ok not so much something to combat global warming as such but still...

How much fuel does nasa and such burn each year sending stuff into space?? LOTS, why dont they jst get one HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE helium balloon with a launch pad on it, let it flout up to the outscirts of the atmosphere and then launch>???? then jst deflate it afterwards? would this help cut there fuel consupmtion or not, this is jst an idea i had a while ago and have always pondered the feasability of something like this. any ideas guys? could this work??

[njp]

I haven't done any calculations, but I suspect your idea is a non-starter for the following reasons:

Such a balloon would need to be mind-bogglingly huge in order to provide the lift required even for a reduced-fuel rocket plus the associated launch pad. It would be extremely expensive, as would the gas needed to fill it.

Since the gas expands as the balloon ascends, the balloon has to be launched only partially filled (practically deflated, in fact), so this means it has to be even bigger than you might think if you wish to ascend to high altitude!

Such a massive balloon would be extremely difficult to handle near the ground. You would need absolutely still weather conditions to stand any chance of launching it.

It would still get you nowhere near space. The operational ceiling for a helium balloon is around 100,000 feet IIRC.

I can't think of any way of recovering the helium, so that would be lost, probably along with the balloon fabric itself.

[AgentCool]

It is possible to get a balloon up to around 100,000 feet (and this has been achieved several times with passengers) but then you've still got the problem of having to reach escape velocity in order to leave the Earth's atmosphere and enter into a Low Earth Orbit (the Space Shuttle travels at 17,000mph).

[njp]

I think you mean orbital injection velocity. Escape velocity is that needed to entirely escape the Earth's gravitational field.

Originally Posted by markwpage

It is possible to get a balloon up to around 100,000 feet (and this has been achieved several times with passengers) but then you've still got the problem of having to reach escape velocity in order to leave the Earth's atmosphere and enter into a Low Earth Orbit (the Space Shuttle travels at 17,000mph).

Joe Kittinger did this first in 1960. I'm in awe of people like this. They don't do it for thrills or personal fame but to advance knowledge by doing research at huge personal risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittenger

Getting back to the topic, 100,000 ft is only about 20 miles. You need to orbit at least 100 miles for atmospheric drag to become negligible. So a giant balloon only saves you 20% of the altitude and you still have to get up to orbital velocity. Escape velocity is higher still, at around 25,000 MPH.

[AgentCool]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Joe Kittinger did this first in 1960. I'm in awe of people like this. They don't do it for thrills or personal fame but to advance knowledge by doing research at huge personal risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittenger

The most impressive thing about Kittinger's voyage (which, if anyone's interested, is well documented on the 1999 BBC series 'The Planets') is the fact he jumped out once he'd reached the aforementioned altitude resulting in what must be the ultimate skydiving experience.

[njp]

A much better idea than a balloon launch platform is the space elevator. This is not a new concept by any means, but remains tantalisingly out of reach. New materials made possible by nanotechnology may one day make it a reality.

[davemackenzie]

Sorry to add more disadvantages, but at 100,000 ft, the windspeed is in excess of 195mph, now the other part to nasa's fuelling is, only some of the fuel used is negative to the global warming effect, but 70 percent of the fuel used is hydrogen and oxygen (liquid) when the two are burned together, the after product given off is pure distilled water the solid fuel boosters are a mixture of various carbon fuels packed into an airless powder which are infact the only bi-product given off which cause harm to the ozone layer, nasa spend billions per year on fuel refinement each year and are getting better and better, if you remember the scram jet launch, the vehicle reached over 6000mph but only had a fuel payload containing around 50 litres, now if you do the math, how many miles would the vehicle travel once its fuel has been spent? its more economical than the average family car

[davemackenzie]

Oh, forgot to add another thing, for every kilogram of weight to be taken up into orbit, 1000 litres of fuel will be needed,
helium has a basic lift ratio of 1 cubic meter for every kilogram in weight
And the reason i know all this baffle is because i myself design rockets as a hobby and also have an MA in propulsion design & analysis, although still havent found a career yet!!!!

Originally Posted by markwpage

The most impressive thing about Kittinger's voyage (which, if anyone's interested, is well documented on the 1999 BBC series 'The Planets') is the fact he jumped out once he'd reached the aforementioned altitude resulting in what must be the ultimate skydiving experience.

