[HN Gopher] Largest airship built in United States since 1930s t...
___________________________________________________________________
Largest airship built in United States since 1930s to take shape
soon
Author : simonebrunozzi
Score : 236 points
Date : 2022-06-02 07:42 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.beaconjournal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.beaconjournal.com)
| tonetheman wrote:
| Wonder how they will deal with the current helium shortage? The
| article did not mention it. :(
| 0000011111 wrote:
| If the ship can travel at 100mph the travel time for a 10,000
| mile flight would be about 100 hours or 4 days.
| Barrera wrote:
| > Pathfinder 3 will initially be powered by batteries, Weston
| said. But the goal is to have the helium-filled airship powered
| by hydrogen fuel cells, he said.
|
| This is worth expanding on. There is a worldwide shortage of
| helium [1]. It's being aggravated by ongoing natural gas supply
| disruptions:
|
| > The helium shutdown in Arzew is a result of high natural gas
| demand in Europe, due in large part to Russia's invasion of
| Ukraine. Helium is found alongside natural gas in conventional
| wells. Algeria normally compresses natural gas into liquid form
| at Arzew for global transport by ship. During that process, it's
| economical to extract helium because it liquefies at much higher
| pressures and lower temperatures than natural gas, explains
| industrial gas consultant Jon Raquet.
|
| > But now, much of Algeria's natural gas is being sent to Spain
| via pipeline, making separation impractical. The industrial and
| rare-gas advisory firm Edelgas Group estimates that liquefied
| natural gas production in key regions is down 30% from January,
| leading to a 10% drop in global helium supply.
|
| And it's not like we're talking about just a little helium,
| either:
|
| > ... Pathfinder 3, at 600 feet long and 100 feet in diameter, is
| designed to carry about 20 tons and be able to traverse as many
| as 10,000 miles using electric-only, zero-emission propulsion.
|
| Running some back-of-the-envelope math, we can think of this as a
| cylinder roughly 400 feet long (to take account for tapering on
| either end) and 100 feet in diameter. That's 3.14 x 50^2 x 400 =
| 3.1 million cubic feet of He just to fill. It doesn't even
| account for ongoing resupply, testing, etc.
|
| The US is the largest producer of helium at 77 million cubic
| meters [2]. With a conversion factor of 35:1, that puts the
| volume of the airship at ~ 886,000 cubic meters. So we're not
| talking about consuming _all_ of the US production of helium, but
| it 's not insignificant, either.
|
| > The United States is the largest helium producer worldwide. In
| 2021, the production of helium in the U.S. stood at approximately
| 77 million cubic meters,
|
| [1] https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/War-
| Ukraine...
|
| [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/925214/helium-
| production...
| JasonFruit wrote:
| In a rigid airship, the lifting gas is usually contained in
| smaller balloon-like cells inside the frame, which do not fill
| anywhere near all the available space. Your estimate is
| probably considerably over, though your concern is still
| reasonable.
|
| (EDIT: they're not called ballonets; ballonets are used to
| maintain pressure in a non-rigid airship.)
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| I can't inspect element or right click on their homepage, it says
| these things are disabled? What the heck?
| jimwalsh wrote:
| This is being built in my hometown. That hangar is amazing every
| time I have visited it. There are even stories of it raining
| inside and having it's own weather systems [1] . Really great to
| see them building more blimps again, and pushing what has been
| done before.
|
| 1.
| http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2015/07/20/the_good...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| So, going blue-sky big-picture here, the long-term appeal of
| airships seems to be in transoceanic travel alternatives to
| heavier-than-air craft.
|
| I'm starting to think that transoceanic trains might actually be
| a more viable alternative. There's been some very preliminary
| exploration of this.
|
| It turns out that for several heavily-travelled routes, the water
| distances involved are actually reasonably short. Most notably
| the Bering Straight link from Alaska to Siberia, 82 km (51 mi)
| wide at its narrowest point.
|
| Traversing the Atlantic would be more formidable, possibly a
| multi-hop bridge from Newfundland to Greenland to Iceland to
| northern Scotland. Other links include the Timor Sea (between
| Australia and Indonesia), Gibraltar, and the southern Atlantic
| crossing from, say, Recife, Brazil, to Freetown, Sierra Leone,
| about 3,000 km (1,900 mi).
|
| Norway has proposed "floating tunnels" as a technological option
| to bridge fjords for vehicle traffic for its E39 coastal highway
| project. These might work for transoceanic rail links: tunnels
| would float deep enough beneath the surface to be spared wave
| action and collisions with shipping traffic, but shallow enough
| that pressures would be reasonable. Depending on speeds, even the
| longest crossings (3,000 km) might take from 15 to 3 hours (200
| kph to 1,000 kph).
|
| Costs and risks are of course high. The project might be limited
| to, say, automated freight transport initially. But it's not
| obviously impossible, and could prove an alternative to either
| slow boat or high-emissions aircraft for future transport and
| travel.
| leoc wrote:
| Isn't there anything else Sergey Brin should be spending his time
| and attention on? Google's free rein in its early years surely
| had a _lot_ to do with the fact that Page and Brin were
| successfully marketed as nice guys who could be trusted to be
| responsible stewards of Google. However stupid the rest of the
| world may have been to ever take this on faith, it is still on
| Page and Brin to keep their end of the bargain now. Together they
| still control the company outright, so (IANAL) they can do
| whatever they want. Let 's be clear: everything that is wrong
| with Google's products and services--or at least, everything that
| is reasonably obvious, fixable in a reasonably obvious way and
| can be fixed without really enraging the other shareholders, at
| the very least--is on Page and Brin personally, as individuals.
| And there are many such things. The fact that in-document search
| (search!) performs atrociously on large Google Docs, causing real
| difficulty for literally millions of people and organisations, is
| something that Larry and Sergey could fix but choose not to. The
| lads have clearly, some time ago, decided that the hard,
| unglamorous work of stewarding Google--Google!--is work beneath
| their dignity and below their abilities: that instead their
| talents are needed for other, more high-impact things, like
| playing with airships. That really isn't so, and the rest of us
| need to stop going along with the pretense.
| nextstep wrote:
| Google should stop building a massive surveillance apparatus
| for the entire world, but this would hurt their ad business,
| plus any other monetizeable ways they can shape public opinion.
| And those changes would certainly enrage their shareholders.
| leoc wrote:
| Sure, there's a lot more which they should or should arguably
| do. But I wanted to focus on the clearest examples, and
| people will jump on the excuses of fiduciary duty and
| shareholder lawsuits if you give them the chance.
| mr_beans wrote:
| Ah yes, everyone's favorite pastime, telling billionaires how
| to spend their money.
| leoc wrote:
| I draw your attention to this part of my comment:
|
| > Google's free rein in its early years surely had a lot to
| do with the fact that Page and Brin were successfully
| marketed as nice guys who could be trusted to be responsible
| stewards of Google. However stupid the rest of the world may
| have been to ever take this on faith, it is still on Page and
| Brin to keep their end of the bargain now.
|
| Being the proprietors of Google isn't something that Page and
| Brin could hypothetically do if they wanted to, it's the job
| that they already have now. And again, unlike Larry Ellison
| spending all his money on cancer research or whatever, it's
| not something that others want to push them into. Being the
| nice guys who will run Google in a responsible, positive-sum
| manner is a role that they to a large extent made up
| themselves and rather successfully auditioned for, and they
| were happy to enjoy the rewards, extremely valuable rewards,
| of reduced public and government scrutiny that came with it
| in Google's earlier years. (It's also more their time and
| their initiative than their money which is being demanded,
| but that's relatively incidental.)
