Aeroscraft Begins Flight Testing Following FAA Certification

Because I had to look it up... by grasshoppa · 2013-09-09 07:45 · Score: 1

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

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

Re:Because I had to look it up... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 07:51 · Score: 0

I for one welcome our new, rigid, overlords... uh... that sounded wrong... I take that back!
Re:Because I had to look it up... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

You woudn't have if you'd just RTFA, which BTW was excellent and described a whole lot of the technology that went into this thing. For instance, how it can land without a huge ground crew, why it doesn't take off when cargo is offloaded, why it's necessary in the first place. Its use will be for places like northern Canada and the Australian outback where there's no airport and no landing strip and no infrastructure whatever but where there are a lot of resources like timber and minerals.
This is one FA you should R. You'll not have to look anything up on wikipedia.
Re:Because I had to look it up... by superdave80 · 2013-09-09 08:16 · Score: 2

Oh yes, you welcome them. You welcome them LONG TIME!
Re:Because I had to look it up... by evilviper · 2013-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1

Its use will be for places like northern Canada and the Australian outback where there's no airport and no landing strip and no infrastructure whatever but where there are a lot of resources like timber and minerals.
Northern Canada makes sense, but I'm having a hard time imagining its use in Australia... That's one of the FLATTEST countries on earth, with the EASIEST road construction possible. Building a road involves drawing a line on a map, cutting the brush, and dropping the asphalt, and you might even be able to skip the asphalt... There are exceedingly few areas of any terrain features that need to be bridged. While roads aren't cheap to construct, they can't be THAT expensive in the remote areas of Australia.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Because I had to look it up... by h4rr4r · 2013-09-09 08:42 · Score: 1

Road on totally flat terrain is still not cheap, you have to truck all that asphalt out there and cut down all that brush. 1 million dollars might get you 10 miles of single lane. More likely half that. Australia is big.
Re:Because I had to look it up... by alexander_686 · 2013-09-09 09:10 · Score: 1

I too am still scratching my heads. Canada is amazing expensive – because you can’t just dump asphalt on the ground. Specifically, the mineral mines that lay in the far north. I think most of the road is tundra which is fiendishly tough to build roads on. No exactly a cite but..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Road_Truckers
Re:Because I had to look it up... by evilviper · 2013-09-09 10:43 · Score: 1

Road on totally flat terrain is still not cheap
Neither is an airship...

you have to truck all that asphalt out there and cut down all that brush
As I said already, you MAY be able to do without the asphalt. Australian truck-train drivers aren't unfamiliar with unpaved dirt roads, and they work reasonably well in the outback. They're more likely to get washed-out and impassable for some time, but with low volume trucking (which is surely what we're talking about) that's an easy trade-off to make.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Because I had to look it up... by flyneye · 2013-09-09 12:04 · Score: 1

""After a 70-year absence, it appears that a new rigid frame airship will soon be taking to the skies over California..."
It will be delivering medical marijuana to sun kings stranded poolside in Santa Barbara. Follow the money, jeez, the Canada thing is just publicity. Shhhhhh.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:Because I had to look it up... by flyneye · 2013-09-09 12:12 · Score: 1

So you can see it would be good for delivering Hydrogen, Propane or other fuel gasses to remote locations.I suppose you could fill it with helium and take it to a remote tribe so they can talk like Mickey Mouse, useful stuff. Hope they made it out of aluminum and other non sparking metals. Seems there was a problem with that a while back...

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:Because I had to look it up... by aXis100 · 2013-09-09 12:21 · Score: 2

It's more like a million per kilometer.
- If you're building a road in the bush, it's for freight transport, so that means extensive earthworks and groud prep to make it solid enough.
- Even dry areas have huge flash floods so you need decent drainage too.
- Plus you have to pay the contrstruction workers big $$$ to build roads in the middle of no-where
- Plus support infrastructure like construction camps etc.
Re:Because I had to look it up... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 14:46 · Score: 0

Road on totally flat terrain is still not cheap
Neither is an airship...

you have to truck all that asphalt out there and cut down all that brush
As I said already, you MAY be able to do without the asphalt. Australian truck-train drivers aren't unfamiliar with unpaved dirt roads, and they work reasonably well in the outback. They're more likely to get washed-out and impassable for some time, but with low volume trucking (which is surely what we're talking about) that's an easy trade-off to make.
With permafrost you have a chance, provided that the compression doesn't manage to melt the surface.
With anything slightly less frozen, you subject yourself to a whole mess of problems that you really don't want to have under a vehicle. Take a look at the pipeline access road disasters in Alaska. Fortunately they eventually managed to build in self-cooling pylons, and that's not cheap.
Re:Because I had to look it up... by evilviper · 2013-09-09 17:57 · Score: 1

We're talking about Australian DESERTS here. WTF does permafrost, cooling devices, and Alaska have to do with it?
Dirt roads have been around FOREVER. They're well understood.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Because I had to look it up... by dbIII · 2013-09-09 19:20 · Score: 2

No we are not. Hardly anyone lives in those deserts so with a few rare exceptions the roads go around them. While the deserts are big the vast majority of the continent is not actually desert.
Rain washes out dirt roads, or they turn into very nasty blacksoil mud - but of course since you've assumed the whole continent is like Chile's Atacama desert you've thought that is unimportant. Also dirt roads get very badly worn over time (corrugated), and some of the dirt (appropriately called bulldust) is dangerous to drive through so different dirt and gravel has to be brought in even if you want a dirt road. Just dumping gravel on that stuff without a road bed made from dirt from elsewhere doesn't last long.

Anyway, let's get back to airships. The graf zeppillin world circumnavigation revealed some very real limits for large lighter than air vehicles - weather tosses them about like a leaf in the wind and there's some that can't be climbed over. California, Central Australia etc may be viable places for the things because of a lack of sudden weather changes. If you can see a storm coming hours away then you can do something about it, such as avoidance or try to get it on the ground and inside something or block the wind somehow. In other areas, such as the Atlantic with rapidly changing weather, the things are an accident waiting to happen.
Re:Because I had to look it up... by evilviper · 2013-09-09 20:25 · Score: 1

but of course since you've assumed the whole continent is like Chile's Atacama desert you've thought that is unimportant
...Which is why I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS... Statements about them being: "washed-out and impassable for some time"
It gets tiresome speaking to morons so frequently...

The graf zeppillin world circumnavigation revealed some very real limits for large lighter than air vehicles
Then it's quite fortunate that modern rigid airships aren quite different than those original "lighter than air" vehicles... Strangely enough, they often study the history of airships, and DESIGN them DIFFERENTLY because of those known limitations...
I'm thoroughly done with this thread... Nothing but factually incorrect assertions all twisted around to desperately try and discredit a sound idea, before it has had ANY time to be tested in the real world.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Because I had to look it up... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-09-10 01:49 · Score: 1

These would be very good for windmill installations. And installing the power line towers needed to move the electricity from the wind farm to the city.
Also for moving drilling rigs to remote dry land sites, and to replace to some truck traffic with a lower cost alternative.
Think of these new dirigibles as 'go anywhere" barges that don't need rivers.

--
Will

ground-breaking airship by fustakrakich · 2013-09-09 07:47 · Score: 5, Funny

What, did they land too hard?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

must we endure.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 07:48 · Score: 0

this "airships are coming back and will be doing useful things soon" news wave every few years? do they alternate with flying cars?

