[HN Gopher] Launch HN: Buoyant (YC S21) - Blimp drones for air f...
___________________________________________________________________
Launch HN: Buoyant (YC S21) - Blimp drones for air freight
Hi, we're Ben and Joe from Buoyant (https://www.buoyant.aero/). We
build small unmanned cargo airships and use them to move air
freight at half the cost per mile of a small plane. An airship (or
blimp) is an aircraft that gets most of its lift from a lifting gas
like helium. It's the most efficient way to fly, which means it's
cheaper than any other aircraft for many missions. We're starting
by building an aircraft for middle-mile air freight in remote and
rural areas--warehouse-to-warehouse or post office to post office.
This is a $6B market in the US alone, and freight volumes are only
increasing. By building autonomous blimps, we can lower shipping
costs, increase quality and speed of service, and cut out millions
of tons of CO2 emissions. So far, we've built and flown four
airships. The latest is 20 feet long and can fly up to 35 miles per
hour. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEYOfVcwRhk.
We're starting in areas where freight is already moved on small
planes and helicopters. In these remote areas, availability of
goods is lower, shipping takes longer, and it's more expensive. For
example, food in rural parts of Alaska is twice as expensive as in
Anchorage. Small air freight is particularly expensive because of
the cost of fuel, maintenance, pilots, and airport infrastructure.
To make major cost reductions we need a new type of aircraft. Ben
is a mechanical engineer from Alaska and grew up in the outdoors,
so is familiar with the challenges of remote supply operations. He
has built aircraft tracking technology for the DoD, flat panel
phased array antennas, GPS data loggers for motorsports, and helped
start a company that made shirts with upside down pockets. I'm an
aerospace engineer who's built and flown spacecraft at two internet
satellite startups, spending a lot of time on complicated flying
machines. We met at MIT and have been friends for almost a decade
since. We spent years building satellites and antennas to provide
internet connectivity to rural areas, and while doing so learned
about the transportation challenges in remote places. Many drone
delivery projects have focused on delivering small packages in
suburbs, and are too short range or low payload to serve rural
areas. We realized small airships were a technical approach that
could work to move cargo in these areas, and decided to tackle the
challenge. An airship is the most efficient way to fly because it
gets most of its lift from buoyancy, rather than spending energy on
rotor lift or aerodynamic lift over a wing. This lets us fly
further and carry more payload than other small aircraft. Other
attempts at unmanned cargo aircraft have used quadcopters or quad-
plane hybrid drones. These are useful for some missions but lack
the flight efficiency to carry large payloads long distances.
Airships have other benefits too: they are safer and quieter than
quadcopters or multirotor-plane hybrids. If the motors fail, an
airship floats to the ground, while a quadcopter comes crashing
down. And it's an easy way to build an aircraft that can takeoff
and land vertically, like a helicopter. Our airship is a fabric
envelope filled with helium, with an attached payload bay, motors,
and power system. It gets 2/3 of its lift from buoyancy, and the
rest from aerodynamic lift. This combination is called a hybrid
airship, and allows us to drop off a payload without needing to
take on ballast. The aircraft flies autonomously and can take off
and land in inclement weather, using centimeter accuracy GPS for
approaches. The full scale version will load 650 lbs of cargo at
one end, fly to the destination while we pilot it remotely, deposit
the cargo, and return. Our first operational vehicle will be
battery electric, with a range of 200-300 miles and a cruise speed
of 60 mph. Future vehicles will have hydrogen powertrains for
longer-range missions. We started off with a last-mile delivery
concept ("Amazon box to the house"). But in conversations with
logistics providers, we found a recurring problem transporting
300-600 lb shipments between warehouses or between airports. Using
drones to deliver to houses is operationally complex, and the path
to doing so at scale is still murky. But with a 650 lb payload, our
drone can fit neatly into existing supply chains in the middle
mile. This makes our operations much simpler and should allow us to
get to market relatively quickly with a few aircraft on a few
routes. We've closed $5M in LOIs, including one from a large
regional air carrier in Alaska, and have two pilot programs
planned. We loved reading the thread a couple weeks ago about
hydrogen vs. helium for blimps, and are excited to see what people
think about our airships! Where do you see the biggest use case for
vehicles like ours? Let us know any other thoughts or ideas, and
we'll be active in the comments today.
Author : joefigura
Score : 284 points
Date : 2021-08-23 16:40 UTC (1 days ago)
| Mizza wrote:
| Nifty! Simple, exciting and aesthetically pleasing idea. I've
| known people from Alaska who have to get their supplies flown in,
| so it's cool you're covering that use case from the start -
| although apparently that whole service economy is really driven
| by the smuggling of alcohol, as many towns there are "dry". You
| may be stepping on some toes if you muscle into this territory.
|
| How does piloting work? Is the goal to make these things
| completely autonomous, or will there be a remote pilot at all
| times?
|
| What's the business model? Can I buy one of your blimps, or are
| you going to become FedEx of the low skies?
| Benclaman wrote:
| The goal is to make them completely autonomous, though a pilot
| observer will likely be required for the near future.
|
| Business model is something we're still figuring out. We have
| interest on both sides, but at first we'll definitely be
| operating themselves as the 'FedEx of the low skies.' Once the
| airship is certified (1-3 years after we build it), we can sell
| them.
| fernly wrote:
| On-board pilot/observer? Or remote, like a military drone
| operator?
|
| If you build the infrastructure for the latter, one operator
| could likely manage multiple craft.
|
| That said, what does either type of pilot do, if the vehicle
| misbehaves? What's the abort protocol, esp. over populated
| areas? Given a 600-lb payload, self-destruct is not an
| appealing way to exit.
| Benclaman wrote:
| Remote pilot like a military drone operator! If a vehicle
| misbehaves, worst case scenario would be a total control
| failure (will definitely have redundancies designed in),
| which would result in the airship slowly falling to the
| ground. Hopefully, people would see it coming and be able
| to get out of the way!
| bbojan wrote:
| Since you're already planning on using hydrogen fuel cells for
| propulsion, does it play well with using hydrogen as the lift
| gas, too? Since the airship is unmanned, this seems like a good
| synergy.
| john_yaya wrote:
| Someone else mentioned the prevalence of vandalism against
| trains crossing the country, and that all too many trains
| arrive at their destination with bullet holes. A hydrogen-
| filled blimp would be a tempting target for people so inclined.