|
| It's also not as if they've simply gone "played you, so long
| suckers" and disappeared into partying or empire-building or
| personal weirdness with no concern for what the rest of the
| world thinks about them. It's fairly clear that they _still_
| want to enjoy public admiration and respect for some of the
| things they 've been doing. Perhaps because it's good PR for
| Alphabet, or because it's something that they care about on a
| personal level: it doesn't matter which. Of course they
| should be asked about their already existing, more important
| commitments before they're rewarded with this. Naturally your
| missing alimony payments or the orphanage you used to support
| are not off-topic when you're being photographed unveiling
| the plaque with your name on it at the new lion enclosure at
| the city zoo.
| Animats wrote:
| It's apparently just another rich guy toy.
|
| Silicon Valley had a nice zeppelin from 2008 to 2012.[1] The CEO,
| who was qualified to pilot the thing, used to show up at
| steampunk conventions. He said it was the best handling airship
| built up to that time, and he'd flown a few others. Steerable
| fans under computer control make those things far more
| manageable, and docking without an army of line handlers becomes
| possible.
|
| Unfortunately, they launched a luxury tourism project at the
| beginning of a recession. Then, around 2011, the pride of helium
| doubled. It was just too expensive to operate.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship_Ventures
| khendron wrote:
| > [Pathfinder 3] will be the largest airship built in the United
| States since the Macon was built [by Goodyear] in 1932
|
| They conveniently do not mention the Macon's sister ship, the
| Akron, which crashed in 1933 killing 73 people.
| martinclayton wrote:
| Two died when the Macon itself was lost in 1935.
| harveywi wrote:
| Finally, the US Government putting all that inflation to good
| use.
| fukpaywalls2 wrote:
| Stupid question. What's to prevent some no good kid or state from
| using a green laser to slice the blimp open?
| puranjay wrote:
| I'm a little curious how someone becomes an airship pilot.
|
| I understand that the core skills from airplanes would carry
| over, but how do you create the protocols and best practices for
| piloting a completely new vehicle that hasn't been flown in
| nearly 90 years? Do the practices from 90 years ago still apply?
| jpgvm wrote:
| Zeppelin and Good Year have been flying blimps and semi-rigid
| airships continually, there are quite a number of qualified
| airship pilots as a result.
|
| As for transfer from airplanes, only somewhat. Airships have a
| lot in common with boats/sailing but really they are very much
| their own thing with their own set of constraints and
| difficulties.
| gboone wrote:
| Neat side fact about the Akron Airdock[0]: at some point in the
| past each 600-ton door on the end needed a drive replacement. My
| grandfather's company was called in to fix it, but the cost to
| replace it to spec was too costly. I don't recall the exact
| specifics but the engineer on the job told me the original opened
| the door in under 8 minutes. To lower the cost of the replacement
| they put in a smaller drive but it takes something like 20-30
| minutes to open the door. I suppose this video could be used to
| estimate the total time[1].
|
| [0] https://www.nps.gov/articles/goodyear-airdock.htm [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YS1maXSR30
| greggsy wrote:
| 20 minutes seems reasonable tbh. It's not like they're going to
| rush them out the door in preparation for an enemy attack.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Presumably they wanted to rush it out the door _before_ an
| enemy attack on the hangar.
|
| It's not very fast, butpre-radar I imagine you don't need to
| get very far away either.
| kjs3 wrote:
| Or before a nasty storm blew in and damaged the airship.
| xcambar wrote:
| Finally, after almost 100 years, we are overcoming the trauma
| caused by the incident of the Hindenburg[1]. I am really looking
| forward to what opportunities it may open.
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg
| ahoka wrote:
| Or any other airship that crashed within years after making...
| Noughmad wrote:
| Which is to say, almost all of them
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| It's not really the Hindenburg disaster that caused their
| demise.
|
| Aeroplanes became superior by all useful metrics and there
| hasn't been a practical reason to use airships since.
|
| Depending on cost, there might be a niche market for some types
| of freight but that's all I can think of, along with tourism.
| xcambar wrote:
| A reasonable argument seems to account for the cargo capacity
| per unit of pollutive emission.
|
| I don't have the numbers but my wishful-thinking-o-metre is
| high.
|
| And since that metric was off the radars in 1930s, that is
| definitively new compared to the last era of airships.
| CaptArmchair wrote:
| Those opportunities would be limited. Given that commercial
| airlines operating airplanes were in it's infancy before WWII,
| there was a potential market for rigid airships.
|
| World War II changed all that. The Hindenburg wasn't just a
| commercial airship, it was very much used as a propaganda prop
| by the German regime in the 1930s. By the time of the
| Hindenburg disaster, the market for commercial flight was about
| to be stymied by the War.
|
| The disaster didn't just create trauma, above all it marked the
| end of an era of relative infancy in human flight. And even at
| the time, competing airlines already were building long range
| aircraft such as Pan Am / Boeing's famous "Yankee Clipper".
|
| Technological advances and massive investments during the War
| favored airplanes such as we know them today. In the late
| 1940-1960's, airplanes allowed for cheap and fast international
| travel which could easily be scaled upwards. By that time, few
| if anyone wanted to spend 9 days crossing the Atlantic in
| luxury if traveling from London to NY could be done in mere
| hours.
|
| I don't see airships ever taking back a significant chunk of
| that market. If anything, they might appeal to certain niches.
| Maybe in the same vain as one could - even today - still ride
| parts of the Orient Express in style.
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| > I don't see airships ever taking back a significant chunk
| of that market.
|
| I would agree, not without a change in the market's
| parameters.
|
| Environmental parameters coming into play can usher in such a
| change, though - I'm thinking of the lower carbon footprint
| of an airship compared to that of an airplane, that could
| push a change through.
|
| I'm all for airships too, to be honest, as long as they are
| so cool and spacious as the one in Indiana Jones.
| jandrese wrote:
| It seems like we should be able to make a solar cell light
| enough to cover the top of an airship and use electric
| power. Most solar aircraft don't make sense because there
| isn't enough surface area to get a minimum amount of power
| to keep the aircraft aloft. Airships don't have this
| problem. The issues are weight and expense and being
| limited to operating only during the day. Cloud cover isn't
| a huge issue, you can rise above it.
| antupis wrote:
| I think there is big opportunity windmill blade
| transportation now how to transport blade is the limiting
| factor and airlifting those huge blades to construction site
| would solve this. https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/wind-
| turbine-blade-sizes-a...
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Modern air travel outside of business class and select
| airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and
| glamour of the Pan Am days. Maybe people will pay to take a
| cruise among the clouds.
| valzam wrote:
| The question is price. Air travel 'sucks' but has also
| become a lot more accessible, even long haul. If an airship
| takes 4 days and costs the same as business class on a
| regular plane I think many people will just business class.
| EricE wrote:
| Your assuming that for airship travel the journey
| wouldn't be the point of the trip, not an inconvenience
| in getting from point A to point B.
|
| With that kind of thinking there would be no market for
| ocean cruise ships - but there is :)
| jccooper wrote:
| There's a market for cruise ships... as a destination.
| There's basically no market for ocean liners. There's,
| what, one left?
|
| Perhaps people could be convinced to take an "air
| cruise", though it'll never have the amenities of a ship,
| but as transportation there's very little room for slower
| and more expensive.
| ghaff wrote:
| And there is a transatlantic ocean liner option--albeit
| on a fairly limited basis.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Modern air travel outside of business class and select
| airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and
| glamour of the Pan Am days.
