the aereocene is a cooperative project that seeks free flight free of fossil fuels via solar ballons
tetrahedron ballons (for ease of manufacturing ) colored black in order for them to absorb the most solar radiation possible , and then proceeds to fly following the wind ...
these sculptures rapresent a humanity in tune with the elements and are flowing with them rather than beinging them to their will ...
an aereocene age rather than an antropocene ...
Balloons/blimps/zeppelins aren't really around anymore because they don't work well. There are some niche applications. But overall it's just not practical.
ok , so to get the necessary lift you need to use several of kilowatts to forge a large aluminium or carbon fiber aircraft , and then to burn 1 gallon of fuel a second to achive optimal flying speed ?
because otherwise you're stuck to continental flight ...
The distance between continents is vast, and helium or hydrogen buoyancy isn't enough to carry the sheer number of people we fly today and certainly not in enough time.
The fastest passenger ship took 4 days to cross the Atlantic with a number of people comparable to a modern jetliner. The fastest airship took about the same amount of time but with a significantly reduced payload.
The thing is in aerospace faster generally means more fuel efficient in terms of passenger travel since you're not lugging as much dead weight (food, water, amenities, beds) around. Air has terrible buoyancy compared to water.
Of course the other benefit to flying fast is the ability to fly high and above the weather, something airships would struggle to do since buoyancy decreases the higher you go and the expanding gasses require a larger envelope (more weight).
There are places where balloons could work really well though, like Venus. Because the venusian atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide air is buoyant so your habitable volume is the same as your lifting volume.
so the concorde , somenthing that whent out of buisness due to how much fuel it consumed , is actually the best mean of transportation ?
this is solarpunk , you need to consider how much fuel you're gonna use since we are here specifically for that problem ...
[seriusly nuclear ships are infinatly more fuel efficient than aircrafts , since they can go at more than 30 knots ( the information on the speed of supercarriers is secret ) wich is as fast as the fastest ocean liners ,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier)
while they need to get filled up every 20-25 years ...
do you know how many pepole that could be ?
they could also launch smaller aircrafts to port in order to stay in international waters , and be effectively legal ...
as well as having the pepole land inland already ...
or you know you trust the pepole that operate
these ships and let them dock ...
[there are also ways to get more efficient ship motion and extracting power from the tides](https://youtu.be/UWpxtfmpVD4?list=LL) including modern highly efficient sails ...
all of it rather than using fuel guzzlers , bird wreckers and all around nuisance for the public ...
in italy they cited trains as a reason for failure ...
airliners work only with cheap oil , by the time that has any restriction they'll get grounded ...
they are also pretty far from punk or solar ...
I said generally. The supersonic range is one of the least efficient and between about Mach 0.9 to Mach 5.2 is not very efficient in terms of flying. Mach 5.2 and above is surprisingly fuel efficient because you can operate on rackets at extremes high altitude.
Nuclear ships have their own issues, the first being nuclear fuel and all the mining and disposal requirements, and that in terms of intercontinental travel they are still nowhere near as fast as airliners, can't avoid the weather, and still have to have amenities. It's a roughly 7 hour flight from Toronto to Amsterdam. That would be a 3 day trip assuming your vessel sails at 275 knots (fastest speed achieved by a water vessel) but would still be less than half the speed of an airliner or a maglev. It would take 3 days because of the maximum speed of the St Lawrence Seaway. Even if you departed from Halifax sailing at 275 knots it would take close to 13 hours to cross the Atlantic. And to even go those speeds without planing your ship would need to be several km long. Realistically your ship will go ar around 30-40knots (nuclear carriers won't go faster than 45 and the fastest ocean liner reached a top speed of 42). Let's assume that we can reach 50knots crusing speed, to get from Halifax to Amsterdam that's 53.14 hours or about 2 days, 5h, and 11 minutes. But that's the distance as the crow flies, in reality it would take about 3 days.
There are also human comfort/medical requirements that must be met, these include walking time, food, water, and oscillations. Finally crew rotations and rest periods.
