Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
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."
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.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
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.
Worst...sig...ever!