|
| Not really. It was comfortable if you had first class
| seating--at a price above today's business class. But the
| first class lounge was fairly lightly used for the most
| part and became business class seating when that level of
| service came in. While airports are worse in some ways
| because they're often so crowded, modern international lie-
| flat business class seating is more comfortable in general
| --and there are more entertainment options--than first
| class on Pan Am was.
| 0des wrote:
| Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if
| you're talking about the luxury pods. Those business
| class sleepers are tiny and you will have to crook your
| knees.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm six foot and am pretty comfortable in them. In any
| case, they're more comfortable (even if you don't put
| them all the way down) than old first class seats--which
| were basically like the seats you get in most domestic
| business class today.
| 0des wrote:
| Just six foot? Lucky you! I say that with sincerity from
| the top of my head to my crinkled flight-legs.
| bhelkey wrote:
| > Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if
| you're talking about the luxury pods.
|
| > Just six foot?
|
| The average height for men in the US is 5'9" [1]. The
| Netherlands is the world's tallest country with an
| average height of 5'11" [1].
|
| [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/average-height-for-
| men#u-s...
| Symmetry wrote:
| The big difference is that back in the day we had the
| interstate commerce commission establishing a minimum
| ticket price so that airlines didn't have to engage in
| "ruinous" price competition. Everyone had to pay what would
| now be business class ticket prices but everybody got
| business class service because that was the only thing
| airlines could compete on.
| newsclues wrote:
| Not for passenger but heavy lift transport.
| csunbird wrote:
| That's what I am wondering as well. Can airships replace
| long distance truck lines?
| newsclues wrote:
| They won't compete with rail, but last mile logistics
| especially to remote or austere regions, absolutely.
|
| I believe someone else mentioned wind turbines, which is
| a great idea.
| csunbird wrote:
| To be fair, nothing can compete with rail on land, but
| replacing trucks might be a nice idea, especially for
| international hauls, as there would be no extensive
| border and customs check in every country on the way.
| jedberg wrote:
| Taking an airship would be like taking a cruise but in the
| sky.
|
| Also one advantage airships have is that they can dock to
| pretty much any tall building. The Empire State Building has
| airship docking capability.
|
| Imagine taking a transatlantic cruise on an airship that
| leaves from the top of the Empire State Building and docks at
| the top of the Eiffel Tower?
| sampo wrote:
| > The Empire State Building has airship docking capability.
|
| This photo shows a much less tall airship mooring mast.
|
| https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/mooring-mast-1930s/
|
| It doesn't look like that kind of mooring would be up to
| the modern safety standards, especially when you add high
| winds that are common at the top of skyscrapers.
| jandrese wrote:
| > Without doubt, the tallest mooring mast ever designed
| was the spire of the Empire State Building which was
| originally constructed to serve as a mooring mast,
| although soon after converted for use as a television and
| radio transmitter tower due to the discovered
| infeasibility of mooring an airship, for any length of
| time, to a very tall mast in the middle of an urban area.
|
| The picture below has an airship getting flipped on its
| nose by a gust of wind while moored to a tower.
|
| It seems to me that airships really need two mooring
| masts. One at the front and another at the back. Maybe
| the one at the back flips up to lock on once the one in
| front is secure?
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| Tbh, it'd probably be inherently safer. The ship should
| be easier to control because the air at the top of a
| skyscraper is likely to be less turbulent. And if there
| is an unexpected down draught, then there is a lot more
| leeway before the ship and its compliment get smashed
| into the ground.
|
| Ground handling and docking is one of the main, and
| fairly frequently fatal, causes of airships accidents,
| see
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents.
| Fwiw mitigating is definitely possible. But it requires
| specialised docking equipment to be available anywhere
| they are to set down. Which is why I suspect they'll make
| rather better Bazillionaire play things than humanitarian
| aid delivery mechanisms. They are very cool though.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _like taking a cruise but in the sky_
|
| Minus the lift v. float economics. That would strike at
| some combination of affordability and availability of
| attractions.
| ptero wrote:
| That would be very risky: those monsters aren't friends
| with the wind. Any glitch and a lot of power gets applied
| to that building. Another glitch and a large frame falls
| down on the street.
|
| You can read reports of Nobile airship trips. And wind
| could delay trips by days.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| You wait for hurricane, typhoon and/or cyclone for quick
| travel.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Apparently not too risky, since, as the parent pointed
| out, in the early part of the previous century, it wasn't
| unusual for tall buildings to be used for airship
| docking.
|
| The Empire State Building mooring wasn't a one-off. There
| were many others. What is now the InterContinental Hotel
| in Chicago was one.
| ptero wrote:
| Thank you, I will look it up. I wonder what the success
| rate was for those, I thought they sometimes went to
| backup locations.
|
| I read accounts of using airships in the exploration of
| the North in the early 20th century and I got the
| impression that they often dropped ropes in a clear spot
| away from the exact landing point and were led by a
| landing team to the final docking, which would be hard to
| do in the middle of a city today.
| nsonha wrote:
| That's because human lives were cheaper back in those
| days. The problem with docking a giant people carrier
| above a densely populated area is that you have even more
| lives at stake.
| Retric wrote:
| We send airplanes over densely pack cities all the time.
| We even let the rather pointless Goodyear blimp do so.
| Docking an airship would be safer if the area beneath it
| was completely clear such as a river, but in normal wind
| conditions it isn't particularly dangerous.
| ptero wrote:
| Goodyear blimp only flies in relatively good weather. On
| airplanes over cities though: compare the cross-section
| and the corresponding force exerted by the wind on a
| modern jet and a blimp. Jet engines can compensate for
| wind gusts that would make landing an airship in a tight
| spot hopeless.
|
| A fun example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPn3MBNt7Rc
| Retric wrote:
| Airline landings really aren't very precise which is why
| runways are so wide.
|
| In terms of wind, airships with the right control systems
| can be designed to hold position in 50+MPH guts. That
| takes a lot of power and rapid response, but modern
| airships can do 110kph and presumably commercial adoption
| would need higher speeds.
| ptero wrote:
| > In terms of wind, airships with the right control
| systems can be designed to hold position in 50+MPH gusts.
| That takes a lot of power and rapid response
|
| I am not sure: countering the change in direction seems
| very hard. But I do wish luck to those who are working to
| push this technology along.
|
| > modern airships can do 110kph
|
| That is how fast the Zeppelins of 100 years ago traveled:
| cruising speed of 76 mph.
| Retric wrote:
| The response speed is via reversible variable pitch
| propellers, which is a very cool technology.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-
| pitch_propeller_(aero...
| nsonha wrote:
| Any flying machine has some maneuverability when flying
| PASS a populated area, even in emergencies. If you just
| dock above the area at all time, it will increase the
| risk immensely.
| NickRandom wrote:
| I also used to 'sort of know that' and then I came across
| something on YT about the updraughts and air turbulence
| etc. Can't find the clip I saw but this link says pretty
| much the same.
|
| "A popular myth claims that the top of the Empire State
| Building was meant to serve as a docking station for
| dirigibles, but the building's owners say that the story is
| just hot air."
