What is the earliest an Airship could be built?

Hey! Now the pics are going to be separated. :(

Anyhow, here is a drawing of the conceived layout of the rocket-tube mounting placements on the rail of the vessel's "basket," with a top view,

Ancient Chinse Airship rocket tube placement.JPG
 
How do you control the rockets' firing? How do you ensure the rockets ignite when you want them to do so? How do you ensure only the rockets you want to ignite ignite? How do you replace expended rockets?

I'll refrain from comment because I don't believe a truthful response to your "idea" would be worth getting kicked or banned.



You asked a question. In the spirit of discussion, I earnestly set out to answer it.

Incidentally, I am not a graphic artist, and I don't expect a gold star for my illustration. I asked my wife what she thought it looked like, and the first thing she said was "blimp."
 
The oft-quoted Nazca balloon is an anachronism because it applied modern knowledge to a selected portion of ancient manufacturing abilities. The balloon could not have been conceived of, let alone constructed, by the people of the time.

I disagree.


The idea that hot air could cause lift is not surprising for anyone who has watched leaves and ash rise above a fire. It would be a mental leap to harness that but not an insurmountable one. After all the Kongming Lantern was invented by someone in the ancient world. The next step would likely be "toy" balloons like those of Bartolomeu de Gusmao (who also claims to be the first manned balloon flight). Having reviewed the material about the Nasca Balloon and once a while ago having the privilege of conversing with Mr. Julian Knott (the balloonist who went up in it) about the technology required to build it, at no point does it use other than stone age technology.


So I argue the ability to conceive it, the materials and the tools to construct it are there.
 
The problem I can think of is that while the concept that hot air lifts things is not inconceivable, the design of a balloon would take far more than observing leaves and ash lifted by the fire.
 

Flubber

Banned
I disagree.

Oh really?

The idea that hot air could cause lift is not surprising for anyone who has watched leaves and ash rise above a fire. It would be a mental leap to harness that but not an insurmountable one. After all the Kongming Lantern was invented by someone in the ancient world.


Man harnessed fire before he was man and yet no one built a balloon until the 1780s. Perhaps the concept and the techniques required aren't as "simple" as you'd think.

The next step would likely be "toy" balloons like those of Bartolomeu de Gusmao (who also claims to be the first manned balloon flight).
Only Brazilian nationalists believe those claims.

Having reviewed the material about the Nasca Balloon...
If you've actually reviewed the materials, you'd have already realized that nearly all of Woodmann's claims are complete bullshit. The Lines can be seen from nearby foothills, that's how they were rediscovered in the 1920s after all. The Lines can be constructed using fairly simple techniques, so there was no need to rope in the "advanced technology" much like crop circle "researchers". The Lines are not an astronomical calendar either. Woodmann also completely misinterpreted Incan art and religion to suit his needs.

Ask a reputable archeologist about Woodmann and his claims. They might be able to give you an answer after they stop laughing.

... and once a while ago having the privilege of conversing with Mr. Julian Knott...
Anyone who could be gulled by Woodmann's bullshit isn't a reliable source.

... about the technology required to build it, at no point does it use other than stone age technology.
Stone Age technology WITH modern knowledge. That's what you and the other fantasists in this thread continually fail to understand. You're applying anachronistic knowledge to the issue. You're not limiting yourself to what the people of the time knew, instead you're employing your own knowledge.

Of course hot air rises, of course hydrogen rises, of course you can make large quantities of hydrogen via chemical reactions, of course you can make light structures which can capture those things and rise with them, and of course you make light structures large enough to carry a man while doing so. We all know that now. They did not know that then.

So I argue the ability to conceive it, the materials and the tools to construct it are there.
And you would be wrong.

We've had fire since before we were Homo sapiens, we've had woven materials since the last ice age, we've had floating lanterns since at least the 3rd Century BCE, and yet we've only had "man-rated" balloons since 1782. The materials may have been there and the examples were most certainly there, but the balloons weren't.

Apparently the conceptual leap wasn't as easy as your anachronistic thinking would believe.
 
There are two pictures that I put together to illustrate my "setup" for this concept.

The airship (or blimp) that I "see" has open sides above the "basket" attached underneath the envelope/balloon.

Around on the railing of the basket are perhaps eight mounting placements on which to clamp on a rocket tube, that is, a bamboo tube pre-packed with rocket propellant/powder. (I'm imagining the Chinese will work on the powder for longer-burning/less-explosive compositions, or they'll just deal with the kabooms, perhaps with kabooms of varying sizes/force.)

A rocket-tube or rocket-tubes can be clamped onto the appropriate mounting placement or placements and then ignited. The tube or tubes can then be un-clamped and then replaced as the crew decides.