Re:must we endure.. by hedwards · 2013-09-09 07:52 · Score: 1

I like airships, the problem is that they're not practical these days. Back in the '30s, I'm sure they were great, but the parts of the world that can afford lighter than air travel, also have decent railroads and highway systems that can make the trip with more efficiency.
I suppose this might replace ships for passengers, but even there, I can't imagine it being practical.
Re:must we endure.. by h4rr4r · 2013-09-09 07:53 · Score: 1

These can also be used in places that cannot afford those things. Imagine you have a large mine in some third world nation and need to get your product to port, but there are no roads for large vehicles. Since this craft can become heavier than air at will it is easier to land and can deal with weather far better than previous airships.
Re:must we endure.. by hedwards · 2013-09-09 07:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't think you understand how lighter than air crafts work. Yes, they can use the engines for a bit of lift, but no, they can't be used as you describe. These craft have severely limited capacity for cargo, ever seen a photo of one of those things? The size of the compartment is tiny compared with the rest of the craft.
What's more, you'd be far, far better off just getting a Chinook, as those are much smaller and are designed to handle a substantial amount of cargo.
But, even a Chinook is going to be more expensive than just trucking it. Anybody with a mine doing substantial volume is going to have to have roads anyways, as miners do need to eat, and there's a tone of other supplies involved as well.
Re:must we endure.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:00 · Score: 1

The fine article says that they're intended for places that need heavy cargo delivery but lack infrastructure, such as Alaska and Northern Canada where there's plenty of valuable minerals and damned few ways to efficiently ship supplies in and the raw materials back out. It's aimed at cargo transport to/from places that other forms of air travel are too impractical for, not really for replacing existing air travel.
Re:must we endure.. by h4rr4r · 2013-09-09 08:08 · Score: 2

I don't think you read the article. What I am talking about is what it says.
They want to move remote or oversized cargo. They can become heavier than air and the airship is shaped as an obvious lifting body.
Re:must we endure.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:24 · Score: 0

The Use-case for the Aeroscraft, is hauling bulk freight to planes with little to no infrastructure.
It has VTOL capability, the ability to hover on station, and even a hover-skirt allowing water landings. All while being more fuel efficient than a heavier than air craft with the same capacity.
Re:must we endure.. by evilviper · 2013-09-09 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative

no, they can't be used as you describe.
In fact they can. They talk about this exact scenario at the very bottom of TFA...

These craft have severely limited capacity for cargo
Their absolute cargo capacity doesn't matter... It's a question of cost per kg of cargo. Since airships need to consume extremely little fuel, they are extremely economical to operate, and the cost of shipping heavy materials will be vastly less expensive than flying them on conventional airplanes.

What's more, you'd be far, far better off just getting a Chinook, as those are much smaller and are designed to handle a substantial amount of cargo.
That's absolute nonsense. A helicopter will consume MORE fuel than conventional airplanes, has less range, and moves more slowly, all for the convenience of VTOL. An airship will be VASTLY more economical to operate.

Anybody with a mine doing substantial volume is going to have to have roads anyways, as miners do need to eat, and there's a tone of other supplies involved as well.
The diamond and oil mines in the arctic are operating without roads... Instead they truck in supplies at great expense only part of the year, over the ice. The Alaska pipeline was perhaps the most expensive engineering project in history, and the investment nearly bankrupted the whole US oil industry. Until recently, the South Pole McMurdo station was operating without a road over the 1,000 mile distance, and it was an incredible expense to develop, only profitable because conventional aircraft are so expensive to operate that it cost double the jet fuel for a given cargo weight to fly in supplies.
In short, there are MANY places that don't or perhaps CAN'T have roads, yet are profitable locations that need lots of bulk freight deliveries. Pretty much everything you've said in your comment is undeniably factually incorrect, and if these airships prove reliable, they may have a few incredibly profitable routes.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:must we endure.. by kermidge · 2013-09-09 08:37 · Score: 1

Bingo. As for bringing raw materials back, I have to wonder - if the Aeroscraft can take in machinery for extraction of a resource, if it's one that can be readily pre-processed by straightforward mechanical or chemical means perhaps that could be done on site as well. I suppose the airship could be used for many 'outback' construction needs besides mineral extraction sites also - remote weather stations come to mind.
Existing heavy-lift helicopters such as the later Chinooks and S-64 are range-limited to several hundred miles, last I looked. I don't know if either one can be refueled in flight.
I've been following Pasternak's project with great interest since he started it and hope everything pans out.
Re:must we endure.. by h4rr4r · 2013-09-09 08:43 · Score: 1

Even if you can refuel the chinook in flight, helicopters burn fuel like that is their job. Not a cheap way to move cargo.
Re:must we endure.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:48 · Score: 0

hedwards, you're REALLY making a fool of yourself today. YOU don't understand how THIS lighter than air craft works because YOU DIDN'T RTFA. They are heavier than air while sitting on the ground (the explanation is in TFA) aned is indeed made for transpotring very heavy equipment to where IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD ROADS.
Dude, mcgrew here (cant log in yet) and I usually respect your posts, but you're really going to facepalm if you actually do RTFA. This vehicle is nothing like anything anyone ever built before, and it's a fascinating read.
Remember what Twain said: those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't read. Do yourself a favor and read the thing, but after you do you will be embarrassed by all the ignorant comments you've made.
Re:must we endure.. by hedwards · 2013-09-09 09:33 · Score: 1

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but there's a reason why this technology was never used for this purpose back in the '30s. What's more, it was never proposed for this purpose.
I'm familiar with how the vessel operates, it's just questionable if it's going to have any practical application like this. The amount of supplies that mining crews need is huge, take a look at the vehicles they're using. They're both immensely heavy, as well as huge. The dumptrucks that the larger mines are using are literally larger than a house.
The reality here is that these vehicles have limited use as they're both light on their cargo capacity in terms of mass as well as in terms of volume. And yes, they do maneuver better than the ones in the past, but they're still not going to be useful in the way that the GGP was talking about.
Re:must we endure.. by hedwards · 2013-09-09 09:42 · Score: 0

I disagree, I may not be the ultimate authority on all things mining, but I did used to work in the back country. And, this technology isn't going to be of any use in areas where you genuinely can't build roads. One summer, I was physically carrying gear up a steep mountain because there wasn't any way of getting a helicopter in, and the trail wasn't big enough for pack animals. The area itself used to be popular for copper mining and quite profitable back in the early 20th century.
What's more, when you're dealing with a mining operation that's large enough to even consider something like this, you're talking tons of materials going in and out over the course of a season. The dump trucks alone can be the size of a house, and weigh many tons.
In the arctic, you have plenty of room, but ultimately, the technology they're talking about is many years away from being able to handle that kind of weather, and you'd have to have a huge fleet of these ships to make that even plausible.
So, it's not undeniable, it's only undeniable if you don't know crap about mining or work in the back country. The bottom line here is that the claims in the article are overly sunny and largely designed to get people to invest in the project.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong, but it wasn't just technology that kept this from being a reality in the past, it was the fact that airships just are not appropriate for this type of use. There wasn't even a sense that it was a direction to go on in the past.
Re:must we endure.. by hedwards · 2013-09-09 09:47 · Score: 1

You obviously haven't worked in areas where you can't build roads. The reality is that most of those areas aren't typically suitable for airships either. You've got steep hills and deep canyons. And something the shape and size of an airship is going to be a logistical nightmare to use in a situation like that. Even up north in the Arctic there are serious problems as well.
Yes, the maneuverability is better than in the past, but it's not that good. And most of the best mining ground in the world is in areas where ships like this just don't work. Even if they can convert into heavier than air for periods, trying to fly something with that much surface area in a place like the Andes is a logistical nightmare.
So, they might claim that this is reasonable, but between the limited cargo capacity per volume of ship and the terrain they're talking about, I wouldn't expect this to happen in the next few decades or ever. This sounds like city boy talk about how easy it's going to be for them to get into an area where the locals haven't been able to. And it rarely works out well, otherwise the locals would already have been doing it.
Re:must we endure.. by CreatureComfort · 2013-09-09 09:58 · Score: 2

Chinook, maximum 13 tons of useful cargo capacity.

Aeroscraft, maximum useful cargo capacity 66 tons.

Your argument, is invalid.

--
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Re:must we endure.. by evilviper · 2013-09-09 10:23 · Score: 1

All your arguments are circular nonsense and fact-free... A large mining operation will be too large for these? And a small mining operation will be too small for these?

So, it's not undeniable, it's only undeniable if you don't know crap about mining or work in the back country.
It's undeniable airships have FAR lower operating costs per mass of cargo than conventional aircraft, and your suggestion of Chinook helicopters is positively laughable. Airships certainly CAN do many things you baselessly claim they CAN'T.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:must we endure.. by cusco · 2013-09-09 10:58 · Score: 1

The Andes are pretty much out of the question, even in those areas where helicopters can't operate adequately because of the altitude. Winds are utterly unpredictable and frequently outrageous (especially in August). I've seen a 'vientarron' rip a chunk of corrugated roofing off a house, toss it a couple hundred feet in the air, and drop it half a mile away. There is no way that an airship of any type could survive something like that, especially in an area where valleys are often only a kilometer or less wide at their bottom (where the resources generally are). It might work in the open Amazon jungle, but not anywhere higher than Quillabamba (and that's a stretch).