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wimlrgwhgg
| Aeolun wrote:
| Sibling comment has a page that says:
|
| > Without doubt, the tallest mooring mast ever designed
| was the spire of the Empire State Building which was
| originally constructed to serve as a mooring mast,
| although soon after converted for use as a television and
| radio transmitter tower due to the discovered
| infeasibility of mooring an airship
|
| Now I'm curious what it actually is.
| gbronner wrote:
| They did build the Empire state building with a mooring
| mast and a a lounge / ticket area and a way for the
| passengers to get on the plane. But it was purely
| speculative, and though they took publicity photos, they
| never used it(remember: there were only a handful of
| commercial airships).
|
| There used to be a commercial heliport on top of the Pan
| Am Building over Grand Central Station. The first
| helicopter crash that sent chunks of metal flying 600
| feet down to streets with huge amounts of foot traffic
| permanently closed it. I'm sure something similar would
| have happened had the Empire State Building 'port'
| actually been used.
| NickRandom wrote:
| Unlike the Empire State Building airship dock, the Pan Am
| heliport was an actual and working mini 'airport' with
| regular scheduled flights / pick-ups-drop-offs for years.
| nradov wrote:
| This is also why none of the companies building powered
| lift eVTOL aircraft like Joby and Lillium are unlikely to
| achieve mass market success. Even if they can achieve FAA
| certification, there aren't enough places to land in
| dense urban areas.
| kiliantics wrote:
| Appropriate taxation on fossil carbon could make a
| difference. Flying in kerosene-fueled planes should be made a
| lot more expensive than any alternatives.
| socialdemocrat wrote:
| I don't think airships are as bad as it may seem today.
| Perceived badness is a lot due to lack of networking effects
| which airplanes enjoy today. There is infrastructure for
| landing airplanes everywhere. If the same had existed for
| airships I he economics and practicality of using airships
| would have been very different.
|
| Many of the problems that existed with airships in the past
| are solved today. Weather forecasts are much better today.
| Elevation can be controlled better with compressors which can
| expand and reduce volume of ballonets on demand combined with
| propellers which can be more fine controlled and directed to
| cause lift of descent.
|
| Not to mention access to a plethora of advanced materials
| they did not have in the 30s.
|
| Most importantly we are in a green shift. When airplanes took
| over nobody cared about CO2 emissions. Airships can
| realistically run using electric motors driven by batteries
| or preferably fuel cells. For airships volume matters less,
| so you can more easily have large quantities of hydrogen in
| the ship. In theory you could use hydrogen as lifting gas and
| fuel.
|
| The dangers of hydrogen is somewhat overrated. Hindenburg was
| about paint coating more than hydrogen. We also got much
| better techniques for handling it yet today. You can have an
| outer shell of a different gas e.g.
|
| During WW1 German airships got frequently fired on without
| causing any them much damage. They had to fly close with
| incendiary grenades to take them out.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Additionally, the USS Shenandoah crash:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_(ZR-1)#Crash_of...
|
| The USS Akron loss:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron#Loss
|
| The USS Macon loss:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_(ZRS-5)#Loss
|
| Only the USS Los Angeles was decommissioned (not crashed):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Los_Angeles_(ZR-3)#Operati...
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Ironically, this vessel is being built in Akron, and the loss
| of the USS Akron was a dirigible incident that resulted in many
| more deaths than the Hindenburg.
| panick21_ wrote:
| It wasn't actually the Hindenburg that was the problem. It was
| that they were simply lost the competition in the market. They
| are just not really viable for 99% of applications.
| wardedVibe wrote:
| While they are extremely cool, what tangible benefit do they
| have over airplanes?
| serial_dev wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > LTA's goal is to build huge airships to provide
| humanitarian aid in places where conventional transportation
| can't reach, such as in the aftermath of a disaster. (...)
| "We believe that lighter-than-air technology has the
| potential to revolutionize humanitarian relief efforts with
| its ability to reach remote locations that have little or no
| infrastructure," Weston said.
| SenHeng wrote:
| Sounds like they could re-use whatever they had from Google
| Balloons or whatever it was called.
| Jabbles wrote:
| Maybe he influenced the decision to open source all the
| data?
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/30/alphabet-gives-some-
| loon-p...
| Jabbles wrote:
| I don't really understand how these are meant to help -
| they are extremely slow and can't carry very much weight.
| Surely airdrops from conventional planes would be more
| effective even if there is no infrastructure for them to
| land?
|
| I'm trying to think of a scenario where this would actually
| be more beneficial than other means of transport.
| xcambar wrote:
| Agreed. In the humanitarian scenario in a war zone, an
| airship just looks like a very big, very visible target.
| I don't understand this use case, except if you consider
| that humanitarian corridors are always respected in
| warfare but then it's just being naive.
| serial_dev wrote:
| I was thinking more along the lines of earth quakes,
| hurricanes, mud slide in the mountains, tsunamis.
|
| Again from article
|
| > Pathfinder 3 (...) is designed to carry about 20 tons
| and be able to traverse as many as 10,000 miles using
| electric-only, zero-emission propulsion.
|
| A quick search tells me that an Mi-26, the largest cargo
| helicopter can carry approximately the same weight.
| Jabbles wrote:
| But the article doesn't say how fast it can travel, which
| is extremely important in reaching disaster zones. Even
| if you're travelling from, say, Miami to Haiti is 1000km,
| so I guess it would take 30 hours? But providing aid to
| Tonga after the recent volcano seems unlikely with this
| airship.
|
| Sergey Brin also has a ship that provides aid:
| https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/news/sergey-brin-
| secre... - so I don't know what advantage he sees in this
| airship.
| wardedVibe wrote:
| Yeah, I'd take an osprey or helicopter for that use case.
| People w/out infrastructure usually need things fast. Or
| maybe https://flyzipline.com/ which uses drones
| hetspookjee wrote:
| If we'd account correctly for airplanes and boats for the
| enormous emissions they have, than I think a full electric
| slow floating airship like this would be tremendously
| beneficial. However, for it to be economically feasible it
| also oughtta have similar subsidies like planes and ships
| have with their zero emission taxes.
| eutectic wrote:
| Container ships are hard to beat for efficiency.
| antupis wrote:
| but you cannot use container ships in Nevada.
| wardedVibe wrote:
| Trains are the land equivalent of container ships. If
| they work for Switzerland, they can work anywhere
| xcambar wrote:
| And new sail-assisted container ships will improve things
| further in terms of environmental efficiency... if they
| ever become an actual thing.
| yreg wrote:
| Or nuclear cargo ships.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Efficiency, cost and low carbon seem the obvious ones:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28278515
|
| That links to a YC company building small cargo blimps
| introducing themselves and providing some good detail:
|
| > We build small unmanned cargo airships and use them to move
| air freight at half the cost per mile of a small plane.
| martin_a wrote:
| > We build small unmanned cargo airships and use them to
| move air freight at half the cost per mile of a small
| plane.
|
| What a marketing BS. It's also probably like 1/10th of the
| speed (in the best case) and whatnot else.
|
| If you hang fruit low enough, anybody can pick them.
| jandrese wrote:
| > half the cost per mile of a small plane.
|
| Half the cost of the most expensive mode of
| transportation.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| They go into reasonable detail about where this trade-off
| makes sense (e.g. deliveries to intermediate warehouses
| in Alaska), they're not suggesting to replace all other
| transport with blimps.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| I wonder if there are still any military applications for
| airships in modern warfare.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| There are ideas for drone carriers and communication hubs.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| How is that better than a truck?
|
| Moreover, is there a design of an airship that doesn't
| create a radar blimp the size of medium-sized asteroid?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Trucks cannot move over hard terrain for instance and
| communication works way better with direct line of sight.
|
| But yes, they are not easy to hide, are vulnerable and
| cannot be not deployed on the frontlines because of this,
| but rather in the back.
|
| But they can stay up for eternity.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Efficency, especially when covered with solar panels.
|
| You could basically fly without fuel.
|
| Planes on the other hand are indeed much faster etc. but they
| only are because they burn lots of kerosine.
|
| But all in all, as long as kerosine remains so cheap,
| airships cannot compete, except in niches.
| miniwark wrote:
| They have many disadvantages compared to planes, like they
| are slower, can't take a lot of passengers and need special
| infrastructures.
