AngelLestat

That is why ammonia has potential. Hydrogen sensors will be very cheap and accurate. Although its flammable mixture range is much higher, it disperse very fast even in close spaces) which reduce by a lot its ignition chance. Gasoline leaks, by other hand remains with you (under you which is worst). Also you dont need always 700 bar. Cars still have good autonomy with only 100 bar. In fact I dont know of any diesel locomotives without electric generators (I am asking), from what I know, you can not have the torque and smooth needed to move a train with a 100% thermal engine. I explain already in detail in my post above yours.. It all depends on the infrastructure evolution. And your words on current "extremely energy inefficient" is way far from the true.

Late rubisco.. is already post it in the page 14 and everybody saw it. 1-wikipedia is a very trust source in popular science topics. Is not the only source that I post over the whole discussion. 2-Is there.. you can find it in many pages.. Just use google. So? this include compression and short distribution. You have extra loses with renewable energy using diferent ways of distribution or storage. Because there is many process which generate hydrogen with that initial pressure without reduce the general efficiency of the conversion. Also if your initial water or oil source is at 300 bar, your hydrogen outcome will be in 300 bar. again, that process is very efficient, you will lost only a 10% converting and then cracking the amonia.Is not highly toxic.. Almost everybody in the world use that product to remove fat from dishes. Breathe ammonia gasses is not worst than breathe gasoline. Remember Interstellar in dr.man´s planet? Only 5 or 7 years. And batteries right now are not the solution either.. They are very expensive, the amount of litio in the world is far to be enoght to change all cars to electric, in fact only trying will rise the cost by a lot. They pollute too and the energy waste in find the raw materials plus battery efficiency put in equally with fuel cells efficiencies. Bio fuels are not the solution, we need to reduce the current amount of co2, biofuels do nothing in that aspect. Is the thing that I said from the begining of the topic and I reapeat this in each page of this topic. Hydrogen or ammonia can deal with all heavy vehicles or long range vehicles and batteries with all city cars in the world. And there is not better (free co2) alternatives for trucks, ship or planes than hydrogen or ammonia. What are you talking about? XD I dont remember, please make me remind it.If you post info where you are right.. and I am wrong, I dont have any problem with that. In fact I will thank you. Without re-design not.. But today all airline companies are re-designing their planes to be more fuel efficient. Liquid hydrogen provides 3 times the heat value of jet fuel per weight, but increases fuel volume by a factor of four. This volume factor increase energy consumption in a 10%, but it can be countered with new designs which include higher wing area to increase lift, then your altitude is higher so less drag. Also hydrogen jetengines can be more efficient than normal engines due you can increase the thermal difference (the first jet engine made was using hydrogen). At lower speeds hydrogen planes can be more efficient if their use fuel cells with electric engines. The hydrogen can be used also to cool a superconductor engine (way more efficient than any other engine in weight energy) before enter in the fuel cell something you can not do with batteries. Some pictures of what it will be good for a hydrogen plane: http://techzwn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/lockheed-stratoliner-by-william-brown3.jpg http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/624_351/images/live/p0/10/qv/p010qv4l.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/07/1415356620393_wps_14_image005_png.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/07/1415356611267_wps_11_image002_png.jpg http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/624_351/images/live/p0/10/qw/p010qw64.jpg For airplanes ammonia is discarded for the added weight of nitrogen and many other hydrogen virtues to be used in the design. Because battery to whell does not count the charge efficiency loss. Ion litio batteries has a charge / discharge efficiency of 80% / 90%, this means that from your original imput energy (your house) a 25% is lose due battery, then enters mechanical x% loses and electric motor loses (5%). Here is where everybody mistakes.Is explained many times in the discussion but I guess I found a better way to clarify this: What are our energy sources? Sun (wind, solar, hydro, etc), Nuclear (fission, decay), fossil (gas, oil, carbon), etc. Renewable energy like wind and solar gets a huge improvements if they convert all its energy directly into hydrogen (electrolysis 95%) +compression and distribution (10%), this way they achieve 85%. If they wanna storage using different ways and then obtain electrical energy again (with any storage system) its efficiency is 80% but with a huge extra capital cost Nuclear not always is working as base load, in those cases usually they generate hydrogen using the electricity and the waste heat to increase the electrolysis efficiency (lower capital cost with equal efficiency than pem electrolysis) All fossil fuels contain higher amounts of hydrogen. Right now we spent capital cost to convert oil into gasoline, kerosene, alcohol, etc with some lost in efficiency even if the remaning is used in other products. But instead use that capital cost to purify oil in the fuels that we know, why not convert all the oil to hydrogen instead? It has a 80% efficiency and the +90% of the hydrogen produced is with this method. Right now liquid hydrogen is expensive (not for much) than other fuels just because there is not infrastructure. But ammonia which is produced from the 80% of hydrogen with a 5% of loses cost less than hydrogen it self because there is already an infrastructure which deals with ammonia. If we change to a full hydrogen-ammonia economy (instead oil economy as we are now), the cost of hydrogen/ammonia will be equal to the gasoline, kerosene or gasoil, etc. But with the big difference that fuel cells or thermal hydrogen combustion are way more efficient than fossil fuels, so you recover the 20% lose in the conversion.

That looks awesome, of course oculus rift does not remplace that, but it may be a most cheaper choice for pilot students to begin and to increase its experience... Because they can not be all day inside that.. there will be many more in the line waiting.

