8 ms·

Naive but skeptical questions: - How much of the carrying capacity is eaten up by the batteries necessary to hit the range target? - Would anyone operationall

Naive but skeptical questions: - How much of the carrying capacity is eaten up by the batteries necessary to hit the range target? - Would anyone operationally want to fly a 10,000 mile flight? Is speed a huge barrier for trying to do this in a single round the world flight? - Is helium scarce enough that there'd be negative externalities for medical helium if they actually produce these in any numbers? - What's the status quo ex ante here? I would guess you airlift relief supplies to the nearest safe staging zone using a herc or similar and then use chinook or similar to get directly to the disaster zone? Is there actually a problem to be solved here? (I like dirigibles and electric tech, so I hope there are good answers to all of these that make me look foolish)

lisper 4y ago
Helium is a non-renewable [1] resource. Once it's gone, it's gone forever, and we are running out. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/helium-shortage-why-the-worlds-supply-is-drying-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/helium-shortage-why-the-worl... [1] Earth's helium supply comes from decaying uranium, so it is kinda-sorta renewable, but the renewal time scale is millions of years.
- eldenwrong 4y ago
  No we are not running out. There's a lot, its just not profitable to mine. Just like there is almost infinite gold in the earth
  - lisper 4y ago
    There isn't infinite anything on earth. Earth is finite. And running out of resources that are economically viable to access is effectively the same as running out. (Also, helium is a by-product of crude oil production, and so its production has some rather dramatic externalities.)
    - rfrey 4y ago
      Your parent obviously knows the definition of "infinite", pedantry isn't helpful. We ran out of $15 oil quite some time ago. That was not the same as running out of oil. "Economically viable" is not a static target.
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        The earth is very deep. We are only mining the very tip of it. There are thousands of miles of unmined resources down there. That’s not infinite but a lot. And sure, we can’t get to it today, but who knows what 100 or 200 years will bring.
        Gustomaximus 4y ago
        I heard a line once that was if the earth was an apple we are yet to mine past the skin. So a heap of exploration potential plus the off planet side.
        HPsquared 4y ago
        Barely scratching the surface, so to speak. There's a lot of earth under our feet!
      - lixtra 4y ago
        $15 might still be the extraction price in Saudi Arabia. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-believe-what-saudi-arabias-oil-production.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-believe-w...
        HPsquared 4y ago
        Oil at that price can't supply the entire market, though (unless they're just being really prudent).
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        No. But oil at that cost provides a huge land-rent income to the Saudis when world (market) oil prices top $50, $100, $150, $200, ... bbl. KSA's extraction price remains $15. The rest is pure profit to them. (Discounting the hundreds of millions of years of geological accumulation and transformation which created the resource in the first place. See "Burning Buried Sunshine" by Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.... (PDF).)
  - RandomWorker 4y ago
    recommended read https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
  - IntrepidWorm 4y ago
    Yes, you are correct. Contrary to gold, however, which is largely useless and ornamental (aside from some marginal use in microelectronics), helium is necessary for a large amount of critical medical infrastructure, as well as research at cryogenic temperatures, superconductors, etc. To see helium steeply rise in price according to supply and demand would spell disaster for many of these applications.
    - lisper 4y ago
      Also, gold doesn't spontaneously escape into space if it's not contained.
      - amlib 4y ago
        But it might get robbed if not properly secured..
        lisper 4y ago
        Unless it's robbed by space aliens, that doesn't diminish the recoverable supply.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        That all depends on the temperature ;-)
        lisper 4y ago
        If that ever becomes a factor, helium (and gold for the matter) will be the least of our worries.
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        On the bright side, there would probably be no worries.
    - teruakohatu 4y ago
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    Moot. With natural resources, it's entirely about the cost of recovery. Nothing else matters. Who cares the core of the Earth is all iron, if it's eternally unavailable? What matters is $/ton.
RandomWorker 4y ago
Here is more information than the shared article it goes into some depth on the concept of the plane. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-rise-again-180979343/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-r... They reduce the planes use of Helium by it's shape and design, when the engines are turned off it's heavier than air and it will sink. However, Helium is a scarce resource. I don't approve of a billionaire fun ride between LA and Los Angeles taking up all the helium (which will leak out over time and may need top ups every time it departs). I'm also, wondering if people (the demographic) have time to sit for long periods of time, they seem to value their time, and a private jet is faster. Overall this is presented as an another green tech that will ensure carbon free travel. I see this as greenwashing a billionaire fantasy.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner. Anachronistic novelty travel where the craft itself is the main attraction and the destinations just happen along the way.
  - nvrspyx 4y ago
    I feel that the main appeal of a cruise liner is that the trip is also part of the vacation. You can enjoy comedy shows, play in the pool, relax in the sun, drink, gamble, etc. It's like a mini Las Vegas that moves. Where as I feel this would be more like waiting for the ferry to get from point A to point B while there's also a bridge that's much faster. With all that said, travel is not the purpose of the airship. It's to help humanitarian aid response and relief for areas that are difficult for planes and boats to access due to destroyed infrastructure.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      Heh, I go out of my way to ride on ferries. If you have time to spare, the Alaska Marine Highway (a ferry) is a very pleasant trip. But a Vegas-like experience on a cruise ship sounds like hell to me. For each their own I guess.
    - 4y ago
samatman 4y ago
I've talked with airship people about the helium question. Basically, hydrogen is better. Hydrogen has an image problem because of the Hindenburg, but there are compelling reasons why nothing of the sort would happen again. The idea is to regain airship capacity using helium, while it's still cheaply available from a couple natural gas wells, and switch to the better lifting gas in a friendlier political climate.
- noja 4y ago
  > but there are compelling reasons why nothing of the sort would happen again. What are these reasons?
  - Shalomboy 4y ago
    So it's a lot to get into, but these fellas put together a wonderful break-down of why blimps are worth trying again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU
    - noja 4y ago
      but the hydrogen part?
    - froh 4y ago
      That's three hours of stuff Tl;dw anyone?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        We can make less-flammible gas bags, and hydrogen can be made to vent upwards in case of fire. The weather issues are somewhat more handleable but there’s still maneuvering issues. Planes can outrun storms, airships light have a time doing so.
        froh 4y ago
        You did the work of an angel. Thank you!!
nradov 4y ago
Helium prices have risen significantly over the past few years. We can obtain some as a byproduct of natural gas extraction but it's limited. https://geology.com/articles/helium/ https://geology.com/articles/helium/
ac29 4y ago
> Would anyone operationally want to fly a 10,000 mile flight? Is speed a huge barrier for trying to do this in a single round the world flight? I'll take a crack at this: Since it is targeted towards humanitarian relief, it may travel to places without electrical infrastructure to recharge it. So, 5000 miles each way. Presumably charging takes a non-trivial amount of time, so in a time sensitive application like delivering medical supplies, there is also an advantage to not having to stop and charge. That being said, I am also skeptical this is faster or more practical than using traditional cargo aircraft and/or helicopters. A C130 doesnt need much of a runway to land or takeoff.
Melatonic 4y ago
I think a lot of the benefit is not necessarily about flying continous long distance flights but being able to carry lots of weight and to easily hover and stay in a general area. Like a base of operations for the military for example.

