I really want to see a world where airships are once again a common sight in the skies. But I have two worries: How will they cope with unexpected bad weather (winds in particular) ? Can we...
I really want to see a world where airships are once again a common sight in the skies.
But I have two worries:
How will they cope with unexpected bad weather (winds in particular) ?
Veritasium did a very good video on this topic. https://youtu.be/ZjBgEkbnX2I?si=jubWO-4syzIkAgS0 The only way we'll see widespread adoption of airships is if they can be used for cargo, as they...
The only way we'll see widespread adoption of airships is if they can be used for cargo, as they could reduce the costs & time dramatically. And that comes with many challenges, mostly related to how to make the airship lower itself to pick up cargo (by releasing some of the gas that is making it float ) & then lift itself back up, but with many extra tons of weight & less gas.
Thanks, that was a good video. Releasing the gas (as said in the video) is a non-starter because helium is so expensive, scarce, and non-renewable. But I think combining two or three of the...
Thanks, that was a good video.
Releasing the gas (as said in the video) is a non-starter because helium is so expensive, scarce, and non-renewable. But I think combining two or three of the methods mentioned might work:
When dropping off cargo, start compressing the lifting gas into tanks well before landing - compensating for the loss of lift with thrust from propellers or aerodynamic lift until on the ground.
When picking up cargo, decompress the lifting gas from tanks to take off. This should be a relatively quick process as it's just opening a valve and allowing the gas to flow back into the lifting bladders.
Yep. Also, from the video, it sounds like today's compressors are slow enough to make the process unwieldy; presumably if this industry takes off (ha) there will be commercial pressure to improve...
Yep. Also, from the video, it sounds like today's compressors are slow enough to make the process unwieldy; presumably if this industry takes off (ha) there will be commercial pressure to improve those. Sergey Brin certainly has enough money to R&D it into a good-enough state.
Air compressors are very widely used already, so the additional commercial pressure won't necessarily pan out. For example, underground coal mining equipment tends to be powered by compressed air,...
presumably if this industry takes off (ha) there will be commercial pressure to improve those. Sergey Brin certainly has enough money to R&D it into a good-enough state.
Air compressors are very widely used already, so the additional commercial pressure won't necessarily pan out. For example, underground coal mining equipment tends to be powered by compressed air, because electricity can cause sparking and underground coal mines tend to fill up with methane and then explode if you cause a spark.
There might be pressure to produce much lighter compressors, but again: this might just be a fundamentally hard technical issue, rather than an unexplored one.
Oh my gosh, if only we had a renewable source of lifting gas! Imagine if we could just make it out of water or something. The danger of hydrogen is overstated. If nothing else, airships could use...
Releasing the gas (as said in the video) is a non-starter because helium is so expensive, scarce, and non-renewable.
Oh my gosh, if only we had a renewable source of lifting gas! Imagine if we could just make it out of water or something.
The danger of hydrogen is overstated.
If nothing else, airships could use the Hindenberg's trick of having a hydrogen gasbag inside a helium gasbag (note: the Hindenberg was designed to use helium but was filled with exclusively hydrogen, due to US embargo).
A series of increasingly ambitious flight tests lie ahead, before Pathfinder 1 is moved to Akron, Ohio, where LTA Research is planning an even larger airship, the Pathfinder 3. The company eventually hopes to produce a family of airships to provide disaster relief where roads and airports are damaged, as well as zero-carbon passenger transportation.
For the next year however, the gigantic airship looks set to become a Silicon Valley landmark as its novel materials and systems are methodically put through their paces within shouting distance of companies like Google, Meta and Amazon.
...
At 124.5 meters long, Pathfinder 1 dwarfs the current Goodyear airships and even the massive Stratolaunch plane designed to launch orbital rockets. It’s the largest aircraft to take to the skies since the gargantuan Hindenburg airship of the 1930s. Although similar in appearance to that ill-fated airship, and using a passenger gondola supplied by Zeppelin, the Pathfinder 1 was mostly built from the ground up using new materials and technologies.
...
LTA’s airship uses stable helium rather than flammable hydrogen as a lifting gas, held in 13 giant rip-stop nylon cells and monitored by lidar laser systems. A rigid framework of 10,000 carbon-fiber reinforced tubes and 3,000 titanium hubs form a protective skeleton around the gas cells, surrounded by a lightweight synthetic Tedlar skin.
Twelve electric motors powered by diesel generators and batteries enable vertical take-off and landing. They can propel the Pathfinder 1 at up to 65 knots (75 mph), although its initial flights will be at much lower speeds.
