer to it as not dense or low thermal conductivity. I think how heavy an aerogel vacuum balloon would be can be calculated. Just give me some number and I might be able to calculate it.

[@phoephoe795]

AeroGraphene has a density of 0.160kg/m3 Regular air is about 1.200kg/m3

[@luongmaihunggia]

Phoe Phoe and strength is?

[@William-Morey-Baker]

Helium is Fully capable of lifting commercial airships, especially the newer lighter designs. the thing is, we're running out of Helium... seriously, it will be commercially unavailable by 2050 and virtually gone by 2075... and those numbers are optimistic, it will likely be too expensive for most uses within the next 2 decades.

[@MrRolnicek]

Fusion power has always been 50 years ahead in the future ... but not anymore, we're like 10 years away now. So maybe one day we'll be doing fusion and dumping the power because we don't need it and just using it to make helium. What a fun picture for the future.

[@William-Morey-Baker]

you really don't understand the importance of helium do you? it's used in industrial cooling and heating, as well as chemistry, metallurgy, pharmaceuticals ect ect... your ignorance is profound, especially if you thought it just meant no more balloons... idiots. when i say industrial cooling, i mean things like the Large Hadron Collider, MRIs, and Satellites. and oh yeah, in some designs Fusion Generators...

[@MrRolnicek]

Well it's not an apocalypse scenario anyway. Even if we have to collect helium from solar winds in orbit and bring it down we still have SOME new Helium coming in. Of course a lot of nuclear reactions produce it too but that's icky because of radioactivity. And pretty much all the Helium that we use isn't being SPENT by using it. I expect the worst case scenario is the price goes up to 1000 times of what it is right now and we'll make do with that. Like even though hydrogen cooling is harder, and we don't need that low temperatures (Helium would suffice) we'll use it instead of helium because it's just cheaper in the end.

[@William-Morey-Baker]

those are roughly my exact points... at that time Helium would be cost prohibitive to the point of being commercially unavailable, and thus need to be replace in all use cases, which would require a fairly significant redesigning and retooling process, but i never said it would be an out right doomsday or apocalypse scenario. don't put words in my mouth. also, yet again, you are wrong. the helium used in those applications needs to be replaced as any cooling loop leaks, vents, or needs to be recharged over time for whatever reason. there are shipments of helium sent to Hospitals regularly for this purpose, same as liquid nitrogen.

[@MrRolnicek]

Nitrogen shipments will remain a thing. But the more expensive helium is, the better they'll take care of it. At the moment it's pretty much dirt cheap to just get some more helium to replace what you leaked out (especially compared to other hospital materials) so they don't bother too much trying to prevent that.

[@Soliloquy084]

First, remember all things come to an end. I'm thinking I'll stop giving certificates to people who comment 'first', it was fun but time to drop the joke. There are a couple of reasons, the last few times have been the same person, so obviously, the competition aspect is limited. Perhaps it could return if the channel grows more, however, this will also allow me to offer early access to videos as a $1 patron perk. Patrons are the lifeblood of the channel and literally pay for the software I use to make these animations, I want to reward them more, because they are awsome.

[@darioburstin2418]

Soliloquy wow how unfortunate, this was the first time that I would have been first :(

[@Soliloquy084]

I guess it had to happen to someone Darío. It was a fun thing to do while it lasted.

[@Jack-lm8ry]

Soliloquy Your outro music is really uplifting and intriguing, but i couldn't find a link to it in the description.

[@halimceria]

it was fun. i remember i keep refreshing your twitter just to click the link to the video. and i manage to get 2 certificates. lol. though, the early access for patreon is a better idea, imo.

[@robertdevito5001]

Wow, nobody replied "first!" To this comment? I'm disappointed .

[@abbyalphonse499]

I've got a question here actually. The second half of these theoretics depends on the vaccuum using up the entire hull, and then just having a gondola stuck to the bottom. But say if you were to have a seperate cannister (or several) inside the hull, similar to the gasbags of the hydrogen zeppelins, except also with a fully rigid container. That way the risk of being crushed of pressure would be reduced significantly, and in addition, large amounts of space inside hull would be still usable, without the need of an extremely heavy hull, or a larger gondola.

[@id104335409]

The reason why this is an impossible dream is the weight of air. 1L of water weighs 1Kg and occupies a volume of 1000 cubic cm. 1 ton of water is 1 cubic meter. That's a lot of weight that can fit in basically a two person hot tub. And everything you place in the water is displacing a volume of it. That volume of displaced water is pushing back against you and makes you float. If you drop 1 cubic meter of steel in water - it will sink. But if that cubic meter is just made of steel walls and filled with air - then you have almost 1 ton of force pushing it back above the water. And that's how we use the weight of water to float all our ships on it. The bigger the displacement - the stronger the force that pushes back. But now let's see how strong air can push back. 1 liter of air weighs 1.3 grams...... That's almost 800 times less than water. To make air float objects with the same force, that steel cube would have to be the size of a huge building and weigh exactly the same as before, while containing pure vacuum within its walls. It's just impossible to make. And even if we develop such strong lightweight material, you would be looking at a monstrous 80 cubic meter floater just to barely take one man up in the sky. And the higher you go - the worst that balance gets. It would be terribly impractical no matter how technologically advanced we are. Air is not heavy or dense enough. And we like it that way.