lisper 4y ago

Helium is a non-renewable [1] resource. Once it's gone, it's gone forever, and we are running out. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/helium-shortage-why-the-worlds-supply-is-drying-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/helium-shortage-why-the-worl... [1] Earth's helium supply comes from decaying uranium, so it is kinda-sorta renewable, but the renewal time scale is millions of years.

eldenwrong 4y ago
No we are not running out. There's a lot, its just not profitable to mine. Just like there is almost infinite gold in the earth
- lisper 4y ago
  There isn't infinite anything on earth. Earth is finite. And running out of resources that are economically viable to access is effectively the same as running out. (Also, helium is a by-product of crude oil production, and so its production has some rather dramatic externalities.)
  - rfrey 4y ago
    Your parent obviously knows the definition of "infinite", pedantry isn't helpful. We ran out of $15 oil quite some time ago. That was not the same as running out of oil. "Economically viable" is not a static target.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      The earth is very deep. We are only mining the very tip of it. There are thousands of miles of unmined resources down there. That’s not infinite but a lot. And sure, we can’t get to it today, but who knows what 100 or 200 years will bring.
      - Gustomaximus 4y ago
        I heard a line once that was if the earth was an apple we are yet to mine past the skin. So a heap of exploration potential plus the off planet side.
      - HPsquared 4y ago
        Barely scratching the surface, so to speak. There's a lot of earth under our feet!
    - lixtra 4y ago
      $15 might still be the extraction price in Saudi Arabia. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-believe-what-saudi-arabias-oil-production.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-believe-w...
      - HPsquared 4y ago
        Oil at that price can't supply the entire market, though (unless they're just being really prudent).
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        No. But oil at that cost provides a huge land-rent income to the Saudis when world (market) oil prices top $50, $100, $150, $200, ... bbl. KSA's extraction price remains $15. The rest is pure profit to them. (Discounting the hundreds of millions of years of geological accumulation and transformation which created the resource in the first place. See "Burning Buried Sunshine" by Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.... (PDF).)
- RandomWorker 4y ago
  recommended read https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
- IntrepidWorm 4y ago
  Yes, you are correct. Contrary to gold, however, which is largely useless and ornamental (aside from some marginal use in microelectronics), helium is necessary for a large amount of critical medical infrastructure, as well as research at cryogenic temperatures, superconductors, etc. To see helium steeply rise in price according to supply and demand would spell disaster for many of these applications.
  - lisper 4y ago
    Also, gold doesn't spontaneously escape into space if it's not contained.
    - amlib 4y ago
      But it might get robbed if not properly secured..
      - lisper 4y ago
        Unless it's robbed by space aliens, that doesn't diminish the recoverable supply.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      That all depends on the temperature ;-)
      - lisper 4y ago
        If that ever becomes a factor, helium (and gold for the matter) will be the least of our worries.
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        On the bright side, there would probably be no worries.
  - teruakohatu 4y ago
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Moot. With natural resources, it's entirely about the cost of recovery. Nothing else matters. Who cares the core of the Earth is all iron, if it's eternally unavailable? What matters is $/ton.