This morning, the airship floated silently from its WW2-era hangar at NASA’s Moffett Field at walking pace, steered by ropes held by dozens of the company’s engineers, technicians and ground crew.
If you double the size of an airship, then you increase the volume (and thus lifting capacity) by 8x. The pathfinder 1 is 124 metres long, which is about half the length of the Hindenburg (which...
If you double the size of an airship, then you increase the volume (and thus lifting capacity) by 8x. The pathfinder 1 is 124 metres long, which is about half the length of the Hindenburg (which was 240-ish metres).
Apparently the Pathfinder 3 will only be 180 metres long, but there's no reason they couldn't make a Hindenburg-sized airship; it has already been done with 1930s technology, after all. I imagine their reasons not to do it is because it's expensive and they're trying to make their technology work right before scaling it up too aggressively.
The main advantage of these airships is that they're VTOLs - they can land on any patch of land that's been cleared, without needing infrastructure. I'm not sure it even makes sense to compare this to a Boeing 777-300, since the 777 flatly can't land without a runway. Perhaps supplies could be airdropped? But even then, airdrops could land in all sorts of awkward positions (e.g. be blown into a nearby lake).
The idea is to move a cargo somewhere that doesn't have a working airport or decent roads. This is why disaster relief is something they talk about. It's not about competing with regular cargo....
The idea is to move a cargo somewhere that doesn't have a working airport or decent roads. This is why disaster relief is something they talk about. It's not about competing with regular cargo.
But I don't know if it's enough of a niche to make sense, or if that's more of an excuse for building an airship.
I really want to see a world where airships are once again a common sight in the skies.
But I have two worries:
Veritasium did a very good video on this topic.
https://youtu.be/ZjBgEkbnX2I?si=jubWO-4syzIkAgS0
The only way we'll see widespread adoption of airships is if they can be used for cargo, as they could reduce the costs & time dramatically. And that comes with many challenges, mostly related to how to make the airship lower itself to pick up cargo (by releasing some of the gas that is making it float ) & then lift itself back up, but with many extra tons of weight & less gas.
Thanks, that was a good video.
Releasing the gas (as said in the video) is a non-starter because helium is so expensive, scarce, and non-renewable. But I think combining two or three of the methods mentioned might work:
Yep. Also, from the video, it sounds like today's compressors are slow enough to make the process unwieldy; presumably if this industry takes off (ha) there will be commercial pressure to improve those. Sergey Brin certainly has enough money to R&D it into a good-enough state.
Air compressors are very widely used already, so the additional commercial pressure won't necessarily pan out. For example, underground coal mining equipment tends to be powered by compressed air, because electricity can cause sparking and underground coal mines tend to fill up with methane and then explode if you cause a spark.
There might be pressure to produce much lighter compressors, but again: this might just be a fundamentally hard technical issue, rather than an unexplored one.
Oh my gosh, if only we had a renewable source of lifting gas! Imagine if we could just make it out of water or something.
The danger of hydrogen is overstated.
If nothing else, airships could use the Hindenberg's trick of having a hydrogen gasbag inside a helium gasbag (note: the Hindenberg was designed to use helium but was filled with exclusively hydrogen, due to US embargo).
From the article:
...
...
If you double the size of an airship, then you increase the volume (and thus lifting capacity) by 8x. The pathfinder 1 is 124 metres long, which is about half the length of the Hindenburg (which was 240-ish metres).
Apparently the Pathfinder 3 will only be 180 metres long, but there's no reason they couldn't make a Hindenburg-sized airship; it has already been done with 1930s technology, after all. I imagine their reasons not to do it is because it's expensive and they're trying to make their technology work right before scaling it up too aggressively.
The main advantage of these airships is that they're VTOLs - they can land on any patch of land that's been cleared, without needing infrastructure. I'm not sure it even makes sense to compare this to a Boeing 777-300, since the 777 flatly can't land without a runway. Perhaps supplies could be airdropped? But even then, airdrops could land in all sorts of awkward positions (e.g. be blown into a nearby lake).
The idea is to move a cargo somewhere that doesn't have a working airport or decent roads. This is why disaster relief is something they talk about. It's not about competing with regular cargo.
But I don't know if it's enough of a niche to make sense, or if that's more of an excuse for building an airship.
They're working on Pathfinder 3, which is expected to carry about 20 tons. That will probably fly next year. Baby steps...