|
| But there is a niche for advertisement, aerial photography,
| observation platforms, heavy weight transportation and of
| course tourism.
|
| See for example the seven Zeppelin NT, witch seem to have
| find some usage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT
| Stratoscope wrote:
| I got to ride on a Zeppelin NT when Airship Ventures was
| operating flights on the SF Peninsula. It was pretty great.
|
| Here's a previous comment with some links and photos of my
| flight:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21662645
| masklinn wrote:
| > heavy weight transportation
|
| Airships are absolute garbage at heavy lifting.
|
| The lifting power of hydrogen or helium is about 1kg/m^3.
| This means as you scale weight up the size of your envelope
| grows quickly which greatly hinders manoeuvrability. And
| obviously the increase in envelope size means you need more
| structure and systems (propulsion & al) which are heavier
| and reduce your useful payload.
| ericmay wrote:
| > But there is a niche for advertisement
|
| ... great more pollution
| vintermann wrote:
| Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei has been going for 21 years now.
| It's the one bright light in the sea of airship projects.
| They're not exactly aiming to take over the world of
| aviation, though.
| antupis wrote:
| actually when now I start to think self flying zeppelin
| moving cargo containers slowly using electricity would be
| pretty cool. First you could start with windmill blade
| transportation and then move to other stuff.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| I'm gonna guess that they can loiter for a long time?
|
| Also if I read it right their cargo capacity is about double
| that of a 747-400F.
|
| Edit: nope, it's 1/5th the cargo weight of a 747.
| tgv wrote:
| Yeah, you can maximally lift the weight of the air you're
| displacing, right? That plane can carry 124000kg. Air is
| about 1kg/m3 at sea level, so that requires a balloon of
| 124000m3 (assuming the balloon and gas weigh nothing).
| That's a cube of 50x50x50 meters under optimal assumptions.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| "Hi, we heard you needed help, so we sent the Borg"
| konschubert wrote:
| Tropical islands? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter
| imgabe wrote:
| This is what being a billionaire is all about.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| Or having your private fleet of fighter jets...
|
| https://sharpmagazine.com/2018/02/15/inside-draken-internati...
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Or getting into stupid fights on Twitter.
|
| On a more serious note: we never knew how good we had it with
| the likes of Gates of Buffet. Or even Rockefeller.
| serial_dev wrote:
| Billionaires getting into stupid Twitter fights is very far
| from the worst things they do (or can do).
| hollander wrote:
| Musk may be an incredible prick on Twitter and be a
| terrible boss to get orders from, his vision gave us Tesla
| and Space X, both ground breaking and needed developments.
| He is a man of vision, not a manager or people person. And
| his vision is limited to technology, not economics or
| politics. But if you're that rich, you can come to think
| that you know it all.
| jedberg wrote:
| You mean he had the vision to buy an electric car company
| and a rocket company, both of which existed before he got
| there?
| xcambar wrote:
| That is poor use of rhetorics.
|
| Because he didn't start it doesn't mean he didn't
| contribute to the development of the company.
|
| Also, no one can claim that success would have been at
| the doors without his input.
|
| Note: I'm not defending Musk here as much as I am
| opposing the rationale of the argument.
| eszaq wrote:
| Pretty sure Elon founded SpaceX himself. If you have a
| good source for the claim that it existed before he came
| along, you should take the matter up with Wikipedia.
| [deleted]
| Acinyx wrote:
| SpaceX existed before he got there? Citation needed.
| ben_w wrote:
| While Tesla existed before Musk joined it, it also had
| zero sales -- Musk was part of the series A funding in
| 2004, their first public prototype was 2006, Eberhard was
| asked to step down in 2007 and did so Jan 2008, the first
| actual delivery Feb 2008 -- and also electric cars were a
| joke at the point Musk invested in Tesla (the hype was
| hydrogen and ethanol to be the green fuels of the
| future). As 99.7% of the market cap gain happened since
| 2010, and therefore under Musk's leadership, I definitely
| count Musk as more relevant than Eberhard (although even
| then, organisation and salesmanship is not enough by
| itself, but I'm not going to get sidetracked here into
| means of production).
|
| SpaceX, however, I believe was literally founded by Musk.
| imgabe wrote:
| If 90s Gates had Twitter, that would have been a sight to
| see...
|
| People think he's just a nice guy philanthropist now and
| forget he got there by being an absolutely ruthless,
| cutthroat monopolist.
|
| Rockefeller literally had a camp of union organizers
| machine gunned and hired thugs to set fire to his
| competitors shipments so maybe he's not the best example,
| either.
| dumpsterlid wrote:
| He is also kind of awful for the medical research world,
| he has no qualifications to be a massive force in it
| (with his non-profit) and yet he basically distorts the
| whole field into having to agree to his terms because it
| is so difficult to advance in the field if the gates
| foundation shuns you.
| slac wrote:
| Disappointed that this was not a fleet of SAAB Draken
| fighters.
| iostream24 wrote:
| That's so cool... cruising in style silently... It's so different
| than either land traffic over road or rail or "must move forward
| or falls down" rapid air transport.
|
| Some have already called such airships the yachts of the future.
|
| There will obviously be problems involved as numbers increase,
| maybe we can control them in ways we failed to consider on other
| transport lifestyle adoptions we've done.
| noja wrote:
| Do we have enough helium for this? What is the leak rate?
| piker wrote:
| I believe Helium is a fission byproduct and thus not especially
| limited in theory.
| bluedays wrote:
| Wow this belongs on /r/titlegore
| saalweachter wrote:
| I'm going to admit it.
|
| I'm a little disappointed this is another "billionaire tried to
| solve humanitarian problems with novel tech" stories and not an
| "eccentric billionaire plans to never set foot on the ground
| again" story.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I think either is fine as long as they build amazing 600ft+
| airships.
| cto_of_antifa wrote:
| [deleted]
| stickfigure wrote:
| I'd like to see this concept revisited with modern technology:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroLift_CycloCrane
|
| https://hackaday.com/2016/10/06/maybe-your-next-robot-should...
|
| http://www.robcrimmins.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1982-N...
|
| Basically an aerial crane which solves the buoyancy problem by
| spinning the whole thing like a helicopter. It's neutral by
| itself; if you want to pick something up, you increase rotational
| speed and generate lift with airfoils.
|
| I saw this thing as a kid on a trip through Tilamook OR. Seemed
| really neat, though I'll bet it was tough to control with
| early-80s electronics. It would be fun to build a hobby version
| out of drone parts.
| black_13 wrote:
| perilunar wrote:
| I'm sceptical about the practicality and economics of large
| airships, but I'd love to see small airship 'yachts'.
|
| Santos-Dumont's Dirigible No.6 [1] could 40km/h with a 12hp
| engine in 1901. It had a 630 m3 balloon (33m long x 6m diameter,
| total mass ~600 kg). With modern engines, materials, and
| modelling you could make a very comfortable and quite speedy 2-3
| person yacht in that size.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos-Dumont_number_6
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| Wish we could encapsulate vacuum stable without much material,
| that would have the best of lifts.
