Towards the most efficient freight vehicle.

[cpast]

Heh, I guess that kind of logic was not really needed to reach that conclusion

Is small than delivery goods to consumers.. yeah.. But this does not mean that is small.. Is huge!

mostly all manufacture companies only assembled components to make the final product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-down_kit

There is also many others examples.

We can have a 250 or 500 tons version aeroscraft which does argentina-spain, so in each trip companies of those countries contract the service and they load and delivery cargo directly from those companies (no more than 4 scales for country).

The only drawback of country to country is that you need an customs officer in each of the 4 destination, also you may sent an extra incognit inspector once a while to control these officers.

Places like European Union can have free trade between their members.

No, the niche is actually pretty small. Not compared to delivery to consumers, but compared to inter-factory delivery. Inter-factory delivery involves far more cargo than an Aeroscraft can carry. Argentina-Spain is a *terrible* route for this; ships have far higher capacity (a Panamax ship can hold over 70,000 tons in one ship), and you don't care about speed for manufacturing stuff (you care about quantity sent per week, not how long it takes one individual thing to get to its destination). At most, this can make sense factory->port; this is in a small niche between cargo aircraft (which are better for time-sensitive individual parts) and ships (which are better for lots of cargo). You can't handle heavy cargo on this; you have *medium* cargo quantities, which is a small niche.

Yeah.. I would not be so sure. As I said rails had a huge drawback, the infrastrure cost is huge. You cut several roads which translates in time waste for their citizens, you need to pay all the land owners to place the rails.

Also all rails transportation in the world (maybe there are few cases were dont, not sure) are subsidized!

I am not saying that we should get rid of trains, they are awesome and green. What I am saying that in many cases, the benefit does not cover the disadvantages if you have something like this alternative.

Instead of all those subsidies and infrastructure and drawbacks to the citizen, you use that money in high production of aeroscrafts which will cut the cost to less than 1/4.

And again, you don't have any support of your claim that it's unclear whether a rail line will last 25 years. History is against you here; rail lines can easily last well over a hundred years. Tomorrow, I'll be taking a train on a right-of-way completed in 1894. Rail lasts.

The infrastructure cost is high, true, but you're missing the nature of that cost -- it's *hugely* an upfront cost. Once you build a rail line, you have a right-of-way set up. You have a rail line. Those things last a while; maintenance is not all that expensive. It's an investment for the future -- rail lines last a long time, so your one-time cost will be giving benefits for a long time.

This is also in no way an alternative to rail for most things. Rail is very cheap for capacity; this is because trains are big. This is not big; any claim that it scales up needs to be accompanies by engineering studies concluding it does that efficiently (outside of a game, you can't double the size and expect everything else to be multiplied by 8; you have to reengineer things). You can't replace rail with a 250t craft. It augments rail, but it cannot possibly replace it. For price, not even the people selling this think it can reduce cost to less than rail -- their ultimate goal is a quarter the cost of *air*. Air freight is 40 times the cost of rail per ton-mile. The claim for this unproven technology from the people selling it is ten times the cost of rail. And that's why countries subsidize rail (and roads) -- it's worth it to build transportation networks that will have lasting benefits for decades, because efficient transportation helps the whole economy.

Because you can not think beyond the initial year they come out..

They dont have a size limit as airplanes, in fact meanwhile bigger they are, better become.

for each 20% increase in their proportions you double the capacity.

long payload

233m 250tons

278m 500tons

332m 1000tons

400m 2000tons

480m 4000tons

576m 8000tons

691m 16000tons

830m 32000tons

996m 64000tons.

Numbers source? You're saying they improve *faster* than one would expect from simple volumetric analysis (1.2^3 is only 1.75 or so, not 2). As mentioned, you also have to be very careful applying rules like that, because you have to reconsider the engineering of the thing to support the new size. They *do* have a size limit -- the size at which they're too big for most facilities to support, and big enough that they'll not be able to fit in a hangar to repair, and big enough that they'll be heavily restricted by air regulators (good luck flying a kilometer-long craft around; the airspace is government-controlled, not open for anyone to do whatever they want, and regulators will have things to say for a kilometer-long craft).

No fuel consumption, 100% green, it can make 5 trips in the same time than a ship do 1, so 5x8000=40000 tons, is easier to load and unload cargo because you have a mechanical ramp. Even with its size, they dont need bigger space than an airplane does "runaway".

I can't see the actual people designing this claiming zero fuel consumption. The actual design is diesel powered. A PV-powered craft isn't going to do 120kts with this kind of drag. It's not going to do 60kts with this kind of drag. You will need fuel to get acceptable speed. In fact, all they claim is like 1/4 the fuel of an airplane; this is more than rail and ship.

Yeah, to remplace the ship you are right, and they will always rule the most heavy cargo, but airships are in the middle of all niches, that is why is niche can grow so big. They are average good in so many task, and meanwhile its cost reduce and their capacity grow, they can become compared in all its virtues in the best vehicle of transport (using general comparison)

I'm not sure you know how niches work. There is no best mode of transport. There are different bests for different purposes. Here's what seems to be theirs: delivery away from existing infrastructure (our views differ on this because the US has a big rail network already and Argentina doesn't; this would be better in Argentina than the US), of medium quantities of cargo, at reasonable speeds. It won't replace ships for very much. It might be great between ports and places inland, especially in mountainous terrain, as a shuttle. Or for medium-distance transport or stuff that needs reasonable speed, but not next-day or anything like that. Or for oversize cargo (where currently barges are the only real option) -- this will be great for oversize cargo. It's not "average good" in most tasks; it's awful at dealing with large quantities of cargo cheaply, which happens to be among the most important shipping tasks. It's awful at doing last-mile delivery. It's not the "best" -- it can be the best in its niche, but a "general comparison" does not exist. That's like asking for the best material in general.

[EdFred]

The surface does not increase much, so the wind affects less, you can reach greater speeds and higher altitude

This is incorrect. A 60kt headwind has the same effect on a A380 as it does on a MD-11 as it does on a Cessna 150. How much effect? 60kts worth.

[cpast]

This is incorrect. A 60kt headwind has the same effect on a A380 as it does on a MD-11 as it does on a Cessna 150. How much effect? 60kts worth.

Also this. @AngelLestat - The thing about aircraft is that they are completely suspended in the air. While over short timespans the mass and surface area controls how much wind affects it, that only affects gusts; in cruise, your airspeed is independent of wind speed, because winds are fairly consistent. For things on the ground, there's the force of friction that balances the force of the wind; for things aloft, inertia is all that resists acceleration from the wind. It doesn't take long for an aircraft that flies into a high-wind area to be back at its cruise airspeed, which means that an airship that flies into a 60 kt headwind will soon have a ground speed of 60 kts less.