I earlier noted that this vessel will likely have a low top speed, since the folks aboard won't like hauling more than a certain number of these combustible rocket tubes on board.

Below is a pic of the vessel itself,

I don't think that would work as advertised, unfortunately. You've got a suspended gondola if I read it correctly. Any thrust applied to it will cause it to swing sideways before it will push the balloon anywhere. The balloon itself would also be subjected to a downward and sideways pull on one set of ropes instead of an overall push. In calm winds, this might work to some extent, but most of the energy will be lost in deforming the envelope.

If you have the gondola fixed to the balloon by inflexible struts, it will need to be very firmly attached, and that gets you into a vicious circle: the stronger the frame, the more weight you have to lift, the more weight you have to lift, the bigger your envelope needs to be, and the bigger your envelope is, the more surface area it has that a) needs structuring and b) offers air resistance, which means you need more power to move it, which takes you back to needing a stronger framework still. I don't think this has a happy ending.
 
Bladeless fan?

How about using a device such as a bladeless fan to propell the ship? Dyson claims to multiply the flow of air by 16 fold. Where you would plug it in is a bit of a problem though!!!:rolleyes: A larger model using human power to drive the base fan through a gearing system? The big problem would be making something to the tolerances required, as it is with all modern technology. Rocket powered airships set me laughing - imagine the thrust - it would set the gondola in motion around the mass of the balloon!:p:eek:
 
In order of responce:

Oh really?
Yes, Really.
Man harnessed fire before he was man and yet no one built a balloon until the 1780s.
Watching a fire is a "Just So Story". It's not the only possible way and is not intended to be. Someone obviously got the idea for the Kongming Latern from somewhere since you don't contest it's existance. BTW, I accept you misspoke since the Kongming Latern is a balloon from the 3rd century BCE.
Only Brazilian nationalists believe those claims.
Briazillian nationalists tend to be the only one to believe he was the first manned balloonist, yes. That he demonstrated a toy in the Lisbon court in 1709 is more widely accepted.
Stone Age technology WITH modern knowledge.
I'm glad you agree with me that it is technologically possible.:cool:
We've had fire since before we were Homo sapiens, we've had woven materials since the last ice age, we've had floating lanterns since at least the 3rd Century BCE, and yet we've only had "man-rated" balloons since 1782. The materials may have been there and the examples were most certainly there, but the balloons weren't.
So someone observing Kongming Latern may have had the materials to build a "man rated" balloon avalible to him. Good starting point! ;) I say What If (that is what we do here at AlternateHistory.com isn't it?:eek:), that someone tried to build a larger balloon then? Not "man rated" at first but larger and larger versions until someone later did build one "man rated"?
 
Last edited:

Flubber

Banned
BTW, I accept you misspoke since the Kongming Latern is a balloon from the 3rd century BCE.

Misspoke? Read much? Miss this line in my post? ... we've had floating lanterns since at least the 3rd Century BCE...

That he demonstrated a toy in the Lisbon court in 1709 is more widely accepted.
A toy China had had for at least 2000 years and still no man-rated balloons. Curious, no?

I'm glad you agree with me that it is technologically possible.
It's technologically possible. What you're seemingly unable to understand is that it is not technologically plausible. We deal with plausibility on this forum. There's another forum for implausible stuff, it's called ASB.

For example, it's entirely possible for me to construct a crystal radio set using Stone Age tools and materials. It's also completely implausible that Otzi would be carrying a crystal radio set in his pack him when he murdered on the east ridge of Fineilspitze in 3300 BCE.

Using the knowledge we have now, I can build a radio receiver out of simple materials. However, no one would be able to fashion the same device before the invention of radio. Knowledge counts just as much as materials. With the knowledge in hand, you can use far simpler materials to make advanced devices.

That's what that moron Woodmann and his dupe Nott never realized. They were using their 20th Century knowledge to fashion their balloon and, because of that, their "experiment" proved nothing.

(I notice you failed to reply to my critique of Woodmann's claims. Did some reading, did you?)

So someone observing Kongming Latern may have had the materials to build a "man rated" balloon avalible to him.
And yet no one did so for the 2100 years between roughly the Third Century BCE and 1782. That's a gap you and the others here have made no attempt to explain beyond "Someone watched a lantern and got the idea..."

I say What If...
You should say "What Plausibly If", unless you want to post in ASB.

(that is what we do here at AlternateHistory.com isn't it?:eek:)
I'll explain again that this particular forum is for plausible ifs. There's another forum on this very site for the type of wide eyed, reality denying speculation you seemingly want on this topic and it's called ASB.

