Biological Blimps: PropulsionPlausibility of Floating WhalesA Bird that Never Touches GroundHigh-Altitude Life?How would lower gravity affect motion?Mermaid Buoyancy: Oily Livers, Swim Bladders and LungsPurpose of Engineered Organic Flying WhalesIs there a reason a flying species can't use lighter than air gas to help provide lift?Alternative flightWhat kind of wing design would a quadruped with six wings need to fly well?Would this biological cooling system work?Superheated wing blast!
Reply ‘no position’ while the job posting is still there (‘HiWi’ position in Germany)
Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?
Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?
What do you call the infoboxes with text and sometimes images on the side of a page we find in textbooks?
For airliners, what prevents wing strikes on landing in bad weather?
Female=gender counterpart?
Identify a stage play about a VR experience in which participants are encouraged to simulate performing horrific activities
Adding empty element to declared container without declaring type of element
What does the "3am" section means in manpages?
How to deal with or prevent idle in the test team?
Partial sums of primes
Greatest common substring
Freedom of speech and where it applies
Installing PowerShell on 32-bit Kali OS fails
How do ultrasonic sensors differentiate between transmitted and received signals?
Simple image editor tool to draw a simple box/rectangle in an existing image
Bob has never been a M before
Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?
What was required to accept "troll"?
Lifted its hind leg on or lifted its hind leg towards?
Pronouncing Homer as in modern Greek
Why does this part of the Space Shuttle launch pad seem to be floating in air?
How to prevent YouTube from showing already watched videos?
Why are all the doors on Ferenginar (the Ferengi home world) far shorter than the average Ferengi?
Biological Blimps: Propulsion
Plausibility of Floating WhalesA Bird that Never Touches GroundHigh-Altitude Life?How would lower gravity affect motion?Mermaid Buoyancy: Oily Livers, Swim Bladders and LungsPurpose of Engineered Organic Flying WhalesIs there a reason a flying species can't use lighter than air gas to help provide lift?Alternative flightWhat kind of wing design would a quadruped with six wings need to fly well?Would this biological cooling system work?Superheated wing blast!
$begingroup$
A while back, I asked this question about the plausibility of giant floating whales and received an excellent and high-scoring answer from Dubukay demonstrating the unfeasibility of the idea. However, more recently I discovered some flawed assumption in the answer and wrote my own answer, demonstrating that, if we assumed a more reasonable gasbag skin thickness than Dubukay had, the idea became much more plausible. In my answer, I calculated that a creature with a mass of 500 kg (not counting the mass of the hydrogen) needed just over 400 kg for its gasbag. This leaves us with 100 kg for everything else.
Now, this flying gasbag will have to do more than just float around to survive. To find food, it will probably have to have some way to move around in the air. Blimps typically use propellers to do this, but propellers are unlikely to be viable for a biological creature for a variety of reasons. Aquatic creatures typically use some kind of flipper to move through the water, but because of the low density of air, the flippers would probably have to be impractically large. So the question is, what would be the best propulsion system for this type of flying creature?
science-based biology creature-design flight
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A while back, I asked this question about the plausibility of giant floating whales and received an excellent and high-scoring answer from Dubukay demonstrating the unfeasibility of the idea. However, more recently I discovered some flawed assumption in the answer and wrote my own answer, demonstrating that, if we assumed a more reasonable gasbag skin thickness than Dubukay had, the idea became much more plausible. In my answer, I calculated that a creature with a mass of 500 kg (not counting the mass of the hydrogen) needed just over 400 kg for its gasbag. This leaves us with 100 kg for everything else.
Now, this flying gasbag will have to do more than just float around to survive. To find food, it will probably have to have some way to move around in the air. Blimps typically use propellers to do this, but propellers are unlikely to be viable for a biological creature for a variety of reasons. Aquatic creatures typically use some kind of flipper to move through the water, but because of the low density of air, the flippers would probably have to be impractically large. So the question is, what would be the best propulsion system for this type of flying creature?
science-based biology creature-design flight
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
express.co.uk/news/science/686885/…
$endgroup$
– jean
Mar 21 at 20:30
3
$begingroup$
This might interest you: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53704/…
$endgroup$
– Douwe
Mar 22 at 9:22
11
$begingroup$
Did anyone suggest farts? Because I'm suggesting farts.
$endgroup$
– Will
Mar 22 at 14:45
$begingroup$
@Will close in name and in idea ;) I guess if its full of gas and can generate it...
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:39
$begingroup$
Did you see my gasbaglets answer? It includes propulsion.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
19 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A while back, I asked this question about the plausibility of giant floating whales and received an excellent and high-scoring answer from Dubukay demonstrating the unfeasibility of the idea. However, more recently I discovered some flawed assumption in the answer and wrote my own answer, demonstrating that, if we assumed a more reasonable gasbag skin thickness than Dubukay had, the idea became much more plausible. In my answer, I calculated that a creature with a mass of 500 kg (not counting the mass of the hydrogen) needed just over 400 kg for its gasbag. This leaves us with 100 kg for everything else.
Now, this flying gasbag will have to do more than just float around to survive. To find food, it will probably have to have some way to move around in the air. Blimps typically use propellers to do this, but propellers are unlikely to be viable for a biological creature for a variety of reasons. Aquatic creatures typically use some kind of flipper to move through the water, but because of the low density of air, the flippers would probably have to be impractically large. So the question is, what would be the best propulsion system for this type of flying creature?
science-based biology creature-design flight
$endgroup$
A while back, I asked this question about the plausibility of giant floating whales and received an excellent and high-scoring answer from Dubukay demonstrating the unfeasibility of the idea. However, more recently I discovered some flawed assumption in the answer and wrote my own answer, demonstrating that, if we assumed a more reasonable gasbag skin thickness than Dubukay had, the idea became much more plausible. In my answer, I calculated that a creature with a mass of 500 kg (not counting the mass of the hydrogen) needed just over 400 kg for its gasbag. This leaves us with 100 kg for everything else.
Now, this flying gasbag will have to do more than just float around to survive. To find food, it will probably have to have some way to move around in the air. Blimps typically use propellers to do this, but propellers are unlikely to be viable for a biological creature for a variety of reasons. Aquatic creatures typically use some kind of flipper to move through the water, but because of the low density of air, the flippers would probably have to be impractically large. So the question is, what would be the best propulsion system for this type of flying creature?
science-based biology creature-design flight
science-based biology creature-design flight
asked Mar 21 at 16:59
GryphonGryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
$begingroup$
express.co.uk/news/science/686885/…
$endgroup$
– jean
Mar 21 at 20:30
3
$begingroup$
This might interest you: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53704/…
$endgroup$
– Douwe
Mar 22 at 9:22
11
$begingroup$
Did anyone suggest farts? Because I'm suggesting farts.
$endgroup$
– Will
Mar 22 at 14:45
$begingroup$
@Will close in name and in idea ;) I guess if its full of gas and can generate it...
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:39
$begingroup$
Did you see my gasbaglets answer? It includes propulsion.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
19 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
express.co.uk/news/science/686885/…
$endgroup$
– jean
Mar 21 at 20:30
3
$begingroup$
This might interest you: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53704/…
$endgroup$
– Douwe
Mar 22 at 9:22
11
$begingroup$
Did anyone suggest farts? Because I'm suggesting farts.
$endgroup$
– Will
Mar 22 at 14:45
$begingroup$
@Will close in name and in idea ;) I guess if its full of gas and can generate it...
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:39
$begingroup$
Did you see my gasbaglets answer? It includes propulsion.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
express.co.uk/news/science/686885/…
$endgroup$
– jean
Mar 21 at 20:30
$begingroup$
express.co.uk/news/science/686885/…
$endgroup$
– jean
Mar 21 at 20:30
3
3
$begingroup$
This might interest you: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53704/…
$endgroup$
– Douwe
Mar 22 at 9:22
$begingroup$
This might interest you: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53704/…
$endgroup$
– Douwe
Mar 22 at 9:22
11
11
$begingroup$
Did anyone suggest farts? Because I'm suggesting farts.
$endgroup$
– Will
Mar 22 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Did anyone suggest farts? Because I'm suggesting farts.
$endgroup$
– Will
Mar 22 at 14:45
$begingroup$
@Will close in name and in idea ;) I guess if its full of gas and can generate it...
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:39
$begingroup$
@Will close in name and in idea ;) I guess if its full of gas and can generate it...
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:39
$begingroup$
Did you see my gasbaglets answer? It includes propulsion.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
Did you see my gasbaglets answer? It includes propulsion.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
19 hours ago
add a comment |
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The same way a nautilus swims around in water: jet propulsion. Nautiluses move using a hyponome, which expands to pull in water from the sides of the nautilus, and contracts to expel a jet of water.
The bio-blimps can majestically wheeze across the land using what is essentially an organic bellows, just like the nautilus. Whenever it wants to move, it expands a bladder to pull in air from broad vents on the side of its body, and then compresses the bladder to expel the air through a much smaller vent to propel itself.
Presumably, they already have various valves and sphincters and what not for maintaining their main gasbag, so adding one smaller gasbag for locomotion should be a breeze.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I had a similar idea, but seeing as air density is very low compared to that of water, you would need huge amounts of air expulsion pressure, so much so that I doubt a biological organism would be able to generate unlike one that lives in water.
$endgroup$
– Kaloyan
Mar 21 at 17:33
3
$begingroup$
@Kaloyan: Air density being much lower than water means that the air jet produces less thrust, but also the blimp has to overcome less drag. I'd assume any potential thrust/drag ratio is the same for air as it is for water, since in both cases the same fluids are producing the thrust and drag.
$endgroup$
– Giter
Mar 21 at 17:54
5
$begingroup$
AKA, flatulence... +1.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 21 at 21:13
4
$begingroup$
That is what I was going to propose, only I would have called it farting :)
$endgroup$
– Fels
Mar 22 at 9:17
9
$begingroup$
"should [be] a breeze". 10/10 pun
$endgroup$
– Scoots
Mar 22 at 14:32
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
One alternative method of propulsion that could be considered is: Basically having none at all...
