4 ms·
Rail can only carry objects that can fit inside the cross-section and streets aren't much better. The defunct Cargolifter protect was quite open about not atte
by usrusr 7y ago
Rail can only carry objects that can fit inside the cross-section and streets aren't much better.
The defunct Cargolifter protect was quite open about not attempting to be competitive for loads that easily fit conventional transport. They saw their market exclusively in loads that are too bulky for ground transport and I don't think that anything has changed.
Other than that this hypothetical market could be really huge now that wind turbines have grown into the "untransportable" realm for offshore use where no practical transport restrictions exist. (At least in countries that haven't universally given in to NIMBY and are still expand their land-based wind capacity)
- boomlinde 7y ago> Rail can only carry objects that can fit inside the cross-section and streets aren't much better. Trains typically carry the same intermodal containers that cargo ships do.
- usrusr 7y agoThat answers GP's "how do you drive a container ship over land" but we seem agree that container transport is a solved problem that airships can't meaningfully contribute to. But there are objects that don't fit the rail profile that still need transportation. And a lot more objects that don't fit that profile, or the more generous limitations of an oversize road load, that could exists if matching overland transportation existed. A lot of technology is severely size-constrained only because roads between factory and deployment site are size constrained. A cargo airship that can take those loads could completely change whole industries.