New Aircraft is Part Blimp and Part Airplane

An anonymous reader writes "Canton Rep has an interesting article on Ohio entrepreneurs who hope to get their business 'off the ground'. Brian Martin and Robert Rist think they are close to testing a prototype of their patented Dynalifter hybrid. They announced last week that their airship -- part blimp and part airplane -- has been completed, and they hope to conduct a test flight this spring. Martin and Rist hope the Dynalifter will help bring in a new transportation era. They see it as a way to move materials at a lower cost than jets and at a higher speed than ships. From the article: 'They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies. It might have military uses, such as delivering equipment and supplies to sites that might not be easily reachable.'"

Comments

World War II Taught us:

[Anonymous Coward]

The message is clear: Blimps have failed.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[rufty_tufty]

I guess no one ever said "look it's the Good Year blimp" to you, and then ran off?

Re:World War II Taught us:

[Billosaur]

Blimps have failed.

Tell that to Goodyear, Fuji Film, Met Life, and the vast number of other companies that operate them. And don't forget to mention it to ESPN, ABC Sports, Fox Sports, and all the other networks who use them for their sports coverage.

As to WWII, the blimp was used very successfully. To quote: "The United States was the only power to use airships during World War II, and the airships played a small but important role. The Navy used them for minesweeping, search and rescue, photographic reconnaissance, scouting, escorting convoys, and antisubmarine patrols. Airships accompanied many oceangoing ships, both military and civilian. Of the 89,000 ships escorted by airships during the war, not one was lost to enemy action.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[rufty_tufty]

Don't forget those barrage balloons then that protected London :-)

not really ships though...

Re:World War II Taught us:

[my ky is brokn]

Goodyar oprats at a loss on all thir blimps. Thy hav statd that th advrtising valu compard to tv ads is ssntialy worthlss. Sur thy ar good for sports casting and publicity but as transport mthods thy ar too slow to b of any valu.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[rufty_tufty]

Yeah they're a thing of the past, the future is getting into space, oh hang on:
http://www.jpaerospace.com/

Re:World War II Taught us:

[irablum]

Blimps have failed.

Tell that to Goodyear, Fuji Film, Met Life, and the vast number of other companies that operate them. And don't forget to mention it to ESPN, ABC Sports, Fox Sports, and all the other networks who use them for their sports coverage.

As to WWII, the blimp was used very successfully. To quote: "The United States was the only power to use airships during World War II, and the airships played a small but important role. The Navy used them for minesweeping, search and rescue, photographic reconnaissance, scouting, escorting convoys, and antisubmarine patrols. Airships accompanied many oceangoing ships, both military and civilian. Of the 89,000 ships escorted by airships during the war, not one was lost to enemy action.

I think the true meaning to the phrase "Blimps have failed." is that blimps have been replaced by airplanes and helicopters for the things which they were originally designed for. First, I don't see a blimp truly replacing a cargo 747 due to the fact that you can't run a blimp at 600 MPH. Even with engines all over it, they are talking about replacing trucking and not aviation, so they cannot mean moving faster than say 150 MPH.

The reason a blimp can't replace a helicopter is that blimps are much more susceptable to high winds. Any time the winds are too high, the Goodyear blimp stays home, and a helicopter takes its place. The reason for this is simple. wind resistence of a very large sack of bouyant gas is much much larger than a rotating turbine. Now, on clear days with little wind, a blimp would be much much more economical to operate than an airplane or a helicopter.

Ira

Re:World War II Taught us:

[hamburger lady]

looks lik you nd a nw kyboard. your "" ky is brokn.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[Roj Blake]

Take a look at his username. It is apparently an odd gimmick.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[Anonymous Coward]

And not the least bit funny.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[PMuse]

And don't forget to mention it to ESPN, ABC Sports, Fox Sports, and all the other networks who use them for their sports coverage.

Not for long. Every game that rated a blimp will have a mobile aerial camera soon.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[Peter La Casse]

Interestingly, the relative wind resistence of a blimp goes down as its size increases, since cross section increases at a squared rate while volume increases at a cubed rate (and volume determines lift.) I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but as engine technology and materials science advance it seems likely to me that we will see bigger blimps that are better able to cope with nontrivial weather conditions.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[InOverMyFeet]

The military is using a bunch of blimps (airships) right now. They use them on a tether as a mobile surveillance tower. It's a lot cheaper and faster than putting up a tower when they have to be moved from place to place. I read the article and went to the website but didn't find any info on the capacity of the blimp. I'm pretty sure that they would never replace truck/trailor as a shipping option. It has been my experience that the price per pound of payload is very expensive and limited and it takes enormous ground resources. It sounds like that half a million they invested will vanish in thin air (pun intended)

Re:World War II Taught us:

[Catbeller]

In the same vein, don't forget about the hundreds, even thousands of bomb-balloons that were lofted by Japan late in the second world war. They drifted east over the Pacific following the prevailing winds, and mostly landed in the forests of British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. Just a little something to keep us hopping.

Every once in a while, someone runs across interesting hardware hanging from a tree, even to this day. Don't touch the flying mines, kids...

Re:World War II Taught us:

[einhverfr]

Actually blimps enjoyed a great deal of success in WWII. They were used in anti-sub recon for example, and are still used in a wide range of naval fields (mostly as floating comm towers). So actually WWII showed us that blimps are important even when you have airplanes.

Now, one of the side effects of WWII was that the Zeppelin was largely destroyed by the war. There were two reasons for this. The first was that Germany didn't have large supplies of Helium and had to use Hydrogen. The second and more important (militarily) was that zeppilins required very large buildings to assemble. Hence those buildings were easy targets for allied bombers. Nowever, there are now attempts at reintroducing the zeppelin for certain types of work (tourism, for example). Do a search for Zeppelin NT and see what comes up :-)

Now, this idea is fiarly crazy-- the hybrid one. I would assume that the hybrid would need to be somewhat rigid (hence more like a zeppelin than a blimp), that it would need to be a lifting body, etc. I am having real trouble understanding what one would get from this structure that one could not get from a normal zeppelin.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[budgenator]

The Atlanta Police Dept has one, or at least had one in 1996.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[EDOX25]

Yeah I live in Oregon and (correct me if I am wrong.) one of these caused the only fatality in the US during WWII when someone stumbled across one in Oregon and it went off. I do not remember the exact name of the person who was killed but there is a plaque and marker where it happened.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[budgenator]

I remeber reading a book in the late '70's or early '80's called something like "The Delta Pumpkin Seed" that hypothesised using a large delta lifting body aircraft with helium lifting bags inside. The idea was to get a take-off speed of about 70 MPH, the advantage was you'd still get the aerodynamic benefits of a airplane yet still retain most of the airship benefits like economical heavy lift capability. For passengers it would be like comparing an airliner's cramped seats that can potentialy cause fatal blood clots but get you there fast to a cruise ship where it takes a while to get somewhere but the traveling actualy feels like a vaction.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[danila]

Well, his username is consistent with him having a broken keyboard.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[Bloke down the pub]

Now, on clear days with little wind, a blimp would be much much more economical to operate than an airplane or a helicopter.

It would be more economical even if there was a wind. You might be a bit restricted about what direction you could go, though.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[drsquare]

And don't forget to mention it to ESPN, ABC Sports, Fox Sports, and all the other networks who use them for their sports coverage.

How the hell would you use a blimp in sports coverage? I can't imagine there'd be much of a camera view, and you can't see anything from there you can't see from within the stadium.

Re:World War II Taught us:

[einhverfr]

So the basic idea here is to create a sort of huge rigin delta-shaped airfoil body that could have a minimum stall speed of about 70 MPH and has plenty of room for He. Such a frame would need to be extremely light, would probably not have a high max speed (I would try to shoot for around 40Mph minimum stall speed, if I could design the requirements), but might be able to economically take heavier loads places than one could using conventional aircraft. In this mode, the He is largely used to offset some of the cargo weight.

However, I am still very unsure about the concept. The structural requirements for such a vehicle would be impressive, and the weight requirements would also be hard to meet. Perhaps with the next generation of composites? I personally think that aluminum frames would not work properly for this sort of craft (but I am no aeronotics engineer).

In other words, I am not sure that such a concept is feasible using modern materials. Perhaps in a decade or two we will see this sort of thing really live up to its potential, but the key problems I see are:
1) No stationary heavy lift capacity like on a zeppelin. This limits it to point to point transfer or airdrops.
2) Bouyancy problems--- cargo weight would be severely limited due to structural stress and the ability to off-set it with He gas.
3) Structural integrity issues-- One needs a very strong and yet *extremely light* frame.
4) Size. You can't really test this with a small scale model and then scale to your heart's content. As a body gets larger (basic solids geometry), the volume (hence mass) to surface area (hence life and air resistance) goes up, meaning you need more effect from the gas and can expect less lift from the airfoil. However, the combination of the carrying capacity (as weight) and the surface area will determine your structural frame requirements.

I will believe that this is feasible with modern materials when I see it. I do think that in a few years, we may have sufficiently advanced nanofiber technologies (which would also be used in composites) to make this live up to its promise.

Just a Blimp?

[dakirw]

After reading the article, it looks like it's just a blimp with more engines, and not really an airplane. The article doesn't provide much info about the speed, range and payload capacity of this "hybrid", so it's hard to say how cost effective it would be.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[rufty_tufty]

My impression was that it was a true compromise, it wasn't as fat as a blimp, so could go faster and was less susceptable to cross-wind; but also had some of the fuel economy advantages of a blimp. But lost in speed compared to a try aeroplane and was less fuel economical than a full blimp.
Also it would have limited hovering capabilities not quite up to that of a helecoptor or true blimp...

Re:Just a Blimp?

[TripMaster Monkey]

There's a lot more info to be found regarding the Dynalifter technology here.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[dakirw]

Thanks for the link. From the company's description, this concept has two main advantages - it's heavier than air, using wings and such, so problems with ballasting and the need to release the buoyant gas are reduced or eliminated. The second advantage is that it can supposedly land like an airplane, with wheels, that eliminates docking/landing issues of traditional airships.

However, the concept summary notes that it is designed to take crosswinds of up to 30 knots when unloaded. I'm wondering if that's sufficient - wouldn't that potentially limit the operational use of these airships in poor weather conditions?

Re:Just a Blimp?

[General Fault]

Actually, it seems that they are using lift to generate a forward vector. This is not a new idea, however it has not been used with great sucess yet. The idea is that a blimp can move forward the same way that a glider can move forward. Only with a blimp, the forward motion can be generated by both lift and gravity. When the blimp is lighter than air, it trades lift for forward motion. When the blimp is heavier than air, it trades altitude for forward motion.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[AKAImBatman]

Actually, it's more like a REALLY light airplane. The craft itself is heavier than air, but only a bit heavier. It's buoyancy makes it easy to get it off the ground at low speeds, and easy to keep in the air. That's why it only needs the small "fins" you see for wings.

Of course, that's all what the brochure says. We'll have to wait to see how it performs in the real world.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot more info to be found regarding the Dynalifter technology here.

Did you google that all by yourself or did someone help you?

Re:Just a Blimp?

[daraf]

Airports have multiple runways (and land both ways on one runway) to mitigate the effects of wind. So, for example, when the Santa Ana winds are blowing at LAX, all flights take off on runways 7(L/R) & 8(L/R) instead of 25(R/L) & 26(R/L), so they are going into the wind. When airports are built, the runways are oriented relative to the most common winds in the area, so the crosswind component is relatively small. A 30kt crosswind component is enormous, and found very rarely.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[rufty_tufty]

I wonder if this lends its way to a new propulsion scheme?
mode 1) {when you're high enough}Take the gas in the bag and compress it into internal cylinders so that you loose lift - then glide as above.
mode 2) {when you're too low} Release gas from cylinders into bag providing lift.

Or is that what you're describing above?
I also wonder if waste heat from the engines is used to warm the gas to provide extra lift?

Re:Just a Blimp?

[daraf]

And because I'm picky, I'll have to reply to my own post (this is what happens when you post in a rush) -- LAX has runways 24(R/L) and 25(R/L), and 6(L/R) and 7(L/R).

Re:Just a Blimp?

[hevenor]

Right, and that thing those other boys from Ohio made was just a kite with more engines

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Savantissimo]

The lifting body and wings allow the craft to operate under a much wider envelope of loads and bouyant lifts. A huge problem with airships is maintaining desired buoyancy despite variations in temperature, altitude, barometric pressure, fuel expenditure, and condensation or icing loading - helium is too expensive to vent when the airship is light and cannot be generated in filght as can hydrogen, hot air or steam*. Being able to descend or ascend without losing ballast or lift gas and to operate without massive ground crews and facilities should significantly reduce the operating expense associated with helium airships. The Ohio Airships people have gotten an amazing amount done with very little money, and they seem to be selling their idea effectively to US government buyers, so it seems possible that this design will avoid the fate of all the other large airship projects of the past 60 years.

The main innovation in the Ohio Airships design is in the novel rigid internal structure which uses a keel beam supported by stays (cables) from a tower in the manner of a suspension bridge. This should allow greater loads relative to the airframe mass, including positive or negative loads from the wings.

*Steam is potentially the most economical lift gas since it gives 60% of helium lift or 200% of hot air lift, is essentially free if generated as a by-product of a steam engine, and the airship envelope acts as a condenser for the engine, reducing weight. This makes both the lift gas and propulsion much more efficiently produced than helium bags or IC engines See www.flyingkettle.com for more details.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems more airplane-like than blimp-like, according to the website (link from the article).

It is heavier than air. It cannot hover.

However, it supposedly gets better fuel economy than a plane. It also is supposed to be able to fly and land without full fuel tanks and without a load in winds of 30 knots or under (making it better than a blimp, which needs people to grab cables, hold it down, etc).

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Verio Fryar]

It is just the other way. The ship is heavier than air. It uses the forward motion to generate enough lift to fly.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[hey!]

If you look at web site, this point is very clear:the concept is for a heavier than air vehicle that gets 50% of its lift from bouyancy and the other half from its wings.

The chief advantages over a blimp are operational. First, it can be landed without having to provide a ground crew, and doesn't require mooring against crosswinds. Second, since there is no danger of it floating away, it can offload massive cargos without having to take on ballast. Third, since the ship is heavier than air it never becomes too heavy to land becuase it has burned too much fuel. Finally , it can have a narrower cross section than a lighter than air ship of the same lifting capacity reducing drag and increasing speed (120 knot or almost 140MpH).

I expect such ships if ever built will also have a higher operational ceiling than airships of equivalent volume, and certainly would have a greater cargo capacity.

The advantages over planes are less clear. Probably greater endurance and shorter runways for the same cargo capacity.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hummingbirds and helicopters are both heavier than air. Can neither of them hover either?

Re:Just a Blimp?

[wjsteele]

Of course, runway numbers are based on Magnetic north, which moves. That's why Runway numbers periodically change.

Bill

Re:Just a Blimp?

[General Fault]

That is exactly what I am describing. Here is a link to another company that has had the same idea. They are using the actual airbag as a wing though which I find to be a nice touch.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[General Fault]

Here is an example. However, this inventor is attempting to use the vehicles forward motion to turn turbines that power the compressor. This of course would break the laws of thermodynamics and would be a perpetual machine. Switching out the turbines for solar panels and conventional fuels would work though.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[TubeSteak]

helium is too expensive to vent

Can't they just run a pump and compress some of the gas?

I realize a blimp has a lot of volume and you'd need some heavy duty compressors (so I don't know how practical this is or isn't) but once you compress it into a liquid, its buoyancy goes bye bye.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[tompaulco]

30 knots is higher than demonstrated crosswind component on most any airplane. That's not to say that some of them can't handle higher, but during testing, whatever is the maximum corsswind that they happened to land and not crash in is by definition the "maximum demonstrated crosswind" and that is what goes down in the books as that planes crosswind component. Since 30 knot winds, and particularly the perpendicular component of the wind which makes up the direct crosswind, is very rarely 30 knots, most planes are not certified for it. Even big jets land at speeds of 140 MPH or less and 30 knots is a fairly high percentage of that. The maximum demonstrated crosswind component of a 747 is 30 knots.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Anonymous Coward]

Compressing helium into a liquid is... not... exactly... trivial. Think of the thermal insulation on the thing :)

Re:Just a Blimp?

[zerocool^]

The advantages over planes are less clear. Probably greater endurance and shorter runways for the same cargo capacity.

As I have seen elsewhere in this discussion, the cargo area is around 90,000 cubic feet. A C5 Galaxy's cargo area is about 37,000 cubic feet. So, while it's slower than a commercial jet, it takes less trips back and forth to carry the same ammount of cargo, and presumably uses less fuel even for one trip (due to the "only slightly heavier than air" design). So, while a C-5 is much faster, it will take 3 trips back and forth to carry the cargo load of this blimplane, and thus this thing can do it faster, cheaper, and can be built with cheaper materials.

The questions I have are simply: How often do you need to transport 90,000 cubic feet of cargo? And how much cheaper is it than hiring a fleet of trucks? At 140mph, the trucks will take longer, i guess, and you'd need a lot of 'em...

~Will

Re:Just a Blimp?

[budgenator]

Typicaly aircraft don't fly with their long axis pointed in the direction of ground travel, The problem is the landing gear typicaly does which makes landing in cross winds trickier than in headwinds; however with modern computer controlled servos, there is no reason why all of the landing gear can't be pointed in the direction of the ground travel. I'm sure it would be freaky to get used to at first but helicopters are flown in all directions.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Unbeliever]

And then you have exemptions like LAX, where all 4 runways point the same direction. (currently, 069/249 magnetic) that break the +/- 5 degree rule. There are actually 4 parallel runways and not 2 sets of parallel runways pointing slightly different directions. Current standards for naming only go up to 3 parallel runways (Left/Center/Right) An example is Chicago Midway. For LAX, they just gave up and called one set 7/25 and the other 6/24.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/klax

Re:Just a Blimp?

[jcr]

After reading the article, it looks like it's just a blimp with more engines, and not really an airplane

No, it's rigid, and it's heavier-than-air. They use the helium for some of the lift.

-jcr

Re:Just a Blimp?

[YrWrstNtmr]

And how much cheaper is it than hiring a fleet of trucks? At 140mph, the trucks will take longer, i guess, and you'd need a lot of 'em

Ahh...but the trucks are not always an option. Witness the aftermath of Katrina. Roads blocked by downed trees, crews having to literally cut their way through with chainsaws.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Anonymous Coward]

If i recall, to liquify helium without the laser methods we've heard about lately, it has to go to something on the order of 4 kelvin

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, wait a minute! Someone actually beat me to the punch on the fact that TMM is nothing more than a "I gotta get to Google first" karma whore?! Well, so much for TMM claiming that he only irritates one person! Oh, that's right. Because it's all done under AC then obviously there's only one person.

Yeah. That makes sense.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[zerocool^]

Right, but in the same token, disasters don't always happen convieniently near an airfield.

Seriously, though.... if this plan works, I'm simply amazed by it. It's getting off the ground now, and if it works, i can see it revolutionize the shipping industry.

~Will

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: 'They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies...

Useful during hurrican Katrina? Cool! I must have missed the part about this new blimp/plane (I'm coining the new name: blane) having time travel capabilities. The military will love it.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Sensible Clod]

Actually, why wouldn't that work? Thermodynamics' Second Law only applies to closed systems. If this worked, it wouldn't be breaking the Law, as it would actually be powered by gravity (which also generates buoyancy).

I'm not saying it does work, just that the Second Law doesn't appear to apply here, seeing where all the energy would actually be coming from. Things like hydroelectric come to mind. Hydroelectric doesn't violate any laws, and it's perpetual--aside from things like maintenance ;-)

Re:Just a Blimp?

[General Fault]

If the aircraft is using it's kenetic energy (it's forward motion) to generate electric energy then using that electric energy to create potential energy (by raising the aircraft into the air, then making it heavier than air), then converting the potential energy back into kenetic energy (forward motion), then the system IS closed and is a perpetual machine. In the real world, the turbines would never be able to generate enough energy to change the altitude of the aircraft as much as it did in the previous cycle. Eventually the aircraft would end up high in the atmosphere without enough energy to compress the gas to go back down or end up on the ground with no gas left (having let the gas out) to get it go back up. An energy source must be applied to make up for the loss (in heat) due to the imperfect effeciency of any one of the steps of converting potential enrergy to kenetic energy to electric energy and back to potential energy.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Sensible Clod]

Well, sure, I understand that fine...but here's what I mean (apologies for not being specific about this earlier):

Suppose, firstly, that you don't let the gas out, but you compress it. Secondly, suppose you don't harness the energy from forward, but from up and down motions. You use some kind of turbine to extract energy, but still use wings and such to get forward movement.

Now, let's say you get pushed up from 1000 feet to 20 miles. Why couldn't you extract enough energy from that to compress enough gas to descend back to 1000 feet (and vice versa)? Seems eminently feasible from my understanding. Am I missing something?