[AngelLestat]

No, the niche is actually pretty small. Not compared to delivery to consumers, but compared to inter-factory delivery. Inter-factory delivery involves far more cargo than an Aeroscraft can carry. Argentina-Spain is a *terrible* route for this; ships have far higher capacity (a Panamax ship can hold over 70,000 tons in one ship), and you don't care about speed for manufacturing stuff (you care about quantity sent per week, not how long it takes one individual thing to get to its destination). At most, this can make sense factory->port; this is in a small niche between cargo aircraft (which are better for time-sensitive individual parts) and ships (which are better for lots of cargo). You can't handle heavy cargo on this; you have *medium* cargo quantities, which is a small niche.

yeah but you keep ignoring all good cases that I mention. Is like said than helicopters does not have any benefic from their vertical take off against airplanes.

I explain many of the cases why this had a potential to become a common way of transport, where things like food which are time sensitive, or the 5 trips against 1 trip of ship which multiply the payload capacity for 5 and increase the benefic of point to point delivery with zero fuel consumption and how much the cost can be reduce going big.

Just take the example of the europe union, lets said italy-sweden or spain-ukraine or even closest routes, they are way more efficient than trucks to delivery big payload from point to point, and it does not need to make 4 trains transfer to reach that.

But not.. you keep saying that the niche is small, which only translate into negation or inlogic thoght.

And again, you don't have any support of your claim that it's unclear whether a rail line will last 25 years. History is against you here; rail lines can easily last well over a hundred years. Tomorrow, I'll be taking a train on a right-of-way completed in 1894. Rail lasts.

But take a look in your example.. in that time technology advance very slow, so it was a sure bet that trains would be a good option (and their was our only option), now is different.

In those times you dint need to pay for lands or cut roads to install rails. So yeah, when I said 25 years is with a solid logic behind.

The infrastructure cost is high, true, but you're missing the nature of that cost -- it's *hugely* an upfront cost. Once you build a rail line, you have a right-of-way set up. You have a rail line. Those things last a while; maintenance is not all that expensive. It's an investment for the future -- rail lines last a long time, so your one-time cost will be giving benefits for a long time.

haha but the same for this.. once you build them, then is almost free to transport. Trains still are very good to transport people at short scales. In this case an aeroscraft is not good for short scales, its max speed only is reached at higher altitudes. The load and unload of passagers it will be always much faster in trains.

This is also in no way an alternative to rail for most things. Rail is very cheap for capacity; this is because trains are big. This is not big; any claim that it scales up needs to be accompanies by engineering studies concluding it does that efficiently (outside of a game, you can't double the size and expect everything else to be multiplied by 8; you have to reengineer things). You can't replace rail with a 250t craft. It augments rail, but it cannot possibly replace it. For price, not even the people selling this think it can reduce cost to less than rail -- their ultimate goal is a quarter the cost of *air*. Air freight is 40 times the cost of rail per ton-mile. The claim for this unproven technology from the people selling it is ten times the cost of rail. And that's why countries subsidize rail (and roads) -- it's worth it to build transportation networks that will have lasting benefits for decades, because efficient transportation helps the whole economy.

Nobody is saying to remplace current trains with aeroscrafts, I am saying that in many cases, there is not point to make new rail infrastructure to transport freight or people between 2 distant places..

Also flights between 2 countries in europe (without much baggage) are cheaper than the same trip in train.. how do you explain that?

If this technology receive only the half of support than trains receive in their time, it will conquer the skies.

Numbers source? You're saying they improve *faster* than one would expect from simple volumetric analysis (1.2^3 is only 1.75 or so, not 2). As mentioned, you also have to be very careful applying rules like that, because you have to reconsider the engineering of the thing to support the new size. They *do* have a size limit -- the size at which they're too big for most facilities to support, and big enough that they'll not be able to fit in a hangar to repair, and big enough that they'll be heavily restricted by air regulators (good luck flying a kilometer-long craft around; the airspace is government-controlled, not open for anyone to do whatever they want, and regulators will have things to say for a kilometer-long craft).

Lets me explain how I get those numbers.

Aeroscraft models, the prototype was the 66tons model, sadly the roof of the hangar collapse in a storm which destroy the prototype, that slow down the things for the company. They are already sue the marine corp which rent them the hangar.

And not all test was already complete like high altitude fly.

Ellipsoid volume:

Those are radius.

So if we convert the units to a decent system we have:

66 tons 166 53 36

radius 83 26 18 Volume: 162756m3 * 1.2 = 195 tons

Proportional drag: 2980

250tons 231 88 55 (40% side increase from the 66tons version)

radius 115 44 27 Volume: 572437m3 * 1.2 = 687 tons

Proportional drag: 6894

500tons 276 106 64 (20% size increase from the 250tons version)

radius 138 53 32 Volume: 980661m3 * 1.2 = 1176 tons

Proportional drag: 9870

*1.2 (helium lift by m3 at sea level, of course that volume is not real, we need to rest the payload volume + airship weight + ballonets volume)

proportional drag (drag in airships is proportional to the exp 2/3 of the volume, but the formule is more complicate, so the numbers that show are only to have an idea how the drag increase, it has not unit)

http://ae.sjsu.edu/files/public/nikos/pdf/VLLAirship%20AIAA.10.pdf

You can have safest routes for bigger craft, about the hangar side, hagars may construct semi rigid hangar tents able to resist 140km/h winds, in my country the winds never overseed the 120km/h. These hangar can be much cheaper and bigger than the old concrete hangars.

For very big airships, yeah. You need to think a little more about how to design the hangar.

I can't see the actual people designing this claiming zero fuel consumption. The actual design is diesel powered. A PV-powered craft isn't going to do 120kts with this kind of drag. It's not going to do 60kts with this kind of drag. You will need fuel to get acceptable speed. In fact, all they claim is like 1/4 the fuel of an airplane; this is more than rail and ship.

Is going to do more than that.. In the diesel design they need to take care of the fuel consumption, more speed it rise much more the consumption. In this case you get the energy from the PV (but is not enoght for the total power you consume) so the extra power comes from the hydrogen (lot of it without tank weight), once you reach a destination the PV keeps restoring the hydrogen lost.

