Conceptualization and Design of a Solar Powered Dirigible

Clayton Cooper, Alberto Gonzalez Campos, Chloe Lim

Case Western Reserve University

October 2nd, 2017

EMAE 355: Design of Fluid and Thermal Elements
Abstract
An autonomous, geostationary dirigible is designed to operate continuously at 15 kilometers
above Earths mean sea level while carrying a 2000 kg additional payload. The craft employs
solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells in order to generate electrical power for its guidance
systems. The 187,260.3 kg craft requires 43,376,165.8 mol of helium, 11,687.23 L of water, will
maintain a 15 km orbit indefinitely, and costs approximately $106,520,339.

1
Table of Contents
1. List of Tables 4
2. List of Figures 4
3. List of Symbols 4
3.1: Latin Symbols 4
3.2: Greek Symbols 6
4. Introduction 7
4.1: Project Scope Statement 7
4.2: Theory of Operations 8
5. Methods, Design Methodology 8
5.1: Drawings, Schematics, Design Considerations and Intent 8
5.1.1: Justification of Dirigible Type 8
5.1.2: Justification of Dirigible Shape 9
5.1.3: Gas Chamber Skin Details and Assumptions 9
5.1.4: Purpose of Structural Fins 9
5.1.5: Aerodynamic Performance of Cab and Fins 9
5.1.6: Propeller Details and Operations 10
5.1.7: Vessel Volume Implications at Sea Level and at Altitude 10
5.2: Theoretical Framework and Modeling Considerations 10
5.3: Structural Volume and Mass Calculations 11
5.3.1: Gas Chamber Volume 11
We disregard the gas chamber volume taken up by the dirigibles superstructure, but
recognize that it would have to be accounted for should this project move forward in
development. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.2: Lifting Ability of Helium 12
5.3.3: Maximum Mass of Vessel 12
5.3.4: Assumed Vessel Mass 12
5.4: Velocity, Drag, and Power Calculations 13
5.4.1: Required Tangential Velocity Relative to Earth 13
5.4.2: Thrust and Number of Propellers Required 13
5.5: Power Generation and Usage Calculations 14
5.5.1: Power Generation and Storage Methods 14
5.5.2: Power and Energy Consumption Calculations 15
5.5.3: Solar Power Generation Calculations 16
5.5.4: Fuel Cell Power Generation Calculations 16
5.6: Total Vessel Mass 18
5.7: Minimum Moles of Helium Needed and Resultant Pressures of Gas 18
5.8: Maximum Axial Force on Frame as a Function of Internal Pressure 19
6. Discussion 20
6.1: Comparison of Results With Others 20
2
 6.2: Significance of Results 22
6.3: Cost Effectiveness 22
7. Conclusion 22
Appendix 1: Drawings of Gas Chamber Frame & Rendering of Conceptual Model 25
Appendix 2: Calculation of Needed Tangential Velocity at Altitude 28
Appendix 3: Number of Dowty R391 Propellers Needed to Overcome Drag 29
Appendix 4: Fuel Cell Generation of Products 30
Appendix 5: Hydrogen Generators and Number of Storage Tanks 32
Appendix 6: Wall Tension and Maximum Axial Stress of Polar Structural Elements 33
Appendix 7: Rejected Design Alternatives 34
Using Fuel Cells Day and Night 34
Locating Subsystem Components Inside Gas Chamber 34
Spherical Gas Chamber 34
References 35

3
1. List of Tables

Table 1: Mission requirements.. 11

Table 2: Summary of power and energy usage and generation........ 15
Table 3: Power consumed by each subsystem component... 15
Table 4: Table adapted from Fuel Cell Systems Explained...................................................... 17
Table 5: Mass Breakdown, per Component.. 18
Table 6: Table comparing features of HALE-D and our dirigible 21
Table 7: Project Assumptions Effects on Difficulty.... 24

2. List of Figures

Figure 1: Power routing map.... 14

Figure 2: Conceptualization of Lockheed Martins HALE-D.. 20

3. List of Symbols

3.1: Latin Symbols

Symbol Quantity Represented Value (if applicable)

ACF Cross-sectional area of carbon fiber required 3.5 mm2
Aprop Area of propeller outlet[1] 13.2 m2
A1 solar Useful area of one photovoltaic cell[2] 0.015625 m2
Aw Wetted area of vessel (total surface area) 77,030.2 m2
a x-axis radius of ellipsoid 50 m
b y-axis radius of ellipsoid 50 m
Cf Coefficient of skin friction[3] 0.0042
c z-axis radius of ellipsoid 150 m
Eday, req Energy required to power the dirigible during daytime 60,097.2 kWh

Enight, req Energy required to power the dirigible during nighttime 48,697.2 kWh
EFC, total Daily energy output of fuel cell system 57,680.9 kWh
Esolar, total Daily energy output of all photovoltaic cells combined 61,909.6 kWh
Fd Drag force -
Fmax Maximum internal axial force due to internal pressure[4] 3.739 MN
Ft Thrust force -
H Required altitude above earth[5] 15,000 m
HN Angular momentum at state N -
LASL Lifting ability of helium at sea level[6] 1.114 kg/m3

4
 LAALT Lifting ability of helium at 15,000 m[6] 0.173 kg/m3
M Combined mass of dirigible and all components 187,260.3 kg
Molar mass of helium[7] .004 kg/mol
Maximum mass of dirigible and all components while still
Mmax 271,747.8 kg
able to maintain stable 15,000 m altitude in orbit
marea Mass per unit area of dirigible skin[8] 0.15 kg/m2
mchamber Total mass of dirigible gas chamber (skin + frame) 91,554.5 kg
mframe Total mass of dirigible structural frame 80,000 kg
mskin Total mass of dirigible gas chamber skin 11,554.5 kg
N Moles of helium needed for steady 15,000 m orbit 43,376,165.8 mol
nfuel cell number of fuel cells required 6 fuel cells
ngenerator number of hydrogen generators required 25 generators
ngastanks number of hydrogen and oxygen gas tanks 59 units
nwatertanks Number of water tansk 1 unit
nmotor, min number of electric motors and propellers required 5 motors/propellers
nmotor number of electric motors and propellers to be used 6 motors/propellers
,
nsolar, min Minimum number of solar cells required = 1,177,684 solar cells
1