RandomWorker 4y ago

Here is more information than the shared article it goes into some depth on the concept of the plane. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-rise-again-180979343/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-r... They reduce the planes use of Helium by it's shape and design, when the engines are turned off it's heavier than air and it will sink. However, Helium is a scarce resource. I don't approve of a billionaire fun ride between LA and Los Angeles taking up all the helium (which will leak out over time and may need top ups every time it departs). I'm also, wondering if people (the demographic) have time to sit for long periods of time, they seem to value their time, and a private jet is faster. Overall this is presented as an another green tech that will ensure carbon free travel. I see this as greenwashing a billionaire fantasy.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner. Anachronistic novelty travel where the craft itself is the main attraction and the destinations just happen along the way.
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  I feel that the main appeal of a cruise liner is that the trip is also part of the vacation. You can enjoy comedy shows, play in the pool, relax in the sun, drink, gamble, etc. It's like a mini Las Vegas that moves. Where as I feel this would be more like waiting for the ferry to get from point A to point B while there's also a bridge that's much faster. With all that said, travel is not the purpose of the airship. It's to help humanitarian aid response and relief for areas that are difficult for planes and boats to access due to destroyed infrastructure.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Heh, I go out of my way to ride on ferries. If you have time to spare, the Alaska Marine Highway (a ferry) is a very pleasant trip. But a Vegas-like experience on a cruise ship sounds like hell to me. For each their own I guess.
  - 4y ago

samatman 4y ago

I've talked with airship people about the helium question. Basically, hydrogen is better. Hydrogen has an image problem because of the Hindenburg, but there are compelling reasons why nothing of the sort would happen again. The idea is to regain airship capacity using helium, while it's still cheaply available from a couple natural gas wells, and switch to the better lifting gas in a friendlier political climate.

noja 4y ago
> but there are compelling reasons why nothing of the sort would happen again. What are these reasons?
- Shalomboy 4y ago
  So it's a lot to get into, but these fellas put together a wonderful break-down of why blimps are worth trying again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU
  - noja 4y ago
    but the hydrogen part?
  - froh 4y ago
    That's three hours of stuff Tl;dw anyone?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      We can make less-flammible gas bags, and hydrogen can be made to vent upwards in case of fire. The weather issues are somewhat more handleable but there’s still maneuvering issues. Planes can outrun storms, airships light have a time doing so.
      - froh 4y ago
        You did the work of an angel. Thank you!!

nradov 4y ago

Helium prices have risen significantly over the past few years. We can obtain some as a byproduct of natural gas extraction but it's limited. https://geology.com/articles/helium/ https://geology.com/articles/helium/

ac29 4y ago

> Would anyone operationally want to fly a 10,000 mile flight? Is speed a huge barrier for trying to do this in a single round the world flight? I'll take a crack at this: Since it is targeted towards humanitarian relief, it may travel to places without electrical infrastructure to recharge it. So, 5000 miles each way. Presumably charging takes a non-trivial amount of time, so in a time sensitive application like delivering medical supplies, there is also an advantage to not having to stop and charge. That being said, I am also skeptical this is faster or more practical than using traditional cargo aircraft and/or helicopters. A C130 doesnt need much of a runway to land or takeoff.

Melatonic 4y ago

I think a lot of the benefit is not necessarily about flying continous long distance flights but being able to carry lots of weight and to easily hover and stay in a general area. Like a base of operations for the military for example.