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:must we endure.. by AK+Marc · 2013-09-09 11:11 · Score: 1

One summer, I was physically carrying gear up a steep mountain because there wasn't any way of getting a helicopter in, and the trail wasn't big enough for pack animals.
I don't understand. You are saying that a helicopter couldn't get there, or they didn't want to pay for it? I've seen helicopters work around a variety of steep mountains, and they do quite well, so long as your final site is visible to the sky (lowering things on a 100 ft cable, released from the helicopter when touched down is not impossible). But I've not seen anywhere actually "not accessible", except for caves and such.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:must we endure.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 12:42 · Score: 0

Skyhook - Lighter then air system designed for use with helicopters to move extremely heavy loads (100Metric Tons+).
They're already in use and have been for the last 20 years as the idea is simple. You use the damn balloon to provide lift only. The Helicopters provide thrust and control.
In regards to using an Airship, the way the become heavier then air is god damn simple. It's called Compressors. Simply put, you pump the god damn LTA gas back into storage tanks at a high pressure, thus reducing available lift from the gas and I've known that since the early 70's when it was first written up in Fantasy & Science Fiction or Galaxy (don't recall which as that was almost 4 decades ago).
Re:must we endure.. by TheSync · 2013-09-09 12:48 · Score: 1

In May 2005, pilot Didier Delsalle of France landed a Eurocopter AS350 B3 helicopter on the summit of Mount Everest.
Re:must we endure.. by dbIII · 2013-09-09 19:27 · Score: 1

I think the big deal is that you can build them big enough to carry more stuff than a Chinook for a price a lot less than an Osprey - so that sort of nice instead of situations where you just use a truck or a train. The bigger they are though the more vunerable they are to bad weather. The graf zepillin had a lot of very close calls due to bad weather.
Re:must we endure.. by dbIII · 2013-09-09 19:31 · Score: 1

The Osprey can be refuelled in flight but you could probably afford a fleet of airships for the same price :)
Re:must we endure.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 23:42 · Score: 0

We have to endure the fantasies of the Space Nutters but we know no one's going anywhere. Then there's the delusions of the 3D printing loons. Slashdot is not a technical site; it's a forum for nerds to spaz out over the sci-fi dreams of their childhood.
Re:must we endure.. by Will.Woodhull · 2013-09-10 02:04 · Score: 1

These airships are perfect for installation and maintenance of windmill farms. One could easily handle the big components like towers and blades that are currently so hard to get to good sites. Airships would also be useful when building new power lines. And of course an airship could carry a huge amount of solar cell panels into roadless areas.
Airships and renewable energy development are a good fit.
The Chinook and other heavy lift helicopters are great for short distance hauling, such as logging. But these are too expensive to operate over hundreds of miles.

--
Will
Re:must we endure.. by Will.Woodhull · 2013-09-10 02:23 · Score: 2

I may not be the ultimate authority on all things mining
I definitely agree with the author's statement.
Extracting oil from the Canadian tar sands requires huge pieces of equipment that are currently barged up the Columbia River then trucked through Idaho and Canada on oversized vehicles, at night, requiring road closures because the things are so wide. Air freight by dirigible from the Port of Portland or Seattle would be much more economical (and avoid a lot of political noise as well). Not that I favor this: my politics are quite green and tar sands exploitation is one of the dirtiest ways of getting our gasoline fix.
Getting oil rigs into the tundra is also a major hassle, both in road building and in politics. Dirigibles would be a better alternative than road building.
Production mining often requires railroads to efficiently move product to market, but pre-production exploration could often be supported by dirigible, with a major reduction in the amount of road building needed. In the Chilean Andes, this could be the difference between a ten mile road to the nearest safe dirigible air field and a two hundred mile road to the nearest existing road.
Modern airships will be useful as "go anywhere" barges.

--
Will
Re:must we endure.. by Will.Woodhull · 2013-09-10 02:30 · Score: 1

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but there's a reason why this technology was never used for this purpose back in the '30s
And that reason is because the technology did not exist back in the '30s.
That was before carbon fiber, before Mylar, before the concept of a lifting body air frame. In short, it was before 80 years of engineering advancements.
The Aeroscraft airship is not the steampunk airship you imagine it to be.

--
Will
Re:must we endure.. by kermidge · 2013-09-10 10:37 · Score: 1

With a load capacity ~5 tons and 450nm combat range (800+otherwise), the V-22 could be useful for some on what is envisioned for the Aeroscraft - at least for such things as crew and small supplies replenishment.
In-air refueling is cool and all, but as with helicopters there is a limit (don't know hours for Osprey, sorry) of flight hours before maintenance; a helo may have as few as ten hours of flight before mandated down time. See also
http://www.justhelicopters.com/HELIARTICLES/tabid/433/ID/13287/Helicopter-In-Flight-Refueling.aspx
for a fascinating excellent account, and a history of helicopter aerial refueling.
The Aeroscraft (the big one, if after this prototype proves out) in contrast is designed to be able to shift _66_ tons out to several thousand km. So, for its designed role, the Aeroscraft looks a winner in all respects. It will remain to be seen how it fares in heavy weather, tho. To put it another way, for its intended missions it has no competition.

Lol aerostat by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 07:49 · Score: -1

Mortal Kombat...

Aerostat vs. Drone.

Round 1.

FIGHT!

Wonder when the first mid-air collision will be? My brother's in ATC and had some hilarious stuff to say about a collision in Florida a couple of years back. He he.

Re:Lol aerostat by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 07:53 · Score: 0

Wonder when the first mid-air collision will be? My brother's in ATC and had some hilarious stuff to say about a collision...He he.
Oh ho ho that musta been funny! Oh maaaan, those mid-air collisions are friekin' hilarious! Balls of flames! People dying! Could be babies on that flight! Just imagine if it happened over a populated area! Headline: Flaming babies fell from the sky landed on my foot! Oh maan that's KILLING ME! Get it, killing me? *wipes tears from eyes* lol!
Remind me not to go into air traffic control if it makes mass death seem funny.
Re:Lol aerostat by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:35 · Score: 0

Headline: Flaming babies fell from the sky landed on my foot! Oh maan that's KILLING ME! Get it, killing me?
Wow, thats really ensensitive. Could you tone it down a little?

The same fate as ships by intermodal · 2013-09-09 07:50 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, I think that the days of glamourous airship travel are gone. Cargo will probably find a niche, but passenger flights will be either nonexistent or close to it. We might some cruise-type flights over majestic terrain, but the true awesomeness of the Zeppelins was the ability to travel in luxury while taking in views the passengers never imagined.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:The same fate as ships by operagost · 2013-09-09 07:58 · Score: 1

Cruise ships were still pretty popular until the major carriers decided to stop maintaining their vessels and leave their passengers stranded in the Atlantic, waist-deep in sewage.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:The same fate as ships by intermodal · 2013-09-09 08:04 · Score: 1

It's true. But even in those circumstances, they wouldn't have been able to get rolling from a lack of existing market.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:The same fate as ships by Longjmp · 2013-09-09 09:22 · Score: 1

There was already a company trying to fill the "niche", Cargolifter.
They failed miserably because of underestimating the complexity and technical problems.

I'm highly skeptical but nonetheless interested how Airoscraft will perform.

--
There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
Re:The same fate as ships by intermodal · 2013-09-09 09:40 · Score: 1

Agreed. I think the real test will not be the feasibility of the concept, but rather whether they can manage their finances long enough to get rolling and find a price that brings customers at a profit and allows the company to grow.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:The same fate as ships by tsotha · 2013-09-09 11:11 · Score: 1

Well, that was part of the awesomeness. The other part was their use predates practical intercontinental travel by airplane. If you wanted to travel from Germany to Brazil or the US in 1930 the fastest way to go was on the Graf Zeppelin.
But the thrust of you comment is probably accurate. Airships travel at most about 25% of passenger jet speeds. Even assuming you can find people who are willing to spend four times as long getting to their destination, the real killer from a business standpoint is you have to have four times as many filled seats to get the same ticket revenue. The only way this is going to happen is if airships become significantly cheaper to operate. That's not impossible, but it's going to require significant increases in fuel costs as well as a much higher volume production of airships.
Re:The same fate as ships by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-09-09 14:04 · Score: 1

yeah, they call that "freestyle cruising". Oh, wait, that might be the other thing that ruined the cruise experience. Or was it the TSA at the docks...

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:The same fate as ships by dbIII · 2013-09-09 19:35 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, according to Frank Hurley the aviator, explorer and journalist that went for a long ride in one of the things, the flight crew are shitting themselves and hoping for good weather. As for your sig, apparently some of the worst scares were on a flight over soviet russia where they had no clue what the weather was going to be and an emergency landing would have meant slowly freezing to death while waiting months for rescue.
Re:The same fate as ships by intermodal · 2013-09-10 01:03 · Score: 1

Oh, I don't dispute those concerns at all. It's simply a difference in perception between the industry and the consumers. Like most industries, really...