Also if you use hydrogen you get 10% more lift, this provide less envelope surface, so less drag.. Or you increase your payload, or you increase your altitude so you reduce drag and instead venting helium when you reach max altitude (which you cant because is expensive, so you reduce your altitude) with hydrogen instead of venting, you added to the propulsion.

So is already proven than zepellings had a 35% more range than hellium dirigibles due this virtues.

Which can be translated to more speed, or cruise speed unlimited range.

This is incorrect. A 60kt headwind has the same effect on a A380 as it does on a MD-11 as it does on a Cessna 150. How much effect? 60kts worth.

Not sure about the effect on airplanes, but let me point the basic.

-power and speed translates into less vulneability against wind.

-craft density translates into less vulneability against winds.

-bigger size translates into less vulneability against turbulance.

More size in airships equal to less exposed surface in comparison with its weight, more speed and bigger size of course. You can see how speed and range increase with the aeroscraft models. And all the airship literature points to the same thing.

Also this. @AngelLestat - The thing about aircraft is that they are completely suspended in the air. While over short timespans the mass and surface area controls how much wind affects it, that only affects gusts; in cruise, your airspeed is independent of wind speed, because winds are fairly consistent. For things on the ground, there's the force of friction that balances the force of the wind; for things aloft, inertia is all that resists acceleration from the wind. It doesn't take long for an aircraft that flies into a high-wind area to be back at its cruise airspeed, which means that an airship that flies into a 60 kt headwind will soon have a ground speed of 60 kts less.

But you dont realize that this effect is more an advantage than a disavantage for airships. You choise what height you fly and the route.

So you choose always the winds that most fit you.

Take a look at this:

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-55.24,22.57,346

Change the height from 250 to 500 and 700. Some trips can take you up to 25% more time, but you have equal chances to reduce your trip time up to 50%.

[magnemoe]

Numbers source? You're saying they improve *faster* than one would expect from simple volumetric analysis (1.2^3 is only 1.75 or so, not 2). As mentioned, you also have to be very careful applying rules like that, because you have to reconsider the engineering of the thing to support the new size. They *do* have a size limit -- the size at which they're too big for most facilities to support, and big enough that they'll not be able to fit in a hangar to repair, and big enough that they'll be heavily restricted by air regulators (good luck flying a kilometer-long craft around; the airspace is government-controlled, not open for anyone to do whatever they want, and regulators will have things to say for a kilometer-long craft).

Should not be an major problem, minimum distance between planes are km anyway. In short an kilometer long airship don't take more airspace than an jet.

However marked is an issue, then you build the kilometer long airship this is mature technology so it would be cheaper than airfreight but more expensive than ship or train, however few need 64k ton faster than train. Military would settle for the 500-1000 ton version maximum, multiple smaller give more flexibility and you don't loose an division if one crash.

Cruise airship makes sense however litle reason to make them as huge as the seagoing cities, if you want entertainment you land in a city.

I can't see the actual people designing this claiming zero fuel consumption. The actual design is diesel powered. A PV-powered craft isn't going to do 120kts with this kind of drag. It's not going to do 60kts with this kind of drag. You will need fuel to get acceptable speed. In fact, all they claim is like 1/4 the fuel of an airplane; this is more than rail and ship.

Yes solar makes no sense for anything moving, that is outside of space and perhaps stratosphere drones.

Smarter to put the panels on the hangar.

Fuel use between trains and planes make sense as it fit it, some added bonuses like VTOL but main constrain stands.

I'm not sure you know how niches work. There is no best mode of transport. There are different bests for different purposes. Here's what seems to be theirs: delivery away from existing infrastructure (our views differ on this because the US has a big rail network already and Argentina doesn't; this would be better in Argentina than the US), of medium quantities of cargo, at reasonable speeds. It won't replace ships for very much. It might be great between ports and places inland, especially in mountainous terrain, as a shuttle. Or for medium-distance transport or stuff that needs reasonable speed, but not next-day or anything like that. Or for oversize cargo (where currently barges are the only real option) -- this will be great for oversize cargo. It's not "average good" in most tasks; it's awful at dealing with large quantities of cargo cheaply, which happens to be among the most important shipping tasks. It's awful at doing last-mile delivery. It's not the "best" -- it can be the best in its niche, but a "general comparison" does not exist. That's like asking for the best material in general.

Should work for medium distance next day. It can do almost 2000 km in 12 hours. However size might be an downside here, you would need multiple containers for it to make sense.

However its no perfect transport as you say.

One interesting thing is that China is very interested in upgrading the rail link through Russia, my guess is for a fast cargo train to be able to reach Europe in 3-4 days.

Travel time even with fast trains will be to long for people, but you might want an way to reach Europe faster than ships but cheaper than planes.

[Bill Phil]

Trucks and boats use a similar type of container with variable size. Intermodal containers, mountable on a truck bed, the top deck of a freighter, within a freighter, on trains, etc. Not airplanes, though. They're pretty heavy.

[Kerbart]

Disclosure: I work for a shipping company. Obviously, I'm biassed.

With that out of the way, if there were a "most efficient" way of shipping, the market would have decided to use that mode. The fact that "the market" doesn't, is an indication that there really isn't. For cost per ton it's hard to beat deep ocean vessels. But indeed, you're limited to the ports you can use. In fact, the most efficient (=largest) vessels cannot enter ports in the US because the water isn't deep enough, and even if it is, the gantry cranes aren't large enough to handle modern 15000+ TEU vessels.

Which brings me to a second point: size. If you're not familiar with them it's hard to appreciate the actual size of large container ships. Theoretically it will take three of our largest ships, only three, to provide everyone in the USA with a pair of sneakers. Boxed. Vessels unload in the US and Europe on a daily basis. It's an illusion those transportation needs can be served by airships. Suppose you could but 500 containers on such an airship, and that is a ridiculous optimistic assumption. To compete with a moderate sized post-panamax vessel, of say, 8000 TEU (a very common size and up to the late nineties the largest container ships in the world, but now considered "medium") you'd have to make 16 flights per day. Assuming it takes 5 days to fly from China to the US, you'd need 160 of them for a sustained daily service (trust me, i can do math. They need to fly back, too). Of course things get more complicated because you wouldn't fly them to a single large airport, you'd have delivery to every city. The sky would be covered with all these airships. People would complain!

As mentioned before, each transport mode has its strengths and weaknesses. Trucks can deliver anywhere, but trucking is freakishly expensive. Trains are a lot cheaper, but slower, and don't go everywhere. So where cost is the primary concern, you'll see ship-train-truck. And as mentioned before, the intermodal container makes that possible and has changed the world in more ways than we're usually aware of (thank you, Malcolm McLean).