Yes, indeed. I first read about this in the 'National Geographic' soon after it happened, but this is from the Wiki article.
The first, from 76,400 feet (23,287 m) in November, 1959 was a near tragedy when an equipment malfunction caused him to lose consciousness, but the automatic parachute saved him (he went into a flat spin at a rotational velocity of 120 rpm; the G factor at his extremities was calculated to be over 22 times that of gravity, setting another record). Three weeks later he jumped again from 74,700 feet (22,769 m). For that return jump Kittinger was awarded the Leo Stevens parachute medal.

On August 16, 1960 he made the final jump from the Excelsior III at 102,800 feet (31,330 m). He was in freefall for 4 minutes and 36 seconds reaching a maximum speed of 714 mph (1,149 km/h) before opening his parachute at 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Pressurization for his right glove malfunctioned during the ascent, causing his hand to swell. He set records for highest balloon ascent, highest parachute jump, longest freefall and fastest speed by a man through the atmosphere.

[davemackenzie]

Its amazing what humans do these days, come to think of it, if he went into freefall any faster, the actual temperature would have cooked him as with speed, a jet travelling at just under mach.2 has an external fuselage temp of 300c, just think about all that air hitting at such high speed, thing is, if i had the power, time and money, im sure i would do the same - you only live once

Originally Posted by davemackenzie

Its amazing what humans do these days, come to think of it, if he went into freefall any faster, the actual temperature would have cooked him as with speed, a jet travelling at just under mach.2 has an external fuselage temp of 300c, just think about all that air hitting at such high speed, thing is, if i had the power, time and money, im sure i would do the same - you only live once

Well, he accelerated under gravity until his weight was balanced by drag. As the air got thicker, he gradually slowed down to (I suppose) 120-ish. He couldn't really have gone much faster. I suppose what I'm saying is that weight alone is not enough to get you into air friction heat territory: you would need a jet or rocket pack.

[Corey USA]

and the physics of launching off a platform with only air underneath in the atmosphere is off on the account as forces to push against each other in order for the shuttle to go from zero to what ever need to get to space

as the shuttle boosts it pushes down on the platform platform would go down for there is nothing other than the helium to hold it at a certain point.

to use a platform suspended in open air as a launch pad would need to perfect toe use of gravity we are not there yet. and have a long way to go. Before you get started Njp on the whole anti-gravity concept, just keep in mind we don't have all the answers in our current science. it means that one day we will if we are still around as a species.

When I say anti-gravity I refer to the layman's term of magnetic fields repulsing each other or attracting.
If the Extratrestrials can do it so can we given enough time.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

and the physics of launching off a platform with only air underneath in the atmosphere is off on the account as forces to push against each other in order for the shuttle to go from zero to what ever need to get to space

as the shuttle boosts it pushes down on the platform platform would go down for there is nothing other than the helium to hold it at a certain point.

to use a platform suspended in open air as a launch pad would need to perfect toe use of gravity we are not there yet.

There are plenty of reasons why a balloon makes a poor launch platform, but that isn't one of them. A rocket does not rely on a reaction force against another object to give it lift, and in any case no balloon-based launch platform would be designed to allow the rocket thrust to push against it. The rocket would be held so that the rocket exhausted into the open air, and would be released once sufficient thrust had been developed to propel the rocket away from the balloon. Far from moving down, the platform would start to ascend once it no longer had to support the full weight of the rocket.

If the Extratrestrials can do it so can we given enough time.

No comment!

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by njp

There are plenty of reasons why a balloon makes a poor launch platform, but that isn't one of them. A rocket does not rely on a reaction force against another object to give it lift, and in any case no balloon-based launch platform would be designed to allow the rocket thrust to push against it. The rocket would be held so that the rocket exhausted into the open air, and would be released once sufficient thrust had been developed to propel the rocket away from the balloon. Far from moving down, the platform would start to ascend once it no longer had to support the full weight of the rocket.