Consider a symbiotic system where your 'bio-blimps' are more 'giant floating green houses' - Main creature feeds off light algae/lichen-like secondary lifeforms, which the main creature effectively cultivates as a means to gather energy from the sun by funneling rainwater to them.
Further input could come from birds who nest in/on the bio-blimp, depositing the left overs from meals they collect from elsewhere, which in turns feeds the secondary bio-mass.
Bio-blimp's survival is no longer tied to it being able to navigate toward food, as its food source naturally grows or comes to it, and it is free to drift on the winds while adjusting its lifting bladders to maintain a comfortable altitude.
New contributor
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
There are also non-symbiotic possibilities for your basic idea. They could be like airborne jellyfish, with tentacles dangling down which capture flying birds or perhaps things from treetops (including leaves if you want vegetarian blimps) for nutrition.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 11:34
$begingroup$
True, however an evolutionary route to such a creature seems less likely, and more problematic - To survive such a creature would have to not be an overly useful food source for any predator, and not envoke defensive response from other animals. And if they're a grazer, then specifics of world geography gets potentially awkward - They either need wind currents that keep them over food source, or consistently be able to fast while being blown over food-deserts.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
No matter how you do it, any sort of biological creature that floats in the atmosphere will seem problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If they are large and they float, they will likely be vulnerable to much smaller predators.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@JohnColeman they could be poisonous or have stingers—again like jellyfish.
$endgroup$
– Wildcard
yesterday
$begingroup$
This would make it ideal to have above your city (as the WBuilding background depicts). The whales will become a near-self-sustaining farm to grow crops on/from which to get energy
$endgroup$
– Nahshon paz
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't Fly, Fall with Style!
Ok, so it's going to involve flying too, but...
Your creature is going to have some way to control its buoyancy. Presumably muscles that change the shape slightly, thus changing the amount of air displaced, thus changing the buoyancy. So use this ability to your advantage.
The creature grows small wings or flippers. Not nearly enough to lift the creature, but enough to generate some lift. Now the creature can control it's flight by trading height for speed.
Your creature moves by:
- Expanding to increase buoyancy and increase altitude
- Contracting significantly, triggering a "fall"
- Using its "wings" to control the fall
- Expanding again before it hits the ground
Effectively, your creature copies the locomotion of birds of prey, only instead of using thermals to gain height, it uses buoyancy. The lift from the wings will have both horizontal and vertical components, so some of the energy will be converted into making the dive longer, and some of it will go into moving your creature towards its objective.
So your sky whales gracefully float upwards before suddenly diving in whatever direction they want to go.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
So, basically whale sized dive-bombing-glide-blimp-thingies? ... For some reason I'm picturing them as predatory omnivores, and much like those "round animals" animations on YouTube... "Whooosh! Chomp... loud bouncing sound" The biological energy to compress its own lifting gas enough to reduce its air resistance enough to dive-glide effectively does however sound potentially problematic, but still possibly workable.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hydrogen Rockets
Consider that your gasbag is full of hydrogen. It would be entirely possible for it to take some of its excess hydrogen and allow it to escape in a direction of its choosing. It could then generate a spark and move because of the explosion (the valve would have to be stronger than the surrounding skin, of course).
I don't think this is a practical solution, but it seems negligent to not mention it.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Dragon Airwhale
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Tail Fin
Not sure why you think flippers are impractical. The lower density of air means that thrust for a fin would be lower than in the water, but drag would also be lower. Also, you didn't say how fast the creature needs to move. Almost any fin at all would provide some thrust, so the only question is: what is the maximum thrust you could feasibly get? And that depends on how much mass you can allocate to muscle, the overall shape of the creature, and its surface roughness (to compute friction drag). If the creature isn't trying to compete with birds of prey in the speed department, then the frontal area and surface friction are probably not important, and you could get away with a large, thin, lazily waving tail fin, mostly made of chitin spines and a thin but tough membrane. You could probably get away with a medium-to-small fin also, at a compromise of performance.
Movement
If the creature moves slowly, then spherical is best. If it needs to move quickly, then making it long and skinny (or at least cylindrical) is best but compromises your lifting efficiency. Also, you probably can't put enough muscle and metabolism on it to make it "swim" quickly. Probably have to resign yourself to a very slow whale. It is likely to be unable to overcome most winds aloft, depending on its customary altitude. So, at best, it can maneuver within air currents but has little say in where it actually goes.
Food
A bigger problem, I think, is: what does it eat? Surely it can't catch flying creatures unless it has a clever lure. Surely a floating gasbag simply isn't sturdy enough to survive claws and beaks. I like the idea of the floating greenhouse. This creature can possibly do something that terrestrial plants cannot: move above the treetop/cloud layer to get unobstructed sunlight. That should be the primary motivation for its airborne nature. It can get carbon and oxygen from CO2 in the air, and it could possibly "drink" clouds to get hydrogen/water. But it still needs to fix nitrogen, and get essential trace elements like phosphorus, sulfur, iron, and other minerals. For this, it could either be an herbivore, and munch on treetops to get these vitamins, or it could be a dirt scavenger.
Imagine having long tentacles that can drop down dozens of meters, scooping loose soil from along the ground. Being close to the ground would make it vulnerable to ground-based predators and birds of prey, so it would need to have some kind of defense against those. But it would spend most of its time as high as it could manage because it's too metabolically expensive for most birds to fly very high in the sky. Once it scoops up dirt, it rises aloft, and lets symbiotic mycorrhizal webs in the "buckets" of the tentacles do the hard work of extracting trace minerals from the dirt. Basically, the tentacles would be functionally equivalent to tree roots. Once the symbionts stop giving up nutrients, the skywhale dumps the dirt and grabs some more. Mountains are safer places for gathering dirt because of fewer predators, and less altitude change, but also have lower nutrient content because fewer plant/animal/bacterial species are churning through the soil. So their scavenging would depend on their current needs and the risks involved.
Protection
To protect against lighting strikes, the skywhales could form a metallic web across their skin, like the shell of an airliner. By offering a low-resistance conductive path for lightning, they should be able to avoid the worst effects of a strike. Iron may be too heavy to use as a conductor, so perhaps they could create carbon nanotubes or graphene as the Faraday cage, which can be constructed out of pure carbon. What would be especially interesting is to create a graphene supercapacitor and have them store some of the charges flowing across their skin to use defensively. This could, of course, also be used offensively. Imagine a region on their top surface which emits predator pheromones (whatever organic volatiles might attract birds, like even blood heme). A bird flies up and comes in for a landing, expecting an easy treat on the gasbag. But when it lands, the supercapacitor, charged up from flying through a nimbus cloud, discharges and electrocutes the unsuspecting bird just as it makes contact with the skin. Then a "mouth" opens up and swallows the victim into the digestive system. Of course, a carnivorous skywhale wouldn't need to eat dirt, since birds would presumably be able to provide all the trace nutrients. However, it might not be able to eat enough birds to meet all its metabolic needs, so symbiotic/intrinsic photosynthesis would still be valuable.
Lift
I think the most difficult problem is actually lift. A fish can change its buoyancy easily because gas has a much lower density than water. So a swim bladder is relatively efficient space-wise. A proportionally sized swim bladder in your skywhale wouldn't give much altitude change. So you probably need to squeeze the entire gasbag to descend, which would presumably cost a lot of energy. The amount of work required to descend all the way to the ground, using just volumetric compression (as opposed to releasing gas) is basically the same as a hiker climbing from the ground to its maximum altitude (the altitude at which the gasbag is fully inflated). Only, the climber weighs half a ton. More problematic than the work (which can be done slowly over a long time) is the amount of force required to squeeze the gasbag because this puts hard lower bounds on the amount of muscle mass needed. The higher the max altitude, the more force required to squeeze it to the ground. Getting above 1000m may be infeasible.
Alternatively, it could simply dump hydrogen to descend quickly, and refill once it gets to the ground or a low cloud layer. At the surface, it would probably need to hover over a decent water source to obtain sufficient hydrogen to ascend. Otherwise, it would need to scavenge water vapor from clouds. And separating hydrogen from oxygen or alkanes or carbohydrates is energetically expensive (although most expensive for oxygen and least for alkanes, I think...methane is probably the easiest H source), so it couldn't do this quickly or easily. It could take days or weeks to refill the gasbag. If it relies heavily on photosynthesis, then dipping below the cloud layer could prove fatal, and possibly strand it near the ground for a long time.
Anyway, those are some things to think about. Have fun!
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For obvious reasons, wings are by far the best propulsion system as far as animals go.
Since that seems to not be possible due to that whale's anatomy however, and since we've already excluded flippers, I can think of two possible means of locomotion :
Jet propulsion : Such as the one squids use underwater by quickly ejecting water out of a valve, allowing them to reach great speeds. However due to the low density of air, jet propulsion would likely be very weak in terms of acceleration unless unrealistic amounts of pressure are applied. If you are thinking of a slower type of animal though that would be an idea.
No locomotion at all ! Some animals simply travel by drifting, such as jellyfish. Of course in the air that is not really an option, since food would probably be scarce thus depriving you of the luxury to drift aimlessly just waiting for food to land into your mouth.
In conclusion, the best option then would be a combination of both proposals, that is aerial whales that mainly navigate the wind currents by letting themselves drift along the currents, with the ability to (slightly) steer using jet propulsion. That way no enormous amounts of jet pressure would be needed, thus staying in the realm of plausibility.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Up and down is all you need
Why not? Look at Google's Loon. Their balloons navigate solely by going up and down in the atmosphere, catching the winds at various altitudes. This is enormously energy efficient, and I'm guessing your hypothetical creatures are going to be very concerned with conserving energy.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think an animal like that would have the best chance if it mostly relied on:
- Following winds at different altitudes like a hot air balloon
- Having an omnivorous diet & not chasing any quick moving prey. Their diet could consist of nectar & tree top fruits, along with insects & maybe occasionally birds or squirrels
- Instead of chasing prey, relying entirely on passive mechanisms. One possibility would be an organ that charges in the sunlight to glow as an insect lure at night.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "whale" is somewhat flat and has a "forward balloon" which can be contracted somehow (muscular tissue or whatever).