nsolar Number of solar cells to be used 1,213,200 solar cells

Pday, req Total power required to power the dirigible during daytime 5008.1 kW
P1 fuel cell, gross Gross power output of one fuel cell[9] 901.12 kW
P1 fuel cell, net Net power output of one fuel cell 801.12 kW
PFC, total Total net power output of fuel cell system 4806.7 kW
[10]
Pmotor Power output of one electric motor 645 kW
Power needed to operate one propeller at full speed
Pmotor, req 3430 kW
at sea level[1]
Power needed to operate one propeller at full speed
Pmotor, req, ALT 2830 kW
at 15,000 m
Total power required to power the dirigible during
Pnight, req 4058.1 kW
nighttime
P1 solar Power output of one photovoltaic cell[2] 4.2525 W
Psolar, total Total power output of all photovoltaic cells 5159.1 kW
phelium, SL Helium pressure inside gas chamber at sea level 68,909.6 Pa
phelium, ALT Helium pressure inside gas chamber at 15,000 m 49,854.1 Pa
[5]
pSL Atmospheric pressure at sea level 100,000 Pa
pALT Atmospheric pressure at 15,000 m[5] 12,000 Pa
5
 qSun Solar flux[11] 1360.8 W/m2
REarth Radius of earth[12] 6,371,000 m
rmin Minimum radius of gas chamber frame members .001056 m
[5]
TALT Average temperature at 15,000 m -56 C
[13]
TCLE Average high temperature in Cleveland in July 27 C
tskin Thickness of dirigible skin 0.000229 m
Voltage of each fuel cell stack 0.9355 volts
Vchamber Volume of dirigible gas chamber 1,570,796.3 m3
Tangential velocity of vessel at 15,000 m required by
vCOM conservation of angular momentum, relative to Earths 1.0938 m/s
velocity, not including headwinds
ve Exit velocity of propeller airstream[1] 150 m/s
vheadwind Velocity of wind at 15,000 m[5] 30 m/s
Total tangential velocity at required altitude (vheadwind +
v 31.0938 m/s
vCOM)

3.2: Greek Symbols

Symbol Quantity Represented Value (if applicable)

Gibbs free energy of fuel cells 177.4 kJ/mol
STP Dynamic viscosity of air at standard temperature 0.000017 Pa*s
ALT Dynamic viscosity of air at altitudinal temperature TALT 0.000014 Pa*s
solar Efficiency of solar cell[5] 0.20
fuel cell Efficiency of fuel cell [5]
0.60
Clevelands angle of latitude [14]
41.482222 N
air, ALT Density of air at 15,000 m [5]
0.2 kg/m3
air, SL Density of air at sea level[15] 1.292 kg/m3
helium, ALT Density of helium at 15,000 m[15] 0.027 kg/m3
helium, SL Density of helium at sea level[15] 0.178 kg/m3
skin Density of gas chamber skin 1,200 kg/m3
CF Shear strength of carbon fiber[16] 74.0 MPa
y, CF Yield strength of carbon fiber[16] 1.080 GPa
Angular velocity of Cleveland about Earths axis = .00004830207346
CLE
Earthsin( ) rad/s
Earth Angular velocity of Earth at equator 0.000072921159 rad/s
Orbit Angular velocity of dirigible in orbit = Earth 0.000072921159 rad/s
6
Most citations for the data included in this report is found in the above two tables. For clarity, the
above citations will take the place of whichever in-text citations they can. All quantities not
explicitly cited above are either fundamental quantities, like angular momentum, or are derived
from other values, like the angular velocity of the Earth.

4. Introduction

Autonomous, geostationary lighter-than-air vehicles have been of great interest since the
inception of their nonautonomous predecessors during the latter half of the 19th century. Rigid
and semi-rigid dirigibles have been of particular interest since, unlike blimps, these types of craft
have a robust full or partial frame to them that allows them to withstand harsher conditions for
longer periods of time. Defense forces and intelligence agencies around the world have taken
interest in these vehicles as mechanisms of intelligence gathering, combat, and border security.
As reported by GlobalSecurity.org, the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) [claims] that 11 high-altitude autonomous airships would provide overlapping radar
coverage of all maritime and southern border approaches to the continental U.S., and may be a
significant asset in homeland defense efforts.[17] Additionally, the telecommunications industry
has a keen interest in such a system as it would broaden continental and intercontinental line-of-
sight between satellites and terrestrial facilities.

If a truly autonomous dirigible is to be made to maintain geostationary orbit, it must not only be
able to maneuver while in orbit, but it must be able to generate its own power to do so. The most
feasible solution to this design constraint is the implementation of solar panels on the hull of the
vehicle. However this means that energy must be stored aboard the vessel for use while on the
dark side of the earth. To this end, electrolysis of water can be used to separate hydrogen and
oxygen while the vehicle is between the sun and the earth and these gases can be recombined via
a fuel cell while on the dark side of the earth in order to provide the needed power to maneuver.

This report provides a framework for future development of an autonomous and geostationary
lighter-than-air vehicle to be deployed at 15 kilometers above Earths mean sea level. It provides
a framework for a general purpose vehicle and does not favor defense, telecommunications, or
any other industries. This report builds upon Lockheed Martins High Altitude Airship (HAA)
project that has been ongoing since 1998.

4.1: Project Scope Statement

The purpose of this project is broadly described as being to design a dirigible that can operate
continuously, autonomously, and geosynchronously. Based on the project deliverables, our team
fully defines the physical shape and subsystem infrastructure of such a vessel in this report. This
means a) that the solar cell, fuel cell, hydrogen generator, electric motor, and propeller systems
are fully defined with regard to number of components required, resource inputs/outputs (power,
water, air) and that b) the superstructure of the vessel has been conceptualized.
7
 The above scope does NOT include the full structural blueprint of the vessel nor the
electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic circuitry and control systems required in order for this
vessel to functionally satisfy the project requirements. These details are accounted for by
assuming an additional 2,000 kg for circuitry and control and by grossly overestimating
the mass of the vessels superstructure (which allows addition of mass via structural
reinforcement, use of trusses, etc.)
The above scope also does NOT include the methods of connecting the skin of the
dirigible to the superstructure nor does it include the structural elements required in order
to support the cab, propellers, and fins. These scope constraints are realized in further
detail later in this report.
The above scope does NOT include helium leakage calculations as these were above the
mathematical acumen of the team members.
Lastly, the above scope does NOT include the granular and technical details regarding the
manufacture of the dirigible, the procurement of materials for the dirigible, and the
control system operations and checks required for operation. These will be handled by
appropriate industry experts at a later time.

4.2: Theory of Operations

Like similar traditional vessels, this dirigible will be constructed on land and launched from there
as well. It will be launched on an average July day in Cleveland (27 C). Once in its launch
location, the vessel will be tethered down and its systems and subsystems will be initialized.
Once all necessary system checks have been performed and the launch supervisor(s) have given
the green light, the necessary moles of helium will be pumped into the gas chamber. Once all
needed helium has been pumped into the vessel, the tethers will be released and the vessel will
begin its rise to 15,000 m. The nose of the vessel will be pointing west so it can combat drag
using its propellers. It will be countering drag at all times, including during its rise. Once in orbit,
the dirigible will operate autonomously, continuously, and geosynchronously. It will gradually
descend as helium permeates the gas chamber skin until it de-orbits (though this is non-existent
in this report in light of the third scope constraint above.)

5. Methods, Design Methodology

5.1: Drawings, Schematics, Design Considerations and Intent

Drawings of the vessels superstructure can be found in Appendix 1.