| thehappypm wrote:
| A train is a giant piece of metal they can hear the bullet
| hitting. There's no sound reward to shooting your gun into
| the air, maybe hitting a blimp.
| bambax wrote:
| > _and helped start a company that made shirts with upside down
| pockets_
|
| Okay, I would like to know more about this... Who was it for?
| Jabbles wrote:
| I don't understand how this could lift 650lb:
|
| https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20ft+*+3ft+*+3ft+*+2+*...
|
| = 28 lbs (13 kg)
| joefigura wrote:
| You're right, 650 lbs is the full scale version. The current
| prototype carries 0-10 lbs, depending on battery load. Edited
| the post to make that a bit clearer.
| thirdlamp wrote:
| Have you thought about information gathering applications? For
| example inspecting power lines.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Suggestion for a potential marketing tool when you get to that
| point: have someone create your blimp in Microsoft Flight
| Simulator. While blimps already exist in the simulator, your
| design sounds unique and this would be a way to raise awareness
| of your company, even if sim players aren't your target
| customers.
| joefigura wrote:
| We're planning to do this! Ben is a big fan of flight
| simulators and we'll build a model once things calm down a bit
| post YC
| elamje wrote:
| Very cool concept.
|
| I'm sure your guys have done a ton of prior art, but I want to
| encourage you to make sure Amazon hasn't patented this in any
| capacity yet.
|
| A close friend that worked at Prime Air shared how years ago
| their division had a full time legal staff dedicated to patenting
| all engineers ideas. He had gotten several patents even being
| entry level FWIW. They had several concepts very similar to this
| and it wouldn't surprise me if they were able to get that IP
| locked down. Like I said, I expect you all have checked and
| rechecked but thought it's worth mentioning.
| diskzero wrote:
| I was once told by a VC to never do a patent search as the
| money spent on the search and analysis would be better spent on
| developing the idea. Bad advice?
| sentrysapper wrote:
| I'm sure patent trolls would agree with that advice.
| smt88 wrote:
| All advice from VCs tends to be bad, but legal advice from
| VCs should be dismissed outright.
|
| The search is very cheap and easy, and then you can decide if
| the risk is worth it.
| mike_d wrote:
| If you do a search two things will happen:
|
| 1) You are now aware of the patent and continuing to
| willfully infringe
|
| 2) You're going to spend days obsessing on how your idea is
| different, or they didn't think of this or that, or this tiny
| edge case convincing yourself of non-infringement.
|
| In both cases any patent litigation attorney worth their salt
| will absolutely murder you. The best part is so many broad
| patents exist that everything infringes on one.
| [deleted]
| jnwatson wrote:
| It doesn't take much money to search. It does, however,
| expose you to treble damages due to "willful infringement".
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Everytime I hear about companies patenting everything, it
| really bothers me.
|
| I wish we would tie patent fees to the assets of a company, or
| person. Basically the wealthy boys would pay much more for a
| patent, and low income individuals woukd pay less, or nothing.
|
| So a big company might think twice about an exponential
| government fee when they are on their 100 patent.
| lachstar-x wrote:
| Wouldn't they just get a homeless guy to register it, and
| then transfer it over to them? I'm all for the intent behind
| your system but execution has gotta be airtight
| sharemywin wrote:
| Then charge a transfer fee based on company size. Which
| they do currently have different fees based on size of
| company but I'm pretty sure it's negligible. The other
| problem is patent trolls. So, you might want to tie fees
| every year to lack of sales. That would also force
| companies to let the patents go faster.
| bserge wrote:
| If you can make them stealthier, accept crypto and/or cash and
| not ask a lot of questions, I believe you can double that market
| figure.
| sirtimbly wrote:
| I can't stop thinking about this. Logistic systems that utilize
| heli-stats and other drones for various flexible and inconvenient
| legs of the route seem incredibly powerful to replace trucks and
| small planes. Automation will change everything.
| hirundo wrote:
| It sounds like an outstanding search and rescue platform, in calm
| conditions.
| Benclaman wrote:
| A fleet for autonomous search and rescue would be awesome.
| [deleted]
| mike_d wrote:
| Most counties have surveillance aircraft from DHS with thermal
| imaging and cell triangulation that work well for aerial
| searches. The vast majority of UAVs are too noisy and distract
| ground searchers (remember you are trying to listen for people
| that might be faintly calling out for help) and make the
| airspace unsafe for larger aircraft to operate in the search.
| ogsalmanxx wrote:
| As long as this is better for the environment I'm all for it.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| Don't take this the wrong way but...
|
| I think its hard to avoid the elephant in the room that blimp
| cargo has been a dream ever since the invention of the blimp, and
| if we put your technology claims to one side (because they are
| more an assistant, not an enabler) I'm not too sure what makes
| you any different ?
|
| Look at what is perhaps your most recent competitor ... Flying
| Whales.
|
| Going since 2012, burning through cash like there's no tomorrow
| ($30m Quebec, EUR225m France etc. etc.) , and so far maybe
| promising some sort of prototype by 2024 (already slipped from
| 2021).
|
| What _really_ makes you so different from prior dreamers and in
| particular your present competitors ?
| Benclaman wrote:
| We're not planning to build something that's 600 feet long and
| costs hundreds of millions, we're building something that's 60
| feet long and costs hundreds of thousands. Unmanned blimps of
| this size don't require the same amount of capital, so we can
| fly faster and get to market faster.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| > we're building something that's 60 feet long and costs
| hundreds of thousands.
|
| Why still hundreds of thousands? Blimps are an incredibly
| simple, cheap technology, and drone hardware is completely
| commoditized at this point.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| But do you escape the regulatory requirements and the
| practical constraints ?
| joefigura wrote:
| We'll spend a lot of time on certification. We need two
| things: a type-certification of the aircraft, and operator
| certifications for the organizations flying them. Both
| require a lot of flight hours, which will be our main
| development activity. There's no escaping aircraft
| regulation, but we have a clear path
|
| Hopefully we've responded to practical constraints in other
| answers, but if not let me know questions.
| uncoder0 wrote:
| Very good answer. The key difference is the size it also
| offers you much more flexibility it would seem in terms of
| the role you can fill. You can always add more blimps.
| elihu wrote:
| Supposing you had unlimited engineering resources and
| development or capital costs weren't an issue, are smaller
| blimps fundamentally superior to larger ones in some
| important way? For instance, are smaller blimps inherently
| faster or easier to control in windy conditions?