Sometimes speed is important. Flowers, fresh seafood, parcels... That's where airplanes come in. If speed, at any cost, is important, the jet reigns supreme.

That leaves the zeppelin based solutions in an odd spot. They are too slow for perishable goods. They offer a speed advantage over intermodal transport. But the price elasticity for non-time critical freight is not very proportional; I can assure you that nobody is willing to pay twice as much for twice the speed. Maybe 10% at best. They will claim they are, but when push comes to shove the cheapest price will get the freight. Which means you'll get maybe $2000 for airlifting that container from Shanghai to Kalamazoo, Michigan (remember city-to-city without intermodal is the selling point of these airvessels). With maybe ten containers on board. That's $20,000 revenue. While you're flying for ten days (5 to Shanghai, and 5 back -- you cannot base a service on one-way traffic). So you're operating cost better be less than $2,000 per day or you go bankrupt.

What does $2,000 get you? Well, you will need at least a 4-head crew. Two pilots to fly the ship (the FAA is amazingly uncool with letting one pilot fly by himself) and since you're flying 5 days non-stop they'll need to rest. Let's assume you can pay them $25 per hour and you only pay them for the shifts they work (I'd love to see the union negotiations. Remember you need a lot of these ships so yes, the pilots are going to be unionized. More bad news...) -- that's 25 × 4 × 12 = $1,200 per day on labor. That leaves you with $800 per day for running cost. Now let's say that maintenance & repair will cost you a friendly $50 on a daily average. If you've ever seen the price of aeronautical equipment you'll know that is really lowballing it, but let's assume. And another $50 per day on average for things like landing rights, permits, training, ground crew, offices, sales, etc. Good luck with that, but let's amuse our selves. That leaves you with $700 per day available for depreciation, or around $250,000 per year. And lets say that you write off your airlifter after 20 years. Which, with all this based on pretty much non-stop service, sounds pretty reasonable to me, but let's be even more optimistic and assume it still has 50% of the new value at that point (who wants to fly a rig that has probably literally been flown into the ground. That means that 50% of the new value was $5,000,000.

I don't think that it is likely that an airlifter with a ten-container capacity (let's put the payload at a maximum of 200 tons) will be sold new for only $10,000,000. I'm sure there's a niche market for it but I simply don't see how it could compete with current modes of transportation.

DISCLAIMER: there's a lot of assumptions in these numbers, but I don't think that they are THAT far off -- if anything I think I'm erring on the optimistic side.

[Tw1]

cut roads to install rails.

I'd like to point out that you don't necessarily need to cut roads to run rail. That's a matter of design and planning. Where a line must cross a road, it can be designed so one will pass over the other.

Where you can't use terrain to your advantage, an underpass or overpass can be constructed. Usually it's simpler get most of the clearance by adjusting the road, as it can be made a lot steeper than rail. Especially if allowing for freight trains, you need to keep the track's grade as low as possible.

*Quick and nasty paint diagram*

Sometimes it's not practical to modify the road. In these cases the rail can be elevated or constructed in tunnels. If neither of these options are suitable, then perhaps the route needs to be rethought.

Sure, there will be some temporary construction disturbance. But that's temporary

In the end, the best freight option will vary from situation to situation.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Tw1

[AngelLestat]

Yes solar makes no sense for anything moving, that is outside of space and perhaps stratosphere drones.

Smarter to put the panels on the hangar.

O_o!

Airships is the only vehicle were install solar panels had sense.. but not just sense.. it has perfect sense.

Just put in google Solar Airship (pictures) and you will see how many designs and real prototypes from big companies as lockheed martin or even boing there is.

Solar panel benefic: In the 250 tons version, if we cover only a 50% of the top surface 180mx55m "10000m2" with a cheap PV of 20% efficiency, we get 2000 KW of power with direct solar, and a average of 700 kw by day, which give us a total of 16800Kw/h

The 66tons version has 3 engines of 274kw, which I guess the 250 tons version needs 5 engines of 300Kw (only double drag than the 66t)

(365horsepower = 274Kw)

So it has enoght power from the sun alone to travel at cruise speed, this counting the time load and unload cargo.

The weight of the solar panels depending its efficiency, would be between 5 to 10 tons.

But they help a lot to extend the range and speed, it also gives the chance to delivery cargo without the need to refuel (not in all places you can get refuel.)

Disclosure: I work for a shipping company. Obviously, I'm biassed.

Welcome and I appreciate the info.. but let me guess, you only read a 4% of this topic?

With that out of the way, if there were a "most efficient" way of shipping, the market would have decided to use that mode. The fact that "the market" doesn't, is an indication that there really isn't.

I am totally agree, but like this aeroscraft with the proposed changes dint come out yet, then this does not apply.

Theoretically it will take three of our largest ships, only three, to provide everyone in the USA with a pair of sneakers. Boxed. Vessels unload in the US and Europe on a daily basis. It's an illusion those transportation needs can be served by airships.

I already explain several times that these ships would not be remplaced, but the niche between planes and ship is so big, that there is a huge potential for this kind of Airship.

Suppose you could but 500 containers on such an airship

We were all agree that airships will not use TEU containers, also not really need them if you move cargo between big companies directly to their storage place.

In any case they can use light containers as the ones mentioned by Nibb31.

To compete with a moderate sized post-panamax vessel, of say, 8000 TEU, you'd have to make 16 flights per day. Assuming it takes 5 days to fly from China to the US, you'd need 160 of them for a sustained daily service (trust me, i can do math. They need to fly back, too). Of course things get more complicated because you wouldn't fly them to a single large airport, you'd have delivery to every city. The sky would be covered with all these airships. People would complain!

8000 TEU would be close to 100000 tons, then we need to rest the containers weight which give us 75000 tons of cargo.

From the center of China to the center of US, we have 6000 nautical miles, 5000 by water and 1000 by land, which it will take 10 days cross the sea + unload load 2 times with trucks + 4 extra days on the road. Lets round in 15 days.

The aeroscraft would do that in 2 days, so it can make 8 round trips in the same time than ship+truck do 1.

So an aeroscraft with double of side than the 250tons version will be able to carry 8000 tons, *8 = 64000 tons.

These numbers can or can not be accurate or realistic, but lets be agree in something, its niche is not so small.

Sometimes speed is important. Flowers, fresh seafood, parcels... That's where airplanes come in. If speed, at any cost, is important, the jet reigns supreme.