Contracting it will cause loss of buoyancy and it will start to drop nose first, this, in turn) will cause it to move forward due to its elongated/flattened shape.
Relaxing completely the reverse will happen (rise nose-first), again resulting in forward movement.
Having two forward balloons allows for a certain degree of steering.
Note this "dolphin-like" locomotion won't be enough to overcome wind push, on such a large creature (the same holds true also for all other proposed mechanisms).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The gas in a bag can be heated by directing the blood of the body through the larger, external circulating system that runs through the bag tissue or cooled by holding the blood inside the body. It would ensure up and down movements. this would allow the creature to find the horizontally moving air masses to stay in them and to get some horizontal freedom too. Together with more traditional means of navigating in the air like fins the switch between inner and outer blood circulating system would let it move around but would it be enough to survive I don't know
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 22 at 21:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question says that fins are going to be too big to be practical. However, actual flying animals have air-adapted fins, and we call them wings. For such a big animal, wings are going to be big, but not as big as they would be for a heavier than air animal or aeroplane, since they don't need to provide lift, just propulsion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142043%2fbiological-blimps-propulsion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The same way a nautilus swims around in water: jet propulsion. Nautiluses move using a hyponome, which expands to pull in water from the sides of the nautilus, and contracts to expel a jet of water.
The bio-blimps can majestically wheeze across the land using what is essentially an organic bellows, just like the nautilus. Whenever it wants to move, it expands a bladder to pull in air from broad vents on the side of its body, and then compresses the bladder to expel the air through a much smaller vent to propel itself.
Presumably, they already have various valves and sphincters and what not for maintaining their main gasbag, so adding one smaller gasbag for locomotion should be a breeze.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I had a similar idea, but seeing as air density is very low compared to that of water, you would need huge amounts of air expulsion pressure, so much so that I doubt a biological organism would be able to generate unlike one that lives in water.
$endgroup$
– Kaloyan
Mar 21 at 17:33
3
$begingroup$
@Kaloyan: Air density being much lower than water means that the air jet produces less thrust, but also the blimp has to overcome less drag. I'd assume any potential thrust/drag ratio is the same for air as it is for water, since in both cases the same fluids are producing the thrust and drag.
$endgroup$
– Giter
Mar 21 at 17:54
5
$begingroup$
AKA, flatulence... +1.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 21 at 21:13
4
$begingroup$
That is what I was going to propose, only I would have called it farting :)
$endgroup$
– Fels
Mar 22 at 9:17
9
$begingroup$
"should [be] a breeze". 10/10 pun
$endgroup$
– Scoots
Mar 22 at 14:32
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The same way a nautilus swims around in water: jet propulsion. Nautiluses move using a hyponome, which expands to pull in water from the sides of the nautilus, and contracts to expel a jet of water.
The bio-blimps can majestically wheeze across the land using what is essentially an organic bellows, just like the nautilus. Whenever it wants to move, it expands a bladder to pull in air from broad vents on the side of its body, and then compresses the bladder to expel the air through a much smaller vent to propel itself.
Presumably, they already have various valves and sphincters and what not for maintaining their main gasbag, so adding one smaller gasbag for locomotion should be a breeze.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I had a similar idea, but seeing as air density is very low compared to that of water, you would need huge amounts of air expulsion pressure, so much so that I doubt a biological organism would be able to generate unlike one that lives in water.
$endgroup$
– Kaloyan
Mar 21 at 17:33
3
$begingroup$
@Kaloyan: Air density being much lower than water means that the air jet produces less thrust, but also the blimp has to overcome less drag. I'd assume any potential thrust/drag ratio is the same for air as it is for water, since in both cases the same fluids are producing the thrust and drag.
$endgroup$
– Giter
Mar 21 at 17:54
5
$begingroup$
AKA, flatulence... +1.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 21 at 21:13
4
$begingroup$
That is what I was going to propose, only I would have called it farting :)
$endgroup$
– Fels
Mar 22 at 9:17
9
$begingroup$
"should [be] a breeze". 10/10 pun
$endgroup$
– Scoots
Mar 22 at 14:32
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The same way a nautilus swims around in water: jet propulsion. Nautiluses move using a hyponome, which expands to pull in water from the sides of the nautilus, and contracts to expel a jet of water.
The bio-blimps can majestically wheeze across the land using what is essentially an organic bellows, just like the nautilus. Whenever it wants to move, it expands a bladder to pull in air from broad vents on the side of its body, and then compresses the bladder to expel the air through a much smaller vent to propel itself.
Presumably, they already have various valves and sphincters and what not for maintaining their main gasbag, so adding one smaller gasbag for locomotion should be a breeze.
$endgroup$
The same way a nautilus swims around in water: jet propulsion. Nautiluses move using a hyponome, which expands to pull in water from the sides of the nautilus, and contracts to expel a jet of water.
The bio-blimps can majestically wheeze across the land using what is essentially an organic bellows, just like the nautilus. Whenever it wants to move, it expands a bladder to pull in air from broad vents on the side of its body, and then compresses the bladder to expel the air through a much smaller vent to propel itself.
Presumably, they already have various valves and sphincters and what not for maintaining their main gasbag, so adding one smaller gasbag for locomotion should be a breeze.
edited Mar 22 at 16:05
Gryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
answered Mar 21 at 17:27
GiterGiter
14.9k63644
14.9k63644
1
$begingroup$
I had a similar idea, but seeing as air density is very low compared to that of water, you would need huge amounts of air expulsion pressure, so much so that I doubt a biological organism would be able to generate unlike one that lives in water.
$endgroup$
– Kaloyan
Mar 21 at 17:33
3
$begingroup$
@Kaloyan: Air density being much lower than water means that the air jet produces less thrust, but also the blimp has to overcome less drag. I'd assume any potential thrust/drag ratio is the same for air as it is for water, since in both cases the same fluids are producing the thrust and drag.
$endgroup$
– Giter
Mar 21 at 17:54
5
$begingroup$
AKA, flatulence... +1.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 21 at 21:13
4
$begingroup$
That is what I was going to propose, only I would have called it farting :)
$endgroup$
– Fels
Mar 22 at 9:17
9
$begingroup$
"should [be] a breeze". 10/10 pun
$endgroup$
– Scoots
Mar 22 at 14:32
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
I had a similar idea, but seeing as air density is very low compared to that of water, you would need huge amounts of air expulsion pressure, so much so that I doubt a biological organism would be able to generate unlike one that lives in water.
$endgroup$
– Kaloyan
Mar 21 at 17:33
3
$begingroup$
@Kaloyan: Air density being much lower than water means that the air jet produces less thrust, but also the blimp has to overcome less drag. I'd assume any potential thrust/drag ratio is the same for air as it is for water, since in both cases the same fluids are producing the thrust and drag.
$endgroup$
– Giter
Mar 21 at 17:54
5
$begingroup$
AKA, flatulence... +1.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 21 at 21:13
4
$begingroup$
That is what I was going to propose, only I would have called it farting :)
$endgroup$
– Fels
Mar 22 at 9:17
9
$begingroup$
"should [be] a breeze". 10/10 pun
$endgroup$
– Scoots
Mar 22 at 14:32
1
1
$begingroup$
I had a similar idea, but seeing as air density is very low compared to that of water, you would need huge amounts of air expulsion pressure, so much so that I doubt a biological organism would be able to generate unlike one that lives in water.
$endgroup$
– Kaloyan
Mar 21 at 17:33
$begingroup$
I had a similar idea, but seeing as air density is very low compared to that of water, you would need huge amounts of air expulsion pressure, so much so that I doubt a biological organism would be able to generate unlike one that lives in water.
$endgroup$
– Kaloyan
Mar 21 at 17:33
3
3
$begingroup$
@Kaloyan: Air density being much lower than water means that the air jet produces less thrust, but also the blimp has to overcome less drag. I'd assume any potential thrust/drag ratio is the same for air as it is for water, since in both cases the same fluids are producing the thrust and drag.
$endgroup$
– Giter
Mar 21 at 17:54
$begingroup$
@Kaloyan: Air density being much lower than water means that the air jet produces less thrust, but also the blimp has to overcome less drag. I'd assume any potential thrust/drag ratio is the same for air as it is for water, since in both cases the same fluids are producing the thrust and drag.
$endgroup$
– Giter
Mar 21 at 17:54
5
5
$begingroup$
AKA, flatulence... +1.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 21 at 21:13
$begingroup$
AKA, flatulence... +1.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 21 at 21:13
4
4
$begingroup$
That is what I was going to propose, only I would have called it farting :)
$endgroup$
– Fels
Mar 22 at 9:17
$begingroup$
That is what I was going to propose, only I would have called it farting :)
$endgroup$
– Fels
Mar 22 at 9:17
9
9
$begingroup$
"should [be] a breeze". 10/10 pun
$endgroup$
– Scoots
Mar 22 at 14:32
$begingroup$
"should [be] a breeze". 10/10 pun
$endgroup$
– Scoots
Mar 22 at 14:32
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
One alternative method of propulsion that could be considered is: Basically having none at all...
Consider a symbiotic system where your 'bio-blimps' are more 'giant floating green houses' - Main creature feeds off light algae/lichen-like secondary lifeforms, which the main creature effectively cultivates as a means to gather energy from the sun by funneling rainwater to them.
Further input could come from birds who nest in/on the bio-blimp, depositing the left overs from meals they collect from elsewhere, which in turns feeds the secondary bio-mass.
Bio-blimp's survival is no longer tied to it being able to navigate toward food, as its food source naturally grows or comes to it, and it is free to drift on the winds while adjusting its lifting bladders to maintain a comfortable altitude.
