4 ms·

Sergey Brin (and others, I'm sure) hopes to bring airships back with the technological advances since - https://spectrum.ieee.org/lta-airship-faa-clearance http

by BowBun 2y ago

Sergey Brin (and others, I'm sure) hopes to bring airships back with the technological advances since - https://spectrum.ieee.org/lta-airship-faa-clearance https://spectrum.ieee.org/lta-airship-faa-clearance

mananaysiempre 2y ago
There’s also the, umm, Flying Bum[1] descended from a discarded project of the US military. (It’s not quite clear what they wanted to do with it—radio relay for ground troops in difficult terrain? mobile command post?) Filling it with helium (expensive and very limited on Earth) feels kind of barbaric, though, knowing what lengths even physics labs go to in order to avoid wasting it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_Airlander_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_Airlander_...
jodrellblank 2y ago
> "it can use nonflammable helium instead of explosive hydrogen as a lifting gas." Frustrating FUD that's held back Hydrogen lift airships for almost a century, because clickbait scaremongering sells newspapers. What about [1] and [2], Spectrum.IEEE reporting on Hydrogen fuel-cell electric aircraft, or [3] them reporting on a hydrogen fuel cell rescue truck, without mentioning explosions or the Hindenburg. You know how many people died in the Hindenburg disaster? 36. And how many survivors? 62. Yes that's too many. FOURTY TWO THOUSAND people killed by cars EVERY YEAR in the USA[7] held back car development or sales? When was the last time an aeroplane crash killed that many people? It was August 9th - only a month ago - a crash in Brazil killed 66 people[4]. Before that? January 2023 a crash in Nepal killed 72 people. In fact, look how many plane crashes there are[5] - that doesn't leave newspapers scaremongering about airplane travel and regulators banning it. OK, it does, "Horrific Oregon plane crash shows moment aircraft flies into home and EXPLODES as residents evacuate area" a week ago in the Daily Mail[8]. Jet fuel is explosive, explosions are how engines work! A Boeing 737 carries ~20,000 litres or ~5300 gallons of jet fuel, and nobody writes articles about how planes are bad because jet fuel burns. With today's technology, and all the improvements in airline safety generally - checklists, regulations, mandatory inspections and maintenance, why wouldn't Hydrogen lift airships be similarly safe to airplanes? Look at "List of airship accidents"[6] and ask yourself how many could be made unlikely with today's technology, weather forecasting, and careful design and maintenance procedures? The first 30 years are mostly: - crashed - fell apart - burnt - strong winds broke moorings / crashed it / tore it apart - exploded And if you think the fire risk is not safely manageable, have a think about Hydrogen refuelling pumps at every gas station on every town and city street, used by ordinary people not paying much attention, refuelled and maintained by the lowest bidder, into old, maybe poorly maintained, cars and trucks. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-powered-planes-fuel-cells https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-powered-planes-fuel-cells [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/stealthy-startup-promises-cheap-carbonfree-flying-via-hydrogen https://spectrum.ieee.org/stealthy-startup-promises-cheap-ca... [3] https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-truck-emergency-rescue https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-truck-emergency-rescue [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voepass_Linhas_A%C3%A9reas_Flight_2283 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voepass_Linhas_A%C3%A9reas_Fli... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [8] I'm not linking to the Daily Mail. If you're desperate to read it, you'll have to find it.
- jdkee 2y ago
  Now do deaths per mile traveled for those modes of transport.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    Deaths per mile travelled for planes and cars designed and built before 1930, for a fair comparison. The Graf Zeppelin launched in 1928 did 1,000,000 miles with no crashes, deaths or injuries. How many other vehicles from the 1920s were that capable and safe?
  - tzs 2y ago
    I'm not sure deaths per mile is a good way to compare different modes of transport. Suppose a company discovered warp drive and started offering trips to the Andromeda galaxy. Their warp starships can carry 100 passengers. Establishing the warp field is dangerous, and 99% of the time the result is an explosion that destroys the ship (and everyone aboard). If the warp field is successfully established actually traversing the warp field is safe enough that the chances of anything going wrong in transit are negligible. Those warp starships that kill 99% of their passengers would have a fatality rate per passenger mile 5 orders of magnitude lower than that of commercial airlines, and 8 orders of magnitude lower than that of automobiles but I doubt many people think is is safer.
    - waldrews 2y ago
      Well, maybe it's still better than the alternative of trying to get there by chemically propelled rocket, and having a 100% chance of dying of old age on the way.
    - xp84 2y ago
      I get your point technically, but I think the mildly fallacious part of your argument is that the warp example opens up the possibility of orders of magnitude farther travel in the first place, whereas most Earthbound modes of transport are not too far off from one another in their potential. Nobody’s driving a Corolla to the Andromeda Galaxy, or flying on a 737. Therefore no one ought to be comparing them on any distance-related metric, probably. Perhaps a pure “chances that a given person boarding the craft disembarks alive” metric would be better.
WalterBright 2y ago
I've heard the bringing back the Zeppelin stories all my life. It never happens.

