Slashdot Mirror


The Age of the Airship Returns?

Popular in Victorian and Steampunk fantasies, airships and zeppelins evoke a certain elegance that most modern travelers don't associate with the airplane. Some companies are capitalizing on that idea, and a need to move cargo by air in an era of ever-increasing fuel costs, to re-re-introduce commercial zeppelins. Popular Mechanics notes four notable airship designs, all with specific design purposes. One craft in particular, the Aeroscraft ML866, is being funded by the US government's DARPA group. It looks to combine the best elements of the helicopter and the zeppelin. "The Aeroscraft ML866's potentially revolutionary Control of Static Heaviness system compresses and decompresses helium in the 210-ft.-long envelope, changing this proposed sky yacht's buoyancy during takeoff and landings, Aeros says. It hopes to end the program with a test flight demonstrating the system. "

19 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. The discouraging prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:The discouraging prior art by vidarh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only to people who don't bother to read enough of it to realize that a major reason for the disaster was that the paint on the Hindenburg was more or less rocket fuel. Bringing up the Hindenburg is like using a disaster involving one of the earliest planes to discourage commercial flights with modern jets.

  2. Sky Captain calling by Travoltus · · Score: 5, Funny

    he wants his world of tomorrow back.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  3. Idea full of hot air by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    (sorry, had to be said)

  4. A new mode of transport in general? by mlts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Airships have their issues, but I recall reading somewhere that a blimp large enough to carry massive amounts of cargo can do so for the fraction of the fuel spent on ship-based transportation. Ships have to keep expending energy to push through water, but an airship needs far less power to keep a course through the air.

    I see a couple hurdles though.

    The first is designable around -- damage to the hot air or helium part due to lightning, or tears due to other factors. Having multiple "balloons" might help this situation, so if one is ruptured, the airship still can stay up, or descend in a fairly graceful fashion.

    The second is a bit harder, but sort of related to #1. There are people out there (in most areas of the globe) who wouldn't mind taking potshots at an airship. It could be a drunk hillbilly who is playing with his new 30/06, or someone who has a RPG and is hoping to knock the thing out of the air completely. Oddly enough (and I have little or no aerospace expertise), I wonder if, even with major damage from a missile hit, a well engineered airship still can land gracefully (assuming the gondola isn't what is damaged.) Could an airship fly high enough so the chance of getting hit by ground fire be minimized?

    Lastly there is a third problem. There is a ton of air traffic already. I wonder how hard it would be to factor in large, slow vehicles into the aviation corridors without impacting takeoffs and landings of jets and prop based traffic.

    1. Re:A new mode of transport in general? by brinebold · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The second is a bit harder, but sort of related to #1. There are people out there (in most areas of the globe) who wouldn't mind taking potshots at an airship. It could be a drunk hillbilly who is playing with his new 30/06, or someone who has a RPG and is hoping to knock the thing out of the air completely. Oddly enough (and I have little or no aerospace expertise), I wonder if, even with major damage from a missile hit, a well engineered airship still can land gracefully (assuming the gondola isn't what is damaged.) Could an airship fly high enough so the chance of getting hit by ground fire be minimized?

      For the .30/06 its like shooting a parachute with a pistol. Enough holes would be dangerous but the helium bags aren't under enough pressure to pop like a balloon and a hole roughly 1/3 in. in diameter isn't going to be enough to bring it down before a patch can be made. Also, with the exception of some serious firepower like the .50 and .75 caliber rifles, bullets don't actually travel too far before dropping. Your chances of hitting a blimp with a hunting rifle or an AK when its in the air are practically nonexistent outside of takeoff or landing. The maximum effective range of an AK-47 (the area at which you could expect to hit a large target firing horizontally, though I think a blimp is a bit above the large target in this standard) is generally estimated around 250m. add the distance you are away from it and account for the upward angle you're firing at and I believe it'd be quite impressive to to hit a blimp with small-arms fire.

      As far as the RPG goes, I'm not sure what we could hope for there... military aircraft don't stand up so well to direct RPG hits. Commercial aircraft simply can't be designed for that particular level of abuse.

  5. Re:Anti-gravity tech by porl · · Score: 5, Informative

    you are thinking of hydrogen.

  6. Re:Hydrogen--Big Cube of Vacuum by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's certainly much easier to get hydrogen than helium.

    And it lifts better too!

    Of course vacuum would provide the best lift of all in the atmosphere. So why is it that my beautiful 21" crt monitor, which is little more than a big cube of vacuum, is so damn heavy?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  7. Re:Helium please :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh, please stop the FUD. From wikipedia:

    "Despite the violent fire, most of the crew and passengers survived. Of the 36 passengers and 61 crew, 13 passengers and 22 crew died. Also killed was one member of the ground crew, Navy Linesman Allen Hagaman. The two dogs on board the ship also died. Most deaths were not caused directly by the fire but were from jumping from the burning ship. Those passengers who rode the ship on its descent to the ground survived. Some deaths of crew members occurred because they wanted to save people on board the ship. In comparison, almost twice as many perished when the helium-filled USS Akron crashed."

  8. Re:Hydrogen by delt0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And you saying its not credible makes it un-credible because you are credible? Please back up your claim.

    Over half of the people survived the crash. How many survive 747 crashes? Perhaps the 100+ tons of JET fuel in the wings and under the floor is not safer than hydrogen after all?

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  9. Propper modding technique by EGenius007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't all comments referring to the Hindenburg be modded "Flaimbait"?

    --
    I know what you did last summer. Just kidding, I don't work at the NSA.
  10. Re:Anti-gravity tech by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny

    you are thinking of hydrogen. thinking?
    --
    Deleted
  11. Re:Hydrogen by MaineCoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People also seem to forget that 2/3s of the passengers of the Hindenburg survived, and it was the only notable airship disaster, whereas most airplane crashes that involve fatalities seem to kill a good majority (if not all) of the passengers, and seem to happen at least once or twice a year lately.

    --
    Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
  12. Re:Anti-gravity tech by Swampash · · Score: 5, Informative

    But seriously, wasn't it almost exactly 100 years ago that humanity learned an important lesson about mixing helium and airships?

    Doesn't helium have the unfortunate property of being, oh I don't know... extremely flammable?


    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the American public-school education.

  13. Re:Anti-gravity tech by Morgor · · Score: 5, Informative

    And according to this link (no myminicity, I swear!), Helium is in danger of being in short supply due to among other things that it's not captured and recycled after use and while being available in big supply in the universe, the Earth supply is actually a bit limited.
    According to the article it is an issue the next generations of scientist are going to have to struggle with. So maybe a Helium-based airship is not that good an idea, although I don't have to background to propose a different scheme.

  14. Re:Anti-gravity tech by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can make it from hydrogen. It's a bit tricky, though.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Re:Blimps compete with trucks and trains - badly by scourfish · · Score: 5, Funny

    Blimps don't need to make economic sense because they are fun. Also, if we don't have zeppelins, then how am I supposed to fulfill my dream of throwing somebody off of one and then saying "No ticket"?

  16. Re:Clarification on Helium Ban by andrew618 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm the "this guy" mentioned above. I guess I should clarify what I wrote in my blog post. The ban on selling helium to the Nazis WAS based on military priorities. The presence of the swastika had nothing to do with the ban (other than making sure there wouldn't be an exception made). Eckner admired the Americans and was less-than-thrilled by the Nazis (although he accepted their funding). The economic realities of the day meant he had to place the swastika on his airships, thereby "dissing" those he admired. Sorry for any confusion.

  17. Re:Anti-gravity tech by Silver+Gryphon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear the sun's been doing it for years. Maybe we should ask it for advice.