The first part of your paragraph is totally explained. (still I dint see any word of your part) The second is also totally explained but it seems that you might still have some doubts. Your example is traveling only 500 nm where in fact the range is +5000 nm, but even in that example there is not much problem. you lose the chance to dodge them going port or starboard, but you can still choice altitude. For short trips it means mostly that you travel over land, winds are not strong over land, you have a chance of 1 in 15 (world average) to find winds higher than 30 knots, then you have 1 in 3 chances to find headwinds (120 degress cone in front of you), and in those weird cases you have only 1 in 3 chances to not be able to dodge them with altitude change, then 1 in 135. For long trips you always find a good path or at least the less bad. So yeah, half of the times delays of 25% and the other half 50% of time decrease (average) And the only way you understand this is studying wings with the app that I gave to you. You use hard words when you disagree in 3 points that I made, I was right in the 3 but is sure that you will not retract. Fine.. live with that.

Well you were right in one thing. It does not have much sense to have PV, Just H2 with fuel cell increase the efficiency of the airship by a lot. But it does not mean that airships are not good for PV, just this design is not good for PV. However aeroscraft with PV may be very good for some kind of applications, as hospital or any application where is not need to travel very fast, or when is not in constant movement or with low distant travels, also as backup source in case something happen with the fuel cell. I already know how to change this design: https://youtu.be/6alsthqayLo?t=4m4s keeping the aerodynamic lift, freight and other good aeroscraft virtues. I dint show my second trick, I could get extra 25 or 30% extra energy from an indepent renewable source in the air, but my objective was 100%, so I need to change the design first. With that design, you can have a 40% efficiency solar panel because the area is so small that it worth it, also the waste heat can be used too. Note for the same range energy that you need, using the same hydrogen from the envelope may be almost enoght. In that way you save several tons of fuel which you can add to the payload or range. Huge airships does not have any problem with range or weight. They can have anything they want. Fuel cell efficiency with hydrogen 60% and thermal engine efficiency with gasoil 35%, is one or the other.. I just add that to compare and calculate the extra payload . To calculate the power received I use 400w average by day, because you dont have clouds almost never, you get extra efficiency by cold and altitude, then multiply per 0.2 Solar cell efficiency. PV info and data choice: cubesats PV: 0.86kg/m2 30% efficiency. http://laser-connect.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/2/3/4923848/talk_8_s_irvine_glyndwr_uni.pdf House roof PV: 1.7kg/m2 15% efficiency http://miasole.com/uploads/media/Miasole_Solar_Metal_Roof_Brochure_V01.pdf I found those, just imagine one in the middle. 1kg/m2 20% efficiency does not sound crazy because it does not need the cover.. Just the cell, then this is interleaved between 2 substrate materials as aluminum, titaniaum or some carbon base, which form the same envelope and the cell helps to provide strenght to the envelope. Also avoding any flamable result in the final compound envelope. This same thing is used in this design: http://solarflight.blogspot.com.ar/ A cute video on solar freight airships: Rusia is also starting to design airships with hydrogen mix in mind: http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/bouyancy-control-augur-lr.pdf The goodyear blimp is very small, all small airships had low speed. But I never said what you claim I said. I just said that airships at big scale can be faster or fly heigher, etc. Is not due drag, is due that they can carry more powerfull engines and the extra fuel to feed those engines.. Source: http://enu.kz/repository/2010/AIAA-2010-1395.pdf (I dont like that design because its half airplane and half airship) but you can see how the speed increase with the size. Also about the 25% delay chance against the 50% faster change.. that is true, and the values are almost pesimist. How people with hot air ballons achieve to travel most of the times where they want to? In fact, the first time that someone circumnavigated the globe without refuel was with a ballon. You just need to choice your wind layers that most fit you, you have doppler radars onboard + all the weather info from the world. Just check here: http://earth.nullschool.net/ And imagine 1 place with 1 destiny, then try to find the best route searching winds at different altitude. (is in pressure, 250, 700, etc.)

Sorry for the delay, bussy day, also I wanna search for accurate drag coefficients and also wanna find lift coefficients to calculate the max altitude with hydrogen instead hellium. But I could not find it. The drag equation for airships: D= 1/2*air density * u sqr * V exp (2/3) * Cd Air density at 6000m: 0.6 Cd=0.04 (old zeppelings reach 0.025) but this has some ailerons and body lift. Speed: 50m/s Cruise speed The volume already calculated in m3 here Drag Values and power requirements. Model ----- Drag ----- Power Pelican--> 21240N --> 1Mw (the prototype has lower altitude and power, the real engines added has 0.85 Mw) 66t --> 89400N --> 4.5 Mw 250t --> 206820N --> 10 Mw 500t --> 296100N --> 14 Mw 8000t --> 1091340--> 54Mw (576m long version) 64000t --> 89855320N --> 90 Mw (1000m long version) Sorry Kohai_Khaos, your math was good, the only bad was the four 747 engine assumption which give you 191 Mw. Pv efficiency at 6000m rise a 27% due cold and less solar light block it by the atmosphere. It does not weight as much you said.. is a lot less, I will look it tomorrow, but the choice efficiency needs to be 20% because is cheap. Hydrogen has 3 times more energy density by Kg than any other fuel. So when we rise altitude, instead vent or carry extra hydrogen, we consume it as energy , for the 250t version we can consume from the same envelope... i dont remember.. I will do the math tomorrow. It was something like 15 Tons. We need to carry extra tanks of hydrogen, but not much. Instead it does not reach to cover all the power needed. But I have another trick of how to make it 100% energy independent without decrease speed or remove payload. I will complete this study tomorrow, also I dint read all your last post, it will be later. cya (thanks Iskierka a Kohai, those post really help) Edit: Now I see where I wrong in my first PV calculation. It was due this video: https://youtu.be/ndMapWaxgfA?t=1m48s It said ML866 which in the table corresponds to the 66t version. http://aeroscraft.com/communities/4/004/011/780/344//images/4607832198.jpg So I knew that the prototype had 3 engines of 274kw, but then I scale them as if their were from the 66T version to the 250t version. But those engines are from the pelican.