by BowBun 2y ago

mananaysiempre 2y ago

There’s also the, umm, Flying Bum[1] descended from a discarded project of the US military. (It’s not quite clear what they wanted to do with it—radio relay for ground troops in difficult terrain? mobile command post?) Filling it with helium (expensive and very limited on Earth) feels kind of barbaric, though, knowing what lengths even physics labs go to in order to avoid wasting it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_Airlander_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_Airlander_...

jodrellblank 2y ago

> "it can use nonflammable helium instead of explosive hydrogen as a lifting gas." Frustrating FUD that's held back Hydrogen lift airships for almost a century, because clickbait scaremongering sells newspapers. What about [1] and [2], Spectrum.IEEE reporting on Hydrogen fuel-cell electric aircraft, or [3] them reporting on a hydrogen fuel cell rescue truck, without mentioning explosions or the Hindenburg. You know how many people died in the Hindenburg disaster? 36. And how many survivors? 62. Yes that's too many. FOURTY TWO THOUSAND people killed by cars EVERY YEAR in the USA[7] held back car development or sales? When was the last time an aeroplane crash killed that many people? It was August 9th - only a month ago - a crash in Brazil killed 66 people[4]. Before that? January 2023 a crash in Nepal killed 72 people. In fact, look how many plane crashes there are[5] - that doesn't leave newspapers scaremongering about airplane travel and regulators banning it. OK, it does, "Horrific Oregon plane crash shows moment aircraft flies into home and EXPLODES as residents evacuate area" a week ago in the Daily Mail[8]. Jet fuel is explosive, explosions are how engines work! A Boeing 737 carries ~20,000 litres or ~5300 gallons of jet fuel, and nobody writes articles about how planes are bad because jet fuel burns. With today's technology, and all the improvements in airline safety generally - checklists, regulations, mandatory inspections and maintenance, why wouldn't Hydrogen lift airships be similarly safe to airplanes? Look at "List of airship accidents"[6] and ask yourself how many could be made unlikely with today's technology, weather forecasting, and careful design and maintenance procedures? The first 30 years are mostly: - crashed - fell apart - burnt - strong winds broke moorings / crashed it / tore it apart - exploded And if you think the fire risk is not safely manageable, have a think about Hydrogen refuelling pumps at every gas station on every town and city street, used by ordinary people not paying much attention, refuelled and maintained by the lowest bidder, into old, maybe poorly maintained, cars and trucks. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-powered-planes-fuel-cells https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-powered-planes-fuel-cells [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/stealthy-startup-promises-cheap-carbonfree-flying-via-hydrogen https://spectrum.ieee.org/stealthy-startup-promises-cheap-ca... [3] https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-truck-emergency-rescue https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-truck-emergency-rescue [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voepass_Linhas_A%C3%A9reas_Flight_2283 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voepass_Linhas_A%C3%A9reas_Fli... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [8] I'm not linking to the Daily Mail. If you're desperate to read it, you'll have to find it.

jdkee 2y ago
Now do deaths per mile traveled for those modes of transport.
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  Deaths per mile travelled for planes and cars designed and built before 1930, for a fair comparison. The Graf Zeppelin launched in 1928 did 1,000,000 miles with no crashes, deaths or injuries. How many other vehicles from the 1920s were that capable and safe?
- tzs 2y ago
  I'm not sure deaths per mile is a good way to compare different modes of transport. Suppose a company discovered warp drive and started offering trips to the Andromeda galaxy. Their warp starships can carry 100 passengers. Establishing the warp field is dangerous, and 99% of the time the result is an explosion that destroys the ship (and everyone aboard). If the warp field is successfully established actually traversing the warp field is safe enough that the chances of anything going wrong in transit are negligible. Those warp starships that kill 99% of their passengers would have a fatality rate per passenger mile 5 orders of magnitude lower than that of commercial airlines, and 8 orders of magnitude lower than that of automobiles but I doubt many people think is is safer.
  - waldrews 2y ago
    Well, maybe it's still better than the alternative of trying to get there by chemically propelled rocket, and having a 100% chance of dying of old age on the way.
  - xp84 2y ago
    I get your point technically, but I think the mildly fallacious part of your argument is that the warp example opens up the possibility of orders of magnitude farther travel in the first place, whereas most Earthbound modes of transport are not too far off from one another in their potential. Nobody’s driving a Corolla to the Andromeda Galaxy, or flying on a 737. Therefore no one ought to be comparing them on any distance-related metric, probably. Perhaps a pure “chances that a given person boarding the craft disembarks alive” metric would be better.

WalterBright 2y ago

I've heard the bringing back the Zeppelin stories all my life. It never happens.