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

Oblig. Simpsons

[name*censored*]

Wow, it seems we're coming full circle with air travel..

"I'd like to send this letter to the Prussian consulate in Siam by aeromail. Am I too late for the 4:30 autogiro?"

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[DaedalusHKX]

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. So lets get it right, if an airliner pilot wrecks the plane, you're fairly likely to DIE. If a zeppelin or something to that effect crashes, you've got a fairly good chance to tell a "wow look at me" story about your "shipwreck adventure" which is probably why the Hindenburg got such note...

Do your own research on the subject, but they actually were safer than airplanes (and significantly more economic). Either way, hopefully you'll dig up your own research on the subject.

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.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[magarity]

but they actually were safer than airplanes (and significantly more economic)
 
Not if you factor in that time = money. Then they aren't so economically competitive with jet aircraft because of how slow they are. Now maybe compared to a cruise liner...

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[arbitraryaardvark]

At a rest stop in ohio, I noticed a sign about the crash of the shenandoah, an earlier version of these. Still, high time they came back. Skyhook is a brilliant name for it.
They should give Randall Munroe a free ride.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10432

America had four zeppelins of its own in the 1920s and 1930s. One -- the Los Angeles -- was built by the Germans, flew successfully for a decade, and retired with dignity. The other three -- the Shenandoah, Akron, and Macon -- were built by Americans, and each crashed less than two years after its first flight.

The first, and the only one to crash on land (and thus be suitable as a tourist attraction) was the Shenandoah. In September 1925 it was ordered to conduct an ill-advised publicity tour of midwestern state fairs. Less than 24 hours into its flight "the strongest airship in the world" was caught in a thunderstorm, torn to pieces, and scattered across the rolling hills of Noble County in southeastern Ohio. Amazingly, 29 of its crew of 43 survived.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[Splab]

Well a plane crash-landing from 100 ft. is usually going a couple of hundred miles per hour, getting to zero from that speed usually involves quite a bit of force.

A blimp crashing from 100 ft. while be going at much slower speeds and thus your chance of survival will be greatly enhanced.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[GleeBot]

Actually, chances of surviving a fire on the ground in an aircraft are quite low. Most of the fatalities in air crashes come from people who burn to death shortly after impact, rather than the impact itself.

I'm also reminded of numerous crashes which happen quite close to the ground which result in massive casualties--Tenerife, in particular, comes to mind. The greatest loss of life in aviation history came about because of a collision on the ground.

One of the things that makes airline accidents so deadly isn't necessarily the altitude, but the speed and the fact that these things are carrying so much damn fuel. I wonder which has more energy, the envelope of the Hindenburg or your average passenger jet fuel tank...

(Incidentally, airships can crash land from quite high altitudes with minimal ill effects. Because they're lighter than air, and contain so much lifting gas, even sizable holes leak quite slowly in comparison to the envelope volume, and the airship drops slowly. Fatal airship crashes have usually involved loss of control, rather than a sudden loss of lift; even the Hindenburg, with the entire envelope aflame, crashed rather gently.)

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.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[drinkypoo]

I'm also reminded of numerous crashes which happen quite close to the ground

Most crashes happen quite close to the ground, with the exception of midair crashes, which are comparatively rare.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[cyclone96]

One of the things that makes airline accidents so deadly isn't necessarily the altitude, but the speed and the fact that these things are carrying so much damn fuel. I wonder which has more energy, the envelope of the Hindenburg or your average passenger jet fuel tank...

Interesting question. I did some quick googling and math. I wasn't particularly careful, so corrections are welcome.

The Hindenburg had a gas volume of 200,000 m^3, at 0.089 kg/m^3 standard density of hydrogen gas, that is a total hydrogen load of 17,800 kg. Hydrogen has a high energy density of 143 MJ/kg.

A fairly heavily loaded 747 will be carrying 136,000 kg of Jet-A at 43 MJ/kg.

So, the 747 has more than twice the energy onboard, although smaller jets would be rougly equal, all depending on the fuel load. I also did not include the diesel onboard the Hindenburg (or its rather flammable aluminum paint).

One significant difference between hydrogen and Jet-A burning is that the hydrogen is going to rise once the gas bags rupture and not hang around on the ground like Jet-A.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[Zemran]

Hindenburg was hydrogen filled with hydrogen. Although there are lots of ideas about the cause of the accident, the effect would have been much less fatal in a modern, helium filled airship.