Re:Just a Blimp?

[General Fault]

We are describing the same process. I too spent much time thinking about this when I first read about the idea. The best analogy that I could come up with is a self powered yo-yo. Imagine a yoyo with a small generator built in. When the yo-yo is dropped, the string turns the generator and the yo-yo saves the electricity into a capacitor or something. When the yo-yo reaches the bottom, the generator turns into a motor (by reversing the current) and the yoyo comes back up. The trouble is that it takes slightly more energy to go back up than is generated when going down. Eventually the yo-yo will hit the bottom and not have any energy to go back up. A gravity powered aircraft, such as what we are talking about would work exactly the same only with up and down reversed. Whether it is air or a string holding the craft up is of little difference. The turbines are guaranteed to generate slightly less energy than is required to compress the gas into the cylinder and the blimp would be stuck at 20 miles up. The only way to get to the ground at that point would be to let the gas out, at which time the blimp would be stuck on the ground. If you add more turbines, they add drag and slow the entire craft down thus reducing the amount of energy each turbine generates.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Savantissimo]

Actually the lift goes when the density equals air, which I imagine would be at a compression ratio of about 15, once the gas is cool the pressure should be about 225 psi., so you'd think it would work, but for some reason (perhaps leakage, weight and complexity) they don't seem to do this. The cold from the expansion would be good for condensing extra ballast out of the water in the air just when it's wanted for landing. It seems to me this would also be a dandy way to store energy, too.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[Sensible Clod]

The reason it doesn't make sense to me is that it doesn't appear that compression of the gas would even require as much energy as one acquired going up. Is there some way of calculating how much energy the compression would require (and, for that matter, how much energy one acquires through negative falling, although that figure seems to be rather straightforward, like the energy water gathers falling a certain distance in a hydro plant), and thus coming to an accurate conclusion about whether this could work?

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to put some numbers to your reasoning.

The blimp's revival?

[Doom bucket]

Makes perfect sense to me. With advanced technology and more experience then say, the people who made the hindendburg, I'm sure we could make it work better this time.

I wonder how long it will take other formerly taboo technology to come around... I'm not all that afraid to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard(My neighbors would disagree)

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Anonymous Coward]

I too would like a nuclear reactor in my backyard. But it has to be fusion! I don't wanna see evidence of any radiation coming from it.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Anonymous Coward]

When do you want me to say it? Oh fine I'll just say it now.

the people who made the hindendburg, I'm sure we could make it work better this time!!

Re:The blimp's revival?

[gnud]

Well, personally I don't mind the plants as much as the waste.
Would you want a nuclear waste treatment plant in your back yard?

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how efficient and generally clean a nuclear power plant is, a tiny Mr Fission in your backyard would probably put out a very small amount of waste material.

I'm sure someone could be contracted to deal with it safely.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought a key property of "airships" was VTOL? this thing needs a runway.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[avi33]

Only one problem. Where are you going to park one of those, nevermind a fleet.

While I admire a couple of guys willing to build their dreams, seriously:

You think the military would really be interested? That thing could be downed with a BB gun.

Emergency supplies? Emergency means 'we need it fast' not 'load up the goodyear and we'll expect in 10 days.' They would need to be standing by at the ready everywhere to be effective.

Plus, I can't imagine they would be effective in, say a post-Katrina rescue effort. The aftermath of the storm would be kicking up winds and debris that would pose risks to the airship, so you'd have to wait a few days...and what if a new storm approaches? Will the captain lift off and hightail it out of there at 8 mph?

There's a reason that for all intents and purposes, the WWII-era cargo plane is still the most effective means of transportation for many of these cases.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is almost entirely worthless as a passenger vehicle, it being "taboo" won't really mean anything.

If these are successful, they'll be primarily used to transport cargo "quickly" and cheaply.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Spy der Mann]

I wonder how long it will take other formerly taboo technology to come around... I'm not all that afraid to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard

Apparently, the Chinese aren't afraid, either.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Peter La Casse]

You think the military would really be interested? That thing could be downed with a BB gun.

Not only are blimps impervious to BB guns, but bullets as well. It takes a long time to deflate out a small hole. In addition, militaries use lots of non-combat vehicles, so lack of suitability for combat does not disqualify military interest.

Emergency supplies? Emergency means 'we need it fast' not 'load up the goodyear and we'll expect in 10 days.' They would need to be standing by at the ready everywhere to be effective.

A blimp could be useful in an emergency situation because it flies and can potentially have more cargo and range than a helicopter. Blimps can have overland speeds in excess of those of trucks, so a 10 day wait time is an exaggeration. Actual emergency response time would probably be dominated by the warehousing of relief supplies, as it is today.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[avi33]

Good points.

I still think it goes back to the parking issue. Unless a retractable shelter or even better, a deflatable membrane is developed, you're still looking at a storage problem.

If it took 100 units of helium to carry one unit of cargo (bogus numbers, but I'm out of my element here), then your shelter would need to be 100 times bigger than any payload you plan for. Maybe it can handle a greater payload than a helicopter, but you could fit a number of helicopters in the space required for just one of these.

In inclement weather, it's not you can just land it and tie it down like a conventional aircraft.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think there won't be any radiation from a fusion reactor?

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Somegeek]

What about as aerial cruise ships? Why cruise over boring open ocean when you can cruise over beautiful countryside?

Re:The blimp's revival?

[johnny cashed]

Well, I for one would like to take a transatlantic airship trip. They could put an observation deck on top complete with a gyrostablized telescope and you can enjoy the night sky sans light pollution. you could fly low and fish from it as well.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[kesuki]

but I'm out of my element here
Literally, the atomic weight of nitrogen* is about 14 AMU the atomic weight oh helium is about 4 AMU the atomic weight of lead is about 207 AMU so 100 units of helium plus 1 unit of lead ~= 607 AMU compared to 1,400 AMU for nitrogen. thus, a blimp designed around that principal would rocket up through the air, all the way past the upper stratosphere about double the distance out of the moon, from 'momentum' gained from the 'release'

obviously in this example i didn't calculate the weight of the ship, etc. but i was point out the fact that it's more like 40:1 for 'lighter than air' ships, and this isn't a 'lighter than air ship' it's simply going for a design where the weight of the cargo is the primary mass that makes you 'heavier' than air. a plane that has 0 weight of it's own to carry uses a LOT less fuel. we're talking the difference between a 90 mpg hybrid compared to a 2mpg 'custom truck' type of fuel differences, of course the design has trade offs you loose much of the speed of normal aircraft (but are still 2-4 times faster than less fuel efficient trucks) and wind drag can kill the fuel efficiency... in a cross wind... of course if you're going to get absolutely sci fi on this, you may as well have a masted 'ligher than airship' that is propelled by prevailing winds, and needs an electro-magnetic anchor to unload/land which would be odd, since the 'sails' and 'mast' being on the top would require a heavier counter weight (the cargo hold perhaps?) at the bottom to keep the ship upright. masted ships can be rigged to sail into a wind, but at a much slower speed than sailing with the wind.

*= nitrogen is the primary gas about 78% of our atmosphere is nitrogen thus to simplify matters i used the atomic weight of nitrogen rather than trying to 'include' other variables the other main gass, oxygen (nearly 21%) is actually almost 2 AMU's heavier than nitrogen.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[smellsofbikes]

It's not clear from your example that you know about diatomic gases. Both nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere are diatomic, as is hydrogen: the hydrogen that filled the Hindenberg had an atomic mass of about two, helium is four, nitrogen is about 28, and oxygen about 32.

This doesn't invalidate what you're saying, but it does change the numbers somewhat.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[catmistake]

well... no.

There are what... like 110 nuclear reactors in the US, and all of them, (ALL OF THEM, thats every single one) have a temporary containment facility for storing the spent rods that is full (as in no more room). This is one of those problems the news never seems to report on, but its a big problem, and it scares the crap out of me that we never hear what's happening. What do we do with the waste? The problem with, say, burying it 1000 feet below some desert is that, say, 10,000 years from now when everyone has forgotten everything that ever happened during our century, those rods are still going to be hot. And they are likely to remain hot for another 30,000 years after that.

What really gets me is that the whole reason that so much effort was put into developing the technology for nuclear reactors in the first place was for fuel for weapons. But its not even that, really. Its that if the same amount of effort, research and development was put into, say, solar power, then today solar power would be just as cheap as nuclear... but without the waste. Now... granted, that's a big if. However... if one considers why we needed to develop more and more nuclear weapons, then it will be easy to see that it all could have been avoided if the powers had let Patton go all the way to Berlin... and then into Russia.

Re:The blimp's revival?

[catmistake]

Sorry to butt in here... facinating stuff, btw

masted ships can be rigged to sail into a wind, but at a much slower speed than sailing with the wind.

This is false. From sailing, I know that the fastest tack is actually into the wind at a 45 degree angle in a close haul (granted, there is some descrepancy between experts, so, Pirate Steve may say "Arg... a broad reach is fastest!" but none the less, its still not exactly sailing with the wind, but at a 45 degree angle away from the direction the wind blows). However, this is true of typically configured sailing vessels, and not necessarily true of, say, certain America's Cup class ships equipped with spinnaker sails. Also, I think a keel is absolutely essential for this to work ... but this would be different in a ship without a keel (like an airship).

Re:The blimp's revival?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just pulling atomic weights off the internet, to compare a hypothetical 100:1 ratio of lighter than air gasses to cargo. that figure was Way off.

NYUD mirror link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cantonrep.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php?I D=261606&r=0&Category=9

I want to believe!

[Thud457]

BBDs are real?!

Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Better link/picture of the dynathing - mostly a blimp

http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Default.htm

Re:Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[hurfy]

Scary, looks like it will self-destruct if you breathe on it wrong.

Hope it is sturdier than it looks...by a lot ;)

It's a faster blimp, although prototype seems to be missing alot of wings and engines....

Call me on the next prototype please.

Re:Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[Disoculated]

Most likely it looks rickety because it's half-inflated. Airships do slowly leak their helium, especially when under pressure. There's no point in keeping it that full when it's getting moved around the runway.

Re:Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[kabz]

It's shrinkage

Re:Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[mdielmann]

Should have stopped looking at the pictures and read a little. It's a heavier-than-air craft, and requires a runway to take off and land. Much of the body is a lifting surface, as are the wings. Doubtless take-off (and maybe landing?) space is very small with no cargo.

Re:Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Look at it go!!
Even better photo here

Re:Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[fm6]

Charles Lindbergh summed it up nearly 70 years ago, when he saw the Zeps trying to make a go of it. If speed is more important than cost, you travel/ship by airplane. If cost is more important, you go by surface vehicles. There's no economic place for something that's in between.

Re:Better link/picture - mostly a blimp

[Ex-MislTech]

I like what these guys have in mind better :

http://www.fuellessflight.com/

They are a bit further from a working proto-type though .

Ex-MislTech

Shouldn't it be WW I?

[dakirw]

Actually, I thought it was World War I that taught us that blimps weren't effective as combatants (bombers). German Zeppelins burned pretty intensely after getting hit. They were only used for long range ocean recon in WW II, right? The Hindenburg incident probably didn't help much either.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Anonymous Coward]

They burned because they were painted with a substance that was mostly composed of rocket fuel. I think we're a bit past that now.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Rei]

Yes, we're past myths.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[General Fault]

Actually, supprisingly they did not just burn up in the sky when hit. Helium is a good flame retardant and will not burn as it is an inert gas. Hydrogen requires at least 3% oxygen to burn. So, when hit they mostly leaked and slowly fell to the ground... It's just that they were so big and slow that they were fairly easy to hit.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[reverend_rodger]

From what I've heard, part of the problem is that the U.S. wouldn't sell helium to Germany during that time (for obvious reasons, even before we were in the war). So if the blimp uses helium rather than hydrogen, it has a very low chance of catching fire.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[ClickOnThis]

They burned because they were painted with a substance that was mostly composed of rocket fuel. I think we're a bit past that now.

Yes, we're past myths.


Indeed. I just glanced at the article in your link, but it looks like a good analysis and debunking of the flammable-paint theory.

The best explanation I have heard for the Hindenburg disaster goes like this: the mooring ropes used to secure the ship caused a tear in the outer fabric, and a portion of the metal frame was exposed. At the time, it was raining, and the water caused the outer fabric and the mooring ropes to conduct electricity. As a result, a static discharge occurred bewtween one of the ropes (connected to the ground) and the metal frame of the ship. Combined with a hydrogen leak in the vicinity of the same tear (from damage to the inner fabric?) and the oxygen from outside ... well, you can guess the rest.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Oldsmobile]

Umm, so what exactly happened?

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Interesting article- bad posting ettiquite... :) I had InDesign, Photoshop and a couple other programs open when I clicked your link. You neglected to mention that it is a PDF... Now that i have restarted my machine....

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[BootNinja]

The Hindenburg wasn't a blimp... it was a dirigible.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[tompaulco]

And guess who produces about 90% of the world's helium? Hey, maybe if we can sell the world on this blimp idea, the U.S. can earn back the trade deficit. In fact, my state is one of the leading producers. We could use another boom.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Catbeller]

A quick analysis:

They tested the paint's combustablity under normal circimstances. What if it were on giant bags of hydrogen that had already caught fire? I doubt if the paint burned "slowly". I'd guess that the paint under very high temperatures acted as an accelerant at the very least.

Why not just test the idea? We know the conditions and materials involved. Bags, paint, aluminium, hydrogen; just add electricity, see what happens.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Anonymous Coward]

you installed photoshop and then told the installer please do not install adobe acrobat?

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Gyga]

Hydrogen + oxygen = water & electricity.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Max Threshold]

It's not his fault your operating system is a piece of shit.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[Goldfinger7400]

I agree that paper looks pretty poor. They don't make many direct arguments as to the flamability of the paint, and spend a lot of time trying to disprove that the paint is solid rocket fuel or that solid rocket fuel would not burn well, something that only disproves the semantics of the paint rumor, if it is a rumor. No discussion is given to the hydrogen, and data is missing in the important places. And solid is mispelled as sold! I would give that paper a C if I was a professor.

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[X0563511]

If you use firefox, this extension should prevent any such PDF difficulties. I think this should be assimilated into the actual program instead of being left as an extension.

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=636&application=firefox

Re:Shouldn't it be WW I?

[good soldier svejk]

Actually, Zeppelins were not blimps. They were dirigables.

Patent Infringement Potential?

[xoip]

Good thing the patent has expired on the Zeppelin

Re:Patent Infringement Potential?

[Bagheera]

The Dynalifter isn't a Zeppelin (rigid airship): It's a heavier than air aircraft that incorporates some static lift into its design. It's not a new idea, as they point out on their site. Their patent is for the structure itself, not the concept of a "not much heavier than air" aircraft.

Re:Patent Infringement Potential?

[dr_dank]

Awesome, now I can play Stairway to Heaven without paying royalties.

Re:Patent Infringement Potential?

[TrevelyanL85A2]

I am sure zee germans would like to build zees zeppelin airships again

Re:Patent Infringement Potential?

[armb]

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4538/ describes a US Army proposal for something similar.
"the Walrus aircraft will be a heavier-than-air vehicle and will generate lift through a combination of aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and gas buoyancy generation and management" but "does not require an airstrip and can land on water or on open ground".

OBLIG MP Ref

[daivzhavue]

Its not a balloon...its an AIRSHIP...

Re:OBLIG MP Ref

[Fishstick]

What should we do?
Maybe we should ring the government?
But this _is_ the government!

Re:OBLIG MP Ref

[Anonymous Coward]

Mrs Helmut: It is a great honour to have so many members of the Government dead in our sitting room.

Helmut: Drawing room.

Mrs Helmut: Ja, well...

Helmut: There are no members of the Government dead in our sitting room.

Mrs Helmut: Ja, you know what I mean.

Re:OBLIG MP Ref

[ToddFFW]

"No Ticket"

Deforming body

[Winterblink]

Why not have a deformable body? Flatten it out so it can travel at higher speeds, then whe it slows down, puff it up and it can be more blimpy.

Re:Deforming body

[FooAtWFU]

That sounds like the engineering involved would be rather complicated. Current airship-type designs basically have a light, rigid frame inside to support their envelope. If you're going to make that frame delibrately deformable, you're going to have trouble keeping it from deforming in an undesirable fashion when it's under stresses (such as crosswinds) - there would need to be a lot of engineering behind it, and the frame would probably end up being a lot heavier. Needless to say, for an airship, you generally want to be as lightweight as possible so you can lift cargo instead of just lifting the ship itself.

A rigid airframe is much simpler, cheaper, easier, and sturdier.

Re:Deforming body

[rufty_tufty]

A rigid airframe is much simpler, cheaper, easier, and sturdier.

Unless that is part of the innovation, a way to build a deformable structure cheaper, easier, and sturdier?
I'm reminded if the willow tree vs an oak in the storm - the oak may be stringer, but I'm taking bets as to which structure will most likely survive the stress of the storm...

Re:Deforming body

[sco08y]

Flatten it out so it can travel at higher speeds, then whe it slows down, puff it up and it can be more blimpy.

Or, have it transform into a giant robot so it can do kung fu, should the need arise.

Re:Deforming body

[Anonymous Coward]

its the volume that matters. The volume of a sphere uses the least surface material. To achieve what you suggest you would need to have extra surface material to keep the same volume of displaced air, else the lift would go down.

its ~1kg / 1m^3 of helium displaced air of lift.

Re:Deforming body

[Anonymous Coward]

willow tree vs an oak

But there's an important part of the analogy that you're forgetting: which one would be better to hold a treehouse? A flexible blimp might be resilient, but if it bends in half and dumps your cargo in a storm it's not so useful.

Re:Deforming body

[Rob the Bold]

Current airship-type designs basically have a light, rigid frame inside to support their envelope.

Aren't most modern airships 'blimps', and therefore frameless? All the flying billboard airships are blimps, built by Goodyear Airships (and its successors) and American Blimp Company. The added weight of a frame is only practical with very large craft. Do you have any examples of modern rigid airships?

Re:Deforming body

[Anonymous Coward]

A company called Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH builds just that, things they call Zeppelin NT. I'm wondering if they will skip XP and immeediately go to Zeppelin Vista for the next model...

Re:Deforming body

[srock2588]

I agree the engineering would be complicated, but certianly not impossible. I envision a submarine, which has an aerodynamic haul for traveling through a liquid and uses a balast system to regulate its depth. Replace water with air and fill the balast with helium or hydrogen and you essentially have the same concept flying through the air. Balancing the size of the balast and the power of the engine would be an engineering challenge. Moreover, the efficiency of such devices would be dependent on the purpose of the task at hand. Moving freight long distances at a slow speed with may prove viable while moving people at a fast speed with one of these things may not be economical at all. Either way, it could be a new untapped field of aerospace. If it could be profitable, the engineering can be worked out.

Re:Deforming body

[Moofie]

Uh, yeah. RTFA.

Re:Deforming body

[ibbey]

Ummm... Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, the machine you describe is sometimes known as a blimp. It's nothing new.

But even if I am misunderstanding you, I think you (and the parent) are missing one fundamental point: While a deformable body certainly would seem to have advantages, it's not what they have invented. It's kind of like asking the Wright brothers why they didn't invent the 747, when it clearly has numerous advantages over the Wright Flyer. The Dynalifter has several very distinct advantages over current technologies, and those advantages do not require the use of a deformable body. It's entirely possible that the addition of a deformable body could provide additional benefits to a later version, but it would require a much larger technical breakthrough to achieve. The current idea is basically ready to go, so why spend several more years and hundreds of thousands-- or more likely millions-- more dollars working to achieve the ideal solution, when the current one is still pretty damn good?

Re:Deforming body

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no point in floating freight slower than by water. Water ships will always win on energy used.

Re:Deforming body

[srock2588]

I'm not saying they should invent an extremely complicated airship, my point is IS possible. If this new airship thingy pans out then I see no reason why "difficult engineering" would stand in the way of developing this technology into other markets.

To answer you question that is just a statement followed by a question mark, at this time they shouldn't. But, looking ahead a few incarnations of the technology never hurt anybody.

Re:Deforming body

[ibbey]

To answer you question that is just a statement followed by a question mark, at this time they shouldn't. But, looking ahead a few incarnations of the technology never hurt anybody.

"why spend..." is a question. Granted, it is a rhetorical one, but gramatically it still requires a question mark. I'm not an English major, but that's my understanding of things at least.

As for the second part, that's exactly what I said. "It's entirely possible that the addition of a deformable body could provide additional benefits to a later version, but it would require a much larger technical breakthrough to achieve." You may be right that the technical breakthrough required may not be as large as I'm presuming, but my point still stands: It's silly to criticize them for not including every conceivable technical advance in the first version. A venture like this is risky enough, why overcomplicate it?

Re:Deforming body

[ibbey]

Now THAT's an improvemnt that I would like to see.