5.1.1: Justification of Dirigible Type

8
A rigid dirigible is chosen due to its robust design and ability to provide anchoring points for the
dirigible skin. Appendix 2 shows that the wall tension at the poles furthest from the center of
volume of the gas chamber is almost 4 MN. Without a rigid skeleton, the skin of the dirigible
would be responsible for withstanding this entire load. With a rigid frame, the skin can be tied
into said frame in order to distribute the otherwise severe wall tension. This report assumes that
the skin is the frame, or rather that the skin is affixed in such a way that the loads on the
structure and frame are withstood solely by the frame. The slender carbon fiber rods used in the
model with this report will almost assuredly be replaced by more detailed truss members and
cross-linked supports if this vessel were to be pursued by those with much greater resources than
this team.

5.1.2: Justification of Dirigible Shape

An ellipsoidal shape with a = b < c is chosen in order to conform to existing drag data on
ellipsoids. Reference [3] was brought to the groups attention during an EMAE 355 lecture and
was thusly used for this designs assumed coefficient of drag, Cf.

5.1.3: Gas Chamber Skin Details and Assumptions

The skin of the gas chamber is made of .229 mm thick polyester fabric. For this report, this
fabric is considered to be 100% impermeable to helium and completely UV resistant. Helium
leakage calculations and UV degradation calculations prove to be beyond the ability and
knowledge of those responsible for this project. The fabric will be conjoined using heat bonding,
a method generally regarded as being more mechanically sound than sewing[8].

5.1.4: Purpose of Structural Fins

Fins exist on the dirigible purely to prevent roll in orbit. Considering that the mission
requirements dictate that only headwinds need be countered, one may assume that lateral winds
on the vessel are negligible. Still, we prevent the vessel from rolling by using fins which demand
that lateral winds be tremendous and steady for the vessel to begin rolling. This is especially true
considering that the cab of the vessel is located at its lowest point, orienting it right-side-up as an
equilibrium position. Any roll can also be counted by the articulating propellers mounted about
the center of volume of the gas chamber.

5.1.5: Aerodynamic Performance of Cab and Fins

The fins and cab are considered to have negligible drag compared to the dirigibles gas chamber.
This can be accomplished by constructing these elements from extremely smooth materials
which experience very little skin drag. The exact details of accomplishing this are beyond the
9
scope of this report but are considered to be feasible. The fins are also considered to produce no
lift. Additionally, the fins and cab are believed to be constructed and loaded such to maintain the
vessels center of mass in the same x-y plane as the gas chambers center of volume.

5.1.6: Propeller Details and Operations

Articulating propellers are mounted about the gas chambers center of volume in order to
maximize airflow through them. Development of the device which would allow the propellers to
articulate in a trace of a nearly total sphere is beyond the scope of this project. Mounting
propellers near the bow or stern of the vessel would require that either a) the propellers suck air
into them or exhaust along the curvature of the craft since they were too close to the curvature of
the gas chamber (which would increase drag) or b) they be mounted so far away from the
superstructure that the resultant moment arm would be impractical to support. Additionally,
mounting the propellers about the gas chambers center of volume allows for roughly torque-less
navigation with regard to the vessel as a whole while repositioning assuming that each
propellers exhaust is parallel with one another or cancel out one anothers moments about the
vessels center of mass; propellers on the bow or stern would cause the craft to yaw during every
navigational move, requiring constant correction and thus greater power consumption.

5.1.7: Vessel Volume Implications at Sea Level and at Altitude

The vessels maximum volume is much, much greater than that required at sea level in order to
account for the expansion of helium at 15,000 m. This is simply because the number of moles
required for operation at 15,000 m takes up much less volume at sea level than at altitude. If the
vessel was fully or even mostly pressurized at sea level, it would burst open at altitude as the
helium expands within the gas chamber. On this topic, we assume that we are launching this craft
during the average Cleveland July, so a 27 C day[13].

5.2: Theoretical Framework and Modeling Considerations

Assigned Requirements:
The dirigible would operate continuously, autonomously, and geosynchronously
The dirigible would operate at an altitude of 50,000 ft or 15,000 km
The dirigible would be able to operate if headwinds were 30 m/s
The dirigible would be powered by sunlight, storing energy during sunlight hours by
dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen gas and utilizing the stored energy during
reduced sunlight hours/nighttime by generating electricity through the recombination of
hydrogen and oxygen gas into water using fuel cells
The dirigible would be able to operate with a solar cell efficiency of 20% and a fuel cell
efficiency of 60%
The dirigible would be able to have a maximum payload of 2000 kg
10
With the above requirements, we were able to derive further assumptions and requirements in
conceptualizing our dirigible:

Assigned Requirements Derived Values and Assumptions

Operating above Cleveland, OH, USA*

Operate continuously, autonomously, Utilizes helium gas for buoyancy
and geosynchronously Counters drag in order to maintain angular
velocity of Earth

Pressure at 15 km altitude is 12,000 Pa*

Temperature at 15 km altitude is -56oC
(217.15oK)*
Operate at an altitude of 15,000 km
Density of air at 15 km altitude is 0.2 kg/m3*
Viscosity of air at 15 km altitude is 0.000014
Pas*

Assume skin friction coefficient of 0.0042 per

Operate with headwinds of 30 m/s
Reference [3]

Solar-powered and storing energy Assume 12h of sunlight, 12h of nighttime

during the day, utilizing fuel cells throughout the year*
during the night with a solar cell Solar flux of 1360.8 W/m2 Reference [11]
efficiency of 20% and fuel cell
efficiency of 60%

Maximum payload of 2000 kg 2000 kg payload*

*Any values or assumptions marked with an asterisk were stated by instructor J. Prahl

Table 1: Mission requirements

5.3: Structural Volume and Mass Calculations

5.3.1: Gas Chamber Volume

The general equation for the volume of an ellipsoid is:

4
Vchamber =
3

Substituting in our values for a, b, and c, we find that

Vchamber = 1,570,796.327 m3

11
We disregard the gas chamber volume taken up by the dirigibles superstructure, but recognize
that it would have to be accounted for should this project move forward in development.

5.3.2: Lifting Ability of Helium

The lifting ability of a closed chamber of gas is proportional to the difference between the
density of the medium through which that gas travels and the density of that gas, or:

LA = (air - gas)

Thusly, the lifting abilities of helium at sea level and at 15,000 m are:

LASL = (air, SL - helium, SL) = 1.114 kg/m3

LAALT = (air, ALT - helium, ALT) = 0.173 kg/m3

Note that the above two equations mean that the mass-volume relationship for the craft is
dictated by the lifting ability at 15,000 m, not at sea level. If the volume is too low or the mass is
too high, the helium will run out of lifting ability short of the 15,000 m objective.

