Slashdot Mirror
Aeroscraft Begins Flight Testing Following FAA Certification
Zothecula writes "After a 70-year absence, it appears that a new rigid frame airship will soon be taking to the skies over California. Aeros Corporation, a company based near San Diego, has received experimental airworthiness certification from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to begin flight testing the Aeroscraft airship, and it appears that the company has wasted no time getting started."
What, did they land too hard?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"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.
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
Popcorn, obviously.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
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
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.
""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
In fact they can. They talk about this exact scenario at the very bottom of TFA...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.