[@ImperativeGames]

Why not using Helium or H2 at half-pressure? 1 liter of H2 gas = 0.0893 g 1 liter of air = 1.3 g 1.3 - 0.04465 = 1.25535 g lift per liter I'm also thinking about compartments and using Helium for outer compartment at half-pressure and Hydrogen at quarter pressure for inner sphere

[@shiinondogewalker2809]

1L of water occupies a volume of 1L. 1L is 1 cubic dm, or 1000 cubic cm.

[@id104335409]

@@shiinondogewalker2809 correct (edited my post)

[@NimhLabs]

... wait... so people do not immediately conclude that it is the outside pressure crushing it that would be the issue? This is without even taking into account the machinery that would be required to maintain the vacuum state and the weight that equipment would also require.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

Katrina Paye Elon Musk is building a train that is supposed to drive through a vacuum tunnel, so apparently people don't.

[@eventhorizon853]

You could theoretically create a vacuum chamber that holds the pressure without additional equipment once the vacuum has been established. Note the "theoretically". And yes, then you'd absolutely have a vacuum airship that would require something along the lines of a Falcon Heavy to get it to your destination.

[@Loetmichel]

Because its actually possible. Not with vacuum filled "globes" or something. but with cells("baloons") made of mylar foil that are filled with aerogel. Which has MORE than enough strength to withstand the forces of a full vaccum against the mylar ballon. IIRC it can withstand more than 5 bar pressure from the outside and still not collapse. it also can vent the air inside it, so its relatively easy to regulate boyancy via letting air into the cells/out of the cells. And the compresors/vacuum pumps to do that are not that big or heavy at all... Only Problem with that elegant and nearly risk-free solution: Aerogel is really expensive. Filling the volume of a hindenburg with aerogel and mylar would probably cost billions at the moment. That said: wait a few years/a decade and maybe aerogels enter mass production and then it would be viable to have airships again that are safe, luxorious AND economical. One could even fit the outside of the hull with solar cells and have it fly electrically.

[@eventhorizon853]

Loetmichel I stand corrected. This is the most hilarious statement I've seen so far. A vaccum airship by creating mylar balloons FILLED with aerogel. Are you aware of the fact that this is the exact opposite of a vacuum? You know, the whole "space devoid of matter" part kinda goes out the window once you fill the space with matter.

[@Loetmichel]

Event Horizon: Are you aware that aerogel is porus and has a lot lower density than air? There are already "vacuum ballons" made of a block of aerogel in a mylar "balloon" that is then evacuated that do exaclty that: float UPWARDS. It provides lift because its IN SUM less dense than the air it displaces. and sturdy enough to hinder the mylar baloon around from collapse even at full vacuum. Look it up before spurting out insults. It makes you look dumb.

[@BartJBols]

You dont need to, you can have an airship with consecutively lower and lower pressure pockets the closer you come to the core of the airship, and the relative pressure difference would be spread out and thus materials don't need to be as strong to resist all the sum strain.

[@MrRolnicek]

That adds a lot of weight. BUT I've always been wondering why can't we use the same principle in reverse to create immensly high pressures. Maybe high enough to make metallic hydrogen even.

[@snek9353]

So picture a row of large carbon fiber composite balls the diameter of the airship. A large ball being the ideal shape to maximize volume with minimal mass. The space between the balls, and a nose and tail cone closed in with very light material and filled with hydrogen at or just below atmospheric pressure. The vacuum balls likely strong and light enough to provide lift, while also providing structure and a barrier between the separate hydrogen sections. The hydrogen sections creating more lift and aerodynamics. The separated sections creating a situation where the failure of one will not cascade to the others.

[@MrRolnicek]

now calculate exactly how much. how thick do you have to have the walls of the balls to hold that pressure, how much weight that makes etc.

[@snek9353]

I have no worthwhile way to do that.

[@MrRolnicek]

Howard Rourke I've done this calculation when I saw the ridiculous way you can lift tanks into the air using balloons in Metal Gear Solid 5. So I thought maybe it was vacuum in them. But according to my calculations. Still not big enough balloons.

[@grantmccoy6739]

This was pretty interesting. I was thinking about a similar concept using vacuum, or helium inside of wind power generator blades, in order to make them more efficient, by using more blades. Here's another idea, why not heat up the helium, or other gas, similar to a hot air balloon? You could use combustion, electric heaters, a transparent dirigible that is heated with sunlight, even hydrogen as a fuel. It may not work well in cold weather though, depending on how it's designed. But it seems like the solution to making helium work is just heat.

