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

71–80 of 385 posts

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#71

Post by lastofthemojito »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #46

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).

I think with my stomach too :)

My first thought was "maybe cargo airships could make a Pakistani mango supply chain more feasible". See: https://www.eater.com/22618349/pakistani-mangoes-chaunsa-anw...

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#72

Post by ghaff »

djtango wrote: post #34
traceroute66 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no doubt they'll be big, but will they be practical, economically viable and successful? Frankly no. Its like every few years people remember about airships and suddenly start shouting how its the answer to the world's problems. I mean, just search here on HN... 11 years ago there was "Blimpocracy - Is the airship the transportation system of the future?"[1] .... now here we are 11 years later, and, well, y…

What about places with limited rail/roads like Alaska and Kazakhstan?

As I recall, about 1/3 of the population of Alaska is in the vicinity of Anchorage which has a port and is connected to Fairbanks by road. Juneau, the third largest city, is also on the water--as are other cities in Southeast Alaska. Many other cities--such as they are (the 4th largest city in Alaska has a population of 20,000)--are also on the ocean.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#73

Post by nradov »

actionfromafar wrote: post #14
nradov wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is highly unlikely that uncrewed cargo aircraft will be allowed to operate in most US airspace any time soon. They can't reliably see and avoid other aircraft operating under VFR, and so are restricted to only limited designated airspace. Airships are unable to cruise at high altitude due to loss of lift, and are vulnerable to damage from severe weather. For ocean routes it's not always possible to route around st…

If/when forecasts will be good enough to only dispatch and route airships when they can be safely flown to either destination or safe harbor, is the wildcard I could imagine to make them viable options. But as you say, is the niche large enough to make work? I think the pull for wanting them isn't so strange - they offer the promise of much lower fuel costs, which is a big stigma and problem of current aircraft.

The atmosphere is a chaotic system. How could forecasts be improved enough to enable safe flights across the Pacific Ocean during storm season?

Concerns over fuel costs seem a bit silly as those are only a fraction of air cargo costs. There are significant fuel efficiency improvements already in the development pipeline with lighter composite structures, higher aspect ratio wings, open rotor turbine engines, and perhaps even blended wing-body fuselages.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#74

Post by TylerE »

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.

Why airships, a known failed technology, rather, than, say, a large hydrofoil/catamaran, tech that has been proving quite successful on long distance ferries for decades.

The Hindenberg-class Zeppelins had the theoretical lift capacity of approximately... 8 40ft containers.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#76

Post by the_af »

bobthepanda wrote: post #53
echelon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I played a very interesting scifi game that solved the “how do humans travel millions of light years” problem with “well, they’re actually clones produced at the destination planet.” I’d list the title but it is a pretty major spoiler.

Sounds very interesting, could you share the title anyway?

I once had an idea to write a collection of scifi stories with this premise, where every "seed" pod reaches a different planet and each society of clones evolves differently, providing a bunch of different stories related by a "framing" story.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#77

Post by credit_guy »

jodrellblank wrote: post #66

I'd like to draw your attention to " killing 35 of the 97 people on board in the inferno. " The Hindenburg had 7 million cubic feet of Hydrogen gas. It was the biggest aircraft disaster of its time. It had such rudimentary technology that the cockpit looked more like a sailing ship than an aircraft[1]. Despite that, well over half the passengers jumped out the windows[2], ran away and survived with few or no injuries…

There's actually no need for hydrogen. Helium would do just fine. From the blog post, filling the hypothetical airship with helium would cost $8 MM, while filling it with hydrogen would cost only $100k. Sounds like a no brainer. But, the overall cost of the airship would be at $100 MM. Hydrogen would result in a less than 10% cost reduction.

Now, the FAA approved unleaded jet fuel in 2022. Yes, that's how conservative FAA is. We'll sooner achieve world peace than the FAA would approve hydrogen for airships.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#78

Post by vintermann »

guruz wrote: post #6

Germany's cargo airship project is now an indoor waterpark located in Brandenburg (close to Berlin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Islands_Resort (With rising energy costs, hopefully it can stay like this for a while)

One of Germany's cargo airship projects. I'm pretty sure there have been more, but none got as far as Cargolifter (for cargo. For more modest ambitions, the Zeppelin NTs out of Bodensee are still going strong, 25 years on).

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#79

Post by mabbo »

jodrellblank wrote: post #66

I'd like to draw your attention to " killing 35 of the 97 people on board in the inferno. " The Hindenburg had 7 million cubic feet of Hydrogen gas. It was the biggest aircraft disaster of its time. It had such rudimentary technology that the cockpit looked more like a sailing ship than an aircraft[1]. Despite that, well over half the passengers jumped out the windows[2], ran away and survived with few or no injuries…

> What if some of those "flew into a mountain", "engines failed", "mid-air-collision" had been captured on video

I'm now picturing how each of these situations would look with airships.

Most of them, in my mind, make a very nice "Boink" sound.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#80

Post by kspacewalk2 »

ben_w wrote: post #58
andbberger wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what are we going to do from mars

Everywhere but Earth is really inhospitable, but if it were up to me, I'd pick the Moon first, then Mars, then some asteroids, then way down the list — after we've got space industry sufficient to make planet-sized mirrors — then I'd pick the planet where the surface-level condensation is lead vapour in an acid pressure cooker.

Okay, asteroids presumably make economic sense due to mining potential, but otherwise - why the hate for Venus? What's so special about being on the surface of a planet? Just don't go to where the lead vapour is, enjoy the cloudy view from 50km above the surface instead.
Post reply on HN