3 ms·

I haven't read the whole article yet, but I tried to do a quick search for whether it mentions our helium resourcing problem [1], but couldn't find that mention

I haven't read the whole article yet, but I tried to do a quick search for whether it mentions our helium resourcing problem [1], but couldn't find that mentioned. [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-created-helium-problem-thats-screwing-science/ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-created-helium-problem-tha...

yomly 11y ago
For argument's sake, say we have 1000 (high estimate) active cargo airships in the world. To further simplify the problem, let's assume they all have the same volume as the Dragon Dream (17,000m^3)[1]. So 1000 airships would take up 17,000,000m^3 of gas - less than 10% of current global consumption of helium (180,000,000m^3 pa [2]. Yes, this is grossly oversimplified (e.g. how often do airships need to replenish their lifting gas?) and yes we should be concerned about a major growth industry dependent on a scarce resource. On the other hand, is this a price worth paying considering the possible benefits to society it could bring via delivery of goods/aid to hard to reach areas and a reduction in fuel intensive cargo planes? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Dream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Dream [2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/27/what-great-helium-shortage/#5921f6ea7c69 http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/27/what-grea...
- adambard 11y ago
  The Dragon Dream is "half the size" of the latest model, which may not be a good benchmark. The largest airship aeros is building is quite a lot larger: > And the ML86X will be nine hundred and twenty feet (nearly three football fields) long, two hundred and fifteen feet (more than the Tower of Pisa) high, three hundred and fifty-five feet (two Boeing 747s) wide, and able to carry five hundred tons. That's 8.329×10^6 m^3 [1] each. That five hundred tons, by the way, is on the order which the logistics expert quoted claimed would be required for airships to be viable. So instead of 1000 dragon dreams, that's 2 ML86Xs. But before total helium depletion is a problem, this whole venture is predicated on airships providing cost-effective transport when compared to planes -- that seems unlikely to hold up if helium prices rise thanks to the proliferation of mammoth airships like this one. [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(4%2F3)+*+pi+*++920+*+215+*+355+cubic+feet+in+litres http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(4%2F3)+*+pi+*++920+*+2...
LouisSayers 11y ago
At $35/litre this could get expensive pretty fast!
- Animats 11y ago
  It does. That's what killed Silicon Valley's airship, the Zeppelin 2 operated by Airship Ventures. The price of helium doubled, and airship sightseeing was no longer cost effective. That was a nice airship, too; much more maneuverable than the old ones. It's hard to contain helium, especially when you have to do it with a ballonet that's severely weight-limited. Helium tends to slip between the molecules of thin materials.

yomly 11y ago

For argument's sake, say we have 1000 (high estimate) active cargo airships in the world. To further simplify the problem, let's assume they all have the same volume as the Dragon Dream (17,000m^3)[1]. So 1000 airships would take up 17,000,000m^3 of gas - less than 10% of current global consumption of helium (180,000,000m^3 pa [2]. Yes, this is grossly oversimplified (e.g. how often do airships need to replenish their lifting gas?) and yes we should be concerned about a major growth industry dependent on a scarce resource. On the other hand, is this a price worth paying considering the possible benefits to society it could bring via delivery of goods/aid to hard to reach areas and a reduction in fuel intensive cargo planes? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Dream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Dream [2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/27/what-great-helium-shortage/#5921f6ea7c69 http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/27/what-grea...

adambard 11y ago
The Dragon Dream is "half the size" of the latest model, which may not be a good benchmark. The largest airship aeros is building is quite a lot larger: > And the ML86X will be nine hundred and twenty feet (nearly three football fields) long, two hundred and fifteen feet (more than the Tower of Pisa) high, three hundred and fifty-five feet (two Boeing 747s) wide, and able to carry five hundred tons. That's 8.329×10^6 m^3 [1] each. That five hundred tons, by the way, is on the order which the logistics expert quoted claimed would be required for airships to be viable. So instead of 1000 dragon dreams, that's 2 ML86Xs. But before total helium depletion is a problem, this whole venture is predicated on airships providing cost-effective transport when compared to planes -- that seems unlikely to hold up if helium prices rise thanks to the proliferation of mammoth airships like this one. [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(4%2F3)+*+pi+*++920+*+215+*+355+cubic+feet+in+litres http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(4%2F3)+*+pi+*++920+*+2...

LouisSayers 11y ago

At $35/litre this could get expensive pretty fast!

Animats 11y ago
It does. That's what killed Silicon Valley's airship, the Zeppelin 2 operated by Airship Ventures. The price of helium doubled, and airship sightseeing was no longer cost effective. That was a nice airship, too; much more maneuverable than the old ones. It's hard to contain helium, especially when you have to do it with a ballonet that's severely weight-limited. Helium tends to slip between the molecules of thin materials.