[ExI] Balloon to space

[Russell Rukin]

I've always wondered why projects involved with the space elevator 
aren't looking into lighter than air options that can at least achieve a 
partial assent?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/


Russell R



Keith Henson wrote:
> If you work out the math involved, going up to 50-100,000 feet doesn't
> buy you much in improved payload.
>
> What it does get you is reduced "max Q" which means you can use
> lighter structure for your rocket.
>
> Keith Henson
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> <http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jan/HQ_09-003_Antarctic_Balloons.html>
>>
>> This seven-million-cubic-foot super-pressure balloon is the largest
>> single-cell, super-pressure, fully-sealed balloon ever flown. When
>> development ends, NASA will have a 22 million-cubic-foot balloon that
>> can carry a one-ton instrument to an altitude of more than 110,000
>> feet, which is three to four times higher than passenger planes fly.
>>
>> Ultra-long duration missions using the super pressure balloon cost
>> considerably less than a satellite and the scientific instruments
>> flown can be retrieved and launched again, making them ideal very-high
>> altitude research platforms.
>> ----------------------
>>
>> Spaceship 1 was only about 3 to 4 tons loaded weight and launched at
>> 50,000 ft from White Knight 1.
>> So a higher launch from balloon with less fuel (less weight) seems
>> nearly within reach.
>>
>>
>> BillK
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>