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:The same fate as ships by intermodal · 2013-09-10 01:08 · Score: 1

Plus, it's not just seats at that point. Meals, possibly beds, and most damning of all, you have to get people out of hurry mode, something nobody seems willing to exit even when going on holiday. Economically, (in the broad sense, which includes factors such as time as well), airships will not ever be viable for standard service as passenger transports in that context. You'd pretty much have to ban jets, turboprops, and make standard prop planes unconscionably expensive.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 07:51 · Score: -1

I look forward to the next Hindenburg disaster. It's a good thing that we not only don't learn from history, but we seek to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

Re:Nice... by h4rr4r · 2013-09-09 07:55 · Score: 1

Have fun waiting, they are using He not H.
Re:Nice... by Punko · 2013-09-09 07:56 · Score: 3, Informative

So, you've discounted the fact that we won't be using a flammable substance for the ship's skin, and we won't be using a flammable gas for lift ? Helium doesn't burn/explode, and neither does the intended skin.

Those that dies in the Hindenburg were burned by diesel fuel spilled when the skin and lifting gas ignited. So on the whole, I'd say we have learned from History in this case. Of course, we still drive to work knowing that this is the least safe commuting option.

--
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Re:Nice... by SirGarlon · 2013-09-09 07:59 · Score: 1

It's a good thing that we not only don't learn from history, but we seek to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
You mean, mistakes such as posting without having read the fucking article?

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:Nice... by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-09 08:12 · Score: 1

Oh, I Se.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Nice... by maliqua · 2013-09-09 08:26 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwh07fYNdCY
Re:Nice... by sjames · 2013-09-09 08:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Interestingly, we now accept air disasters every few years that cause more death and destruction than the Hindenburg without a single call to ground the dangerous jetliners.
Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:54 · Score: 0

Also interestingly, the Hindenburg made 62 safe flights before it exploded (some flights lasted longer than 100 hours).
The absolute number of crashes is not relevant, it's the crash rate.
If commercial airlines had a 1 in 63 chance of crashing and killing all/most onboard, people would be screaming at the tops of their lungs as we watched 1 jetliner crash every hour at each of the busy airports in the world. Other than the Asiana crash earlier this year, it's been years since an airline crash in the USA (US airlines are a notch safer than foreign). Over 90000 commercial flights occur every single day and it's now extremely rare for one to crash.
Re:Nice... by sjames · 2013-09-09 09:08 · Score: 1

So who is to say that every 63rd flight would have done that? Especially with new precautions in place. Even if the odds were literally one in a trillion it could happen on the 1st flight or the trillionth or anywhere in between (it could even go 12 trillion then have two disasters in a row).
Keep in mind too that at that time, the accident rate for general aviation was more than 10 times what it is now. Other forms of travel were also less safe than now.
Re:Nice... by Immerman · 2013-09-09 09:54 · Score: 1

Fuel a jetliner with automotive diesel and you'll probably ramp the crash rate way up, assuming they can even get off the ground - they just aren't designed to use that blend of fuel. Similar issue with the Hindenburg - it was designed to use non-flammable helium as the lift gas, and as such had minimal protection against fire incorporated into it's design. Obviously the fact that they then chose to operate it with much cheaper hydrogen lift gas eventually became a problem.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Nice... by couchslug · 2013-09-09 11:23 · Score: 1

Kill yourself for not knowing that modern airships use helium or even bothering to check. That's basic historic and aviation knowledge.
Slashdot is at least theoretically a tech site.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Nice... by varmfskii · 2013-09-09 11:31 · Score: 1

Chose? The U.S. embargoed sales of helium to Nazi Germany, their choices were either use hydrogen, or not have the airships.
Re:Nice... by Immerman · 2013-09-09 11:42 · Score: 1

Which caused the price of helium to increase, leading them to choose to use hydrogen instead. The US was hardly the only source of helium.
> their choices were either use hydrogen, or not have the airships. ...or use airships designed to use hydrogen as a lift-gas. Such airships were not uncommon at the time, just more expensive. They could probably even have retrofitted the Hindenburg to use hydrogen relatively safely had they chosen, though it might have involved replacing the flammable skin at not inconsiderable expense.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 12:57 · Score: 0

(US airlines are a notch safer than foreign).
Oh? Really?
http://www.jacdec.de/jacdec_safety_ranking_2012.htm
Re:Nice... by dbIII · 2013-09-09 19:39 · Score: 1

It was, in a similar situation to most rare earth supplies coming from China until recently. There's other deposits around but nobody was getting it out of the ground and selling it.
Re:Nice... by matfud · 2013-09-10 03:14 · Score: 1

Look at the list of airship and dirigible acidents. The Hindenburg was minor. An awful lots of dirigibles broke up in mid air
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents
Newer materials may help as will the mor aerodynamic shape but the forces that can be generated on a surface area that large are huge.
Re:Nice... by Dabido · 2013-09-11 00:08 · Score: 1

'Helium doesn't burn/explode ... '
My uneducated friend hasn't heard of the sun! That things full of helium, and look at it burning and exploding all the time! :-)

--
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)

Windmills do not work that way, Human! by pla · 2013-09-09 07:53 · Score: 3, Informative

"The Aeroscraft airship can compress a certain amount of its lifting gas and put it into fabric tanks, under pressure. The density of the compressed gas is higher so that it is no longer lighter than air, and therefore this airship, unlike any of its predecessors, can change its buoyancy."

Uhh... That works with submarines because they actually do change their mass-inside-the-hull (and therefore their density) by taking in or dumping out water from the environment around them. With a rigid frame containing just helium, it doesn't matter whether you store the helium in a tank or in the balloon, you have the same total mass inside the footprint of the hull, and therefore the same overall density (for reference, a balloon "containing" a vacuum would have more buoyancy than even one using Hydrogen).

Not to say they couldn't have found a solution to that particular problem, but the explanation given... Doesn't solve that problem.

Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by h4rr4r · 2013-09-09 07:58 · Score: 5, Informative

They compress the helium into fabric bags, then this makes the some of the gas cells/bags inside the rigid frame deflate, that deflated volume is replaced with air. Then when you need to become lighter you allow the Helium to go back into the gas cell/bag and thus the bag inflates pushing the air out of the craft.
If they could do what you are suspecting is going on they would have no need for helium. They could just have a big rigid bag of vacuum.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Chris+Mattern · 2013-09-09 08:25 · Score: 1

That works with submarines because they actually do change their mass-inside-the-hull (and therefore their density) by taking in or dumping out water from the environment around them.
And it works here because they actually do change their mass-inside-the-hull (and therefore their density) by taking in or dumping out *air* from the environment around them.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by sjames · 2013-09-09 08:36 · Score: 1

It's not a rigid frame containing just helium. It's a rigid frame containing non-rigid gas cells that can expand or contract based on the amount of helium in them. Compress helium from the cells into a pressure tank and let (heavier) air enter the airframe to make up the volume.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by wcrowe · 2013-09-09 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

They could just have a big rigid bag of vacuum.
What if their vacuum is bagless?
Sorry, I couldn't help it.

--
Proverbs 21:19
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Deadstick · 2013-09-09 09:14 · Score: 1

What pla said. A dirigible is not a gasbag. It has its lifting gas in many individual cells, and the outer envelope is vented to atmosphere; if you look around the Net, you can find pictures of Hindenburg crewmen walking around inside it on catwalks with the gas cells all around them.
Connect hoses to the cells, and you can compress gas from them into a rigid tank, whereupon the cells get smaller and the closed volume of the ship does likewise.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by frovingslosh · 2013-09-09 09:20 · Score: 1

That was my thought too. They claim "A rigid airship has a stiff outer frame that maintains its aerodynamic shape regardless of the amount of helium inside the ship.". But there must be some sort of internal bladder system that they are leaving out of the description. Very poor article though without that key piece of information clearly stated.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Deadstick · 2013-09-09 09:21 · Score: 1

True, strictly speaking, but overcomplicated. The interior of the hull not occupied by gas cells is vented outside, so the volume of the hull is irrelevant. Only the volume of the sealed portion -- i.e., the gas cells and associated plumbing -- counts in determining the buoyancy. If the total weight of the ship divided by the sealed volume is less than the density of ambient air, the buoyancy will be positive.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Immerman · 2013-09-09 10:00 · Score: 1

I believe internal gas bladders within the outer skin is a standard feature of all dirigibles - that's the only way you can vary the density/buoyancy to change altitude without changing the shape of the rigid airframe that defines a dirigible. Without the rigid airframe you have a blimp, not a dirigible.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by CreatureComfort · 2013-09-09 10:03 · Score: 1

But the point to the rigid hull is to maintain favorable aerodynamic properties.