So a modern version of this would have had near to 100% survival as is would have just settled to the ground and collapsed.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[settantta]

It is interesting to take a good long look at the news footage of the crash. If you do, you'd notice that all the hydrogen burned off in the first couple of seconds, and by the time the Hindenburg actually hit the ground, it had all gone.

The fire and most casualties were from the combustion of the diesel fuel and other combustible materials in the structure, not from the hydrogen itself.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[b0s0z0ku]

The fire and most casualties were from the combustion of the diesel fuel and other combustible materials in the structure, not from the hydrogen itself.

I thought most of the casualties were from people jumping -- the people who stayed with the wreckage as it settled to the ground were mostly ok.

-b.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually,
The greatest loss of passenger life in a aviation history happened when a Cessna 152 crashed over a cemetery in Poland in 1982. To this day, they are STILL recovering bodies.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[moosesocks]

Jet-A also more closely resembles kerosene than it does Gasoline.

It burns rather slowly, and generally not explosively. Granted, if a tank full of jet fuel ignites, it's definitely a very bad thing, but it'll take more than a few minutes to burn.

An airship full of Hydrogen gas will combust almost instantaneously.

You also have the issue of public perception. The Hindenberg disaster was a fairly horrific spectacle (big explosion, people running around on fire, etc....). This is why we've spent billions (trillions?) fighting a war on "terror," despite the fact that the odds of being killed by a terrorist in America in the past 10 years is about the same as being struck by lightning. 9/11 was very.....graphic.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[ebuck]

True, airship crashes rarely involved the speeds or energy that are associated with airline crashes. In many airship accidents there are survivors (and more of them).

However, dying in an airship crash is not the only means of dying related to airship transportation. Line men (the guys that guided the airships to the mooring masts) would pull the airship into place (for the fine positioning work). They were accustomed to pulling the airship down and occasionally would be lifted off the ground (think big hops). Normally the added weight would pull the ship back down (assuming there were sufficient linemen)

In a few airship related deaths, linemen held to the line for too long (thinking it was going back down) when a sudden change in air pressure would literally pull them hundreds of feet into the air. Under such circumstances, the line men would have to hold onto the line or plummet to near-certain death. If the airship could not respond quickly enough, the line man would tire and drop to his death.

I'm not saying that this makes airship travel less safe than airplane travel, in fact it's much safer. Still different modes of transportation have their own associated risks. Comparing strict apples-to-apples isn't possible. I mean, how many people get kicked and die from their cars (as opposed to horses)?

Re:Oblig. Simpsons

[SnowZero]

Airships really don't work well in inclement weather, and many crashes were at least in part caused by unexpected bad weather (even the Hindenburg). The thing that makes revisiting airships in the modern era potentially interesting is that we now have very good Doppler radar, weather satellites, etc. So, it shouldn't be that hard to fly around bad weather in many places.

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:Where's the beef?

[Deadstick]

and it's not as if we don't have strategies in place to deal with turbulence

We certainly do. The one for aerostatically-suspended vehicles is "Fly in nice weather".

An airplane suspends itself entirely with aerodynamic force, which the pilot can manipulate to a high degree and on a very short time scale. Hit a downward bump, pull back a little on the stick, lift increases, flight path remains nearly constant.

An airship suspends itself principally with an aerostatic force which can't be modified very much, and maintains the desired flight path with relatively small aerodynamic forces which are manipulated in the same way as an airplane. The latter forces just don't have enough range to deal with serious turbulence.

Besides making maneuvering difficult or impossible, turbulence presents another threat: stress. While the aerodynamic forces the pilot can apply are small, the ones a thunderstorm can apply are not. Aerodynamic forces depend on the surface area of an object, and the surface area of an airship is huge. Big forces, big stresses on a necessarily lightweight structure.

rj

Re:Where's the beef?

[Melee_Fracas]

Having taken classes from Prof. Breidenthal, I can tell you that, more than likely, his quotes are absurdly dry understatements. Also, I can tell you that he's right. It should be a rule of the internet: When Professor Breidenthal and a random internet commenter disagree, Professor Breidenthal is correct. Corollary 1: A belligerent noob will have no idea how badly he has been owned by Professor Breidenthal's absurdly dry understatements. Corollary 2: If Professor Breidenthal refrains from ownage, then the noob is open-minded and shows potential. That guy is smart, and his classes were hard. He always tried to craft tests so that the average score was 50%, to "maximize the dynamic range." (Separate the wheat from the chaff, I gathered.)