[@dogzer]

What about creating a half-vacuum by pushing air out via ducted fans? The fans would create lift by pushing the air down, and the semi-vacuum would create additional lift. Furthermore the half vacuum chamber should allow air in such a way it enter through the hemisphere and upwards, so the air coming in also creates lift.

[@thetrashchannel1217]

This sounds like making a drone with extra steps

[@ToddAdams]

I wrote a novel involving a vacuum airship where the vacuum bladders are made of carbon aerogel in a vacuum and covered with graphene covering an internal structure similar to a hoberman sphere constructed of CNT struts that used super-conducting current to cause the structure to go rigid with far greater strength than steel, aluminum or titanium. It also allowed the vacuum bladders to tweak their volumes slightly via computer control to allow for a very stable cargo platform.

[@SkillZgetKillZ]

"8 and 40 souls came to die in France." -Bruce Dickinson

[@sheacorduroy5565]

I was looking for this comment lol.

[@JavierChiappa]

@@sheacorduroy5565 eight and four times twenty souls came to die in France.

[@docthebiker]

I don't see why there is such an explosion worry about Hydrogen. Jet fuel is pretty explosive, and when slammed into the ground from 3 miles up at 600mph NOBODY walks away. With modern materials, handling processes and sensors I don't see why nobody is building Rigid Airships for the 21st century. I bet you could cover them with solar panels and make them pretty Carbon Neutral too.

[@SneeuwPoesjes]

firstly if an airplane slams into the ground from several miles up you're dead anyway and also pilots can dump their fuel if necensarry, secondly at the heights that airplanes fly the kerosene will just not burn very easily in the thin atmosphere, thirdly the flashpoint of kerosine is about ~130 degrees celcius at sealevel while hydrogen is about ~60 degrees so kerosine has to be preheated to be able to burn while hydrogen can easily burn just by a small flash from as example a short in electricalwiring, fourthly you have hydrogen in a gasious form which will simply explode very easily vs a tank of liquid propellant which you can throw a burning match in without having to worry about anything. 5, the surface area where a leak can happen is way bigger in an airship then a aircraft. 6. who wants to sit about 2 days in an airship to cross let's say the atlantic when you can sit in an aircraft for a few hours? 7. the price for a ticket in an airship would be incredible expensive since you can only carry a very small amount of people in a big airship due to alot of weigh restrictions 8. it's not profitable for any company to do so since 6 and 7 apply. 9. you can build an aircraft with solar panels which can fly faster (and safer) than an airship 10. you want to waste even more weight by putting solar panels on them? 11. aircrafts are alot easier to maintain and engineer than an airship 12. what's the point of building an airship in the first place?

[@sturlamolden]

Hydrogen is not explosive. A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is explosive. Having a tank filled withn pure hydrogen on an airship is not more inherently dangeroous than, say, a tank of gasoline for propulsion.

[@sturlamolden]

The devastating airship disasters were not caused by hydrogen. That is just a myth. They were caused by the paint used on the outer canvas, which contained nitrate. Nitrate reacts with cellulose to nitrocellulose, also known as gunpowder. With an outer layer of gunpowder, it only took a spark of lightning or static to put the whole thing ablaze.

[@mortimerhasbeengud2834]

Graphene of a certain strength -diamond hard-light enough and Would You like to fly in my Beautiful Balloon -The 5th Dimension

[@edge3d]

i always thought of that but never stopped to think about it in that depth... tks

[@cheako91155]

Just saw the title, but it's amazing that both N and H(He even) take up exactly 22.4L/M at STP.

[@reywashere5284]

Gotta love those perfect gas laws.

[@innocentbystander3317]

"Fill it by emptying it!" Just because someone recieved an education, doesn't mean they are educated.

[@rafalsitar]

Yeah, imagine if there was a sci-fi thing that is as strong or stronger than steel, but 98% lighter, yeah IMAGINE if such an unrealistic material would be found in the modern day... Carbon fiber: Am i a joke to you?

[@zangryomani1257]

The plastic resin that has to hold the whole thing together: *ahem*

[@garychap8384]

But wait... I understand that Graphene Aerogel can already be made 7% lighter than air... they're also machinable solids _(even though brittle, at least as a pure material)_ So, we could conceivably make airships safe and viable in the future - if material sciences continue to advance at the pace they have been. Imagine increasingly sparse materials, or novel cellular structures printed at the molecular level. The aerospace industry is certainly putting a lot of money into ever-lighter structural materials... and the space program is investing in ever more efficient and light insulators! I wonder if very small vacuums can be maintained inside of tiny cellular molecules... where their tiny surfaces can hold up, provided there are no free gases in the material. An outer skin would be necessary, but future 'fillers' could be interesting. As for protecting and containing such brittle materials from the elements, if necessary, we can already design materials which are far lighter than the skin of a historic airship - especially if there is no leaky hydrogen to contain ... aerogels tend not to be so difficult to constrain : ) Given advances in material technologies, I have a feeling that this video will age terribly : ) Peak oil will push us hard to innovate, even if that means taking a conceptual step backwards. Airships are not out of the question... but you can bet they'd be a lot safer and more efficient than previously.