Especially in near-ground operations.

--
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by gweilo8888 · 2013-09-09 10:38 · Score: 1

Indeed. I'm lucky enough to have flown in one, and discussed the system with the pilot. They're used for trim and buoyancy both; inflate or deflate bladders to shift the helium forwards or backwards inside the envelope. Inflate both bladders to decrease buoyancy. Deflate both bladders to increase buoyancy. (And in addition, adjust quantity of sandbags in hatches underneath the passenger cabin to get the craft approximately at neutral buoyancy before liftoff.)

I'm failing to see what's unique here, tbh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyship_600
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Deadstick · 2013-09-09 11:05 · Score: 1

The hull is rigid, but it's supported by structural members, not by internal gas pressure.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Immerman · 2013-09-09 11:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think the new part is partially that the gas is re-compressed rather than vented in order to reduce buoyancy, and mostly that it's designed with vectored-thrust engines that allow it to land and take of while heavier-than-air, drastically increasing stability and safety - I believe the majority of historical airship accidents are involved with those narrow, high-risk operating windows.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by fnj · 2013-09-09 12:05 · Score: 1

I also flew in a blimp and talked to the pilot and other personnel; also studied the theory and technology at length. If you are talking about a blimp or a Zeppelin NT, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about decreasing or increasing buoyancy by using the ballonets (what you call "bladders"). That's not what they do at all. They have zero effect on overall static lift; none; nada. They are for fore-aft trim, as you say, but primarily they are to keep the pressure in the envelope constant as the helium expands and contracts due to altitude and temperature changes.
The static lift is controlled using the sandbags you mention. And only the sandbags.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by fnj · 2013-09-09 12:09 · Score: 1

Correct. The issue that those of us who have familiarity in the field have with Aeros is how their design could possibly handle rapidly changing, gusty winds on landing and takeoff. Not necessarily violent winds. Very moderate winds which are changeable.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by fnj · 2013-09-09 12:17 · Score: 1

Actually what you said applies to a rigid airship specifically. A dirigible is simply a lighter than air craft which can move independent of the wind and directly control its flight path (contrasted to a balloon). I.e., a synonym for "airship". Dirigible simply means "capable of being steered". A blimp is just as much of a dirigible as a rigid airship is. I realize popular usage of the word has become completely bogus.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 13:44 · Score: 0

I think the new part is partially that the gas is re-compressed rather than vented in order to reduce buoyancy
That's hardly a new concept. I read about it in a children's story "The Great Gasbag Race" copyright 1964.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by gweilo8888 · 2013-09-09 15:01 · Score: 1

If you looked at my link, you should have seen that it, too, has vectored thrust engines. That's hardly unique. And nor is recompressing, AFAIK. The only reason that the Skyship 600s don't recompress is because they're using a readily-available commodity (external air) in the gas bladders, so it is unnecessary to store it. Doing so would be a waste of energy. You simply use more outside air to fill the bladders as needed.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by gweilo8888 · 2013-09-09 16:30 · Score: 1

And what happens to helium as temperature changes? Its volume changes too. And what happens when its volume changes? Its density changes. And what happens when its density changes? You guessed it. The buoyancy of the blimp changes.

Did I say it was for instantaneous buoyancy change to climb or descend? No. You just made that assumption. It isn't used for that, as you note. It is, however, correct to state that the buoyancy is changed. I will grant you that it is close to 15 years since I got to fly in it, and spoke to the pilot; my memory was rusty. The primary goal is indeed to keep the envelope pressure constant.

However, that doesn't change the fact that "you couldn't possibly be wrong" is unnecessarily arrogant and belittling. I'm fairly certain I could've been a lot more wrong. And I'm fairly certain your own statements aren't perfect, either.

Also, a quote from a patent by Don Shaw, CEO of Advanced Tactics Inc., might be pertinent:

"The most widely used type of airship today is the blimp, which is a non-rigid airship having a generally flexible balloon envelope filled with a lighter-than-air gas such as helium. Inside the balloon envelope are one or more ballonets that can be filled with outside air. The filling of the ballonets compresses against and displaces the helium within the balloon envelope, and as the ballonets are filled (using outside air instead of the lighter helium), the overall weight of the blimp increases. Allowing the ballonets to deflate permits the helium to expand to fill more of the envelope, thus lightening the weight of the blimp."
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 21:58 · Score: 0

Isn't it easier to have sealed helium cells without any plumbing and then just pump compressed air into the surrounding space inside hull as needed? Elevated air pressure inside hull forces helium bags to shrink in size, and overall mass of everything inside hull is increased above the mass of displaced air therefore changing buoyancy into negative.
Now that I think about it, depicted principle of operation would suit blimps better, because it doesn't require a rigid frame, only tough mantle that can stand overpressure, but nevertheless, it is less hassle to construct. On the other hand, there is danger of catastrophic loss of pressure in main balloon (single point of failure, along the whole surface area!), which would make blimp uncontrollably gain elevation too fast. A compromise would be double layer helium gas bags, where you pump compressed air between layers, to control buoyancy of each individual bag (no single point of failure), but it then gets even more complex then original design, with exception of not handling helium, but air (much easier to seal installation, common technology)
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by necro81 · 2013-09-10 00:08 · Score: 1

They could just have a big rigid bag of vacuum
That would be the ultimate. Unfortunately, it is presently beyond our capabilities to construct a container of appreciable volume (or many, many tiny ones put together) that can withstand a vacuum (i.e., ~10^5 Pa of positive pressure) while still weighing less than the displaced air (about 1.2 kg / m^3 at sea level and room temperature).
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by h4rr4r · 2013-09-10 01:41 · Score: 1

That was my sly joke.
What he supposed was happening is currently impossible.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Immerman · 2013-09-10 04:45 · Score: 1

Ah, missed that. Looking at it now though it seems like a very different design:
- They mention maintaining a necessary envelope pressure, suggesting that it's a blimp rather than a zeppelin which has a rigid frame typically operated at roughly ambient pressure. Essentially the pumping of air seems to be just to keep the airfoil inflated as the ambient pressure changes. The Aeroscraft on the other hand actually alters their buoyancy so that they can become substantially heavier than air. That's the uncommon element.
- Which leads to the difference in second element, the vectored thrust engines. Not uncommon on airships since it adds a lot of maneuverability, but typically they're strictly for maneuvering, they couldn't hope to hold the airship in the air, while it sounds like the Aeroscraft engines are designed to do just that. Which allows it to operate as a lighter-than air craft while traveling, but when landing it can use it's engines "helicopter style" to hold it up in the air while it reduces it's buoyancy. After which it can throttle back and mange a firm, controlled, gravity-assisted landing rather than being just a balloon tethered to the ground so it doesn't blow away.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Immerman · 2013-09-10 04:46 · Score: 1

And I read about space elevators in old golden-age science fiction. Ideas are easy, the devil is in the engineering details.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by sjames · 2013-09-10 04:50 · Score: 1

The design as it is really isn't all that complicated. All of your alternatives sound riskier or ultimately more complex. For example, making the entire outer surface not just air tight but able to withstand several atmospheres of overpressure vs a pump, a tank, and a pipe, all available off the shelf.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Immerman · 2013-09-10 05:06 · Score: 1