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| Or some super electrically charged exotic condensator material
| which would keep away from one another by nature of charge
| while the charge also makes it keep away from the wall and keep
| the relative vaccum enclosing diamond tent aflaot.. a man can
| dream.. a man can dream.. Vacum with powder
| kozak wrote:
| As far as I understand, helium is a non-renewable fossil
| resource. So a sustainable airship design should be using
| hydrogen instead. The challenge is to make it safe.
| throwaway744678 wrote:
| I reckon helium is not "consumed" by using it in the airship.
| Eventually, it may leak to the atmosphere, but it is not
| destroyed or lost.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| The point of helium is that it is light. So, any helium that
| escapes, goes up and eventually leaves out atmosphere.
| stackbutterflow wrote:
| How did it end up on earth in the first place?
| __s wrote:
| Radioactive decay
| shreyshnaccount wrote:
| You just need a sun
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > As far as I understand, helium is a non-renewable fossil
| resource.
|
| No it's a by-product of decay of heavier radioactive elements.
| It's often found dissolved into fossil gas deposits, but it's
| not a fossil resource.
| sampo wrote:
| > As far as I understand, helium is a non-renewable fossil
| resource.
|
| Helium deposits don't originate form organic matter, so they're
| not fossil.
| marksbrown wrote:
| Vacuum is the ideal. Taking the molar mass of air at 28.8g/mol
| at STP we can see a density of air at about 1.225 kg per metre
| cubed. Combined with the volume of the bag we have the uplift.
| We quickly find that empty flexible bags collapse with nothing
| to provide an atmosphere of pressure back out thus the
| compromise of low mass gasses. These still add weight to our
| vessel diminishing our carrying capacity.
|
| Therefore the best solution is hot hydrogen.
| i5heu wrote:
| There is no light and strong enough Material that can keep a
| vacuum in the size needed for a Zeppelin on earth so it could
| fly.
|
| On mars this could work.
|
| The brain confusion that a room of vacuum is lighter then air
| and will therefore have a lift is amusing.
| jfim wrote:
| I think you misinterpreted what the parent is saying.
|
| He's saying that a bag that contains only vacuum would be
| the lightest, but as it contains nothing, it would just
| collapse into having no volume due to the atmospheric
| pressure. That would obviously provide no lift. As such,
| you need something in the bag that will fill the space.
| eterm wrote:
| Bit odd to shorten the future tense "to be built" in the article
| to the past tense "built" in the headline.
|
| Also, "largest built in the US since the 1930s" really isn't
| saying too much, how much manufacturing of airships does the US
| do?
| rsynnott wrote:
| The US built a couple of very large rigid military airships in
| the 30s (intended to carry small airplanes!) and then never
| built any large airships of significance again. So, yeah, kind
| of a meaningless claim. The proposed airship is 180m long; USS
| Akron was 239m.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Doing a little googling, we might have built three
| (Shenandoah, Akron, and the Macon), a fourth one (the Los
| Angeles) was built by Germans.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I thought their construction was done by the Zeppelin
| factory.
| johnnymorgan wrote:
| I'm only aware of the one company in the UK.
|
| Pretty cool tech tbh and it feels like pairing up with self-
| flying drones is the next step.
|
| Seems like the economics for 100ton lift is looking better now.
|
| Trucks were cheaper but I'm not sure if that still holds today
| billbrown wrote:
| Hybrid Air Vehicles is the British company -
| https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/
| samatman wrote:
| Airship includes blimps, so, since the 1930s? A reasonable
| number, small but not zero, single-digit-per-decade it looks
| like.
|
| I don't understand your objection to the sentence even if it
| said "zeppelin" frankly.
| Melatonic wrote:
| The military is also going big time in on airships again. Gonna
| be interesting!
| poulpy123 wrote:
| I'm absolutely fascinated by airships and would love to see them
| roam the skies again, but last time I looked at it they had too
| many drawbacks:
|
| - they are very sensitive to the weather condition, especially
| winds
|
| - they are more economical in fuel compared to airplanes but
| maybe not enough to compensate for their slowness
|
| - they use either hydrogen which is very dangerous or helium
| which is available in limited amount (and afaik already in
| tension)
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Finally, tech billions being put to good and _original_ aerospace
| use, not yet more Mars rockets.
|
| Next bring that airship to Venus.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8760732
| trhway wrote:
| >tech billions being put to good and original aerospace use
|
| i wish they would put some of those money to adjust FAA rules
| for the modern development - drones, human carrying
| multicopters, and whatever others things may come if the rules
| become friendly for innovation
| mrcartmeneses wrote:
| All this red tape keeping us alive! How dare they not let me
| put tons of material into the sky, let it move around as fast
| as I like and expect me to be liable if it lands on some
| toddler's head.
|
| Aviation is fucking dangerous. I know, I knew many private
| pilots of experimental aircraft growing up, some of which
| died in accidents.
|
| One guy died when his seat slid backwards while climbing out
| from takeoff causing him to pull back on the yoke and cause a
| stall. This is a stupidly common way to go.
|
| Another died when his twin lost engine power on one side,
| again during takeoff, and he spun into the ground.
|
| The list, unfortunately goes on. Neither of those particular
| two on the list died in experimental aircraft, although the
| pilot of the twin did survive an earlier crash in an
| experimental during landing, where he misjudged the time it
| takes to spool up a jet engine.
|
| Do not take private companies putting things I to the sky
| lightly.
| throwaway744678 wrote:
| "Move fast and break things" would be an appropriate and
| fun motto, though.
| trhway wrote:
| >Aviation is fucking dangerous.
|
| in particular because many aspects of it is technologically
| half a century behind. Stone age regulations prevent any
| meaningful advancement. It is like all the cars would still
| be manual transmission, no ABS, nor traction control...
|
| >pull back on the yoke and cause a stall
|
| VTOL multicopter wouldn't have such a stall
|
| >Another died when his twin lost engine power on one side
|
| Instead of cemented in time by regulations twin, having say
| 10 electric engines would mean that loss of one would
| result in just small automated readjustment of trust/power
| distribution.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Regardless of how advanced technology becomes, flying
| objects have inherently more momentum and since momentum
| is based on velocity squared, the strictness of
| regulation of flying vehicles should never be less than
| an order of magnitude more than ground vehicles of the
| equivalent weight.
| trhway wrote:
| speed/energy and reaction time of human or control
| machinery dictates separation distance. Thus drones for
| example can hover much closer to each other than say a
| separation distance between human controlled cars doing
| 90mph on highway.
|
| Most of the new aircraft development would contain a lot
| of automation to the point of self-flying. The dense
| network of automated traffic control for such new
| aircraft would be another thing that only billionaires
| could really do. That would allow to take out of equation
| a lot of human errors that make current aviation
| dangerous.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| And when the automation fails or the vehicle malfunctions
| who will take on the liability?
|
| And the liability is inherently far greater than ground
| vehicles. For example, right now it's practically
| impossible to accidentally drive a ground vehicle,
| certainly not something less than a ton, into highly
| sensitive places like the pentagon/nuclear weapons
| storage facility/military base.
|
| But it's very easily imaginable that an automated
| aircraft less than a ton could fly itself into such a
| place, accidentally or intentionally, and cause a serious
| kerfuffle.
|
| Or to put it another way, it's thousands of times more
| costly to protect airspace from intrusion than ground
| space.
|
| To cover the possibility of the owner being unable to pay
| out to cover the costs of disruption, liability insurance
| similar to car insurance would likely be mandatory, just
| thousands of times more.
|
| If flying vehicles became deregulated and instead had a
| mandatory minimum insurance requirement for $1 billion of
| liability then it's effectively the same. Because that's
| the realm of very serious folks with large legal teams
| anyways.
| anthony_r wrote:
| Lol, indeed.
|
| Imagine that you have to explain to drone pilots that even
| a very small drone is completely unacceptable in an airport
| vicinity. Yes, your 0.5kg drone can seriously damage the
| compressor of an engine!
| trhway wrote:
| > if it lands on some toddler's head
|
| > in an airport vicinity
|
| GP's and parent's strawman fallacy based line of argument
| reminded a video where Putin was explaining why it is so
| hard to get a protest permit in Russia - "Imagine if your
| protest happens in front of a children hospital, and thus
| it can block a live saving delivery."