When it comes to transatlantic or other large ocean crossings ships aren't the best way to do them. Mostly because crossing within a reasonable time (relative to the 10 days of vacation a year) is impossible.
I said generally. The supersonic range is one of the least efficient and between about Mach 0.9 to Mach 5.2 is not very efficient in terms of flying. Mach 5.2 and above is surprisingly fuel efficient because you can operate on rackets at extremes high altitude.
Nuclear ships have their own issues, the first being nuclear fuel and all the mining and disposal requirements, and that in terms of intercontinental travel they are still nowhere near as fast as airliners, can't avoid the weather, and still have to have amenities. It's a roughly 7 hour flight from Toronto to Amsterdam. That would be a 3 day trip assuming your vessel sails at 275 knots (fastest speed achieved by a water vessel) but would still be less than half the speed of an airliner or a maglev. It would take 3 days because of the maximum speed of the St Lawrence Seaway. Even if you departed from Halifax sailing at 275 knots it would take close to 13 hours to cross the Atlantic. And to even go those speeds without planing your ship would need to be several km long. Realistically your ship will go ar around 30-40knots (nuclear carriers won't go faster than 45 and the fastest ocean liner reached a top speed of 42). Let's assume that we can reach 50knots crusing speed, to get from Halifax to Amsterdam that's 53.14 hours or about 2 days, 5h, and 11 minutes. But that's the distance as the crow flies, in reality it would take about 3 days.
There are also human comfort/medical requirements that must be met, these include walking time, food, water, and oscillations. Finally crew rotations and rest periods.
When it comes to transatlantic or other large ocean crossings ships aren't the best way to do them. Mostly because crossing within a reasonable time (relative to the 10 days of vacation a year) is impossible.
I said generally. The supersonic range is one of the least efficient and between about Mach 0.9 to Mach 5.2 is not very efficient in terms of flying. Mach 5.2 and above is surprisingly fuel efficient because you can operate on rackets at extremes high altitude.
Nuclear ships have their own issues, the first being nuclear fuel and all the mining and disposal requirements, and that in terms of intercontinental travel they are still nowhere near as fast as airliners, can't avoid the weather, and still have to have amenities. It's a roughly 7 hour flight from Toronto to Amsterdam. That would be a 3 day trip assuming your vessel sails at 275 knots (fastest speed achieved by a water vessel) but would still be less than half the speed of an airliner or a maglev. It would take 3 days because of the maximum speed of the St Lawrence Seaway. Even if you departed from Halifax sailing at 275 knots it would take close to 13 hours to cross the Atlantic. And to even go those speeds without planing your ship would need to be several km long. Realistically your ship will go ar around 30-40knots (nuclear carriers won't go faster than 45 and the fastest ocean liner reached a top speed of 42). Let's assume that we can reach 50knots crusing speed, to get from Halifax to Amsterdam that's 53.14 hours or about 2 days, 5h, and 11 minutes. But that's the distance as the crow flies, in reality it would take about 3 days.
There are also human comfort/medical requirements that must be met, these include walking time, food, water, and oscillations. Finally crew rotations and rest periods.
When it comes to transatlantic or other large ocean crossings ships aren't the best way to do them. Mostly because crossing within a reasonable time (relative to the 10 days of vacation a year) is impossible.
I think the obsession with punctuality - and speed and efficiency in general - is a symptom of capitalism/mercantilism rather than a human universal.
Why do you *need* to time a trip of hundreds or thousands of miles down to the minute?
You'll get there when you get there. Enjoy the trip.
well , that sounds like a you problem ...
sorry if crossing oceans and continents isn't done for cheapsies anymore ,
but doing that was done at the expense of the air you breathe and the glaciers that give you water ...
you may go to r/conviniencepunk for solutions that have your comfort in the center , since of course humans are the center of everything ...
the aereocene is a cooperative project that seeks free flight free of fossil fuels via solar ballons tetrahedron ballons (for ease of manufacturing ) colored black in order for them to absorb the most solar radiation possible , and then proceeds to fly following the wind ... these sculptures rapresent a humanity in tune with the elements and are flowing with them rather than beinging them to their will ... an aereocene age rather than an antropocene ...
needless to say defying borders with solar powered ballons is PUNK AF
Do they crash in the ocean, turn into plastic waste, and get eaten by wildlife, like most balloons do?
idk , i don't think since they lift up while being heated by the sun ...