Is hard to convince someone which only objective is to be negative from the begining for reasons that we both know. -Can you tell me why is a futuristic utopia when is the most practical choice and I show already all the little steps being profitable from day 1 in the same way that any technology grow up.. -Now explain why it needs different economics? You need different economics to buy something which is better and cost less? nonsense. -Different transportation needs?? The transportation needs are always the same.. I want to reach a place with not infrastructure, also I want reach a place faster and cheap.. Are those different needs? -Different infrastructure? first it does not need them.. second.. more traffic needs extra infrastructure, reach different places with current transport needs extra infrastructure, and if you want to improve the load and unload times of this it will need extra infrastructure which comes natural if something is cost efficient.. -Different politics?? you mean regulations? haha, the hydrogen prohibition will fall in any moment, hydrogen is the element which will save us from global warming, needs always come first. Which you can also carry in the first trips.. I wonder how do you solve problems in your real life in case you do... Why you want dozens of trucks in a field?? If you already carry the payload to its place... duhhh In any case you can transport heavy machinary to build anything you want there, or to help you to place and organize the unloaded payload.. which is not needed, because it will have automatic ramps the same as any cargo aircraft, and your airship is also hovercraft, which you can move after place the cargo. So this is what you explain me 101 times? ahh.. that is why I never understand it.. Also in the first topic I mention that in case we find a good envelope to resist medium storm, then we solve the hangar problem because in case of big storms it take off and dodge it or just fly above. You understand it wrong. That canyon or any other natural wind barrier may work to make new huge airships without the need of hangars. Or what? you always need hangars to build anything like buildings, etc? As I said wind is not a problem there, also humidity or rain (desert), neither location (small airships can transport all you need to the place). You can have hydrogen spheres on the sizes attached to the ground (with the same not flamable envelope) to provide you ways to lift things or rise workers to work in a higher level. The construction starts from the top to the bottom of the airships, so most of the work is always at surface level. New construction procedures needs to be design as always happen with big things. Of course you will said that is not possible, as you always do. It seems that your only purpose in this forum is to criticize new things or others people ideas. I will love to see you one day providing solutions instead negatives. There are plenty of places which can be exploited by the resources, like mining, land crops, turism, etc. That is how all new cities develope one time in the past. Now you dont need billionss of investment just to reach there, with a very low investment you can reach a place and start to exploit with earnings since the first year. delay is not the problem.. is time!! Read the links that I provide you about transport choice. You will learn how much money you will lost even with not time sensitive cargo. Them I am the one who does not understand economics... lol. That is true, but it does not have nothing to do with time that it takes to delivery, it has to do with delays. At least you are buying products from your own country and this has higher rates of inflation. So you prefer to buy things before and use the slow transport method as warehouse, but if you buy from your own country then your transport will not take much time unless you live in russia. 5 supplies by country.. is not that enoght.. also you dint read my link which it explain that some times you have only 1 supplies, they provide all parts in a kit. Also nobody prohibits you transport some stuff by airships and the other by different methods. if you dedicate the same time to seek solutions rather than just negatives, more than half of the questions will be already answered. Everything is time sensitive in some way or the other.. Right now there is not other options to give us the right cost-time benefic that we need. I stick in the 576 m long version as top size because it already can transport the same than a 6000 TEU ship in the same period of time. Also try to reach paris with your ship. About london you forgot that airships may land on water. Expand existing infrastructure due traffic is even more costly than make a new one.. Cost goes from billions for few km. Cities can not deal anymore with extra roads or rails, the only remaning place to expand is the air. That is where airships and last-mile airships in. You know that I am right.. But you will never said it. It can with the last-mile airship idea. Is the only solution to solve the increase traffic on cities. Nobody here is denying the role of trucks or other transport methods. I am just saying that there is an equal place for all in the future, with a great potential in growth on airships. scaling airships is easier, you dont need much extra developement cost. They are like ships. Instead aerodynamics calculations for airplanes is hard.Ok. the time will tell, lets see in 15 years who was right. There is something wrong with your numbers, I will answer you later. In fact the weight is the same, because you are saving fuel weight that you will need to carry the other way around. I am still waiting your corrections about the airships claims you quote me.