Could it be used for passengers?

[antifoidulus]

I will most likely have a series of long flights ahead of me in a month(Munich to Pittsburgh and then a few days later Pittsburgh to Osaka), and while I know I am too early for this tech, I have been looking for an alternative to flying because I HATE airplanes. First off, they waste tons of fuel and the environmentalist in me hates that, secondly for me they are the most uncomfortable things ever. I am over 6'2(185 cm) and since I'm not rolling in the dough I can only afford coach. Of course, a few days ago when I was flying from Seattle to Amsterdam, what does the guy in front of me do right after takeoff? Reclines his seat back as far as he can.
What are the options besides flying for quick(define quick as can make a cross-ocean trip in a weekend) alternatives to flying that are both fuel efficient and don't do irreversible knee damage?

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[everphilski]

What are the options besides flying for quick(define quick as can make a cross-ocean trip in a weekend) alternatives to flying that are both fuel efficient and don't do irreversible knee damage?

And cheap?

Cheap, comfortable, fuel efficent. Pick 2.

-everphilski-

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[MindStalker]

From my quick research a 747 gets around 100 miles to the gallon per passenger when completly full. Lets say its 75% full so 75 miles to the gallon. So flying versus driving alone is hugly economical, of course if you pack 4 people into a car it becomes more economical, though the waste of time driving isn't nessesarly worth the savings.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[MasterShake]

Airplanes actually have lower fuel consumption per passenger mile than most cars when you are travelling alone. Between 50 and 100 miles per gallon compared to between 22 and 45 for most cars. See the following link:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48 121

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[LifesABeach]

"What are the options besides flying for quick(define quick as can make a cross-ocean trip in a weekend) alternatives to flying that are both fuel efficient and don't do irreversible knee damage?"

Well, there is Teleportation; But we don't understand the technology to do it yet.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about staying home? Its INCREDIBLY fuel efficient, is instantaneous, and unless you have some very rude roommates has ZERO chance of the knee injuries you fear so much.

Send your tickets to me, I'll be happy to endure the inconvenience and pain of a trip to Europe in your stead.

BTW when Zeppelins were in use, it usually took 4 or 5 days to cross the Atlantic in one.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, go to osaka first! Take the ICE from Munich to Koln, then to Moscow, then the trans-siberian to Vladivostok. You can then take the ferry to Fushiki (July to october only) and then take the train to osaka. It should take just over a week. Getting to pittsburg might be more problematic. You might want to go via an airline with more legroom, or get a set on the bulkhead row.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[mrbooze]

I believe it's still possible to book passage on many trans-ocean ships. I swear I read once that even many cargo ships actually have space to take on a very few "passengers" for a very no-frills voyage. (We are not talking a Cruise line here.)

It's also possible to book one-way trips on most cruise ships, though that's certainly not going to be cheap.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[nemesisj]

I'm 6'4" and have regularly flown from the Eastern seaboard of the US to various cities in China. Flying sucks, but it sure as hell beats the alternatives. Plus, planes don't waste fuel - they're actually much more efficient than cars or trucks in terms of gallons per mile and the amount of people and cargo they can carry. Not to mention the time/value of money savings.

I've never understood the irrational annoyance that people get when someone in front of them reclines their seat - who fucking cares? Just recline your seat too, then you're back where you started, and a little more comfortable to boot.

I've flown long flights (at least 12 hours on a single hop) for 24 years, and been over six feet tall for the last 9 of them, and I've never had ANY knee damage, not to mention irreversible knee damage.

Get real.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[smellsofbikes]

>Cheap, comfortable, fuel efficent. Pick 2. Tramp steamer. Try: fast, cheap, comfortable, fuel efficient. Rigid airships could be fast, actually: they can be built in the ideal streamlined form, so all your drag is due to wetted area rather than induced and separation drag. Strap some big jets on, and off you go. In the 1930's, the German Zeppelins were flying nonstop from Germany to Argentina. In the NINETEEN THIRTIES. Back when flying across the Atlantic in an airplane was a somewhat big deal. And talk about comfort: full cabins, beds, a dude playing the piano.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[smellsofbikes]

Damn, should've previewed. Imagine a carriage return between "Pick 2" and "Tramp steamer".

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[everphilski]

Till they blow up. You still have to figure out the "lighter than air" part. Hydrogen or Helium. Helium is in short supply (expensive). Hydrogen is explosive. So you can have cheap and comfortable with the risk of explosion. No thanks.

-everphilski-

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[mdielmann]

My dad's Jetta gets about 60 mpg and carries 4 people relatively comfortably. That's 240 person-miles per gallon, with no waiting or transportation to the airport on either end, or the requirement of taxis or car rentals at either end. I wouldn't say a plane is exactly more economical for group flights, or shorter flights. Solitary passengers, or long trips, would certainly favour air travel.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[smellsofbikes]

But still: the Hindenburg burned. It burned like a bomb. And yet, most of the people lived. How many lived through the Towers crash? The thing about hydrogen is that it goes up, really really fast, especially when it's hot hydrogen. In comparison, Jet A isn't easy to light on fire. But when it does burn, it burns hot and deep and for a long time. You have a few seconds of severe excitement in a big hydrogen fire and then everything's done. It's almost like using explosives in coalmines: if the blast is fast enough, it won't ignite flammable gases. If I had my choice, I'd much rather crash in a hydrogen-filled blimp than a jet airliner.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Control Group]

Your dad's Jetta is hardly typical of automobile fuel efficiency. The only vehicles I'm aware of that are similarly efficient are diesel cars (obviously), hybrid cars, and motorcycles. That's not an insignificant number of vehicles on the road, sure, but it's still a small percentage. Most people who own motor vehicles (at least, in the US) get somewhere between 18-38 (ish) mpg.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[grumpyman]

As usual, price(resource), speed, comfort, pick two.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming 747s use gasoline. I don't think you can compare jet fuel to gasoline. For comparisons sake, you have to account for the price/gallon and if the fuels have the same caloric value.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[YrWrstNtmr]

My dad's Jetta gets about 60 mpg and carries 4 people relatively comfortably.

Ok....Now have each of those 4 bring two suitcases and a carry on. Can we still fit 4 in that Jetta? And if so, do we still get 60mpg?

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

> From my quick research a 747 gets around 100 miles to the gallon per passenger when completly full. Lets say its 75% full so 75 miles to the gallon.

Wouldn't it get _better_ mileage when less full?

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[MindStalker]

No because I'm rating milage PER passenger. Meaning in actuallity its getting 1/3 mile per gallon, but its also carrying 300 passengers. if each person drove themselves the same milage they would have to get 100 miles to the gallon to use as much gasoline.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[MindStalker]

True, somewhere in my quick research I stumbed onto a carbon emissions that shows that the carbon emissions are about equal to your average car, on a per passenger basis, this would indicate.. atleast to me that assuming carbon emissions appoximates energy used, this gas is 3 times as dense if 100 mpg = less than 30 mpg of regualar gas.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[LWATCDR]

You left out a full tank of gas. Jetta TDIs get very good fuel mileage but 55 or so is about average. With 4 people, luggage, and a full tank of gas it would be much closer to 50. Also you couldn't carry eight suitcases, four people, and two carry on bags in a jetta without using a roof rack. With that your highway mileage will go down to around 40 mpg depending on how fast you drive.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Rob the Bold]

BTW when Zeppelins were in use, it usually took 4 or 5 days to cross the Atlantic in one.

Actually, the German transatlantic airships of the 30s could make the Atlantic crossing in 60 hours. The Hindenberg once made it to New York and back to Berlin in 5 days. And that includes the turnaround time for unloading and boarding, re-stocking and refueling, etc.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if both carbon emissions are same for gasoline and jet fuel, the fuel efficiency is the same???

I doubt it. Your original argument is flawed, you're still not accounting for caloric value.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[LWATCDR]

Yes it would but not passenger miles. It will get much better mileage over shorter distances since it will not have to carry as much fuel. Imagine what kind of mileage even a Prius would get if it had to carry enough fuel for a four thousand mile drive?

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[prothid]

I'm 6'5" and I HATE how inconsiderate most people can be. This world is too small for tall people. I have qualms with cars too, but I digress. Unless I'm flying Airtran business class (most affordable larger seating available), then it's a miserable time all around. I recently booked a business class trip on US Airways and the flight was cancelled so they shoved me in coach calling my purchase a promotional fare -- I was pissed! Anyway, check out the knee defender.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[MindStalker]

Yes, but we were talking environment impact originally.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[cloudmaster]

So we pick a pretty large airplane and estimate the mileage based on that large capacity, but it's not OK to use the mileage of a fairly typical compact car? Yeah, I call a Jetta compact, because I can't straighten my legs out inside. A midsize would let me do that in front, and a full-sized car would let me do that in the back seats too (while in the normal seating position).

If most people had dedicated mechanics taking care of their cars, and if most people realzed that the truck they just bought isn't the car *or* minivan that they were looking for, then I'd bet that "most" people would get better mileage. :)

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[smoker2]

I've never understood the irrational annoyance that people get when someone in front of them reclines their seat - who fucking cares? Just recline your seat too, then you're back where you started, and a little more comfortable to boot....
I've flown long flights (at least 12 hours on a single hop) for 24 years, and been over six feet tall for the last 9 of them, and I've never had ANY knee damage, not to mention irreversible knee damage.

I am 6'3", and I fucking care.

What you seem to have failed to take into account is that the seat back reclines. The front edge of the seat itself stays where it is, and so, if like me, your knees are already touching the back of an upright seat, with your ass as far back as it will go, when that seat leans back there is no where for you to go, except twist sideways. Try doing that for 12 hours.

What really gets me are the people who believe they have a right to recline their seat, even if they are actively causing me pain by doing it.

I usually respond by exercising my right to rap my knuckles on the top of their head until they stop. Usually works too, and my oh my, do they disappear quick when we get to the terminal !

Of late, I have taken to requesting a seat by an exit, as that's the only guaranteed way to avoid the issue.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[monkeydo]

-- I was pissed! Anyway, check out the knee defender.

Wow, what a perfect product for assholes! I like that they have a card that you can give to the passenger in front of you, whose flight you just ruined. I like even more that the card instructs the other passenger to complain to the airline! Yeah, I'll complain to the airline, about you. If you have a problem with the seat spacing, then you complain to the airline. Don't interfere with my ability to recline my seat. Instead of buying $15 seat chocks, pissing off the passenger in front of you, and then giving him a card explaining why he should be pissed off at someone else, why not just ask him nicely to be considerate of your knees?

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Control Group]

My point is that it's not a fairly typical compact car. It's ranked by the EPA as the vehicle with the fourth-best mileage out of all models for the 2006 model year. Two of the three vehicles which exceed it are hybrids, and the third is the new Beetle, which only exceeds it by one mpg city and three highway.

Meanwhile, while many of the lowest vehicles are Ferraris and Maseratis and such, the number one and two worst mileage vehicles are the Dodge Ram 1500 manual and the Dodge Ram 1500 automatic, scoring one-fourth the mileage of the Jetta (using EPA estimates for both, so 9/10 vs. 36/41). Unfortunately, I can't find overall average mileage for any year later than 2000 on the EPA's site, but in 2000 it was 21.5mpg. Technology has certainly progressed in five years, but I sincerely doubt the average fuel efficiency has tripled in the interim.

My point is, your dad's Jetta is very atypical, and we shouldn't draw general efficiency conclusions based on it.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

a 747 gets around 100 miles to the gallon per passenger when completly full

Your average mass transit bus gets ~4mpg, and holds 60 passengers. That is 240 miles per gallon per passenger.

I just put 7 people in a mini-van and drove 1000+ miles over the holidays. We got 20mpg, or 140 miles per gallon per passenger. Of course, we got to carry on more than one handbag each. And total roundtrip time was about 3 hours longer than flying. And we got to pick the "in-flight" movies. And the food was better. And we saved about $2000. And nobody stuck a wand anywhere. When my wife started going a little bi-polar, nobody shot her to death. It was ok to use cell phones. Drinking water was clean, and the air was fresh.

if you pack 4 people into a car it becomes more economical, though the waste of time driving isn't nessesarly(sic) worth the savings

Maybe not for you.

For example:
Roundtrip Denver Wichita with 4 passengers

              Fly Drive
Cost ~$1300 ~$75
Time ~10 hr ~15 hr

Flying still includes hours of driving back and forth to airports and renting a car. Remember to arrive at airport 2 hours before fight departure.

Adding 3 more passengers to the scenario above, increases flight costs by more than $700 + $200+ rental, driving costs by less than $40.

So your talking about $2500 vs 5 hours. I'll take $500/hr, and by the traffic on the road, I'm not alone.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Doug Dante]

I've driven as far as Detroit-Washington D.C., in my lovely fuel inefficient SUV - alone, because it's more economical than flying, and I would do it again.

Firstly, it's much cheaper. At 14 miles per gallon, and $2.20 per gallon, it cost me about $165 for gas round trip. Yes, there are wear and tear costs on my SUV, but I'm already paying for it, and I need a car, and I'm keeping it for at least 7 years no matter what, so those are sunken costs.

Airfare today, with a 1 week lead time (which I did not have), is $153.59. Factor in airport parking ($6.00/day for 7 days = $42), and the price of a rental car for 7 days ($45.00/day for 7 days = $315), and travel costs are $510.59, or about 300% higher.

Secondly, it's not that much slower. The distance is 525 miles, or about 10 hours, but it actually took about 11 hours with stops. Non-stop flight time is 1 hour and 45 minutes. I actually follow the TSA guidelines and get there 2 hours early, and it's 30 minutes to the airport. Also, it's another 30 minutes to get out of the airport and get to my true destination. That's 4 hours and 45 minutes for a direct flight, or about twice as fast. When I checked, there was a transfer and a layover, adding an additional couple of hours.

There are benefits too. I don't come into contact with as many people, so I get fewer germs. My car is more comfortable than a discount airplane seat, and most importantly, I did not know how long I would be staying, so I had the flexibility of leaving when the job was done - not a day later.

Admitedly, I was pretty much exhausted and road weary when I got to my destination, but a good night's sleep pretty much took care of that.

Yes, I have flown, and I would never drive for a single day meeting. When you factor in the cost of my time, flying makes a great deal of sense, but for many people, driving, even very long distances, is the most cost effective means of getting from point a to point b.

It's not ignorance, it's good economics.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[tompaulco]

Luckily you already own the car, and didn't take into account wear and tear, which according to the IRS, is about 48.5 cents per mile (including gas).
Substitute a rental van, and add in the cost of the gadgets for playing the movies and stuff, and meals, and the figures go up.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[tompaulco]

I am 6'2" and I agree with you. If the person in front of me leans their seat back, it hits my knees. If they do it fast, I can get stuck and hurt before I can twist out of the way. Plus, you can't see a laptop or eat a meal on the tray or see the little displays built into the seat rest when the person in front of you reclines.
Luckily for me, both of the overseas trips I have taken have been less than half full and I was able to stretch out over two seats, but most of my trips within the U.S., if they are longer than about 45 minutes, are intolerable.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[jowaju]

That's a fairly misleading statement. The Dodge Ram gets gas mileage anywhere from 16/21 to 9/12. It depends entirely upon the engine choice. he most popular 1500's are the regular cab 3.7L auto and the quad cab 4.7l auto, which get 16/21 and 14/19 respectively.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Control Group]

That's why I cited the average mpg for US driving in 2000 (and would have cited one from later, if I could have found it) - 21.5mpg. I'm aware that comparing highs and lows is a dubious, at best, method of statistical analysis. I only pointed out the top and bottom to indicate the range of values. Given the wide variety of vehicles available, using one from the top five is as poor a way to represent mileage as using one from the bottom two.

To what extent it's an outlier is indicated by its distance from the mean, which, though probably higher than 21.5mpg for model year 2006, is certainly not three times as high.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[prothid]

It's the complete opposite. They are the ones being the asshole and ruining someone's flight by reclining their seat violently without looking back to see if it's ok. I don't own a set of these, but I've had someone recline their seat on my knees before. It wasn't enough that they hit my knees the first time, they then kept jamming their seat back on them until it fully reclined. What about my flight being ruined? No you're right, I'm the asshole for not wanting to announce to the person that I'm 6'5" and can barely fit my knees behind their seat to begin with when they can plainly see that themselves. No thanks; I'll be the guy who had to pay twice as much to sit in business class just for the leg room to avoid people like you thinking I'm the asshole. Kudos.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[cr0sh]

Actually, I did some brief research (google) on this topic not too long ago, after somebody mentioned it on Fark.

There are actually several cargo ship travel agencies out there, that help you book cabins aboard cargo ships all over the world. Plus, there are a few sites detailing what your experience will be like, include FAQs and pictures of ammenities and sights (as such).

The cost is more than flying, but way cheaper than an ocean cruise. It is also (of course) a slower way to get around, but from what I could see, it seemed like a very interesting way to "see the world". Cabins range from "fairly nice" (I have stayed in worse hotels), to "bare minimum" (think something like a train berth). You typically eat in the mess on-board (from what I could see, you could eat with the crew, or with the officers, your choice - on most ships). Be aware, though, that if you decide to go, your "enjoyment" is up to you - you are on a working ship, after all. You might get a room whose view, at best, is that of a wall (or out over) of cargo containers. Officers and crew, if you speak their language, won't have time for idle chatting - and may not even want to talk with you during meals. However, meal time is supposed to be fairly interesting, and depending on the ship, good food. Not much in the way of entertainment, maybe a TV and VCR/DVD player, so bring your own (and a set of voltage converters).

Also, while you might book to embark/disembark for a certain day, the ship may be late or early, so you have to plan around that as well. You also can't bring much in the way of luggage on board with you, either. On the plus side, if you set things up right, you can easily ship your car or motorcycle with you (I know, it seems like that violates the prior luggage rule). All in all, it seems like it would be an interesting way to travel (combine it with backpacking in-country, and you will have a very interesting trip to recall years later, no doubt).

Just google "passenger freighter" and you will find a bunch of info...

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[everphilski]

Times are different now. We have electrically controlled rudders - or pneumantic, powered by an engine. My point? All generating static electricity. Enough of which will cause a threat. Planes can mitigate this in a number of ways - safe tank design and the fact that jet fuel doesnt spontaneously combust. Hydrogen isn't so benign.

Doesnt matter if it is burning above you... you still fall to your death. Again, Jet A is nice like that. Planes, even rockets survive lightning strikes regularly. Gaseous hydrogen would probably not.

-everphilski-

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[bionicbike]

I'm 6'5" and I've repeatedly had my knees smashed when the person in front of me reclined their seat. Not to mention the times that the person in front of me can't recline their seat because it's already up against my knees & therefore unable to recline further. No irreversible damage yet, thank goodness, but it certainly has been painful at times.

Either you have unusually short legs for your height or you're flying first class, business class, or some other upscale class where there's more leg room.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[catmistake]

People are built differently. Some people of the same height have different lengthed legs. My uncle, not a tall man, always says he's 6'5" when sitting down, because his head is very close to the roof of a car when he sits in one. You must have a body like his, and are not "all legs" like these other tall chaps.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

If cars were like planes...

You'd pack your bags and go stand in the garage for two hours before starting the car, during which time you would replace the car seats with ones half the width and cram yourself into them. Any baggage over a strict minimum limit would be an extra upfront cost.

You would not be allowed to stop at any point to view the scenery, pick up supplies, or take a break other than calls of nature and drive-throughs selling overpriced peanuts and soft drink.

After driving to where you wanted to go, you would exit the car and stand around for another hour before taking your bags out.

You would then walk a hundred feet down the road and back with your luggage, flag a taxi, and give the driver the cost of a ten-mile fare.

And remember, if at any point in the journey a critical component of the car failed, you and the two hundred nearest people would die in a massive fireball, destroying an area the size of a city block.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

No you're right, I'm the asshole for not wanting to announce to the person that I'm 6'5" and can barely fit my knees behind their seat to begin with when they can plainly see that themselves. No thanks; I'll be the guy who had to pay twice as much to sit in business class just for the leg room to avoid people like you thinking I'm the asshole.

Fat people have to buy two seats. There's no reason why if you need more leg room than most, you shouldn't pay for it. Seats on airplanes recline. Deal with it. Or, you could just request an exit row or bulkhead seat. Then you get your extra leg room without affecting anyone else. So, yeah, if you choose the solution that ruins someone else's flight when there are other solutions available, then you are an asshole.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea, let's block the exit so you have more legroom. Why does every long person think they have the right for comfort at the lowest price point? If you want guaranteed space, just pay for the extra room and don't go for the cheapest possible class.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[mdielmann]

The poor choices of people in general doesn't alter the fact that they're better off flying than using those vehicles for any kind of travelling (where alternatives exist), or that they're better off buying a more efficient vehicle in the first place.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[mdielmann]

If modifications were required to include extra luggage (capacities of which I've never used on a plane), I doubt they would halve your mileage, which is what would be required to make this even somewhat relevant. I doubt the little aerodynamic luggage carrier trailers would reduce mileage by more than 25%.

