Airships making a comeback?

GameboyRMH wrote: Not really. It's less bouyant and absolutely non-renewable. We have whatever's stuck in the ground in one form or another, then it drifts into space and is lost forever. Hydrogen's more bouyant and it's the most abundant element in the universe, it's too bad people get so hung up on its flammability when mixed with air in a 15:1 ratio.

Abundance in the universe is irrelevant -- helium is the second most abundant element. It's also technically renewable, albeit at a very very slow rate (every alpha particle emitted in radioactive decay is a helium nucleus. That's actually where the helium we have now came from).

But yes, in practical terms it makes much more sense to use hydrogen for an airship than helium. Cheaper, more efficient, easier to get, and the flammability aspect isn't significantly different than 747s with "empty" center fuel tanks full of fuel vapor/air mixtures.

I would take this announcement with a few grains of salt, though. It seems like every few years there's a big press release about new airships (some even made by the Zeppelin company!), but none of them has amounted to much. Airships require a ton of ground infrastructure and can't really share it with jetliners (the scale is too small). While more fuel efficient, they're much slower, and they handle winds poorly. I wouldn't want to fly (or even have one "landed") anywhere near a hurricane, for example.

Passenger aircraft are where the money is, which is why civilian cargo aircraft are pretty much all adaptations of passenger jetliner design. (Military is different, but they operate under different constraints). Airships are too slow to compete with jetliners for passenger fares.

Ian F wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Yeah... if they can come up with a way to overcome that pesky flammability issue, hydrogen would be more economical... until the insurance companies start quoting rates...

they could also use the hydrogen as fuel in the engines, and somewhat regenerate their fuel and floaty stuff supply while in flight by grabbing moisture out of the atmosphere and breaking it down into oxygen and hydrogen with energy from solar panels on the top of the blimp..

codrus wrote: Passenger aircraft are where the money is, which is why civilian cargo aircraft are pretty much all adaptations of passenger jetliner design. (Military is different, but they operate under different constraints). Airships are too slow to compete with jetliners for passenger fares.

Nobody is arguing airships should replace airplanes for most cargo transport. It seems their business model relies on being able to transport heavy items to areas where traditional airplanes can't easily go.

Passenger use would be similar. Competition would be trains and cruise ships - luxury and/or nicer scenery at a more leasurely pace - vs. normal air travel where the goal is simply to get from A to B as cheaply as possible. For the well healed and less time-constrained, the latter may be less important at times.

novaderrik wrote:

Ian F wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Yeah... if they can come up with a way to overcome that pesky flammability issue, hydrogen would be more economical... until the insurance companies start quoting rates...

they could also use the hydrogen as fuel in the engines, and somewhat regenerate their fuel and floaty stuff supply while in flight by grabbing moisture out of the atmosphere and breaking it down into oxygen and hydrogen with energy from solar panels on the top of the blimp..

Good idea but it would probably be more efficient to use the solar energy from the panels to drive a KERS-like booster on the engines to reduce fuel usage.

codrus wrote: It's also technically renewable, albeit at a very very slow rate (every alpha particle emitted in radioactive decay is a helium nucleus. That's actually where the helium we have now came from).

I'm pretty sure that requires nuclear materials making it non-renewable.

If airships make a comeback maybe they will usher in a new era of black light posters as well.

codrus wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Not really. It's less bouyant and absolutely non-renewable. We have whatever's stuck in the ground in one form or another, then it drifts into space and is lost forever. Hydrogen's more bouyant and it's the most abundant element in the universe, it's too bad people get so hung up on its flammability when mixed with air in a 15:1 ratio.

Abundance in the universe is irrelevant -- helium is the second most abundant element. It's also technically renewable, albeit at a very very slow rate (every alpha particle emitted in radioactive decay is a helium nucleus. That's actually where the helium we have now came from). But yes, in practical terms it makes much more sense to use hydrogen for an airship than helium. Cheaper, more efficient, easier to get, and the flammability aspect isn't significantly different than 747s with "empty" center fuel tanks full of fuel vapor/air mixtures. I would take this announcement with a few grains of salt, though. It seems like every few years there's a big press release about new airships (some even made by the Zeppelin company!), but none of them has amounted to much. Airships require a ton of ground infrastructure and can't really share it with jetliners (the scale is too small). While more fuel efficient, they're much slower, and they handle winds poorly. I wouldn't want to fly (or even have one "landed") anywhere near a hurricane, for example. Passenger aircraft are where the money is, which is why civilian cargo aircraft are pretty much all adaptations of passenger jetliner design. (Military is different, but they operate under different constraints). Airships are too slow to compete with jetliners for passenger fares.