So I am the one being obtuse here? lol I had one virtue, if I am wrong and someone prove it to me, I change of mind in just one second. I also hate spread wrong info, that is why if I have doubts I check my info before post it, the same that someone else spread wrong info, is something that I can not let pass. I also try to discriminate between the info that I found in internet, from biased and partial sources trying to find some clear data. I have some physics knowledge due a constant seek in energy efficiency in all its forms. Trying to recognize efficient solutions for certain problem from the energy and economical point of view. I can be wrong in many things.. I can be bad explaining my point of view or understanding others people view.. But I really try to not. Lets resume all the things that you disagree: You said that its has not future to compete with other transports because today airships cost much, there is none, they had low payload vs ships, laws and infrastructure is not really prepared to open the doors just now. I answer that 101 times. Is complete off topic, but it seems is the only way to find negatives you all found.. We are not talking of TODAY, we are talking of the POTENTIAL that an hypothetical hydrogen Airship with different addoms may have in world transport, maybe in 10, 20, or 30 years. The topic said Towards.. Today freight airships are all prototypes or just designs using hellium, which was the cause that airships die in 1940. But if someone with money invest in big at airship development and manufacture, it can start to change things, because they have a lot of potential. It will happen slow, but their are cost effective even today with hellium in a small niche. Other countries without hydrogen prohibition can start to use them and demostrate with fire and exposing the airship to all kind of damage or issues to show how safe they may be. That will change public opinion and all the prohibition will be removed. Once they full its small niche, their production cost may go down, they can increase in size, they can add other technologies, countries will start to buy them and in case they need some infrastructure to improve its performance they will do it, first some pad outside a city.. then a addom in a airport.. etc. But in theory.. Airships like Aeroscraft does not need infrastructure.. they can load and unload cargo in the middle of nowhere. Ships are very similar to Airships, maybe that is why they have the word "ship" in it.. Both float so they share the economical cost. Ships cost increase a 40% each time they double its payload instead 100% as one might think, Airships the same due the same principle. Ships already reach its max efficient size, because their is not reason to transport to one place more than 16000 TEU, also the infrastructure is not ready for that. In the atlantic the most cost efficient size is 8000 TEU. Airship may find a problem with size in case they need hangars to be made.. But that may be solve. The biggest problem is wind. But you can find natural barriers against the wind where you can build them. There are plenty of places where the wind is very slow or the terrain makes a perfect barrier, just using the google earth I spot several places in argentina and chile. You can transport all the things you need using airships to these locations. That is the most powerfull of airships, you can start a city in the middle of nowhere meanwhile that was not a real option before. In that case the airship will be build from up to down using extra lifting ballons to rise the airships meanwhile the construction advance.. That is how you can achieve huge and very cost efficienct airships, a normal ship of 100000 tons of cargo consume 50 millons dolars in fuel by year. The cost of all that steal (lets said 50000 tons, not sure) it can be in theory similar to the cost of 5000 tons of lighter material, then we need to add the hydrogen, lucky that it will not be hellium (10x cost and much lower efficiency) . I already show here one example where a big airship of 570 meters (double size from the 250 tons version) can delivery the same cargo than a ship + trucks at lower cost with the same time (extra trips). http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/114457-Towards-the-most-efficient-freight-vehicle?p=1818833&viewfull=1#post1818833 The cost of the 250 tons aeroscraft is around 100 millions (first ones)... also hellium... Lets imagine the cost will not vary if we change to PV +fuel cell electrolysis because the hydrogen is much more cheaper and because we improve the production. It will be 140 millons for the 500 tons version, 196 millons for 1000t, 275 millons for the 2000t, 384 millons for the 4000t, 537 millons for the 8000 tons version. That version in can transport similar cargo than a ship of 100000 tons of payload which cost 100 millions, the ship also has 54 millons on fuel by year. Also there is a capital cost on the time that cargo delay, never is free to have merchandise or actives freeze in time. Take a look to this table: http://log.logcluster.org/mobile/response/transport/LOG23TRANSPORTComparisonmatrixfortransportmodes_large.jpg Source: http://log.logcluster.org/mobile/response/transport/index.html (explain all about cargo choice) You will find that an airship in that table will look very good. Also fix with all the recomendations which the guide encorage to follow in transport choice, even if the guide does not have them into account. In other words, when everyone says you are wrong, then chances are that you are. This is not a vote.. reason and logic must win.. Your factory to factory concept doesn't work either. Imagine a car factory. They assemble cars with parts from various suppliers. not, already show this in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-down_kit There are cases where you receive the complete kit from one source, this source may be the same factory that produce cars but in some cases they delivery only the parts to be ensamble at lower cost in other countries. Also screws and all that stuff you get it from your own country. The common is not more than 5 suppliers that you need for each product, an airship can do all the scales and then sent all. It will be cases where this can not be applyed and it will be cases where it can. Is simple. An electric freight train powered by a hydroelectric dam doesn't drink fuel either. And it carries far more cargo, at a much cheaper price. A train can not go anywhere, also not all trains are electric and they dont produce its own energy. The benefic to have your own power is that you can go anywhere and back without any concern in time or range. Someone who wants to operate a new vehicle cares what the USA says. You have the rest of the world, mainly EU which is the place where Airships can be more profitable, if your airship is cost efficient, USA will not take much in change their policies. Air traffic must remain above 500 ft unless on final approach That is even lower altitude than the one I imagine for the last-mile airship. and all I need is to slap some cheap wood/concrete and steel down between those locations? Lol.. the average is several millions of dolars by km. Rail infrastructure takes from 10 to 60 years in pay off the initial investment. Here is all the cost, translate: http://www.ferropedia.es/wiki/Costos_de_construcci%C3%B3n_de_infraestructura#Costes_globales Also in some cases inside cities, just 1 km may cost 1 billion. https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ -We've already addressed that it's not, trucks and trains can use fuel cells or electrical power, and both can do it far more effectively. Trains can be more energy efficient, never trucks.. never. But as I said, if you add the investment cost and is far than 500km, better solve the problem with an airship. Even a fully loaded truck needs only 100-200 hp to run at speed, while all air vehicles need hundreds to tens of thousands of hp to get around. Search in the aeroscraft videos.. they can move the whole craft with just the hand, you need many people to move a single truck. This thing does not consume energy to rise altitude.. Is not an airplane. Up there the air is much less dense, so the drag is not very important. fuel cell that can provide that is too heavy for a blimp. ?? fuel cells are much much lighter than any engine, in fact fuel cell + electric motors had equal weight than fuel oil engines. The only heavy in fuel cell devices are the hydrogen tanks... you dont need hydrogen tanks in this case, you use the envelope and you dont need to compress it. -Not if you're going to have the vehicle usefully powerful - it very much will have emissions, and it very much will run on diesel, as the experts are actually proposing. Is not about power, is about fuel cell cost for certain power, more precisely "platinum catalyst cost" which it will be remplaced by one more cheaper and efficient in the next 5 to 7 years. Helicopters are far more stable than you think - and they won't be nearly as affected by wind as this thing. Helicopters can hold against 50 or 60 knots winds.. but they are not stable.. if you need to keep a payload in one place over the ground airhips may do that with more precision at similar wind speeds. -It isn't higher payload than aircraft - the An-225 has more than exceeded the 250 tonnes you're quoting, and fits tidily in a 90m box. Airship doesn´t have a payload limit.. they cost lower than any aircraft plus all the other advantages. Also guess how much was the develope cost of aeroscraft... all new technology, pressure managment and cushions, control software and cabin, all. 50 millions, now check what is the developing cost of new airplanes which use almost the same technology. -this would be totally false for the airship, as it'd be getting a fraction of the sunlight it's designed for. ???? I already did the math. Check old posts. -In what way? There's nothing to suggest it would be more reliable than rail, ship, or air. Maybe truck, as they can be affected a lot by bad traffic, but trucks are serving a different part of the transport market to begin with.You should read the definition of reliable. -So slower than any reasonable helicopter, and all planes, for a relatively meagre payload advantage, and massive payload disadvantage to trains and ships that keep a reasonable fraction of that speed? No advantage here. I dont want answer this the same than other which are quite obvious, I just wanted as evidence of your blind negation to any benefic on airships. Is the lack of all logic.