[@anthrazite]

Aerogel is brittle as hell, I guess it could make for funny drone airships though

[@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456]

@@anthrazite so is paper until you make it into cardboard.

[@samuelmendoza9356]

Not to mention, the aerogel is porous. Isee potential in it to be a supporting structure to keep the chamber from imploding though.

[@markmarsh27]

That was FASCINATING! ..... very well done! .... subscribed!

[@toothpickprovider2614]

The way vacuums work is that it's not a light substance, it's unfilled space. Even if you were to make an airship strong enough, it wouldn't ever lift anyways. Let's put it into perspective. Say you're running some sort of physics simulation where you are able to change what fills a certain area in the air, including making it a vacuum. With light gases, they have to go upwards for heavier gasses to move downward, but with empty space, the heavier gasses could theoretically just move down. This both explains the crushing of the airship, the atmospheric gasses pushing down on emptiness, and why the airship would not fly. In the balloon experiment, the light air had to be denser than the balloon, which is what provided the buoyancy necessary to move upwards. If the airship had a vacuum, the vacuum, having a density of close to 0, would be no where near as dense as the airship itself. Again, consider that a vacuum isn't itself a material or type of air, it's the _lack_ of it. Material can move freely through it.

[@MisterHouu]

That is not the case. Think of it this way, if heavy gas moves freely downwards into empty space, what is left where the heavy gas was initially? Empty space. One might describe the empty space as having "moved upwards" for the gas to move downwards. There is in fact nothing more buoyant than empty space.

[@atticusdodd4923]

The Hindenburg was originally designed to hold helium.

[@kaasmeester5903]

They must have switched to hydrogen early on in the design though, since it was clearly built for that. Including a smoking lounge (!!) with overpressure and airlock, so that no leaking hydrogen would ever enter the lounge.

[@anthrazite]

@@kaasmeester5903 Design changes were made after it became clear that the US wouldn't sell the necessary helium to fill it

[@openlink9958]

"why don't we [fly] an airship with a vacuum?' there, that makes more sense

[@SandTurtle]

Its more like floating

[@solifugus]

Glaring omission --> the atmosphere thins rapidly with altitude and vacuum. So just increase internal vacuum with altitude. Use a gauge to continuously measure air pressure differences inside and outside the derigible and a vacuum pump to change internal pressure to within safe limits of the structure.... Simple solution, isn't it? I have been advocating for vacuum airships for a long time. Perhaps we should call it a variable vacuum derigible. Allowing some ambient air back in could then reduce altitude. Easy peasy and very safe.

[@solifugus]

I first came across this idea when trying to come up with a cheap way to orbit. My thought was to use a hydrogen airship covered with solar cells. Hydrogen expands with heat more than any other element but is difficult to keep cryogenically. So, keep it in a derigible airship instead of a rocket. That also provides a very broad space for solar power generation to heat the hydrogen to use for rocket thrust. Simultaneously, the weight would decrease and, using a vacuum pump, even become a vacuum. My idea also included that the airship be shaped as a giant aerodymic flying wing. It would be very slow at low altitutudes (being a balloon) but would quickly accelerate as the atmosphere thins. Then, so long as there is enough atmosphere to present resistance, there must also be enough to create lift so... To make this work, you need enough hydrogen to gain orbital velocity (starting very slowly but ending very fast).... This dictates a minimum size which is pretty large but also potentially inexpensive. I wouldn't use this as a heavy lift vehicle but it could bring small numbers of people to orbit at very little cost... and safely so.

[@guidestone1392]

A vacuum airship might work in the upper atmosphere where the gas pressure is much lower. Just rocket the craft into orbit, expand and seal the balloons, then lower it into the atmosphere slowly enough that it doesn't burn up. I wonder what kind of application that could have that's different from a conventional satellite.

[@kabobawsome]

For reference, you actually CAN build a rigid-body airship with Helium. It's just harder, so most don't bother. Zeppelin (yes, the same one from the early 20th century) is working on a fleet of semi-rigid-body airships. There's really just very little reason to build airships today, unless someone can find a way to store enough power on one to make journeys of comparable distance and speed to a passenger jet. Because then we'd have a mostly green alternative to airplanes, which is a huge gap in our arsenal of green alternatives. Otherwise, there really is no clean air travel solution.

[@faragar1791]

Have there been any attempts at creating a lightweight vacuum chamber that could float, just to see if it's physically possible? The aerospace industry has been working on all kinds of lightweight composite materials.

[@anonymoushuman8344]

I wouldn't be too surprised if it's a technology that has already been perfected, using some composite or other, in a classified program.

[@SollowP]

Americans: "Metric system is dumb" Also Americans: 3:37

[@DanQZ]

Nobody thinks the metric system is dumb

[@RickJaeger]

what

[@davidtucker9498]

The metric system is great... For everything except daily life. The Imperial System is more intuitive in most cases for values which common people deal with. The metric system is far more useful for extremely small or large values.