It would seem to me, with my admittedly limited familiarity with airships, that moderate highly-changeable winds would be a minor issue. An airship isn't exactly low-mass, there's a lot of momentum there, so even with all that surface area any gust tat doesn't last long enough to impart significant speed is a non-issue.
I don't know many details, and I'd love a more informative article on the landing mechanics if you know of one, but as I picture it the landing Aeros would switch to vertical thrust and hover above the desired landing spot while lowering it's buoyancy until it would sit firmly on the ground. At that point it then lowers almost to the ground and waits until it's thrust and the wind conspire to give it a near-zero ground-speed, and then cut thrust so that it essentially falls out of the air and gets "gravity-tethered" in place. Possibly assisted by a ground crew with tethering lines, but they wouldn't be nearly as necessary as for a lighter-than-air craft which has to be winched down. Once on the ground it's simply a question of whether it's weight is sufficient to hold it against the wind, and I imagine a few tethering lines would help with that, as could possibly it's low-profile shape which would both reduce the lateral wind forces and quite possibly generate a downward Bernoulli-effect force from wind that gets channeled underneath it, sucking it against the ground.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by metaforest · 2013-09-10 10:59 · Score: 1

primary lift in a submarine or a dirigible is provided by buoyancy. That is the difference between the displacement of the surrounding medium relative to the lighter medium stored in the lifting cells. In a submarine you decrease the buoyancy by allowing the lifting cells to fill with water, thus compressing the air that fills the cells. The reduced volume of the air in the cells reduces the displacement relative to the surrounding medium. The air is conserved in high-pressure tanks, so that later it can be forced into the cells to displace the water, and restore 'lift'.
In a similar way, removing He from the lifting cells in the dirigible and compressing it into high-pressure tanks, reduces the volume of gas displacing the air. This reduces the buoyancy of the vehicle. Doing this using lightweight pumps, and carbon-fiber reenforced plastic tanks makes the control system light, and capable of compressing the He to fairly high pressures (at least several 100 PSI maybe more) and this compressed gas will provide NO LIFT, as it now displaces far less air than it weighs compared to when it is stored in the lift cells at ambient air pressure.
TL:DR if you compress the He in a toy balloon to 1/100 of its free-air volume, the balloon will not 'float'.
PS... the tech capacity of /. has damn near leaked out of the braincells that still participate here,
Re:Windmills do not work that way, Human! by Dabido · 2013-09-11 00:00 · Score: 1

It uses the same physics that Baron Von Munchausen used to lift himself out of the quicksand by his hair, by pulling upwards on it.

--
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)

Megaloads by SoupGuru · 2013-09-09 07:55 · Score: 1

The Spokane area is all aflutter with some "megaload" controversy about shipping some water treatment equipment to a mine in Canada over some "scenic" roads.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/aug/14/megaload-fight-headed-federal-court/

Driving this stuff over mountain roads is apparently the only method of getting equipment of this size to the location where it's needed. I realize this is bigger than the airship is capable of lifting but I'd bet there are plenty of other situations where this would be a good option.

--
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable

Re:Megaloads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:48 · Score: 0

perhaps they'll be able to work like those lift helicopters and they can use several of these airships for huge jobs, probably wouldn't work the same, ENGINEERS MAKE IT HAPPEN
Re:Megaloads by alexander_686 · 2013-09-09 09:25 · Score: 1

Yes, engineers are great but they may have a different idea then yours.
I am thinking about Effile (of the tower) who designed a iron bridge that could be transported by camels. i.e. lots of small pieces that can be assembled into a whole.

ZEPPLINS!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 07:55 · Score: 0

I also RTFA (ok, skimmed) and I like the mechanism they added to adjust buoyancy. (pressurizing some of the helium and storing it in high-pressure containers)
The prototype is too silver for my taste, but coat the top with solar panels and add a couple more active flight controls and it gets close to some of my "no-terrain RV" ideas.

What is it filled with? by MobyDisk · 2013-09-09 07:57 · Score: 1

What do they fill it with? If it is rigid, then couldn't it be a vacuum since that would give the most buoyancy? Or perhaps an aerogel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship

Re:What is it filled with? by pr0t0 · 2013-09-09 08:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Popcorn, obviously.

--
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Re:What is it filled with? by squiggleslash · 2013-09-09 08:16 · Score: 2

Helium, It's in TFA.
In terms of alternatives: I think the dangers of hydrogen have been overstated but I don't think there's much likelihood of anyone switching to that in the near future, and there's also its corrosive effects on iron to consider. Vacuums? Until someone can come up with a lightweight container that's able to withstand an atmosphere of air pressure (which is much more than you might think) it's not going to happen.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:What is it filled with? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:28 · Score: 0

Helium, It's in TFA.

More importantly, it's also filled with air. That's how the ballasting system works. Compress helium and draw in air (there's a barrier to keep them from mixing).
Re:What is it filled with? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:35 · Score: 0

Is a barrier really necessary? In any container, helium will always be on the top and air at the bottom.
Re:What is it filled with? by sjames · 2013-09-09 08:37 · Score: 1

Birds! When they need to descend, they sprinkle birdseed on the floor, when they need to ascend, someone shoos the birds.
Re:What is it filled with? by squiggleslash · 2013-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1

That's not really how it works. Most of the helium will be at the top, and most of the air at the bottom, but they will mix. In any case, how do you suck out the air in this scenario? If you put oil and water in a glass and tried to draw out the water by sucking it out through a straw, there'd be that bit at the end where you'd almost certainly leave some water there, while sucking up oil.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:What is it filled with? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 09:05 · Score: 0

You just use two balloons. One for air, one for helium.
Re:What is it filled with? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 10:22 · Score: 0

Sounds like a barrier to me.
Re:What is it filled with? by dbIII · 2013-09-09 19:49 · Score: 1

and there's also its corrosive effects on iron to consider
It's not really "corrosive" because that's an oxidation thing - but it does really fuck up welds if it gets in. There are ways around it to the point that high pressure hydrogen gas cylinders are made of steel and they have no problems. Also Iron is pretty heavy stuff so not much has ever been used in airships. The stuff that aluminium alloy bikes are made from today (and a lot of aircraft parts) is often within spec of the "duralumin" used in airships a century ago. We understand today a lot better why it works so well but still use the same stuff that was developed with a vast amount of trial and error.
Re:What is it filled with? by squiggleslash · 2013-09-10 02:33 · Score: 1

corÂrode
kÉ(TM)ËrÅd/
verb
verb: corrode;âf3rd person present: corrodes;âfpast tense: corroded;âfpast participle: corroded;âfgerund or present participle: corroding
1.
destroy or damage (metal, stone, or other materials) slowly by chemical action.
"acid rain poisons fish and corrodes buildings"
synonyms: wear away, eat away (at), gnaw away (at), erode, abrade, consume, destroy More
"acid rain corrodes buildings"
(of metal or other materials) be destroyed or damaged in this way.
"over the years copper tubing corrodes"
synonyms: rust, become rusty, tarnish; More
wear away, disintegrate, crumble, perish, spoil;
oxidize
"the iron had corroded"
2.
destroy or weaken (something) gradually.
"the self-centered climate corrodes ideals and concerns about social justice"

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:What is it filled with? by Reziac · 2013-09-10 05:15 · Score: 1

Does it actually need to be vacuum, tho? How about just pumping out =some= of the air to achieve sufficient buoyancy? basically a hot-air balloon via pump rather than heater.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:What is it filled with? by squiggleslash · 2013-09-10 07:43 · Score: 1

You'd have to suck out a lot of air in counter the mass of whatever it is you're lifting. In practice, I think you'd have a pretty huge airship if you were to, say, have a container with only 90% of an atmosphere, and that's still going to require a very strong container to protect.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:What is it filled with? by Reziac · 2013-09-10 08:05 · Score: 1

What are the numbers on hot air balloons? That's basically the same principle -- displace cooler air with less dense hot air, ie. less of it in the same space.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:What is it filled with? by squiggleslash · 2013-09-10 09:00 · Score: 1

The difference is that the hot air occupies the same space as (a larger amount of) cool air, so the external atmospheric pressure isn't an issue..

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

oblig Hindenburg by stevegee58 · 2013-09-09 07:58 · Score: 0

Oh, the humanity!

Reminds me of the good old days... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 07:59 · Score: 0

When the United States would employ ships like the USS Macon and the USS Akron.

Mod parent DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:01 · Score: 0

Your sarcasm is unwanted here. GP made a pretty good point. No need to mock.

Re:Mod parent DOWN! by HeckRuler · 2013-09-09 08:48 · Score: 2

Is everyone off their meds?
1) No the GP didn't make a particularly good point. It amounts to "oh noes, multiple things in the air! Oh the collisions!". And he throws in "drones" in there for some reason. It might have been a vaguely good point if he actually mentioned what his brother has said at the supposed collision between an airship and a drone, but decided to simply chuckle as his own unspoken joke instead.
2) Correct, the sarcasm is unwanted, and more importantly unwarranted, as there would be no "balls of flames". Specifically because the Aeroscraft (which is a horrible fucking name btw, it's like they let an 's' crawl out from their southern drawl mid sentence) is filled with helium, not hydrogen, and drones are typically smaller. And they don't currently carry babies. so wtf?
Given that they have things that take off vertically, and things that take off horizontally, I don't imagine it's all that crazy of an idea that airports could service airships as well.