Besides, you've never seen my mother pack.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say 40mpg hwy, 4000miles => 100 gallons
My Volvo 940 has a 20 gallon tank. I don't see it a big deal putting a 100 gallon tank in a SUV. Sure it would eat some cargo room, but it could be done.

According to http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/g-l/gaso line.shtml , one gallon of water is 8.33 lb (for reference), and one gallon of gasoline is 6.5lb max.

So 650lbs for that 100 gallons of gasoline. That's like having extra 3 bodies in the trunk. I don't think it'd eat that much into the MPG, given that the tire inflation pressures etc. would be adjusted for car weight with fuel in the design stages.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[nemesisj]

Actually, if you just slouch down, it's not a problem. The next time you're in economy, slouch with your butt as close to the forward edge of the seat, and stretch your legs out until you hit the luggage bar underneath the seat in front of you. It's not terrible, and it removes this problem of the seat reclining.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[smellsofbikes]

You're right that it's not a perfect solution. There are certainly things we could do to mitigate it. Just flying through clouds produces an *insane* amount of static electricity, which is why big planes and blimps have static discharge wicks. Internal electrics, and sparks from them causing fires, are a big problem. That's probably what destroyed the jetliner that blew up over new york city in 2003. (spark in center fuel tank, caused Jet A to combust: unexpected. Now they're going to pressurize the tanks with nitrogen or maybe argon.) The first generation of non-metallic aircraft -- fiberglass and carbon -- had problems with lightning strikes, so they started including a layer of metallic foil or mesh in with the composite layers to help keep them safe. The point being: these are all problems that have affected heavier-than-air machines and have been fixed, and in some cases, those same fixes would work for updated LTA aircraft as well.

I'd like to see in-flight recovery systems on all passenger aircraft, personally. They work wonders for the Cirrus 22, which I believe is the best-selling light airplane in the US right now. Why not on jetliners too, and on blimps? Much easier on slower-moving airships than on jetliners. My uncle flew an airplane that could successfully eject its personnel at Mach 2.5, so it is doable. We just need to put the engineering into it.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[LWATCDR]

SUVs don't get 40MPG.
Lets do the math. A standard Prius has a useful payload of 950 lbs. With your 100 gallons fuel tank you would be left with only 300 lbs of payload. Not even enough for two standard people much less four. It would also be around %15 of its gross weight. That is not counting the extra weight of the structure to support that weight.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[everphilski]

I'd like to see in-flight recovery systems on all passenger aircraft, personally. They work wonders for the Cirrus 22, which I believe is the best-selling light airplane in the US right now. Why not on jetliners too

They are cool, but really they are for amateurs. So long as (a) your wings are attached and (b) your flaps and alerons are working, a compotent commercial pilot will bring the plane down safely. Bumpy landing, but safely. It really only would matter if the wings were ripped off - which is rare to nonexistant. These things are engineered to land with complete engine failure.

-everphilski-

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[cloudmaster]

My dad doesn't have a Jetta, though he does have a couple of Chevy trucks (farmer, justified truck user) that get down in the 15 MPG range on average. The Dodge trucks that get the terrible mileage were the V10 models, IIRC. Amusingly, they were pretty low on power, too, relative to their huge displacement.

*My* point was that the jet in question may not be typical either - there are lots of airplanes in service, and several run without being fully loaded. I'm really not disagreeing that air travel is more efficient over a given distance. It's probably worth keeping in mind, though, that air travel just replaces ons step of travel in general - and overall is only valuable for long-distance travel. I'd like to be able to fly to work, but 'taint gonna happen (even if I do live and work within a mile or so of two airports). So, I'll still be needing a car.

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[cloudmaster]

Do you have a URL for that data? I'm curious how that was generated. Average fuel economy of cars sold v/s average distance driven, or something else? Is that just personal-use vehicles, or does any commercial driving count? I'm not disputing it, as it sounds reasonable, I'm genuinely curious how "they" arrived at that number. :)

Military use? Unlikely

[teslar]

It might have military uses, such as delivering equipment and supplies to sites that might not be easily reachable.

I know that was just marketing speak, but still, military use is the one thing I do not see happening for this flying thing. It's big, it's slow, it's target practice for the other side. As for getting stuff to 'not easily reachable' places... well, such as? Specifically, where could a blimp get to more easily than a helicopter?

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[everphilski]

Heavy deployments... helicopters have very limited payload mass over a very short range. You would deploy one of these over a longer range distance over a relatively safe area (IE... from the US to a foreign zone, not passing over an engagement area). You generally don't send stuff over in 1 trip, it generally gets sent overseas in a cargo plane, then hopped to a base, then airlifted via helicopter or sent via jeep (whichever makes more sense). This would probably fill the first role the best.

-everphilski-

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[crimoid]

Helicopters have limited range and can't carry that much weight. While I wouldn't want to fly a blimp in hostile airspace I can clearly see these being used over friendly airspace. The lack of a need for a super-long runway would mean than even small military bases could be supplied directly via the air.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, where could a blimp get to more easily than a helicopter?

Any place that foliage would play havoc with the rotors and not puncture the envelope on a blimp?

Seriously, this might be useful for transport of large items in rear areas where there's some security. It's not like the
US has to worry about air superiority in most places it operates ;)

Forward operations for this would presumably be limited to roles in which it would enjoy some "legal" protections, like
transport of the wounded, delivery of aid to non-combatants, etc.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[stlhawkeye]

High altitudes. Helicoptors, especially those heavily laden with cargo, have a practical ceiling for how high they can fly. The record is on the order of 40,000 feet. We have been sending balloons into the fringes of the atmosphere for decades. Whether or not a heavily cargo-laden balloon could do this (or why you'd want to), I don't know. I can see a use for an airship for lifting space vehicles into a very high altitude before firing the main rockets. Dunno if it'd be any cheaper or safer than ground-based.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[g0bshiTe]

A restock of ammo does alot of good when the blimp was delayed two weeks because of weather.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[Guppy06]

"Specifically, where could a blimp get to more easily than a helicopter?"

They can fly higher and longer than helicopters.

But in general, the perfect use for airships is AWACS. They don't have to come down to refuel periodically (they'll need food more often than they'll need fuel), so that's one less major hassle for an aircraft carrier crew to deal with.

It would also work well for similar work over land, and might work well as an anti-balistic missile laser platform.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[mysticgoat]

Some military use is likely.

I could see these used as high altitude portable communication platforms near hot spots. I could see a fleet of UAVs being controlled from one of these. And these would fit the traditional blimp role of coastal surveillance very nicely.

Wish the web site wasn't slashdotted.

I would think a heavier than air blimp would be easier to land.

I have the impression from the few pics and diagrams I've seen that the blimp has a lifting body shape and the "wings" are primarily control surfaces. I'd be interested in reading the specs.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[GoatMonkey2112]

That's not true. I saw Airwolf fly to the edge of space.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[FooAtWFU]

Speaking of AWACS, I recall an article from The Wall Street Journal a while ago to the effect that some companies were looking at stratospheric blimps as a replacement/supplement to satellites. It's not very windy up there, and launching them is probably a lot easier and cheaper than depending on NASA and friend, and they can be replaced much more readily, as well. A quick Google search on the topic turns up a BBC article as well.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[hobo sapiens]

Maybe not. But in the event of a cataclysmic level 4 zombie uprising, this airship just may be the choice mode of trasnport!

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[tompaulco]

When I read about this last week, they also mentioned use for temporary cell phone towers or wifi hotspots.

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[valkraider]

I want to see an Airwolf vs. Blue Thunder movie...

Here is a mashup someone made (unfortunately windows media): Airwolf vs. Blue Thunder

Re:Military use? Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a huge difference between "military use" and "combat use".

Specifically, where could a blimp get to more easily than a helicopter?

Phrase it as "Where could a blimp carry an M1A2 tank, or a large number of guided bombs, or any other heavy load more easily than a helicopter could?" and the answer is "anywhere on Earth".

For example, let's say you need to carry bombs to an airfield a thousand miles inland in Central Asia, where they will be attached to F/A-16s. You can't get them there by ship, obviously. Rail lines do not exist from where you have the bombs (or can ship them by water) to the airfield. Roads are packed-dirt mountain trails unable to take the weight, and likely to have ambushes along them.

Right now, your only choice is a cargo jet, which is expensive and carries very little mass compared to sea or rail. If this thing works, it will carry more mass at less cost than those jets. Not as well as sea or rail would so it, but you don't have access by those routes.

Right now

[g0bshiTe]

Some admin is reading /. and realizes that's his webserver and is thinking FUCK.

Right now his boss is burning up his pager/cellphone.

I really would have liked to RTFA, but seeing as how the /. effect has taken hold.
From teh write up, it is supposed to deliver aid/supplies to places that don't allow for easy access by conventional means. Hrmmm seeing as how there is no where in the world this thing can go that a conventional helicopter or plane can't, well the plane can't land, but that's what cargo parachutes were made for. What is the point of this?

This seems more like some way to con investors out of money than real world practical application much less any kind of R.O.I. for the investors.
The thing will still be plagued by what ultimately lead to the demise of derigable travel in the first place, the ability to operate in iffy weather. Convention aircraft aren't so much constrained to this anymore as planes can fly over affected weather areas at higher alt than the weather, and choppers just wont go up.

Re:Right now

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of big heavy items that are unsuitable for airdrop due to fragility and too heavy to be lifted by helicopter. In either case lighter-than-air transport may be more affordable due to fuel savings.

Re:Right now

[magnanimous cowherd]

Some admin is reading /. and realizes that's his webserver and is thinking FUCK.

Right... Like the admin has any bandwidth left to read /. with.

Re:Right now

[Stripe7]

This would work great as a sky crane lifting heavy objects. Think of the lumber industry where instead of clearcutting they cut down specific trees and lift them out. I am not sure how useful it would be as a fire fighting tool. It can probably carry more water in one load but a helicopter may be able to do multiple loads that equal its one load in the same amount of time.

Re:Right now

[__aammuz5019]

...Hrmmm seeing as how there is no where in the world this thing can go that a conventional helicopter or plane can't...

I believe there is an altitude limit for helicopters, above which, the air is simply too thin for them to fly. I am thinking of reaching up onto a *high* mountain for supplies and/or rescue efforts. It seems this vehicle certainly could potentially reach places in the world that helicopters cannot.

Just my two cents worth...

smp

Re:Right now

[g0bshiTe]

If that were the case, lighter than air would still be used by the military, yet they don't.

Re:Right now

[marco.antonio.costa]

Yeah, and choppers dont have exactly stellar range.

This thing could like, just hover overhead, let stuff out, pick some stuff up, and stroll away cheap.

Re:Right now

[Short Circuit]

I saw this article, and my first thought was, "Hey, this could help those people hit by that earthquake in Pakistan."

Then I noticed that it wasn't going to fly for months yet.

Re:Right now

[Short Circuit]

I suspect something about how blimps make big, fat targets has something to do with why the military doesn't use them much.

Re:Right now

[aywwts4]

A conventional blimp might be able to work as a "sky crane" though its doubtful due to ballast issues (once it drops the tree does it rocket up a few hundred feet with no way to get down other than venting?

But it absolutely would not work for this application as this vehicle is a Heavier than air vehicle, It only stays up if it keeps moving, just like an airplane, only it has to do less work to stay in the air.

Though the water idea isnt half bad, a floating raincloud over fightfighters, might just come in handy, and make things safer.

The Past Perfect Future Tense?

[n8k99]

When do I get my Flying DeLoren?

I hope their new blimp...

[Like2Byte]

doesn't burn up as fast as their servers!

Re:I hope their new blimp...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Carl.

Re:I hope their new blimp...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up, Justin!

Re:I hope their new blimp...

[valkraider]

Who the hell is Mark?

s core : -1, RC "humor"

[Thud457]

Just say no to dope!!!

Re:s core : -1, RC "humor"

[AB3A]

Umm, Moderators, this is actually meant as a joke. See the third definition in the Wikipedia link...

Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[digitaldc]

"Since the terror attacks on our homeland, a need has developed for superior, cost-effective aerial patrolling vehicles for our cities and national borders. Dynalifter® Patrollers are quieter, less expensive, and can fly three times as long as patrolling helicopters. Patrollers can "walk the beat" looking for trouble and call in helicopters for tactical response."

Why is it that inventions always have to have some military/security use in order to be deemed cost-effective or useful? That being said...

I also wonder what would happen if someone shoots at it repeatedly? Would it just pop and fall to the Earth? It must be moving slowly, making it an easy target.
The potential for transporting goods seems like its best use, although I don't think the trucking industry/lobby is going to like it very much. I guess we will see when it is tested in 'real world' scenarios.

I can't get to the article...

[TedTschopp]

But is it something like project Walrus?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/us-cbo -gives-ok-to-hula-airships-for-airlift/index.php#m ore

Re:I can't get to the article...

[g0bshiTe]

Yes they are very similar.

Re:I can't get to the article...

[eyebits]

Conceptually similar. Physically they look different.

Article Content

[Dr. Evil]

Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /home/httpd/vhosts/cantonrep.com/httpdocs/id_array .php on line 3

Warning: mysql_query(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/httpd/vhosts/cantonrep.com/httpdocs/id_array .php on line 8

Warning: mysql_fetch_row(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/httpd/vhosts/cantonrep.com/httpdocs/id_array .php on line 17

Warning: mysql_close(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/httpd/vhosts/cantonrep.com/httpdocs/id_array .php on line 25

Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /home/httpd/vhosts/cantonrep.com/httpdocs/get_stor y.php on line 29
Could not connect: Access denied for user: 'therep_advert@localhost' to database 'cantonrep01'

Finally

[Ixne]

a use for those docking ports at the top of the Empire State Building.

Re:Finally

[Ingolfke]

Dude, the aliens have been using those things for ages now.

at least they didn't mention terrorism as a usage

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice that hurricane Katrina was mentioned as a usage when logistics and lack of equipment wasnt the problem it was poor management with its cronyism, unqualified staff, and massive bureaucracy that slowed the rescue, having a glorified balloon on standby wouldnt of helped the refugees, it would of helped the executives of this project though, that new condo doesnt come cheap especially if it has a pool and hot tub

everytime a new product comes out in USA its use always seems to be justified by the latest disaster of the month/year, i wonder how the victims of such acts feel about all these products being tacked onto their misery, anything for a buck huh

Here's a name for it....

[HotBBQ]

Airplane + Blimp = Airpimp

Congratulations on a job well done

[sagneta]

I'd like to extend my congratulations to all those slashdot denizens that jumped instantly and in unison onto the Canton website listed in this article. They never knew what hit them.

Re:How about helicopters?

[Guppy06]

They have a limited range and a limited flying time, whereas with airships the hard part isn't staying up but coming down.

As it currently stands, supplies have to be shipped towards your target destination by more coventional means that require either a road, a port or a runway in a workable condition, get as close as possible, and then offload everything from the truck/ship/plane and reload it all into a helicopter to move it the last leg of the trip. An airship, on the other hand, could carry supplies cross-country (or even across oceans) all the way to the intended destination without having to offload its cargo along the way.

They also have the potential to carry heavier loads than helicopters.

Too obscure?

[voice_of_all_reason]

"The fools! They should've built it with 7,001 hulls! Oh, when will they learn!"

Re:Too obscure?

[Anonymous Coward]

obligatory futurama quotes are soooo 2005

Re:Too obscure?

[caldodge]

s/7,001/6,001/g

Re:Too obscure?

[Anonymous Coward]

futurama is far from obscure around here.

The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed

[Josh Booth]

This sounds similar to the Deltoid Pumkin Seed, another airplane/blimp hybrid. It was more of a helium-filled flying wing that was tested in the seventies.

Re:The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed

[pclark999]

The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed is a classic of the techie genre. It is also one of the funniest books I have ever read. I give it five stars and two big thumbs up.

Obligatory Final Fantasy Airship Reference

[NetRanger]

Does each airship come with a pilot named Cid?

Re:Obligatory Final Fantasy Airship Reference

[djkuhl]

I'm glad somebody said it. I was beginning to doubt the /. community there for a while.

Re:Obligatory Final Fantasy Airship Reference

[CableModemSniper]

Setzer rocked the airship in six.

RA2

[Anonymous Coward]

YES!!! now the blimps in red alert 2 would actually be usefull!! (takes about 10 minutes to cross a map) ....... if only

Hindenburg

[Phoenix666]

Another thing I don't get about why people don't like dirigibles is the Hindenburg disaster. Every time something comes out about blimps, every Tom, Dick, and Harry screams "Hindenburg." It doesn't make sense that one crash would doom an entire, civilized way to travel. When passenger jets are mentioned, no one screams "Lockerbie" or "9/11" as a reason why we shouldn't fly in airplanes anymore. They just go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make it safer/better. Why are dirigibles held to a different standard? It would be really nice to see people break out of groupthink on this one.

Re:Hindenburg

[smellsofbikes]

Well, more than that, only a fraction of the people died in the Hindenburg crash, and fewer would've died if they hadn't jumped out of the cabin and slammed into the ground, there to be hit by falling debris, but waited in the cabin until it hit the ground, and then ran. Sounds a whole lot better than being on the last five or ten big jetliner crashes, which have an average mortality rate of about 80%. And plus it's a lot harder to ram a blimp into a building and do a lot of damage.

Re:Hindenburg

[jonnythan]

"When passenger jets are mentioned, no one screams "Lockerbie" or "9/11" as a reason why we shouldn't fly in airplanes anymore."

Dude, you're nuts if you think that no one complains about airplane crashes or terrorists when they think about flying. Good lord.

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is that, unlike airplanes, blimps just look stupid and useless so everyone is naturally prejudiced against them. ours is a culture of appearances.

Re:Hindenburg

[CodeShark]

Don't think so on the screaming part.

Most folks know from elementary school at the earliest or high school science at the latest that the Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen, which, while not the main flame source (the skin surrounding the gas bags was) didn't exactly help either.

Most people thing of football games and the goodyear blimp, filled with helium, etc. which people assume to make a dirigible unburnable.

The main problem with dirigibles is WIND and the high drag incurred by the "flying body" shape in anything over a minimal amount of crosswind.

Re:Hindenburg

[Quiet_Desperation]

Yes, but they don't use it to say airplane travel should not exist at all, which was the OP's point.

Re:Hindenburg

[Eadwacer]

There were 97 people on board Hindenburg. 35 of them survived. Compare the helium-filled Akron, which broke up in a storm. 78 people were killed.

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

for some reason the image of the aeroplanes with the 20 sets of wings from that episode of the simpons where Lisa gets her fortune told comes to mind.

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason people complain, History has proven no matter What the Airship / Ballon it will eventually "pop" for lack of a better word, many Aircraft serve for several decades before being pulled ,parted or scrapped due to age.

Re:Hindenburg

[Rob the Bold]

There were 97 people on board Hindenburg. 35 of them survived.

Other way around: 97 people on board, 35 were killed in the disaster. 62 people survived. One person on the ground was also killed.

Also, the Akron crash occurred in the open ocean. Most of the dead were lost to drowning and hypothermia in the rough seas.

Re:Hindenburg

[argStyopa]

I don't think it's 'phear of the t3chn0logy' that's stopping adoption of LTA craft. It's practicality. Right now, the LTA craft provide an unattractive compromise between cost/speed.

If you want it there fast, or if it's really lightweight/small, you ship by truck or air.
If you can wait a long time, or if it's really heavy, you ship it by rail/sea/barge.

LTA craft offer the load capacity of air (poor), at the speed of oceanfreight (slow).

What, aside from some very narrow-range applications (heavy lift of non-urgent bulk cargo into rough undeveloped areas) would this be good for?

Re:Hindenburg

[Phoenix666]

Well, I can think of a few.

As a passenger transport taking a dirigible would be awesome, since you could dock it in a city center instead of having to land in the great back of beyond Long Island and deal with either cabs or the silly AirTrain, or (shudder) Newark. You don't have to fly as high as a 747 so you might actually get to see what you're flying over. Sure it takes longer, and if you're a business traveller you'd probably always opt for the 747. But (and I don't know what the economics of what a ticket would work out to be) maybe the fact that you're using gas instead of thrust to produce lift might translate into cheaper tickets, which would work pretty well in places where people can't afford regular airfare.

You might also arguably create an air cruise line that takes you around to various ports of call. that would be pretty cool too.

Then there are law-enforcement/utility uses too, like hovering in the sky to watch traffic or something. Bet that's much cheaper to do than run a chopper.

Then there are the industrial uses of cargo transport. Yes, a supertanker can carry more, but they can only go seaport to seaport. Then you have to unload/transfer to rolling stock or semis. What about places that are landlocked and/or have poor roads? Central Asia leaps to mind. Dirigibles might make yurts cheaper and more available than ever before.