[@fl4k71]

@@davidtucker9498 are you serious? Maybe... But just maybe you think it that way just because you are used to it?

[@Haniel93]

@@davidtucker9498 I'd not say it's more intuitive. One is just used to the units one grew up with and therefor thinks they are intuitive.

[@HungryGuyStories]

That depends on what kind of vacuum... Hoover? Electrolux? Dyson? Roomba? Bissell?

[@dogwalker666]

You forgot Henry!

[@Cewu]

For a more premium feel to our vacuum. We first fill it with the finest Alpine air and then we proceduraly pump it out creating the finest of Swiss vacuums using German techniques of vacuum making. With precision of german engineering and the brilliancy of Swiss air you can also enjoy a soundless flight.

[@karenthebroker5618]

Skip to 1:43

[@bruhmoment9413]

... I hear that KSP music on the background. Nice, brings back good memories.

[@mtgradwell]

4:20 "no homogeneous material can even theoretically achieve both" So obviously you don't use a homogeneous material. You have struts placed strategically in the interior, wherever they need to be in order to provide the maximum possible strength using the minimum possible weight. These struts are not solid, but are themselves composed of smaller struts, except maybe in a few small locations where the pressure on them is so great that nothing but a solid will suffice. The smaller struts will be for the most part composed of still smaller struts, and so on until you are almost at an atomic level. 3-D printers would be used at most scales, to maximise the control we have over the structure. At the very smallest scale, Some of the struts will be solid while others will consist of an aerogel. some of the spaces between struts (those that need it the most) would be filled with a less dense aerogel. Think of an interior that's like the exterior of a Gothic cathedral except the flying buttresses have smaller flying buttresses to support them, which in turn have smaller flying buttresses, and so on. The construction material at the very smallest scales would resemble the bones of birds, but with added aerogel at strategic locations in order to improve on nature. All of this is constructed with materials with the highest strength/weight ratios that we know of, and every element is located exactly where it needs to be, according to our very best A.I. Similarly the exterior is a fractal and not a simple sphere. It consists of domed facets which in turn are covered with smaller domes, and so on. At the very smallest scale, the domes are small enough for their curvature to provide enough structural strength to overcome both the external air pressure and any other forces that might be expected to impinge on the craft in day-to-day use.

[@mtgradwell]

@little special child Thank you.

[@Prometheus4096]

That's not how it works.

[@mtgradwell]

@@Prometheus4096 So, how does it work?

[@Prometheus4096]

@@mtgradwell How does 'what' work? All I am saying is that making some sort of fractal of length scales doesn't improve the compressive strength of a material.

[@mtgradwell]

​@@Prometheus4096 You're the one who said "that's not how it works", so you're the one who should know what the "it" is. Making a bathysphere a sphere rather than a cube, say, doesn't improve the compressive strength of the material. It's still the same material after all, so it has the same properties, just a different shape. So why are they made spherical? Why don't oceanologists dive to the ocean depths in bathycubes? And why are gothic cathedrals built he way they are when just about any other approach would work just as well so long as they used the same material? You might say that OK, gothic cathedrals have flying buttresses and elaborate vaulting and so on, but they don't have buttresses on buttresses. But actually many of them do. And the reason they don't continue the fractalization to even smaller scales is that you hit a point of diminishing returns when working with stone using medieval tools and purely manual calculation.

[@callsignsoviet978]

I'm not the only one who read the title and instantly lost iq points

[@callsignsoviet978]

I just confused myself. What? How? Huh?

[@jzk3919]

Should it be high-pressure or low-pressure vacuum? For the envelope I recommend anti-matter only!

[@lobsangdawa2819]

Would it be possible to mix both hydrogen and helium gases together ? In a ratio that would allow for some extra lift while not being as flammable as straight hydrogen ? Or to have different gas bags with different gases ? My apologies for my ignorance of the science behind my questions , am asking as I have always wanted to make an airship but always thought that both gases had approximately the same amount of lift .

[@donaldboughton8686]

This idea was suggested by a monk for a balloon several hundred years ago. It's a materials problem, finding a material that is light enough and strong enough not to be collapsed by atmospheric pressure.

[@josephmarsh5031]

I literally just thought this question yesterday... GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!

[@Treblaine]

What about heated helium? So combine the elements of a hot air balloon with a helium derigible.

[@Joe-pi9bx]

What about heated helium in a partial vacuum?

[@gearandalthefirst7027]

Hey Joseph, I think you might need to look up the definition of a gas, buddy

[@dekutree64]

I was thinking the same thing. But you'd pretty much have to use electric heating so it can be done from inside the balloon and without leaving any exhaust in there, and current batteries have quite poor energy density compared to the fuel for hot air balloons, so the heating system may end up adding more weight than it offsets.