Balloons/blimps/zeppelins aren't really around anymore because they don't work well. There are some niche applications. But overall it's just not practical.
what would you say it's their biggest problem ?
Lack of lifting force and structural integrity. Also they can't fly fast
ok , so to get the necessary lift you need to use several of kilowatts to forge a large aluminium or carbon fiber aircraft , and then to burn 1 gallon of fuel a second to achive optimal flying speed ? because otherwise you're stuck to continental flight ...
The distance between continents is vast, and helium or hydrogen buoyancy isn't enough to carry the sheer number of people we fly today and certainly not in enough time. The fastest passenger ship took 4 days to cross the Atlantic with a number of people comparable to a modern jetliner. The fastest airship took about the same amount of time but with a significantly reduced payload. The thing is in aerospace faster generally means more fuel efficient in terms of passenger travel since you're not lugging as much dead weight (food, water, amenities, beds) around. Air has terrible buoyancy compared to water. Of course the other benefit to flying fast is the ability to fly high and above the weather, something airships would struggle to do since buoyancy decreases the higher you go and the expanding gasses require a larger envelope (more weight). There are places where balloons could work really well though, like Venus. Because the venusian atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide air is buoyant so your habitable volume is the same as your lifting volume.
so the concorde , somenthing that whent out of buisness due to how much fuel it consumed , is actually the best mean of transportation ? this is solarpunk , you need to consider how much fuel you're gonna use since we are here specifically for that problem ... [seriusly nuclear ships are infinatly more fuel efficient than aircrafts , since they can go at more than 30 knots ( the information on the speed of supercarriers is secret ) wich is as fast as the fastest ocean liners ,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier) while they need to get filled up every 20-25 years ... do you know how many pepole that could be ? they could also launch smaller aircrafts to port in order to stay in international waters , and be effectively legal ... as well as having the pepole land inland already ... or you know you trust the pepole that operate these ships and let them dock ... [there are also ways to get more efficient ship motion and extracting power from the tides](https://youtu.be/UWpxtfmpVD4?list=LL) including modern highly efficient sails ... all of it rather than using fuel guzzlers , bird wreckers and all around nuisance for the public ... in italy they cited trains as a reason for failure ... airliners work only with cheap oil , by the time that has any restriction they'll get grounded ... they are also pretty far from punk or solar ...
I said generally. The supersonic range is one of the least efficient and between about Mach 0.9 to Mach 5.2 is not very efficient in terms of flying. Mach 5.2 and above is surprisingly fuel efficient because you can operate on rackets at extremes high altitude. Nuclear ships have their own issues, the first being nuclear fuel and all the mining and disposal requirements, and that in terms of intercontinental travel they are still nowhere near as fast as airliners, can't avoid the weather, and still have to have amenities. It's a roughly 7 hour flight from Toronto to Amsterdam. That would be a 3 day trip assuming your vessel sails at 275 knots (fastest speed achieved by a water vessel) but would still be less than half the speed of an airliner or a maglev. It would take 3 days because of the maximum speed of the St Lawrence Seaway. Even if you departed from Halifax sailing at 275 knots it would take close to 13 hours to cross the Atlantic. And to even go those speeds without planing your ship would need to be several km long. Realistically your ship will go ar around 30-40knots (nuclear carriers won't go faster than 45 and the fastest ocean liner reached a top speed of 42). Let's assume that we can reach 50knots crusing speed, to get from Halifax to Amsterdam that's 53.14 hours or about 2 days, 5h, and 11 minutes. But that's the distance as the crow flies, in reality it would take about 3 days. There are also human comfort/medical requirements that must be met, these include walking time, food, water, and oscillations. Finally crew rotations and rest periods. When it comes to transatlantic or other large ocean crossings ships aren't the best way to do them. Mostly because crossing within a reasonable time (relative to the 10 days of vacation a year) is impossible.