New contributor
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
There are also non-symbiotic possibilities for your basic idea. They could be like airborne jellyfish, with tentacles dangling down which capture flying birds or perhaps things from treetops (including leaves if you want vegetarian blimps) for nutrition.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 11:34
$begingroup$
True, however an evolutionary route to such a creature seems less likely, and more problematic - To survive such a creature would have to not be an overly useful food source for any predator, and not envoke defensive response from other animals. And if they're a grazer, then specifics of world geography gets potentially awkward - They either need wind currents that keep them over food source, or consistently be able to fast while being blown over food-deserts.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
No matter how you do it, any sort of biological creature that floats in the atmosphere will seem problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If they are large and they float, they will likely be vulnerable to much smaller predators.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@JohnColeman they could be poisonous or have stingers—again like jellyfish.
$endgroup$
– Wildcard
yesterday
$begingroup$
This would make it ideal to have above your city (as the WBuilding background depicts). The whales will become a near-self-sustaining farm to grow crops on/from which to get energy
$endgroup$
– Nahshon paz
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One alternative method of propulsion that could be considered is: Basically having none at all...
Consider a symbiotic system where your 'bio-blimps' are more 'giant floating green houses' - Main creature feeds off light algae/lichen-like secondary lifeforms, which the main creature effectively cultivates as a means to gather energy from the sun by funneling rainwater to them.
Further input could come from birds who nest in/on the bio-blimp, depositing the left overs from meals they collect from elsewhere, which in turns feeds the secondary bio-mass.
Bio-blimp's survival is no longer tied to it being able to navigate toward food, as its food source naturally grows or comes to it, and it is free to drift on the winds while adjusting its lifting bladders to maintain a comfortable altitude.
New contributor
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
There are also non-symbiotic possibilities for your basic idea. They could be like airborne jellyfish, with tentacles dangling down which capture flying birds or perhaps things from treetops (including leaves if you want vegetarian blimps) for nutrition.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 11:34
$begingroup$
True, however an evolutionary route to such a creature seems less likely, and more problematic - To survive such a creature would have to not be an overly useful food source for any predator, and not envoke defensive response from other animals. And if they're a grazer, then specifics of world geography gets potentially awkward - They either need wind currents that keep them over food source, or consistently be able to fast while being blown over food-deserts.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
No matter how you do it, any sort of biological creature that floats in the atmosphere will seem problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If they are large and they float, they will likely be vulnerable to much smaller predators.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@JohnColeman they could be poisonous or have stingers—again like jellyfish.
$endgroup$
– Wildcard
yesterday
$begingroup$
This would make it ideal to have above your city (as the WBuilding background depicts). The whales will become a near-self-sustaining farm to grow crops on/from which to get energy
$endgroup$
– Nahshon paz
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One alternative method of propulsion that could be considered is: Basically having none at all...
Consider a symbiotic system where your 'bio-blimps' are more 'giant floating green houses' - Main creature feeds off light algae/lichen-like secondary lifeforms, which the main creature effectively cultivates as a means to gather energy from the sun by funneling rainwater to them.
Further input could come from birds who nest in/on the bio-blimp, depositing the left overs from meals they collect from elsewhere, which in turns feeds the secondary bio-mass.
Bio-blimp's survival is no longer tied to it being able to navigate toward food, as its food source naturally grows or comes to it, and it is free to drift on the winds while adjusting its lifting bladders to maintain a comfortable altitude.
New contributor
$endgroup$
One alternative method of propulsion that could be considered is: Basically having none at all...
Consider a symbiotic system where your 'bio-blimps' are more 'giant floating green houses' - Main creature feeds off light algae/lichen-like secondary lifeforms, which the main creature effectively cultivates as a means to gather energy from the sun by funneling rainwater to them.
Further input could come from birds who nest in/on the bio-blimp, depositing the left overs from meals they collect from elsewhere, which in turns feeds the secondary bio-mass.
Bio-blimp's survival is no longer tied to it being able to navigate toward food, as its food source naturally grows or comes to it, and it is free to drift on the winds while adjusting its lifting bladders to maintain a comfortable altitude.
New contributor
edited Mar 22 at 0:17
Gryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
New contributor
answered Mar 21 at 17:40
TheLucklessTheLuckless
3613
3613
New contributor
New contributor
5
$begingroup$
There are also non-symbiotic possibilities for your basic idea. They could be like airborne jellyfish, with tentacles dangling down which capture flying birds or perhaps things from treetops (including leaves if you want vegetarian blimps) for nutrition.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 11:34
$begingroup$
True, however an evolutionary route to such a creature seems less likely, and more problematic - To survive such a creature would have to not be an overly useful food source for any predator, and not envoke defensive response from other animals. And if they're a grazer, then specifics of world geography gets potentially awkward - They either need wind currents that keep them over food source, or consistently be able to fast while being blown over food-deserts.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
No matter how you do it, any sort of biological creature that floats in the atmosphere will seem problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If they are large and they float, they will likely be vulnerable to much smaller predators.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@JohnColeman they could be poisonous or have stingers—again like jellyfish.
$endgroup$
– Wildcard
yesterday
$begingroup$
This would make it ideal to have above your city (as the WBuilding background depicts). The whales will become a near-self-sustaining farm to grow crops on/from which to get energy
$endgroup$
– Nahshon paz
yesterday
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
There are also non-symbiotic possibilities for your basic idea. They could be like airborne jellyfish, with tentacles dangling down which capture flying birds or perhaps things from treetops (including leaves if you want vegetarian blimps) for nutrition.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 11:34
$begingroup$
True, however an evolutionary route to such a creature seems less likely, and more problematic - To survive such a creature would have to not be an overly useful food source for any predator, and not envoke defensive response from other animals. And if they're a grazer, then specifics of world geography gets potentially awkward - They either need wind currents that keep them over food source, or consistently be able to fast while being blown over food-deserts.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:05
1
$begingroup$
No matter how you do it, any sort of biological creature that floats in the atmosphere will seem problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If they are large and they float, they will likely be vulnerable to much smaller predators.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@JohnColeman they could be poisonous or have stingers—again like jellyfish.
$endgroup$
– Wildcard
yesterday
$begingroup$
This would make it ideal to have above your city (as the WBuilding background depicts). The whales will become a near-self-sustaining farm to grow crops on/from which to get energy
$endgroup$
– Nahshon paz
yesterday
5
5
$begingroup$
There are also non-symbiotic possibilities for your basic idea. They could be like airborne jellyfish, with tentacles dangling down which capture flying birds or perhaps things from treetops (including leaves if you want vegetarian blimps) for nutrition.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 11:34
$begingroup$
There are also non-symbiotic possibilities for your basic idea. They could be like airborne jellyfish, with tentacles dangling down which capture flying birds or perhaps things from treetops (including leaves if you want vegetarian blimps) for nutrition.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 11:34
$begingroup$
True, however an evolutionary route to such a creature seems less likely, and more problematic - To survive such a creature would have to not be an overly useful food source for any predator, and not envoke defensive response from other animals. And if they're a grazer, then specifics of world geography gets potentially awkward - They either need wind currents that keep them over food source, or consistently be able to fast while being blown over food-deserts.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:05
$begingroup$
True, however an evolutionary route to such a creature seems less likely, and more problematic - To survive such a creature would have to not be an overly useful food source for any predator, and not envoke defensive response from other animals. And if they're a grazer, then specifics of world geography gets potentially awkward - They either need wind currents that keep them over food source, or consistently be able to fast while being blown over food-deserts.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:05
1
1
$begingroup$
No matter how you do it, any sort of biological creature that floats in the atmosphere will seem problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If they are large and they float, they will likely be vulnerable to much smaller predators.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 17:50
$begingroup$
No matter how you do it, any sort of biological creature that floats in the atmosphere will seem problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If they are large and they float, they will likely be vulnerable to much smaller predators.
$endgroup$
– John Coleman
Mar 22 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@JohnColeman they could be poisonous or have stingers—again like jellyfish.
$endgroup$
– Wildcard
yesterday
$begingroup$
@JohnColeman they could be poisonous or have stingers—again like jellyfish.
$endgroup$
– Wildcard
yesterday
$begingroup$
This would make it ideal to have above your city (as the WBuilding background depicts). The whales will become a near-self-sustaining farm to grow crops on/from which to get energy
$endgroup$
– Nahshon paz
yesterday
$begingroup$
This would make it ideal to have above your city (as the WBuilding background depicts). The whales will become a near-self-sustaining farm to grow crops on/from which to get energy
$endgroup$
– Nahshon paz
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't Fly, Fall with Style!
Ok, so it's going to involve flying too, but...
Your creature is going to have some way to control its buoyancy. Presumably muscles that change the shape slightly, thus changing the amount of air displaced, thus changing the buoyancy. So use this ability to your advantage.
The creature grows small wings or flippers. Not nearly enough to lift the creature, but enough to generate some lift. Now the creature can control it's flight by trading height for speed.
Your creature moves by:
- Expanding to increase buoyancy and increase altitude
- Contracting significantly, triggering a "fall"
- Using its "wings" to control the fall
- Expanding again before it hits the ground
Effectively, your creature copies the locomotion of birds of prey, only instead of using thermals to gain height, it uses buoyancy. The lift from the wings will have both horizontal and vertical components, so some of the energy will be converted into making the dive longer, and some of it will go into moving your creature towards its objective.
So your sky whales gracefully float upwards before suddenly diving in whatever direction they want to go.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
So, basically whale sized dive-bombing-glide-blimp-thingies? ... For some reason I'm picturing them as predatory omnivores, and much like those "round animals" animations on YouTube... "Whooosh! Chomp... loud bouncing sound" The biological energy to compress its own lifting gas enough to reduce its air resistance enough to dive-glide effectively does however sound potentially problematic, but still possibly workable.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't Fly, Fall with Style!
Ok, so it's going to involve flying too, but...
