are hellicarriers from Avengers viable?

[Kellhound]

Energy requirements aren't actually the problem because they handwave that by saying at one point that Tony Stark gave them Arc Reactor technology to power the Helicarriers: so we can assume their energy density is ~limitless as far as we're concerned.

There is no way those rotors could generate the lift needed to lift a Nimitz (let alone a helicarrier) though.

- - - Updated - - -



We already know that antimatter exists, we can capture it, and we can contain it safely. We know that when it reacts with matter it has the highest energy density of any fuel we know of.

What we don't have is an easy way to get lots of antimatter easily (ex. there aren't country-sized resevoirs of it underground all over the planet) - but essentially we're that one breakthrough away from M-AM combustion engines. I wouldn't endorse a prediction of 100-200 years - we could find it tomorrow, or we might not find it until we can skim antimatter off the event horizon of a black holes (~1000+ years).

A prediction of a specified amount of time like 100-200 - usually means we are waiting on an incremental change, and then we project based on the rate of advance of current incremental changes in that field: ex. material science toward building a 27km long carbon nanotube for a space elevator. We can make nanotubes potentially strong enough, they're just a matter of inches right now - not kilometers. The requirement for M-AM combustion isn't incremental, we either discover that bunny poop is full of antimatter, or we don't: we're waiting on a paradigm shift - and there is no way to predict such a discovery.

I was putting the power requirements into perspective, getting into transitioning SHP into lift is another matter.

- - - Updated - - -

And where do you dump the waste heat from those reactor systems? Remember, 2/3 of the fission energy ends up in the waste heat stream, not converted to work.

- - - Updated - - -



Nothing in physics says this is realistic. It's more plausible that antigravity is simply something that will never be possible.

Just because something is a trope in science fiction doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Where the hell do you expect to put 200 reactors in a carrier???? Who cares about anything else, they wouldn't fit inside the hull! (Not to mention all the space for the steam turbines and related machinery....)

[Stormspellz]

may as well make a space cruiser

[Gothicshark]

are hellicarriers from Avengers viable?
Would a massive vehicle such as the helicarriers in Avengers be a viable thing to develop irl?

Before reading everything.

To the topic headline, specifically answering based on science. No. Helio-carriers as seen in the Avengers would require enough downward trust that the earth below them would be sandblasted away ie 4 EF5 tornadoes under the ship, also the size of the rotors would be enormous.

Instead, using space magic, aka anti-gravity. Then the Flying Carrier as seen might be possible, in doing so the craft would actually be a viable asset in both war and space travel. During the First World War and for a time just after, there were Zeppelins capable of having a couple of Airplanes that they could deploy. This idea is not as far fetched as you might think, but even today the technology just wont work.

[Kellhound]

Before reading everything.

To the topic headline, specifically answering based on science. No. Helio-carriers as seen in the Avengers would require enough downward trust that the earth below them would be sandblasted away ie 4 EF5 tornadoes under the ship, also the size of the rotors would be enormous.

Instead, using space magic, aka anti-gravity. Then the Flying Carrier as seen might be possible, in doing so the craft would actually be a viable asset in both war and space travel. During the First World War and for a time just after, there were Zeppelins capable of having a couple of Airplanes that they could deploy. This idea is not as far fetched as you might think, but even today the technology just wont work.

The B-36 was intended to carry 3-4 F-85 fighters, but that turned out to be a disaster and never came to be.

[Gothicshark]

The B-36 was intended to carry 3-4 F-85 fighters, but that turned out to be a disaster and never came to be.

That was because the Goblin was a dangerous and poorly designed craft*. The basic concept was ok, but the small light jet was a failure.






*it flew fine, it was just too light to make the docking maneuver safety, ie the turbulence of the other aircraft caused the goblin to loose control. Also it was way slower than other contemporary Jet aircraft.

[cubby]

Would a massive vehicle such as the helicarriers in Avengers be a viable thing to develop irl?

Many have already described it, but while totally cool, it wouldn't be viable unless it was exactly like the one in Avengers, stealth and physical invisibility included. However, something like that for drones might be interesting. Where it was similar to the B-2 stealth platform, but could "open up" quickly to release a torrent of drones, then close back up and remain stealthy.

DARPA was working on something like this awhile back. I believe the Navy took it over.

[ezgeze]

It would be:
too large
too slow
it would have to be nuclear powered otherwise it would chug fuel and make refueling a nightmare
large enough to be hit by both ground and anti-air weapons with almost 100% accuracy
no stealth capabilities
loud as shit
crash one of these and thousands will die
a single propeller malfunction would send it crashing
probably the most expensive piece of construction in the history of the world to design and build multiplied by 3
simply impractical

[Skroe]

I think it belongs on the list of "awesome in movies, completely undesirable in real life" things. Other examples include.

Large combat mechs (Mechwarrior / Star Wars style)... completely screwed versus any tank or infantry with an anti-armor weapon.

Infantry-level laser weaponry. Laser weaponry for most things other than point defense and anti-missile defense.

Star Trek style "star ships" where large numbers people live in the "void between worlds" as opposed to planets... IRL space is terrible for humans and the most meaningful manned space exploration will be on planets, not in the void between worlds.

Minority Report style home computer interaction (alas poor Kinect, we hardly knew ye).

Avengers-style Supersoldiers... imagine the global response if the United States actually had a superhuman combat team at it's disposal.

Flying cars... turning shitty inattentive drivers into shitty, inattentive cruise missiles.

Anything that isn't a of modular design in space.



There's many, many other examples.

- - - Updated - - -

Many have already described it, but while totally cool, it wouldn't be viable unless it was exactly like the one in Avengers, stealth and physical invisibility included. However, something like that for drones might be interesting. Where it was similar to the B-2 stealth platform, but could "open up" quickly to release a torrent of drones, then close back up and remain stealthy.

DARPA was working on something like this awhile back. I believe the Navy took it over.

You're thinking of this.





These are artists depictions of the massive "Stealth Blimp" that Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week believes the US Air Force has been operating since the 1990s as a surveillance and prototype cargo transport platforms. It supposedly has a skin that can dynamically change color, hiding it from observers.

In that role, as a lighter than air vehicle of this supposed size (about 400 meters long) the could carry around 1,000 tons globally (or about as much as 10 C-5 galaxies for a fraction of the cost). This may sound extreme, but commercial airships approaching this size have flown, and ones even closer are planned.

While something like the Helicarrier would be useless in that form as a combat platform, an ultra large, rigid airship would excel as a high altitude surveillance platform and more important, a strategic lifter.

Bill Sweetman is pretty reliable, but who knows if this is actually a real thing. It's never been photographed accidentally via sattelite (which may not be suprising if it only flies at night), and a hangar with doors large enough has never been imaged (such hangers, being the first indication the US Air Force already has it's B-2 successor flying and has for years).