Re:Where's the beef?

[settantta]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/11/skyhook_jhl_40_boeing/ for a fuller story.

Re:IF it works

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of helium ain't nothin' compared to the way the oil market is behaving.

Good thing, too. It would be tough to invade the sun.

I can fix that one ...

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Well, duh. Don't fly them in a storm them. Geez, do these guys need to have everything explained to them?

Re:I can fix that one ...

[delt0r]

Thats the one of the rubs of airships. They can't go all that high compared to a jetliner without sacrificing huge chunks of lift capacity or using a aerodynamic lifting . So your stuck "below" the weather as it were. Also even at 40,000 feet theres plenty of turbulence as some frequent fliers will tell you.

Re:Obligatory Hindenberg reference

[ScrewMaster]

He != H

It does if He says it does.

Airships are intrinsically fragile

[mangu]

Almost all the large airships that were built in the past crashed, Google can tell you that (I removed Hindenburg from the list because that was a fire, not a crash). As a matter of fact, I think they ALL crashed, except but one, that is I think I once read about a large airship that was retired due to old age, but I'm not sure.

Being fragile is an intrinsic condition of a structure that must be very large, yet very lightweight. Heavier-than-air craft are much sturdier, just because they are, well, they are heavier.

Re:Airships are intrinsically fragile

[negRo_slim]

I think they ALL crashed, except but one

As a child I watched airships sail over the pacific ocean and Tillamook Bay during the summer months. They would launch from the old military blimp hangers, only one would survive and it would go on to become the Tillamook Air Museum

And in high school they payed us to roll the bastards up for storage as they were no longer to be taken to the skies... So I can tell you sir, with the utmost confidence that all the airships did not, in fact, crash.

Oh, its a headline alright, to many people.

[deft]

"Once again, "Someone is going to try to do something" is not a headline!"

Sure its a headline.

But, for you, when people are doing something huge, you apparently dont want to know till its done. Many news stories are worthy just that someone i undertaking the challenge, usually because of the scope of the challenge and implications. Some things take longer. Like USA decides to go to the moon was pretty big back in the day. That certainly is/was news to even try the feat. You seriously wouldn't be interested to know Iran is trying to build a nuke? Or do you just say "yawn, let me know when they have a nuke... its not news they are trying...".

Your ideal newspaper would read "2020: The USA successfully set up their base mars yesterday after 12 years of work on the project"?

Re:Oh, its a headline alright, to many people.

[coresnake]

Your ideal newspaper would read "2020: The USA successfully set up their base mars yesterday after 12 years of work on the project"?

That actually sounds awesome. No more bs news flogging vaporware stories anymore...

Re:Oh, its a headline alright, to many people.

[holophrastic]

You mis-understand me. "people are trying to build an airship" is news-worthy even if they were built every day. But that's not this article's focus. This article focuses on how some other people (not the airship builders) mention problems with airship design. This article is about raining on someone else's parade.

What makes it particularly stupid is that these people who are predicting the builders' failure are doing so in an industry where virtually nothing has been done for decades. So essentially they are using antiquated data to argue against current endeavours. That's not only mean, it's retarded -- in the correct sense of the word.

Re:Oh, its a headline alright, to many people.

[holophrastic]

I mis-spoke. It's not that you misunderstood me, it's that you misunderstand challenges. In any venture, of any kind, "challenges remain". That's not critiquing someone else's plans.

If I were to critique an airship builder's plans, I might say something to the effect of: "they've decided to use an elongated shape, which is unlikely to succeed because an elongated shape would make the ship more susceptable to wind turbulence.".

That's a critique. But that's not what these guys said. They say the equivalent of: "airships have to deal with wind turbulence, so these guys shouldn't try.".

Listing problems doesn't contribute anything to the builders, and it doesn't contribute anything to the reader. It's the F.U.D. of the engineering world, and it's literally retarding.

Speaking in generalities about someone else's endeavour is not only easy, it's pointless.

Re:Helium Crisis Approaching

[b0s0z0ku]

It could use hydrogen gasbags within an envelope filled with pure nitrogen to prevent mixing with air and combustion. Technology has come a long way since the Hindenburg, and hydrogen airships could be made safe. (BTW, some theories state that the Hindenburg accident wasn't caused directly by the hydrogen gas but by the fact that the ship was painted with a flammable aluminium-based paint).

-b.