5.3.3: Maximum Mass of Vessel

The maximum mass of the entire vessel to retain steady altitude in orbit (Mmax) is a function of
the lifting ability of helium at altitude and the volume available to the gas:

Mmax = VchamberLAALT = 271,747.8 kg

This takes into account the change in density of helium as a function of temperature and pressure
since the lifting ability of helium at altitude accounts for the above factors. This also assumes a
completely rigid gas chamber skin, which is of course not the case. This assumption is made in
order to avoid differential equations of gas chamber volume as a function of the materials
elasticity, atmospheric pressure, and temperature. We find later in this report that this maximum
mass is more than enough to satisfy the mission objectives even with the assumption of a
completely rigid skin.

5.3.4: Assumed Vessel Mass

The dirigible uses .229 mm thick polyester film for its skin[8]. This material has has the following
ratio of mass to unit area:

12
 marea = 0.15 kg/m2

Thusly, the total mass of the skin is:

mskin = Awmarea = 11,554.5 kg

The structure of the dirigible is made up of concentric ellipses of carbon fiber tube spread about
the x- and z-axes. As identified above, the minimum volume of the gas chamber is a function of
the mass. However the maximum mass is also a function of the volume of the gas chamber. This
is an indeterminate system. To remedy this, our team made an initial estimate that the frame of
the structure, including the cab containing subsystem and miscellaneous components, had a mass
of 80,000 kg.

With the above assumption, our dirigibles physical structure has a mass (mchamber) of 91,554.5
kg with a gas chamber volume of 1,570,796.3 m3.

5.4: Velocity, Drag, and Power Calculations

5.4.1: Required Tangential Velocity Relative to Earth

Accounting for drag and headwinds, the required velocity for geosynchronous orbit for our
dirigible (v) is 30.725 m/s relative to the Earth. This value was obtained as shown in Appendix
3.

5.4.2: Thrust and Number of Propellers Required

There were four key assumptions made in calculating thrust, the foundations of which come
from reference [1]:

The propellers to be used would be the same as those found on the Lockheed C-130
Hercules cargo plane, the Dowty R391 (Aprop = 13.2 m2, based on a propeller diameter
of 4.1 m)
Since the cruising speed of the C-130 is greater than 150 m/s, the velocity at the propeller
outlet must be at least 150 m/s (ve = 150 m/s)
Typical operation of the Dowty R391 requires 3,430 kW of power output from each of
the planes engines. This is directly proportional to the viscosity of the fluid through
which the propeller blades travel. Since ALT is 82.5% ST, Each propeller needs only
2830 kW in order to operate at full effectiveness
The cab and fins of the dirigible produced drag that was negligible compared to that of
the gas chamber skin (the compromise here was that the surface area of the entire
ellipsoid was used for drag calculations, not just that exposed after adding on the cab,
propellers, and fins)

13
With these assumptions, the thrust required to overcome the drag caused by v is 30,540.8 N.
Each propeller provides 28,460 N of thrust at normal operating conditions. However, the electric
motors chosen cannot output the required 2,830 kW as determined above and can only output
645 kW, or 22.8% of the output of the C-130s engines. Thusly, it is assumed that each propeller
can put out only 22.8% of its ideal thrust, or 6498.5 N. 22.8% is considered to be our
propulsive efficiency. This means that a minimum of five propellers are required to overcome
drag, but we use six in order to have a larger thrust-drag factor of safety and to have symmetry
about the vessels yz-plane. These values were obtained as shown in Appendix 4.

5.5: Power Generation and Usage Calculations

5.5.1: Power Generation and Storage Methods

Figure 1: Power routing map

The process of how electrical energy is being produced and distributed throughout the dirigible
may be seen above in Figure 1 where the orange lines represent occurrences during daylight
hours and the blue lines represent occurrences during low light/nighttime hours. During daylight
hours, the dirigible utilizes solar cells located externally on the gas chamber/dirigibles skin to
convert 20% of the solar energy from the Sun into electrical energy. The electrical energy
converted is then proportioned into three uses: to power the hydrogen/oxygen generator for the
dissociation of water, to power the dirigibles propulsion system which maintains its
geosynchronous orbit, and to power other miscellaneous systems found in the dirigible. The
hydrogen/oxygen generator dissociates water taken from the water storage tank through
electrolysis, producing hydrogen and oxygen gas which are then stored in pressurized cylinders
for later use. During low sunlight and nighttime hours, the hydrogen and oxygen gas from these
cylinders are fed into the fuel cells to produce electricity through the recombination of the gases
back into water. The electrical energy produced from this process is used to power the propulsion
and miscellaneous systems while the regenerated water is returned back into the water storage
tank for later use if required. A summary of dirigibles power requirements and output where
excess may be used towards miscellaneous systems and additional inefficiencies not initially
accounted may be seen in Table 2 below.
14
 Power Power Excess Energy Energy Excess
Required Produced Power Required Produced Energy
(kW) (kW) (kW) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Daytime 5,008.1 5,159.1 151.0 60,097.2 61,909.6 1,812.4

Nighttime 4,058.1 4,806.7 748.6 48,697.2 57,680.9 8,983.7

Table 2: Summary of power and energy usage and generation

5.5.2: Power and Energy Consumption Calculations

Subsystem power consumption is represented in the following table. Calculation of the number
of units required comes later in this report.

Quantity Power Consumed per Total Power

Component
Required Component (kW) Consumed (kW)

Ballard FC VeloCity-
6 100.00 600.00
HD100 Fuel Cells

TELEDYNE
Hydrogen/Oxygen Generator 25 38.00 950.00
TITAN HMXT-200 Series

Siemens 1HQ7 355-

5NE7740-2YV1 Electric 6 676.35 4058.10
Motors

Table 3: Power consumed by each subsystem component

We estimated the total power required to operate the dirigible during sunlight hours as the sum of
the total power consumed by the hydrogen/oxygen generators and the electric motors. This
resulted in a total required daytime power, , of 5008.1 kW. It should be noted that the
power consumption per generator is an estimate given that the manufacturers specifications
lacked information on the products current use.

Similarly, we estimated the total power required to operate the dirigible during low light and
nighttime hours as the sum of the total power consumed by the electric motors and the
propellers. The power consumed by the fuel cell was not included in this calculation as it was
eliminated in our net power of the fuel cell which we then used as a representation of the total
power produced. This resulted in a total required nighttime power, , of 4058.1 kW.

15
Over the course of a day assumed to be 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness, the energy
consumption requirement for daytime and nighttime are , = 60,097.2 kWh and
, = 48,697.2 kWh respectively.

5.5.3: Solar Power Generation Calculations

In our dirigible, we are using SunPowers Gen II Superior Performance, Medium Cosmetic
Quality solar cells to power our dirigible during the daytime.

With a solar flux of the Sun, being 1360.8 W/m2 and each solar cell being 0.015625 m2 in
area, we would expect each solar cell to produce 4.2525 W after accounting for a solar cell
efficiency of 20%. The calculations for this value can be seen below.