There's probably many more applications for blimps, but those are just a few off the top of my head.

Re:Hindenburg

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>What, aside from some very narrow-range applications (heavy lift of non-urgent bulk cargo into rough undeveloped areas) would this be good for?

That's a pretty good description of military resupply and of weeks 2-N of disaster relief. It's a narrower range of applications than container ships, yes, but should be enough to support a production line if the concept works.

Re:Hindenburg

[Chatsubo]

Because there were a lot of scares and incidents with airships before the Hindenburg crash. The Hindenburg crash itself was just the very public straw that broke the camel's back. It couldn't have happened at a worse time really, because public faith in airships were at a low point, even though, over the course of their operation, the airships were quite safe.

Re:Hindenburg

[Sigg3.net]

Yes, but the images of the burning Hindenburger was well covered in newspapers all over the world. In addition, Hitler was using the Zeppeliners as an icon of Arian progress, which (of course ridiculous still) "forced" people to look at other solutions. You couldn't support Hitler.

A National Geographics documentary on the catastrophe, said that it could've been the paint on the vessel that caused it to catch fire so quickly. I mean, it had already proven to be quite a safe trip (Europe->America etc.)

Think about the Concorde.
It had 1 crash and we abandoned the project. 1 crash!
Why haven't the Boing been thus treated?

Re:Hindenburg

[sjames]

Actually, LTA craft can offer much larger capacities than air cargo. They don't expend fuel to stay aloft, and don't have to be as streamlined as an airplane. They also don't require inter-modal transportation for endpoints that aren't coastal.

Re:Hindenburg

[sjames]

I've often wished we had airship passenger service. I'd rather spend a day or so in an airship with a piano bar and a nice recliner than 4 hours strapped into a glorified sardine can with my knees under my chin (that may be an exageration, but it sure feels like that).

As a side benefit, they would be great in tropical areas where practical aircraft cannot take off on a hot day due to reduced lift. While an airship would also have reduced lift, it's much more practical to build one with enough excess capacity to manage it.

Another junk patent

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is slashdotted so the following is just conjecture on my part.

The idea of filling an airframe with helium is obvious. It had occured to me when I was a child. I'm sure it has occured to a lot of other people as well. The trick is to build something that works economically. For the time being at least, finding a way to make money from something obvious is not patentable.

It's not part anything

[gelfling]

It's an airship. Period.

Re:It's not part anything

[timeOday]

No, because it's significantly heavier than air. It can't stay aloft without its wings.

The web page is coming in now...

[phpWebber]

Oh, it's crashing...oh, four or five hundred kilobytes per second, and it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. There's a white screen, and there's database errors, now, and the browser is crashing to the desktop ...Oh, the humanity, and all the sysadmins screaming around here!"

Re:The web page is coming in now...

[TubeSteak]

Oh, it's crashing...oh, four or five hundred kilobytes per second, and it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. There's a white screen,

For a second there, I thought you were talking about the dynalifter

Emergnecy uses = very few

[stienman]

They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies.

Until some idiot shoots at it.

-Adam

Re:Emergnecy uses = very few

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be filled with helium, witch doesn't burn, and it has a frame within dso it doesn't collapse

Re:Emergnecy uses = very few

[Short Circuit]

I don't know a whole lot about airships, but wouldn't a big, rigid balloon hold up to gunfire more effectively than a helicopter packed with sensitive mechanics and electronics? A cloth skin would be easier to patch than a metal one.

It's not like it would pop...if they want maximum bouyancy, they'd keep the envelope's pressure as low as possible; The less mass per volume, the better their numbers.

Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Since I haven't been able to read TFA due to the /. effect, I will have to make a few assumptions...)

Over time many people have tried reintroducing the zeppelin class airship (CargoLifter, Zeppelin NT, etc.). They have mostly failed to come up with a convincing airship design for moving heavy cargo long distances. The problem is not engine power or raw lift capacity, it is ballast.

For an airship to be able to fly, its lifting capability must be higher than the weight of the airship itself and any cargo (d'uh!).

Lift can come from engines (propellers or jets directed downwards), pockets in the airship body filled with Helium and lift created by the body of the airship flowing through the air (liftbody).

Trouble is:

If you use Helium for lift capacity, you have a problem when you unload the cargo. You either have to add X tons of ballast or new cargo, equal to the weight you just unloaded, or reduce lift by venting Helium. At the current price for Helium that is a really, really expensive option.

If you use engine power to provide lift, your fuel costs and logistics of the thing will kill you. Try providing several hundred metric tonnes of lift using conventional engine technology. Hint: A fully loaded Saturn V moon rocket weighs in at around 2,900 metric tonnes. Scale engine power as needed. 1/10th the engine power of a Saturn V is still a very impressive piece of engineering.

If you use the shape of the airship fuselage to provide lift as it is pushed through the air (liftbody technology), you are in trouble at takeoff and during landings. If the airship has a reasonable cruising speed at altitude, then you will be missing enourmous amounts of lift at takeoff. Once in the air, how do you land without reducing your airspeed? Modern airplanes reshapes the airfoil profile of their wings via the use of flaps and slats to balance lift with airspeed.

I have never heard about a satisfying solution to this very serious problems with these so-called heavy lifter next-gen airships. Maybe because there isn't one...?

Methinks someone is fishing for government or corporate funding for a dead-end project.

AC.

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[0xABADC0DA]

Or you could just compress the helium. And if the tank is inside the "air-sub" theb loss from helium leaking through the container would be minimized.

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[Rob the Bold]

Trouble is: . . .

To add one more problem to the list: Aircraft using buoyancy don't scale down well. It's hard to get started in the buoyant craft business on a small scale. When I was a kid, I so desperately wanted to build a scale zeppelin that I could fly. I was crushed to discover that it took roughly 1 cubic meter of helium to lift 1 kg (at 1 g).

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[valkraider]

I have never heard about a satisfying solution to this very serious problems with these so-called heavy lifter next-gen airships. Maybe because there isn't one...?

Methinks someone is fishing for government or corporate funding for a dead-end project.

You're right. We should just give up. I mean if YOU haven't heard of a solution - there must not be one...

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have written elsewhere, then you could make a heavier-than-air airship, which requires a certain take-off speed. But then the virtues of an airship are lost, and it degenerates to a slow airplane, though with a very large volume and weight capacity.

There may be some types of cargo, for which a ship would be too slow and an Antonov AN-225 too small, but so far the Russians haven't found enough business for their single AN-225 to justify building more of them.

If 'hover with cargo' is not in the picture, then what good is it? Unless you can rewrite the laws of physics, then a hovering airship will suddently feel the force of 150 tonnes of positive boyancy when it offloads 150 tonnes. Express elevator to Heaven! Going up!

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you could. You lower the cargo container, all 150 tonnes of it, to the ground, using it as an anchor. Then you proceed and wait, sitting there while you compresses a bit more than 150,000 cubic metres of Helium to several hundres atmospheres, cooling the resultant gas and putting it in your storage tank.

150,000 cubic metres is a cube a bit more than 53 metres on a side. How large a compressor did you say you were able to fit on-board your airship? Will give us an idea of how many days you will be hovering there.

You might also want to consider the energy required to compress the Helium. It will not be insignificant.

The same AC.

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[macdaddy357]

Here's a solution: If helium just won't do the job, use hydrogen. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[John Biggabooty]

Oh the humanity!!

Re:Have they solved the ballast issue yet?

[tehdaemon]

One hydrogen atom is about 1/4 the weight of helium. But it is diatomic, (two hydrogen atoms stick together) so your effective weight difference is only half.

Bouyancy is related to the difference in weight of the gas to that of air. Air is 70% nitrogen, which is also diatomic, relative weights then are 28 for nitrogen, 4 for helium and 2 for hydrogen. Hydrogen then gives you 28-2=26 units of lift to helium's 28-4=24 units. or about 8% better. Not all that much. Hydrogen burns easily, is cheap and can be generated in flight easily. Helium does not burn. Neither are particularly easy to handle/store. These differences tend to mean much more than the 8% extra lift.

The Hindenburg did not use hydrogen for better lift. It used it because the US would not sell helium to Germany (most helium is in Texas)

yes, I know you were just making a bad joke....

Hybrid????

[erbmjw]

Ummm what part of this airship is plane like? 2% ... maybe 5% on a good day? How does that makew this a hybrid? It's a blimp with tiny wings that are control surfaces; because it seems to me that the amount of lift the wings could provide, would be insignifigant. I have seen concepts of a delta wing blimp - that could reasonably be called a hybrid ariship-plane

Re:Hybrid????

[RingDev]

The linked to article doesn't have much to it, but the ohio airships site has some more info. The vessle is not boyant like a blimp. Fully loaded on helium with no cargo it will sit on a runway with a 30 knot cross wind. (or so they claim)

-Rick

Re:Hybrid????

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumors say the military is/has been working on something similar. People have nicknamed them "Big Black Deltas".

Re:Hybrid????

[Rob the Bold]

Ummm what part of this airship is plane like?

Still haven't seen TFA, but the pictures at ohio-airships.com show a craft that appears to be a lifting body.

Re:Hybrid????

[erbmjw]

Finally was able to read more about this craft.

It seems to be a aircraft that utilizes it's lighter-than-air-cavity as a signifigant structure of it's primary airfoil - this means that the airfoil and the engines are providing the lift capacity.

An airship's primary means of lift is bouyancy - this craft does not seem to use bouyancy as it's primary means of lift.

If this craft could stay above the ground, even with the use of a secondary lighter-than-air cavity to give it the required bouyancy, then it would be an airship. Similairly if it was possible for this aircraft to lose the weight of an engine or two and then become bouyant enough to rise above the ground without the use of lift I could see why they are calling it a hybrid airship/plane

If the aircraft:
1)reduced all uneccessary weight{ ie weight reduction in gondala, engines, control mechanisms, etc};
2)without altering the structure or weight of the airfoil;
3)and could still not get aloft on bouyancy;
then it is an aerodyne, not an airship nor a hybrid airship/plane.

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[YrWrstNtmr]

Why is it that inventions always have to have some military/security use in order to be deemed cost-effective or useful?

Because that's a good way to get the government to pay part of your R&D costs.

I also wonder what would happen if someone shoots at it repeatedly? Would it just pop and fall to the Earth? It must be moving slowly, making it an easy target

Of course...no one in the entire development stream ever thought of an airmachine, at least partially for military use, ever getting shot at.
Not once. They will thank you for reminding them of that possibility. Now they'll have to change the entire design.

The potential for transporting goods seems like its best use, although I don't think the trucking industry/lobby is going to like it very much.

Too bad. Either they can a) suck it up and adapt, or b) build a fleet of their own and compete.

Who remembers the "Aereon"?

[cayle clark]

Back in 1963 (!) the great documentary writer John McPhee published The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed, telling how, to quote from the editorial review on the Amazon book page,

...in the 1960s, an unusual band of inventors, engineers and investors ... created the Aereon, a strange, wingless hybrid airplane/dirigible. The Aereon--the Deltoid Pumpkin Seed-- promised to be a safe workhorse of the skies, capable of carrying the payload of entire freight trains with minimal cost. ... McPhee ... makes us wonder why this promising technology hasn't been perfected.

From the pix of this thing, it is a long way from the elegance of the "Aereon".

Re:Who remembers the "Aereon"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Aereon company still exists, and is still plugging away on their airship design.

http://www.aereoncorp.com/

Re:Who remembers the "Aereon"?

[Jaxoreth]

I think everyone remembers -- the whole dot-com craze was pretty recent.

You could say

[Anonymous Coward]

What fits in a spot at right of W (portward of R) on my comp's manual word input isn't working right now.

Re:You could say

[enrgeeman]

I'm using dvorak, you insensitive clod!

"IT IS BALLOOOOOOOOOON!!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"IT IS BALLOOOOOOOOOON!!!!"
- Chief Wild Eagle from F-Troop tv series

Remeber details of Katrina

[SirLanse]

After Katrina lots of highways were covered in debris. You could not get a truck into many places. Choppers are fast, but it cost a bundle to get a lot of payload someplace. (When you have massively stupid dems like LA and NO have, you have to be able to cover for them quickly. MS, AL, FL and TX did not as many problems.) They do not have any specs because they only have a small prototype. Go to dynalifter.com and see.

Re:Remeber details of Katrina

[valkraider]

Nice to see you bring politics into a nice discussion about logistics....

Cargolifter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the failed Cargolifter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolifter. The company intended to build a large Zeppelin for heavy transports to destinations unreachable by ship. It proved to be infeasible. The design had to compromise payload versus ceiling, and had severe operating limitations (e.g., high winds). At the same time, the market (such as oil rigs in remote locations) was too small to support the endeavour.

Blimp/Airplane AND Web site can't go supersonic

[xmas2003]

The website has been /.'ed, so I assume the blimp/airplane moves about as fast at their web site currently is. I.e. not quite supersonic like this B-1 Bomber exhibiting how Jet Noise is the Sound of Freedom!

Dear Lord!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear lord look at that blimp! He's hanging from a balloon!

The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin Seed"

[wintermute42]

The idea of hybrid lighter than air lifting and an aerodynamic hull has been around for a while. In his 1963 book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed essayist and journalist John McPhee covers the story the the Aereon, which was an early avitar of the dynalifter. There was a brief resurgence of interest in this aircraft design during the oil crisis in the 1970s. It now seems to be back once again now that oil has risen in price.

One of the things that those pushing this design may not be mentioning is that increasinly helium is both scarse and a strategic resource. Helium is actually "mined" from underground domes where it has been trapped (I assume formed from radioactive decay). If fleets of airships were helilum based, the price of helium would seen rise to the point where the airships were no longer cost effective. The alternative is hydrogen, but as the Hindenburg demonstrated, hydrogen has its own problems. These issues could be the reason that after over three decades this idea has not caught on.

Re:How about helicopters?

[GecKo213]

Helicopters have a large down daft that can cause problems. Blimps don't seem to have that problem.

"More blimpy"?

[roystgnr]

What exactly is this quality of "blimpiness" you want to improve? The important characteristic of blimps is their buoyancy without cargo, and blimps become more buoyant if they carry a higher volume of gas or if they have less structural mass. Blimps are designed to look "puffed up" only because that shape reduces the structural mass necessary to support a given volume of gas, and a shape-changing structure would be more massive still.

Re:"More blimpy"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be right if this article wasn't about blimp-airplane hybrid.

With deformable body you can achieve "blimp feature" - ship lighter than air capable of hower - AND "airplane feature" - ship heavier than air capable of flight.

When in "airplane mode" the helium/hydrogen would be pressurized - making the whole ship heavier than air. It would have less volume than in "blimp mode" - resulting in less drag and therefore having better speed and better resistance to wind ...

Sorry, but without deformable body the whole "concept" is just a blimp with wings attached ...

Re:"More blimpy"?

[ibbey]

Sorry, but without deformable body the whole "concept" is just a blimp with wings attached ...

Um, no. I know it's absurd to expect an AC to RTFA, but please, RTFA. Blimps are lighter then air. The Dynalifter is heavier then air. Basically, the Dynalifter is an airplane, but it uses helium to reduce it's overall weight giving it a much greater hauling capacity for its weight and fuel consumption.

This is essentially the DARPA "Walrus" Project

[astroroach]

http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/walrus.htm There is definitely military potential, since DARPA already has a project based on the same concepts. "The Walrus program will develop and evaluate a very large airlift vehicle concept that is designed to control lift in all stages of air or ground operations including off-loading of payload without taking onboard ballast other than air. Unlike earlier generation airships it will generate lift through a combination of aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and gas buoyancy generation and management and for much of the time, it will fly heavier than air."

More curious

[MythoBeast]

This is interesting, but the links seem to leave out a lot of very important specifications. Things like approximated air speed, load limitations for the various proposed sizes, fuel efficiency, takeoff and landing airstrip length and whatnot. It would be great if they could be used to get a lot of our trucks off the road, but if the fuel efficiency is worse per pound of freight then it won't make sense. I doubt it'll ever match railroad efficiency, but it should have more flexibility.

I would be particularly curious to see if you could combine it with thin-film photovoltics to create a self-powering electric

Re:More curious

[krysolid]

If you consider the value of the land under the railroad tracks
and the maintenance on same ... the cost goes way up I would
think compared to this ... not to mention there are lots
of places railroads do not go.

Blimp in a hurricane?

[timeOday]

They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies.

There's something wrong about the idea of a blimp in a hurricane, just can't put my finger on it :)

But seriously, I wonder if they have run the numbers to determine whether this is more efficient than trucking. It doesn't seem impossible when you include the cost of roads, and real estate for roads.

Also, a steady stream of payload-moving craft overhead might even be a workable platform for broadband connectivity. There are already several companies working on using airships as wireless relay platforms, but perhaps the idea would be more economically feasible if the airships are making money in two different ways.

Re:Blimp in a hurricane?

[cowscows]

You may have just been being silly, hard to tell with just text, but just to comment:

During an actual hurricane, there's not much of anything going on in terms of official rescue. The rescue crews know they can't do much in the middle of all that chaos. Once the wind gets going, you're pretty much on your own until the storm passes.

Or in the case of New Orleans, your on your own until about four days after the storm passes.

will it be called...

[ronsta]

pimp?

Re:Have your cake and EAT it too!? For shame!

[GecKo213]

It's kind of hard to get everything you want in one package. You could always join the military and then after boot camp you'd be able to take a seat on a cargo plane to anywhere in the world you want to go that the miltary are headed. Of course it's kind of like standby, but you can fly for Free and Cargo planes have TONS of knee room! Or you could take a boat and take a bit longer to get there. Wait! Back to the Military thing, maybe you could get a Nuclear Sub to take you accross the ocean. It may be a bit longer, but you may get into underwater conflicts.

We can call it...

[lonasindi]

The Plimp! 'How are you getting to france?' 'Oh, I'm plimping!'

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[jonnythan]

"Why is it that inventions always have to have some military/security use in order to be deemed cost-effective or useful?"

Because the defense industry spends four and a half fuck-tons of money, so they fund a lot of this stuff.

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I also wonder what would happen if someone shoots at it repeatedly? Would it just pop and fall to the Earth? It must be moving slowly, making it an easy target. "

It would zip all over the place in crazy directions at very high velocity until the coyote fell off a cliff & a huge rock fell on him. MEEP MEEP

John McPhee wrote about this

[smellsofbikes]

in a brilliant book called "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed." He writes about an extraordinary variety of subjects, from rustlers to growing orange trees in Florida, although much of his work is about geology. But TDPS was/is entirely about this airframe and its evolution through the '60's and '70's, and includes some great material about flight into known icing conditions, the stuff that dooms small aircraft. blimps and dirigibles can often accumulate eight inches of ice and keep flying. (A small Cessna is screwed if you put on 1/2" of ice, and a jetliner isn't much better.) McPhee also wrote a lot about the quarter-scale and tenth-scale flying models of the hybrid lifting body. It's a fantastic book, and as is usual with McPhee, turns into a book about obsession and human devotion to ideas, rather than just being about the ideas themselves.

Re:John McPhee wrote about this

[jefu]

If you have not read this book, it is very much worth reading (as is most of John McPhee's writing). Highly recommended.

Re:John McPhee wrote about this

[smellsofbikes]

I'm famous among my friends and even people who barely know me, for saying "John McPhee wrote about that" for almost any topic. Baby bears? Forensic geology? WWII Japanese balloon bombs? Shad? Precision excavation using shaped nuclear charges? Stopping flowing lava with seawater? Bush flying in remote Alaska wilderness? Life on Mississippi tugboats? Philosophy of environmental activism? Yep, he wrote a book about that.

One of my friends took a graduate-level course in English Composition, purely focussing on McPhee. How cool is that, to have a major college teaching a semester class about your writing?

Re:John McPhee wrote about this

[3waygeek]

Me too -- great minds read alike.

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[taskforce]

I would have expected Slashdotters to look at the pictures... It has fixed wings. See.

Business model needs reworking

[Anonimouse]

The article is a bit light on the details but from what I can see i don't think the businesss will be taking off anytime soon. I don't they'll ever get to float the company even with major backing.

SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of erroneous information on this /. discussion. Allow me to correct several misconceptions.

1) The concept of a hybrid airship is older than the "Pumpkin Seed". Some of the earliest work was performed by Howard Hughes with his "Mega Lifter" concept. The Dynalifter has several unique twists, most significant of which is its use of "stayed-bridge" architectural concepts that will allow large point load masses.

2) The Dynalifter is not a blimp: it is a hybrid airship. Approximately 48% of its lift is aerostatic (helium) and 52% is aerodynamic. As a result, it takes off and lands like a normal airplane. The heavy freighter design uses 8 engines for take off (3 on each wing, one on each canard wing) and cruises with 2-4 engines engaged.