In the weird weird case than a pregnant women needs to reentry earth in a capsule.. I would said.. lets try it.. what is the point to make a new spaceshuttle just for that? Maybe in 30 years will be needed. The baby inside the women will not suffer any problem from g forces.. he is in a liquid, he would not feel nothing, just a little increase of liquid pressure. From the mother perspective I am not sure, of course is not recomended, but I guess her chances are good.

Cpast, you are one of those which negate all logic just to stick to their original opinion? Also I dint read any "oh sorry I was wrong in this one" from you yet. And I guess you did some claims about how airships are not more faster, or stable with size. Total silence after my correction. Thoudsands??? You can have 2 of these airships flying over a big city with no more than 50 quadcopters each. This will sadly remplace as 300 postmen and their vehicles. But it would be much more cheaper and efficient. About Illegal... Who cares what USA said?? They use drones to kill or spy but people can not use it for comercial purposes.. crazy... If they do it to preserve the work of postmen, it will reach a point were the measure will go down one way or another to open the needs. Also what altitude you think the goodyear semi rigid airship fly over the cities? Air traffic? You are thinking in today.. what would you say the day that the first raíl was installed, even in that time were the technolgy grow super slow compared to now... Maybe something like this: "train?? this is complety pointless and absurd, you need thoudsen of rails just to few km.. and you can not go any other place, just avoid that huge investment and buy 500 carts more, it will be 100000 times more effective." And in that time technology was growing at turtle steps. Are not? -the only trasport vehicle capable of zero fuel consumption -not carbon emitions -it fly -vtol -float in one place without spent extra energy, more stable than helicopters. -higher payload than airplanes and helicopters, it double payload with a 20% increase in proportions. -cheaper than an airplane because is very simple. -it works even better in cold climates. -does not need infrastructure. -it can land on any ground or water -high potential to become very cheap with high productions and bigger scales, so cheap to compete with ships. -different designs to meet their needs, hospital, hotel, bulky transport, integrated cranes, ramps and different load unload mechanism. -unlimited range -most reliable than any other transport vehicle. -speed 120 knots -its landing cushiond can act as suction or overcraft, are folding. -lifting body shape sorry, is hard to see the drawbacks between all the benefics. Ok.. something is failing here. lets breath and lets try to reason... we are not talking of current hellium airship prototypes, I said this like 100 times already. Why is it so hard to understand this? We are talking of future potential for a hydrogen variable bouyancy airship with PV +Fuel Cell +Electrolysis. each of those single process takes a lot of time and it cost money, plus papers.. What about my US country center to China country center? I show how it can compete even with ships. one recomendation, but I guess you know it.. remplace the today, and use your logic (in case you can) to make a projection into the future. Or stay in the past... as you like.