Yup, this.

Though they do have a place in the unmanned surveillance arena. Load them up with cameras, and they can float around for hours using little to no fuel.

Ever been to Yuma? Tethered cameras as far as the eye can see.

I wish that when hydrogen oxidized instead of fire, heat, and explosion with water vapor we just got water. Like 1 second the bag of hydrogen is floating and the next the hydrogen spontaneously turns into water. It would be hilarious.

nocones wrote: I wish that when hydrogen oxidized instead of fire, heat, and explosion with water vapor we just got water. Like 1 second the bag of hydrogen is floating and the next the hydrogen spontaneously turns into water. It would be hilarious.

I don't know about that.....I had a lot of fun in high school chemistry annoying the teacher by lighting up the hydrogen coming off of useless experiments.

codrus wrote: I would take this announcement with a few grains of salt, though. It seems like every few years there's a big press release about new airships (some even made by the Zeppelin company!), but none of them has amounted to much. Airships require a ton of ground infrastructure and can't really share it with jetliners (the scale is too small).

If you've looked at the new ones, including the one I've helped develop, the whole point is to reduce the ground infrastructure. The one I helped develop can land on runways, relatively flat ground and water. The shape is a bit better for wind resistance, and the ITAMMS thrust system, being computer and GPS controlled, does a much better job of keeping the aircraft in postion in windy situations. That's part of the reason it was developed the way it was.

And as was mentioned and pointed out on the websites I linked to, cargo carrying to odd locations is the strength. The miliatry was looking for ways of delivering ground crews and tanks to places that even conventional STOL craft can't get to. the original DARPA funding of the project was to devlop that. Our production military version should be flying very shortly (the prototype has already flown).

I would totally rock a giant nuke powered airship with launch bays for fighter aircraft and missiles as a base of operations for my evil empire.

Chris, one of the links you posted shows reference to using these for forest fire control...that alone is pretty brilliant. Those cost millions a year in the west between property damage, and the firefighting aspect. One of these airships could dump what would take a dozen chopper flights to accomplish, and putting the fires out faster would keep "boots on the ground" to a minimum...the cash savings would add up quickly, not to mention the cost in lives of firefighters!

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

That's kinda the point. They aren't meant to replace anything, but simply be another option for some situations: remote cargo transport, fire fighting, etc. Whether or not it is a better option will depend on the specific situation. Sometimes it would, sometimes it won't.

Time will tell if they can prove to be a more cost effective option.

Hell... the tree-huggers should be loving them - get big things to remote locations without evironmentally destructive roads... Hmm... or maybe not...

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I would totally rock a giant nuke powered airship with launch bays for fighter aircraft and missiles as a base of operations for my evil empire.

i'm in for $20. what's your paypal address?

We already have enough trouble with plastic grocery bags in landfills.

how has this not been posted yet:

In reply to novaderrik:

That would be great for my new business idea. It would be like a food truck for remote areas. I will call it the Hindenburger

Maybe its and Akron thing but those blimps are buzzing around all the time. It is kinda fun to watch them get blown around on windy days. They are on the loud side and don't just fly over or drive by like a helicopter or a harley. They buzz around for 20 minutes at a time.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I would totally rock a giant nuke powered airship with launch bays for fighter aircraft and missiles as a base of operations for my evil empire.

It would look cool, but it's really just big, fat, slow, floating target. Helium's too rare to run a significant number of airships with, and the invention of tracer ammunition made hydrogen-filled airships instantly obsolete as combat vehicles.

Of course, that just makes for a better cliffhanger end to the movie where Bond destroys it. :)

AngryCorvair wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I would totally rock a giant nuke powered airship with launch bays for fighter aircraft and missiles as a base of operations for my evil empire.

i'm in for $20. what's your paypal address?

$1000 kickstarter donation for a signed copy of the airship blueprint, $10,000 kickstarter donation you get the signed blueprint and the lives of your family spared in the event of hostile assimilation.

Not to burst your balloon or anything, but this project is unlikely to get off the ground.

1988RedT2 wrote: Not to burst your balloon or anything, but this project is unlikely to get off the ground.

What you did there, it's quite possible that I saw it.