Ideal bad-terrain cargo carrier... by evilviper · 2013-09-09 08:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

We have shows like Ice Road Truckers about dangerous, expensive, and time-limited freight delivery in the Artic circle because impassable terrain most of the year... And at the opposite end of the globe, the 1,000 mile-long McMurdo â" South Pole Highway constructed over 4 years at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars with lots of ongoing maintenance... And also consider the manifold poor remote villages that are often starving and suffering after natural disasters because they are accessible only by foot (or mule) due to mountainous terrain over which road construction would be astronomically expensive...

All these scenarios, because flying-in heavy items via conventional aircraft over long distance can consume twice their weight in jet fuel.

Airships can no-doubt fundamentally change the arithmetic of delivering supplies to these hazardous and remote locations. If these airships prove to be reliable heavy-lifters, that consume far, far less fuel, they could generate a LOT of cash from carrying cargo to such difficult destinations, no matter how slow they are to arrive at their destinations.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:Ideal bad-terrain cargo carrier... by DerekLyons · 2013-09-09 08:40 · Score: 2

Airships can no-doubt fundamentally change the arithmetic of delivering supplies to these hazardous and remote locations. If these airships prove to be reliable heavy-lifters
The problem, well known historically but seemingly needing to be rediscovered every twenty years or so, is that airships aren't reliable heavy lifters. They're extraordinarily sensitive to the weather - much more so than any means of transport they replace. Absent heavy and complex propulsion systems (above and beyond that what's needed to travel from point A to point B) or significant ground infrastructure, they can't reliably deliver their cargo to a precise given point. etc... etc... (Worse yet, both of these fundamental problems get worse as the size of the airship approaches any useful cargo capacity.) This scheme doesn't solve the first problem, and probably won't solve the second.
Re:Ideal bad-terrain cargo carrier... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 09:06 · Score: 0

The usefulness of any aircraft is contained in its performance specs as determined during FAA certification, and they haven't been determined for this craft. Moreover, there's no discussion of design specs, either. Until you know how an aircraft performs you don't know its limitations and you can't calculate cost/benefit for its use in any particular circumstance. The only thing you can do is speculate. This is just a PR piece to make sure the $35 million R&D cost generates some buss, at least.
The mention of Africa, N. Canada and Alaska is telling. It's not too difficult to speculate on where and for what purpose this type of craft might be desirable in these areas as of the world. The oil and gas industry needs to lift and deliver lots of heavy stuff for drilling and pipelines, and the construction sites change routinely. This makes the construction of roads or rails uneconomical. All these places have significant environmental factors which make lighter than air carriers desirable. Snow, ice, tundra and melting swamps and bogs limit trucking to a seasonal activity at high latitudes. In Africa the distances are greater and you may have to deal with shifting sand dunes.
But high winds limit big airships like this. The Good Year blimp had a top speed of about 32 knots (35 mph), so wind speed and direction are critical factors in calculating the economics of their use. And I wonder how they'll deal with the added weight of the surface to air missile counter-measure systems they'll need to operate in Libya or Mali.

a 10 month absence by Geoffrey.landis · 2013-09-09 08:19 · Score: 5, Informative

""After a 70-year absence, it appears that a new rigid frame airship will soon be taking to the skies over California..."

No, not a 70 year absence: a ten month absence. Zeppelin "Eureka" was flying over California from 2008 to 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship_Ventures

--couldn't make enough money flying sightseeing cruises to pay its way, alas
http://mountainview.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/airship-ventures-says-goodbye

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:a 10 month absence by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:27 · Score: 1

Airship Ventures operates a Semi-Rigid Airship, not a Rigid Airship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT
Re:a 10 month absence by Chris+Mattern · 2013-09-09 08:28 · Score: 2

No, not a 70 year absence: a ten month absence. Zeppelin "Eureka" was flying over California from 2008 to 2012.
Eureka is semi-rigid. It doesn't have a framework around the entire gas envelope.
Re:a 10 month absence by immaterial · 2013-09-09 09:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Trust me, after 70 years even semi-rigid is something to be proud of.

deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by Geoffrey.landis · 2013-09-09 08:22 · Score: 2

Yes to bad-terrain; no to bad weather.

The real killer to the age of the Zeppelin wasn't the Hindenberg; it was the continuing series of crashes of airships due to bad weather.

Zeppelins are fair-weather flyers.

(with that said, however, with modern weather satellites and predictions, this would be much less of a problem than it was in the 1930s)

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by h4rr4r · 2013-09-09 08:46 · Score: 1

They hope to use their ability to manage their buoyancy to fix that. Also the fact that this craft is designed as a lifting body. So it could if need be in theory become heavier than air and glide to the ground in poor weather.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2013-09-09 08:49 · Score: 1

Yes to bad-terrain; no to bad weather.
The real killer to the age of the Zeppelin wasn't the Hindenberg; it was the continuing series of crashes of airships due to bad weather.
Zeppelins are fair-weather flyers.
(with that said, however, with modern weather satellites and predictions, this would be much less of a problem than it was in the 1930s)
Hmmm. I suspect the advent of more reliable fixed wing a/c took the air out (or in, actually) of Zepplin travel as well. I wonder if this new airship will have a high enough service ceiling to avoid a lot of the weather. BTW. Does NOVAAR and ECRM ring a bell?

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 11:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

You are correct about the weather problem, but incorrect in suggesting that satellites and computer based weather prediction will do much to fix it.
Airships have been repeatedly announced and failed to achieve commercial reality, over and over again. This time is no different. An airship is essentially a giant aerodynamic sail. The power to surface area of the vehicle will not allow these airships to fly safely and reliably. Goodyear blimp or no.
Heavier than air aircraft have a hugely more advantageous power to surface area ratio. As a result they can fly in almost any weather and not kill or endanger the passengers and cargo.
Airships are the province of dreamers and romantics. No matter what they say, or what we say, they will continue to unsucessfully throw themselves at this problem. Therefore for anyone not interested in the dreaming and romance, the safe thing to do is isolate and distance ourselves from them.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by fnj · 2013-09-09 13:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Categorically wrong. No rigid airship built by the Zeppelin company after WW1 suffered any major mishap due to weather, and hardly any of almost 100 flown during WW1 did. The dilettante (UK and US) constructor/operators never developed enough expertise and experience to completely achieve safety in respect to weather like the Germans did. They certainly would have done so if they had more than barely wet their feet in the technology.
It is utter bullshit that the Zeppelins were "fair weather flyers". Graf Zeppelin (one million miles in nine years) and Hindenburg flew through quite strong weather, including frontal systems and squalls. Often passengers would look down on a violently churning, mountainous sea with huge ships bobbing like corks, while they themselves were walking around or dining, their own wine glasses absolutely undisturbed on the table. Once Hindenburg hooked onto a hurricane to boost her speed by the better part of 100 mph. The structure was not unduly stressed thereby, and the passengers remained in complete comfort.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by dbIII · 2013-09-09 19:52 · Score: 1

A lot of airships were destroyed on the ground during bad weather. It's not so much a safety issue at that point but it still sucks.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 02:36 · Score: 0

Often passengers would look down on a violently churning, mountainous sea with huge ships bobbing like corks, while they themselves were walking around or dining, their own wine glasses absolutely undisturbed on the table. Once Hindenburg hooked onto a hurricane to boost her speed by the better part of 100 mph. The structure was not unduly stressed thereby, and the passengers remained in complete comfort.
Citation very much desired - I'd love to read more about such things.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by Reziac · 2013-09-10 04:52 · Score: 1

Do they tack into the wind or what, when they have to fight prevailing winds? (Or would it be more cost-effective and not much slower to simply go round the globe downwind?)
And I'm wondering why the compressed-gas notion never came into play back in the Graf Zeppelin days...??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by fnj · 2013-09-10 12:59 · Score: 1