| dmix wrote:
| I don't understand why it took so long for them to build a
| prototype? 12 years?
| lyime wrote:
| Basically why now?
| Benclaman wrote:
| The economics on small airships only work if they're
| unmanned, and now is pretty much the best time ever to
| develop unmanned aircraft.
| quadcore wrote:
| Entirely fair question I think. I'd add that execution can
| easily be the difference. Notably french startups generally
| have poor execution. For example, the entrepreneur in France
| generally has to get loan on his own person, indebting himself,
| "to be sure he believes in his own idea".
| _tom_ wrote:
| The loan approach misses the fact the the entrepreneur is
| going to spend several years of his life on the project.
| Nobody starts a company they don't believe in. The cost is
| too high, even without the loans.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > indebting himself, "to be sure he believes in his own
| idea".
|
| Putting the French specific comment to one side because I
| don't have sufficient knowledge to comment, what I would say
| is that having "skin in the game" is no bad thing (it focuses
| your mind, and demonstrates your commitment to others).
|
| That's one of the problems with the US funding scene.
|
| On one side its great because people will throw obscene
| amounts of money at you if your marketing pitch sells well
| enough.
|
| One the other hand, it does lead to the situation where your
| commitment to the business only goes so far because you've
| basically always got someone else picking up the tab.
| deepnotderp wrote:
| If only we could compare the success levels of the two
| funding scenes...
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > If only we could compare the success levels of the two
| funding scenes...
|
| As long as the US side doesn't seek to brush over the
| failures by attempting to focus people's attention on the
| successes. And also as long as we have a fair definition
| of "success" .... an exit strategy that comprises being
| able to hype up a blatantly overvalued IPO is not
| "success", for example.
|
| Let's face it there have been some quite spectacular
| failures in the US in recent years. As well as many more
| less spectacular that have burnt through millions of
| dollars in cash before calling it quits.
|
| All that glitters is not gold. The US has a mentality of
| "throwing more money at the problem", but that does leave
| you in an environment where larger and larger burn rates
| become acceptable.
| deepnotderp wrote:
| The entire point of VC is a high failure rate and lots of
| failures with a few breakaway successes.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| On average it has worked spectacularly well though.
|
| Most founders aren't taking a risk (they tend to come from
| wealthy families) they are executing a vision.
| _tom_ wrote:
| Depends on whether by "average" you mean "median" or
| "mean"!
|
| I'd bet the median return on startups is negative.
| deepnotderp wrote:
| The entire point of venture capital is to have 9 failures
| out of 10 and 1 that returns the entire fund
| tjs8rj wrote:
| How frequently does this happen in reality? The reality is:
| startups are risky. Forcing the entrepreneur to take a
| bigger chunk of that risk than necessary leads to less
| innovation, playing it safe, and kills many businesses
| before they've left the ground. Would Airbnb exist? Would
| Coinbase exist? Would uber exist? Maybe, but probably not,
| because the founders here weren't rich enough to absorb the
| costs given the odds.
|
| In theory, having that much skin in the game sounds like a
| pro with small cons. The reality is that is kills
| innovation, leaves the few brave enough who fail indebted
| and hampered for years, and makes the successful a fraction
| of the scale (and disproportionately founded by those
| already rich).
| GDC7 wrote:
| Companies providing those services would exist anyways.
|
| The profile of the person founding them would be
| different. You'd have istrionic risk takers, borderline
| gamblers carrying the company for the first say 5 years,
| then they'd be bought out and a more stable person would
| be brought in.
|
| The VC model enables the economy at large to artificially
| skip the first step. It's artificial because Silicon
| Valley companies which basically start from zero and
| arrive in the S&P500 in 20 years or less, they have very
| low turnover in managment and executives.
|
| It's like a Vietcong learning how to fly an F-35.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I'm not french but spent a fair amount of time in the EU tech
| ecosystem and I think that "Notably french startups generally
| have poor execution." is a super general statement that isn't
| fair to apply. I mean Bernard Arnault, one of the wealthiest
| people in the world, built LVMH and the government has been
| working hard via the la french tech initiative and Station F
| to make the startup ecosystem much more friendly.
| EmilyHATFIELD wrote:
| I think you're thinking about Xavier Niel, which created
| Free, Station F and 42
| c_o_n_v_e_x wrote:
| I worked for a French founder for a few years and was quite
| involved with a lot of French people and companies (Thales,
| Veolia, Engie... to name a few) in tech.
|
| I'll reserve my comments about my own personal experience
| but I think the characterization of poor execution is a bit
| sweeping.
|
| Where I think the French and American start up communities
| differ is that failure is not generally accepted in France,
| whereas in the US it's acknowledged and somewhat accepted
| to have a few "duds" on the resume.
| thehappypm wrote:
| This is such a terrible critique, in my opinion. Just because
| something's never been done well doesn't mean it's impossible.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| That many have tried and failed hints that there might be
| something there that is harder than it looks.
| thehappypm wrote:
| "Many"? How many blimp startups have here been in the
| modern era?
| solresol wrote:
| It would be a risky flight for the drone, but that might get
| supplies to Pitcairn island, where it could be recharged and sent
| back. (Prevailing winds might be a problem though.)
| avernon wrote:
| Did you choose batteries for the first version to simplify the
| power train? Also, why use hydrogen instead of a cheaper, buoyant
| neutral fuel like propane? If you are worried about the carbon,
| you can always buy direct air capture credits.
| fishtoaster wrote:
| That's very cool!
|
| How does it handle weather? You mention it can take off and land
| in inclement weather, but how does it compare with existing
| competitors? Intuitively (as someone with zero knowledge or
| experience in any of this), it seems like planes and helicopters
| could handle higher winds than a blimp - is that the case?
| Benclaman wrote:
| It depends. For example, small planes need runways to take off
| and land, and if the crosswinds are over 15 kts they aren't
| able to operate. In this same situation, our airships would be
| able to take off and land because they have VTOL capability
| like a helicopter and can point in any direction. Helicopter
| can take off and land in really high winds, up to 40 kts, but
| they are 4-8x more expensive to operate than planes, and have
| limited range.
|
| Our test site is by a wind farm so we have a lot of experience
| with flying blimps in wind, and we expect our max takeoff
| windspeed for the full size airship to be 25-30 kts.
| 7952 wrote:
| How does it cope with turbulence and wind sheer compared to
| an aeroplane?