[@Treblaine]

dekutree64. The scale can work in its favour here, that's a HUGE area for solar panels or a more direct means such as it being cometely transparent to sunlight entering it with a totally opaque "target" inside. And the idea is not to vent the He but as the pressure rises from increased temperature, to pump the He out of the envelope storage tanks. The exotic materials needed for this are those that are both extremely translucent to visible light yet reflective on the interior surface of all thermal emissions of He and of course very low conductivity of heat. The surface to absorb the sunlight would be inside the envelope where it heats the He by convection and radiation. Of course to get it started the He would be plugged into a ground source of electricity to heat the He, but the sun and a greenhouse effect keeps it going.

[@dekutree64]

Brilliant :) Build it.

[@Christian_Prepper]

*SOLUTION: Perfect the structural integrity of the fuselage with **_"Graphene"._** Avoid all other metals.* _Next challenge._

[@thediplomasta5891]

Graphene is the future! It is so exciting, that I considered going into materials engineering, just to work with it. If people could realize the actual possibilities, they would drop everything and invest in graphene, in any way they could! It is literally Star Trek-level material!! 🤯

[@Quint_69]

Ok do you have the $907 million dollars in graphene that would be required to make that? (And that's ignoring any excess material needed for obviously required experimenting)

[@Christian_Prepper]

@@Quint_69 *sure. who should I make the rubber check to?*

[@Quint_69]

@@Christian_Prepper *You aren't making yourself seem any less stupid by typing like this*

[@TomGrubbe]

I never thought of this before, thanks!

[@emissarygw2264]

The fundamental problem is trying to create a shell that can support 1atm pressure using as little mass as possible. It just happens to turn out that 1atm is a LOT, and gases are by far capable of exerting the highest supporting pressure per unit mass of any material.

[@Dagreatdudeman]

My mind goes to that time the Mythbusters pulled a vacuum in an oil car.

[@MD-vs9ff]

Sickest episode ever.

[@MilkDrinker218]

of course a British airship scheme was thwarted by the weather in France

[@maxtyler8993]

They're actually considering vacuum airships for use on mars...

[@damienm8121]

An hydrogen a/s would be way smarter on mars. The ratios are worst on mars than on earth, but safety is not a point there, neither is hydrogen explosion in the absence of oxygène. Plus hydrogen would be profuced _in situ_ from water

[@Helperbot-2000]

thank you for putting the songs in the end of the video, i would have never found "jazz in paris" if it wasnt for this rangom video in my reccomended!

[@SapioiT]

Are you sure the math is right? Because, from what I know, for helium, the price is much higher, but it uses the same volume of space. Also, while conventional airships (which are a sub-category of aerostats) use hot air which has 30% of the lifting force of hydrogen and/or helium, and some use water-saturated hot air which has 40% of the lifting force of hydrogen and/or helium, steam has 60% of the lifting force of hydrogen or helium. That means that if you can make a flexible-membrane airship which can survive 150 C (or 300 F) degrees, or even a rigid airship with some hydraulic bellows for dealing with the difference in volume, then airships are very much possible. In fact, you could even have multiple tethered/springed airships to generate the lift, and simply decompress some when they are not needed, or have telescopic parts in the front and the back, to increase the volume where the steam is stored, to make the landing and takeoff easier. And the best part is that if there are leaks, you're just leaking steam or even liquid water, instead of combustible or flammable substances. And, if you use said telescopic design, with air-locks to reduce the steam loss from some impacts, then even if you have leaks, you can still close off that section and continue, or even just slowly descend. And you could even have machinery for people to be able to use some materials to cover the holes, then have climbing tethers be used from the outside to patch or repair the punctured area. In fact, the only downside of that patch-work would be lower thermal sealing, causing the ship to need to use more fuel to keep the steam hot enough to float the airship to the nearest safe hangar usable for repair, to nearest blimp drop-off point where to get the passengers onto a different airship, or even to hop from fuel station to fuel station (aka. gas stations in USA or petrol stations in EU) to get more fuel to reheat the steam, to complete the ride safely. And the buoyancy substance is water, which is (pardon the pun) dirt cheap. And it would still need to have turbofan or turboprop engines for navigation and course-correction anyway, especially to move at speeds of 50 km/h to 100 km/h (in a straight line) so even in the case of fairly significant leaks, you would till have enough power to coast the aircraft to the destination, or to the nearest usable refueling station, from where to take off again and continue to the destination, even if you have to use a smaller airship to get ahead of the main ship to buy fuel, then get back to the main ship with that fuel, like with the inflatoplane (inflatable airplane) used in the second world war and which some people are trying to bring back as an ultralight portable airplane which could fit in the trunk of a sedan (which are notorious for small trunks) or even be carried by a scooter/moped. Heck, with some ingenuity, there could be made an inflatoplane-moped hybrid, which to turn into an airplane after a few minutes of unpacking. It would only need a propeller in the front (2 blades work for being low lateral profile while packed, but 4 blades could work just as well, by having them work both parallel to the initial 2 blades, or perpendicular to the initial two blades), an air compressor (connected to the airplane engine, so you don't need to worry about the leaks, if you still maintain structural integrity), and systems for turning the airplane in all 3 axis of rotation (yaw like a pirouette, pitch the nose/tip up and down, and roll like a barrel on it's side), which could also be aided by tilting the whole propeller by a few degrees, or it could even have a telescopic channel wing for take-off and landing at slower speeds than normally available and in much smaller places than normally available.