= 1

1 = 4.2525

The minimum number of solar cells required to sustain our dirigibles exact daytime power
,
requirements was determined to be 1,177,684 units. This was given by , = .
1
Increasing this amount by 3% to account for the power required for the operation of
miscellaneous systems, we were able to obtain a total of 1,213,200 units ( ). This would
result in a total of 5159.1 kW being produced (Psolar, total) or 61,909.6 kWh of energy (Esolar, total)
being produced over the course of a 12 hour exposure.

Each with an area of .015625 m2, the 1,213,200 solar cells cover an area of 18,956.25 m2.
This represents 24.6% of the gas chambers surface area and is easily achievable.

Since the dirigibles gas chamber is so broad and the above 25% of its surface area can be
arranged on the chambers flattest points, the curvature of the vessel is considered to have little
effect on solar flux. In other words, the assumption is made that all solar cells receive the suns
rays at a 0 angle of incidence.

5.5.4: Fuel Cell Power Generation Calculations

We are using Ballards FC VeloCity-HD100 Fuel Cells to power our dirigible during the
nighttime.

16
 Table 4: Table adapted from Fuel Cell Systems Explained

We were able to determine the power generated by each fuel cell through applying the concepts
found in Larminie and Dicks Fuel Cell Systems Explained. The voltage in each fuel cell
stack, was determined to be 0.9355 volts based on our assumed fuel cell efficiency, fuel cell, of
60%. Using the assumed efficiency of 60% and given table in the book (as seen above in Table
4), the Gibbs Free Energy, , for our fuel cells was determined to be -177.4 kJ/mol and the
corresponding maximum electromotive force (EMF) was shown to be 0.92V. This information
allowed us to determined the the effective specific electrical energy being produced at 60%
efficiency (25.072 kWh/kg). We were also able to determine the rate of water produced was
35.9407 kg/h/fuel cell. Combining these, the power produced per fuel cell, 1 , was
found to be 901.12 kW. With a 100 kW consumption rate, the net power produced per fuel cell,
1 , is 801.12 kW. The calculations for this can be found in Appendix 4.

Based on stoichiometry, the amount of water produced by the total fuel cell system reaction per
hour is 35.9407 kg/h/fuel cell * 12 hrs = 215.65 kg/hr. Likewise, there is an additional 106.84 kg
of oxygen and 7.14 kg of hydrogen produced during the night time. If we use 56.5542 kg of
oxygen (1767.32 mol) and the 7.14 kg of hydrogen (3534.65 mol), we can get an additional
63.69 kg of water produced during the nighttime (12 hour period).

In other words the total water returned from 12 hour total cycle fuel cells is 2651.43 kg. Based
on the total amount of water consumed by the generator (3060 kg) over the 12 hour period, We
need an additional mass of 408.57 kg of water for the system to be continuous. This leads to a
minimum amount of water mass to be 3468.57 kg for fully continuous dirigible operation.
For the amount of storage necessary and further description of the generator, please refer to
Appendix 5.

As with the solar cells, we determined the minimum number of fuel cells required to sustain our
,
dirigible nighttime power requirements by the formula, = . The number of
1 ,

fuel cells required was determined to be 6. This value results in producing 18.4% more power
than the minimum required which may be allocated towards the miscellaneous systems as with
the extra power produced by the solar cells. As a result, the total power produced by fuel cells,
17
PFC, total is 4806.7 kW and the total energy produced by fuel cells, EFC, total is 57,680.9 kWh (over
12 hours).

5.6: Total Vessel Mass

The total mass of the vessel (M) is approximated to be 187,260.3 kg. A breakdown is shown
below:

Element Mass/Unit Quantity Total Mass

Structural Frame 80,000 kg 1 80,000 kg

Gas Chamber Skin 0.15 kg/m2 77,030.2 m2 11,554.5 kg

Mission Payload 2,000 kg 1 2,000 kg

Fuel Cells 285 kg/cell 6 cells 1,710 kg

Hydrogen Generators 675 kg/generator 25 generators 16,875 kg

Water Tanks 108.9 kg/tank 1 tank 108.9 kg

Water 3468.6 kg 1 3,468.6 kg

Hydrogen Storage Tanks 138 kg/tank 39 tanks 5,382 kg

Oxygen Storage Tanks 138 kg/tank 20 tanks 2,760 kg

Solar Cells 0.03125 kg/cell 1,213,200 cells 37,912.5 kg

Electric Motors 3600 kg/motor 6 motors 21,600 kg

Propellers 314.8 kg/propeller 6 propellers 1888.8 kg

Miscellaneous Subsystems 2,000 kg 1 2,000 kg

Table 5: Mass Breakdown, per Component

5.7: Minimum Moles of Helium Needed and Resultant Pressures of Gas

With a set mass of 187,260.3 kg, the minimum number of moles of helium gas for steady 15,000
m orbit can be determined in the following way:

= ( ) (/ ) (/ )

1
= , ( )

18
 N = 43,376,165.8 mol

Using the ideal gas law and assuming a completely rigid skin as we did earlier, one can find the
pressure of the above N moles of helium at sea level and at 15,000 m:

phelium, ALT = 49,854.1 Pa

phelium SL = 68,909.6 Pa

Recalling that the atmospheric pressures at sea level and at altitude are regarded as being
100,000 Pa and 12,000 Pa, respectively, we notice that the gas chamber is not tautly inflated at
sea level but is in orbit. The pressure difference between the inside of the chamber and
surrounding air is -31,090.4 Pa at sea level and 37,854.1 Pa at altitude

5.8: Maximum Axial Force on Frame as a Function of Internal Pressure

The maximum axial force on the gas chamber frame caused by internal pressure occurs at the
poles of the ellipsoid furthest from the center of volume. In this case, that means that said
maximum force occurs at the poles located at a distance c along the z-axis. That force is 3.739
MN for our gas chamber. This means that the minimum radius of the round carbon fiber bar
stock being used for the gas chamber structure is .001056 m. These two values were calculated
as seen in Appendix 6.

It is assumed that the skin of the gas chamber is secured in such a way that the severity of the
wall tension at any of the three poles or anywhere else is not felt in the skin.

19
6. Discussion

6.1: Comparison of Results With Others

Figure 2: Conceptualization of Lockheed Martins HALE-D [18]

Lockheed Martin envisions a future where High Altitude Airship (HAA) technologies would
operate above the unmanned and autonomously in the stratosphere with geostationary orbit for
sustained, ultra long endurance missions[18]. HAAs are theorized to have multiple purposes
ranging from intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to communications. In an
effort towards developing their ideal HAA, they developed the High Altitude Long Endurance
Demonstrator (HALE-D) as a proof of concept (subscale prototype). The HALE-D is driven by
two electric propulsion motors and powers its operations using thin-film solar cells and
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. It is expected to operate continuously at 60,000 ft (18.288 km)
for two weeks while also providing 500 W to a user-defined 50 lb (22.68 kg) payload suite.[17]
Below is a table provided by GlobalSecurity.org of the specifications of the HALE-D.