Your creature is going to have some way to control its buoyancy. Presumably muscles that change the shape slightly, thus changing the amount of air displaced, thus changing the buoyancy. So use this ability to your advantage.
The creature grows small wings or flippers. Not nearly enough to lift the creature, but enough to generate some lift. Now the creature can control it's flight by trading height for speed.
Your creature moves by:
- Expanding to increase buoyancy and increase altitude
- Contracting significantly, triggering a "fall"
- Using its "wings" to control the fall
- Expanding again before it hits the ground
Effectively, your creature copies the locomotion of birds of prey, only instead of using thermals to gain height, it uses buoyancy. The lift from the wings will have both horizontal and vertical components, so some of the energy will be converted into making the dive longer, and some of it will go into moving your creature towards its objective.
So your sky whales gracefully float upwards before suddenly diving in whatever direction they want to go.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
So, basically whale sized dive-bombing-glide-blimp-thingies? ... For some reason I'm picturing them as predatory omnivores, and much like those "round animals" animations on YouTube... "Whooosh! Chomp... loud bouncing sound" The biological energy to compress its own lifting gas enough to reduce its air resistance enough to dive-glide effectively does however sound potentially problematic, but still possibly workable.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't Fly, Fall with Style!
Ok, so it's going to involve flying too, but...
Your creature is going to have some way to control its buoyancy. Presumably muscles that change the shape slightly, thus changing the amount of air displaced, thus changing the buoyancy. So use this ability to your advantage.
The creature grows small wings or flippers. Not nearly enough to lift the creature, but enough to generate some lift. Now the creature can control it's flight by trading height for speed.
Your creature moves by:
- Expanding to increase buoyancy and increase altitude
- Contracting significantly, triggering a "fall"
- Using its "wings" to control the fall
- Expanding again before it hits the ground
Effectively, your creature copies the locomotion of birds of prey, only instead of using thermals to gain height, it uses buoyancy. The lift from the wings will have both horizontal and vertical components, so some of the energy will be converted into making the dive longer, and some of it will go into moving your creature towards its objective.
So your sky whales gracefully float upwards before suddenly diving in whatever direction they want to go.
$endgroup$
Don't Fly, Fall with Style!
Ok, so it's going to involve flying too, but...
Your creature is going to have some way to control its buoyancy. Presumably muscles that change the shape slightly, thus changing the amount of air displaced, thus changing the buoyancy. So use this ability to your advantage.
The creature grows small wings or flippers. Not nearly enough to lift the creature, but enough to generate some lift. Now the creature can control it's flight by trading height for speed.
Your creature moves by:
- Expanding to increase buoyancy and increase altitude
- Contracting significantly, triggering a "fall"
- Using its "wings" to control the fall
- Expanding again before it hits the ground
Effectively, your creature copies the locomotion of birds of prey, only instead of using thermals to gain height, it uses buoyancy. The lift from the wings will have both horizontal and vertical components, so some of the energy will be converted into making the dive longer, and some of it will go into moving your creature towards its objective.
So your sky whales gracefully float upwards before suddenly diving in whatever direction they want to go.
edited Mar 22 at 0:16
Gryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
answered Mar 21 at 20:53
codeMonkeycodeMonkey
3,351820
3,351820
2
$begingroup$
So, basically whale sized dive-bombing-glide-blimp-thingies? ... For some reason I'm picturing them as predatory omnivores, and much like those "round animals" animations on YouTube... "Whooosh! Chomp... loud bouncing sound" The biological energy to compress its own lifting gas enough to reduce its air resistance enough to dive-glide effectively does however sound potentially problematic, but still possibly workable.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:14
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
So, basically whale sized dive-bombing-glide-blimp-thingies? ... For some reason I'm picturing them as predatory omnivores, and much like those "round animals" animations on YouTube... "Whooosh! Chomp... loud bouncing sound" The biological energy to compress its own lifting gas enough to reduce its air resistance enough to dive-glide effectively does however sound potentially problematic, but still possibly workable.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:14
2
2
$begingroup$
So, basically whale sized dive-bombing-glide-blimp-thingies? ... For some reason I'm picturing them as predatory omnivores, and much like those "round animals" animations on YouTube... "Whooosh! Chomp... loud bouncing sound" The biological energy to compress its own lifting gas enough to reduce its air resistance enough to dive-glide effectively does however sound potentially problematic, but still possibly workable.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:14
$begingroup$
So, basically whale sized dive-bombing-glide-blimp-thingies? ... For some reason I'm picturing them as predatory omnivores, and much like those "round animals" animations on YouTube... "Whooosh! Chomp... loud bouncing sound" The biological energy to compress its own lifting gas enough to reduce its air resistance enough to dive-glide effectively does however sound potentially problematic, but still possibly workable.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
Mar 22 at 17:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hydrogen Rockets
Consider that your gasbag is full of hydrogen. It would be entirely possible for it to take some of its excess hydrogen and allow it to escape in a direction of its choosing. It could then generate a spark and move because of the explosion (the valve would have to be stronger than the surrounding skin, of course).
I don't think this is a practical solution, but it seems negligent to not mention it.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Dragon Airwhale
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hydrogen Rockets
Consider that your gasbag is full of hydrogen. It would be entirely possible for it to take some of its excess hydrogen and allow it to escape in a direction of its choosing. It could then generate a spark and move because of the explosion (the valve would have to be stronger than the surrounding skin, of course).
I don't think this is a practical solution, but it seems negligent to not mention it.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Dragon Airwhale
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hydrogen Rockets
Consider that your gasbag is full of hydrogen. It would be entirely possible for it to take some of its excess hydrogen and allow it to escape in a direction of its choosing. It could then generate a spark and move because of the explosion (the valve would have to be stronger than the surrounding skin, of course).
I don't think this is a practical solution, but it seems negligent to not mention it.
$endgroup$
Hydrogen Rockets
Consider that your gasbag is full of hydrogen. It would be entirely possible for it to take some of its excess hydrogen and allow it to escape in a direction of its choosing. It could then generate a spark and move because of the explosion (the valve would have to be stronger than the surrounding skin, of course).
I don't think this is a practical solution, but it seems negligent to not mention it.
edited Mar 22 at 12:40
Gryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
answered Mar 21 at 21:48
SpitemasterSpitemaster
378129
378129
1
$begingroup$
Dragon Airwhale
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Dragon Airwhale
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:40
1
1
$begingroup$
Dragon Airwhale
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:40
$begingroup$
Dragon Airwhale
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Tail Fin
Not sure why you think flippers are impractical. The lower density of air means that thrust for a fin would be lower than in the water, but drag would also be lower. Also, you didn't say how fast the creature needs to move. Almost any fin at all would provide some thrust, so the only question is: what is the maximum thrust you could feasibly get? And that depends on how much mass you can allocate to muscle, the overall shape of the creature, and its surface roughness (to compute friction drag). If the creature isn't trying to compete with birds of prey in the speed department, then the frontal area and surface friction are probably not important, and you could get away with a large, thin, lazily waving tail fin, mostly made of chitin spines and a thin but tough membrane. You could probably get away with a medium-to-small fin also, at a compromise of performance.
Movement
If the creature moves slowly, then spherical is best. If it needs to move quickly, then making it long and skinny (or at least cylindrical) is best but compromises your lifting efficiency. Also, you probably can't put enough muscle and metabolism on it to make it "swim" quickly. Probably have to resign yourself to a very slow whale. It is likely to be unable to overcome most winds aloft, depending on its customary altitude. So, at best, it can maneuver within air currents but has little say in where it actually goes.
Food
A bigger problem, I think, is: what does it eat? Surely it can't catch flying creatures unless it has a clever lure. Surely a floating gasbag simply isn't sturdy enough to survive claws and beaks. I like the idea of the floating greenhouse. This creature can possibly do something that terrestrial plants cannot: move above the treetop/cloud layer to get unobstructed sunlight. That should be the primary motivation for its airborne nature. It can get carbon and oxygen from CO2 in the air, and it could possibly "drink" clouds to get hydrogen/water. But it still needs to fix nitrogen, and get essential trace elements like phosphorus, sulfur, iron, and other minerals. For this, it could either be an herbivore, and munch on treetops to get these vitamins, or it could be a dirt scavenger.
Imagine having long tentacles that can drop down dozens of meters, scooping loose soil from along the ground. Being close to the ground would make it vulnerable to ground-based predators and birds of prey, so it would need to have some kind of defense against those. But it would spend most of its time as high as it could manage because it's too metabolically expensive for most birds to fly very high in the sky. Once it scoops up dirt, it rises aloft, and lets symbiotic mycorrhizal webs in the "buckets" of the tentacles do the hard work of extracting trace minerals from the dirt. Basically, the tentacles would be functionally equivalent to tree roots. Once the symbionts stop giving up nutrients, the skywhale dumps the dirt and grabs some more. Mountains are safer places for gathering dirt because of fewer predators, and less altitude change, but also have lower nutrient content because fewer plant/animal/bacterial species are churning through the soil. So their scavenging would depend on their current needs and the risks involved.
Protection
To protect against lighting strikes, the skywhales could form a metallic web across their skin, like the shell of an airliner. By offering a low-resistance conductive path for lightning, they should be able to avoid the worst effects of a strike. Iron may be too heavy to use as a conductor, so perhaps they could create carbon nanotubes or graphene as the Faraday cage, which can be constructed out of pure carbon. What would be especially interesting is to create a graphene supercapacitor and have them store some of the charges flowing across their skin to use defensively. This could, of course, also be used offensively. Imagine a region on their top surface which emits predator pheromones (whatever organic volatiles might attract birds, like even blood heme). A bird flies up and comes in for a landing, expecting an easy treat on the gasbag. But when it lands, the supercapacitor, charged up from flying through a nimbus cloud, discharges and electrocutes the unsuspecting bird just as it makes contact with the skin. Then a "mouth" opens up and swallows the victim into the digestive system. Of course, a carnivorous skywhale wouldn't need to eat dirt, since birds would presumably be able to provide all the trace nutrients. However, it might not be able to eat enough birds to meet all its metabolic needs, so symbiotic/intrinsic photosynthesis would still be valuable.