Your same question (Why Make It So Difficult?) is explained here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201411/interstellar-causal-loops-and-saving-humanity

Ok, what about this to solve the last mile issue with airships for light freight (less than 30kg). (kinda sci-fi in our current position by doable) 2 type of airships, one local for last mile delivery the other long range, one port outside the city. The long range airship reach the port, unload the cargo, then those not heavy cargo which has as destination the final consumer are loaded on the last-mile airship, this fly over the city at low speed and height (new safer measures for this kind of airship), inside different types of quadcopters for different weights take the cargo and delivery to the final consumers, then go back to the airship, charging batteries in case of need, with an auto-rotation safe mechanism to emergency landing and a very safe box system with password. The people will be able to sent stuff in the same way, they connect to internet, pay with credit card, and when the airship pass over sent a quadcopter to receive the package, the client put the package inside the box and thats it.. This is better than the amazon system because the quadcopter does not need to make huge travels. Meets the work of a post office. Does not cause extra traffic and is not affected by it, it will be able to trace the user phone (in case this allow it) and delivery directed in person with an alert in the phone. Quadcopters may take pictures in the delivery and receive process. thoughts? You are from Canada? I was reading that in one "state" of my country (I dint know :S) they allow a "free market zone" and they wants to use an airship. There are similar ideas to implement this in some places of Canada. https://www.wingsmagazine.com/operations/cargo-airships-for-manitoba-9716 goverment dont seek fast investment return... is not a company.. They make things because are needed for the country. The profit came later when citizens save time and produce more, paying more taxes, but the reason of taxes is to make all the infrastructure that the country needs to keep going and attract new companies to provide services and avoid monopoly from the current companies. not at all.. how it will be cheaper to load a truck, transport to the port, unload, load in ship, then reach the port, load the truckssss (many) go to the factory.. Instead of airship load --> travel --> airship unload. (super fast) not need for infrastructure. Airships (even with hellium) will find no obstacle to become very cost effective from the day 1, because you as a company.. you can not produce more than 20 airships by year, and that number is nothing in comparison with all transportation vehicles. So they will start with the jobs better paid like delivery freight were not other transport can reach. You have not idea how many places are waiting this to be exploited. Second alternative? make a new 500 km road just to reach this place? What about all the seasoned roads and rails which are out of function due snow? Then when the profit for airship grow, you increase your production which decrease the cost, also you can manufacture big version which reduce much more the ton-mile cost. All this happen with time, coutries see the potential and start to make infrastructure to remplace or add new transport options. thanks. ok, you are talking of the year 1. just wait 7 years more lets see what routes airships take.

THIS... Is explained in the Kip Thorne Book, I dont remember the details.

Yeah, they are more usefull for medium or longe range. By not sure how much expensive by size they can be.. because after all, they are almost all emply space, it does not have tons of materials as a ship or very complex mechanism as a plane. Is light and simple (that is why even in 1920 we could build them) Increasing the size makes them much more cost effective. yeah, but is not a rule. It depends much of the circustances. The problem with speed, is that your drag increase by V square, so after certain amount of speed you have to input a lot of power just to get an small increase of speed, even if you try better lifting body design to reach higher altitude to reduce the drag. Tubines are very good to provide thrust at higher speeds, is a waste of money to use a turbine which may cost as 20 times an electric ducted fan which are very good providing thrust at low speeds without much noise, also vector thrusting is hard with turbines. I dint play it, but the part of docking with an airplane in a dirigible is true, the navi did a 5 plane airship carrier, which airplanes could dock and fly from it. Many concepts try to find the way to load and unload cargo without using ballast. To accomplish that I saw many ideas, some use the lifting body shape. Others just more power engines. Hot air or steam chamber + hellium (they just regulate the temperature on the chamber. But the most clever way to do this is the submarine way.. like aeroscraft does it, with almost not cost in energy. Ok, lets forget about ground velocity, our ground will be the airspeed layer in what we in. That is always our frame of reference. We dont get extra speed just by increasing proportions. I never said that either. But increasing just a 20% our proportions (size, engines, reinforcement, etc), our payload doubles, so one part of that payload may be used as extra power and fuel capacity. That is how airships gain speed with size. Yeah here enters acceleration, the mass increase much faster than the surface, so a force (change of wind, turbulance) takes much more time to displace an object. That is why the heidenburg was super stable, its furnitude was not attached to the floor. Is like a huge ship in sea, waves had lower effect on it. That is how airships gain stability with size, and they are not similar to airplanes, because airplanes needs to increase its surface area in proportion to their mass. Because they get their lift from their surface area. Maybe in airships we need to increase the reinforcement with higher proportions than the other aspects, but we still get much extra payload with size. Electric ducted fans does not have that problem from what I know.. About PV surface you are right, it will not rise in proportions if you want higher speeds with size increase. It will reach a scale where your max speed will not increase, but that also will happen even without PV power equilibrium, due drag and its speed square rule. In the 250 tons version only needs 50% of the surface on PV to reach that power equilibrium, so you have some room to improvement. Lets said that the max speed reached will be close to 150knots and once you reach it, any increase of size would not increase the speed. I never said that are the same company.. in fact transport infrastructure depend almost always on the country, the same as roads. If you make this airship, it will be the country responsibility to provide the infrastructure. This is even true with some of the crazy examples as virgin spaceport. Any technology which helps to the country economy will be supported. And transport is one of those things that always fulfill that rule. Yeah that is a good example in case the values are real and Kerbart opinion is the world rule. Using logic and all possible cases, it seems very unlikely to imagine customers choising always the extremes and not the medium options. In any case those medium options exist, and if they exist its means that a big % of freight is transported on those medium price. Also depending the case if you add another option like: truck --> airship -->truck --> final mile : $100-150 (4 days) The choice will be obvious Not to mention the direct choice: factory --> airship --> factory. Of course this is not a prove of nothing.. But I will search more data and prove what I think it must be true. It does not matter how dominate is already a market if you provide lower price than the alternatives. I see a full topic with "GMOs" but nobody explain what those initials means.. Is not easy to a not english speaker decode also abbreviations. You will not park this aside an airplane.. Also we are talking of freight for now, not people transport.