HALE-D Our Dirigible

500,000 ft3, 3,700,000 ft3
Hull Volume 1,570,796.33 m3
(14,158.42 m3, 104,772.33 m3)
240 ft, 500 ft
Length 300 m
(73.152 m, 152.4 m)
70 ft, 150 ft
Diameter 100m
(21.336 m, 45.72 m)
Propulsion
2 kW Electric 676.35kW Electric
Motors

Energy Storage 40 kWh Li-ion Battery 61,910 kWh Solar Cell System
20
 57,681 kWh Fuel Cell System

Solar Array 15 kW Thin-film 5,159 kW Thin-film

20 KTAS at 60,000 ft
Cruise Speed 30.72 m/s at 15 km (50,000 ft)
(10.29 m/s)

Station-keeping 60,000 ft
15,000 m
Altitude (18,288 m)

50 lbs
Payload Weight 2,000 kg
(22.68 kg)

Payload Power 500 watts -

Endurance > 15 days Continuous

Recoverable Yes -

Reusable Yes -

$50,000,000
Cost (accounting for inflation, $106,520,339.14
$66,717,119.57)

Table 6: Table comparing features of HALE-D and our dirigible[17]

Through Table 6, we are able to notice four key differences between our dirigible and the
HALE-D. The first being the size: our dirigible is considerably larger than the HALE-D,
approximately twice as wide, high, and long. The second being the cost: our dirigible has an
approximate cost of $106,520,339.14. After accounting for inflation, this is 60% greater than the
cost of the HALE-D. A consideration in this discrepancy is related to our third difference, the
endurance of the two dirigibles. The HALE-D is only required to operate a minimum of 15 days
while our dirigible is designed to operate continuously. A continuous endurance for a dirigible
of our size results in a greater need of energy and hence, a higher number of units for propulsion,
power generation, and energy storage which, in turn, accounts for the greater cost. The final key
difference is how we store energy for nighttime use. Unlike our dirigible, the HALE-D utilizes a
40 kWh lithium-ion battery that we can estimate to cost approximately $6,953.70 and weighs
73.618 kg (based on a similar battery, the Outback Power EnergyCell 1100RE-24)[19]. This
would mean a cost of $173.84/kWh and a mass of 1.840 kg/kWh. Contrastingly, our fuel cell
system results in a cost of $71.95/kWh and 0.525 kg/kWh. From this, we can see that our fuel
cell system is 60% cheaper and over 300% more efficient to produce the same amount of energy.
With the use of a fuel cell system, there is the need for a water dissociation system, the storage of
hydrogen and oxygen gas, the storage of water, and miscellaneous pumps and tubing in addition
to the actual fuel cells. The HALE-Ds design eliminates the need for a large amount of space to
store these devices, especially with battery technology improving a great deal. In the future, we
are likely to see batteries become smaller in terms of mass and volume, cheaper, and larger in
storage. With this progress and with a potential need to eliminate additional mass and space and
21
a need to minimize the number of subsystems, the use of batteries as energy storage may prove
to be a growing trend despite the current negatives.

6.2: Significance of Results

Given that our dirigible is planned to operate continuously and autonomously, we do not expect
it to be used as a mode of transportation for people or cargo. We may, however, expect it to serve
similar purposes as the HALE-D. In addition to ISR and telecommunications uses, the dirigible
could be utilized for research if placed over remote locations. Our dirigible may be located above
a selected location in the ocean to monitor and record footage of humpback whales for research,
for example. Because our large dirigible is able to operate continuously, autonomously
(unmanned), maintain a geosynchronous orbit above the selected location, and we are likely able
to cover a vast area, this would make it more than ideal for such purposes. Additionally, if placed
over a city, the blimp may serve multiple purposes at once as a place for commercial
advertisement on unused space on the skin in addition to the earlier mentioned uses. This would
mimic the actions of the Goodyear Tire Blimp over Akron, OH.

6.3: Cost Effectiveness

We estimate the cost of our dirigible to be approximately $106,520,339.14. It should be noted

that this value is conceptual and does not fully reflect actual prices found in the market (the cost
of the motors and propellers used were estimates, for example). Unfortunately, with such a high
cost of production, we do not expect to see much profit today but we expect a positive trend in
the cost effectiveness and profitability of such a product over the next few decades.

Over the past two decades, we have seen an increased amount of grants put towards the
development of airships and the development of more efficient renewable energy technologies.
For example, Lockheed Martins development of the HALE-D and HAA mentioned earlier are a
derivative of their initial $40 million agreement with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency in
2003.[20] Similarly, Hybrid Air Vehicless (HAV) Airlander 10 -- the largest aircraft in the world
-- continues to attract investors, receiving monetary support from various governments and
leading organizations to develop green transport initiatives. In 2015, HAV was awarded a $2.7
million grant from the European Union on top of a $5 million grant from the United Kingdom
government and potentially over $2.3 million in crowdfunding equity[21]. With future
improvements in technology and an increase in demand (and need), we expect to see a decrease
in the cost of production, an increase in the effectiveness of our design, and an increase in the
price of such a product. This would ultimately lead to an increase in the cost effectiveness and
profitability of our product.

7. Conclusion

The dirigible presented in this work strongly suggests that the original mission can be
accomplished using present-day technology and methods. This report demonstrates that
22
hydrogen generators, fuel cells, and solar panels can work in conjunction to produce enough
power to ensure full autonomy of the dirigible.

This report does not flush out the structural mechanics at play in the dirigible designed herein.
While these details were considered out of scope, the designed dirigible is well under the
maximum possible mass for its size and can thus have the mass of its frame doubled if need be.
Further refinement in this area should come at the hands of a structural engineer.

This is by no means a flight-ready plan but rather a strong blueprint for further refinement. One
should note that many assumptions were made that increased the difficulty of achieving the
mission objectives while very few were made to decrease that difficulty:

Major Assumption Effect on Project Difficulty Relative Effect

Minor improvement since no

Skin is 100% UV-resistant and
minimum required operation +1
helium impermeable
time was given

Fins and cab are drag-less

(compensated by assuming that
drag on the vessel includes the
Neutral 0
areas of gas chamber skin that
would otherwise be
covered/removed by fins and cab)

Moderate improvement since

12 hours daylight + 12 hours night this removed the worst-case
+2
per day scenario of the time around the
winter solstice

Moderate setback since

maximum dirigible mass is a
Rigid gas chamber function of gas chamber -2
volume and a rigid chamber
limits the maximum mass

Major setback since the outlet

velocity of the R391 propeller
is probably much greater than
this value but the mathematics
ve = 150 m/s -3
behind determining this value
and the ability to
experimentally test it were
beyond the reach of this team.

Minor setback since this was a

6 propellers must be used matter of safety but still added -1
substantial mass to the vessel

23
 Moderate improvement because
Wall tension felt in frame, not carbon fiber has a much
+2
skin stronger yield strength than
does our skin material.

