Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 198 posts

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#51

Post by teraflop »

cforrester wrote: post #42
VonGuard wrote: post #36

This article doesn't seem to take into account that Helium is becoming scarce, and when used in airships, it's eventually just released and lost forever. NYT Article on the shortage: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium-shortage-p... We used to have a strategic Helium reserve in the US for zepplins and so forth, then it was just kept for chemistry and other purposes. I think we started selling it down un…

I wouldn't say that helium is becoming scarce in the sense that we can't get any more, though. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it's just expensive to store, so nobody wants to do it if it's not worth the money. If air ships started to "take off", there would surely be more money in producing helium.

Helium is scarce in much the same way that crude oil is scarce: there are plenty of reserves still in the ground, but we are consuming them orders of magnitude faster than they were produced, and as the reserves dwindle the costs of extraction will rise.

Helium is a chemical element, and aside from nuclear reactions (which are economically infeasible for non-microscopic quantities) we can't produce more of it.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#52

Post by cdolan »

crazygringo wrote: post #39

The article's headline seems misleading: the article is actually about cargo, not traditional travel -- since airships are so slow. But I don't see what needs this would meet -- either you need something to be shipped between continents quick (~overnight) so you use a plane, or you don't so you use a container ship. This seems like it has neither the speed advantage of a plane, nor anything close to the size and scal…

How do you drive a container ship over land?

I Think the point is that you could use this across the USA or other large geographic bodies for similar efficiency that you see with a container ship on water.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#53

Post by placatedmayhem »

cdolan wrote: post #52
crazygringo wrote: post #39

The article's headline seems misleading: the article is actually about cargo, not traditional travel -- since airships are so slow. But I don't see what needs this would meet -- either you need something to be shipped between continents quick (~overnight) so you use a plane, or you don't so you use a container ship. This seems like it has neither the speed advantage of a plane, nor anything close to the size and scal…

How do you drive a container ship over land? I Think the point is that you could use this across the USA or other large geographic bodies for similar efficiency that you see with a container ship on water.

I'm not sure, but I think some standard shipping containers fit on semi truck beds and on special train cars.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#55

Post by galaxyLogic »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #50

I got a dumb idea. Permanently stationed blimps around the world that never land. And cable cars for moving between them, on pulleys. Pros: Energy efficient: no need to generate lift. No need for fans to move the cars as you are on pulleys, which are more efficient. Minimal noise! You could go as fast as you want but your efficiency will start to drop due to drag. It can't be any worse an idea than a hyperloop can it…

Wouldn't that be like a train? Maybe cheaper. A long cable would weigh a lot?

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#56

Post by haspoken »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #50

I got a dumb idea. Permanently stationed blimps around the world that never land. And cable cars for moving between them, on pulleys. Pros: Energy efficient: no need to generate lift. No need for fans to move the cars as you are on pulleys, which are more efficient. Minimal noise! You could go as fast as you want but your efficiency will start to drop due to drag. It can't be any worse an idea than a hyperloop can it…

Sounds like they would need to keep the same position.

Would that be practical for such a large, light ship that can not avoid the weather?

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#57

Post by Mountain_Skies »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #50

I got a dumb idea. Permanently stationed blimps around the world that never land. And cable cars for moving between them, on pulleys. Pros: Energy efficient: no need to generate lift. No need for fans to move the cars as you are on pulleys, which are more efficient. Minimal noise! You could go as fast as you want but your efficiency will start to drop due to drag. It can't be any worse an idea than a hyperloop can it…

Hyperloop tubes held aloft by blimps!

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#58

Post by tumanian »

cdolan wrote: post #52
crazygringo wrote: post #39

The article's headline seems misleading: the article is actually about cargo, not traditional travel -- since airships are so slow. But I don't see what needs this would meet -- either you need something to be shipped between continents quick (~overnight) so you use a plane, or you don't so you use a container ship. This seems like it has neither the speed advantage of a plane, nor anything close to the size and scal…

How do you drive a container ship over land? I Think the point is that you could use this across the USA or other large geographic bodies for similar efficiency that you see with a container ship on water.

a freight train

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#59

Post by riffic »

cdolan wrote: post #52
crazygringo wrote: post #39

The article's headline seems misleading: the article is actually about cargo, not traditional travel -- since airships are so slow. But I don't see what needs this would meet -- either you need something to be shipped between continents quick (~overnight) so you use a plane, or you don't so you use a container ship. This seems like it has neither the speed advantage of a plane, nor anything close to the size and scal…

How do you drive a container ship over land? I Think the point is that you could use this across the USA or other large geographic bodies for similar efficiency that you see with a container ship on water.

Wonderful thing called a railroad network.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#60

Post by perilunar »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #46

Airplanes fly high and have tiny porthole windows. You can't appreciate the beauty of the earth. Zeppelins can have huge windows and fly relatively low. The experience of flight would be amazing -- focused on the beauty of the natural world. Zeppelins offer a low-carbon earth-conscious luxury good that the superrich should spend money on -- so that eventually it's affordable to the rest of us.

> Zeppelins can have huge windows and fly relatively low

Also they are constrained by weight, not volume, so there's plenty of legroom. The Hindenburg had private cabins, a lounge, a bar, and a dining room (and a smoking room!). More like a cruise ship than an airliner.

Post reply on HN