| infinityio wrote:
| out of interest, in the hypothetical situation where
| drones are allowed near an airport, and a kid tries to
| film a plane landing and accidentally takes out a plane
| engine, doing 10s of millions of damage, who do you think
| should be responsible? Would insurance be required for
| things like this?
| trhway wrote:
| why would be drones allowed near airports? I mean, of
| course, in the future with drones integrated into
| automated traffic control where it makes sense, and it
| would make sense in sensitive areas, there can be
| imagined a need for the drones to fly near airports, yet
| today why everybody brings airports up when there are
| huge swaths of other space where drones and other stuff
| could have been flying if not for prohibition?
| anthony_r wrote:
| I do not know what your point is.
|
| But there are lots of cases where people fly cheap
| commercial drones around an airport, and that is
| completely unacceptable. It could easily result in a
| criminal charge and even prison time.
| panick21_ wrote:
| There is only one Mars rocket.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| This is a cool project, but there's been lots of abandoned
| airship projects (commercial and military) since the 1930s. Have
| things really changed since then? No new technology really solves
| the main issue that they're fairly slow, don't tend to work well
| in bad weather and can take a lot of infrastructure to land
| safely.
|
| I'm not an expert but for disaster relief a few military cargo
| planes could be refuelled midair and drop 20 tons of aid on
| parachutes to most of the world fairly quickly.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#Postwar_period
| sudhirj wrote:
| The cargo planes can't lift people out, though. You could
| evacuate over a 100 people at a time on one of these ships,
| which seems incredibly useful.
| alistairSH wrote:
| The Boeing C-17 can absolutely carry people. It's designed
| for paratrooper operations as well as cargo. As noted, you
| can cram hundreds of people into one of the goal is fast evac
| not comfort.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| The Americans famously evacuated >800 people out of
| Afghanistan in a single C-17 flight. Airships could be useful
| though if they can land "anywhere" (on the other hand, a
| single Mi-26 helicopter can also carry 90 people, and
| probably many more if crowded in the same way as that C-17
| flight).
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/20/politics/military-
| cargo-p...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Specifications_(Mi-2.
| ..
| Quindecillion wrote:
| One of my dreams is to own an airship like this that acts as a
| second home, or an extension to a land-bound home. I wonder how
| feasible that would be...
| julian37 wrote:
| Reminds me of Cargolifter, they tried something less ambitious
| and failed... but that was 20 years ago, at the very height of
| the dot com boom. Better luck to the Pathfinder 3 team! It would
| be amazing to see airships revived.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolifter
| danbruc wrote:
| _[...] Cargolifter [...] tried something less ambitious [...]_
|
| Cargolifter aimed for twice the size in all dimensions
| resulting in eight times the capacity, 160 tonnes as compared
| to 20 tonnes.
| silentOpen wrote:
| Seems like a waste of scarce He.
| lixtra wrote:
| There will be plenty of He from fusion reactors - in about 20
| years ;)
| Apocryphon wrote:
| These are but necessary early-generational craft, the
| descendants of which will be used to explore the upper
| atmosphere of the Jovian planets. And to mine them for helium
| and other gases, with which will then be used as fuel for
| airships on Earth, I guess.
| thematrixturtle wrote:
| As opposed to, say, balloon animals?
| silentOpen wrote:
| Seems like a waste of scarce He.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| Yeah I totally do not get that.
|
| Also hydrogen might be more fun. _POP_
| notafraudster wrote:
| Naive but skeptical questions:
|
| - How much of the carrying capacity is eaten up by the batteries
| necessary to hit the range target?
|
| - Would anyone operationally want to fly a 10,000 mile flight? Is
| speed a huge barrier for trying to do this in a single round the
| world flight?
|
| - Is helium scarce enough that there'd be negative externalities
| for medical helium if they actually produce these in any numbers?
|
| - What's the status quo ex ante here? I would guess you airlift
| relief supplies to the nearest safe staging zone using a herc or
| similar and then use chinook or similar to get directly to the
| disaster zone? Is there actually a problem to be solved here?
|
| (I like dirigibles and electric tech, so I hope there are good
| answers to all of these that make me look foolish)
| lisper wrote:
| Helium is a non-renewable [1] resource. Once it's gone, it's
| gone forever, and we are running out.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/helium-shortage-why-the-worl...
|
| [1] Earth's helium supply comes from decaying uranium, so it is
| kinda-sorta renewable, but the renewal time scale is millions
| of years.
| eldenwrong wrote:
| No we are not running out. There's a lot, its just not
| profitable to mine.
|
| Just like there is almost infinite gold in the earth
| IntrepidWorm wrote:
| Yes, you are correct. Contrary to gold, however, which is
| largely useless and ornamental (aside from some marginal
| use in microelectronics), helium is necessary for a large
| amount of critical medical infrastructure, as well as
| research at cryogenic temperatures, superconductors, etc.
| To see helium steeply rise in price according to supply and
| demand would spell disaster for many of these applications.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| The meme that gold is useless is not true. It is not used
| nearly as much as it could be due to price, but it has
| plenty of medical uses:
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187395
| 981...
|
| If gold were as cheap as iron, it would be ubiquitous in
| society.
| lisper wrote:
| Also, gold doesn't spontaneously escape into space if
| it's not contained.
| amlib wrote:
| But it might get robbed if not properly secured..
| lisper wrote:
| Unless it's robbed by space aliens, that doesn't diminish
| the recoverable supply.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| That all depends on the temperature ;-)
| lisper wrote:
| If that ever becomes a factor, helium (and gold for the
| matter) will be the least of our worries.
| lisper wrote:
| There isn't infinite anything on earth. Earth is finite.
| And running out of resources that are economically viable
| to access is effectively the same as running out. (Also,
| helium is a by-product of crude oil production, and so its
| production has some rather dramatic externalities.)
| lanna wrote:
| What is economically viable to access is constantly
| shifting, either due to technology improvements or
| increased demand (hence prices).
| rfrey wrote:
| Your parent obviously knows the definition of "infinite",
| pedantry isn't helpful.
|
| We ran out of $15 oil quite some time ago. That was not
| the same as running out of oil. "Economically viable" is
| not a static target.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| The earth is very deep. We are only mining the very tip
| of it. There are thousands of miles of unmined resources
| down there. That's not infinite but a lot. And sure, we
| can't get to it today, but who knows what 100 or 200
| years will bring.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Barely scratching the surface, so to speak. There's a lot
| of earth under our feet!
| Gustomaximus wrote:
| I heard a line once that was if the earth was an apple we
| are yet to mine past the skin.
|
| So a heap of exploration potential plus the off planet
| side.
| lixtra wrote:
| $15 might still be the extraction price in Saudi Arabia.
|
| https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-
| believe-w...
| HPsquared wrote:
| Oil at that price can't supply the entire market, though
| (unless they're just being really prudent).
| dredmorbius wrote:
| No.
|
| But oil at that _cost_ provides a huge land-rent income
| to the Saudis when _world_ (market) oil prices top $50,
| $100, $150, $200, ... bbl.
|
| KSA's extraction price remains $15. The rest is pure
| profit to them.
|
| (Discounting the hundreds of millions of years of
| geological accumulation and transformation which created
| the resource in the first place. See "Burning Buried
| Sunshine" by Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. https://dge.carnegie
| science.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.... (PDF).)
