版主找到支持你的观点的文章了，总算明白为什么这种方法没有大规模应用。
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/teams/part-time-scientists/blog/rockoon-or-how-we-learned-to-love-the-rocketSo back in the middle of last year when we threw ideas around on how to get to the moon. One of the first ideas we looked into was the Rockoon. Like the name says it's a combination of a rocket and a balloon. We thought it would be innovative and cheaper. It wasn't a bad idea. But after some number crunching we figured out that the whole thing had a terrible catch. And here is why:
Used in late 40s and 50s, Rockoon was used to transport very light payloads to altitudes that are near the edge of earth's atmosphere. But to carry a full scale moon rocket that high, the balloon would have to have proportions beyond any economical sense. 1m3 Hydrogen or Helium can lift something slightly above 1Kg of mass. At sea level. But when it goes up the air-pressure half's every 5500m. Therefore the gas doubles its volume. At an altitude of 49.5Km the gas will have expanded by a factor of 512. The diameter of the balloon would be 8 times bigger as it's been at sea level.
Now let's take a very optimistic mass of 250Kg for a rocket. For that mass the balloon needs 250m3 of Hydrogen or Helium. That results in a diameter for the balloon on the ground of 8m. Growing to 64m after the ascend. At first that doesn't sound too bad. But now let's see the gain of energy the balloon delivered. We took 250Kg and brought them up to an altitude of 50Km. This equivalents to 123MJ (250Kg * 50000m * 9.81m/s2). The energy Density of Hydrogen is 11.7MJ/m3. This shows that it's not a bad idea to burn all that Hydrogen with a rocket instead.
More interesting is the ratio between the gained potential energy and the energy required to reach the earth orbit. A Mass of 250Kg traveling at 7.9Km/s has a kinetic energy of 7800MJ ( 1/2 m v2 ). Now let's think of the energy needed to send a rocket into earth orbit as a 100%. The energy that the balloon brings into the whole equation is a mere 1.58%. However, it's a different story with a balloon. Considering the Rockoon approach to the entire matter greatly complicates things. Increasing the number of variables that can lead to a total failure of the launch.
That's not even taking into account that the balloon will go where the wind pushes it and not where we want it to go.
One argument for a Rockoon is less air drag. For larger rockets the velocity loss due to air drag can be lower than 3% (1). A small rocket has a higher drag, that is one argument more against small launch vehicles.
It makes more sense to modify a air-air-missile and to launch it from an airplane flying at Mach 2,5. But even that only accounts for less than 1/8 of the needed speed to reach earth orbit. The fact that private people will have a hard time acquiring an air-to-air-missile is a matter for another time. The conditions are still better than with a balloon though.