That leaves the zeppelin based solutions in an odd spot. They are too slow for perishable goods. They offer a speed advantage over intermodal transport. But the price elasticity for non-time critical freight is not very proportional; I can assure you that nobody is willing to pay twice as much for twice the speed. Maybe 10% at best.

A plane can be faster, but if you take the time to sent the truck to the airport, papers, unload, plane, load in truck, destination. You have a similar time with airships in case the delivery is from point to point instead distribution.

Also you are used to not have other possibility than "plane or ship" when you speak of cross water. So in your experiences the airship middle option never existed, so you can only measure how the market reacts to the lack of that option, but if this bridge between very slow and super is created, then a lot of new markets or ways to make things can arise. Food for example between others.

What does $2,000 get you? Well, you will need at least a 4-head crew. Two pilots to fly the ship (the FAA is amazingly uncool with letting one pilot fly by himself) and since you're flying 5 days non-stop they'll need to rest.

5 days a trip? This thing travel at 125 knots, you turn around the world at even cruise speed in that time.

But if you have 4 pilots, what is the matter? They can sleep, play the ping pong or watch some movie.

If you are moving 500 tons or more, 4 pilots is a negligible cost. You need 1 person for truck, and they need to sleep too.

That leaves you with $700 per day available for depreciation, or around $250,000 per year.

250000 per year moving 500 tons by trip or maybe 8000 tons by trip.

That is nothing compared with profits. Because this thing would not consume fuel, and if it does will be very few.

And lets say that you write off your airlifter after 20 years. Which, with all this based on pretty much non-stop service, sounds pretty reasonable to me, but let's be even more optimistic and assume it still has 50% of the new value at that point (who wants to fly a rig that has probably literally been flown into the ground. That means that 50% of the new value was $5,000,000.

Sorry I dint follow you in that one, but according to your calculations all transport companies should be in bankruptcy.

DISCLAIMER: there's a lot of assumptions in these numbers, but I don't think that they are THAT far off -- if anything I think I'm erring on the optimistic side.

Check the ones that I pointed.

I'd like to point out that you don't necessarily need to cut roads to run rail. That's a matter of design and planning. Where a line must cross a road, it can be designed so one will pass over the other.

Where you can't use terrain to your advantage, an underpass or overpass can be constructed. Usually it's simpler get most of the clearance by adjusting the road, as it can be made a lot steeper than rail. Especially if allowing for freight trains, you need to keep the track's grade as low as possible.

In open field I said that there is not much problem aside the money paid to field owners.

But this is a very different case:

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee223/beatbum07/03BairesTrenesactualesmassubteco-1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oed5jKeSz4c/TbDa4j6b-_I/AAAAAAAABsI/QuMriN_nQ1k/s1600/Mapa_Buenos_Aires_1.jpg

How many bridges or tunnels you need to make in the first image, what is the investment cost? Also not all streets can cross.

Then there is the maintaince cost for each cross, which if a barrier is broken they take as 1 week or 1 month to fix it.

That is why trains are subsidized over all the world, because they are necesary and we dont have other option until now.

But they are very good to move people in cities, but what I want to said, make new infrastructure to train freight is not worth it.

Edited April 3, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Nibb31]

In most countries, the seaport and railway infrastructure exists since the 19th Century. Roads and airports are widespread since the 20th Century. The only cost is maintenance and expansion.

Your blimps need a whole new investment in vehicle development, purchase, and infrastructure. A field is not enough, you are still going to need a logistics hub to load the cargo onto the blimp and transfer to trucks. This means roads, warehouses, cranes, tarmac, servicing facilities and maintenance hangars. You are going to need a lot of real-estate for that, so it would pretty much be the equivalent of constructing a new international airport near every major city. That is not cheap.

You are also going to need to integrate the blimps into the ATC system, meaning that they can't just fly anywhere. They will have to follow ATC routes, and new specialized airlanes will need to be created because these blimps are slower than airplanes and fly lower.

So your blimp service also has a pretty high upfront investment cost. It needs infrastructure, just like any other transport method.

It can work as a niche transport method for large loads that need to be delivered to remote locations (like windfarms or ski resort construction), but it will not replace the entire ship-train-truck multi-mode transport systems because most logistics carriers have optimized those channels to an extremely high degree.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Nibb31

[Kerbart]

(...)A plane can be faster, but if you take the time to sent the truck to the airport, papers, unload, plane, load in truck, destination. You have a similar time with airships in case the delivery is from point to point instead distribution.

Also you are used to not have other possibility than "plane or ship" when you speak of cross water. So in your experiences the airship middle option never existed, so you can only measure how the market reacts to the lack of that option, but if this bridge between very slow and super is created, then a lot of new markets or ways to make things can arise. Food for example between others.(...)

But there is on the land side. In many cases the customer can choose between Rail Combined or Truck Only, with the latter being the faster option. And I can assure you that rarely ever that option is executed where there exists a choice between rail/truck and truck only. Time critically is like being pregnant: either it's time critical, or it's not. There is no little ground, as there is not "little bit pregnant." And if it's not time critical it will be shipped with the cheapest mode the market has to offer.

There are the occasional shipments that need a little bit of rushing (to make a vessel cutoff, or to make it to the store before christmas, etc) without the need for extremely expensive (and high speed) jet transport but those are far and in between. That's the market the aeroships would operate in. If I extrapolate how many times truck only is chosen on rail/truck corridors, I'd say that is an extremely small market and highly seasonal as well.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Kerbart

[Guest]

What are you talking about?

Rockets are best method of transportation.

Shuttles are second best.

Rovers are good for short range ground hauling.

Ask Jeb, if you doubt it!

[Tw1]

In open field I said that there is not much problem aside the money paid to field owners.

But this is a very different case:

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee223/beatbum07/03BairesTrenesactualesmassubteco-1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oed5jKeSz4c/TbDa4j6b-_I/AAAAAAAABsI/QuMriN_nQ1k/s1600/Mapa_Buenos_Aires_1.jpg

How many bridges or tunnels you need to make in the first image, what is the investment cost? Also not all streets can cross.

Then there is the maintaince cost for each cross, which if a barrier is broken they take as 1 week or 1 month to fix it.

That is why trains are subsidized over all the world, because they are necesary and we dont have other option until now.

But they are very good to move people in cities, but what I want to said, make new infrastructure to train freight is not worth it.

The techniques I described above can be used in urban areas too.

It is true rail lines can become a barrier to traffic and pedestrians. But no more than a bunch of private buildings can be. A rail line must be planned carefully. Some's being cheap if level crossings are being used in an entirely new heavy rail line in a modern, first world city.

