161–170 of 385 posts
Why, why would this make any economic sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if we figured out fusion, it would alter the economics of all of this why not fusion powered ships/trains/airplanes
> why not fusion powered ships/trains/airplanes[?] What could possibly go wrong?
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?
Of course it's niche applications, but it is the Zeppelin NTs which is the biggest success story. They're used for tourism in Germany and advertising in the US (the Goodyear Blimps, which as the article points out are no longer blimps at all, but much larger Zeppelins). Zeppelin Luftschiffstechnik have survived by being _very_ careful about the scale of their ambitions (i.e, it's very modest). They did deliver the th…
https://www.ft.com/content/ae625a25-d2ac-4bca-9508-a5f0d3c7d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not safe for us to be breathing. But that doesn't matter to cheapskate rich private plane owners or their regulatory-captured FAA.
The really rich private plane owners all have planes that burn jet fuel, which is always unleaded. The piston planes are generally owned by "doctor rich" upper-middle class people, who have political influence to be sure but they're hardly the billionaires that might be known by name to politicians. I think it's more likely that the FAA protects general aviation because general aviation is part of the professional pi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do airships fare in bad weather?
Not very well. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron
The safety record of the Zepplin company in Germany is very impressive
They had many failures, no fatalities. Until the Hindenburg
His fundamental assumptions are flawed to the point of hilarity. The same physical laws apply to ships, but they are at an interface with a fluid with a much higher specific gravity (orders of magnitude higher), so you can pack enormous amounts of cargo on a ship. Once you have to solve the last mile, you need a truck anyway. For the in-between, trains work great. Why, why would this make any economic sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody always focuses on the Hindenburg, but it's not as though helium airships were much safer. In some scenarios they were marginally safer, but the deadliest airship disaster of them all was the USS Akron, a helium airship. 73 dead and 3 survivors, vs the Hindenburg's 36 dead and 62 survivors. As for marginally safer: There were some cases of helium airships breaking up due to weather and people surviving the r…
> But even with helium, airships are still very fragile and dangerous. True. But with high speed landing and takeoff aeroplanes are extremely dangerous too. Thousands of gallons of high octane fuell in the tanks on board does not help
Doesn’t jet fuel have a relatively low octane rating compared to most liquid fuels?
TIMMY: Safety? But isn't hydrogen flammable?
CAPTAIN: And how, Timmy. That's why Excelsior is filled with safe, natural helium. Why, it's actually flame-retardant.
TIMMY: Neat!
CAPTAIN: And safe. So, whether you're enjoying excelsior's majestic vistas, duty-free shopping, high-stakes baccarat, dancing with your lovely wife, or even a cigar after a french gourmet dinner, you'll be enjoying them in style and safety. All aboard Excelsior!
> What we observe under these conditions is that, domestically, most of both the tonnage and value of cargo is transported via truck. Trucks are neither the fastest nor the cheapest mode of transport, but they provide a great value proposition—you get your stuff in a few days for much cheaper than air freight. I feel like this is a bit naive. The true competitor to trucking is rail. But trucking is preferred because…
I live in (moved to) Europe, and the railways are far more developed than in the US. But as far as I know, they all have to be heavily subsidized by the governments to even function. None of them operate with a true profit. Here in Germany, 2.2% of the latest federal budget is to support the railways. This is despite the railways being privatized (into a government owned corporation).
And while trucking is also subsidized to an extent, and it's a difficult business, but people do successfully operate trucking companies.
Airships might have the same problems as rail does with intermodal connections, but it's worth a try to see how the profitability equation works out (in real life, not MBA-land).
_Maybe_ it's feasible for large multinationals to run direct routes between their warehouses, with trucks being used for last-mile delivery. The only cost is operation; in comparison with rail where the infrastructure is a constant sink, and in comparison with trucks where the infrastructure cost is outsourced to society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody always focuses on the Hindenburg, but it's not as though helium airships were much safer. In some scenarios they were marginally safer, but the deadliest airship disaster of them all was the USS Akron, a helium airship. 73 dead and 3 survivors, vs the Hindenburg's 36 dead and 62 survivors. As for marginally safer: There were some cases of helium airships breaking up due to weather and people surviving the r…
Even with the Akron, we're focusing on the first disaster and not on the improvements or possible improvements since then. Akron crashed into the Atlantic in April. " Most casualties had been caused by drowning and hypothermia, since the crew had not been issued life jackets, and there had not been time to deploy the single life raft. " Followed by: " Macon and other airships received life jackets to avert a repetiti…
Yeah, but notably they hadn't solved the problem of wind tearing airships apart.
In the case of Macon they landed gently and in warm water, and lifejackets certainly helped. But a soft landing is by no means a guarantee in any airship crash, and even with most people surviving the Navy still lost their investment in the airship because of some wind. Putting lifejackets on an airship flying over water should be common sense, but it only makes the airship marginally safer. It's hard for airships to be viable when they're so prone to tearing apart and falling out of the sky.