37

Ignoring the plausibility of their evolution and sources of food, could a whale-like creature which internally consists largely of hydrogen bladders/gasbags realistically stay aloft?

If these creatures are plausible, would larger creatures be able to float more easily, given that their volume (and hence space for available gasbags) increases with the cube of their size, while the surface area (and hence, weight of the parts that keep the hydrogen inside) increases with the square of their size. (e.g., the square-cube law). If larger creatures do float more easily, what is the minimum size required for such a creature to be plausible?

Note: I am aware of this question, which talks about the evolution of such a creature, and this question, which talks about the uses of a biologically engineered flying whale, but as neither of these directly address the feasibility of the concept, I believe that this is distinct enough not to be a duplicate.

Gryphon
  • 10,926
  • 5
  • 57
  • 93

10 Answers10

30

Sadly, no. Tl;dr: the minimum size of such a creature is on the scale of kilometers and thus pretty infeasible. Instead, try making the creature some kind of colonial organism and boosting your planet.

First, let's consider the simple hypothetical: how much hydrogen would it take to simply lift a whale? Well, a blue whale weighs 200 tons- that's 200,000 kg. Each cubic meter of hydrogen can lift approximately 1.1 kg, so to lift a whale we're talking about 181,000 cubic meters of air. This is about the same size as the Hindenburg or your classic zeppelin- which you probably think is a lot smaller than it actually is:

Hindenburg size comparison, from http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/size-speed/

It also brings to mind some really fun mental images of a whale soaring through the sky while strapped to the bottom of a zeppelin. Unfortunately, that comparison is unhelpful because the skin of the zeppelin is assumed to have a negligible weight- something that we can't do with biology.

So, let's assume a spherical whale.

What we're trying to figure out here is the minimum size of a biological gasbag. We model that as a sphere of $H_2$ gas surrounded by a thin shell of skin.

Beware, physics below

Our initial equation starts out pretty simply:

$V_{hyd}*F_{buoy} = M_{skin\ shell} = V_{shell}*\rho_{shell}$

where $\rho$ is the density of our shell.

This is then expanded to give us some actual formulas. We're trying to solve for the radius of this biological gasbag, so we're hoping to end up with $r$ alone on one side set equal to a bunch of numbers.

$\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3*F_{buoy} = 4\pi r^2t*\rho_{shell}$

Where $t$ is the thickness of the shell- I'm going to assume it's 1 meter thick. Sounds approximately right to me. We can simplify a bit with that information and some quick algebra:

$r^3 * F_{buoy} = 3r^2*\rho_{shell}$

Which immediately simplifies to exactly what we were hoping for!

$r * F_{buoy} = 3*\rho_{shell}$

Let's deal with those other two variables. The $F_{buoy}$ is the force of buoyancy due to our lifting gas, in this case, hydrogen. There's a lot to it, but Wikipedia has a shortcut: $1\ m^3$ of hydrogen can lift $\approx 1.1kg$. Cool! We can also deal with the other variable, $\rho_{shell}$. Here, a quick google search tells us that the density of skin is about $800\frac{kg}{m^3}$. Let's plug those numbers in.

$r*1.1 = 800*3 = 2400$

Note: I fudge my units for simplicity's sake here. The $F_{buoy}$ term is a good bit more complex.

So our minimal radius for our idealized gasbag is $\approx 2200m$, or 2 kilometers.

spherical cow, from http://abstrusegoose.com/406

Biological assessment:

Totally infeasible. A whale 4 kilometers long is nowhere near plausible, and that's the absolute minimum. You'd have to add things besides skin, and that all adds weight, and every time you add something you increase the radius that much further. With some back of the envelope calculations, I get a minimum size of 8 kilometers; including water and muscle mass as well as a tubular body. What really sunk this, however, was the circulation system. Even though the volume scales as the cube of the radius, the amount of liquid needed to provide circulation throughout the body scales even faster. Sad.

Fictional solutions

There are two main ways I see to combat the problems above.

Modify the organism

If the mammalian whale-like characteristics aren't a hard necessity, I humbly submit the siphonophore for your consideration. It's a marine creature that's actually colonial- made up of individual cells working in unison. There are two big perks to this. One, they're clearly capable of it- the Portugese man o' war is a siphonophore, and it already has a large float that could be modified to hold hydrogen (in a fictional universe). Plus, many siphonophores are bioluminescent, which would be awesome to see as a large creature floating overhead. I estimate the minimum size of these to be 5 kilometers in diameter (water weighs more than skin, but they're fine being spherical), so they'd be like glowing clouds. If that isn't epic sci-fi, I don't know what is.