It will depends how efficient and out of the box might be the design. If skylon works.. that will be the design to follow. I personally dont see any benefic to launch these aerodynamic wing shapes with normal rockets, you get enoght drawback in the launch to make the land benefic pointless.

This is the moment that I am waiting since its construction.

Yeah I know ram disk devices since 10 years, you can reduce time, but there is a reason about why almost nobody use it.. You dont get enoght benefics taking into account how expensive they are. We have: Cache ram (few megabytes): super fast very expensive for data which needs to be access very frequenty Ram (few gygabytes): fast and expensive for frequenty data access ssd (100gb average): average and average for average data access (we can put the SO here and the most used apps, also the virtual memory file) Hard Disk (Terabyte): slow and cheap, for data we need to load once even a while. Internet (petabytes): for all the things we are not sure if we will check it some day. So in that order, you can have the most cost/effective system, there is not much point to use cache ram as RAM or Ram for uses which does not need to be constant loaded. All the computer architecture is designed with that structure in mind, so you can find few bottleneck which does not allow you to take the whole advantage of it.

Designs may vary to suit its uses. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/131205091638-aeroscraft-cargo-pipeline-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50815a5e69beddda4400000d-1200/the-interior-of-the-aeroscraft-really-is-vast-and-will-operate-much-like-an-open-air-loading-dock.jpg Of course, you need to paid for all airport services as fly assistance and guide, customs, customer attention window, infrastructure, etc. But what I mean.. you dont need to paid the infrastructure.. just a tax which is very different to a huge investment that none company can do. And if the countries see it as a potential to improve their transport, they can allow free tax the first years and even subsidize to allow a fast grow. ok I understand, but still we are not talking of the same price margins (for that little increase of speed) and he can not speak for all products and global circustances. I already pointed that it has a lot more sense for products which are not delivery to the final consumers, more between factories without many scales, which is still a huge niche plus the other cases. To make examples easier, lets think in the most basic way of transport to the final consumer (not a very good one for airships). We transport X amount of cargo crossing the sea, we have (prices by certain amount of kgs): Lets assume that we have these numbers or any number you want to imagine, the important here is that we have a medium cost option. Truck-Ship-truck-final mile = $75 and 10 days Truck-airship-final mile = $150 and 4 days truck-airplane-final mile = $300 and 3 days It will be always cases where people will choose the middle option just because is the one that most fit their needs. Maybe the time is important, maybe they are already delayed, maybe before that option was not a discussion but now they realize a new bussiness oportunity may arise thanks to that new middle option so now they find profitable to sell X products to X place when before it was not profitable on the current transport options. This discussion is similar to the one that we had with spaceX reusable program, which you never count for the new oportunities which may arise. Yeah, you have to accept that this case is very different than a concorde example.. You change my words here, I dint said nothing about buy both simultaneously, I said buy a new fruit that is a mixture between apples and bananas, as we never had that experience, we can not said what people would do. But the vehicle concept has so many virtues against competence (which nobody solve them before) that is kinda safe to said that it has a lot of cases where it will be more usefull compared to the know transport options. If you have info to correct me, PLEASE SHARE IT. I dont wanna keep wrong ideas or drag errors to new wrong conclussions. Or maybe worst, spread my errors to someone else. I have sources from airship literature for each thing I said that you quote me, but maybe they are wrong or I miss understand. In any case it will be more usefull if you explain me why.. In case you cant.. then I recomend you to make use of your own advice. Of course, but the topic title said "towards", my only objective with this topic was to analize the "potential" that these transport may have. When Nibb31 said 20 years I was agree. It will take time even if someone build it today.

That is what I want to said.. Not sure what I said... the can park on grass or water.. to unload yeah, they will need a bit of infrastructure to improve the time. infrastructure cost is equal to tax? Oh.. I drive my car almost all days over roads with tax, I dint know than the few coins I waste was the cost of all the roads. Also the most important is that a transport company does not need to be worry about the investment if instead can provide a bit amount of its profits every time they earns money.. This is not clear yet? What experience?? He can not know if someone will prefer pay a medium price to move his products at medium speed if that option never existed.Is like I said: Oh, I have 100 credentials selling out apples and bananas, so people always pay for apple or bananas. They never pay for a mix fruit between apple and banana, so no one will buy one even if this thing exists.

