Recent Comment
Share
At EcoGeek, we are big fans of airships. A recent article at Txchnologist asks whether airships are poised to make a comeback in the commercial sector, but other recent articles question whether they truly make sense. Are airships a realistic possibility?
Writing a commentary about his own article, author John Rennie asks if airships really offer the benefits we like to think they do. Another recent Scientific American blog post is even more critical of the idea of airships for transport.
One of the eternal tradeoffs in transportation is the time versus energy cost consideration. On one hand, there is the cost of energy to move goods from point A to point B. Faster takes more energy, and is therefore more expensive. On the other hand, the time for a pilot or driver or other person to convey the goods has to be paid for, and a longer trip means more expense. The trick is to find the balance point between the two. This is, at least to some extent, what has driven the avaition industry away from propeller aircraft to the use of jets.
Trains are very efficient for moving heavy cargo, but train tracks don't go everywhere. A hybrid train and airship network might be useful to extend the reach of the current rail network without the expensive and difficult process of laying lots of new track. Trucks serve as the spokes for these networks right now. They are more expensive at moving freight than trains, but also more flexible. Is there room for that in the current transportation network? That seems to be one of the crucial questions. And, for now, the premium for trucks is not so high that other options are being sought.
The Scientific American article particularly focuses on speed versus cost as a tradeoff, but those are not the only factors that are relevant in considering airship, so the many current military developments are overlooked. Most present military uses under development are for long duration missions, where the simple lift of the airship makes it far more economical to operate than having conventional fixed-wing aircraft.
It may be many years before old, used military airships begin to be adapted for civilian uses, but we remain optimistic that airships will become a useful contributor to part of the transportation infrastructure of the future.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by J. James, July 27, 2011
Airships do edge out heavy transport helicopters, though. They fly at similar speeds, but are much cheaper, more efficient, longer ranged and can lift 10-20 times as much.
Other applications you didn't mention are humanitarian aid, firefighting(that's a big one), cruise liners, and don't be so quick to discount them for cargo. Due to the square-cube law, a 250-foot airship can carry 20 tons(equivalent to a Hercules cargo plane) of cargo, a 350-foot airship can carry 50 tons, and a 600 foot airship can carry 200 tons. That's still 200 feet shorter than the Hindenburg, mind.
-
- +2
-
-
written by P Proefrock, July 28, 2011
http://boingboing.net/2011/07/21/forget-the-hindenbur.html
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sunil, July 28, 2011
There is a shortage of Helium which will limit the number of Helium dirigibles that can be commissioned world wide. Of course it would be possible to use Hydrogen if supplies of He are used up. Non flammable isotopes of hydrogen are very expensive to make at present, so this problem will need to be solved.
I can see no reason why dirigibles could not be connected together in tandem much like railway carriages and trucks are connected today. They would be an excellent way to transport freight across national borders without the necessity of unloading ships and reloading the cargo onto trains and trucks.
-
- +0
-
-
written by James Bond, July 28, 2011
If you want a Helium sniffing laugh try my Gasbags site www.hybridblimp.net for the worlds only lighter than air comedy web site.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joel Couch, July 28, 2011
If the route of the airships follows the pattern of prevailing winds, then the energy cost must be recalculated. Let the wind do most of the work.
Using airships to transport natural gas from central Asian gas fields to China, Japan and Korea makes sense because they could exploit the prevailing winds. The gas itself could provide any necessary motive power. Hydrogen itself could be the payload to bring energy from some renewable energy source such as West Texas wind farms to the Gulf Coast and Florida.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Chad Kraeft, July 28, 2011
Whether they make viable replacements for mass transit or commercial transportation won't impact the capacity for airships to provide the new housing frontier.
-
- -1
-
-
written by 9a3, July 28, 2011
http://www.airships.net/blog/graf-zeppelin-round-the-world-flight-august-1929
Lakehurst – Friedrichshafen
August 7, 1929 – August 10, 1929
7,068 km / 55 hrs 22 mins
http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors
http://www.airships.net/wp-content/uploads/graf-zeppelin-brochure010a-500.jpg
-
- +0
-
-
written by Echelon, August 09, 2011
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Transportation: why take an overnight balloon trip when you can get there in a jet in 1/4 the time, then sleep in a real hotel? And what is it going to do the rest of the day?
Freight: Usually measured in tonnage - requires an incredible volume to make a single shipping container lighter than air.
Things they might work for: entertainment (like sunset balloon rides, mild rides at the fair, etc), advertising (Goodyear blimp), disaster relief (mobile cell tower). Basically where the novelty of the form factor is a big part of the reason for using it. I don't think most of us will ever encounter blimps in our everyday lives.