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

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#111

Post by m4rtink »

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…

For remote are delivery, there is the often ignored issues of replacement mass.

Basically, if you deliver 100 tons to some remote location, the airship is now 100 tons lighter once you ofload it. Unless you want it to immediatelly shoot up to the stratosphere, you need to rebalance it.

You either have tobrelease some of the gas to reduce the lifting force (pretty expensive if you use helium) or load 100 tons of some replacement mass (even if you load 100 tons of local dirt, it can still not be an easy task on a remote location).

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#112

Post by aaRopi »

"... using almost no energy at all if we used airships to harness the free winds of the jet stream, the narrow band of fast-moving air above the troposphere, where planes fly." But what if the jetstreams are already transporting something useful in nature? Sucking off energy from there will mean messing up with those natural systems that rely on the jetstreams. Oh Consequences!

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#113

Post by anoncake »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #64
galaxyLogic wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes kind of like a train but without disrupting the land below so much. Maybe much faster to install too.

> Yes kind of like a train but without disrupting the land below so much.

...or the ocean below. If the blimps can be grounded to ships, the ocean floor or don't need grounding, this could be a realistic way of building bridges across the oceans.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#114

Post by BetaCygni »

john_moscow wrote: post #29
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we're not demi-Gods, able to decide what to do at will with the entire planet. Pursuing some serious efforts in one area can't be turned down simply because there's something else that could be done in another area.

On the contrary, the rational way of solving a complex problem that cannot be addressed entirely is to break it down into smaller ones, estimate their individual cost/impact/risk and start with the most cost-effective options. In fact, people who actively shame others for eating meat, having vacations, and raising kids, are doing exactly that. Except, instead of optimizing the ecological impact, they optimize their o…

Not eating meat (or eating less meat) is VERY cost-effective and very easy to do.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#115

Post by pvaldes »

A different way to reduce the fuel bill and contamination without being constricted by scarce non scalable resources could be to design a new generation of (small?) cargo airplanes flying in a zig zag pattern of spending fuel to gain elevation and then gliding with some extra big pliable wings, extensible membranes or something like that...

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#116

Post by squarefoot »

b0rsuk wrote: post #108
szemet wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use hydrogen, its cheap and zeppelins can be smaller and fly higher. We will maybe better in avoiding accidents compared to 1937: - have better materials - can use it only for cargo with drones - no human should travel with them! - should/can use routes to avoid cities, and should/could build some separate safe landing space etc... finally: Hydrogen fires are less destructive to immediate surroundings than ga…

I would also rather use hydrogen. The Hindenburg disaster was spectacular, but not especially deadly! 36 fatalities, 62 survivors. Compare to modern passenger airplanes, where EVERYONE tends to die. If modern dislike for zeppelins is mostly due to Hindenburg, it's irrational.

The Hindenburg accident happened while the ship was about to land; people on the ground were already holding the ropes hanging from its nose. Had the explosion happen at a higher altitude nobody wold have survived.

Using hydrogen, especially today, is a disaster waiting to happen, since any idiot with a medium quadcopter drone carrying a small explosive charge could easily outrun and shot down an airship then post the FPV video on social networks.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#118

Post by growlist »

haspoken wrote: post #54

One problem with airships is the shear size and hence the handling, particularly during the time the airship is in dock.

I suppose it could be possible to leave the airship in the air almost indefinitely, with smaller craft doing the loading/unloading at each end.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#119

Post by MikeTaylor »

m4r35n357 wrote: post #117

Why not sailing ships while we are at it?

The article addresses this. Ships are restricted to docking where there are ports, which are expensive and potentially fragile infrastructure (e.g. after a big storm), and can only be situated at the water's edge; while airships can pick up put down essentially anywhere.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#120

Post by ppf »

kiba wrote: post #23
melling wrote: post #4

All air travel combined emits 2.5% of our yearly CO2 emissions. That’s hundreds of thousands of flights a day. We could just eliminate all coal electric plants in the world and make a real impact. Then use that cleaner energy to power our electric cars.

Airships have a use case for bulk cargo, so it will displace some trucks.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation tells me that the efficiency of a powered airship is about the same as modern airplanes. Switching truck freight to airships would use an order of magnitude more fuel.
Post reply on HN