Cost Benefits Can Be Evaluated

[LifesABeach]

Mankind does Life Threating actions everyday; Flying Aircraft is but one dangerous occupation. And when the weather is rough, good pilots change flight plans. One benefit would be that Truck Jackings would go down, (a bad use of words here...). But what is the cost per ton by the Consignee? What is the average ground speed for cargo delivery. What are the Logistics of this Grand Design? I know this; "Point to Point Delivery" would open up our congested Freeways, that's cool.

Just a thought, but what about a "Sport Light Aircraft Blimp"? Just please don't call this Aircraft an "Icarus".

Re:Cost Benefits Can Be Evaluated

[QuantumRiff]

The biggest advantage to this is that it can go where there are no roads.. If you want to do a logging operation, and the trucks can only get within 20 miles, right now, you use a single helicopter, and lift small amounts of logs and ferry them back to the area where the trucks are. 40 tons is a lot of logs that this thing can carry back. The fuel savings are huge, since after it drops its load, and goes back, it doesn't need to use its rotors for lift, just the propellers for propulsion. Also, think about northern Alaska and Canada. (I like the show "Ice road truckers) but imagine if you could ferry the supplies up to remote locations where there are no roads, year round, instead of just a few month window when the ice is thick.

200 miles?

[greyhueofdoubt]

It can carry 40 tons of cargo but only enough fuel to travel 200 miles? I can see this being useful for heavy construction, but c'mon- it can't be too hard to sacrifice a little bit of cargo space in order to extend the range dramatically. What am I missing?

-b

Re:200 miles?

[chenjeru]

Those who would sacrifice cargo space for a little extended range deserve neither cargo space nor range... wait, sorry.

Re:IF it works

[BlueMikey]

Unless we run out of helium.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html

"At our current rate of consumption, Cliffside will likely be empty in 10 to 25 years, and the Earth will be virtually helium-free by the end of the 21st century."

Re:IF it works

[zippthorne]

Did you even RTFA? Helium is a byproduct of oil extraction. If the oil dries up, no more helium, either. Unless you think transmuting elements is something that can be economically done on a large scale.

Blimps are non-rigid and small

[mangu]

Blimps are relatively small craft, made of rubberized fabric, they are in a different class from the larger airships with metal structures.

Re:Border control

[Pogue Mahone]

They're full of helium, man. Even if you manage to set fire to one, it'll crash and go out

Re:IF it works

[Oktober Sunset]

pffftt. Helium is for wimps. Have some balls and use hydrogen.

Re:Obligatory Hindenberg reference

[Kozz]

Did you post a Hindenburg link expressly with the intention of garnering a "Flamebait" mod?

Genius!

Re:IF it works

[fritsd]

Well, for Helium, maybe.

How cool would it be to have a fusion-reactor-driven zeppelin that replenishes its own Helium?

OTOH, I'd imagine people would object to the possibility of a fusion reactor dropping on their house in case of an accident.

What do you expect...

[slimjim8094]

Of course there would be problems with an airship based on skyhooks.

Jeez

Too Much For Too Little

[Hubec]

My problem with this aircraft is that for the complexity and cost of 4 heavy lift helicopters plus a giant airship all you get is twice the lifting power of a helicopter that was designed 30 years ago!? WTF? You can rent a Mi-26 today. This project doesn't make any sense.

Re:lift capacity, deadheading, and loss of helium

[mhamel]

Nice comment. Except for the part where you make the assumption that the ship is neutral with it's cargo. The article is talking about a ship that is neutral without it's cargo. Then it as rotors, just like an helicopter, for lifting the cargo. The rotors are compensating for the weight of the cargo. To go down, just slow the rotors. When you unload, the ship just stay there.

Try to read the article next time ;-)

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.

Use nanotubes containing a vacuum....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Stephenson created dirigibles built from nanotubes that "stored"(?) a vacuum. No hydrogen or helium needed.

It's all in the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.

Re:Interesting a sky truck

[icegreentea]

Heavy lift aircraft cannot lift 400 tonnes. The current world record is held by the An-225 carrying 250 tonnes. Most other heavy lift aircraft top out around 150 tons or so. Helicopters tend to top out around 20-25 tonnes (including fuel).

Private Pilots Night at Six Flags

[Latent Heat]

I would like them to hold a Private Pilot's night at Six Flags -- to get on the roller coasters you have to show a pilot's certificate. I would like for just one time in my life ride the coasters with a bunch of people who appreciate the fine points of their design and won't yell, scream, raise their hands and go "woo" and just plain STFU and enjoy the ride.