3) Its cruising speed is 90 knots (max speed is 120 knots) in the current heavy freighter design.

4) It can carry a payload of 320,000 pounds in a detachable cargo bay measuring 150x40x15 feet (volume of 90,000 cubic feet).

5) Range is 3200 nm with a full payload.

6) Aircraft size is 990x168x21 feet.

7) There are many, many possibilities for this airship: both commercial and military.

Please mod this up if you find this informative. Thanks.

-- from someone who knows a lot more than the Canton reporter ;)

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[monkeydo]

-- from someone who knows a lot more than the Canton reporter ;)

But choses to post AC.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[rabel]

4) It can carry a payload of 320,000 pounds in a detachable cargo bay measuring 150x40x15 feet (volume of 90,000 cubic feet).

Daaammnnn... you sure about all that? A 777 can only carry 5,720 cubic feet and it's a huge aircraft. Seems like 90,000 cubic feet is WAAAY too much. Perhaps you miscalculated somewhere? If not, holy-moses, that's hella cargo. Would revolutionize air cargo if they could make it work.

I assume the freight charges would be greater than ocean freight, but less than air freight at approximately 3X the time of air freight, which would be significantly faster than ocean freight. That would be a HUGE deal and allow ports to be built inland on cheap land, rather than at the ocean.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Range is 3200 nm with a full payload.

For all your intermolecular transportation needs.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[demigod]

Range is 3200 nm with a full payload.

3200 nm, that not far, ... let's see a human hair is about 50,000 nanometers thick ...

Oh, you must mean Nautical miles :-)

So almost 6000 km, not bad.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[multipartmixed]

> Range is 3200 nm with a full payload.

You know, if I had to move a heavy object 3200 nanometers, I'd just hire a couple of high school kids. Bound to be cheaper.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you are including the passenger area.

A C-5 Galaxy has a cargo area of:

Cargo Compartment: height , 13.5 feet (4.11 meters); width, 19 feet (5.79 meters); length, 143 feet, 9 in (43.8 meters

Giving it 36679.5 cubic feet of space.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/c-5_facts.htm

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long a runway will a 300 metres long Dynalifter need to get up to the 90mph required to build up the aerodynamic lift?

Or, to put it differently, if the Dynalifter requires a long, wide and strong runway for takeoff and landing, much of the promised utility of airships goes out the window. In particular there will be no hovering over disaster areas (or military outposts) while dumping hundreds of tonnes of supplies.

Then you might as well buy a couple of Antonov AN-225's from the russians, no? They would be both faster and probably cheaper too.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[ray-auch]

Not sure where you get your figures but I think a 777 freighter is acutally well over 20,000cu ft cargo volume, and is a long way off the biggest cargo aircraft.

The A300-600ST is close to 50,000cu ft, the AN-225 is, I think, a bit smaller on volume, but can take a lot more weight.

So, 90,000 doesn't sound too far fetched. In fact it doesn't sound like that big a revolution at all - especially as it will be a lot slower. Only way it may score is if it turns out to be a _lot_ cheaper.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[johnny cashed]

lest he be accused of karma whoring.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[lobsterGun]

I prefer to think of it as 29460 furlongs.

That's a much more impressive number, if you ask me.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[lobsterGun]

And in case you're wondering

90 knots works out to 278400 furlongs/fortnight.

This thing really moves out!

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[AviLazar]

You know, if I had to move a heavy object 3200 nanometers, I'd just hire a couple of high school kids. Bound to be cheaper.

I am more industrious, i would just bump into it.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[monkeydo]

...or providing reliable information.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[Sarisar]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[budgenator]

90 MPH, hell just tie on a parachute and kick the shit out the back door. We kick trucks out the back door now, disaster supplies would be no problem, the chute would even be usable as a tent. If the Antonov AN-225 is a rugged as my lubitel 2 camera is, they outa last for about a century.

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long a runway will a 300 metres long Dynalifter need to get up to the 90mph required to build up the aerodynamic lift?

Or, to put it differently, if the Dynalifter requires a long, wide and strong runway for takeoff and landing, much of the promised utility of airships goes out the window.

It shouldn't need a strong runway, or a particularly long one. After all a fully laden 747 will weigh more than this one, as the weight of the aircraft is offset by the helium. I imagine a 747 needs more than 90mph to get off the runway also. Width is probably the only thing, as it has a large profile, but then every runway I've seen has lots of empty space around it to account for potential accidents...

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[writermike]

5) Range is 3200 nm with a full payload.

3200 NANOMETERS?!?!??!?!?!? ;-)

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

> 5) Range is 3200 nm with a full payload.

Wow, ideal for short trips or like uh... out-of-body experiences.

> 6) Aircraft size is 990x168x21 feet.

Isn't this supposed to fly? Why that many feet? What about some 22x49x13 wings?

> 7) There are many, many possibilities for this airship: both commercial and military.

Boys, don't know about your technical skills... but your PR sucks major!

> Please mod this up if you find this informative. Thanks.

Is there a +5, Ridiculous?

Re:SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

Take off can be accomplished in 3500 ft.

Cousin Oliver

[brianerst]

Good Lord, Cousin Oliver is designing airships now?

I mean, I know he eventually turned out to be a physics genius, what with inventing time travel and all, but still... Can you imagine 12 channels of Brady Kids music in coach? *shudder*

Grammar Nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

...more experiane THAN....

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[MasterC]

I would have expected Slashdotters to look at the pictures... It has fixed wings. See. [cantonrep.com]

I did...

http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Images/Plan%20Pic ture%203d.jpg

and not the conceptual picture like you linked, but what they've actually got (if that's a conceptual, then that's some damn good CG).

Regardless, fixed wings do not make an airplane. Clearly the fuselage is not a rigid body and the "wings" are more like structs that support the engines and they don't appear to provide any appreciable lift (if any at all).

Again, my point stands: it's not a hybrid (it contracts the two key points that define an airplane: heavier-than-air & wings that produce the bulk of the lift) but a soup'ed up blimp.

Yup, it's a dup

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Jeez guys post something new for a change.

Basic Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina

Am I the only one thinking.... Hello? Blimp? Hurricane? Is that a combination you want to throw out as part of a business stragedy?

Re:Basic Logic

[omahajim]

Ya think they might wait til it passed?

Re:Basic Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks as if poorly tossed lawn dart (or sight-challenged avian) would drop this like an M&M balloon at a Macy's Day parade

Why not hybridize helicopter or swivel props

[krysolid]

seems like the veritical force is more what they need for
a lifter?

Re:Have your cake and EAT it too!? For shame!

[AKAImBatman]

Him: "I am over 6'2(185 cm)"

You: "Back to the Military thing, maybe you could get a Nuclear Sub to take you accross the ocean."

Him: "Owwww! My aching back! I wish I could stand up and stret... OWWWWW!!! MY HEAD!"

There's a reason why there's a size limit for submarine duty. ;-)

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[sco08y]

The potential for transporting goods seems like its best use, although I don't think the trucking industry/lobby is going to like it very much.

It would have the same problem as freight trains: rather difficult to find a parking spot.

Another fiction source: The Big Lifters, by Ing

[unfortunateson]

Dean Ing's "The Big Lifters" deals with multi-mode transportation, including more-efficient trucks for rail-depot to customer transport, delta dirigibles that could 'snag' containers from moving trains, and a reusable launch vehicle that carries virtually no fuel (I'll let you read the book to find out how it launches).

And to top it off, the book has a plot too!
You can probably find this book at half.com or bloated e-tailers named after rivers.

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[Luckster7]

The alternative is hydrogen, but as the Hindenburg demonstrated, hydrogen has its own problems.

No, the Hindenburg demonstrated that painting your blimp with iron oxide and aluminium-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate dope is just not a good idea. These chemicals are also known as thermite/sold rocket propellent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#I nitial_fuel_for_combustion

Re:Lifting body blimps already exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to inform these entrepreneurs that TRUE lifting body blimps already exist (not just blimps with wings). The US Airforce already has such aircraft in their so called "black projects". People have mistakenly reported these black triangles as UFOs for years now.

I would guess that one of the major aerospace defense corps have the technology all locked up and would crush anyone commercially once the technoloy becomes common place. So I wouldn't invest a dime in the Dynalifter since it would be DOA.

cargolifter redux

[avi33]

2001:
CargoLifter AG based to the South of Berlin in Germany is developing "Lighter-than-Air" systems for logistics and other applications. The Company's first product, the CL 75 AC balloon based system has been in prototype flight test since October 2001.

2002:
For reasons of insolvency the CargoLifter AG Board of Managing Directors today filed an application for the opening of insolvency proceedings on the assets of CargoLifter AG at the Cottbus District Court.

I'm not saying it can't, or shouldn't be done, it makes sense on some levels, i.e. not having to ship your tons of goods via truck->rail->boat->rail->truck, but I remember reading about the operation mentioned above a few years back. It was no garage business, they had a wealthy shipping magnate with a lot of vertical expertise, a slew of aerospace engineers, and a ton of capital.

The problem, IIRC, was that the infrastructure to handle these things (big hangars) are gone, and real estate is too valuable to go around scooping it up near transportation hubs, where they could be integrated into existing systems. I think they went broke, not because the airships were too costly to build, but there weren't any other facilities to land/unload/service the things, and they had to build those too. The problem is easy to spot when you look at their plans.

Re:cargolifter redux

[flanman]

Good points.

I seem to remember that someone was looking to implement these in Canada and Northern Europe to service remote locations with no or limited road access.

I can certainly see the issues of securing big chunks of land in urban centres, but what about some place in the middle of nowhere?

Seems reasonable that someone could figure out how to economically service them.

Re:cargolifter redux

[avi33]

I suspect it would have to do with the ratio between size and useful lift.

From what I've seen, the payload area on most blimps is probably 1% of the size of the membrane. So, for every box that you wanted to carry, you'd need 100 'boxes' of helium.

Of course those are bogus numbers, but the point is, you have to have to have a shelter for something 100 times bigger than what you want to carry. If you have to build a shelter like that in a remote place, then it's probably going to get a road in the process.

It would be interesting if you could have a retractable shelter or deflatable airship to make it a little more hardy and self-sufficient.

Re:cargolifter redux

[Marsala]

The infrastrcuture might not be a problem (at least in the US). It looks like the ship relies on its wings for a substantial portion of its lift, so it will probably need a runway for takeoff and landing just like any other plane.

With a lot of the military restructuring in the US, there are more than a few bases from the Cold War that are now basically unused. Most of these are being sold to local governments to reclaim as business parks (like Brooks in San Antonio) or airports (like Bergstrom in Austin, TX). Most interesting are the ones that used to be logistics centers as they've got everything you'd need (runways, hangars, functioning rail lines, and easy access to the interstate) and are probably located in a good spot to be a hub for geographical distribution.

Not as useful as TFA would have you believe . . .

[mmell]

but useful nonetheless. Think: the United States government still has several million cubic feet of helium stored up (in New Mexico or Nevada, IIRC) - it was a military supply during WWII, and our military is one of the biggest pack-rats on the planet. If nothing else, perhaps this could help our military offload all of that helium.

For military operations, this thing would be little better than an orientation target. From a rescue perspective, well . . . only if you can guarantee me calm winds at the emergency site! That sucker looks like it could have a truly bad time in a 40kt wind - not that a helicopter is especially easy to control under those circumstances, but at least it's possible.

I see an excellent consumer market here; not unlike one of those holiday train rides or, better still, a sea cruise. Sure! The thing's big enough, stable enough - I might fancy a two-week cross-country trip aboard a luxuriously-appointed airship. After all, with helium I suspect they could rack up an excellent safety record (remember: Der Hindenburg burned - helium doesn't).

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[0xABADC0DA]

Helium is just a place-holder. You make some ships and prove that they work and are cheap, then you replace the helium with hydrogen. It can even be generated from the ship's fuel if there are slow leaks. The hindenberg's shell burned, not the hydrogen. Hydrogen can plenty safe in airships with the right designs... far safer than using thousands of gallons of jet fuel. You aren't going to shoot a hydrogen airship with a handgun (or a rocket for that matter) and have it explode.

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[jafiwam]

That's CG.

The shadows are all wrong, and the grass looks like something out of Battlefield 2... aside from that, it looks like the thing is TOO BIG to fit in that hangar in the pic.

It'll be cool to have a new air-design though. Fixed, rotory and LTA craft are sort of it so far. Moller hasn't produced anything, and so on. It would make for interesting new uses that's for sure.

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[Control Group]

Actually, it is a hybrid. The wings are use to produce lift, necessary because the vehicle is heavier-than-air. The "blimp" part of the concept just means that it's not much heavier than (the volume of) air (displaced), which, of course, is why the lifting surfaces can be so small.

So, it is heavier-than-air (they say fully charged with helium, it stays grounded in a 30 knot crosswind), and it does use wings to provide lift. Perhaps not the bulk of the lift, but a necessary portion thereof - which makes sense, for a hybrid, because if it perfectly met both your standards of planehood, then it would just be (wait for it) a plane.

This puppy is slow

[EmbeddedJanitor]

A passenger aircraft cannot go much slower than a 747 and attract passengers. This thing has a bunch of things that will make it a dud as a passenger carrier.
It will be too slow. A fast aircraft needs a pretty rigid skin to prevent distortion/ripping.

Even though it is not filled with hydrogen, people will still have Hindenberg images in their heads when they buy their tickets.

Although these things are designed to be landed like airplanes, they can't tolerate morer than 30knots of crosswind. That's pathetic. You can't operate a passenger service that will require complicated docking procedures above 30 knots.

Re:This puppy is slow

[Bombcar]

Demonstrated maximum crosswind component on a 747 is only 31 knots. With a crosswind that high you will use another runway.

Re:This puppy is slow

[John Frink]

30 knots of crosswind eh? how often do you see that, not to often. for starters, in order to get a 30kt crosswind at an airport that has runways 90 degrees from each other (quite common) you would need a 22 knot wind at 45 degrees to a runway which is worst case scenario. (for you metric freak out there that's 40 kph) Not too common unless you are in the middle of a thunderstorm or hurricane or there is a cold front passing (in which case wait 1/2 hour). Besides, aircraft of the World War I era didn't have rudders so they had a maximum demonstrated crosswind landing component of ZERO so the temporary solution was to have a large field where the planes could take off and land in any direction hence the name airfield.

PS most light aircraft have a maximum demonstrated crosswind component of 15 knots.

Re:This puppy is slow

[xMilkmanDanx]

don't you mean 44 knot wind at 45 degrees for a 30 knot crosswind component?

Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Inominate]

The Hindenburg wasn't all that bad. The people who died were mostly the people who jumped. Burning hydrogen rises quickly, keeping the passengers safe despite the inferno.

It's remembered because it's one of the first spectacular disasters caught on film.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[MrNougat]

Flashy because of its insanely combustible hydrogen filling. I'm pretty sure no one uses hydrogen to inflate dirigibles anymore. They use helium, which is insanely inert.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[johnny cashed]

They used hydrogen, because the US has a virtual monopoly on helium. The US would not sell the Germans helium. Anyone can make hydrogen. It does give a little more lift, but as we all know, it burns.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Tiggan]

Actually, the ship burned thanks to the paint being pretty much solid rocket booster fuel.
http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm
The silver appearance of the Hindenburg was due to a surface varnish of powdered aluminum in a paint formula that resembles the chemistry of modern solid booster rocket fuel.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[rossifer]

Actually, the real problem with the Hindenberg was the decision to stiffen the outer skin with a paint that was essentially hardened kerosene. As in what we use for modern jet fuel.

Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame. All of the exciting footage showed lots of bright yellow flame from... the burning of the envelope.

It does give a little more lift, but as we all know, it burns.

Two points. First, hydrogen gives twice the lift of helium. A 100% bonus for the same sized envelope. Second, it only burns in the presence of oxygen (or another gaseous oxidizer). If the envelope is made from a nonflammable membrane impermeable to oxygen (any membrane decent at retaining hydrogen is completely impermeable to oxygen), explosions and dramatic flames become vanishingly unlikely.

The Hindenberg had problems, to be sure. IMHO, however, the use of hydrogen wasn't one of them.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[SatanicPuppy]

Hydrogen, like a lot of flammable stuff, only burns well in an oxygen-rich environment. You could stand inside a hydrogen blimp with a magnesium flare and nothing significant would happen, the same way you can put out a match in a cup of gasoline, if there is some wind to carry away the vapor.

As someone mentioned above, the problem with the Hindenburg was the fact that the skin of the blimp was itself flammable...The hydrogen inside the blimp couldn't have exploded without the addition of a ton of pure oxygen. But the pictures of the Hindenburg pretty much associated Hydrogen and fiery death in everyone's minds, even to the point where many people have a knee-jerk fear reaction toward hydrogen cars, when petroleum is no less dangerous. It's a shame, because Hydrogen is much more efficient than Helium for lighter-than-air tranports.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

not twice the lift - 10% more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[johnny cashed]

as AC pointed out, it is a 10% bonus not 100%. I'm not going to dispute the flammability of the skin, but the color of the resulting flame isn't indicitive of much. Hydrogen burning in air at STP is virtually colorless (I've been burned because I couldn't see the flame in daylight). It is a very pale blue. Much like putting sodium chloride on a platinum wire in a flame, and you'll understand my point on the color of the resulting flame.

Air and Space magazine did an article on airships a long time ago. They had an ancedote about a goodyear blimp being shot with a rifle while it was flying. They said that atmospheric air would actually flow into the blimp because it is less dense. While I'm sure it depends on the geometry of the specific situation, I would not want atmospheric air to enter my hydrogen lifted airship/blimp. The bullet holes were small enough that it didn't affect the flight of the blimp.

That said, The US still had a strangle hold on helium at the time. The only way that helium is produced on earth is through radioactive decay. It is recovered from natural gas that is under Texas. I'm sure it occurs elsewhere in the same way, but the US has a lot of it.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Jbcarpen]

Actually, something significant would happen if you stood in a hydrogen envelope, unless you can breathe hydrogen ;)

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you underestimate helium. I'd much rather hear it described as "ludicrously" inert just like the rest of the noble gasses.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[jacksonic]

The entire point of filling an airship with gas is to displace air (and gain lift). You therefore need enough pressure inside the gas bag to hold its shape, and so you must have more pressure inside the bag than outside. Non-rigid airships would collapse and fold up if they had less pressure inside than out!

The point is that helium would leak out of a blimp, not air in (though I'm sure a small ammount of air would manage to diffuse inside after enough pressure was lost).

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[johnny cashed]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just repeating what I read in Air & Space magazine. It seems to me, that if you shot a blimp or zepplin, the bullet would pass clear though. This would make two holes, one on bottom, one on top. The gas (He or H) would then seep out the top, and as it exited, air would be drawn in from the bottom hole. The ancedote in Air & Space didn't go into too much detail on that point. I would think that any lighter than air craft cannot have much pressure inside, or the gas would become more dense than air. Blimps are non-rigid, and therefore do need pressure to maintain shape. Zepplins are rigid, and therefore are not dependant on pressure to maintain shape.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[syzler]

First, hydrogen gives twice the lift of helium.

Actually hydrogen does not provide twice the lift of helium. In ideal conditions hydrogen has roughly 7% more lift.

Helium has an atomic weight of 4.002602. A diatomic Hydrogen molecule at an atomic weight of 4.002602 is half the weight of a single helium module. However lift is determined from the difference in weight between the gas inside the envelope and the gas outside of the envelope.

Normal air is composed of 78.084% Nitrogen, 20.947% Oxygen, .934% Argon, and .002% CO2 by molecules (I forgot where I found these figures) so normal air has an average atomic weight of 28.951.

Assuming the tempature and pressure is the same inside and outside the envelope there would be an equal amount of normal air molecules displaced by the gas used to fill the envelope (for now disregarding the material of the envelope). As a result helium would have an atomic lift of 24.948 and hydrogen would have an atomic lift of 26.935.

If you would like to see more about the ratios of Lighter Than Air (LTA) lift and how some variables affect lift, I wrote a lift calculator a few years ago.

I am not a chemist, so some of the above may be inaccurate, but the concept should be sound.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't just the matrix of kerosene - the addition of powdered aluminum added an extra 'kick' once the burning started, and increased the chances of electrostatics starting things.

Also, in the footage, as the burning continues, the Hindenberg rose as it got lighter - unlikely if the hydrogen was burning.

For a good examination of this: http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm
I quote: "Recently, NASA investigator Dr. Addison Bain has verified this finding by scientific experiments that duplicated the vigorous ignition by static discharge to the aluminum powder filled covering material. Spectacular colors of this type of combustion were produced from the burning skin of the giant airship. Dr. Bain concluded that the Hindenburg would have burned and crashed even if helium would have been used as the lifting gas."

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Liam Slider]

All of the exciting footage showed lots of bright yellow flame from... the burning of the envelope.

