Boeing-Skyhook Airship Faces Technical Challenges

waderoush writes "Since the Hindenburg disaster, dreams of giant airships capable of lifting heavy cargo have been restricted mainly to Popular Science covers (with the notable exception of the Cargolifter AG failure) — until Boeing and a Canadian company called Skyhook announced on July 8 that they're building a 300-foot-long, helium-filled craft that will lift loads of up to 40 tons and carry them 200 miles. But an aeronautical engineer at the University of Washington cautions that there are still some big problems to be worked out with mega-airships, including their stability in turbulent weather."

Comments

Again, I read the article

[holophrastic]

This is, once again, a stupid and worthless article. Allow me to summarize again.
1. Someone's trying to build something
2. Someone else says it was hard a few decades ago

That's it. Gee, thanks for the news. Once again, "Someone is going to try to do something" is not a headline!

Where's the beef?

[BrotherBeal]

There's got to be more to this analysis than TFA leads on. I mean, identifying turbulence as a problem is hardly a feat of aeronautical engineering. We've been flying aircraft of many varieties for a long time, and it's not as if we don't have strategies in place to deal with turbulence or any of the other weather conditions that exist (which TFA seems to confuse with turbulence). Problems with aerodynamic control are hardly showstoppers either. If worse comes to worse, put a tail-rotor on the thing just like a helicopter, or use counter-rotating props. As for the third problem (the high price of helium) - that's hardly a "technical challenge". If companies feel this new design opens some profitable avenues, they'll find a way to fund it - otherwise, it will remain a prototype. I'd like to hear what this engineer ACTUALLY had to say, since the folks at xconomy.com seem to have left nearly all the meat out of his critique.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[b0s0z0ku]

Ironically, when the Hindenburg (which was among a tiny minority of airships that actually crashed) wrecked, a scant few people were killed, a couple injured, and the rest survived. When an airliner crashes... well, survival chances are... not quite as good.

This was a crash upon landing -- i.e. the airship caught fire at an altitude of about 100 ft when approaching its docking tower. Your chances of surviving an airliner wreck from 35,000 feet are quite small -- your chances of surviving a crash or fire upon a (somewhat controlled) landing are much greater.

-b.

Mods on crack?

[spectrokid]

Let me summarize responses which for some weird reason have been modded down:
+ 200 miles in a blimp = 8 hours You fly around with a refinery cracking tower for 8 hours you gonna want to take a leak.
+ Any long distance you do by ship or train. Pick up your oversized baggage directly from the ship, and fly it to its final destination.
+ If I can add my own: the weather can change a lot in 8 hours. Flying into a storm with a 50 ton windmill hanging from your butt is bad news.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[Original Replica]

Not if you factor in that time = money. Then they aren't so economically competitive with jet aircraft because of how slow they are.

For business trips, I agree with your point. For vacation travel I might disagree, depending on the cost and luxury of airship travel. A airship ticket from NYC to London that costs the same as the airplane ticket might be a good deal if I have a decent sized seat and can walk to a dining area and eat real food on my 24 hr trip as opposed to being cramped in an economy seat with a microwave meal for 7 hrs. If the trip is actually part of the vacation it could be worth it.