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Moot. With natural resources, it's entirely about the cost
| of recovery. Nothing else matters. Who cares the core of
| the Earth is all iron, if it's eternally unavailable? What
| matters is $/ton.
| RandomWorker wrote:
| recommended read
| https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-
| physicist...
| ac29 wrote:
| > Would anyone operationally want to fly a 10,000 mile flight?
| Is speed a huge barrier for trying to do this in a single round
| the world flight?
|
| I'll take a crack at this: Since it is targeted towards
| humanitarian relief, it may travel to places without electrical
| infrastructure to recharge it. So, 5000 miles each way.
| Presumably charging takes a non-trivial amount of time, so in a
| time sensitive application like delivering medical supplies,
| there is also an advantage to not having to stop and charge.
|
| That being said, I am also skeptical this is faster or more
| practical than using traditional cargo aircraft and/or
| helicopters. A C130 doesnt need much of a runway to land or
| takeoff.
| nradov wrote:
| Helium prices have risen significantly over the past few years.
| We can obtain some as a byproduct of natural gas extraction but
| it's limited.
|
| https://geology.com/articles/helium/
| RandomWorker wrote:
| Here is more information than the shared article it goes into
| some depth on the concept of the plane.
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-r...
|
| They reduce the planes use of Helium by it's shape and design,
| when the engines are turned off it's heavier than air and it
| will sink. However, Helium is a scarce resource. I don't
| approve of a billionaire fun ride between LA and Los Angeles
| taking up all the helium (which will leak out over time and may
| need top ups every time it departs).
|
| I'm also, wondering if people (the demographic) have time to
| sit for long periods of time, they seem to value their time,
| and a private jet is faster.
|
| Overall this is presented as an another green tech that will
| ensure carbon free travel. I see this as greenwashing a
| billionaire fantasy.
| emaginniss wrote:
| "fun ride between LA and Los Angeles"
|
| Should be a short trip, at least
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Depends on traffic. The 110 is a beast.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner.
| Anachronistic novelty travel where the craft itself is the
| main attraction and the destinations just happen along the
| way.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >>I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner.
|
| Except it won't enjoy the international law that is the
| core of the cruise industry. Cruise ships are essentially
| just resort hotels that don't have to obey wage laws.
| nvrspyx wrote:
| I feel that the main appeal of a cruise liner is that the
| trip is also part of the vacation. You can enjoy comedy
| shows, play in the pool, relax in the sun, drink, gamble,
| etc. It's like a mini Las Vegas that moves. Where as I feel
| this would be more like waiting for the ferry to get from
| point A to point B while there's also a bridge that's much
| faster.
|
| With all that said, travel is not the purpose of the
| airship. It's to help humanitarian aid response and relief
| for areas that are difficult for planes and boats to access
| due to destroyed infrastructure.
| robonerd wrote:
| Heh, I go out of my way to ride on ferries. If you have
| time to spare, the Alaska Marine Highway (a ferry) is a
| very pleasant trip. But a Vegas-like experience on a
| cruise ship sounds like hell to me. For each their own I
| guess.
| pivo wrote:
| Since I was a child it's been my dream to travel, slowly
| and low, in one of these over the tree tops in New
| England during leaf season, or through Fjords, or across
| beautiful countryside in France or Italy or wherever. I
| don't want to travel quickly and I don't want internet
| connectivity. I just want to slowly take in nature.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| VIA Rail has tried to pitch the four-day trip from Toronto
| to Vancouver in these kinds of terms, I think in part to
| justify the big cost, particularly of a berth or cabin:
|
| https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-
| destinations/trains/ro...
|
| It makes sense, but as with a blimp, there are certain
| technological limitations that just plain make it hard to
| compete with conventional air travel.
| ghaff wrote:
| Every now and then I think about taking one of the long
| distance Amtrak trains. But I've always suspected the
| idea is probably greater than the reality. (And it's not
| inexpensive.)
| bombcar wrote:
| There's another post on it - it IS worth it and the
| prices aren't insane if you consider it as a moderate
| hotel on wheels.
|
| There are fancier long-distance trains that run on
| different schedules.
| miohtama wrote:
| Airships also could use hydrogen, but since the Hinderburg
| disaster there has been stigma on it.
| robonerd wrote:
| Incidentally the deadliest airship crash of all time was a
| helium airship, the USS Akron.
|
| Nevertheless, hydrogen does pose a real risk to the
| passengers in the event of an accident. In other helium
| airship crashes (for instance the USS Shenandoah), some
| people managed to survive by riding the debris down to the
| ground. And in some hydrogen airship crashes (for instance
| R101), some people managed to survive the crash to the
| ground, but subsequently died in the fire.
| WalterBright wrote:
| We've learned to safely fly in airplanes filled with fuel
| that loves to burn. We can do it with airships the same
| way.
|
| We now know the multiple factors that caused the
| Hindenburg disaster, and they are all easily fixable.
| robonerd wrote:
| More airships were lost to poor weather than thermite
| paint or whatever other specific Hindenburg problem
| you're thinking of. Planes have numerous inherent
| advantages in this regard: They're faster, which makes
| weather forecasting and route planning easier. Smaller
| planes can land almost anywhere, but airships require
| mooring towers. Airplanes are more robust when left
| outside in the elements, and their hangers are much
| smaller and cheaper than airship hangers.
|
| I think in principle, a blimp that could land on a field
| and stow its balloon rapidly could address these
| problems. But rigid airships seem inherently problematic;
| the fundamental nature of an airship (very big and very
| light) makes it susceptible to high winds, in the air or
| on the ground. I don't see any way around that.
| miohtama wrote:
| Does the equation change if we factor in airship's
| capacity of carrying cargo?
| bombcar wrote:
| Airships don't have much in the way of lifting capacity,
| not compared to a fully-loaded 747.
| samatman wrote:
| I've talked with airship people about the helium question.
|
| Basically, hydrogen is better. Hydrogen has an image problem
| because of the Hindenburg, but there are compelling reasons why
| nothing of the sort would happen again.
|
| The idea is to regain airship capacity using helium, while it's
| still cheaply available from a couple natural gas wells, and
| switch to the better lifting gas in a friendlier political
| climate.
| noja wrote:
| > but there are compelling reasons why nothing of the sort
| would happen again.
|
| What are these reasons?
| Shalomboy wrote:
| So it's a lot to get into, but these fellas put together a
| wonderful break-down of why blimps are worth trying again:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU
| q_andrew wrote:
| I love their description of the first airship, a rich
| weirdo's toxic balloon that is destroyed immediately upon
| landing by a mob of confused peasants.
| noja wrote:
| but the hydrogen part?
| froh wrote:
| That's three hours of stuff
|
| Tl;dw anyone?
| bombcar wrote:
| We can make less-flammible gas bags, and hydrogen can be
| made to vent upwards in case of fire.
|
| The weather issues are somewhat more handleable but
| there's still maneuvering issues. Planes can outrun
| storms, airships light have a time doing so.
| froh wrote:
| You did the work of an angel. Thank you!!
| NickRandom wrote:
| The other advantage of using hydrogen is (in an emergency
| fuel situation) being able to slowly 'rob' the ballast ballon
| for fuel for use in either the motive engines or an ICE genny
| if the solar setup failed for some reason or you needed
| 'hyper-drive tubo-boost' levels of power
| MrFantastic wrote:
| The irony is that 1/3 of the passengers walked away from the
| Hindenburg crash vs 100% casualty plane.
|
| The bad optics in an era where there was little video
| competition really set dirigibles behind for a century.
|
| Hydrogen should be the Lighter than Air gas choice for
| airships.
| [deleted]
| Melatonic wrote:
| I think a lot of the benefit is not necessarily about flying
| continous long distance flights but being able to carry lots of
| weight and to easily hover and stay in a general area. Like a
| base of operations for the military for example.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-02 23:01 UTC)