All that exciting footage also did one other thing....started the trend that killed the airship industry, as it was branded as horribly unsafe. Eventually, when the technology was perfected...we switched to airplanes...which were and are actually less safe.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[mOdQuArK!]

Of course, one of the problems with hydrogen is that it tends to leak through just about any kind of material since it's such a damn small molecule, so you need to keep replenishing it.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[mOdQuArK!]

But, of course, you need to make sure that the amount of gas that you have inside your bag weighs less than the amount of air that it is displacing.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[chenjeru]

The ironic thing is, everyone who was smoking was fine. The smoking compartment was a reinforced fireproof box originally designed to isolate any incindiary outbreaks. It ended up being the perfect womb.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[NardofDoom]

The other issue with the Hindenberg is that is was coated with what was essentially solid rocket fuel: aluminum powder and varnish. The lesson from the Hindenberg isn't "Don't fill airships with hydrogen," it's "Don't cover your airship with rocket fuel." A helium-filled craft would have had as spectacular an explosion.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Spunk]

It appears that this theory has now been refuted.

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's say we have hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. You have about 1.1kg lift for a cubic meter of volume.
  Now, this 1.1kg is the weight of the hydrigen, substracted from the weight of the air, let's say 1.2kg/m^3 - 0.1kg/m^3.
  If you use a helium at three atmospheres, as helium is denser at atmospheric pressure, the result end up as 1.2kg/m^3 - 0.6kg/m^3 = 0.6kg/m^3. You loose less than half the lift.
      How much is 3 atmospheres? Well, more than in car's tires.

Would have been great...

[Ingolfke]

in feudal Japan if ropes could have dropped down and ninjas could have poured out of the airship unto the unsuspecting armies below.

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[dinaui]

If you follow the article's links to http://www.dynalifter.com/Old/Default.htm, you will notice that the thing is actually enough heavier than air that it's supposed to be able to withstand a 30 knot crosswind unloaded. The helium is used to make the thing light enough that the stubby wings can lift the monster plus its cargo. The beast is supposed to be able to pay the freight by being more fuel efficient than a straight aircraft. Take this to a place with poor to non-existent roads and all of a sudden you've lowered the cost of freight transportation by a substantial amount. That's the concept anyway. We'll have to wait to see if the theory's a good model of reality.

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/

The Dynalifter® avoids many of these problems because it isnt "lighter-than-air". With a large fraction of its weight carried by aerodynamic lift on the wings and hull, it has a substantial net download when sitting on the ground allowing it to withstand a gusty side wind. It lands like a normal aircraft, decelerating on a runway as its weight is transferred from the wings to the tires.

It's a hybrid.

Looks familiar...

[Spy der Mann]

Haven't we seen those in various Anime?

Its been said before...

[Merlyn_3k]

And I'll say it again. RTFA! and then RTFWS! http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Default.htm Over half the lift comes from the wings. Yes, they look awfully small for the body, that's because the body is filled with helium and as such weighs very little (but is not actually lighter than air). The advantage over LTA transport is that it does not require a groundcrew or sophisticated mechanisms to land. It also has no problem with lift changes due to fuel use over long flights. It is more stable in high winds. Also it can fly faster for a geiven fuel usage because it has less drag. The advantage over conventional airplanes is mainly fuel economy. I imagine that a fleet of these could compete with a fleet of semis based on economy and speed. My 2 bits Merlyn

What he is trying to say is

[Oldsmobile]

The problem with blimps is the fact that they can't fly high enough. The lower you fly, the more extreme the weather is. Speed is important, but perhaps would not be such a big issue.

The lower you fly, the more succeptable you are to changing weather patterns.

Thunderbird 2 is go!

[HangingChad]

Tuck those wings in, give it jets instead of props and it's Thunderbird 2.

perfect looks (for insecure males to own)

[nietsch]

It looks like very big penis! With that size you don't have to look good.
But take a look once in a big seaport and see what hideous contraptions are coming in there. Looks don't say that much.

Re:semi-related joke

[Mr. Firewall]

Rush Limbaugh? A Nazi?

Ri-i-i-i-ight... Have you ever actually LISTENED to his show? He's about as far from a Socialist as anyone can get.

Sorry, but for a joke to be funny, there has to be an element of truth in it. Name-calling just doesn't cut it.

A 747 is pretty green.

[LWATCDR]

A 747 is actually pretty fuel efficient. As someone pointed out it gets over 75 miles per passenger per gallon. Modern gas turbines are also very lean burning and produce very little NOX. An Airship will burn very little fuel per air hour but I wouldn't bet that per passenger mile it will be less efficient than a 747.
Next problem is cost. A flight that takes two days to cross the Atlantic will be pretty expensive. You will have to add the cost of two flight crews, two days of food, the fuel required to carry two days of food and all the equipment to prepare it. The staff required to serve, clean up and prepare the food. entertainment for two days.
You may see them used for passengers but think more of a cruise ship than transportation.
Then you have the problem with ground handling. Airships are BIG. They take a lot of equipment to handle near the ground. That is one of the big reasons that they are no longer used. Think about it. An airship could be two football fields long and have a mass of many tons but a weight of only a few hundred kilograms. Add some wind and you have a nightmare to handle. The US Navy flew blimps for airborne early warning and anti-submarine work well into the 1950s. They where replaced by airplanes and helicopters because they where cheaper to operate.

The Dyanlifter is trying to reduce that by making it heavier. They use the airfoils to provide a lot of the lift so that it can act like a big slow airplane.

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[MasterC]

If you follow the article's links...

Maybe if you read my post you'd have seen I said this:

"Dunno, article is /.'ed"

*sigh*

Bit late for a patent?

[fiannaFailMan]

In 1869 they had something like this. The Avitor can now be seen in the Hiller Aviation Museum near San Francisco.

Dynalift, meet t/space...

[delong]

The first application that came to my mind after reading their site was air deployed rocketry.

I'd be interested to see the numbers for cargo tonnage carrying capacity and max altitude of a full size (~1000 ft) freighter craft.

Combine this airship with t/space's air-launched lanyard rocketry, and there is an awesome potential for large tonnage air launched private spacecraft.

http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction =projects.view&workid=EE0A866A-F1C1-C18B-7D3CB327B CAF3542

Is it just me...

[dbucowboy]

or is this the dumbest looking thing/idea ever. Doesn't a blimp with engines (which I assume would use fuel of some sort) defeat the purpose of a blimp? I honestly don't know much about blimps but they seem pretty worthless in our day, sports coverage and advertising excluded.

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[CableModemSniper]

Are those Imperial fuck-tons or metric fuck-tons?

Re:semi-related joke

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazi's were fascists. Crack open a history book once and awile.

proof that people can waste time and money

[osoese]

enough said.

ATC trauma-time

[cffrost]

Boston Center's gonna love these things poking around NY approach. ATCCs are gonna have to start supplying Xanax to controllers when one of these fat bastards strolls into range.

Maybe this time we'll get some Hindenburg-action over Newark.

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[Empiric]

No wonder clowns are so poor...

Wouldn't we expect this supposed scarcity and strategic nature of helium to affect the availability of all those helium balloons, used for every kind of birthday/celebration/occasion, costing a nickel-ish each, the sum total of which I'd have to venture would be far -greater- than a fairly limited number of airships?

When blimps crash

[drewcaster]

I live not too far away from where the Goodyear blimp crashed in South Florida. Using a media pass I actually got to see the wreckage up close. It fell right on top of a public storage facility. The amusing thing (everyone survived) was hearing newscasters say that to dismantle the crashed blimp they were going to send in workers with box cutters. Box cutters.

cost versus speed

[pomakis]

They see it as a way to move materials at a lower cost than jets and at a higher speed than ships.

Human psychology is interesting. This sounds great, whereas stating the truth from the other direction - "at a lower speed than jets and a higher cost than ships" - sounds terrible. But I suppose this polarity of viewpoint is present in every comprimise, by the very nature of comprimises.

altitude == armor

[mikeee]

What happens if anybody shoots at it? Not much, probably.

It turns out you need a big gun to hit anything more than a few thousand feet up in the air; air resistance and gravity add up in a hurry. Rifles won't do it.

Not to say that I'd want to fly this thing over a real combat zone...

No, no, no! Hydrogen was not to blame.

[GPS Pilot]

the Hindenburg demonstrated, hydrogen has its own problems.

It's a shame that this meme is so widespread in the collective consciouness, because it's very damaging to the airship industry. Hydrogen is a superior lifting gas, it's inexpensive, and there's virtually a limitless supply.

Try to check out an article called "Odorless, Colorless, Blameless" (Air & Space Smithsonian magazine, May 1997, pp14-16) by NASA employee Richard Van Treuren. (Unfortunately this article is no longer available online.) It will convince you that the Hindenburg would have met the same fiery fate, even if it had been filled with helium. The flammable aluminum-based paint that covered the vehicle was to blame.

Re:semi-related joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, Fascism and Socialism are opposites, silly. The parent may be a troll but he's not just name-calling.

From the Wikipedia entry on Neo-Fascism...

One of the most widely circulated arguments implying the U.S. shares some similarities with fascism is the article by Lawrence Britt.

Britt argues that "fascism's principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for."

Here are items they list as earmarks of fascism...

• Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
• Disdain for the importance of human rights.
• Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
• The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
• Obsession with national security.
• Religion and ruling elite tied together.
• Power of corporations protected.
• Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
• Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
• Obsession with crime and punishment.

I'd say mod parent (engwar) as an informative troll!

No, airships are awesome to behold.

[GPS Pilot]

unlike airplanes, blimps just look stupid

You're an idiot. Enormous dirgibles like the href="http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/macon.html" >USS Macon were awesome sights to see... one of the greatest wonders of the 20th century. What I'd give for a ride on one of those magnificent beasts...

Fuel savings?

[ThePyro]

As stated on the Dynalifter web site, their airship is NOT lighter than air, even when empty. So the only "savings" in weight are limited to the weight of the mass of the ship. That doesn't seem like a large percentage to me, when compared to the weight of the payload that the ship will be carrying.

Looking at a couple other aircraft:

Boeing 747
Weight Empty: 361,600 lbs
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 825,600 lbs
Empty Weight ~= 43% of maximum take-off weight

C-5 Galaxy cargo plane
Weight Empty: 374,000
Maximum Take-Off weight: 840,000 lbs
Empty Weight ~= 44% of maximum take-off weight

How much fuel would an airship hybrid really save, since it still has to pull the entire weight of the payload, which accounts for more than 50% of the weight of other fully-loaded modern aircraft? And would the fuel savings really justify the other hassles of dealing with an airship hybrid?

Re:Fuel savings?

[xMilkmanDanx]

Say it saves 50% of the unladen weight. If your Galaxy cargo plane (above) had that savings that would still be 187,000 lbs. 466,000 vs 653,000 lbs of cargo capacity. That's a 40% gain in capacity. Nothing to sneeze at at the costs of air freight.

Is it impervious...

[dakotamangus]

It might have military uses, such as delivering equipment and supplies to sites that might not be easily reachable. Martin said he and Rist have had meetings with Pentagon officials.

...to Bullets?

Re:Is it impervious...

[JPyun]

God you're a dumbass.

Re:Is it impervious...

[dakotamangus]

What does God being a dumbass have to do with it? Talk about Off Topic...

Kitty Hawk

[pisces22]

Maybe they'll bring it to Kitty Hawk like some other Ohio aircraft designers before them. Then we (North Carolinians) can get the credit for the first flight again!

Wrong year

[GPS Pilot]

In his 1963 book...

It was first published in 1973.

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the point but if ITER get's off the ground then we'll have plenty of helium to go around, until the duterium and tritium get used up anyway...

Right--it's not a new idea, Aereon flew 30 yrs ago

[GPS Pilot]

The men behind the Aereon Corporation were visionaries far ahead of their time. (Aereon Corp. still has a web presence, but sadly, the occasional small DoD research grant is their only real revenue.)

Here's a very interesting article about the history of Aereon.

Even the name "dynalifter" is derivative of Aereon's DYNAIRSHIP.

Good luck to Martin and Rist, but I hope Aereon gets credit for the original idea.

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[Nivag064]

Hydrogen was not the problem!

It was that the skin of the Zepplin that was highly flamable...

People just focussed on the fact that Hydrogen burns, but Hydrogen would mostly have gone up - you can see plainly in the film of the event that the skin itself was burning.

-Nivag

It might have military uses ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love the smell of fresh pork in the morning.

Screw passengers.

[SatanicPuppy]

The place where these would be really useful is in airfreight. Faster than a ship, can land anywhere. If they can lift serious cargo, then they'll do great even if no human besides the crew ever rides one.

AirLimp or Bliplane?

[N8F8]

Just wondering what this thing should be called?

AirLimp
Bliplane

Hindenburg was better than current planes

[doktoromni]

In terms of survival rate in case of accident. When a passenger plane crashes, often close to 100% of people on board die. In the case of the Hindenburg accident, though, this rate was of 36%. Also, your comment on hydrogen burning upwards is very adequate. In fact, considering that the danger of hydrogen flames tends to be overestimated, hydrogen is much cheaper and easier to manufacture than helium, and hydrogen provides more buyoancy than helium, I myself would rather use hydrogen instead of helium in an airship.

Re:Hindenburg was better than current planes

[Max Threshold]

It seems like the technology is ripe for unpiloted, hydrogen-filled, heavy-lift airships that would be flown primarily across unpopulated areas, like empty expanses of ocean.

that's nothing

[brer_rabbit]

that's nothing, most slashdot readers are part blimp.

Well, perhaps the Amazon listing is wrong then...

[wintermute42]

From the Amazon listing for the hardcover of The Deltoid Pumpkin Seen by McPhee:

• Hardcover: 192 pages
• Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (July 9, 1963)
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0374137811

The same date is shown on the listing on ABE Books. I believe that McPhee may have issued an updated version in 1973. I seem to recall that there was material about the what the inventors felt was the promise of fuel efficient transport in the time of the "oil crisis". My point was that this idea has been around for thirty years.

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[jonnythan]

We're learned folk round these parts.

Them's metric fuck-tons, and that's per day

Issues with steam

[Engineer-Poet]

I won't say "problems", but collecting the condensate could be difficult, and I'm curious about the feasible methods of insulation for a steam balloon.

That stuff aside, it's a very good idea. Carrying water for ballast is one thing; being able to turn some of that ballast into lifting gas to e.g. allow a vertical takeoff is damned slick.

So what? Where's my flying car?

[CannedTurkey]

Just combine it with this design allow it to seat 4, and as long as the fuel economy isn't attrocious, I'll drive it to work everyday.

Hit the ceiling

[Engineer-Poet]

The operational ceiling of a Dynalifter will be limited by the amount of lifting gas carried and the volume of the envelope; when the ballonets have expanded to their maximum, you won't be able to go any higher.

There may be some tradeoffs between static lift and ceiling (offload gas to allow more expansion), but it only goes so far.

Re:Hit the ceiling

[hey!]

That ain't necessarily so. It's a heavier than air craft. It's operational ceiling not counting its wings and only its bouyancy is zero.

Re:Hit the ceiling

[Engineer-Poet]

And you think the craft is going to fly well when its ballonets have burst and leaked their lifting gas (esp. if just at one end, causing trim problems), or fly at all if they break through the skin?

What you don't seem to grasp is that the beast is a hybrid, with advantages and limitations drawn from both aerodynes and aerostats.

Re:Hit the ceiling

[hey!]

Well, no.

But IIRC, conventional airships are limited by bouyancy far below the point where anything starts to burst, especially when carrying massive loads. Basically, the higher the beast flies, the thinner the air and the less bouyancy to offset the load. This may not be a factor in a passenger airship's operational ceiling. But for an airship that is transporting, say, a large number of Abrams tanks, the ability to simply lift them from the ground may be a limiting factor in its cargo size. Near its limit, its operational ceiling is bound to be determined by the mass of the displaced air.

Re:Hit the ceiling

[Engineer-Poet]

But IIRC

You don't. That's what I've been trying to get through to you.

conventional airships are limited by bouyancy far below the point where anything starts to burst

No they aren't. Conventional airships are neutrally buoyant at whatever altitude. They have rigid skins, but are unpressurized; the lifting gas is held in flexible cells. Those cells cannot take up any more volume than the shell. The gas expands as the air pressure falls, so there is a maximum altitude (minimum air density, if the gas is at ambient temperature also) at which the airship can fly. If it goes higher, it must vent gas or take damage.

Blimps handle this problem with internal ballonets which hold air under slight pressure. As the blimp rises, the ballonets deflate; when they are empty the blimp can go no higher.

This is Boyle's Law, PV = nRT. A proper geek would know this intuitively; you have more studying to do.

Not another "hybrid"...

[gg3po]

Am I the only one that is sick of all the "hybrid" craze lately? It seems the solution to everything nowadays is to create a "hybrid." It's quickly becoming just another meaningless buzzword that belongs in the web BS generator. Want some VC? No worries -- call it a hybrid. Welcome to the hybrid bubble of the late 2000's. I for one do *not* welcome our new hybrid market-speak overlords!

The /. crowd doesn't seem to get it...

[caveDan]

So many people with nothing better to do than to speculate on why this thing would fail.

A machine that can move cargo overseas to inland destinations, bypassing ports, has the potential to completely alter how goods are shipped. Yes, that would require adjustments in how ports of entry for cargo are handled in most countries, but hey, its not like our ports are so damn secure here in the US that we have some great system that'd have to be re-developed.

Bottom line: If this thing has the potential to be faster than a container ship (and a cargo truck for that matter) and cheaper than a jet, how can anyone but a fool not think that could be valuable?

And as for passenger use: if I could travel overseas in cruise ship style accomodations at a fraction of the cost of business class air fare, and at 2 - 3 times the speed of a cruise ship, I might not mind tacking on an extra day or so of travel time.

David Brin and a couple of other sci-fi writers have speculated about how devices of this nature could take over a lot of the traditional transportation sectors. Scoff if you will, but these chaps might be onto something.

Stratospheric blimps

[Engineer-Poet]

That would be a Stratellite.

MORE SPECIFICATIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The cargo bay and the piloting area are not connected or contiguous. The cargo bay is fully detachable and has a volume of 90,000 cubic feet. You can detach the cargo bay very quickly upon landing. Picking up another cargo bay requires ~1 hour to affix.

2) nm refers to Nautical Miles. So the Dynalifter has a range of ~6000 kilometers.

3) This is not the DARPA Walrus program. The Walrus program is currently only doing paper engineering trade studies, and its objective is to design a larger (500 ton payload) aircraft for delivery in 2015 with an enormous R&D budget. The Walrus is an expensive paper vision; Dynalifter is currently buildable with off-the-shelf parts for a fraction of the cost.

4) The Dynalifter does not use a ballast system, since it does not need to. The helium offsets only the weight of the unfueled empty aircraft.

5) I post as AC since I've never bothered to get a /. account in the 4 years of reading /.

Please mod this up if you find it helpful. Thanks.

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't going to shoot a hydrogen airship with a handgun (or a rocket for that matter) and have it explode.

If you do, you should at least get your money back on that dud rocket, jeesh.

Military UFO - Black Triangles - I saw one

[j-stroy]

In the desert in southern Arizona, I saw something airborne which I identified as a dirigible type airship that was VERY large. The net is full of these "black triangle" reports ie: http://www.lowobservable.com/Black.htm Seeing this product leads me to think that military use may already be occuring, ie as mobile aircraft carrier / refueling. As a side note.. has material science progressed enough to consider a "vacuum" balloon.. that is a lifting body with nothing in it?

bright yellow flame?

[Anonymous Coward]

How could you have seen that in black and white footage?

Re:A Beowolf cluster of them....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's clearly a real picture, not CG.

this kind of existed..... blimp-helicopter hybrid

[johnpaul191]

Piasecki Aircraft in PA had something like this in the 80s. http://www.piasecki.com/pa-97.htm
it was intended for heavy lifting. a blimp with 4 helicopters on outriggers. the company has building helicopters as long as they have existed, so if the last 20 years did not make that one pan out, it makes you wonder if there is enough need that people/government would invest in them? i am sure there are times somebody wishes they had something with that amazing lifting power (like to transport godzilla). you figure you can do some amazing moving with a Sikorsky Skycrane http://www.aviation-history.com/sikorsky/s64.htm

Military Uses?

[AviLazar]

It might have military uses, such as delivering equipment and supplies to sites that might not be easily reachable

As a guerilla soldier fires his rifle and pops the air out of this thing. Come on. Do you really want something that is slow flying in a military operation?

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[njh]

Did you actually read that link? I don't think it says what you think it says :)

Air Floating Raft

[Simonetta]

I'm toying with the idea of a water raft inflated with hydrogen instead of air. This would be a rectanglar -boat style raft that would float in the air, because of the hydrogen. It would obviously carry only a very small payload. The hydrogen would be used to power the small engines that positioned the craft (working with prevailing winds) along with providing lighter-than-air lifting. I would envision the craft to be guided by GPS and be unmanned.