[@fiftystate1388]

Sounds like we've got a volunteer.

[@philipandrew1626]

How big (t/D) would an evacuated diamond sphere have to be to float in the atmosphere of a low gravity moon like Titan?

[@muninrob]

How much of Titan's atmosphere does it take to equal the weight of your craft + it's cargo? Take Titan's air density, divide the mass component into the mass you want to float - now multiply that result times the space component of Titan's air density. That's how much empty space you need in order to float.

[@nas0ng]

And I thought there was, “…no such thing as stupid questions.”

[@Squidbush]

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people

[@nas0ng]

@@Squidbush That’s what I thought too, until I saw this question.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

What are stupid questions?

[@nas0ng]

@@alwaysdisputin9930 Well if someone asks… Why don’t we “fill” something with nothing? And someone points out that IT is a stupid question…then it’s pretty obvious that the title of this video is a good example. So, I guess, “What is a stupid question?,” when there is a blatantly obvious example…might qualify too, lol

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

​@@nas0ng Is a vacuum = nothing?

[@EllyCatfox]

"Homo genius" is the best pronunciation of homogeneous I've ever heard.

[@aledner_lw7685]

Ah a new, fresh educational channel. Subbed.

[@Soliloquy084]

Welcome to the club

[@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447]

I read a Popular Science article about this very topic. The composite used was so strong, it could take a shotgun blast almost point blank.

[@Lucius1958]

Simple solution: make the vacuum cells from an alloy of unobtainium and handwavium...🤣

[@danparish1344]

Maybe it’s time to revisit hydrogen, surely we have the ability to make it much safer than in the past considering we now have cars powered by hydrogen that seem to store it very safely. I think that could be achieved more easily than a vacuum airship.

[@b-chroniumproductions3177]

Hydrogen airships aren't even that much more dangerous to begin with... in fact, helium airships at the time crashed just as often as hydrogen ones, they just didn't crash in a terrifying ball of fire. Shenandoah, Akron, and Macon were all helium filled and Macon was the only one to not have a significant loss of life when it crashed.

[@JavierChiappa]

@@b-chroniumproductions3177 That's true, remember the hindenburg had cow intestines for hydrogen gas reservoirs. We now at least have plastics and composite materials to do that job. We should totally use hydrogen. Also we don't have a lot of Helium and it's wasteful to use it like that.

[@kentwood9821]

@@b-chroniumproductions3177 A lot of people survived the Hindenburg crash as well. Much higher percentage than most modern airliner crashes for sure.

[@b-chroniumproductions3177]

@Lazys The Dank Engineer Medical treatments and specialized manufacturing, including the semiconductors that all our technology uses. If we run out of helium, we're going to have serious problems.

[@gregorysmith6293]

Aren't we running out of helium

[@Gamepak]

that is the problem with it, its getting rare and more expensive

[@JeffDeWitt]

Not really, the History Guy did a story about it, it's not a matter of running out, it's a matter of producing it. We seem to go though boom and bust cycles with the stuff.

[@MaestroAlvis]

I spent a long time think8ng about this back in the day.

[@koloth5139]

Yep saw the answer coming. I kept remembering all those videos I've seen of vacuums crushing steal barrels.

[@fulkthered]

Why don't we fill airships with vacuums?Same reason light bulbs hang from ceilings and don't float up from the floor.

[@charlesdewitt8087]

Because lightbulbs are built of heavy material and not designed to float. Not because of any failure of buoyancy theory.

[@fulkthered]

So you are trying to tell me an empty metal bag would be lighter than an empty glass bulb?No matter how light you make it the empty container will not float in a gas.

[@charlesdewitt8087]

I admit my earlier response was rather flippant, a failing on my part. Rather than make excuses I'll simply elaborate and list the other reasons this works I was too lazy to mention the last time. But A zeppelin filled with nothing would float for the same reason that a lightbulb filled with hydrogen would not: Buoyancy theory. Which I will now briefly outline: Things float in fluids (this applies to liquids and gases) when they weigh less than the amount of fluid that would need to be pushed out of the way for it to "sink". (called It's "displacement" Put simply: a zeppelin weighs less than the equivalent amount of air, a lightbulb weighs more. The first reason for this that I would like to touch upon is scale: A lightbulbs "skin" (A zeppelin's hull) is relatively (And I use relatively in its most literal context) thick in comparison to a zeppelins hull. Now I think that as rational people we can agree that lightbulb glass is rather thin. But in comparison to a zeppelin *scaled down* to a similar size as the lightbulb a lightbulb's hull would be much thicker, and a lightbulb scaled up to the size of a zeppelin would have very thick walls. Which of course adds extra weight. Really, it all comes back to something I mentioned in passing but failed to elaborate on in my first response: Lightbulbs are not designed to fly. Zeppelins are shaped for optimum displacement vs aerodynamics. Lightbulbs are shaped for optimum light dispersal. Zeppelins are designed to be as lightweight as possible to enhance buoyancy. Lightbulbs are designed with many factors in mind, buoyancy is not one of them. A lightbulb must by necessity have a connection with its power socket. Which of course adds a great deal more weight (relative to the total mass of a lightbulb) than does the crew compartments on a zeppelin. Amongst many other design differences between lightbulbs and zeppelins. In summary: I posit to you sir. That if a zeppelin were designed like a lightbulb (with wall thickness and electronic components to match the increased size) it would not fly. Nor indeed would a lightbulb filled with hydrogen.

