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

Cargo airships could be big

elidourado.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 385 posts

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#41

Post by rootusrootus »

comfypotato wrote: post #39

I wonder why they didn’t mention simply sailing with the wind almost entirely. My understanding is that at certain altitudes there are winds that circle the earth (the jet stream, yes?). If the ships are completely autonomous, this could take a sector of the market where shipping speed doesn’t matter. It’s a different value proposition than discussed, but if I’m reading the surrounding literature correctly, it’s wind…

They did. It's a long article, they don't get to that point for a while. Search the page for "The other approach would be to take a deliberate strategy of riding the winds."

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#42

Post by rootusrootus »

twelve40 wrote: post #40

I didn't understand the jump from: > International water transportation is also cheaper than domestic, perhaps around 1¢ per ton-km to: > Let’s say airships captured half of the 13 trillion ton-km currently served by container ships at a price of 10¢ per ton-km Having half of the entire market switch to something that is 10x more expensive?

There is a large dichotomy between the value of goods sent by plane vs ship, almost certainly due to the trade-off on speed. The intent with the airship idea seems to be to make something roughly similar in price and speed to trucking on land, but over the ocean. There is arguably a big chunk of cargo that would like to be in that middle area.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#45

Post by andbberger »

meindnoch wrote: post #17
splitrocket wrote: post #12

This, my friends, is why we should colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus, where you could chill outside with only a respirator, rather than the inhospitable, irradiated, mangnetosphere free mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa... https://spectrum.ieee.org/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud...

And what are we going to do there? Mine sulphuric acid from the clouds?

what are we going to do from mars

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#46

Post by atlasunshrugged »

It's a narrow use case but I've always wondered if these would be good for facilitating export of certain cash crops (or maybe even processed critical minerals) out of hard to reach areas of Africa where there isn't much infrastructure, rains can wash out roads, and airports aren't conveniently accessible (thinking cocoa in Liberia, cobalt in the DRC).

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#47

Post by blamestross »

splitrocket wrote: post #12

This, my friends, is why we should colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus, where you could chill outside with only a respirator, rather than the inhospitable, irradiated, mangnetosphere free mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa... https://spectrum.ieee.org/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud...

Hang on tight for those gentle 185 mph breezes...

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#48

Post by [deleted] »

rootusrootus wrote: post #42
twelve40 wrote: post #40

I didn't understand the jump from: > International water transportation is also cheaper than domestic, perhaps around 1¢ per ton-km to: > Let’s say airships captured half of the 13 trillion ton-km currently served by container ships at a price of 10¢ per ton-km Having half of the entire market switch to something that is 10x more expensive?

There is a large dichotomy between the value of goods sent by plane vs ship, almost certainly due to the trade-off on speed. The intent with the airship idea seems to be to make something roughly similar in price and speed to trucking on land, but over the ocean. There is arguably a big chunk of cargo that would like to be in that middle area.

[deleted]

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#49

Post by blamestross »

echelon wrote: post #33
splitrocket wrote: post #12

This, my friends, is why we should colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus, where you could chill outside with only a respirator, rather than the inhospitable, irradiated, mangnetosphere free mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa... https://spectrum.ieee.org/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud...

I've always felt people with these ideas are doing pie in the sky thinking and missing the other trends that would beat this concept out. Humans aren't suited for these environments. We evolved to fit this planet. These gasses, radiation levels, terrestrial foods, etc. The economics of going to Mars, Venus, etc. are iffy, and humans probably won't enjoy being there. It's McMurdo times about 1000. Getting back is hard…

If we go anywhere it will be spun-up asteroids. O'Neill cylinders make more sense for a living platform than even earth does. Once we actually have orbital infrastructure, Planets are a horribly unsafe high-cost-of-travel backwater to live on.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#50

Post by btilly »

It is fun to read the analysis.

But they are right that we don't have the ability to make enough helium to make that make sense. I can believe that hydrogen can be made to work. But when they got to making the frame out of magnesium - a leak in the rain would be scary!

This is one of those ideas that seems better in theory than practice. Not as bad as the fact that adding mercury to rocket fuel makes it go better. But still not a great thing to do.

For those who are puzzled at the mercury comment, energy is proportional to mv^2/2 while momentum is mv. Mercury takes away a bit from the energy, but increases the density, and therefore gives you more momentum per unit of fuel. It is a great theory, ruined by the fact that we'd be spraying nasty poisons everywhere.

Post reply on HN