5 ms·

For passengers sure, they are slow. They could instead transport cargo. I think the biggest problem with them is mooring. It's a complex process, much more so

For passengers sure, they are slow. They could instead transport cargo. I think the biggest problem with them is mooring. It's a complex process, much more so than landing a plane, and requires lots of ground crew. It would have to be automated first.

masklinn 5y ago
> For passengers sure, they are slow. They could instead transport cargo. (1) applies triple for cargo, cargo which is fine with slow tends to be heavy. For reference, the Hindenburg had under 20 tonnes of useful lift, the ship itself weighted around 200 tonnes dry. If you're happy with your cargo going under 200km/h, you're probably fine slapping it on a truck or five, or on a train with some point-to-point trucking. It's hard to fathom how incapable airships are, they really aren't very good as you scale up, the use cases where they have any sort of superiority are extremely limited, leading to a very small market. They're super ultra cool looking and everything, but their reality is absolutely dreary.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Yeah, for cargo they're absolutely insane - maybe in some rare cases they could replace cargo/heavy lift helicopters - but otherwise they don't have much in the way of advantages.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    Basically the only scenario I've heard where they might be economical is the arctic, which is frequently impassible for everything but planes. There are few other places where roads or boats have effectiveness reduced to the point where an airship becomes an option.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      The “economical” would only come into play in potential perfect carbon tax environments from what I understand. Imagine a zeppelin configured like a sailing ship of the skies, designed to travel mainly under wind power and rarely fire its engines
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Also add lightweight solar panels to the hull (they exist as foil already) and you might have something economically in sunny areas.
- usrusr 5y ago
  The closest thing to a viable use case for airship cargo is the one Cargolifter was aiming for, getting objects too big for roads to landlocked destinations. And the challenge that comes with that was illustrated quite well by Cargolifter: starting with a small craft and sizing up with experience is impossible because for loads fitting a road ground based transport will always win. (I'm sure that CL160 would have changed the economics of wind power forever, but they were too early for that use case to materialize)
jcrawfordor 5y ago
For large airships, unless stored indoors (which is of course hard because of the size of the structure required) they are essentially permanently in flight. The Goodyear blimps, for example, are followed as they travel by portable (truck-mounted) mooring towers but must have pilots on board 24/7 even when moored, because a modest wind can easily blow the mooring tower over if pilots don't maneuver the ship "on the ground." In high winds mooring is simply impossible and the airships must remain aloft. The logistics of this operation are very complex, and the airship must be able to swing 360 degrees while moored to allow for maneuvering, which requires a huge area. The result is that the Goodyear blimps rely on a pretty limited set of mostly small municipal airports that they have experience with. Closed air force bases are popular since they're most likely to have a far corner of the tarmac that the trucks can easily drive out to but that has no structures or other aircraft use that the airship would interfere with. The Goodyear website has a picture that gives you a good idea of what this looks like: https://www.goodyearblimp.com/behind-the-scenes/img/emeablimp.JPG https://www.goodyearblimp.com/behind-the-scenes/img/emeablim... Not pictured is the truck of helium cylinders that accompanies the blimp for top-ups, which are required as I understand it mostly due to leakage, as the pilots carefully avoid venting helium due to the high cost (it's an option for emergencies). Airships are huge and hard to manage.

masklinn 5y ago

> For passengers sure, they are slow. They could instead transport cargo. (1) applies triple for cargo, cargo which is fine with slow tends to be heavy. For reference, the Hindenburg had under 20 tonnes of useful lift, the ship itself weighted around 200 tonnes dry. If you're happy with your cargo going under 200km/h, you're probably fine slapping it on a truck or five, or on a train with some point-to-point trucking. It's hard to fathom how incapable airships are, they really aren't very good as you scale up, the use cases where they have any sort of superiority are extremely limited, leading to a very small market. They're super ultra cool looking and everything, but their reality is absolutely dreary.

bombcar 5y ago
Yeah, for cargo they're absolutely insane - maybe in some rare cases they could replace cargo/heavy lift helicopters - but otherwise they don't have much in the way of advantages.
- Pxtl 5y ago
  Basically the only scenario I've heard where they might be economical is the arctic, which is frequently impassible for everything but planes. There are few other places where roads or boats have effectiveness reduced to the point where an airship becomes an option.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    The “economical” would only come into play in potential perfect carbon tax environments from what I understand. Imagine a zeppelin configured like a sailing ship of the skies, designed to travel mainly under wind power and rarely fire its engines
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Also add lightweight solar panels to the hull (they exist as foil already) and you might have something economically in sunny areas.
usrusr 5y ago
The closest thing to a viable use case for airship cargo is the one Cargolifter was aiming for, getting objects too big for roads to landlocked destinations. And the challenge that comes with that was illustrated quite well by Cargolifter: starting with a small craft and sizing up with experience is impossible because for loads fitting a road ground based transport will always win. (I'm sure that CL160 would have changed the economics of wind power forever, but they were too early for that use case to materialize)

jcrawfordor 5y ago

For large airships, unless stored indoors (which is of course hard because of the size of the structure required) they are essentially permanently in flight. The Goodyear blimps, for example, are followed as they travel by portable (truck-mounted) mooring towers but must have pilots on board 24/7 even when moored, because a modest wind can easily blow the mooring tower over if pilots don't maneuver the ship "on the ground." In high winds mooring is simply impossible and the airships must remain aloft. The logistics of this operation are very complex, and the airship must be able to swing 360 degrees while moored to allow for maneuvering, which requires a huge area. The result is that the Goodyear blimps rely on a pretty limited set of mostly small municipal airports that they have experience with. Closed air force bases are popular since they're most likely to have a far corner of the tarmac that the trucks can easily drive out to but that has no structures or other aircraft use that the airship would interfere with. The Goodyear website has a picture that gives you a good idea of what this looks like: https://www.goodyearblimp.com/behind-the-scenes/img/emeablimp.JPG https://www.goodyearblimp.com/behind-the-scenes/img/emeablim... Not pictured is the truck of helium cylinders that accompanies the blimp for top-ups, which are required as I understand it mostly due to leakage, as the pilots carefully avoid venting helium due to the high cost (it's an option for emergencies). Airships are huge and hard to manage.