As for that infrastructure cost. To build from scratch? Many, many billions, that's an extensive system. The trick is return on investment- building infrastructure that will pay for itself over time, (or provide other benefits deemed worth the cost.)

It's not quite so that new freight infrastructure is not worth it. Here in NSW (State in Australia) I know of a few proposed, and ongoing freight rail projects. Rail is great for hauling large amounts of stuff from depot to depot. Here, trains play an important role in getting coal and grain to port. Most long distance rail traffic here is freight movements, and I believe the same is true in Argentina.

No solution is the be all and end all of transportation. Unless we discover cheap teleportation.

[AngelLestat]

Your blimps need a whole new investment in vehicle development, purchase, and infrastructure

What infrastructure? the same hangars which made them can be the ones used to maintenance.

A field is not enough, you are still going to need a logistics hub to load the cargo onto the blimp and transfer to trucks.

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)

This means roads, warehouses, cranes, tarmac, servicing facilities and maintenance hangars. You are going to need a lot of real-estate for that, so it would pretty much be the equivalent of constructing a new international airport near every major city. That is not cheap.

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 also going to need to integrate the blimps into the ATC system, meaning that they can't just fly anywhere. They will have to follow ATC routes, and new specialized airlanes will need to be created because these blimps are slower than airplanes and fly lower.

It can work as a niche transport method for large loads that need to be delivered to remote locations (like windfarms or ski resort construction), but it will not replace the entire ship-train-truck multi-mode transport systems because most logistics carriers have optimized those channels to an extremely high degree.

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 there is on the land side. In many cases the customer can choose between Rail Combined or Truck Only, with the latter being the faster option. And I can assure you that rarely ever that option is executed where there exists a choice between rail/truck and truck only. Time critically is like being pregnant: either it's time critical, or it's not. There is no little ground, as there is not "little bit pregnant." And if it's not time critical it will be shipped with the cheapest mode the market has to offer.

But we still dont have the cost of this technology. So we dont know how much sense it has.

There are the occasional shipments that need a little bit of rushing (to make a vessel cutoff, or to make it to the store before christmas, etc) without the need for extremely expensive (and high speed) jet transport but those are far and in between. That's the market the aeroships would operate in. If I extrapolate how many times truck only is chosen on rail/truck corridors, I'd say that is an extremely small market and highly seasonal as well.

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.

The techniques I described above can be used in urban areas too.

http://i.imgur.com/WJ7QHG7.png?1

It is true rail lines can become a barrier to traffic and pedestrians. But no more than a bunch of private buildings can be. A rail line must be planned carefully. Some's being cheap if level crossings are being used in an entirely new heavy rail line in a modern, first world city.

As for that infrastructure cost. To build from scratch? Many, many billions, that's an extensive system. The trick is return on investment- building infrastructure that will pay for itself over time, (or provide other benefits deemed worth the cost.)

only that tunnel or bridge cost a lot of money, and take a look in that tunnel, not trucks can pass.

[Rath]

Train is the most efficient method of transport in terms of distance and mass per fuel. Ships work out cheaper due to fewer restrictions in paths, timing, infrastructure maintenance, and similar problems trains run into./QUOTE]

Train is the most efficient method of transport in/QUOTE]

Train/QUOTE]

Yay trains are good!

[Nibb31]

What infrastructure? the same hangars which made them can be the ones used to maintenance.

No, of course they can't. Do all airliners return to Seattle and Toulouse for maintenance? You clearly have no idea how this works.

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)

No, you can't insert these slow-flying aircraft into existing airports. They are also too big to be handled by existing airport structures, they would get in the way of ground traffic and air traffic. As for unloading 1000 tons of freight onto 50 semi-trucks in the middle of field, after a rain storm, good luck with that.

Why it need cranes? if already had cranes inside?

For the same reason cargo ships, cargo planes, and trains don't carry their own cranes. It's much more efficient to have heavy cranes at the port/station than to carry hundred ton cranes with you everywhere.

They need some kind of infrastructure.. yeah.. More than new planes and ships or trains? Not..

Existing infrastructure is cheaper than new infrastructure. Even if it's just a 50 acre field covered in tarmac, it's still going to be more expensive than using whatever exists.

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.

Ports are paid by freight companies through portuary taxes. Airlines pay airport fees. Again, you have no idea how this works.

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.

No, I'm talking about the 20 years of planning and development it would take to develop the infrastructure described above. Do you have any idea how much time, money, and effort it takes to build large infrastructure?

But we still dont have the cost of this technology. So we dont know how much sense it has.

So how can you claim that is universally better and more efficient?

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.

He just explained to you that customers either care about speed and pay the premium (a small minority), or don't care about it. In most cases, they go with the cheaper option, regardless of how slow it is. There is no demand for a middle option. That is his experience as someone who works in logistics. What are your credentials in the transport industry?

only that tunnel or bridge cost a lot of money, and take a look in that tunnel, not trucks can pass.

It looks like a pretty standard height bridge to me. Standard sized trucks can go through it without a problem. It's also an existing bridge that looks like it was built 100 years ago. If it's paid for, you might as well use it.

[magnemoe]

But there is on the land side. In many cases the customer can choose between Rail Combined or Truck Only, with the latter being the faster option. And I can assure you that rarely ever that option is executed where there exists a choice between rail/truck and truck only. Time critically is like being pregnant: either it's time critical, or it's not. There is no little ground, as there is not "little bit pregnant." And if it's not time critical it will be shipped with the cheapest mode the market has to offer.

There are the occasional shipments that need a little bit of rushing (to make a vessel cutoff, or to make it to the store before christmas, etc) without the need for extremely expensive (and high speed) jet transport but those are far and in between. That's the market the aeroships would operate in. If I extrapolate how many times truck only is chosen on rail/truck corridors, I'd say that is an extremely small market and highly seasonal as well.

Agree here, for the reasonable fast option the volume is also pretty small so trucks are well suited also as they can deliver directly to customer. Main reason why rail is slower is because you have to deliver container in good time before the train leaves and you then have to pick it up by another truck.

Airship wins in settings where you have oversize goods or the location lack good roads. Note that if the airship become an option you will probably see an larger marked for oversize goods as it will often be economical to build and test larger modules and then move them.

[AngelLestat]

No, of course they can't. Do all airliners return to Seattle and Toulouse for maintenance? You clearly have no idea how this works.

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.

