3 ms·
>save enough That probably won't convince neither aviation security authorities nor insurance companies. Beside, allthough helium is more expensive but far sav
by Borrible 5y ago
>save enough
That probably won't convince neither aviation security authorities nor insurance companies.
Beside, allthough helium is more expensive but far saver than hydrogen it isn't the reason for the economical infeasibility of air ship cargo on global scale.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoWe work with more dangerous fuels daily… If we can design ships to go to mars, I’m sure we can use modern technology to design airships as safe as airplanes.
- Borrible 5y agoThe CargoLifter CL 160 I mentioned above was planned to carry 160 metric tons with a volume of up to 3,200 cubic metres. Its body volume should have been 550,000 cubic meter filled with helium. They probably chose helium for a reason. They didn't think it a good idea to plaster the skys with thousands of vehicles, each with half a million cubic meters of burnable fuel in its hull. To save the whales from container and other ships with a cargo capacity of thousands of TEU's. https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/ https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-foot_equivalent_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-foot_equivalent_unit And there is still the question of economic sustainability. Even for small operations like cargo to remote areas. Not to say the volume on a global scale like cargo shipping.