No comment!

oh ya now I remember its when we jump it applies where rockets its between the fuel burn and the nozzle.

second comment

Just checking if ya had me on ignore.... checking your tolerance level as well just trying to figure ya out.... that's all So far it seems you focus on trying to keep the science straight without offering much in the way on how to fix the man made changes. Or lessening the severity that they will be if we do not change.... Maybe you are not that good at offering suggestions as how to fix the problems? This would make sense as to not offering suggestions. The whole point of this forum is to invoke debate that leads to action of change and adaptation to correct our behaviors...

Correcting our blunders of our science helps but we really need is workable solutions and plan of action. If we can put it into terms that show a certain level of certainty with minimal quality of life interruptions the more people would be willing to try to change.

This is why I came to this site to help. some of these people don't want to change... as long as there actions don't harm others is an anti social manner fine but when the line is crossed there needs to be rules with consequences for breaking the rules.

I am not attacking you its just observation and I don't totally have you figured out and never will.

you been here since this section of forum was formed I give you credit for persistence.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

and the physics of launching off a platform with only air underneath in the atmosphere is off on the account as forces to push against each other in order for the shuttle to go from zero to what ever need to get to space

as the shuttle boosts it pushes down on the platform platform would go down for there is nothing other than the helium to hold it at a certain point.

to use a platform suspended in open air as a launch pad would need to perfect toe use of gravity we are not there yet. and have a long way to go. Before you get started Njp on the whole anti-gravity concept, just keep in mind we don't have all the answers in our current science. it means that one day we will if we are still around as a species.

When I say anti-gravity I refer to the layman's term of magnetic fields repulsing each other or attracting.
If the Extratrestrials can do it so can we given enough time.

As njp has said, you misunderstand how rockets work. It's the application of Newton's Third Law (action = reaction).

Who are these Extraterrestrials you mention (assuming you spelled it wrong)?

Originally Posted by Corey USA

oh ya now I remember its when we jump it applies where rockets its between the fuel burn and the nozzle.

second comment

Just checking if ya had me on ignore.... checking your tolerance level as well just trying to figure ya out.... that's all So far it seems you focus on trying to keep the science straight without offering much in the way on how to fix the man made changes. Or lessening the severity that they will be if we do not change.... Maybe you are not that good at offering suggestions as how to fix the problems? This would make sense as to not offering suggestions. The whole point of this forum is to invoke debate that leads to action of change and adaptation to correct our behaviors...

Correcting our blunders of our science helps but we really need is workable solutions and plan of action. If we can put it into terms that show a certain level of certainty with minimal quality of life interruptions the more people would be willing to try to change.

This is why I came to this site to help. some of these people don't want to change... as long as there actions don't harm others is an anti social manner fine but when the line is crossed there needs to be rules with consequences for breaking the rules.

I am not attacking you its just observation and I don't totally have you figured out and never will.

you been here since this section of forum was formed I give you credit for persistence.

Corey,

Yes this forum was started by the site owner with the intention of discussing possible action to combat or mitigate global warming, but as you will have seen that hasn't really happened. There are quite a few here who say:-
It isn't happening;
or
It is, but it's not caused by us so we can't do anything anyway;
or
Even if we could, why do anything? Warmer is better and it's been much warmer in the past.

We can't really discuss what needs doing if we can't get past the above, can we?

BTW how did you find us? This is a UK-based site and this forum is only a small part of the whole site.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

As njp has said, you misunderstand how rockets work. It's the application of Newton's Third Law (action = reaction).

Who are these Extraterrestrials you mention (assuming you spelled it wrong)?

that is the google spell check at work I am dyslexic/learning disabled so spelling is not the best. "E.T." The technology used by the "what ever it is" near our sun is beyond our abilities. So the only thing that can be assumed is it a species or many species beyond our solar system and galaxy doing something there. One of the objects in the Soho photo's was the size of a small planet and so close that if it had Been a planet it would have been pulled into the sun by gravity."it was stationary."
The photos are purposely less than clear NASA has the clearest photo's and is censuring other photos with blocked out areas so we the public can't see it. They are required under the freedom of information act to share it so they do as little as possible to meet that requirement.

Newton's Third Law (action = reaction). ---> "rockets: its between the fuel burn and the nozzle." this is the correct one. You still have to deal with the exhaust pushing down on the balloon though unless you willing to loose the balloon every time you launch. YA corrected myself right after Njp replied.