... that someone tried to build a larger balloon then? Not "man rated" at first but larger and larger versions until someone later did build one "man rated"?
Twenty centuries, Unalist, they had floating lanterns for more than twenty centuries. They build by the tens and hundreds of thousands, built them in all shapes and sizes, used them for religious observances and in warfare, and they still never sent a single man aloft.

You've got twenty centuries to explain away and proposing "Herp derp somebody got an idea herpity derpity doo" doesn't cut it.

Come up with an actual POD, not wishful thinking, and we might have a thread.
 
Last edited:
In the spirit of being more constructive . . . har har. . .

Let's say someone gets the idea that this stuff can lift. Fine.

Next step: Why is he going to think of making a balloon? What will inspire even the concept?

THat's the problem of 'What if someone did X?" PODs. Unless X really was a specific alternate choice like turning right at Albuquerque, there's usually a very good reason - or several - why it wasn't taken, and changing things so that it was taken needs some actual work.

So that brings us to the OTL question: When it was invented, what inspired it?
 
In the spirit of being more constructive . . . har har. . .

Let's say someone gets the idea that this stuff can lift. Fine.

Next step: Why is he going to think of making a balloon? What will inspire even the concept?

THat's the problem of 'What if someone did X?" PODs. Unless X really was a specific alternate choice like turning right at Albuquerque, there's usually a very good reason - or several - why it wasn't taken, and changing things so that it was taken needs some actual work.

So that brings us to the OTL question: When it was invented, what inspired it?

Actually, I'm willing to accept that numerous people from ancient literate but prescientific civilizations might have actually put the hot-air balloon concept to the test with models using doped fine woven cloth or stitched together animal gut membranes, rope, basketry, bamboo, whatever was available. Some people everywhere are just too inquisitive to not try. However, I'm more certain that whatever the success of these experiments (with scale models or actual manned versions) we have no knowledge of this because the hypothetical inventors probably soon realized that this discovery no real practical purpose - or could not convince others the idea had practical purpose. Something is only an invention when the idea survives and is transmitted. Thus, regardless of whether or not some Babylonian or Nazca Indian had the idea and perhaps even proved a balloon could be built, the hot air balloon was invented in 18th century France.
 

Flubber

Banned
Actually, I'm willing to accept that numerous people from ancient literate but prescientific civilizations might have actually put the hot-air balloon concept to the test with models using doped fine woven cloth or stitched together animal gut membranes, rope, basketry, bamboo, whatever was available. Some people everywhere are just too inquisitive to not try.


I'll agree with that.

However, I'm more certain that whatever the success of these experiments (with scale models or actual manned versions) we have no knowledge of this because the hypothetical inventors probably soon realized that this discovery no real practical purpose - or could not convince others the idea had practical purpose.
I'll agree with that too. It's rather a shame that those long ago hypothetical inventors and their contemporaries were able to realize something that the fantasists in this thread seemingly cannot. We may know more than they did, but we're definitely not any smarter.

Something is only an invention when the idea survives and is transmitted. Thus, regardless of whether or not some Babylonian or Nazca Indian had the idea and perhaps even proved a balloon could be built, the hot air balloon was invented in 18th century France.
Again, agreed. Invented and essentially amounted to zip point shit ever since.
 
Actually, I'm willing to accept that numerous people from ancient literate but prescientific civilizations might have actually put the hot-air balloon concept to the test with models using doped fine woven cloth or stitched together animal gut membranes, rope, basketry, bamboo, whatever was available. Some people everywhere are just too inquisitive to not try. However, I'm more certain that whatever the success of these experiments (with scale models or actual manned versions) we have no knowledge of this because the hypothetical inventors probably soon realized that this discovery no real practical purpose - or could not convince others the idea had practical purpose. Something is only an invention when the idea survives and is transmitted. Thus, regardless of whether or not some Babylonian or Nazca Indian had the idea and perhaps even proved a balloon could be built, the hot air balloon was invented in 18th century France.

The thing is, there's no basis for testing any of those on the basis of what has been said so far. Even if you could construct one with those materials, that doesn't address "So why would anyone think of that?"

I mean, I'm a reasonably imaginative person, and "hot air balloon" isn't the first or even tenth thought to come to mind when I see an open fire.

So for purposes of this, if anyone wants one, they need to give a reason why that was actually tried.
 
Flubber,

Don’t remember much?

I quote your sentence:
“Man harnessed fire before he was man and yet no one built a balloon until the 1780s.”
Now I interpreted it to mean man rated balloon. If you want to quibble over grammar I’m sure there is a forum for that.

We both agree from historical context the example and inspiration of the Kungming Latern, the material and technology for a man rated balloon are present .