[@fulkthered]

By your way of thinking if they had sucked all the air out of it the Hindenburg would have still been able to fly?It weighed 242 tons.It was the hydrogen that was buoyant the ship was just along for the ride.

[@charlesdewitt8087]

The Hindenburg *would* have flown filled with a vacuum (provided that it's hull could withstand the pressure) here's why: Helium and Hydrogen do not float because they have mysterious anti-gravity properties. Helium is buoyant because it is lighter than air. Hydrogen is more buoyant because it is even lighter. Why is hydrogen lighter than helium? It has less molecules and is a less dense gas. *What is less dense than nothing?* The Hindenburg and all other airships like it flew because they had sufficient lift to overcome it's own weight. In short, the Hindenburg flew because while it weighed a significant amount. It *weighed less than the amount of air it displaced* not because hydrogen has magic lifting properties. The Hindenburg would not displace less air because it was filled with a vacuum instead of hydrogen. It would only serve to make the whole ship lighter and more buoyant. A ship on the sea does not float because "it's just along for the ride" with the air inside it. It floats because the ship as a whole weighs less than the amount of water it would displace. They then sink when filled with water because the water inside the vessel weighs the same as the water outside the vessel. Meaning it is just a hunk of metal (in terms of buoyancy) An airship works on the same principles, it isn't going to magically sink because it has a less dense, lighter substance in it's balloon.

[@youcanhandlethetruth4695]

You do not need a Thick outer shell. But a Magnetic one. A Strong Magnetic field in the Center Pushes the Thin Shell away. Its like a Huge Atom.

[@carcarjinks1430]

the solution is lots of smaller vacuum chambers, each connected to the same structure. smaller vacuum cells can more easily be designed to resist air pressure. and if one does implode, the others slow its fall.

[@jeddavis4771]

I've seen one airship (modern) where the helium is contained in cells distributed across the body of the craft so that the body is not the container. Would it be possible, with the necessary composite materials, to achieve the level of buoyancy necessary using this vacuum theory? I know these cells would necessarily need to be strong and this might increase the weight of the container, but do you know of any trials that used this approach?

[@walterbrown8694]

At sea level, the ambient air pressure is 14+ psi. The airship would simply be crushed. Do the arithmetic for the volume required to lift a 1 pound load. If you know the volume of 1 pound of air, then calculate the minimum surface area required to enclose that volume. The weight of material necessary to support the surface area of that volume envelope would exceed the 1 pound weight you want to lift. So, to make an airship that works, we fill it with a gas which is less dense than air at the same pressure as the ambient air in order to sustain the lifting envelope of the airship. Hydrogen and helium will both do the trick.

[@B2T7RID2QGLEHH5UZFB0T]

Why not use high pressure helium tubes as a sort or rigid inner support for vacuum airships

[@hikarihitomi7706]

Another option: partial vacuum. Use helium in a rigid structure but at low pressure. The helium can be adjusted to keep the pressure difference between the inside vs the outside at level the ship can withstand, yet by being at a lower internal pressure for a given size, you gain more buoyancy.

[@robotnikkkk001]

=BUT.....SINCE HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS TO BE A COMMON THING AT NEAR FUTURE...MAYBE START DO HYDROGEN AIRSHIPS AGAIN=? =TECHNOLOGY LEVEL IS MUCH HIGHER THAN IT WAS AT THOSE TIMES,ISNT THAT........SO MAKING HYDROGEN FILLED SHIPS SAFE ISNT EVEN A BIG DEAL,ISNT IT....ALSO THOSE CAN BE POWERED BY THOSE FUEL HYDROGEN CELLS,FOR EVEN MORE COOLNESS,HEHE.....

[@jizburg]

Thank you. I have been thinking of this probmem since high scool.

[@slycooper1001]

does ozone have surface tension? i just had a thought a hanging bag just sticking to the ozone layer a canopy just hanging from a empty bag stuck to the sphere that keeps the air in

[@Bendigo1]

Like a float above water keeping something from sinking?

[@Yugoslavz]

Plot twist: filling an airship with a vacuum but it's vacuum cleaners

[@Bendigo1]

Wouldn't an airship filled with vacuum be called a vacuum ship?