3 ms·

> LTA expects Pathfinder 1 to carry approximately 4 tonnes of cargo, in addition to its crew, water ballast, and fuel. The airship will have a top speed of 65 k

> LTA expects Pathfinder 1 to carry approximately 4 tonnes of cargo, in addition to its crew, water ballast, and fuel. The airship will have a top speed of 65 knots, or about 120 kilometers per hour—on par with the Hindenburg—with a sustained cruise speed of 35 to 40 knots (65 to 75 km/h). This is the big problem with airships. Over land, they are competing with large trucks which can carry 25 tons of cargo at similar speeds. Over water, they are competing with cargo ships that can carry 1000’s of times that amount of cargo, again with roughly similar speeds.

deafpolygon 4y ago
But what they can do is carry cargo over terrain that is unsuitable for both.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  Said terrain is almost by definition not on established trade routes. But maybe Russia will want to massively increase their southeastern trade?
- foobarbecue 4y ago
  Yes, in theory. I remember when Lockheed took over the US Antarctic program support contract and claimed they would use an airship to transport stuff to S Pole. It was obviously ridiculous given the weather. If it weren't for that it might make sense.
- jaclaz 4y ago
  Yes, I remember some 20 years ago there were projects for even larger airships (please read as carrying bigger loads) aimed at supplies to otherwise inaccessible places/construction sites/mines, called Cargolifter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#Heavy_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#Heavy_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter
subradios 4y ago
Well, sort of - fuel costs are real. Being able to transport 5 to 10 tonne point to point (you do not need an airfield to land an airship) while using very little or no fuel that produces another avenue of competition. Cargo ships also run at a third of the speed, their advantage is fuel efficiency by weight and number of human crew by weight. If you could get capacity to something like 10 or 25 ton, it could directly compete with cargo by being slightly faster and more fuel/manpower efficient

deafpolygon 4y ago

But what they can do is carry cargo over terrain that is unsuitable for both.

082349872349872 4y ago
Said terrain is almost by definition not on established trade routes. But maybe Russia will want to massively increase their southeastern trade?
foobarbecue 4y ago
Yes, in theory. I remember when Lockheed took over the US Antarctic program support contract and claimed they would use an airship to transport stuff to S Pole. It was obviously ridiculous given the weather. If it weren't for that it might make sense.
jaclaz 4y ago
Yes, I remember some 20 years ago there were projects for even larger airships (please read as carrying bigger loads) aimed at supplies to otherwise inaccessible places/construction sites/mines, called Cargolifter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#Heavy_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#Heavy_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter

subradios 4y ago

Well, sort of - fuel costs are real. Being able to transport 5 to 10 tonne point to point (you do not need an airfield to land an airship) while using very little or no fuel that produces another avenue of competition. Cargo ships also run at a third of the speed, their advantage is fuel efficiency by weight and number of human crew by weight. If you could get capacity to something like 10 or 25 ton, it could directly compete with cargo by being slightly faster and more fuel/manpower efficient