They didn't fight winds. They found favorable (or least unfavorable) winds by altering the details of the course, and, of lesser effectiveness, changing altitude. There were times when driving straight ahead into the teeth of a gale reduced the speed made good over the surface to a small fraction of the airspeed, but these periods were of limited geographical extent and duration. "Ground" speed (actually surface speed; they traveled mostly over oceans) was the simple vector sum of airspeed and wind speed. In principle they could come to a standstill or even lose "ground", but they didn't plot their course stupidly ...
They called it pressure pattern navigation. The officers had a good intuitive understanding of weather as it applied to their craft. They studied weather maps and plotted a course to take advantage of wind circulation around high and low pressure centers, seeking the quadrants with winds favorable to their course. And over the course of a 2-3 day flight they would update/modify their course according to developing changes in the weather. A simple direct great circle route was generally never the fastest. The technique is just begging to be fully computerized in the modern world.
Of course it was practically always faster flying eastbound than westbound crossing the North Atlantic. The better part of one day's difference on average.
As for air or gas compression for lift control, it was simply impractical given the available structural materials in those days. The strength to weight ratio was so low that the containers would have greatly outweighed the lift change they could have effected. Today we are looking at advanced composites with half the density and 3-4 times the tensile strength of the best aluminum alloys of the 1930s.
They used different techniques. During flight an airship gets progressively lighter due to fuel burn. Hydrogen was cheap and they could just valve it off to lose excess lift. The US was the only operator using the more expensive helium, and they developed engine exhaust water recovery which on average could compensate for pretty much 100% of the weight lost due to fuel burn. During flight an airship only gets heavier to a mild extent due to quite predictable circumstances such as rainfall. This can almost always be easily compensated for dynamic lift derived from engine power with the craft inclined upward at a very slight angle - seldom was more than three degrees necessary.
Back at the base, of course variations could be dealt with by simply pumping ballast water on or off board.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by fnj · 2013-09-10 13:31 · Score: 1

Citation very much desired - I'd love to read more about such things.
I had to do some reading in various books to track this down, since it was something I remembered reading 45 or so years ago. J. Gordon Vaeth, "Graf Zeppelin", 1959. In my edition, it is on page 193.
"The Hindenburg would make nine more round trips between Germany and North America before the year [1936] was out. The public liked its comforts, quiet, and the absolute freedom from airsickness which it offered. They relied upon its schedule-keeping and dependability. It left on time when fog and heavy rains kept all other aircraft grounded. Not even a North Atlantic hurricane affected it much. The ship rode its winds and made good a ground speed of 160 miles per hour. In storm after storm passengers would look down to see surface vessels heavily pitching and rolling and to see damage being done by high wind to trees and houses below. Yet even as they did, the Hindenburg would ride steady and stable in the air. 'Why, I didn't even know we were in a storm until I looked out of the window!' This was a common remark heard aboard the 'weatherproof' airship."
I'm sure I have seen the story elsewhere, but can't pin down the other references at the moment.
Since the cruising airspeed was almost always 78 mph with very few variations, this would indicate a tailwind of about 80 mph on that occasion.
Re:deal bad-terrain yes, bad weather no. by Reziac · 2013-09-10 13:37 · Score: 1

Good info, thanks!
I do hope the current effort succeeds. All sorts of practical uses for a heavy lifter that doesn't need roads.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Archer! by mattfoo · 2013-09-09 08:23 · Score: 1

Hmm, life to imitate art? http://archer.wikia.com/wiki/Skytanic

-Matt

--
-Matt

Re:Archer! by RenderSeven · 2013-09-09 09:27 · Score: 1

'M' as in 'Mancy' ha ha possibly the best TV episode in all of TV!

Repeat after me by HeckRuler · 2013-09-09 08:35 · Score: 1

SKY TRUCKERS!!!

Where? by ebob · 2013-09-09 08:46 · Score: 1

From the company's About page:

Aeros occupies a corporate office in Los Angeles, CA., as well as a historic 500,000 square –foot assembly flight test facility hangar in Tustin, CA.

Yeah, I guess that's near Sand Diego

--
To avoid seeing this message again, always shut down your computer properly by selecting Shut Down from the Start Menu.

Re:Where? by calidoscope · 2013-09-09 16:16 · Score: 1

I commute from north of San Diego to about three miles from the hangars - Tustin is not exactly close to San Diego.

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.

Not 70-year Absence by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 08:52 · Score: 0

This company is gone, but hardly a 70-year absence of airships over California.

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

Eroscraft by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 09:07 · Score: 0

A great way to join the mile-high club

Statistics don't work that way by Immerman · 2013-09-09 12:06 · Score: 1

Statistics don't work that way. It is irrelevant to the crash rate how many flights a particular airship made before it crashed - a one-in-a-million outcome is just as likely to occur on the first test as on the millionth. To find the actual crash rate you would have to look at the total number of Hindenburg-style airship flights and divide the number of crashes by the total number flights. You'd need to have a statistically valid number of airships in action to confirm that it was a design flaw and not a manufacturing defect or operator error.

Consider the Titanic - the fact that it sank on it's maiden voyage doesn't mean there was any great flaw in the ship itself.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Interesting, but will it work by Dereck1701 · 2013-09-09 14:54 · Score: 2

Its an interesting craft, and I hope it succeeds, but its going to all fall to how the demonstrator performs. They're making some lofty statements, two man crew, 66 tons, minimal ground crew, 120 knots, minimal fuel consumption, 3,000 mile range, etc. If they can hold to it and keep construction/operation costs down it'll be a great craft, but they're obliviously trying to wave around the military applications of the craft so I'd watch out for massive cost overruns, ever decreasing capabilities & constantly extended time tables. Hangering these craft is also going to be an issue, the company seems to be open about the fact that these craft will not be able to handle bad weather, but their "they'll just fly around bad weather" explanation seems questionable even if their speed capabilities are not exaggerated. These things will require massive hangers as I highly doubt just tethering them to the ground would be sufficient protection from even a Midwestern thunderstorm let alone hurricanes or monsoons.

Wrong target market by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 01:45 · Score: 0

Never mind the military or mining or rescue, Aeroscraft need to go after Walmart once they get to full size. Just land the thing in the car park at night and unload the cargo, so you miss those clogged roads.

How did you get both things so badly wrong? by dbIII · 2013-09-10 01:49 · Score: 1

First - not deserts, and all I wrote above is based on direct experience and what I've heard from a civil engineer that works in road construction in Australia. Dirt roads are nowhere near as simple as you pretend. Second - not a great deal of difference in design for the failure mode I mentioned - still big, light and prone to be blown around. Actually modern attempts have been a step backwards to those 1930s craft in structure due to cost constraints.
I suppose this is the site where the high school VB coders like to call engineers ignorant so feel free to whine a bit more about "factually incorrect assertions".

Also did you even make it to my last paragraph before whining about desperately trying to discredit stuff? If you did you'd find I even gave a couple of examples where large airships would be useful.

Learn how to use a dictionary instead of pasting by dbIII · 2013-09-10 03:22 · Score: 1

Oh sorry - I thought you wanted an engineer's perspective instead of poetic licence. Just about anything taken out of context can mean just about anything, but that just fucks up communication. In this context corrosion means oxidation and nothing at all else.

Re:Learn how to use a dictionary instead of pastin by squiggleslash · 2013-09-10 07:39 · Score: 1

In this context corrosion means oxidation and nothing at all else.

If you'd been first to use the word, then you might have been able to get away with this argument, however it would have been pointed out to you that corrode is not generally used as a synonym for oxidation, and you're using an obscure definition.

However, you weren't. I was. I used the word corrode with its usual, widespread, definition.

I would suggest that rather than flame me for using the word as it is usually used - by engineers and everyone else - that you learn to use a dictionary. Generally speaking its the height of stupidity to "correct" someone without checking your facts first. And it's the height of arrogance to flame someone (while pretending they're wrong!) who shows that, actually, you were wrong and they were right.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Misconceptions by th3rmite · 2013-09-10 13:45 · Score: 1

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions on here about the Aeroscraft. I've been following the development of this for around a year now and can tell you that many people on here would be quite surprised if they would just take 2 minutes to Google the damn thing. This thing will honestly change the way freight will he transported in the future. The size is amazing, if the tests go through there will be an Aeroscraft with a 250 ton capacity with full hover and VTOL capability. It really is not the same zeppelin from years past.

Re:Learn how to use a dictionary instead of pastin by dbIII · 2013-09-10 16:52 · Score: 1

I'm sorry but hydrogen embrittlement doesn't even meet your expanded definition. It makes things weaker instead of actually breaking them.
Also the post a few steps above was no flame, unlike your arrogant cut and paste, but merely a gentle correction implying no fault on your part other than being from a different field. If you are going to start throwing cut and pastes from the dictionary around it's best to work out whether they apply or not first - hence learning how to use the thing!

Slashdot Mirror

Aeroscraft Begins Flight Testing Following FAA Certification

158 comments