Modify the environment

I fudged the buoyancy term in my derivation above, but it's based on essentially two things- the force of gravity and the density of the atmosphere. Here in Worldbuilding, we're free to modify both of those! What we want is a small planet (low gravity) with a dense atmosphere. If we have an atmosphere like Venus, which is some 60 times denser than Earth's, and a planet about the size of Titan, which has a gravity about 1/8th of ours, we can get a much larger buoyancy force. On this planet, every cubic meter of hydrogen is going to be able to lift around 250 kg- a massive increase from the 1.1 we used on Earth. This cuts our minimum radius down to just 10 meters! That's much more reasonable for an organism, especially one that's supposed to be a whale, and quite manageable in any fiction novel.

Dubukay
  • 12,154
  • 6
  • 36
  • 73
  • 2
    Additional note- a floating creature full of hydrogen would be incredibly vulnerable to lightning. Just saying. – Dubukay Nov 01 '17 at 09:42
  • 1
    It could do photosynthesis: flying is a protection against herbivores... – bobflux Nov 01 '17 at 10:14
  • 1
    I remember once trying to work out how to make a Lego zeppelin using the same kind of maths. Lots and lots of bricks was the answer. – Joe Bloggs Nov 01 '17 at 12:42
  • Midworld has floaters, modeled after the Portugese man o' war. With friggin' lasers, too! – Michael Schumacher Nov 01 '17 at 13:04
  • I never thought a whale could float in our atmosphere, simply because how would it eat. The very weight in food alone to keep it going would be substantial. – anon Nov 01 '17 at 13:54
  • On that note, I think you could change the density of the atmosphere to achieve this. – anon Nov 01 '17 at 17:46
  • Bat skin is 10 times thinner than human skin so your density is 10 times too high. change 800 to 80 and you end up with 240 meter* a blue whale is 140 meters*, so you are a lot closer that your estimate indicates. You still need a different air density (or gravity) but nowhere near as big a change. – John Nov 01 '17 at 23:13
  • @John honestly, I picked a 1 meter thick skin because it made the math easy and I didn’t know how to calculate the elastic potential of skin. However, I’m happy with this estimate because human skin is about 2mm thick and we’re about 2 meters tall. So 1 meter skin with a kilometer-scale animal is within reason. Remember, however, that the thinner we make this skin the less stuff that we’ll be able to fit inside it- like circulation and neurons. – Dubukay Nov 02 '17 at 00:00
  • @WilliamKumler do you have any idea how much easier this would have been in, say the Cretaceous or Jurassic period, due to the increased atmospheric density? Just wondering how much that would help. – Gryphon Nov 02 '17 at 10:54
  • AFAIK, the atmosphere wasn’t actually thicker during the Cretaceous and Jurassic. CO2 and O2 concentrations were higher, but it was also warmer which would’ve expanded the gases some. If you can find a number for the atmospheric density during those periods I’m happy to give you an estimate! – Dubukay Nov 02 '17 at 14:32
  • 1
    skin thickness is about protection and function not the size of the creature, there is no reason to predispose absurdly thick skin. In a creature that is little more than a gas bag, skin would be thin because for most of the body there is little else besides skin so ths skin does not need to be thick. And if you are using your skin thickness to determine the size of your animal is in kilometers and your assumed skin thickness is off then no it is not reasonable. I used a bat's wing becasue we already know it is being subjected to comparable forces. – John Nov 03 '17 at 03:34
  • @John, if you would like to answer assuming a thinner-skinned animal, that would be great :-) – Gryphon Nov 04 '17 at 15:14
  • 4
    Great answer, my only complaint would be with the 1M thick skin. Interestingly the equation simplfies to a constant ratio between skin thickness and radius. This means that 2.4km floater with 1m skin, would be as buoyant as a 2.4m floater with 1mm skin. – MongoTheGeek Mar 05 '19 at 14:57
  • I don’t think lightning has to be an issue. Hydrogen only burns if it can react with oxygen. If the animal has sufficiently thick, wet skin, and it has an ability to quickly contract to seal wounds (and then heal the hole), it would survive just fine. These are things a zeppelin cannot do. – SRM Mar 25 '19 at 10:28
  • 1
    no self respecting physicist would assume a spherical cow when a pointlike cow will do – jk. Apr 04 '19 at 16:23
11

Full Disclaimer: I am the OP of this question, so this answer may be biased towards this being possible.