| deepnotderp wrote:
| Isn't the von Karman efficiency of small airships very low? I
| struggle to see how you can claim " An airship is the most
| efficient way to fly because it gets most of its lift from
| buoyancy".
|
| Either way, seems like a cool project- I wish you luck!
| thehappypm wrote:
| Planes encounter a lot of air resistance because they're
| constantly creating lift, which means they're pushing a lot of
| air around -- which means drag. Planes also fly fast which
| means a lot of drag (drag forces are proportional to velocity
| squared). Blimps don't need to produce lift, and they move much
| slower.
| joefigura wrote:
| Good question! Airships do get more efficient as they get
| larger (more volume to surface area). But at the 650 lb payload
| size our vehicles fly more efficiency than a comparably-sized
| plane - small planes are also aerodynamically inefficient!
|
| Our goal isn't to maximize efficiency, but rather to build
| something that fits a market need and that we can deploy
| quickly. We actually think that the quest to build huge,
| efficient airships has lead past airship projects astray. There
| are several projects that have struggled to build 10 ton or 50
| ton vehicles, but no past attempts to build something in this
| size class.
| gene-h wrote:
| Define what you mean by fly more efficiently. I'd like to see
| some numbers on efficiency.
| joefigura wrote:
| The two most important efficiency metrics are Lift to drag
| ratio (L/D) and energy per payload mass per distance.
|
| Lift to drag ratio describes the aerodynamic efficiency of
| the vehicle. Typical values, depending on flight
| conditions, are 4-5 for a helicopter, 8-13 for small
| planes, and 12-16 for our airships. (Large planes can get
| as high as 17, but a larger airship would be also be even
| more efficient). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-
| drag_ratio#Examples_of...
|
| From the L/D ratio and the propulsion system efficiency you
| can calculate the total energy used, and divide that by the
| payload mass to get energy/kg/km.
| deepnotderp wrote:
| L/D ratio is not enough, you also have to take into
| account speed. A L/D of 6 at 120 mph has an equivalent
| per mile efficiency of an L/D of 12 at 60 mph (and a
| better von Karman efficiency).
|
| The figure of merit is maximum (speed * L/D), not L/D
| alone, and this is where the efficiency of airships fall
| apart. Due to their greater parasite drag compared to
| aircraft (necessitated by the lifting gas volume),
| airships generally can't match the same per mile
| efficiency, and even if they can, not at the same von
| Karman efficiency.
| rlonn wrote:
| But aren't these L/D numbers calculated for a theoretical
| case where there is no wind? What kind of L/D ratios
| would you see for helicopters, planes and blimps given a
| 20 knot head wind?
|
| Sure, I don't doubt a blimp is more efficient when the
| wind is blowing it to where it wants to go, but what
| happens when the wind doesn't cooperate?
|
| EDIT: yes, the Wikipedia page states that L/D numbers are
| usually presented as graphs, because they are dependent
| on speed. This means that without knowing the wind speed
| the blimp is facing, especially given it travels at a
| lowly 35 MPH, you can't really calculate an L/D number.
| For the helicopter and airplane, the wind matters less as
| they are going much faster.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| EMM_386 wrote:
| > and can take off and land in inclement weather
|
| What kind of inclement weather are we talking about?
|
| Aircraft have to deal with some _really_ inclement weather.
| METARs like 12026G41. You mention you are testing in Alaska,
| which is infamous for this.
|
| How much of a problem will this be?
| Benclaman wrote:
| The inclement weather where our airships have the biggest
| advantage is in fog or limited visibility due to autonomy
| hardware/software in geographies with traditionally VFR
| approaches. Based on our experiences flying our current
| prototype, the full size airship should be able to take-off and
| land in wind speeds of 25-30 kts.
| blantonl wrote:
| This is a neat concept - especially considering they are
| autonomous. However, I wonder about these risk scenarios:
|
| 1) Weather. Moving at 35 mph it seems that a lot of long term
| planning is in order for something that could be severely
| impacted by weather. This sounds like a logistical nightmare
| during a week of active weather across the country.
|
| 2) Helium availability - there have been reports that the costs
| of helium have gone up considerably since there are only a very
| few producers of the gas and this seems like it would be a huge
| consumer of such gas.
|
| 3) Vandalism. Never underestimate the power of stupid people.
| It's well known in the railroad industry that trains and their
| cargo often take bullets from traveling cross country. In fact,
| the 737 fuselages that travel across country on trains for Boeing
| often have bullet holes in them that must be repaired. Add in a
| huge cargo blimp that is unmanned and the urge for vandalism will
| be significant for some nefarious actors.
| Benclaman wrote:
| These are awesome questions! Here's a couple answers:
|
| 1) We're building our full size airship to fly at 60 mph, which
| increases the usability in inclement weather.
|
| 2) Joe answered this in another comment, but our airships use
| pretty small quantities of helium compared to the bigger ones,
| so it's not a major operational cost.
|
| 3) For sure this is an issue, but the bigger the blimp is, the
| more bullet holes you'd have to fill it with to prevent it from
| reaching its final destination. The german zeppelins of world
| war I were really hard to shoot down. See 5:47 of the below
| video.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQgprSGpNI
| ManBlanket wrote:
| I just attended a 7 year old girl's birthday party who was
| gifted a bb gun by her domestic-swilling uncle. We confirmed
| the temptation to shoot balloons is real. That said it seems
| like the other points you mentioned are working in your
| favor. The chances of hitting a small moving aircraft at a
| relatively high altitude is much lower than a 747 loaded onto
| a passing train. Plus I would like to imagine the temptation
| to shoot at something would diminish significantly as our
| hill billy wouldn't necessarily know it is unmanned. Not to
| mention anyone who has listened to a firearm safety talk is
| well-versed in how gravity affects projectiles. I wouldn't
| anticipate this being a significant problem, but it was a fun
| thought to entertain nonetheless.
|
| And hey I'm just spit-balling here but isn't wind a much less
| of an issue at dusk, night, and dawn? Would this not be a
| significant factor in when you would operate? I would imagine
| most people shooting 747s on passing trains aren't getting
| out of bed to do that, after all.
| datameta wrote:
| In my experience around sunset and sunrise there is a
| period of varying wind characteristics, at least this seems
| to be the case in a city by water.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I mean for 3, it's called 'vandalism' but it should be
| considered assault, attempted murder or even domestic
| terrorism. I'd put a security system on there (using e.g.