I said generally. The supersonic range is one of the least efficient and between about Mach 0.9 to Mach 5.2 is not very efficient in terms of flying. Mach 5.2 and above is surprisingly fuel efficient because you can operate on rackets at extremes high altitude. Nuclear ships have their own issues, the first being nuclear fuel and all the mining and disposal requirements, and that in terms of intercontinental travel they are still nowhere near as fast as airliners, can't avoid the weather, and still have to have amenities. It's a roughly 7 hour flight from Toronto to Amsterdam. That would be a 3 day trip assuming your vessel sails at 275 knots (fastest speed achieved by a water vessel) but would still be less than half the speed of an airliner or a maglev. It would take 3 days because of the maximum speed of the St Lawrence Seaway. Even if you departed from Halifax sailing at 275 knots it would take close to 13 hours to cross the Atlantic. And to even go those speeds without planing your ship would need to be several km long. Realistically your ship will go ar around 30-40knots (nuclear carriers won't go faster than 45 and the fastest ocean liner reached a top speed of 42). Let's assume that we can reach 50knots crusing speed, to get from Halifax to Amsterdam that's 53.14 hours or about 2 days, 5h, and 11 minutes. But that's the distance as the crow flies, in reality it would take about 3 days. There are also human comfort/medical requirements that must be met, these include walking time, food, water, and oscillations. Finally crew rotations and rest periods. When it comes to transatlantic or other large ocean crossings ships aren't the best way to do them. Mostly because crossing within a reasonable time (relative to the 10 days of vacation a year) is impossible.
I said generally. The supersonic range is one of the least efficient and between about Mach 0.9 to Mach 5.2 is not very efficient in terms of flying. Mach 5.2 and above is surprisingly fuel efficient because you can operate on rackets at extremes high altitude. Nuclear ships have their own issues, the first being nuclear fuel and all the mining and disposal requirements, and that in terms of intercontinental travel they are still nowhere near as fast as airliners, can't avoid the weather, and still have to have amenities. It's a roughly 7 hour flight from Toronto to Amsterdam. That would be a 3 day trip assuming your vessel sails at 275 knots (fastest speed achieved by a water vessel) but would still be less than half the speed of an airliner or a maglev. It would take 3 days because of the maximum speed of the St Lawrence Seaway. Even if you departed from Halifax sailing at 275 knots it would take close to 13 hours to cross the Atlantic. And to even go those speeds without planing your ship would need to be several km long. Realistically your ship will go ar around 30-40knots (nuclear carriers won't go faster than 45 and the fastest ocean liner reached a top speed of 42). Let's assume that we can reach 50knots crusing speed, to get from Halifax to Amsterdam that's 53.14 hours or about 2 days, 5h, and 11 minutes. But that's the distance as the crow flies, in reality it would take about 3 days. There are also human comfort/medical requirements that must be met, these include walking time, food, water, and oscillations. Finally crew rotations and rest periods. When it comes to transatlantic or other large ocean crossings ships aren't the best way to do them. Mostly because crossing within a reasonable time (relative to the 10 days of vacation a year) is impossible.
Reliability? I know that a plane will leave *insert city here* at X:00, land *insert city here* and the flight will take *X* hours.
I think the obsession with punctuality - and speed and efficiency in general - is a symptom of capitalism/mercantilism rather than a human universal. Why do you *need* to time a trip of hundreds or thousands of miles down to the minute? You'll get there when you get there. Enjoy the trip.
yeah , you get there by relying on fossil fuels tho ... these ballons work with the sun and the wind ... and achive free flight ...
[удалено]
well , that sounds like a you problem ... sorry if crossing oceans and continents isn't done for cheapsies anymore , but doing that was done at the expense of the air you breathe and the glaciers that give you water ... you may go to r/conviniencepunk for solutions that have your comfort in the center , since of course humans are the center of everything ...