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

141–150 of 198 posts

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#141

Post by bryanrasmussen »

pasabagi wrote: post #110
b0rsuk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think there were a series of disasters - of which the Hindenburg was just the last. All the same, I think with modern materials, Hydrogen would be pretty safe.

doesn't seem that bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#142

Post by gambiting »

squarefoot wrote: post #116
b0rsuk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>>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.

Literally the exact same thing could happen with a regular plane(just send a drone into a plane as it takes off), and yet somehow it doesn't happen. I guess people aren't psychotic murderers, or at least there isn't enough of them to worry about it.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#143

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

> airplanes, where EVERYONE tends to die

Overall, about 95% of passengers survive airplane crashes. If you arbitrarily restrict the stats to just the most severe crashes, it's still over 50%.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#144

Post by arcticfox »

gambiting wrote: post #142
squarefoot wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>>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. Literally the exact same thing could happen with a regular plane(just send a drone into a plane as it takes off), and yet somehow it doesn't happen. I guess people aren't psychotic…

I think it would be far more difficult to take down a plane than an airship given the enormous difference in velocities. Even at takeoff, a drone-sized IED would probably only be fatal to a small part of the plane's occupants, while it could probably 100% destroy a hydrogen airship in flight.

That said, I don't see any reason we'd need to put humans on these, so that probably lowers the risk massively.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#145

Post by exDM69 »

squarefoot wrote: post #116
b0rsuk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> quadcopter drone ... could easily outrun

Even the old Hindenburg did 135 km/h (85 mph), which is quite a lot faster than most drones.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#146

Post by n0rbwah »

brnt wrote: post #139
squarefoot wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I think since Hindenburg fabrics has developed tremendously, and collision, perhaps even explosion safe fabrics for zeppelin hulls could be possible.

Hope they still get covered with a thick layer of thermite.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#147

Post by pvaldes »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #140
pvaldes wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy to store in form of water as long as we could create it when needed, but water is heavy as fuel so it cancels the floating effect. An airbag for airplanes that would create a floating bag of hydrogen in seconds helping to do a safe landing would be awesome on the other hand. We could use the extra oxygen for masks also.

Sorry but these “ideas” are reddit tier naive... I recommend you researching the topic of water splitting.

I'm only rambling. Sometimes is useful for finding new ways to crash things.

Okay... lets see. Water splitting recipe: 1) Put water in a recipient with a pinch of salt, 2) add electricity, 3) hydrogen will float upwards and must be recovered in a different recipient or if mixed again with the oxygen could explode. Anything else that we would need to take in mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJEDe_HUcw

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#148

Post by twic »

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…

If you're going to do that, you could probably use towers instead of blimps.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#149

Post by jacobush »

ummonk wrote: post #86
symplee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about cargo torpedoes? I imagine you could fit an airplane load into a very large submarine/torpedo and send it at 200 km/h with a nuclear powered propulsion.

The fastest submarine of all time only went 75 km/h...

So? The idea is batshit insane, but I'm not sure it's against physics. Imagine a supercavity nuclear powered submarine cargo ship. I can't run the calculations for that. It would probably kill/scare all whales left in the ocean, but it might "work".

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#150

Post by pvaldes »

exDM69 wrote: post #145
squarefoot wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> quadcopter drone ... could easily outrun Even the old Hindenburg did 135 km/h (85 mph), which is quite a lot faster than most drones.

With predictable trajectories this does not would make a unsolvable obstacle. A drone can shoot a fireweapon so it would need just to place itself within fire range.
Post reply on HN