6 ms·

Here is more information than the shared article it goes into some depth on the concept of the plane. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships

Here is more information than the shared article it goes into some depth on the concept of the plane. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-rise-again-180979343/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-r... They reduce the planes use of Helium by it's shape and design, when the engines are turned off it's heavier than air and it will sink. However, Helium is a scarce resource. I don't approve of a billionaire fun ride between LA and Los Angeles taking up all the helium (which will leak out over time and may need top ups every time it departs). I'm also, wondering if people (the demographic) have time to sit for long periods of time, they seem to value their time, and a private jet is faster. Overall this is presented as an another green tech that will ensure carbon free travel. I see this as greenwashing a billionaire fantasy.

miohtama 4y ago
Airships also could use hydrogen, but since the Hinderburg disaster there has been stigma on it.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Incidentally the deadliest airship crash of all time was a helium airship, the USS Akron. Nevertheless, hydrogen does pose a real risk to the passengers in the event of an accident. In other helium airship crashes (for instance the USS Shenandoah), some people managed to survive by riding the debris down to the ground. And in some hydrogen airship crashes (for instance R101), some people managed to survive the crash to the ground, but subsequently died in the fire.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    We've learned to safely fly in airplanes filled with fuel that loves to burn. We can do it with airships the same way. We now know the multiple factors that caused the Hindenburg disaster, and they are all easily fixable.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      More airships were lost to poor weather than thermite paint or whatever other specific Hindenburg problem you're thinking of. Planes have numerous inherent advantages in this regard: They're faster, which makes weather forecasting and route planning easier. Smaller planes can land almost anywhere, but airships require mooring towers. Airplanes are more robust when left outside in the elements, and their hangers are much smaller and cheaper than airship hangers. I think in principle, a blimp that could land on a field and stow its balloon rapidly could address these problems. But rigid airships seem inherently problematic; the fundamental nature of an airship (very big and very light) makes it susceptible to high winds, in the air or on the ground. I don't see any way around that.
      - miohtama 4y ago
        Does the equation change if we factor in airship’s capacity of carrying cargo?
        bombcar 4y ago
        Airships don’t have much in the way of lifting capacity, not compared to a fully-loaded 747.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner. Anachronistic novelty travel where the craft itself is the main attraction and the destinations just happen along the way.
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  I feel that the main appeal of a cruise liner is that the trip is also part of the vacation. You can enjoy comedy shows, play in the pool, relax in the sun, drink, gamble, etc. It's like a mini Las Vegas that moves. Where as I feel this would be more like waiting for the ferry to get from point A to point B while there's also a bridge that's much faster. With all that said, travel is not the purpose of the airship. It's to help humanitarian aid response and relief for areas that are difficult for planes and boats to access due to destroyed infrastructure.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Heh, I go out of my way to ride on ferries. If you have time to spare, the Alaska Marine Highway (a ferry) is a very pleasant trip. But a Vegas-like experience on a cruise ship sounds like hell to me. For each their own I guess.
  - pivo 4y ago
    Since I was a child it's been my dream to travel, slowly and low, in one of these over the tree tops in New England during leaf season, or through Fjords, or across beautiful countryside in France or Italy or wherever. I don't want to travel quickly and I don't want internet connectivity. I just want to slowly take in nature.
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  VIA Rail has tried to pitch the four-day trip from Toronto to Vancouver in these kinds of terms, I think in part to justify the big cost, particularly of a berth or cabin: https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific/toronto-vancouver-canadian https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro... It makes sense, but as with a blimp, there are certain technological limitations that just plain make it hard to compete with conventional air travel.
emaginniss 4y ago
"fun ride between LA and Los Angeles" Should be a short trip, at least
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Depends on traffic. The 110 is a beast.

miohtama 4y ago

Airships also could use hydrogen, but since the Hinderburg disaster there has been stigma on it.

robonerd 4y ago
Incidentally the deadliest airship crash of all time was a helium airship, the USS Akron. Nevertheless, hydrogen does pose a real risk to the passengers in the event of an accident. In other helium airship crashes (for instance the USS Shenandoah), some people managed to survive by riding the debris down to the ground. And in some hydrogen airship crashes (for instance R101), some people managed to survive the crash to the ground, but subsequently died in the fire.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  We've learned to safely fly in airplanes filled with fuel that loves to burn. We can do it with airships the same way. We now know the multiple factors that caused the Hindenburg disaster, and they are all easily fixable.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    More airships were lost to poor weather than thermite paint or whatever other specific Hindenburg problem you're thinking of. Planes have numerous inherent advantages in this regard: They're faster, which makes weather forecasting and route planning easier. Smaller planes can land almost anywhere, but airships require mooring towers. Airplanes are more robust when left outside in the elements, and their hangers are much smaller and cheaper than airship hangers. I think in principle, a blimp that could land on a field and stow its balloon rapidly could address these problems. But rigid airships seem inherently problematic; the fundamental nature of an airship (very big and very light) makes it susceptible to high winds, in the air or on the ground. I don't see any way around that.
    - miohtama 4y ago
      Does the equation change if we factor in airship’s capacity of carrying cargo?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Airships don’t have much in the way of lifting capacity, not compared to a fully-loaded 747.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner. Anachronistic novelty travel where the craft itself is the main attraction and the destinations just happen along the way.

nvrspyx 4y ago
I feel that the main appeal of a cruise liner is that the trip is also part of the vacation. You can enjoy comedy shows, play in the pool, relax in the sun, drink, gamble, etc. It's like a mini Las Vegas that moves. Where as I feel this would be more like waiting for the ferry to get from point A to point B while there's also a bridge that's much faster. With all that said, travel is not the purpose of the airship. It's to help humanitarian aid response and relief for areas that are difficult for planes and boats to access due to destroyed infrastructure.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Heh, I go out of my way to ride on ferries. If you have time to spare, the Alaska Marine Highway (a ferry) is a very pleasant trip. But a Vegas-like experience on a cruise ship sounds like hell to me. For each their own I guess.
- pivo 4y ago
  Since I was a child it's been my dream to travel, slowly and low, in one of these over the tree tops in New England during leaf season, or through Fjords, or across beautiful countryside in France or Italy or wherever. I don't want to travel quickly and I don't want internet connectivity. I just want to slowly take in nature.
mikepurvis 4y ago
VIA Rail has tried to pitch the four-day trip from Toronto to Vancouver in these kinds of terms, I think in part to justify the big cost, particularly of a berth or cabin: https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific/toronto-vancouver-canadian https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro... It makes sense, but as with a blimp, there are certain technological limitations that just plain make it hard to compete with conventional air travel.

emaginniss 4y ago

"fun ride between LA and Los Angeles" Should be a short trip, at least

dredmorbius 4y ago
Depends on traffic. The 110 is a beast.