CHANGE IN PROJECT EASE DUE TO ASSUMPTIONS: -1

Table 7: Project Assumptions Effects on Difficulty

If we can fulfill the mission objectives under these harder conditions, we are confident that we
could do so using more accurate and easier constraints. Furthermore, we are confident that with
larger amounts of resources, extended timelines, and more inclusive scopes, this mission would
indeed be feasible at this point in time.

24
Appendix 1: Drawings of Gas Chamber Frame & Rendering of Conceptual Model

25
26
27
Appendix 2: Calculation of Needed Tangential Velocity at Altitude

Conservation of angular momentum dictates that:

H1 = H2

Assume that state 1 is when the dirigible is stationary on the Earths surface and state 2 is the
dirigible in orbit at 15,000 m above sea level. Angular momentum is conserved about Earths
axis of revolution assuming no drag, or rather that the dirigible counters drag with equal and
opposite thrust at all times during its flight. Then the above equation becomes:

MREarth2CLE = M(REarth + H)2Orbit

Intuition says that in order for the dirigible to be geosynchronous, the orbital angular velocity
must equal Earths angular velocity, or that Earth = Orbit. Mathematically, this means that:

2
= =
( + )2

Considering that the coefficient of Earth on the left side of the above equation is equal to .998
and there is truncation and rounding error involved in some of the data being used, it is safe to
say that the increase in required angular velocity due to H is negligible and that CLE = Orbit.
This is further supported in reference [22], wherein the author claims that, in our circumstances,
CLE Orbit.

From the above calculations, we can note that the linear velocity relative to earths surface
needed by the dirigible in orbit is equal to its absolute orbital linear velocity minus the linear
velocity of its launch point in Cleveland plus the velocity needed to overcome vheadwind at altitude
(since the vessel is geosynchronous and so accounting for vheadwind at the end of this calculation
effectively corrects the earlier assumption that angular momentum is conserved):

v = CLE(REarth + H) - CLEREarth + vheadwind

v = 30.725 m/s

28
Appendix 3: Number of Dowty R391 Propellers Needed to Overcome Drag

The general form of the drag equation is as follows[23]:

1
= 2 ( )
2

The general form of the thrust equation for a propeller is as follows[24]:

= (2 2 )
2

In order to be geostationary, the thrust and drag forces must be equal and opposite. Since the
above thrust equation is per-propeller, we can represent the aforementioned relationship via:

where n is any positive integer. Substituting in known values, we find that the drag on the craft is
20,982 N and that one R391 propeller provides 28,460 N of thrust at standard operating
conditions, or

= 30,451
, = 28,460

However, due to decreased dynamic viscosity at altitude, the motors will not require as much
power as they would at sea level. This difference is assumed to be proportional to the ratio of
dynamic viscosity at altitude to the dynamic viscosity at sea level, or:

,, = ( ) , = 2,830 kW

However the electric motors being employed on the dirigible cannot match the required 2,830
kW at altitude. The motors on this vessel output only 645 kW, or 22.8% of the required power
for full operation. must be adjusted proportionally, thus:

= ( ) (2 2 ) = 6,489
,, 2

Revisiting , we see that

n5

29
Based on the above values of thrust and drag, we will need five propellers in order to overcome
drag. This provides 32,445 N of thrust, an overage of 1,994 N, for a drag-thrust factor of safety
of 1.07. We use six propellers in order to ensure a thrust-drag factor of safety of 1.28.
Appendix 4: Fuel Cell Generation of Products

A Fuel Cell is used to generate electricity and water, either in a gaseous or liquid form. Energy,
hydrogen, and oxygen act as reactants and electricity, heat, and water act as products. For the
scope of this project, heat loses are assume to be negligible, due to the insulation that surround
the fuel cells. For the reaction in a fuel cell to take place, stoichiometry needs to be considered.
For the synthesis of water, the simple fuel cell reaction needs exactly a mole of hydrogen and
half a mole of oxygen to provide for each mole of water. Thus,

2 2 + 2 22

1
2 + 2 2 2

This reaction produces a 4F of charge, where F is Faradays constant. Since two electrons are
being transferred for each mole of hydrogen. To increase the usefulness of this formulas for our
project, the equations were used in terms of the electrical power of the whole fuel cell stack Pe,
which is the net power consumed per fuel cell, which was used to calculate the voltage of each
cell in stack, Vc. Assuming reversibility and minimum heat loss, 2 electrons pass through the
external circuit per water molecule and per each hydrogen molecule produced. The reaction will
produce 2 () = 2to the external circuit, where e is the charge of the electron( =
1.602 1019 ) and Na is Avogadros Number ( = 6.022 1023 ).

Using the enthalpy of formation to relate the heat produced of the burning fuel with the electrical
energy efficiency output, we get that, using the enthalpy for the heat heating value (HHV) of
water in liquid form = 285.84 / (negative due to the energy released),

( )
= 1000 = 1.48127
2

To get the total efficiency, and due to the fact that not all fuel is used by the fuel cell, we get a

fuel utilization coefficient, = 100, which we assumed to be 0.95

based on the existing literature[25]

Thus, the voltage of each cell within the fuel cell stack Vc can be calculated by,

1.48127 0.601.48127
= = = 0.9355.
0.95 0.95

Based on the data provided in reference [26], the effective energy content of a hydrogen fuel cell
is given by,

30
 = 26.8 = 25.072 /

To calculate the amount of oxygen consumed, for a single stack of n cells,

.
2 =
4

With power generated, = = 100 , and molar mass 2 = 32 103 /,

32 10 3 8.29 10 8

2 = = =
4 4

To calculate the amount of hydrogen consumed, for a single stack of n cells,

.
2 =
2

With power generated, = = 100 , and molar mass 2 = 2.02

103 /

2.02 10 3 1.05 10 8

2 = = =
2 2

To calculate the water production , for a single stack of n cells, in terms of power generated and
its molar mass 2 = 18.02 103 /

8
9.34 10
2 = =
2

To get the electrical output per fuel cell,

= 2 .

To get the net power produced per fuel cell,

/ = /

Where the net power produced per fuel cell corresponds to the specifications of the fuel cell.

To get the number of fuel cells needed, based on the , got in section 5.5.2 and
1 , got in section 5.5.4, we get the following ratio,

31
 . , 4058.1
= = = 5.06553
1 , 801.12

In other words, there is a need for nfuel cell = 6.

Appendix 5: Hydrogen Generators and Number of Storage Tanks

Taking into account that the selected generator also produced the required oxygen, the following
information is based on the TELEDYNE TITAN HMXT 200 Series generator,

= 380 . .
() = 100 . .
/ () = 38
/ = 1 /
/ = 8 /
= 10.2 / = 10.2 /

To calculate the amount of generators needed, we got the ratio of hydrogen and oxygen used
(total number per hour based on 6 fuel cells) over produced per hour (per generator).