| high speed cameras) so that hopefully you can pin down where
| the shots come from, then sick the authorities on them. I
| have no tolerance for people using guns irresponsibly.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| They're unmanned though there could be a danger to people
| on the ground if there was enough damage done that it
| couldn't land under control.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Also if the idiots know they're unmanned and used to
| deliver goods, they could be even more motivated to
| attempt to shoot them down to steal the cargo. I also
| would consider putting cameras and the necessary
| technology to help identifying anyone attempting to shoot
| them down.
|
| Or maybe paint them as sharks, then add some powerful
| lasers on their back:)
| mwcampbell wrote:
| Not to be confused with the other Buoyant [1], the company behind
| the linkerd service mesh.
|
| Not that I'm really into service meshes, but I happened to be
| doing some reading about the Tokio async runtime for Rust
| yesterday, and a lot of the work on that has been funded by that
| Buoyant, which is why that company was on my mind.
|
| [1]: https://buoyant.io/
| anotheryou wrote:
| How dangerous is wind?
|
| So many cool concepts failed to just hunker down during wind.
|
| My favourite, the cyclocrane https://youtu.be/CiU71GFs4Fs?t=178
|
| The cyclocrane seems to have targeted a similar market replacing
| helicopters.
| ascales wrote:
| I think the concept is awesome, and I'm excited to see it, but it
| raises so many questions about how this is going to work. First
| question that comes to mind is how are you going to handle
| weather- and not just crazy storms, but heat and pressure too.
| Blimps/semi-rigid airships face a less than ideal operating
| window, and while ballonets and ballast can help manage the
| buoyancy of the ship, inevitably you'll have to vent helium. How
| are you going to approach the infrastructure the drones are going
| to need to stay topped up on helium and ballast, and how are you
| going to approach emergency situations where you end up outside
| of the operating window of the aircraft?
| Benclaman wrote:
| We anticipate these will have operating bases with lifting gas
| storage tanks, hangars, tiedowns, etc. The hybrid design we're
| using doesn't need ballast because the total vehicle mass is
| heavier than air. In emergencies, we would land them in a field
| or on water for recovery when conditions improve, or fly to an
| area with better weather.
| c_o_n_v_e_x wrote:
| Cool idea. Coincidentally, I used to a share a ride to work with
| a guy who spent a number of years at Hybrid Air Vehicles (the
| blimp with the rear-end shaped rear end). I myself worked in UAV
| start-up in a previous life. I always had to evaluate aerostats
| as a competing technology to what we had to offer.
|
| Do you see any optionality in markets you can target besides
| delivery? Defense/surveillance? Anti-poaching? We had quite a bit
| of interest in wildlife sanctuary and border surveillance.
| Monitoring for illegal fishing is a very hot topic for a certain
| large SE Asian archipelago.
| burnished wrote:
| I think this is a really interesting project. When I read about
| the helium vs hydrogen post, same as you, I started scratching
| things out for curiosities sake (I was more curious about how
| high you could reasonably go). Very exciting stuff. I've got a
| bunch of questions, feel free to cherry pick if you decide to
| respond.
|
| How delicate do you suspect this will be? Will a bored or
| malicious person be able to cause harm with a laser, an air rifle
| with pellet or BB, or gun? In the event of a puncture what is the
| failure mode like? Are you worried about birds? Are you concerned
| about banditry? I know the last might sound silly, but you'd only
| really need to go to our grand-parents and great-grand-parents to
| find some train robbers.
|
| I could see Hollywood making use of this for filming in remote
| locations. Or other situations where you need to get something
| heavy and oddly shaped up or over a mountain. Relief work as well
| where the roads aren't operable. Wouldn't surprise me if this had
| applications in agriculture either, if anyone is still using
| planes might be nicer to have an autonomous blimp instead. Maybe
| stuff like introducing fish to alpine lakes, if you've got good
| control of vertical height you could probably design a safe exit
| system.
|
| Most of that is supposing that getting the blimp somewhere to
| then be used is easy. How is transportation of those things when
| not in use?
| Benclaman wrote:
| A bored or malicious person will definitely be able to shoot
| our airships. The nice part about an airship is that if you
| shoot it with a gun, the hole will be small so it will take a
| long time for the gas to leak out. The failure mode is the
| airship will gradually lose lift and have trouble flying,
| probably on the order of hours before it wouldn't have enough
| to fly.
|
| Most of the time we'll be operating over areas without people,
| so if the airships do get shot at, they should be in an area
| where they can safely land and be recovered. The envelope will
| be tough enough to handle birds landing on it.
|
| Regarding banditry, we hope that we are providing enough value
| to these communities that there will be peer pressure to
| prevent it.
|
| It's relatively easy to transport them when not in use, either
| keeping them inflated and flying to the end location, or
| packing them up and assembling/inflating on location.
| burnished wrote:
| Rad! Thanks for the answers and best of luck!
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| I have connections at 3M, let me know if you need any fancy
| materials :)
| HALtheWise wrote:
| One obvious tradeoff blimps is lower speeds than what people
| normally expect from "air freight". You mention 60mph in your
| post, which seems comparable to trucks. Are your customers
| primarily interested in air freight for speed, or is it mostly
| avoiding the cost of a driver, or is it something else entirely?
| joefigura wrote:
| Our primary value proposition is cost, but we're also faster on
| most routes because we fly point-to-point. To start off with,
| we're selling to customers who already fly cargo aircraft in
| areas where roads aren't an option. Our airship is much cheaper
| than the planes they currently use. Longer term, we think we're
| competitive with trucks for less-than-truckload cargo and in
| low population density areas.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| what can be the cost of a full 660 Lb 250 mile two way trip?
| are you including the salary of the driver/pilot in this
| cost? how much would that be? the website says half of cessna
| but i do not know how much does a cessna has in operating
| costs so what
| liketochill wrote:
| Lack of roads
| evrydayhustling wrote:
| Can you share details about the CO2 emissions per kg-mile of
| cargo as compared to e.g. trucking or traditional air freight?
| literallyaduck wrote:
| What about using aerial cranes to build a zip line depot network
| instead. You could then have anchor lines for your blimps.
