4 ms·
I mean if the alternative transports also don't work in bad weather I'm not sure you can use some failures to disqualify airships. So long as they work "more"
by lesuorac 4y ago
I mean if the alternative transports also don't work in bad weather I'm not sure you can use some failures to disqualify airships.
So long as they work "more" days of the year it's a better solution. Weather doesn't really sneak up on us anymore.
- likpok 4y agoAircraft are substantially more resistant to bad weather: you can fly an airplane into a hurricane. Aircraft are also a lot faster -- it's unlikely that a thunderstorm will catch up with you (max speed of a storm is something like 50-80 mph) and trips are a lot shorter. Airships are much closer to the storm speed and may need to stay aloft for several days. That makes it more likely that they'll hit unexpected weather and give them fewer options to avoid anything. It's true that someone could do some shipping with airships and just eat the downtime due to weather. So far nobody has done that. And not for lack of trying: CargoLifter (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) went bankrupt on this idea.
- Scalene2 4y agoAirships aren't aircraft?
- water-your-self 4y agoIts not unexpected that a california resident, one accustomed to fairly temperate weather, would invest heavily into airships.
- usrbinbash 4y ago> I mean if the alternative transports also don't work in bad weather But they do. Imagine the kind of storm that can stop a freight train. Or the kind that would give the captain of a large container ship pause. Now imagine airships facing the same storm.
- lesuorac 4y agoThis thread started because somebody was talking about towns where the weather prohibited rails from being built [1]. Let me know what freight train can run without rails ... All I have to find is 1 day the airship can travel and its better than your trail. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34579915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34579915