2 / 24.2427 /
= = 24.2427
2 / 1 /

2 / 191.40197 /
= = 23.9252
2 / 8 /

We noticed that the hydrogen is our limited factor for the amount of generators needed, thus

ngenerator= 25

Based on this amount of generators, we get the net production/consumption rates of the whole
generator system,

= 25 /
= 200 /
= 255 /

For a 12 hour period, total mass of hydrogen stored will be 300 kg and that of oxygen will be
2400 kg (Total mass of products being 2700 kg).

With a capacity of 7.7 kg of hydrogen / tank and 123.2 kg of oxygen / tank, we get that we need,
39 tanks to store hydrogen produced, and 20 tanks to store oxygen produced, giving a total of:

ngastanks= 59 units
32
Based on the total minimum water mass described in section 5.5.4, 3468.57 kg, and taking into
account the 6056.66 kg a single tank can hold, we get:

nwatertanks= 1 unit
Appendix 6: Wall Tension and Maximum Axial Stress of Polar Structural Elements

LaPlaces Law for wall tension in a pressurized sphere is expressed as follows:

F = PR/2

where T is wall tension, P is internal pressure, and R is radius of the sphere. This can be
generalized for an ellipse and we note that the longest axis of the ellipse will experience the
greatest wall tension of any axis and will experience this tension at the point furthest away from
the centroid, or where R = c. Using known values for our dirigible:

Fmax = 3.739 MN

Using this maximum force and the yield stress of intermediate-modulus carbon fiber, we find the
minimum radius of round solid carbon fiber bar stock required in order to withstand the wall
tension in an axial direction:

=
,

ACF = 3.5 mm2

rmin = .001056 m

The above radius assumes the worst-case scenario of a completely un-reinforced z-axis pole.
These poles will be reinforced appropriately.

Shear load can be ignored considering that the ends of the dirigible at z = c will be reinforced
with a retaining structure to hold all of the frame components together. That structure will take
the brunt of the shear load and would be designed accordingly. It is outside the scope of this
project to design such detailed structural members.

33
Appendix 7: Rejected Design Alternatives

Using Fuel Cells Day and Night

This was a concept involving using the fuel cells to generate the needed propulsive power during
both daylight and nighttime hours and using the solar cells to power exclusively the fuel cells
and hydrogen generators. This idea was quickly abandoned after taking to Dr. Prahl and
recognizing that the inefficiency stack-up was staggering compared to the conventional
method of using the solar panels to power the propulsion system during the day while also
running the fuel cell-hydrogen generator system.

Locating Subsystem Components Inside Gas Chamber

This was a concept where the subsystem components (fuel cells, hydrogen generators, storage
tanks, control systems) were stored at the center of volume of the gas chamber. The major issue
with this was that since so much volume was being consumed by moving the components inside
the gas chamber, the dimensions of the chamber were forced to increase. This created more drag
which required more subsystem components, which required a larger gas chamber, etc. We
quickly realized that this was not a viable path and was likely one without an end to the drag-
component conundrum.

Spherical Gas Chamber

This hot air balloon-looking concept would have had a completely spherical gas chamber with all
necessary subsystem components stored in the basket underneath. The major problem with this
concept was the curvature of the sphere and its impacts on the solar panels. A broad ellipsoid like
the one in this report is relatively flat from the perspective of solar cells covering 25% of the gas
chamber. Thusly, it can be treated as a flat plane. This is not the case with a sphere and so the
solar cells furthest from the point directly between the sun and earth would have experienced
poor sun exposure.

34
References

[1] Propeller, Variable-Pitch, 6-Blade, Dowty R391. From

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/propeller-variable-pitch-6-blade-dowty-r391.

[2] 2016, Maxeon Gen II Solar Cells, Document #506760 Rev D, Sunpower Corporation.

[3] Joshua Andrew DeMoss, 2007, Drag Measurements on an Ellipsoidal Body, M.S. thesis,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

[4] LaPlaces Law. From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ptens.html.

[5] Prahl, J., 2017, Professor at Case Western Reserve University, private communication.

[6] Hydrogen and Helium in Rigid Airship Operations. From http://www.airships.net/helium-

hydrogen-airships/.

[7] Meija, J. et al, 2016, "Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report).

[8] Recks, Robert J., 2002, An Introduction to Muscle Powered Ultra-Light Gas Blimps In All
Their Glory, Association of Balloon and Airship Constructors (ABAC), City of Industry,
California.

[9] 2016, Fuel Cell Power Module for Heavy Duty Motive Applications, SPC5104967-0B,
Ballard Power Systems Incorporated.

[10] SIEMENS 1HQ7 Information Sheet, SIEMENS, Berlin, Germany.

[11] Kopp, G., and J.L. Lean. A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and
climate significance. Geophys.Res. Lett., Vol. 38, L01706 (2011). DOI
10.1029/2010GL045777.

[12] Various, 2000, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.), The Chemical Rubber
Company, Boca Raton, FL.

[13] Average Daily High Temperatures, July, Cleveland, OH. From

https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/cleveland-oh/44113/july-weather/350127.

[14] Geohack - Cleveland. From https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?

pagename=Cleveland&params=41_28_56_N_81_40_11_W_region:US-OH_type:city(3968154).

[15] Ideal Gas Law Equations Calculator. From

https://www.ajdesigner.com/idealgas/ideal_gas_law_density.php.

35
[16] Overview of Materials for Epoxy/Carbon Fiber Composite. From
http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheettext.aspx?matguid=39e40851fc164b6c9bda29d798bf3
726.

[17] J. Pike, 2011, High Altitude Airship (HAA). From

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/haa.htm.

[18] Lockheed Martin, Rotary and Mission Systems, 2016, Persistent Surveillance Systems.
From http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/
PTDS_LTA_Brochure.pdf.

[19] EnergyCell RE High Capacity Battery: 2V VRLA AGM Battery. Outback EnergyCell
1100RE-24, Outback Power Inc., Arlington, WA. USA.

[20] Defense Aerospace News, 2003, Pentagon Contract Announcement. From

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/26397/lockheed-to-develop-airship-
for-mda-(sept.-30).html.

[21] J. Vincent, 2015, This massive airship is getting a $2.7 million grant to revolutionize
transport. From https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/8/8368751/airship-green-transport-airlander-
hav-eu-grant.

[22] University of Florida, 2008, Geosynchronous Earth Satellites. From

http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/~uhk/GEOSYNCH-SATELLITE.pdf.

[23] Hall, N., 2015, The Drag Equation. From https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-

12/airplane/drageq.html.

[24] Hall, N., 2015, Propeller Thrust. From https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-

12/airplane/propth.html

[25] J. Larminie and A. Dicks, 2003, Fuel Cell Systems Explained. J. Wiley, Chichester, West
Sussex. Efficiency and Open Circuit Voltage, pp. 25-43.

[26] J. Larminie and A. Dicks, 2003, Fuel Cell Systems Explained. J. Wiley, Chichester, West
Sussex, Appendix 2: Useful Fuel Cell Equations, pp. 395-400.

36