Isn't this in contradiction with the basic theory that is taught in elementary physics?
Q. At what altitude would a balloon stop moving with the atmosphere, such that the Earth rotates under it?
A. It never would. First, if the balloon raised from the surface, it carries momentum that it acquired from Earth. It cannot get rid of it without propulsion, so it'd keep rotating with Earth.
Second, the atmosphere is rotating as well. If the balloon is floating in the air, then the air is dragging it, forcing it to stay in sync with Earth's rotation.
So you'd need something that has propulsion to get rid of the momentum it got from Earth, and can keep itself floating without using the air.
Now, even if the atmospheric drag is negligible at a high altitude, how can the earth simply rotate below the balloon without any propulsion, given that earth's momentum is still there?
My guess is, the booster rocket can be used to aim the balloon somewhat, there's no reason the balloon has to rise at exactly 90 degrees. Once it reaches enough altitude, very little propulsion will negate the effect of Earth's scant, scant atmosphere & rotation at 40-50 km above the surface.
Ejecting a stream or bursts of nitrogen, which has been re-gasified from a tank of liquid, would provide plenty, at high altitude. Once the point of descent is reached, no more need for such propulsion.
This technique seems so simple one wonders why it's not commonplace already
This is not quite related to post, but this is an interesting pic apparently taken in 1967. I wonder if the Committee would talk about the picture...
Sometimes I'm really amused by the coincidences that happens :D
The "ancient picture" is simply a photoshopped picture of a painting from an unknown painter, and the reason I can say this with 100% confidence, is because this very same painting ( I suppose a copy of it) was hanging to the wall in my home when i was a child/teenager :D :D :D
Oh, man, I'm so amused :D
Have a nice day
Dear Patrick and Committee,
I'm really scratching my head reading this interview.
Earth's speed of about 1600 km/h on the equator (but also it is less and less going North or South, until it becomes zero at the poles) is with respect to an observer that is inertial with the Earth's geometrical CENTER. Everything on surface is going that speed: trees, rocks, people, and also grounded balloons...all rotating around the rotation axis at the same 1600 km/h...
A balloon that just lifts 10 meters, is still going at 1600 km/h, and the proof is that people on ground are seeing it calmly going up.. all of them are going fast, but their relative speed is zero. This is basic relative motion concepts, it flabbergasts me that a lot of people can't get it.
If you fling a doll to your daughter from the front Seat to the rear seat, while driving at 80 Mph , do you really think that the doll suddently accelerates to 80 mph hurling towards your doughter's face? Obviously NOT! All the objects in the car are going 80 mph, so zero relative speed! Your daughter will grab the doll on the fly with ease and made a smile! It would have been really different if you had flung the doll to a child observing you from the side of the street! In this case the doll would hurl towards him at 80 mph! Because his velocity was zero, the relative speed with respect to the doll is 80 mph! Never throw objects out of the window, isn't it a really common warning written on train windows?
Returning to the zeppelin, to have the Earth running below at 1600 km/h you MUST eliminate zeppelin's initial velocity, the very speed the zeppelin had when grounded. Speed implies kinetic energy possessed by the zeppelin, and anyone knows that this energy has to transfer somewhere, to slow it. Energy cannot be destroyed by any means. The zeppelin has to exert some form of acceleration to change its speed: and acceleration means exerciting a force of some kind: rockets, rotor engines, what have you.
Standing "still" floating, does not work if the desired result is to let the Earth rotate below at high speed while floating at 25 km altitude.
Ballon trave, maybe, will be used, but by no means using this mechanics, because they simply ignores the first Newton principle.
Ok, I've already written way too much on this subject, and the last thing I desire is to annoy someone.
See you soon
Just received an image:
Something Similar to a big plane, that accelerates using rockets, then it reaches high altitude, open a big bag and inflates it, and shuts down the engines.
THIS would work to combine floating while Earth revolves below, while also suppressing the initial momentum.
Was it channelling? Duh...
Have a nice day
C: the balloon will make lesser average forward progress over the first hour or so of travel. It will always move west, in the opposite direction the planet turns or rotates.
Is this saying the tangential velocity of the balloon is changing ?
C: ``however events to come will make this method attractive for all travel because the alternatives will fade. The scarcity of hydrocarbon jet fuel is what we mean.``
Isn`t the above the real revelation in this matter...
Perhaps it should be noted that all the "conventional", simpler and slower, helium and hot air balloon flights across the Atlantic, the Pacific and the circumnavigation of the Earth, using the Jetstream, have been West to East, that is to say, with the rotation of the Earth, rather than against it. At least in the Northern Hemisphere.
I recently read that zeppelin travel is just beginning to be revived all these years after the Hindenburg Disaster.
New technology makes it safe now, and it's cheaper than planes too.