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| You're probably familiar with the AEREON 26
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEREON_26 But if you haven't read
| John McPhee's excellent book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed, I'd highly
| recommend doing so.
| thechao wrote:
| How do I convince you to make a thermal semirigid body airship?
| b20000 wrote:
| where did you get the money to build all this? if you already
| have this sort of money, what do you need YC for?
| joefigura wrote:
| We built the current prototype on the YC investment. Before
| that, I self funded. The current prototype's 20 ft and cheaper
| than you might expect.
|
| We've found YC enormously helpful and worth the dilution,
| providing structure, advice, and also momentum. We've gotten a
| ton done this summer!
| algo_trader wrote:
| this!
|
| Best of luck to them of course.
|
| But they already built a couple of models before YC. It makes
| financial sense to dilute by 7% and use the name recognition to
| drive a much higher valuation.
|
| But this does squeeze out the true pre-seed teams.
| rlonn wrote:
| Stupid question: how do you handle air resistance on a windy day?
| I always thought that's what made blimps inherently uneconomical
| (though can also imagine maintenance costs are high). An airplane
| has very little drag compared to its lift capacity. I don't
| really know, but expect a blimp to be terrible in comparison.
| Fine for stationary lifting, but expensive when you want to move
| things horizontally, against the wind.
| thehappypm wrote:
| My guess is that you just don't fly unless the weather is good.
| Since these are small ships it's not like your whole Walmart is
| going to be on it.
| agumonkey wrote:
| If long term safety is favorable, I'd to see more of theses.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| You mention the full scale version will take 650lbs - are there
| plans to increase that in the future? I'm thinking about the
| transport of commodities from inland hubs in Africa/MENA (e.g.
| copper in Zambia, coffee in West Africa) that is a pain to get to
| ports now. How does it perform in heavy rains? What sort of
| infrastructure investment is needed to set up facilities to
| receive the airship on either side?
| miketery wrote:
| How does a hybrid blimp compare to a glider style drone as it
| relates to efficiency?
| peregrine wrote:
| This is really cool and this is the kind of startup I'd be
| applying to in a heartbeat! Very excited to see this happening,
| great work! I feel like there is vastly more potential for LTA
| flight that isn't being re-explored with autonomous drones and
| solar being viable now.
|
| What altitudes do you intend on operating in the "v1"?
| notahacker wrote:
| > I feel there is vastly more potential for LTA flight that
| isn't being re-explored with autonomous drones and solar being
| viable now
|
| Interesting to see it go the other way too. Hybrid Air Vehicles
| near me is the remnants of a cancelled US military autonomous
| blimp project, now aspiring to use the large helium blimps
| originally powered by diesel engines to pilot 100 civilians
| passengers as an alternative to turboprops (i.e. use the bits
| of the tech and the business model that's been around in some
| form since before Hindenberg)
|
| I do think freight with electric propulsion (over distances
| battery-powered heavier than air aircraft can't compete even if
| they're also autonomous) is an easier environmentally friendly
| sell.
| joefigura wrote:
| Standard drone regulations in the U.S. allow mostly
| unrestricted flight up to 400 feet. We think that's about the
| right altitude to stay below general aviation - no obvious
| advantages to flying higher - but TBD depending on how
| regulations evolve
| dchristian wrote:
| How far along are you on getting FAA approval for beyond visual
| line of sight operation? Or will there be a pilot on the full
| scale version?
| Benclaman wrote:
| We haven't filed for a BVLOS waiver yet, that's something we're
| planning to do in the next couple months. Full scale version
| will be unmanned.
| totetsu wrote:
| Is this like the dynalifter? http://www.ohioairships.com/
| 6510 wrote:
| > We loved reading the thread a couple weeks ago about hydrogen
| vs. helium for blimps
|
| Say it takes 1000 m3 hydrogen to lift 1 m3 concrete. Image a
| pyramid shaped cone 4000 meter long with a bottom 4 m3. Now
| imagine a balloon with a diameter of 8000 meters.
|
| Clearly much to big to build [for now]. We pump the hydrogen out
| of it. How much extra lift does that generate before the balloon
| implodes? What other materials can we use? Would it be possible
| to make it smaller than a km?
| thehappypm wrote:
| Your math is off, I think. 1000 m3 would be a 10x10x10 meter
| cube, which is pretty easy to imagine.
| sbr464 wrote:
| Had any interesting run-ins with lightning?
| legohead wrote:
| Cool project, I like the idea. How loud is this thing, as
| compared to a drone?
| lexicality wrote:
| What's your plan for dealing with the fact that Helium is a non-
| renewable resource that we are rapidly running out of?
|
| Have you done experiments into hydrogen safety?
| joefigura wrote:
| Good questions. Helium is non-renewable, but there is still
| plenty in the ground. It's a byproduct of natural gas
| extraction, and as long as there's more gas in the ground there
| will be helium available. We do think that declining natural
| gas production as the world decarbonizes is a long term risk.
|
| The helium market's been pretty volatile since the U.S.
| government finished selling off the national helium reserve in
| 2019. But we think that's mostly due to short-term market
| dynamics because helium's a hard commodity to produce and there
| are only a few producers. There are lots of stories about
| helium running out, but we've dug in and haven't found much
| evidence that supply is actually drying up
|
| We think we can build a hydrogen blimp safely. It's not on our
| tech roadmap currently, but in any case the best way to build a
| hydrogen blimp is to get lots of flight hours on a helium
| version first.
| lexicality wrote:
| > we've dug in and haven't found much evidence that supply is
| actually drying up
|
| Interesting. Is this a case of people over-hyping the problem
| or just that prices are going to rise to a point that people
| will stop wasting it?
|
| > the best way to build a hydrogen blimp is to get lots of
| flight hours on a helium version first
|
| Can you just put hydrogen into an existing helium blimp or
| would you need to design a new one based on flight data?
|
| I was under the impression they required radically different
| gasbag designs due to the explosion hazards (not to mention
| the increased lift)
| ansible wrote:
| > _Can you just put hydrogen into an existing helium blimp
| or would you need to design a new one based on flight
| data?_
|
| The issue is more about the permeability of hydrogen gas.
| It can seep through all kinds of materials, including
| metals, and then embrittle them.
| lachstar-x wrote:
| Does it embrittle rubber or plastic balloons? Hydrogen is
| so cheap and easy to make, you could have a single bottle
| that feeds into a blimp, refilling it when enough has
| seeped out.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| It chemically reacts with a lot of things. Graphene
| coatings are being explored - powdered graphene oxide
| seems promising, but permeability without a contiguous
| layer of something that can block h2 molecules is a "laws
| of physics are laughing at you" level issue. If large
| super high quality graphene sheets ever become practical,
| they can make almost perfectly impermeable envelopes.
