maggiomail
- 4
- 0
Why can't we fill the balloon with the lightest substance available, i.e. vacuum?
The discussion centers on the impracticality of using vacuum to fill skydiving balloons, primarily due to the need for rigid materials that can withstand significant pressure differentials. Helium is preferred over vacuum because it is less dense than air at the same pressure, allowing for effective lift. The conversation also highlights the challenges posed by extreme temperatures and radiation at altitudes of 300 miles, where the atmosphere is extremely thin yet hot. The use of hydrogen as an alternative to helium is mentioned, but safety concerns are noted due to its flammability.
PREREQUISITESAerospace engineers, materials scientists, skydiving enthusiasts, and anyone interested in high-altitude ballooning and the physics of gases.
The balloon would have to be rigid and withstand huge forces. With known materials, that would make it heavier than the air it displaces.maggiomail said:Why can't we fill the balloon with the lightest substance available, i.e. vacuum?
Pkruse said:Could fill it with Hydrogen, which is lighter than Helium.
maggiomail said:Why can't we fill the balloon with the lightest substance available, i.e. vacuum?
300 miles up, we have space with an extremely good vacuum (most satellites are there, flying for years without falling down). The density is way too low to use balloons there.maggiomail said:Wonder how big a part radiation and subzero temperatures would play, say, 300 miles up?
You can increase their maximal height with a valve, but that does not reduce the mass of the hull - at some point, air pressure is too low to generate the required lifting force.Helium balloons explode if they go sufficiently high, presumedly from excess pressure?
maggiomail said:Helium balloons explode if they go sufficiently high, presumedly from excess pressure?
It can't be as simple as to install a pressure relief valve..
Wonder how big a part radiation and subzero temperatures would play, say, 300 miles up?