Lift
I think the most difficult problem is actually lift. A fish can change its buoyancy easily because gas has a much lower density than water. So a swim bladder is relatively efficient space-wise. A proportionally sized swim bladder in your skywhale wouldn't give much altitude change. So you probably need to squeeze the entire gasbag to descend, which would presumably cost a lot of energy. The amount of work required to descend all the way to the ground, using just volumetric compression (as opposed to releasing gas) is basically the same as a hiker climbing from the ground to its maximum altitude (the altitude at which the gasbag is fully inflated). Only, the climber weighs half a ton. More problematic than the work (which can be done slowly over a long time) is the amount of force required to squeeze the gasbag because this puts hard lower bounds on the amount of muscle mass needed. The higher the max altitude, the more force required to squeeze it to the ground. Getting above 1000m may be infeasible.
Alternatively, it could simply dump hydrogen to descend quickly, and refill once it gets to the ground or a low cloud layer. At the surface, it would probably need to hover over a decent water source to obtain sufficient hydrogen to ascend. Otherwise, it would need to scavenge water vapor from clouds. And separating hydrogen from oxygen or alkanes or carbohydrates is energetically expensive (although most expensive for oxygen and least for alkanes, I think...methane is probably the easiest H source), so it couldn't do this quickly or easily. It could take days or weeks to refill the gasbag. If it relies heavily on photosynthesis, then dipping below the cloud layer could prove fatal, and possibly strand it near the ground for a long time.
Anyway, those are some things to think about. Have fun!
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Tail Fin
Not sure why you think flippers are impractical. The lower density of air means that thrust for a fin would be lower than in the water, but drag would also be lower. Also, you didn't say how fast the creature needs to move. Almost any fin at all would provide some thrust, so the only question is: what is the maximum thrust you could feasibly get? And that depends on how much mass you can allocate to muscle, the overall shape of the creature, and its surface roughness (to compute friction drag). If the creature isn't trying to compete with birds of prey in the speed department, then the frontal area and surface friction are probably not important, and you could get away with a large, thin, lazily waving tail fin, mostly made of chitin spines and a thin but tough membrane. You could probably get away with a medium-to-small fin also, at a compromise of performance.
Movement
If the creature moves slowly, then spherical is best. If it needs to move quickly, then making it long and skinny (or at least cylindrical) is best but compromises your lifting efficiency. Also, you probably can't put enough muscle and metabolism on it to make it "swim" quickly. Probably have to resign yourself to a very slow whale. It is likely to be unable to overcome most winds aloft, depending on its customary altitude. So, at best, it can maneuver within air currents but has little say in where it actually goes.
Food
A bigger problem, I think, is: what does it eat? Surely it can't catch flying creatures unless it has a clever lure. Surely a floating gasbag simply isn't sturdy enough to survive claws and beaks. I like the idea of the floating greenhouse. This creature can possibly do something that terrestrial plants cannot: move above the treetop/cloud layer to get unobstructed sunlight. That should be the primary motivation for its airborne nature. It can get carbon and oxygen from CO2 in the air, and it could possibly "drink" clouds to get hydrogen/water. But it still needs to fix nitrogen, and get essential trace elements like phosphorus, sulfur, iron, and other minerals. For this, it could either be an herbivore, and munch on treetops to get these vitamins, or it could be a dirt scavenger.
Imagine having long tentacles that can drop down dozens of meters, scooping loose soil from along the ground. Being close to the ground would make it vulnerable to ground-based predators and birds of prey, so it would need to have some kind of defense against those. But it would spend most of its time as high as it could manage because it's too metabolically expensive for most birds to fly very high in the sky. Once it scoops up dirt, it rises aloft, and lets symbiotic mycorrhizal webs in the "buckets" of the tentacles do the hard work of extracting trace minerals from the dirt. Basically, the tentacles would be functionally equivalent to tree roots. Once the symbionts stop giving up nutrients, the skywhale dumps the dirt and grabs some more. Mountains are safer places for gathering dirt because of fewer predators, and less altitude change, but also have lower nutrient content because fewer plant/animal/bacterial species are churning through the soil. So their scavenging would depend on their current needs and the risks involved.
Protection
To protect against lighting strikes, the skywhales could form a metallic web across their skin, like the shell of an airliner. By offering a low-resistance conductive path for lightning, they should be able to avoid the worst effects of a strike. Iron may be too heavy to use as a conductor, so perhaps they could create carbon nanotubes or graphene as the Faraday cage, which can be constructed out of pure carbon. What would be especially interesting is to create a graphene supercapacitor and have them store some of the charges flowing across their skin to use defensively. This could, of course, also be used offensively. Imagine a region on their top surface which emits predator pheromones (whatever organic volatiles might attract birds, like even blood heme). A bird flies up and comes in for a landing, expecting an easy treat on the gasbag. But when it lands, the supercapacitor, charged up from flying through a nimbus cloud, discharges and electrocutes the unsuspecting bird just as it makes contact with the skin. Then a "mouth" opens up and swallows the victim into the digestive system. Of course, a carnivorous skywhale wouldn't need to eat dirt, since birds would presumably be able to provide all the trace nutrients. However, it might not be able to eat enough birds to meet all its metabolic needs, so symbiotic/intrinsic photosynthesis would still be valuable.
Lift
I think the most difficult problem is actually lift. A fish can change its buoyancy easily because gas has a much lower density than water. So a swim bladder is relatively efficient space-wise. A proportionally sized swim bladder in your skywhale wouldn't give much altitude change. So you probably need to squeeze the entire gasbag to descend, which would presumably cost a lot of energy. The amount of work required to descend all the way to the ground, using just volumetric compression (as opposed to releasing gas) is basically the same as a hiker climbing from the ground to its maximum altitude (the altitude at which the gasbag is fully inflated). Only, the climber weighs half a ton. More problematic than the work (which can be done slowly over a long time) is the amount of force required to squeeze the gasbag because this puts hard lower bounds on the amount of muscle mass needed. The higher the max altitude, the more force required to squeeze it to the ground. Getting above 1000m may be infeasible.
Alternatively, it could simply dump hydrogen to descend quickly, and refill once it gets to the ground or a low cloud layer. At the surface, it would probably need to hover over a decent water source to obtain sufficient hydrogen to ascend. Otherwise, it would need to scavenge water vapor from clouds. And separating hydrogen from oxygen or alkanes or carbohydrates is energetically expensive (although most expensive for oxygen and least for alkanes, I think...methane is probably the easiest H source), so it couldn't do this quickly or easily. It could take days or weeks to refill the gasbag. If it relies heavily on photosynthesis, then dipping below the cloud layer could prove fatal, and possibly strand it near the ground for a long time.
Anyway, those are some things to think about. Have fun!
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Tail Fin
Not sure why you think flippers are impractical. The lower density of air means that thrust for a fin would be lower than in the water, but drag would also be lower. Also, you didn't say how fast the creature needs to move. Almost any fin at all would provide some thrust, so the only question is: what is the maximum thrust you could feasibly get? And that depends on how much mass you can allocate to muscle, the overall shape of the creature, and its surface roughness (to compute friction drag). If the creature isn't trying to compete with birds of prey in the speed department, then the frontal area and surface friction are probably not important, and you could get away with a large, thin, lazily waving tail fin, mostly made of chitin spines and a thin but tough membrane. You could probably get away with a medium-to-small fin also, at a compromise of performance.
Movement
If the creature moves slowly, then spherical is best. If it needs to move quickly, then making it long and skinny (or at least cylindrical) is best but compromises your lifting efficiency. Also, you probably can't put enough muscle and metabolism on it to make it "swim" quickly. Probably have to resign yourself to a very slow whale. It is likely to be unable to overcome most winds aloft, depending on its customary altitude. So, at best, it can maneuver within air currents but has little say in where it actually goes.
Food
A bigger problem, I think, is: what does it eat? Surely it can't catch flying creatures unless it has a clever lure. Surely a floating gasbag simply isn't sturdy enough to survive claws and beaks. I like the idea of the floating greenhouse. This creature can possibly do something that terrestrial plants cannot: move above the treetop/cloud layer to get unobstructed sunlight. That should be the primary motivation for its airborne nature. It can get carbon and oxygen from CO2 in the air, and it could possibly "drink" clouds to get hydrogen/water. But it still needs to fix nitrogen, and get essential trace elements like phosphorus, sulfur, iron, and other minerals. For this, it could either be an herbivore, and munch on treetops to get these vitamins, or it could be a dirt scavenger.
Imagine having long tentacles that can drop down dozens of meters, scooping loose soil from along the ground. Being close to the ground would make it vulnerable to ground-based predators and birds of prey, so it would need to have some kind of defense against those. But it would spend most of its time as high as it could manage because it's too metabolically expensive for most birds to fly very high in the sky. Once it scoops up dirt, it rises aloft, and lets symbiotic mycorrhizal webs in the "buckets" of the tentacles do the hard work of extracting trace minerals from the dirt. Basically, the tentacles would be functionally equivalent to tree roots. Once the symbionts stop giving up nutrients, the skywhale dumps the dirt and grabs some more. Mountains are safer places for gathering dirt because of fewer predators, and less altitude change, but also have lower nutrient content because fewer plant/animal/bacterial species are churning through the soil. So their scavenging would depend on their current needs and the risks involved.