No, you can't insert these slow-flying aircraft into existing airports. They are also too big to be handled by existing airport structures, they would get in the way of ground traffic and air traffic. As for unloading 1000 tons of freight onto 50 semi-trucks in the middle of field, after a rain storm, good luck with that.

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.

For the same reason cargo ships, cargo planes, and trains don't carry their own cranes. It's much more efficient to have heavy cranes at the port/station than to carry hundred ton cranes with you everywhere.

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.

Existing infrastructure is cheaper than new infrastructure. Even if it's just a 50 acre field covered in tarmac, it's still going to be more expensive than using whatever exists.

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.

Ports are paid by freight companies through portuary taxes. Airlines pay airport fees. Again, you have no idea how this works.

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...

No, I'm talking about the 20 years of planning and development it would take to develop the infrastructure described above. Do you have any idea how much time, money, and effort it takes to build large infrastructure?

20 years to have airships doing a small or medium part on the world transport business does not sound bad to me.

So how can you claim that is universally better and more efficient?

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.

He just explained to you that customers either care about speed and pay the premium (a small minority), or don't care about it. In most cases, they go with the cheaper option, regardless of how slow it is. There is no demand for a middle option. That is his experience as someone who works in logistics. What are your credentials in the transport industry?

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!!

Airship wins in settings where you have oversize goods or the location lack good roads. Note that if the airship become an option you will probably see an larger marked for oversize goods as it will often be economical to build and test larger modules and then move them.

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.

[shynung]

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.

Shipyards and docks are two different places. There are ports around the world that can unload and load ships, but unable to do maintenance on them.

Every time you increase the traffic on an airport or seaport you need to make new infrastructure. And if you replace 5 planes with this, then you dont need to.

One would certainly need to, since this thing is much bigger than planes. At the very least, the aprons (parking space) for unloading these things would be bigger.

Since when a tax is equal to the whole infrastructure investment?

To the transport companies, since the business started. The docks and airports are rarely owned by the same company which owns the ships and planes, most of them owned by the government. To them, infrastructure costs are equal to airport/dock tax.

What are my credentials? Reason and logic.

Credentials require actual work experience. Reason and logic make only arguments, but can never support them as strongly as working experience.

[AngelLestat]

Shipyards and docks are two different places. There are ports around the world that can unload and load ships, but unable to do maintenance on them.

That is what I want to said.. Not sure what I said...

One would certainly need to, since this thing is much bigger than planes. At the very least, the aprons (parking space) for unloading these things would be bigger.

the can park on grass or water.. to unload yeah, they will need a bit of infrastructure to improve the time.

To the transport companies, since the business started. The docks and airports are rarely owned by the same company which owns the ships and planes, most of them owned by the government. To them, infrastructure costs are equal to airport/dock tax.

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..

Credentials require actual work experience. Reason and logic make only arguments, but can never support them as strongly as working experience.

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.

Edited April 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[shynung]

That is what I want to said.. Not sure what I said...

You said the same hangars that made them can be used to maintain them. Thing is, these hangars aren't everywhere, and some airplanes and ships go on routes in which no maintenance hangars are available all along the route. Airships will have similar circumstances.

Even then, unloading cargo would still need some support infrastructure. One wouldn't expect a container box dropped in the middle of a field to unload itself.

the can park on grass or water.. to unload yeah, they will need a bit of infrastructure to improve the time.

Even for unloading cargo, a patch of grassland would have a rent cost associated with them. On most ports, simply loitering in one of the empty docks, not even unloading, will incur a parking tax. Unless you're parking out in the middle of nowhere, simply stopping somewhere would have costs.

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..

In the same way that a single patch of road is driven on by at least several cars, a single transport hub (an airport, dock, or truck depot) is visited by several vehicles. The owner of these infrastructures charges the vehicle owners for the provision of infrastructure, and this cost is spread over all vehicle owners, rather than just one. To the individual vehicle owners, the provision charge (road tax, airport tax) is just a fraction of the cost of the infrastructure itself.

So yeah, aside from the cost of building a garage, the infrastructure costs of using an automobile, from the view of a car owner, is effectively the road tax.

He can not know if someone will prefer pay a medium price to move his products at medium speed if that option never existed.

There is a middle option, but not from using a different transport vehicle. I'll explain a bit.

Trucks move at speeds of up to some 100 km/h (at least, in Indonesia, they do), and deliver straight to the door. For short distances on land, and for last-mile delivery, they are the vehicle that are used most often. Trains and ships travel slower than trucks (around 60 and 20 km/h, respectively. Again, this is in where I live, so it may vary in other places), but use less fuel per mass-distance traveled than trucks. These are used for long-range, cost-effective travels between large transport hubs (docks and stations). Airplanes travel much faster than either of them, but are more expensive per mass-distance, and restricted to places that have airports. So there goes your express delivery.

Another thing to put in mind is that a single piece of cargo (say, a copy of a PS4 console) very rarely arrive on the final delivery address on the same vehicle it left the sender's address in. Along the way, it will be unloaded and loaded, over and over again, from one vehicle to another. This loading process takes time, since it is likely that the console isn't the only one being loaded onto another vehicle, but along with literally tons of other cargo items.

On another analogy let's look at the ticket prices of a regional train. You will find, among other things, trains that go through an similar route (defined as the terminus/end stations that they go to-and-from), using a similar set of passenger carriages, pulled by a similarly-powerful locomotive, yet offers a different price for a given class (say Economy), most of the time. This is because the cheaper train almost always stop at more stations along the route than the pricier train, the end result being the expensive train arrives faster to the destination than the cheaper train despite having similar mechanical performance, because the pricier train spends more time on the move than the cheaper train.

If you haven't gotten the analogy, this is the picture: The middle option for cargo senders, faced with a variety of transport options that are cheap but too slow (train/ship), and fast but too expensive (airplane), is to either choose the slower vehicle that takes less stops, or choose the faster vehicle that takes more stops. Both options are available (there are cargo ships that go to less docks than others, and cargo planes that land at more cities than others), and both generally have a price somewhere between the slowest, cheapest choice (container ships often stop at dozens of docks) and the most expensive, fastest choice (passenger planes often go long distances between airports, on multi-hour flights, without landing anywhere along the way). In countries with a lot of land mass like the USA, a truck-only transport route is often faster than a truck-train-truck route, and cheaper than an airplane route, so that will be their middle option.

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.

Apples and bananas are a bad analogy for transport modes, but whatever.