|
| But yes hydrogen is cheap enough that refillable bottles
| and more leakage is cheaper than helium in terms of just
| the features of lifting gas. Hydrogen reactivity makes
| for other materials, engineering, and maintenance
| challenges that can be ignored with helium.
| joefigura wrote:
| > Is this a case of people over-hyping the problem...
|
| As best I can tell, this is the case. The price of helium
| has gone up quite a bit, but non of the commentary links
| that to the actual production volumes of helium or size of
| remaining reserves.
|
| > Can you just put hydrogen into an existing helium blimp
|
| We'd need to modify the envelope design, but the rest of
| the design wouldn't need to be modified (aerodynamics,
| controls, propulsion, etc.)
| c_o_n_v_e_x wrote:
| For h2, depending on where some of your
| electronics/electrical systems are installed, you may
| need hazardous area rated gear ...equipment rated for use
| in flammable/explosive atmospheres. ATEX for Europe, AEx
| for North America, IECEx for rest of world.
| fernly wrote:
| Video would be much more impressive if it showed loading the
| cargo package -- can it pick up autonomously or does it need to
| be loaded by a ground crew? -- and also dropping it off within a
| designated space marked by cones.
|
| Will the full-size model be able to lift a standard 40-foot
| shipping container? That would be very cool indeed, to have the
| blimp pick up from a truck or from a container ship.
| wombatpm wrote:
| Tare weight for a shipping container is 8000lbs, so no.
| tempestn wrote:
| The full size blimp is only 60ft long, and is intended to carry
| 650lb, so not anywhere near a shipping container. Also I'm not
| sure it's important that it be able to pick up or even drop off
| autonomously. It's getting the cargo from point A to point B
| that's the hard part. If they can do that cost effectively,
| that's plenty to have a very viable business.
| sokoloff wrote:
| It seems like Alaska is quite prone to inclement weather, not
| just clouds but ice, including SLD icing.
|
| How's a blimp handle icing conditions? (I'm imagining "poorly",
| but I don't have a real idea and suspect you've got more info on
| it.)
| Benclaman wrote:
| We have a pretty cool plan for managing icing that I can't talk
| about here because of IP disclosure. In general we don't think
| icing will be an unsolvable problem.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I look forward to learning more about your anti-icing plans
| as you're able to share them. Best.
| jacknews wrote:
| Is hydrogen as lifting gas still verboten? Yet aok under high
| pressure as fuel?
| walrus01 wrote:
| What are your thoughts on using gasoline or diesel and a free-
| piston linear generator to achieve much better watt-hour/kg ratio
| (as compared to li-ion batteries), without all of the gas
| handling and complexity of a hydrogen fuel cell setup?
| joefigura wrote:
| We think we're starting at about the right time to skip
| straight to aviation hydrogen. Several companies are working on
| fuel cells and infrastructure specifically for aviation. We're
| starting with the battery version, and by the time we deploy
| the hydrogen version in the middle of the decade we expect the
| cost to have come down a lot.
|
| If we're successful, these airships will be flying for decades
| to come. The extreme weather this summer and the recent IPCC
| report has driven home how important it is for new forms of
| transportation to be zero emission from the beginning.
| walrus01 wrote:
| How do you plan to handle refueling apparatus and hydrogen
| tankage and storage at remote locations?
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| Makes me think 'barge vs. wagon'.
| nico_h wrote:
| I love blimps and dirigibles, but I have always wondered about
| their practicality, particularly in inclement weather. like, when
| it rain, they get heavier,
|
| For rural or sub-urban logistics I can see how it could work, if
| you have large enough landing zones, or if you have strong enough
| station keeping maybe a winching system from a few stories high
| (then the weight question pops up)
|
| I'm curious about the economics question like what kind of 300 /
| 600lb shipment is worth the trip, and how much of it are there in
| a blimp-appropriate weather areas that it justifies the
| development and deployment of a whole new class of transport?
| (and how do you plan of safeguarding it against pirates;)
|
| Do you plan to store your airships are a particular location or
| will the just hang out in the air somewhere waiting for a
| payload?
|
| Have you considered partnering with earth imaging services to
| sell them images during trips or serving as relay antenna for
| them to communicate with their micro-satellites
|
| I also have lots of silly questions:
|
| - if it's sunny, would a black envelope provide better lift?
|
| - A what watt / square meter / kilo / solar prevalence are solar
| panels on top worth the extra complexity and weight?
|
| - Would there be any advantage to using a pump+compressor to vary
| the quantity of helium in the envelope? What about heaters /
| coolers ?
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I think the issue about airships being white rather than black
| is that heating up the envelope is something you don't want.
| Having too much lift, and not enough ballast, is just as much a
| problem as too little lift and no ballast to drop. The gas
| expands when warmed up, and the envelope can stretch to some
| point, but then you have to vent the gas in order to stop it
| from bursting. When it gets cooler eventually, you have to
| refill the gas.
|
| Model airship hobbyists often use a compressor to pump the
| helium back into a tank, to get the model into a transportable
| size. That might work here, also. Otherwise an airship must be
| stored in a hangar, or supervised 24/7 while filled with
| helium, even when attached to a pole.
| quadcore wrote:
| Wooah the video is so hacker-cool. I would add a little mention
| on your videos to tell it's not CGI ( _real life /world footage_
| or something), it might add to the impact and make it tiktok
| ready. Speaking of tiktok, might be an interesting platform for
| your videos.
| klausjensen wrote:
| How does one follow your progress? Your website doesn't list any
| social media, mailing list etc (which is fine and understandable
| - focus on building) - but I want to follow how you guys do. :)
|
| I am very fascinated by this! I read the headline and thought it
| sounds super-gimmicky, but I spent the last two hours crawling
| down this rabbithole, and I really like your idea and approach.
| It makes total sense. I wish you guys all the best of luck!
| toss1 wrote:
| Wow, nice work! It looks quite controllable and maneuverable in
| what appear to be decent winds. Interesting using dual cylinders
| - what do you find works best about that design vs others you
| considered? Does this provide any redundancy (as in could you fly
| if one deflated)? What scale of thrust and elec power do you use
| (if you don't mind my asking)? Are you considering a range of
| sizes or just the "mid mile" 650Lb capacity version?
| malwrar wrote:
| This is a project I've had in the back of my mind for awhile!