You need a shipyard in each port to maintenance?? Do you think that we are talking of planes here? Airship has a lot more on common with ship than planes. The main reason of the whole design is to delivery cargo to places without infrastructure! And then I am the one who has no idea how this work... lol. About the amount of cargo than an airport can handle, you are right, for small versions as 250 tons it can work.I said airports because they already had the custom infrastructure for international flights, of course this is not needed for local flights or europe union flights, they maybe needs few little addoms to allow airports work with them. Many have a lot of space to offer: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Aerial_view_of_San_Francisco_International_Airport_2010.jpg http://dcdesigntech.com/new-airport-insider/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Marina-Lystseva.jpg http://static.businessinsider.com/image/510002e569bedd2965000014/image.jpg http://www.wantchinatimes.com/newsphoto/2012-08-02/450/6-manchester-airport-173842_copy1.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Bowman_field_airport.jpg http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5CDC28BE-C533-40FD-9FAB-F77116B65EB7/0/Ellensberg_ELN_12.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Vancouver_International_Airport_Aerial.JPG Remember that you can land in grass, water, does not matter the runaway in use due wind, you can land close to the ones that are not in use. Well, this one has.. So better you get used to the idea. The effect on added weight is negligible. Some cargo airplanes also had some kind of "cranes" to help in the load and unload. Every time you increase the traffic on an airport or seaport you need to make new infrastructure. And if you remplace 5 planes with this, then you dont need to. Since when a tax is equal to the whole infrastructure investment? Again, try to check what do you said, it can go back to you... 20 years to have airships doing a small or medium part on the world transport business does not sound bad to me. That is what I am claming and proving with logic. From your started opinion "very small niche", I provide several examples which contradict that point, nonetheless your opinion never change even if you had not words to disprove my logic. If you have an vehicle which does not pollute, with almost zero fuel consumption (depending your chosen speed), unlimited range, cheaper by far than most planes, and at big scales able to compete in price with ships in some products, it can take off vertically and land in almost any surface or place. But.. you still said that its niche is small. Is just sad. How can you know that? if there is not middle option, never was! Of course if you give them to choice between 2, they will choice one or the other... And the products does not work as: they need super speed, or they not need speed at all. As you can see in my graphic on food, there are a lot of food which will need a medium speed. The same than food, it will be a lot of products which will work better on a medium speed. The lack of that option does not said that there is a lack of that need. What are my credentials? Reason and logic. And how he can not give any evidence about what it would happen with a third option, then it can not said that people always will choice super fast or super slow. Is silly!! As already point in many examples, they win in much more circustances. But well, is like if I ask to you to imagine the possible uses than laser could have (in their year of discovery) and what niche it will have. So I understand that you can not see all their benefics just thinking in this by 1 hour, I did it for much more time than any of you. The most difficult thing it will be to find a not flamable envelope with similar streght and weight properties than mylar.

What infrastructure? the same hangars which made them can be the ones used to maintenance. it depends for what... You can deliver good at the middle of nowhere or any place you want, you can also use the existing infrastructure (airports) Why it need cranes? if already had cranes inside? Some versions can be designed to unload payload directly to trucks, the same as factories had load floors at the same level of trucks. They need some kind of infrastructure.. yeah.. More than new planes and ships or trains? Not.. Because even if you already had the port infrastructure or roads, etc. They work for certain amount of traffic, if you increase the traffic you need to increase the infrastructure. Besides, aeros does not need to pay for that, ports are independent of freight companies. YOu are still talking about the 1 or 3 first years of this technology.. The topic it said if they had the possibility to become in the most efficient way of transport (nothing about years) if you compare all its virtues with the competence. But we still dont have the cost of this technology. So we dont know how much sense it has. Again, right now we dont have any other middle option, so or you pay a lot and fly, or you wait a lot for sea. Maybe most than half would paid more just to get a bit more of speed. only that tunnel or bridge cost a lot of money, and take a look in that tunnel, not trucks can pass.

But let me remind you the topic.. It does not said "there is a animal of planet earth that it will be an spaceship in space?" It said: Is possible to build a spaceship with organic material... The answer is yes.. organics can take any shape, texture, elasticity, they can be conductors, semiconductors, even super conductors at low scale, Is all based in carbon after all. We choice in general single structures to work or studie, because they are easy to understand and predictible. Not like what happen in atomic level with all the possibilities than organic materials had. again, you are talking of evolution and we are talking of design. It can be a living thing or not, but we already find methods of how to use some dna (or something else, I dint remember) to programe an structure to take certain shape. Also to auto repair. Nobody is saying if that is the future or not, they only ask if is possible. Also the question does not specify if its in 100 years or in 1000000 years.

I will said that for now.. is quite the opposite.. we can not do what genetics does just by a nature equilibrium of matter (evolution). They can generate or detect electromagnetism, they can change of color by modify the separation between nanoparticles, then you have the brain, also some of the harded shells (which is also alive), etc. Extremophiles can survive in space and they dint evolve to acomplish that.. So if humanty become some time in genetic masters (maybe 10000 years from now), they will be capable to make anything they want.

if you find a way of propulsion without proppelent, then you can acomplish that with genetic engineering (if your knowledge in genetic is enoght)

Oh, I am sorry, I feel some resentment from your part, I wonder why it will be? If you are not open to the possibilities of different life, how it will be possible you find it? You can have life in front of your rover camera and you will never notice it because you only search for dna. About the arsenic in that particular bacteria, you are right, it was disproven, but the computer simulations points that is possible to remplace phosphorous with arsenic. Is also mentioned in the "selfish gen" book, that to get evolution and complexity, you only need a not perfect replicator in a enviroment to allow such complexity. This can be anything, even things that are not material. The only thing defined is "life as we know it..." http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html Read all, but I just want to quote something: "But in order to formulate a general theory of living systems, one needs more than a single example of life. As revealed by its remarkable biochemical and microbiological similarities, life on Earth has a common origin. Despite its amazing morphological diversity, terrestrial life represents only a single case. The key to formulating a general theory of living systems is to explore alternative possibilities for life. I am interested in formulating a strategy for searching for extraterrestrial life that allows one to push the boundaries of our Earth-centric concepts of life."