4 ms·
I'm far from expert on anything to do with the industry you're targeting or the engineering challenges you might be facing, but the idea sounds so reasonable I'
by grncdr 3y ago
I'm far from expert on anything to do with the industry you're targeting or the engineering challenges you might be facing, but the idea sounds so reasonable I'm surprised it's not already a thing.
I'm curious though about the tradeoffs of using the envelope as the tank vs. some other source. I'd assume it introduces more opportunity for leaks, and you have to "oversize" the envelope to stay aloft even after you've used all the fuel necessary for a tour. Is there a situation in which it would make more sense to keep your fuel and H2 separate?
Small feedback: the rotating text on your homepage transitions just a bit too quickly.
- ThomasLaporte 3y agoActually, we're not the only one who thought about it. Since the 2000's some researchers or blimp enthusiasts launched research project like this. We're trying to apply it to a strong pain point in the energy industry. Concerning the tradeoffs. It does increase leak potential but the materials and glues are in constant improvements. And, we do not need to oversize the envelope this much because the airship is extremely energy efficient and consume very little energy (during all our flight test we are always amazed when we have 80% left of battery or H2 at the end of the flights). But yes, for now, we keep fuel and lighter than air gas separated and we will keep this possibility for a long time. Thank you for the feedback!