Clarify, are you saying that you actually need materials and technology in excess of what would be the minimum requirement in order to invent an item? I can follow you to a point in that I can think of examples that the first version is over complicated preceding a more “elegant” version. Can you give examples or clarify? I’m still not seeing a limiting factor in developing larger and larger floating lanterns if someone was motivated to do so. Or are you arguing some as yet undefined factor held development back as evidence by the time period from 300 BCE to 1780 CE?

Since you show a persistent desire to discuss Woodmann and his theories and “evidence” I’ll accompany you. I find his methods about on par with Eric von Dankien and Immanuel Velikovsky. They can be amusing to a point but are mental junk food. My interest is more on the physical side of experimental archeology. Can it be done? So tell me how you could make a crystal radio out of stone age (old or new but not Chalcolithic) technology?
 
I don't think that would work as advertised, unfortunately. You've got a suspended gondola if I read it correctly. Any thrust applied to it will cause it to swing sideways before it will push the balloon anywhere. The balloon itself would also be subjected to a downward and sideways pull on one set of ropes instead of an overall push. In calm winds, this might work to some extent, but most of the energy will be lost in deforming the envelope.

If you have the gondola fixed to the balloon by inflexible struts, it will need to be very firmly attached, and that gets you into a vicious circle: the stronger the frame, the more weight you have to lift, the more weight you have to lift, the bigger your envelope needs to be, and the bigger your envelope is, the more surface area it has that a) needs structuring and b) offers air resistance, which means you need more power to move it, which takes you back to needing a stronger framework still. I don't think this has a happy ending.



Cool. Thank you for explaining. :)
 
The thing is, there's no basis for testing any of those on the basis of what has been said so far. Even if you could construct one with those materials, that doesn't address "So why would anyone think of that?"

I mean, I'm a reasonably imaginative person, and "hot air balloon" isn't the first or even tenth thought to come to mind when I see an open fire.

So for purposes of this, if anyone wants one, they need to give a reason why that was actually tried.

Hey, I was being nice to the fantasists. You are of course correct that Occam's razor pretty much forces any logical person to conclude that the idea was never experimented with until it actually was. Anything else is completely unsubstantiated wishful thinking.
 
Hey, I was being nice to the fantasists. You are of course correct that Occam's razor pretty much forces any logical person to conclude that the idea was never experimented with until it actually was. Anything else is completely unsubstantiated wishful thinking.

I think we need to accept it being possible, but to insist on earlier events needs, at the very least, a better foundation than this one.

There's a reason OTL events happened, changing things needs to address that.

And the fantasists - of an form - tend not to.
 
Elfwine (and other),

Good question/observation. Off the top of my head I believe what facilitated the invention of the man rated balloon in the 1780s was the social and economic climate (I’ll refrain from beating the expired quadruped of technology) . The idea of science for its own sake, with a hint of national pride, even the expanding notions of egalitarianism and sufficient material wealth and disposition to allow capital ventures are what made experimentation without perhaps a clearly useful product at the end viable.

If we posit Han China and the Kungming Lantern as a point of departure for the development of a man rated balloon we experience a lack of these supporting factors. The Han possess the Kungming Latern (which conveniently sidesteps the issue of how one would originate the idea of a lighter than air balloon). There seem to be many different players necessary for a complex or large scale invention to be successful (someone has probably said this better but this is my sketch for the moment). Sometimes the different players can be the same person but often are not. The “inspirator(s)” the one who has the idea. Depending on the society their gender and or class, their idea may or may not even be considered. The “tinkerer(s)” the one who makes it work. The “capitalist(s)” the one who invests the resources. In ancient China a thousand lbs of silk (used through various models) is easily the difference between rice in your bowl or not. Even if you are the Emperor you still have to choose between competing concerns (more tax collectors or soldiers, palace expansion or ships?) as well as if the investment/invention is a flop you could become a laughing stock. Which could in turn result in the inspirator(s)/tinkerer(s)’s head on the chopping block. Finally, consumer(s), the one who uses, wants and demands the item. My estimation beyond toy/amusement is the military application is the strongest. Unfortunately, Generals are not likely to say I wish I could put a guy 100ft straight up, especially when they can just build a tower.

So if as a child the future Emperor of China takes a special liking to Kungming Lanterns. The people building the lanterns get a little extra material and attention and put a little extra effort into doing something special over last time in the original time line. Having built a modern floating lantern I can personally attest; a child anywhere near it will say “Can we build a bigger one?”. Year after year perhaps even over decades the floating lanterns get bigger and bigger and the builders add on decorations to be lifted as well as bringing in other types of craftsmen as the materials and complexity increase. One day a general looks up and say “put a soldier on it”.

Nothing radical just a small difference that sets in motion a positive feedback loop for larger and larger balloons until a man would be easy cargo.
 
Top