TL;DR: If we make some optimistic assumptions, this may be possible without even having to mess around with atmospheric density and/or gravity!

I've decided to work out an example creature with a total body mass (without the mass of the hydrogen) of $500kg$. According to Dubukay's excellent answer, Hydrogen has a lifting capacity of about $1.1 kg/m^3$. This means that to lift our $500kg$ beast, we need about $455 m^3$ of H2. Assuming this hydrogen is kept in a spherical container (which isn't quite accurate but is a good enough approximation for now) and that my math is right, this container will need about $286 m^2$ of whatever surface is used to contain the hydrogen for the outside of its gasbag.

According to this paper, the wing loading for a bat can get as low as $0.14 g/cm^2$. Wing loading is mass of the bat per cm^2 of wing surface, so actual bat wings will be several times thinner because most of their body mass is their actual body. Therefore, we can assume this as an upper limit for wing mass. We need $286 m^2$ of surface area, which means that if we use the same skin bats do for their wings (probably several layers of it due to this being an upper bound, which will make the gasbag even stronger), so if my math is correct, the outer skin of the gasbag will weigh a touch over $400 kg$. This means we are able to retain almost $100kg$ of weight for any necessary vital organs, steering and locomotion devices such as flippers and flaps, and hydrogen generation apparatus.

Of course, this makes some optimistic assumptions, such as assuming a perfectly spherical shape for the hydrogen containment organ, but we can cut quite far into that remaining 100kg of lifted mass before we begin to run into issues with the requisite mass of vital organs, so this concept seems to be at least somewhat feasible, and the gasbag will be several times stronger than the wing of a bat, which should be sufficient for most purposes.

Amusingly, this also demonstrates that if you could find a way of connecting bats together in a way that prevented the leakage of hydrogen, a $400kg$ sphere of bats filled with hydrogen could easily lift an adult.

Gryphon
  • 10,926
  • 5
  • 57
  • 93
  • 2
    I like this answer. How fast would hydrogen escape through a bat wing though? – Tim B Mar 08 '19 at 09:13
  • @Tim B I unfortunately don't have numbers for that. Remember that it'll be several layers of wing, as most of a bat's mass is in their body and these numbers are for the entire wing loading. So hydrogen escape would be far slower than through ordinary bat wing. – Gryphon Mar 08 '19 at 13:35
  • 2
    Additionally, as long as the rate of escape is reasonable (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), it's not difficult to slowly replace hydrogen via the electrolysis of water. – Gryphon Mar 08 '19 at 13:46
  • If you downvote, a comment with reasons would be appreciated so that I can improve the answer or fix issues. ;) – Gryphon Mar 22 '19 at 12:25
4

Happily, Yes.

Dubukay correctly identified the relation

r = (3 * Skin Density * Skin Thickness) / Specific Uplift

for floating spherical creatures. To use this relation with a Skin Thickness of 1m was the problem, though - Early hot air balloons were made from silk and latex, both biological materials, and nature has found several ways to create and uphold membranes of impressive strength. Bat wings are built from two layers of epidermis 10um thick.

Thus, a bat-wing sphere of radius ~25mm filled with hydrogen would be self-lifting.

It is quite easy to imagine a creature built from 100mm-diameter (i added some volume to give the creature lift for some brains etc.) gas-cells (good redundancy, too), able to move via pneumatic 'muscles' driven by gas exchange and the resulting pressure differentials. The movement of such a creature would be very majestic indeed.

The cells would give it good damage resistance, as well as the (story-telling-wise important) ability to not look like a blimp, (i.e. completely convex) but like a sky whale, warts and all. Having the outer skin rich in some other gas, not reactive with neither hydrogen or oxygen, would also alleviate the dangers of skin-puncturing in the presence of ignition sources (though the smart hydrogen-lifted creature would have learned to avoid those anyways). Nitrogen would be very easy to come by, though perhaps a lighter gas would not put such a burden on the creature.

