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

91–100 of 385 posts

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#91

Post by BeefySwain »

credit_guy wrote: post #77
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 conservativ…

You may have overlooked the part where filling the quantity of airships that would (theoretically) be used would represent over half of the KNOWN quantity exploitable on earth, and would take decades to produce at current production rates. Also, they would need topped up over time. Compared to hydrogen, which is cheap, available, and renewable.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#93

Post by padobson »

innagadadavida wrote: post #70
jp57 wrote: post #55

The airship renaissance is the fusion of transportation world. It's always ten years away. Seriously, I've been hearing about the great promise of modern airships for twenty years. Where are they? Are there any airships operating commercially now outside of niche applications?

If US, China and Taiwan situation escalates and US imposes a naval blockade, this can be used to effectively circumvent it. Perhaps China should invest in this.

Massive airships flying 90/km an hours are LESS susceptible to blockades than cargo ships? I think I'll need a little more explanation than that. Seems like a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher would be more than enough to bring one down.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#94

Post by jodrellblank »

SonicScrub wrote: post #56
jp57 wrote: post #55

The airship renaissance is the fusion of transportation world. It's always ten years away. Seriously, I've been hearing about the great promise of modern airships for twenty years. Where are they? Are there any airships operating commercially now outside of niche applications?

Direct weather control is the prerequisite technology for at scale operation of commercially viable airships. So once we crack that I'm sure we will see them!

We have very good weather prediction these days. After the Titanic sank and people argued about mandating lifeboats on ships, one of the arguments against was that global shipping had already settled into the least stormy most safe sea routes and accidents where lifeboats might help had reduced year on year because it was already in everyone's interests - cargo sellers, shipping industry, passengers, insurance industry - to make that happen.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#95

Post by mikepurvis »

credit_guy wrote: post #77
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 conservativ…

As a noble gas, helium can't be synthesized, so its cost is because of its scarcity— and because it's a small molecule (like hydrogen), you inevitably lose some and require continuous top-ups.

None of this sounds like it would be realistic at scale, no matter the amount of money in play.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#96

Post by flavius29663 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #88
mabbo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My guess is the relevant sound is rrrrrrip .

airships have multiple cells though, a single rip wouldn't doom the entire thing

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#97

Post by hguant »

jp57 wrote: post #55

The airship renaissance is the fusion of transportation world. It's always ten years away. Seriously, I've been hearing about the great promise of modern airships for twenty years. Where are they? Are there any airships operating commercially now outside of niche applications?

I know some of the Canadian provincial governments were looking at using airships to provide a means of supplying some of the more remote northern towns - because of weather/terrain conditions, you can't build a rail head that far north, and the roads aren't reliable, so light cargo planes are the only reliable means of getting goods around. Airships, even of the good year variety, would be far cheaper for the weight/volume transported, but initial costs were prohibitive, if I recall correctly

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#98

Post by mikepurvis »

andrewflnr wrote: post #88
mabbo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My guess is the relevant sound is rrrrrrip .

Even still though, you'd come down to the ground for a soft-ish landing (relative to a jet or helicopter, anyway).

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#99

Post by nradov »

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…

I guess the last time was in 2013. Asiana Airlines Flight 214, a Boeing 777 jumbo jet, crashed at SFO with only 3 fatalities. Those are tough airplanes and low-speed crashes are often survivable if passengers can evacuate before the inevitable fire spreads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214?wpr...

It was kind of freaky seeing the burned-out wreck sitting next to the runway when I flew out of SFO a few days later.

Re: Cargo airships could be big

#100

Post by kortilla »

credit_guy wrote: post #77
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 conservativ…

The FAA approved modifications to piston engines to use unleaded avgas. Jet fuel doesn’t have lead.

Also, this isn’t about the FAA just being slow for no reason. Switching from leaded to unleaded without the engine modifications was not safe for the piston aircraft that need it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas

Post reply on HN