Protection
To protect against lighting strikes, the skywhales could form a metallic web across their skin, like the shell of an airliner. By offering a low-resistance conductive path for lightning, they should be able to avoid the worst effects of a strike. Iron may be too heavy to use as a conductor, so perhaps they could create carbon nanotubes or graphene as the Faraday cage, which can be constructed out of pure carbon. What would be especially interesting is to create a graphene supercapacitor and have them store some of the charges flowing across their skin to use defensively. This could, of course, also be used offensively. Imagine a region on their top surface which emits predator pheromones (whatever organic volatiles might attract birds, like even blood heme). A bird flies up and comes in for a landing, expecting an easy treat on the gasbag. But when it lands, the supercapacitor, charged up from flying through a nimbus cloud, discharges and electrocutes the unsuspecting bird just as it makes contact with the skin. Then a "mouth" opens up and swallows the victim into the digestive system. Of course, a carnivorous skywhale wouldn't need to eat dirt, since birds would presumably be able to provide all the trace nutrients. However, it might not be able to eat enough birds to meet all its metabolic needs, so symbiotic/intrinsic photosynthesis would still be valuable.
Lift
I think the most difficult problem is actually lift. A fish can change its buoyancy easily because gas has a much lower density than water. So a swim bladder is relatively efficient space-wise. A proportionally sized swim bladder in your skywhale wouldn't give much altitude change. So you probably need to squeeze the entire gasbag to descend, which would presumably cost a lot of energy. The amount of work required to descend all the way to the ground, using just volumetric compression (as opposed to releasing gas) is basically the same as a hiker climbing from the ground to its maximum altitude (the altitude at which the gasbag is fully inflated). Only, the climber weighs half a ton. More problematic than the work (which can be done slowly over a long time) is the amount of force required to squeeze the gasbag because this puts hard lower bounds on the amount of muscle mass needed. The higher the max altitude, the more force required to squeeze it to the ground. Getting above 1000m may be infeasible.
Alternatively, it could simply dump hydrogen to descend quickly, and refill once it gets to the ground or a low cloud layer. At the surface, it would probably need to hover over a decent water source to obtain sufficient hydrogen to ascend. Otherwise, it would need to scavenge water vapor from clouds. And separating hydrogen from oxygen or alkanes or carbohydrates is energetically expensive (although most expensive for oxygen and least for alkanes, I think...methane is probably the easiest H source), so it couldn't do this quickly or easily. It could take days or weeks to refill the gasbag. If it relies heavily on photosynthesis, then dipping below the cloud layer could prove fatal, and possibly strand it near the ground for a long time.
Anyway, those are some things to think about. Have fun!
New contributor
$endgroup$
Tail Fin
Not sure why you think flippers are impractical. The lower density of air means that thrust for a fin would be lower than in the water, but drag would also be lower. Also, you didn't say how fast the creature needs to move. Almost any fin at all would provide some thrust, so the only question is: what is the maximum thrust you could feasibly get? And that depends on how much mass you can allocate to muscle, the overall shape of the creature, and its surface roughness (to compute friction drag). If the creature isn't trying to compete with birds of prey in the speed department, then the frontal area and surface friction are probably not important, and you could get away with a large, thin, lazily waving tail fin, mostly made of chitin spines and a thin but tough membrane. You could probably get away with a medium-to-small fin also, at a compromise of performance.
Movement
If the creature moves slowly, then spherical is best. If it needs to move quickly, then making it long and skinny (or at least cylindrical) is best but compromises your lifting efficiency. Also, you probably can't put enough muscle and metabolism on it to make it "swim" quickly. Probably have to resign yourself to a very slow whale. It is likely to be unable to overcome most winds aloft, depending on its customary altitude. So, at best, it can maneuver within air currents but has little say in where it actually goes.
Food
A bigger problem, I think, is: what does it eat? Surely it can't catch flying creatures unless it has a clever lure. Surely a floating gasbag simply isn't sturdy enough to survive claws and beaks. I like the idea of the floating greenhouse. This creature can possibly do something that terrestrial plants cannot: move above the treetop/cloud layer to get unobstructed sunlight. That should be the primary motivation for its airborne nature. It can get carbon and oxygen from CO2 in the air, and it could possibly "drink" clouds to get hydrogen/water. But it still needs to fix nitrogen, and get essential trace elements like phosphorus, sulfur, iron, and other minerals. For this, it could either be an herbivore, and munch on treetops to get these vitamins, or it could be a dirt scavenger.
Imagine having long tentacles that can drop down dozens of meters, scooping loose soil from along the ground. Being close to the ground would make it vulnerable to ground-based predators and birds of prey, so it would need to have some kind of defense against those. But it would spend most of its time as high as it could manage because it's too metabolically expensive for most birds to fly very high in the sky. Once it scoops up dirt, it rises aloft, and lets symbiotic mycorrhizal webs in the "buckets" of the tentacles do the hard work of extracting trace minerals from the dirt. Basically, the tentacles would be functionally equivalent to tree roots. Once the symbionts stop giving up nutrients, the skywhale dumps the dirt and grabs some more. Mountains are safer places for gathering dirt because of fewer predators, and less altitude change, but also have lower nutrient content because fewer plant/animal/bacterial species are churning through the soil. So their scavenging would depend on their current needs and the risks involved.
Protection
To protect against lighting strikes, the skywhales could form a metallic web across their skin, like the shell of an airliner. By offering a low-resistance conductive path for lightning, they should be able to avoid the worst effects of a strike. Iron may be too heavy to use as a conductor, so perhaps they could create carbon nanotubes or graphene as the Faraday cage, which can be constructed out of pure carbon. What would be especially interesting is to create a graphene supercapacitor and have them store some of the charges flowing across their skin to use defensively. This could, of course, also be used offensively. Imagine a region on their top surface which emits predator pheromones (whatever organic volatiles might attract birds, like even blood heme). A bird flies up and comes in for a landing, expecting an easy treat on the gasbag. But when it lands, the supercapacitor, charged up from flying through a nimbus cloud, discharges and electrocutes the unsuspecting bird just as it makes contact with the skin. Then a "mouth" opens up and swallows the victim into the digestive system. Of course, a carnivorous skywhale wouldn't need to eat dirt, since birds would presumably be able to provide all the trace nutrients. However, it might not be able to eat enough birds to meet all its metabolic needs, so symbiotic/intrinsic photosynthesis would still be valuable.
Lift
I think the most difficult problem is actually lift. A fish can change its buoyancy easily because gas has a much lower density than water. So a swim bladder is relatively efficient space-wise. A proportionally sized swim bladder in your skywhale wouldn't give much altitude change. So you probably need to squeeze the entire gasbag to descend, which would presumably cost a lot of energy. The amount of work required to descend all the way to the ground, using just volumetric compression (as opposed to releasing gas) is basically the same as a hiker climbing from the ground to its maximum altitude (the altitude at which the gasbag is fully inflated). Only, the climber weighs half a ton. More problematic than the work (which can be done slowly over a long time) is the amount of force required to squeeze the gasbag because this puts hard lower bounds on the amount of muscle mass needed. The higher the max altitude, the more force required to squeeze it to the ground. Getting above 1000m may be infeasible.
Alternatively, it could simply dump hydrogen to descend quickly, and refill once it gets to the ground or a low cloud layer. At the surface, it would probably need to hover over a decent water source to obtain sufficient hydrogen to ascend. Otherwise, it would need to scavenge water vapor from clouds. And separating hydrogen from oxygen or alkanes or carbohydrates is energetically expensive (although most expensive for oxygen and least for alkanes, I think...methane is probably the easiest H source), so it couldn't do this quickly or easily. It could take days or weeks to refill the gasbag. If it relies heavily on photosynthesis, then dipping below the cloud layer could prove fatal, and possibly strand it near the ground for a long time.
Anyway, those are some things to think about. Have fun!
New contributor
edited yesterday
Gryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
New contributor
answered Mar 22 at 22:40
Lawnmower ManLawnmower Man
711
711
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For obvious reasons, wings are by far the best propulsion system as far as animals go.
Since that seems to not be possible due to that whale's anatomy however, and since we've already excluded flippers, I can think of two possible means of locomotion :
Jet propulsion : Such as the one squids use underwater by quickly ejecting water out of a valve, allowing them to reach great speeds. However due to the low density of air, jet propulsion would likely be very weak in terms of acceleration unless unrealistic amounts of pressure are applied. If you are thinking of a slower type of animal though that would be an idea.
No locomotion at all ! Some animals simply travel by drifting, such as jellyfish. Of course in the air that is not really an option, since food would probably be scarce thus depriving you of the luxury to drift aimlessly just waiting for food to land into your mouth.
In conclusion, the best option then would be a combination of both proposals, that is aerial whales that mainly navigate the wind currents by letting themselves drift along the currents, with the ability to (slightly) steer using jet propulsion. That way no enormous amounts of jet pressure would be needed, thus staying in the realm of plausibility.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For obvious reasons, wings are by far the best propulsion system as far as animals go.
Since that seems to not be possible due to that whale's anatomy however, and since we've already excluded flippers, I can think of two possible means of locomotion :
Jet propulsion : Such as the one squids use underwater by quickly ejecting water out of a valve, allowing them to reach great speeds. However due to the low density of air, jet propulsion would likely be very weak in terms of acceleration unless unrealistic amounts of pressure are applied. If you are thinking of a slower type of animal though that would be an idea.
No locomotion at all ! Some animals simply travel by drifting, such as jellyfish. Of course in the air that is not really an option, since food would probably be scarce thus depriving you of the luxury to drift aimlessly just waiting for food to land into your mouth.
In conclusion, the best option then would be a combination of both proposals, that is aerial whales that mainly navigate the wind currents by letting themselves drift along the currents, with the ability to (slightly) steer using jet propulsion. That way no enormous amounts of jet pressure would be needed, thus staying in the realm of plausibility.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For obvious reasons, wings are by far the best propulsion system as far as animals go.
Since that seems to not be possible due to that whale's anatomy however, and since we've already excluded flippers, I can think of two possible means of locomotion :
Jet propulsion : Such as the one squids use underwater by quickly ejecting water out of a valve, allowing them to reach great speeds. However due to the low density of air, jet propulsion would likely be very weak in terms of acceleration unless unrealistic amounts of pressure are applied. If you are thinking of a slower type of animal though that would be an idea.
No locomotion at all ! Some animals simply travel by drifting, such as jellyfish. Of course in the air that is not really an option, since food would probably be scarce thus depriving you of the luxury to drift aimlessly just waiting for food to land into your mouth.