    It might be an interesting way to transport 'sensitive materials' across borders, such as Bibles into a communist country. After the craft ran low on hydrogen, it would float down to land and then emit a short radio burst giving its GPS location (encrypted of course) so that the sensitive materials could be retrieved by the missionaries.

  There is a lot of resistance to considering the use of hydrogen for lifting due to the 1938 Hindenburg airship disaster in New Jersey. However recent research has shown that that (1st 'that' is a conjuction, 2nd is a pronoun, grammer Nazis) inferno was due to the highly inflamable paint used on the airship's skin instead of the hydrogen itself. The H2 burned with the skin, but it was not the primary reason for the rapid spread of the fire across the surface of the craft. Using hydrogen for lift and fuel should be reconsidered for these type of craft.

  Any thoughts or suggestions? Besides that I'm crazy, that is.

Re:Air Floating Raft

[danila]

One thought. Having established that you are crazy, how crazy you must be to think that transporting Bibles into a communist country is a good example of the usefulness of this technology?

Seriously, this example is almost as contrived as the whole idea of a hydrogen-inflated GPS guided unmanned rectangular raft.

Serious Flaw in design

[jtaylor72]

If I am a pilot, I do not want to be in a cabin, underneath hundresds of thousands of pounds of cargo, when this thing has to make a crash landing, or comes falling out of the sky.

performance?

[constantnormal]

Sadly, I couldn't locate any info on the proposed operating envelope of this thing. The prototype is powered by a couple of ultralite motors, but that tells us almost nothing, as it is, after all, a prototype.

One would hope that it flies at speeds in excess of 100 kt (115 mph), and at altitudes of at least 10,000 ft -- to avoid potshots from ground-based yahoos, I believe that there are few weapons capable of firing a bullet through 10,000 ft of atmosphere and across a 10,000 ft gravitational potential. If it also achieves significantly greater fuel efficiencies than over-the-road trucking, I would think there is an economic niche for such a vehicle.

But at only 10,000 ft, they will be flying through (or landing to avoid flying through) most of the rough weather. To avoid the weather, they will need to fly considerably higher, at altitudes which will require pressurization of both crew spaces and the cargo containers.

For this to be viable as a cargo vehicle, it will need to do one or more of:
    *) travel faster than trucks or trains, at lower fuel cost than airplanes
    *) cost less per ton per mile in fuel than trucks or trains

If it can't do either of these, I see no cargo transport economic niche for it to occupy.

Perhaps there is another use -- consider the equivalent of airborne cruise ships, with spectacular views of the terrain below... this would need some sort of dispensation from gambling prohibitions, similar to that enjoyed by riverfront floating casinos, so that states travelled over would not be arresting gamblers or trying to tax flying casinos.

A means of luxury travel, faster than driving, but slower than airlines, with oodles of space and luxury to pamper oneself in ... this is pretty much what the early 20th century dirigibles aimed at as well.

I wouldn't mind taking a weekend to fly somewhere on such a vehicle (40 hrs at 100 mph = 4000 miles), especially if I had plenty of room, good food, a sleeper compartment. It would sure beat being crammed into an airline with my knees stuffed up my nose for half a day. I would think that the economics of such a craft (potentially thousands of passengers, hundreds for sure, plus lower fuel costs and of course the revenue from four star restaurants and gambling tables) would make it hard to beat.

Perhaps a GeekCruise to MWSF ... traveling in style.

Personal version?

[drmike0099]

This seems to make good sense for moving heavy goods, especially because it's probably quite fuel-efficient, can carry oversized loads relatively easily to any location, and would have virtually no impact on the current transportation infrastructure in the country, which is straining under heavy load (like rail cargo).

It also seems like a smaller version would be useful as a personal air transport system. Make it more like a blimp and less like an airplane (I guess just make it a blimp) and park it on top of your garage. Wanna go visit your parents across the country? Fuel up the steam engine, pack all your stuff and hop in and go. Since it's a blimp, catastrophic failures (e.g. entire family killed in a plane crash) would be very unlikely, it's not very expensive (although not cheap), and a heck of a lot of fun.

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[johnny cashed]

Yes, but hydrogen added fuel to the fire. Helium might have helped to extingush it. At least it wouldn't have supported it. And to respond to the "hydrogen would have mostly gone up" statement, wouldn't the hydrogen going up would have in drawn air from the bottom? A zepplin is a displacement ship. It gets lift from displacing air. If the less dense gas that displaced the air rises, it would have been "flooded" with air containing oxygen. Much like a sinking ship's air rises as it is flooded with water.

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[agrippa_cash]

You forgot C) Raise security concerns about Black Sunday and kill the industry with regulation. That, is if these things prove economical.

Re:semi-related joke

[Mr. Firewall]

The Nazi's were fascists. Crack open a history book once and awile.

I have cracked open several history books -- apparently a good deal more than YOU have.

The Nazis were socialists. Try checking out what the acronym "NAZI" stands for: it translates to "National Socialist Party".

You really need to check up on your history a little better before posting.

1/2 Aud u2 = 1/2 Adu3

[nickull]

This is the formula for calculating the energy of our atmosphere in terms of kinetic force. http://www.bwea.com/edu/energy.html I wonder how well this "Plamp" (plane-blimp - "Plamp" sounded better than "Blane" IMO) will do trying to hover in a 25 knot cross wind given the friction to our atmosphere on its' external hull and the enormous windswept area of its fusilage.

Re:No, no, no! Hydrogen was not to blame.

[Max Threshold]

It's a shame that that meme is so widespread in the collective consciousness. It's bunk.

Late to the Party

[Anonymous Coward]

Frank Piasecki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Piasecki

discarded this and related assisted-lift ideas twenty years ago. He knows more about helicopters than most of these companies have forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_Helicopter

http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/pias eckivtdp.htm

Re:No, no, no! Hydrogen was not to blame.

[nickull]

Uhh - no. Hydrogen is a very bad idea to use for anything. It is not plentiful in its useable state on this planet and its use is a dumb idea. It takes more energy to produce and distribute than it yields: http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2005/12/hydrogen-a gain-tweedle-dumb-and.html http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp

Re:semi-related joke

[Mr. Firewall]

Uh, Fascism and Socialism are opposites, silly.

BZZZT! Wrong. Sorry, you lose.

This is a commonly-accepted myth. Not only are they NOT opposites, they are so similar that Winston Churchill famously remarked that he could never understand why Hitler hated the Communists so much, because there wasn't really any difference between the two.

And the widely-circulated Lawrence Britt nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Plus, it is totally irrelevant to this thread.

Related humor

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/a/7/a7fc2bdd4f047 f859b851db10cead1f6.jpg
(safe for work)

The shape reminds me a bit of...

[MeatNoodle]

Thunderbird 2 from the Gerry Andersen series.

P.

Helium balloon

[DECS]

So if I fill a balloon with Helium,
carefully poke a hole in the top (in a way that doesn't destroy the balloon)
and release the bottom opening (without tieing it shut) ...the Helium will seep out the top, and air will rush in from the open bottom to reinflate it?

I would expect that not to be the case.

Re:Helium balloon

[johnny cashed]

helium balloons have a stressed skin. The elasticity of the balloon material gives it "pressure". A rigid structure like a zepplin doesn't compare. A blimp is closer to your analogy, but it doesn't "shrink" as it loses gas. The envelope doesn't have elasticity like a latex balloon. Now if you are refering to a polyester (mylar) helium balloon, it isn't a stressed skin. I wasn't suggesting that it "reinflates" it. I think your analogy is incorrect. What happens if you place an inverted cup in water and poke a hole in the top of the cup? you could do the same with gasoline (it is less dense than water) and the gasoline would seep out the top, while water filled up from the bottom. Does this make sense?

Re:Helium balloon

[petermgreen]

that all depends if a cell is under pressure

in a multicell structure with the cells under fairly low presure (to let them maintain shape) once a doubled cell reached atnospheric pressure and assuming the cell was held inflated by surrounding cells then yes helium would flow out the top and air in the bottom.

Exactly!

[lilmouse]

4) It can carry a payload of 320,000 pounds in a detachable cargo bay measuring 150x40x15 feet (volume of 90,000 cubic feet).

Daaammnnn...

Exactly.

Airships would be **really** awesome if it weren't for all the drawbacks and the fact that road/rail transport is so heavily subsides (in the US/Europe, respectively). If this can move at a decent clip, then it'll certainly start getting traffic! Huge amounts of stuff gets shipped via boat, and it's sloooooow. If you want to go faster then that, you don't have much choice. But a fast airship...now there's a real option.

My only question is regarding the cargo vs. lift - if it's at full cargo capacity, does the extra required lift come from additional thrust, requiring more engine power?

--LWM

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[johansalk]

Wow, I had no idea helium was so scarce. I'll think of that next time I see those kids inhaling it en masse from cheap balloons to cuss at each other.

Two mistakes in your post

[yudan]

The problem of Hindenberg paint was an urban lengend http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire200 5jan12.pdf .

And hydrogen does not give twice the lift of Helium, the net lift given by an object in air is given by

(lift given by air)-(weight of the object)
=(volumn of the object)*[(density of air)-(density of the object)]

Although the density of Hydrogen is half of that of Helium, You don't get twice the lift when you replace the latter with the former.

Re:Two mistakes in your post

[rossifer]

Good link. I learned a lot. Looks like I will have to stop repeating that theory as fact.

Thanks,
Ross

Re:No, no, no! Hydrogen was not to blame.

[jbridge21]

Yes, but what about this?

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[jbridge21]

I wouldn't be so sure. Read here.

What about SkyCat?

[p.gogarty]

This is not the only lifting body design for an airship currently in production today. The SkyCat project by the Advanced Technologies Group in the UK has been developing a lifting body airship for several years now and is very near completion.

Unlike the Dynalifter project (which will use underslung cargo pods) the SkyCat has a hollow central section in the body into which trucks and other vehicles may be driven, kind of like the hold in a ferry.

The skycat is designed to take off and land like a conventional aircraft but it uses two concentric hovercraft cussions instead of conventional landing gear so it can land on hastily prepaired air strips or water if necessary. Once it has landed the pump on the inner hovercraft cussion is reversed creating a vacume that sucks the SkyCat to the ground so that it won't drift off

The Skycat project has had interest from the Americam military and the Chinese government.
In fact the US military has even carried out several tests on the remote controlled SkyCat prototypes and concluded that the lifting body airship design is safer for use in hostile situations than a helicopter.

For further conceptual ideas for uses of the SkyCat see World SkyCat who appear to be a company set up to market the skycat when it reaches full production.

I can't find any references to it on line but the discovery channel in the UK did a fantastic documentary on the SkyCat project a couple of years ago, where they didn't mention the Dynalifter project but they did mention the CargoLifter (German only).
CargoLifter is a massive semi rigid air ship that is designd to lift huge payloads via a winch whilst airborn, transport them to where they are needed and deploy them using the same winch mechanism.
The CargoLifter project is currently on hold due to a lack of funding.
For further information in english on the CargoLifter project see this article at aerospace-technology.com.

One thing this machine would be good for

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing this machine would be good for is lifting air ordinance and fuel supplies. It's simply not practical to fly massive amounts of bombs and fuel in to a remote airfield, and then fly it right back out again. You can't wage a campaign that way.

That's why the airforce often needs to rely on the navy.

With vehicles like this, the air force could deploy much more rapidly, and need not rely on the navy as much.

Re:The new incarnation of the "Deltoid Pumpkin See

[Anonymous Coward]

The key point is that hydrogen by itself cannot burn, explode, or do much of anything. It's the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that is the problem. I've no doubt that a leak was opened, the oxygen/hydrogen mix outside the blimp caught fire, and the heat melted/burned the neighboring panels. This caused more hydrogen to escape, mix with the air, and burn. So the Hberg went up in smoke because the painted shell burned. If it hadn't, it would have a smallish plume of fire coming out, much like a lit aerosol can's spray only at far less pressure.

So coat the outside with a non-burning, good insulator and you're set. The missile strike would be harder to prevent massive destruction, but already if a missile strikes a jetliner (and explodes) everybody is pretty much guarenteed goners. Assuming a blimp is completely destroyed by a strike, the cargo would fall rapidly away from the ensuing firestorm. So coat the top of that with a very good insulator and it won't burn up... maybe you can launch out parachutes of some sort to save the people and let the cargo crash down.

Hate to disillusion you...

[aug24]

...but the stuff about the rocket-fuel skin is now pretty well debunked.

Solid rocket fuel burns very slowly, generating massive, hot exhaust gases (think of the size of a rocket booster and how long it takes to get into orbit). The Hindenburg burnt from end to end in under a minute.

The yellow flame effect was caused by the burning hydrogen heating the envelope, not the envelope itself burning.

Try this research paper about that debunks the rocket fuel theory in great detail, with burn rates of reproductions of the Hindenburg envelope built and coated to the original design.

Cheers,
Justin.

It's not psychology...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bounds-checking!

Let's say you're visualizing a cost/speed graph. When you say "lower cost than jets", we define a maximum along the axis used for cost, so we know the new cost will somewhere in between zero and the curves defined by the cost/speed plot of jets -- obviously beneficial for us. On the other hand, if we say "higher cost than ships", we're defining a point somewhere between infinity and the cost/speed curve for ships... Not very informative at all (is it just a tiny bit more expensive? or a lot more expensive?), and possibly not very good for us.

Stating the description as "lower cost than jets and higher speed than ships" relates the info at hand to existing curves and relevant boundaries. =)

People love 'em ... but

[ebvwfbw]

Another thing I don't get about why people don't like dirigibles is the Hindenburg disaster.

Caught as one of the first disasters on film, it is indelable. However I think most people know it was Hydrogen that caused that and therefore is not a concern today. Dirigibles are still magical. From time to time I run across Navy dirigibles while flying my 1947 Cessna. Makes me feel like I'm back in the 1930s or 40s. While the cool factor is up there, they are not that practicle. Moving freight is far more efficient by truck and is far more reliable. Same with moving people and say a bus. To move them quicker, you can't beat a jet. You can buy a 1971 747-200 for a cool 1.2 million right now. A 1980 737-200ADV-17 is a mear 1.5 million. How many do you want? The only thing I can think of that it has an advantage is what the Navy is using them for. In place of a helicopter for hovering over something. Other than that, they are a hole in the sky in which to put your money. Sort of like a boat - a hole in the water in which to put your money.

Yes and no

[GPS Pilot]

You're right that the process of creating H2, distributing it, and burning it as a fuel results in a net energy loss. But I'm talking about using it as a lifting gas, not as a fuel. When I say there's virtually a limitless supply, this us what I mean: you could electrolyze water to create H2, keep millions of airships filled for centuries, and Earth's sea level would not noticably decrease.

X-Plane!

[NardofDoom]

X-Plane is an awesome "game" that was actually used in the testing of this prototype and that of the Carter Copter. The amount of work that's gone into it is astounding. It's got the ability to run a motion control systems (even full-motion ones), span views across multiple monitors, and has even recieved certification for airline pilot training. And it runs on Linux! Anyone who's interested in flight simulators should check it out.

Amazon's wrong.

[GPS Pilot]

The subject of McPhee's book was the Aereon 26, which was developed in the early 1970s. Ergo, the book could not have been published in 1963.

What's the point?

[elrous0]

So if it requires a runway to take off and land and can't hover like a blimp, what's the point?

It seems to me it has the worst of both worlds.It still suffers all the disadvantages of an airplane (need for a runway, can't hover over one spot) combined with the disadvantages of a blimp (slow, poor maneuverability, requires helium or heated air, etc.)

-Eric

Re:What's the point?

[mdielmann]

How about the benefits of both, as well? Can land in moderate winds, can fly relatively slowly for patrolling (or S&R), fast enough to meet current freight delivery times, greater operational times than helicopters, less requirements for infrastructure between cities (if used as the primary freight transportation system), likely a cheaper cost of operation than current blimp designs, smaller runway requirements than standard airplaces.

It's not made to replace airplanes, and not necessarily to replace trucks, but it does a good job of filling the gaps in traditional transportation systems. Also, for non-traditional issues, imagine if prefab housing could have been dropped off right beside a highway outside New Orleans last year? Instant emergency housing with no need to wait around all the backed up traffic. Too implausible? How about food? They have a whole page of ideas like this, many of which are feasible.

I don't think they're going to put anyone out of business next year, but they could very well take over new markets before others even had the chance to move in.

Re:Pop! ssssss... Crash!

[cbciv]

The potential for transporting goods seems like its best use, although I don't think the trucking industry/lobby is going to like it very much.

Too bad. Either they can a) suck it up and adapt, or b) build a fleet of their own and compete.

You forgot c) lobby Congress and various regulatory agencies to pass or modify laws or regulations in an effort to hamper or even torpedo the new competition and thus protect the trucking companies' businesses.

Re:Amazon's wrong, oh and so is ABE Books

[wintermute42]

Odd that a number of book sellers on abebooks.com also list a 1963 edition. As I noted, it appears that there was a 1963 edition which was updated in 1973.

We're talking past each other, I'm afraid.

[hey!]

Those cells cannot take up any more volume than the shell.The gas expands as the air pressure falls, so there is a maximum altitude (minimum air density, if the gas is at ambient temperature also) at which the airship can fly. If it goes higher, it must vent gas or take damage. ...
This is Boyle's Law, PV = nRT. A proper geek would know this intuitively; you have more studying to do.

Maybe, but you're still missing the point. These ships we're talking about are not neutrally bouyant because they're not airships with wings: they're airplanes with lifting gas. The idea of this system is to eliminate a lot of the complexities of blimp operation, such as having to maintain neutral bouyancy while burning fuel, or when changing altitude. Therefore the lifting gas cells do not have to expand or contract at all, altough clearly they have to be engineered to handle higher pressures than cells designed to operate at equillibrium with ambient pressures.

When considering rigid airships used to carry massive cargo, the mass of the cargo clearly determines its operating ceiling. If we consider two identical airships, one carring 150 tons of cargo and one empty, clearly the one with cargo must have its lifting gas displacing more air -- enough to acocunt for 150 tons of differential weight. Therefore it's clear that payload determines the point at which your gas cells have reached their maximum design expansion.

An airplane with lifting gas could not only be smaller for the same cargo capacity, the lifting gas cells would only limit the operating altitude when the cells are in danger of rupturing.

Consider cells that are at ambient pressure at sea level.

Approximately, P = 10^(5-(h/15500)) where P is pressure in Pascals, and h is meters. At sea level then, air pressure is about 10^5 Pa, which given that a pascal is 1.4504×104 psi amounts roughly speaking 14.5 psi (which agress with actual 14.7 psi).

Suppose we want to ship somthing from sea level through a mountain pass, say at an elevation of 3.5 km. The ambient pressure would be:

10^(5 - (3500/15500)) Pa = 10^4.7 Pa = 7.3 PSI.

This means our cells would have an over presure of about seven pounds per square inch. That doesn't seem to me to be impossibl to achieve -- that kind of pressure wouldn't even burst an unprotected bicyle innertube, and the only reason a common mylar balloon couldn't handle it is the quality of the seams.

McPhee's own web site says...

[GPS Pilot]

1973

http://www.johnmcphee.com/bookshelf.htm

Case closed.

Because you won't pay attention

[Engineer-Poet]

Unfortunately for you, I don't have the time to list and refute all of your misconceptions. You start early on:

the lifting gas cells do not have to expand or contract at all, altough clearly they have to be engineered to handle higher pressures than cells designed to operate at equillibrium with ambient pressures."

You fail to grasp that the cells are not pressure vessels. Superpressure balloons do exist, but the structural overhead of a superpressure envelope in an airship is something nobody appears willing to pay.

As for learning anything beyond that, you're on your own now.

not all sports happen in a small stadium

[petermgreen]

i'd imagine they use it to get views of long distance running/cycling and possiblly some types of motor racing. i'm sure when seeing such sports on TV i've seen views that appear to be from above.

what i don't get

[petermgreen]

wings require speed to be effective.

blimps have to move slowly to avoid thier excessive size causing excessive resistance.

those two statements just don't seem to fit well with a hybrid.

Nuclear waste...

[Firethorn]

Not all of the plant's pools are full. However, a number of them are. Some plants just built an additional pool. A number of others have built above ground casks and stored the oldest rods there.

Thing about waste rods is that when they come out of the reactor is that they're still producing heat. A ton of waste rods* is generating 12,300 watts worth. If it wasn't for tendency of the radiation damaging things, you'd be able to scavange power off of them. This means that you need active cooling. After 20 years, you're down to 950 watts/ton, which can be handled cheaply without active cooling. After 50 you're down to 572, and I've heard people talking about reprocessing it at that point. It's cheaper to do it at that point because you don't have to take as many radiation precautions.

*It's not as big as you might think. Heavy metals are dense.