| Cool to see you guys on the front page, if you start hiring I'll
| definitely be reaching out. Curious about the following:
|
| 1.) What does the regulatory landscape look like for this kind of
| work? Was there significant prep, or did you guys find it easy to
| get moving right away? I'm curious specifically about any
| obstacles both with flying your airships and the remote piloting.
|
| 2.) How much of the airship is manufactured in-house? Are you
| building the whole airship from scratch? Designing the fabric
| envelope material too?
|
| 3.) You mention the airships land in inclement weather, how
| inclement might that be? Any cool test videos you could share? :P
| joefigura wrote:
| On 1, It was surprisingly easy to get started. We fly under
| Part 107, which basically says as long as you're flying low, in
| line of sight, and not over people you're unrestricted. And we
| found a local municipal airport that has a drone test range,
| and they've been enormously helpful.
|
| On 2, we're big fans of vertical integration and will
| definitely manufacture the envelopes in house. Goal is to build
| the envelope/structure, and buy the propulsion/avionics off the
| shelf.
| aurizon wrote:
| Can ammonia gas be used? NH3 is non flammable, is far
| cheaper(with less lift as well) leaks a lot less, but does have
| low temperature condensation issues = warmer flight times only.
| In addition, the wind speed in Alaska is often above 60 MPH
| c_o_n_v_e_x wrote:
| Ammonia is most definitely flammable, from 15% to 28%
| concentration by volume.
| aurizon wrote:
| thank you.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Ammonia is super toxic - even a controlled descent that lands
| near people could be terrifyingly dangerous. It's an awesome
| refrigerant, for example, but is considered too dangerous for
| general/ non-industrial use. Even in a remote location, you
| could kill lots of plants and wildlife. Given Alaska's
| notorious cold winters, you'd need to engineer a heating
| system- it liquifies at 30 below, which you'd encounter
| frequently even at low altitude.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| This is really cool, also surprisingly agile! Are the gas bags at
| earth pressure?
| ReedJessen wrote:
| Love the idea. How do I reach out for employment as an
| experienced data science leader?
| heyflyguy wrote:
| What kind of payload are we talking?
| devenson wrote:
| Can you control boyancy by compressing and decompressing the
| helium slightly?
| perilunar wrote:
| Airships do this already using ballonets. see:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonet
| sauravmitra wrote:
| Makes a lot of sense. Save energy, travel further and carry more.
| Unfortunate that I won't have a blimp arriving at my doorstep
| though (yet!) :P
|
| Good luck!
| ansible wrote:
| I've thought the hybrid airship approach has a lot of benefits,
| and fewer drawbacks than conventional airships.
|
| What's the full-scale design going to look like? Will you
| continue to use the standard blimp shaped envelope? Or will you
| transition to a fat flying wing type design?
| joefigura wrote:
| Agreed, nice to meet someone else who knows what a hybrid
| airship is! it solves a lot of challenges around ground
| handling and cargo loading/unloading.
|
| The full scale design is a fatter shape that approximates a
| flying wing. That's why the aircraft in the demo video is two
| lobes - the final version will have an aerodynamic cover
| between the lobes.
| fortran77 wrote:
| In remote areas, might hydrogen be safe enough to use?
| lachstar-x wrote:
| In general hydrogen is safe to use. It's only flammable when
| mixed with oxygen and it's 10x cheaper.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| A punctured envelope can result in high oxygen hydrogen mix
| at the point of failure, and static or sparks can ignite the
| mix, leading to a failure cascade. Hydrogen oxygen mixed burn
| really hot, and you want envelope materials to be super thin
| and light. Cellular designs that are engineered around
| controlling catastrophic failure of individual nodes might be
| the only feasible way hydrogen ever becomes practical for
| anything near people. That increases the weight since you
| need lots of little envelopes instead of one big balloon.
|
| Fortunately, materials science is allowing for this, and
| safety features in big helium ships are always improving and
| laying a foundation for the eventual transition to hydrogen.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I hope it has a good collision avoidance system. There are lots
| of small planes and helicopters in Alaska.
| lachstar-x wrote:
| Hello gents! I have a burning question for you - what do you
| think about the idea of building a small airship that can be
| lived and traveled in? Sort of like a tiny house or vanlife, but
| in the air.
|
| It's something I've always thought about since reading about it
| in science fiction books. What would the cost of something like
| that be?
| all2 wrote:
| OP has mentioned a 60ft version of their autonomous airship
| would be in the neighborhood of a couple hundred thousand USD.
| lachstar-x wrote:
| Thank you! And that would hold around 2 tonne if the weight
| scales up linearly, or is it cubed? Either way still cheaper
| than a house here in Australia
| Benclaman wrote:
| The final one we're building will be 60 feet and have a
| 650lb payload, so would have to be an ultralight house! And
| you'd also need a place to park a 60'x20' airship. Or I
| suppose you could just keep it in the air? There's actually
| a startup that's supposedly building air yachts like you're
| talking about. I forgot the name but I think they're
| 150-200 feet.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Rich people spend $200,000 to $300,000 on bus/coach size
| giant RVs, or 55-foot catamarans, so that's not beyond the
| realm of possibility.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Do you see opportunities in a "missing middle", where maybe a
| direct airship route may be more efficient than criss-crossing a
| rail cargo network? I've been interested in this space for a long
| time!
| joefigura wrote:
| Definitely. This is a longer term market and hard to quantify
| so we talk less about it, but we think that vertical takeoff
| aircraft that don't use the road or rail system will enable
| tons of new routes.
| dmix wrote:
| This seems much safer than most autonomous drones I've seen (or
| planes/helicopters). I hope this works out.
|
| Having a bunch of them in the air in a constant cycle synced with
| the warehouse could compensate for the lost speed and could
| result in more distributed last mile centers. So package delivery
| is closer to ordering time, rather than sitting in queued
| bunches.
| Benclaman wrote:
| This is exactly where we think the big market opportunity is!
| plafl wrote:
| Very nice. I have somewhere the book Airship Technology, which I
| bought when I was curious about the possibility of blimp drones
| (I was an aerospace engineer some time ago).
|
| I'm glad you are considering smaller blimps, I think previous
| projects have been too ambitious. Since I have worked on drone
| navigation I'm curious about your approach in that regard and how
| you are going to attain autonomy and get it certified. If you
| manage to get it a completely autonomous and certified that alone
| will be an asset even if you pivot away from blimps! Are you
| going to use alternatives to GPS? GPS is very precise when it
| works but I doubt you can get certification based on that alone.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-24 23:02 UTC)