4 ms·
While they are extremely cool, what tangible benefit do they have over airplanes?
by wardedVibe 4y ago
While they are extremely cool, what tangible benefit do they have over airplanes?
- doctor_eval 4y agoI’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 4y agoYeah, 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 4y ago“Hi, we heard you needed help, so we sent the Borg”
- kakwa_ 4y agoIs the comparison with a 747 the most relevant? The niche use case I see for large airships (aside from pleasure rides) is deliveries in remote area with no infrastructure. For example delivering a big generator in Alaska. In such use case, the comparison should maybe be against large transport helicopters.
- serial_dev 4y agoFrom 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 4y agoSounds like they could re-use whatever they had from Google Balloons or whatever it was called.
- Jabbles 4y agoMaybe he influenced the decision to open source all the data? https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/30/alphabet-gives-some-loon-patents-to-softbank-open-sources-flight-data-and-makes-patent-non-assertion-pledge/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/30/alphabet-gives-some-loon-p...
- Jabbles 4y agoI 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 4y agoAgreed. 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 4y agoI 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 4y ago
- hetspookjee 4y agoIf 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 4y agoContainer ships are hard to beat for efficiency.
- xcambar 4y agoAnd new sail-assisted container ships will improve things further in terms of environmental efficiency... if they ever become an actual thing.
- yreg 4y agoOr nuclear cargo ships.
- antupis 4y agobut you cannot use container ships in Nevada.
- wardedVibe 4y agoTrains are the land equivalent of container ships. If they work for Switzerland, they can work anywhere
- Apocryphon 4y agoI wonder if there are still any military applications for airships in modern warfare.
- hutzlibu 4y agoThere are ideas for drone carriers and communication hubs.
- heavenlyblue 4y agoHow 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 4y agoTrucks 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.
- MrFantastic 4y agoI
- miniwark 4y agoThey 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT
- antupis 4y agoactually 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.
- vintermann 4y agoDeutsche 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.
- Stratoscope 4y agoI 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21662645
- masklinn 4y ago> 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 4y ago> But there is a niche for advertisement … great more pollution
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoEfficiency, cost and low carbon seem the obvious ones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28278515 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 4y ago> 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.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThey 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.
- jandrese 4y ago> half the cost per mile of a small plane. Half the cost of the most expensive mode of transportation.
- hutzlibu 4y agoEfficency, 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.