In conclusion, the best option then would be a combination of both proposals, that is aerial whales that mainly navigate the wind currents by letting themselves drift along the currents, with the ability to (slightly) steer using jet propulsion. That way no enormous amounts of jet pressure would be needed, thus staying in the realm of plausibility.
$endgroup$
For obvious reasons, wings are by far the best propulsion system as far as animals go.
Since that seems to not be possible due to that whale's anatomy however, and since we've already excluded flippers, I can think of two possible means of locomotion :
Jet propulsion : Such as the one squids use underwater by quickly ejecting water out of a valve, allowing them to reach great speeds. However due to the low density of air, jet propulsion would likely be very weak in terms of acceleration unless unrealistic amounts of pressure are applied. If you are thinking of a slower type of animal though that would be an idea.
No locomotion at all ! Some animals simply travel by drifting, such as jellyfish. Of course in the air that is not really an option, since food would probably be scarce thus depriving you of the luxury to drift aimlessly just waiting for food to land into your mouth.
In conclusion, the best option then would be a combination of both proposals, that is aerial whales that mainly navigate the wind currents by letting themselves drift along the currents, with the ability to (slightly) steer using jet propulsion. That way no enormous amounts of jet pressure would be needed, thus staying in the realm of plausibility.
answered Mar 21 at 17:24
KaloyanKaloyan
25413
25413
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Up and down is all you need
Why not? Look at Google's Loon. Their balloons navigate solely by going up and down in the atmosphere, catching the winds at various altitudes. This is enormously energy efficient, and I'm guessing your hypothetical creatures are going to be very concerned with conserving energy.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Up and down is all you need
Why not? Look at Google's Loon. Their balloons navigate solely by going up and down in the atmosphere, catching the winds at various altitudes. This is enormously energy efficient, and I'm guessing your hypothetical creatures are going to be very concerned with conserving energy.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Up and down is all you need
Why not? Look at Google's Loon. Their balloons navigate solely by going up and down in the atmosphere, catching the winds at various altitudes. This is enormously energy efficient, and I'm guessing your hypothetical creatures are going to be very concerned with conserving energy.
$endgroup$
Up and down is all you need
Why not? Look at Google's Loon. Their balloons navigate solely by going up and down in the atmosphere, catching the winds at various altitudes. This is enormously energy efficient, and I'm guessing your hypothetical creatures are going to be very concerned with conserving energy.
answered Mar 22 at 19:39
Adam MillerAdam Miller
1,672716
1,672716
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think an animal like that would have the best chance if it mostly relied on:
- Following winds at different altitudes like a hot air balloon
- Having an omnivorous diet & not chasing any quick moving prey. Their diet could consist of nectar & tree top fruits, along with insects & maybe occasionally birds or squirrels
- Instead of chasing prey, relying entirely on passive mechanisms. One possibility would be an organ that charges in the sunlight to glow as an insect lure at night.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think an animal like that would have the best chance if it mostly relied on:
- Following winds at different altitudes like a hot air balloon
- Having an omnivorous diet & not chasing any quick moving prey. Their diet could consist of nectar & tree top fruits, along with insects & maybe occasionally birds or squirrels
- Instead of chasing prey, relying entirely on passive mechanisms. One possibility would be an organ that charges in the sunlight to glow as an insect lure at night.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think an animal like that would have the best chance if it mostly relied on:
- Following winds at different altitudes like a hot air balloon
- Having an omnivorous diet & not chasing any quick moving prey. Their diet could consist of nectar & tree top fruits, along with insects & maybe occasionally birds or squirrels
- Instead of chasing prey, relying entirely on passive mechanisms. One possibility would be an organ that charges in the sunlight to glow as an insect lure at night.
$endgroup$
I think an animal like that would have the best chance if it mostly relied on:
- Following winds at different altitudes like a hot air balloon
- Having an omnivorous diet & not chasing any quick moving prey. Their diet could consist of nectar & tree top fruits, along with insects & maybe occasionally birds or squirrels
- Instead of chasing prey, relying entirely on passive mechanisms. One possibility would be an organ that charges in the sunlight to glow as an insect lure at night.
edited Mar 22 at 16:36
Gryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
answered Mar 21 at 23:53
Nathan SmithNathan Smith
31415
31415
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "whale" is somewhat flat and has a "forward balloon" which can be contracted somehow (muscular tissue or whatever).
Contracting it will cause loss of buoyancy and it will start to drop nose first, this, in turn) will cause it to move forward due to its elongated/flattened shape.
Relaxing completely the reverse will happen (rise nose-first), again resulting in forward movement.
Having two forward balloons allows for a certain degree of steering.
Note this "dolphin-like" locomotion won't be enough to overcome wind push, on such a large creature (the same holds true also for all other proposed mechanisms).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "whale" is somewhat flat and has a "forward balloon" which can be contracted somehow (muscular tissue or whatever).
Contracting it will cause loss of buoyancy and it will start to drop nose first, this, in turn) will cause it to move forward due to its elongated/flattened shape.
Relaxing completely the reverse will happen (rise nose-first), again resulting in forward movement.
Having two forward balloons allows for a certain degree of steering.
Note this "dolphin-like" locomotion won't be enough to overcome wind push, on such a large creature (the same holds true also for all other proposed mechanisms).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "whale" is somewhat flat and has a "forward balloon" which can be contracted somehow (muscular tissue or whatever).
Contracting it will cause loss of buoyancy and it will start to drop nose first, this, in turn) will cause it to move forward due to its elongated/flattened shape.
Relaxing completely the reverse will happen (rise nose-first), again resulting in forward movement.
Having two forward balloons allows for a certain degree of steering.
Note this "dolphin-like" locomotion won't be enough to overcome wind push, on such a large creature (the same holds true also for all other proposed mechanisms).
$endgroup$
The "whale" is somewhat flat and has a "forward balloon" which can be contracted somehow (muscular tissue or whatever).
Contracting it will cause loss of buoyancy and it will start to drop nose first, this, in turn) will cause it to move forward due to its elongated/flattened shape.
Relaxing completely the reverse will happen (rise nose-first), again resulting in forward movement.
Having two forward balloons allows for a certain degree of steering.
Note this "dolphin-like" locomotion won't be enough to overcome wind push, on such a large creature (the same holds true also for all other proposed mechanisms).
answered 2 days ago
ZioByteZioByte
15.7k21964
15.7k21964
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The gas in a bag can be heated by directing the blood of the body through the larger, external circulating system that runs through the bag tissue or cooled by holding the blood inside the body. It would ensure up and down movements. this would allow the creature to find the horizontally moving air masses to stay in them and to get some horizontal freedom too. Together with more traditional means of navigating in the air like fins the switch between inner and outer blood circulating system would let it move around but would it be enough to survive I don't know
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 22 at 21:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The gas in a bag can be heated by directing the blood of the body through the larger, external circulating system that runs through the bag tissue or cooled by holding the blood inside the body. It would ensure up and down movements. this would allow the creature to find the horizontally moving air masses to stay in them and to get some horizontal freedom too. Together with more traditional means of navigating in the air like fins the switch between inner and outer blood circulating system would let it move around but would it be enough to survive I don't know
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 22 at 21:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The gas in a bag can be heated by directing the blood of the body through the larger, external circulating system that runs through the bag tissue or cooled by holding the blood inside the body. It would ensure up and down movements. this would allow the creature to find the horizontally moving air masses to stay in them and to get some horizontal freedom too. Together with more traditional means of navigating in the air like fins the switch between inner and outer blood circulating system would let it move around but would it be enough to survive I don't know
New contributor
$endgroup$
The gas in a bag can be heated by directing the blood of the body through the larger, external circulating system that runs through the bag tissue or cooled by holding the blood inside the body. It would ensure up and down movements. this would allow the creature to find the horizontally moving air masses to stay in them and to get some horizontal freedom too. Together with more traditional means of navigating in the air like fins the switch between inner and outer blood circulating system would let it move around but would it be enough to survive I don't know
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Gryphon
4,41323371
4,41323371
New contributor
answered Mar 22 at 21:49
Vadum RVadum R
293
293
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 22 at 21:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 22 at 21:57
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 22 at 21:57
$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 22 at 21:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question says that fins are going to be too big to be practical. However, actual flying animals have air-adapted fins, and we call them wings. For such a big animal, wings are going to be big, but not as big as they would be for a heavier than air animal or aeroplane, since they don't need to provide lift, just propulsion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question says that fins are going to be too big to be practical. However, actual flying animals have air-adapted fins, and we call them wings. For such a big animal, wings are going to be big, but not as big as they would be for a heavier than air animal or aeroplane, since they don't need to provide lift, just propulsion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question says that fins are going to be too big to be practical. However, actual flying animals have air-adapted fins, and we call them wings. For such a big animal, wings are going to be big, but not as big as they would be for a heavier than air animal or aeroplane, since they don't need to provide lift, just propulsion.
$endgroup$
The question says that fins are going to be too big to be practical. However, actual flying animals have air-adapted fins, and we call them wings. For such a big animal, wings are going to be big, but not as big as they would be for a heavier than air animal or aeroplane, since they don't need to provide lift, just propulsion.
answered 2 days ago
PerePere
2,322614
2,322614
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142043%2fbiological-blimps-propulsion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
-biology, creature-design, flight, science-based
$begingroup$
express.co.uk/news/science/686885/…
$endgroup$
– jean
Mar 21 at 20:30
3
$begingroup$
This might interest you: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53704/…
$endgroup$
– Douwe
Mar 22 at 9:22
11
$begingroup$
Did anyone suggest farts? Because I'm suggesting farts.
$endgroup$
– Will
Mar 22 at 14:45
$begingroup$
@Will close in name and in idea ;) I guess if its full of gas and can generate it...
$endgroup$
– Wilf
Mar 22 at 22:39
$begingroup$
Did you see my gasbaglets answer? It includes propulsion.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
19 hours ago