People who work at an industry generally knows what a typical customer expects from the service/products they offer. They will always adjust their offers so that the customer gets what they want at the price they are willing to pay, taking into account their service/product procurement costs to acquire profit. If they found out that a combination of products would serve better than each of them separately, they would have done so as soon as they could, for being the first to offer the product combination may give them a marketing edge over their competitors. Soon, others will follow suit, and it will become the industry norm.

Even so, companies and industries often try offering new products at the market, to experiment with new ways of serving their customers (for profit). These new offerings aren't always in line with current market trends, and occasionally they become successful in their own right. Even so, there are offers that, even when anticipated by the market (customers), failed to be profitable enough for the company to continue pursuing it. There are many of these 'abandoned' offers, some more popular than others (Concorde flights, for example).

In the end, if a fruit salesman that sells both apples and bananas say that his customers always buy either apples or bananas, but never both simultaneously, chances are that's what the market for fruit demands. If the market demands otherwise, either he or his competitors would have seen some customers demanding both apples and bananas, and told you of his experience directly (or through his sales reports).

[EdFred]

Not sure about the effect on airplanes, but let me point the basic.

-power and speed translates into less vulneability against wind.

-craft density translates into less vulneability against winds.

-bigger size translates into less vulneability against turbulance.

More size in airships equal to less exposed surface in comparison with its weight, more speed and bigger size of course. You can see how speed and range increase with the aeroscraft models. And all the airship literature points to the same thing.

But you dont realize that this effect is more an advantage than a disavantage for airships. You choise what height you fly and the route.

So you choose always the winds that most fit you.

Take a look at this:

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-55.24,22.57,346

Change the height from 250 to 500 and 700. Some trips can take you up to 25% more time, but you have equal chances to reduce your trip time up to 50%.

You should just sop talking, because you have no clue what you are talking about in this regard. I don't know if there is any possible way you could be more wrong.

[magnemoe]

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.

Yes, however the initial price will be pretty high as its an limited number in use. Therefor it makes sense to focus on the missions you can demand premium. As prices go down and the numbers of airship goes up you can start going after the secondary markeds like fresh products and rush orders.

Cruises over land is another interesting idea.

This is always an problem then going into an existing marked with an new and unproven product, you need to find an niche first.

Take flash memory, it has existed an long time, however the first versions was slow, had low capacity and was expensive, first use was settings where you wanted storage for a few bits who did not lose data then you powered it off, bios settings or programmed channels on an radio.

Next use was to store actual data, various places but the memory stick to save games on consoles is probably most known. Still storage capacity was very limited making save spots or even just save at end of level an requirement too keep the data amount down. Think sim cards also uses flash to store the contact list. Next up is the well known memory stick, the first ones could just store a few megabyte but the other option was diskettes or burning an CD. At this point capasity increased fast, smartphones and digital cameras needed high capacity flash who bring us to current day where flash in the form of SSD is underway to take over as primarly hardisk on pces.

[AngelLestat]

Even then, unloading cargo would still need some support infrastructure. One wouldn't expect a container box dropped in the middle of a field to unload itself.

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

Even for unloading cargo, a patch of grassland would have a rent cost associated with them. On most ports, simply loitering in one of the empty docks, not even unloading, will incur a parking tax. Unless you're parking out in the middle of nowhere, simply stopping somewhere would have costs.

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.

There is a middle option, but not from using a different transport vehicle. I'll explain a bit.

Trucks move at speeds of up to some 100 km/h (at least, in Indonesia, they do), and deliver straight to the door. For short distances on land, and for last-mile delivery, they are the vehicle that are used most often. Trains and ships travel slower than trucks (around 60 and 20 km/h, respectively. Again, this is in where I live, so it may vary in other places), but use less fuel per mass-distance traveled than trucks. These are used for long-range, cost-effective travels between large transport hubs (docks and stations). Airplanes travel much faster than either of them, but are more expensive per mass-distance, and restricted to places that have airports. So there goes your express delivery.

In countries with a lot of land mass like the USA, a truck-only transport route is often faster than a truck-train-truck route, and cheaper than an airplane route, so that will be their middle option.

People who work at an industry generally knows what a typical customer expects from the service/products they offer.

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.

Another thing to put in mind is that a single piece of cargo (say, a copy of a PS4 console) very rarely arrive on the final delivery address on the same vehicle it left the sender's address in. Along the way, it will be unloaded and loaded, over and over again, from one vehicle to another. This loading process takes time, since it is likely that the console isn't the only one being loaded onto another vehicle, but along with literally tons of other cargo items.

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.

They will always adjust their offers so that the customer gets what they want at the price they are willing to pay, taking into account their service/product procurement costs to acquire profit. If they found out that a combination of products would serve better than each of them separately, they would have done so as soon as they could, for being the first to offer the product combination may give them a marketing edge over their competitors. Soon, others will follow suit, and it will become the industry norm.

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.

Even so, companies and industries often try offering new products at the market, to experiment with new ways of serving their customers (for profit). These new offerings aren't always in line with current market trends, and occasionally they become successful in their own right. Even so, there are offers that, even when anticipated by the market (customers), failed to be profitable enough for the company to continue pursuing it. There are many of these 'abandoned' offers, some more popular than others (Concorde flights, for example).

Yeah, you have to accept that this case is very different than a concorde example..

In the end, if a fruit salesman that sells both apples and bananas say that his customers always buy either apples or bananas, but never both simultaneously, chances are that's what the market for fruit demands. If the market demands otherwise, either he or his competitors would have seen some customers demanding both apples and bananas, and told you of his experience directly (or through his sales reports).

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.

You should just sop talking, because you have no clue what you are talking about in this regard. I don't know if there is any possible way you could be more wrong.

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.

Yes, however the initial price will be pretty high as its an limited number in use. Therefor it makes sense to focus on the missions you can demand premium. As prices go down and the numbers of airship goes up you can start going after the secondary markeds like fresh products and rush orders.

Cruises over land is another interesting idea.

This is always an problem then going into an existing marked with an new and unproven product, you need to find an niche first.

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.

[Bill Phil]

If you want to accomplish this, it's best to stick to intracontinent service. At least initially. That way you only have to deliver things a few thousand kilometers at most.

Also, it would be good to keep maintenance down. But these airships are going to be expensive based only on their size.

This would essentially be bulk transport over land. Since trucks and trains and planes are limited.

It would need to be pretty fast, too....

Maybe turbines using the hydrogen burning with O2 from the air? Some kind of jet might be a good idea.

Anybody else thinking of Crimson Skies?

- - - Updated - - -

Look up CargoLifter... It seems like a good example.