It was a blunder to see if njp had me on ignore and to see if he or she was mainly focused on just correcting bad science as he put it or if he was trying to offer suggestions as to how to change our ways so we don't have to use force to change them. since he had not responded to my reply in another thread about my bad science I was checking the only way I could know for certain since that seems to be his pattern in everything I have read by Njp which is try to correct bad science.

I suspect this thread was a joke to get people going in debate or argument not sure..

I was reading a survey about E.T. and Roswell the survey asked a question "If refutable proof was standing before you would you believe in aliens? 18% Said they would still deny they existed. Even when E.T. was standing in front of them. I think this would apply to this sub forum as well.

There is a possibility that the so called deniers here are just looking for kicks to get the ones that are serious about change riled up and have no intention of changing that they just like the sport of going back and forth but it is hard for me to determine that since stuff seems to be edited out by forum managers and I came after it was done.

I came to this forum at a request for help to try to get this forum moving in the right direction. The person asking for help left a link for me to find it.

Time is critical so we may need to move forward anyway so as to effect change and adapt before severe restrictions on our lifestyle is implimented. We may need to move forward despite the deniers and some of the deniers Are genuinly currious and want to debate it. One I was reading was saying there posts were getting deleted but by what I have read of the parts not deleted they were here for serious debate I did not get the impresion that they were trying to mock the people who want to see change they seem to just wanted to understand our veiw and to either learn or adapt or to continue on there way as business as usual. there view was different so most of what I was seeing was removed by moderators as a result I don't know for certain if this idividual was mocking people or if they were expressing valid concern and wanted to understand.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

that is the google spell check at work I am dyslexic/learning disabled so spelling is not the best. "E.T." The technology used by the "what ever it is" near our sun is beyond our abilities. So the only thing that can be assumed is it a species or many species beyond our solar system and galaxy doing something there. One of the objects in the Soho photo's was the size of a small planet and so close that if it had Been a planet it would have been pulled into the sun by gravity."it was stationary."
The photos are purposely less than clear NASA has the clearest photo's and is censuring other photos with blocked out areas so we the public can't see it. They are required under the freedom of information act to share it so they do as little as possible to meet that requirement.

I'm sorry but I can't take any of that seriously. This is just another conspiracy theory. All the world's astronomers are in on this?

It was a blunder to see if njp had me on ignore and to see if he or she was mainly focused on just correcting bad science as he put it or if he was trying to offer suggestions as to how to change our ways so we don't have to use force to change them. since he had not responded to my reply in another thread about my bad science I was checking the only way I could know for certain since that seems to be his pattern in everything I have read by Njp which is try to correct bad science.

You can't expect people to answer a particular post unless you address them by name.

I suspect this thread was a joke to get people going in debate or argument not sure..

I don't know. Sometimes an idea seems good if you haven't thought it through or simply don't know the physics.

I was reading a survey about E.T. and Roswell the survey asked a question "If refutable proof was standing before you would you believe in aliens? 18% Said they would still deny they existed. Even when E.T. was standing in front of them. I think this would apply to this sub forum as well.

I assume you meant "irrefutable"? "Refutable" would mean that I could show that it was a fake, illusion, whatever.

FWIW I would need solid proof that it's not a fake or illusion. Many (all?) phenomena are more likely to be fakes, optical illusions, or hallucinations than of ET or supernatural origin.

Conversely, why do some people believe that aliens have visited us when there is no irrefutable evidence? Why do so many believe in gods/spirits?

There is a possibility that the so called deniers here are just looking for kicks to get the ones that are serious about change riled up and have no intention of changing that they just like the sport of going back and forth but it is hard for me to determine that since stuff seems to be edited out by forum managers and I came after it was done.

Hard to tell. Some might be. Others appear to have ideallogical convictions about it.

I came to this forum at a request for help to try to get this forum moving in the right direction. The person asking for help left a link for me to find it.

Someone here already? (You don't need to give names.)

Time is critical so we may need to move forward anyway so as to effect change and adapt before severe restrictions on our lifestyle is implimented. We may need to move forward despite the deniers and some of the deniers Are genuinly currious and want to debate it. One I was reading was saying there posts were getting deleted but by what I have read of the parts not deleted they were here for serious debate I did not get the impresion that they were trying to mock the people who want to see change they seem to just wanted to understand our veiw and to either learn or adapt or to continue on there way as business as usual. there view was different so most of what I was seeing was removed by moderators as a result I don't know for certain if this idividual was mocking people or if they were expressing valid concern and wanted to understand.

