Crashes would be spectacular too...
Cargo airships could be big
51–60 of 385 posts
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#52I remember in the UK Airship Industries tried to make the things work economically for ages but never did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship_Industries For one thing they struggle a bit when it's windy.
For one thing they struggle a bit when it's windy.
If you could move your airship to an altitude where the wind is going in the direction you want to go that would give you a huge advantage.
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#53This, 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…
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.
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does have plenty of atmosphere, so radiation isn't a problem. (The problem is everything else, as usually is the case on space.)
Venus has plenty of atmosphere above the surface, but not above the point where there is 1 ATM of pressure. In case of Earth most of protection comes from our magnetic field. The reason is that magnetic field sweeps ALL charged particles coming from the sun while atmosphere only stops some. When a particle drops into atmosphere it has a chance to collide with an air molecule, the deeper the higher the chance. But the…
It has about as much atmosphere above the point where the pressure is 1ATM as we have on Earth. And no, we don't know if Earth's magnetosphere ever filters most of the incoming radiation (we don't such good measurement of the incoming radiation), what we know is that at sea-level, our atmosphere alone is enough.
AFAIK, every time we measure it better, the effectiveness of our magnetosphere decreases. But it can only stop charged particles anyway, and air is very good at stopping those.
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#55The 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?
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#56The 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!
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#57It 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. Bu…
I don't understand this. LH2/LOX typically burns on the rich side to increase exhaust velocity. This means more momentum for less mass, which is what you want from a rocket. This is the opposite.
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what are we going to do there? Mine sulphuric acid from the clouds?
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.
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#59I 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…
From the article I understand that airship can only fly so high (I think because of the density of the air decreasing when you go higher). A jet stream (10km+) is far too high for an airship to reach (1.5km).
Re: Cargo airships could be big
#60Earlier 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…
Are remote crews an option?
Not an option under current FAA rules. The available optical sensors are still generally inferior to human eyes in terms of dynamic range, depth perception, and slew rate. The US military does fly remote-piloted aircraft (Predators being the most prominent example) but they're only allowed to operate in limited pieces of designated airspace due to the risk of midair collisions.
Communications reliability and latency is a problem. We still have no way to guarantee solid bidirectional comms. The mishap rate for RPVs is much higher than for comparable manned aircraft.