Gryphon
  • 10,926
  • 5
  • 57
  • 93
bukwyrm
  • 5,859
  • 14
  • 27
  • Majestic? Definitely. But also hilarious, in the Looney Tunes way. The gas will be straining against its literally paper-thin container constantly, so the slightest nick will likely create a hole, causing this creature to shoot around like an untied balloon... before crashing to the Earth below. – Ton Day Mar 23 '19 at 21:01
  • Those are baglets, as cells, each about as big as a small grapefruit, that make up the creature. There will be no shooting around. But yes, it is an object naturally buoyant in air, it will be dainty. Less so than the Hindenburg, though. – bukwyrm Mar 25 '19 at 06:13
  • Paper-thin skin does seem likely to be at risk from lightning, unlike the meter-thick skin proposed earlier. Thin skin would be harder to contract and reliably seal to starve fire of oxygen. – SRM Mar 25 '19 at 10:32
  • @SRM living creatures getting hit by lightning would mayhaps not have fire-control as their sole headache.... But an outer 'skin' of nitrogen-rich cells would greatly alleviate the danger, at no great cost in weight. Additionally, a foamy structure has quite a high specific resistance, so the lightning would not be that interested, imho. – bukwyrm Mar 25 '19 at 12:56
  • @bukwyrm Once punctured, the outgassing of hydrogen is going to happen unless there's a counterpressure -- and it'll happen at a speed commensurate with the surrounding air pressure (the whole point is that the whale is lighter than air because of the contained hydrogen). It'll push the heavier gasses out of the way. The skin being rich in other gasses may keep the skin from burning, but the whale still has to be able to be able to seal the gap, and contracting to seal the hole requires musculature throughout. – SRM Mar 25 '19 at 17:22
  • @SRM i dont get your point: the whale is essentially a foam, with foam-cell size 100mm. The pressure inside the cells will be just a smidgen above surround. outer cells punctured: nitrogen bleeds. inner cells punctured too: nitrogen from the outers mixes with the hdrogen of the inners, and later with the air. if at that time a ignition source is still present: yes there might be a flame lighted. these cells are not like balloons, pressurized by the elastic membrane. they are like plastic bags, kept in shape by slight (0.001 bar?) overpressure. – bukwyrm Mar 26 '19 at 06:07
4

Depends on the wind.

The maximum size of these things will be dictated by whether or not they can still eat sufficient amounts to stay alive, and whether they can breed in order to continue the line of sky whales. Both of those things require being able to move under your own power.

If the sky is very calm (no wind at all) then this isn’t an issue, so your creatures can get very big. If there is wind then your creatures have issues.

For starters: these whales will have to have huge flight surfaces (tail and fins) in order to get any power even on a calm day. On a windy day, these will turn your whale into a kite.

Secondly: the whales will not be dense (by their nature), so the wind will throw them across the sky like.. well, a balloon.

This leads to a balancing act between size, control, and wind. In theory, the whales could gain more control with more powerful muscles to flap their tails more often, but more powerful muscles are larger and denser, requiring more lifting volume and creating a larger area for the wind to hit.

It’s possible you could have the whales use the wind to their advantage, using it to power their flight towards migrating swarms of skykrill, but that will only work if the winds are predictable and steady.

For example: take a look at the Festo Air Penguin and ask yourself how well it would handle in a gentle breeze. It uses helium, but it gets the idea across.

Gryphon
  • 10,926
  • 5
  • 57
  • 93
Joe Bloggs
  • 66,279
  • 25
  • 166
  • 273
  • Interesting. I hadn't thought about problems with wind, but that makes a lot of sense. I'm planning on asking another question about how large their tail/flippers will have to be to make movement at any reasonable speed work. I'll definitely take the wind into consideration for that. – Gryphon Nov 01 '17 at 08:08
  • Can the wind not be considered a aerial current? We might consider them to be rather random, but certain weather patterns are quite predictable (like the Pacific trade wind system). 2) Give your whale the ability to flatten/streamline it's body area to minimize wind impact, or to or expand its surface area to use it to better effect (sort of but not really like a sail). Oh, and Joe Bloggs: +1 for the skyrill!
  • – Rissiepit Nov 01 '17 at 11:01
  • @Rissiepit: 1: yes, but because of the small difference in densities it’s like a current vs a jellyfish rather than a current vs a fish. 2: the volume has to remain the same, so the whale would have to be an amazingly amorphous blob rather than a whale. – Joe Bloggs Nov 01 '17 at 12:38