There were some that indulged in name-calling and made no effort to provide any supported arguments.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

There were some that indulged in name-calling and made no effort to provide any supported arguments.

Least by what this person wrote and what was allowed made no reference to name calling in any way or form not even a hint. They did not even use faces as to hint at emotions.

Irrefutable proof blunder again Google spellcheck.

Nasa has a bad habit of censuring photos always has national security and total no such thing yada yada yada been going on since Roswell.

No not all it would be the top officials and there bully tactics to keep those under them in check and those who control the telescope itself. less than 1% Information is power. and the abuses in action are shown by those whistle blowers who are willing to come forward. The blower's put there lives on the line to get the public the info they need and are persecuted by there superiors. It happens all the time.
Reason we don't know what goes on in Area 51 is that everybody who works there signs a do not share info at the risk of death paper. They even go so far as using illegal tech and willingness to kill our own American citizens who just want to look at the base. There is a total clamp down on Area 51 now there is noway to see it by eye or air. Its expanding at the last observation when our own government said it was either closed or shutting down or does not exist. The blue is well established fact not conspiracy.

F117 was a 60's design where the heck did they get it from? area 51 project.

nasa is just as bad as Area 51 in regards to wanting to keep secrets only it is harder for them to do because they are out in the open.

Nasa has till not released all of the photos of the moon only a dozen or so I been able to find. Reality is They took thousands which were never released. Why?

Sci-fi Channel in the USA among others been Pushing the isue of public right to know and such they are at the forefront.

sci-fi channel is more than just about sci-fi it is about science as well especially the public right to know. People that work at the Sci-fi Channel Are serious people such as ourselves. Just Wants to know the truth is all.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Least by what this person wrote and what was allowed made no reference to name calling in any way or form not even a hint. They did not even use faces as to hint at emotions.

Remember that a lot of stuff was removed. You have to read between the lines and read the remaining responses.

Irrefutable proof blunder again Google spellcheck.

Thought so. No probs

Nasa has a bad habit of censuring photos always has national security and total no such thing yada yada yada been going on since roswell.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that alien technology involved.

F117 was a 60's design where the heck did they get it from? area 51 project.

Area 51 is used for the development and testing of new military aircraft. Any claims of alien tech are just speculation.

I'm sorry, but you make the common mistake of underestimating the talent, ingenuity, and motivation of human beings. Only 104 years ago the Wright brothers took to the air. By the late 1940s rocket planes were breaking the sound barrier. The SR71 design began in the 1950s. Sputnik orbited the Earth in 1957. By 1961 a man had orbited the Earth. By 1969 men had stood on the moon. There is nothing especially mysterious about the F117, and the B2 also looks "alien". Doesn't mean they are, just that the main design requirement (stealth) means they look odd compared with other planes.

[Corey USA]

I was just saying it was a possibility not a fact

Ya I know this first hand humans are intuitive. People always underestimate me. Built a golf ball launcher that preformed better than the mathematical calculations for distance by 50%.

Problem is we don't get to see a lot of Intuitive tech because of people who think they know what is best for everyone else or are meglomaniacs who want to control everybody. Exxon comes to mind. Not much I can say to dammage them that they haven't done to themselves. They still owe Alaska 4.6 billion in damages after a single hull oil taker ruptured completely shutting down the herring industry and everything sea related. They are stone walling(appealing like crazy even though they lost the ruling) in hopes that everybody dies of old age or illness related to the spill.

Cars were deliberately made less energy efficient. I know this for fact for my Father owned a dodge (I can't remember what model it was a 2 door.) that got better mileage over 50 miles per hour. Due to lobbying or what ever that tech was removed from any future production of vehicles. My father had looked for that specific feature and it was no longer Incorporated. Why on earth would they make it less efficient intentionally?

Sorry bit off topic in regards to NASA. If anything NASA is worse now Because of Bush administration and ties to Exxon and other energy companies. Several of NASA employees whistle blown and were threatened by supervisors and such if they shared info about the climate. This bothers me.