Towards the most efficient freight vehicle.

[cpast]

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.

The cruise speed of an aircraft (*any* aircraft) under a certain set of conditions (basically altitude/pressure, temperature, and engine power settings) is the *airspeed* at which thrust from the engines balances drag from the atmosphere. Mass of the airship is irrelevant; it doesn't determine either the thrust produced by the engines, or the drag force from the atmosphere (since we're comparing forces instead of accelerations). Put that together and you get the speed of the aircraft with respect to the air outside. Because the aircraft is suspended in the air, its ground velocity is its velocity w/r/t the air plus the wind velocity w/r/t the ground; the speed is an equilibrium, and aircraft reach that equilibrium reasonably quickly. If the aircraft climbs into a 60kts headwind, it will quickly have a 60kts lower groundspeed. Theoretically, an incredibly massive ship with low cross-sectional area might take a while to reach equilibrium again. Likewise, if it's *way* off equilibrium (e.g. re-entry), it takes a while to reach equilibrium. But at airship scales, it's not taking very long to do that. In cruise, any aircraft is equally affected by sustained winds.

Where mass *does* help is for gusts. More massive things with lower cross-sectional area take longer to reach their equilibrium when the wind changes, which means that if the wind is rapidly shifting they won't be nearly as affected. However, airships do worse than planes in this respect (they have much higher cross-sectional area per unit mass).

Also, the equilibrium doesn't necessarily shift as much as you might think when you increase the size of the airship. The greater payload is irrelevant; what matters is how engine power scales with size. There's a limit on the power you can put into a single propeller (you can put more power in by changing pitch, adding blades, making it spin faster, and making it bigger; the first has a limit, the second has seriously diminishing returns, the third and fourth are constrained by the tips of the propeller needing to stay subsonic), so it's unclear exactly how it would scale. If you're using the PV idea (which Aeroscraft isn't, incidentally), available power would scale with the square of the length (and thrust grows slower than power).

[shynung]

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.

The company that builds the infrastructure and the ones that drives the vehicles aren't always the same company. If there are no airship transport companies around, no one will build the airstrips/landing pads able to support their operations. Even when given free tax for the first few years to stimulate growth, the airship landing pad would be beaten chiefly by regular airports and ship docks that don't need to do such things, and are able to return the investment faster. All made worse by the fact that there are literally thousands of airplanes and ships already in service, but almost no airships.

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.

Over long distances, a small increase in speed can hasten the trip time by days. The price differences would follow.

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.

What's available today is this:

Truck->Ship(roundabout route)->Truck->Final Mile: $40-50 in 1 month (30 days)

Truck->Ship(direct route)->Truck-Final Mile: $75-100 in 2 weeks (14 days)

Truck->Airplane(roundabout route)->Truck->Final Mile: $125-175 in 1 week (7 days)

Truck->Airplane(direct route)->Truck->Final Mile: $200-300 in 3 days

There's your middle option.

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.

There aren't much of it. Not a lot of people has something needed to deliver to space. SpaceX may drop its prices, but there won't be much new markets in the space industry.

Unless space stations turn into floating cities, that is.

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

The difference between this and Concorde is that the Concorde planes are so horribly expensive, the manufacturers never got a profit from them. This cargo airship thing is trying to compete in a market already dominated by far more developed and cost-effective vehicles, and does so by offering something the competitors are already able to do.

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.

I bet the people is going to cry 'GMOs are evil!' and boycott this fruit from the market.

Jokes aside, if I wanted to experience the taste of such a fruit, I'd mix apple juice and banana juice in the same glass. Fruit juice bars already do that.

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.

There are cases where having some sort of super-heavy aircrane-capable transport is useful, like installations of wind turbines, but for regular freight transport, there are competitors already doing what it can do using already-available technology. It won't do much good there.

[Iskierka]

Airports could not support this vehicle. You quote the "standard" 250 tonne capacity as being 233 m long - airports have no capacity for any vehicle larger than 80 metres. Special arrangements have to be made for visits by the An-225, which is only around 86 m. Yet this thing is three times that size. This would require specialised landing sites with specialised infrastructure, at least if it was to ever carry significant payload mass.

[AngelLestat]

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.

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.

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

yeah, but is not a rule. It depends much of the circustances.

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.

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.

Anybody else thinking of Crimson Skies?

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.

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

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.

The cruise speed of an aircraft (*any* aircraft) under a certain set of conditions (basically altitude/pressure, temperature, and engine power settings) is the *airspeed* at which thrust from the engines balances drag from the atmosphere. Mass of the airship is irrelevant; it doesn't determine either the thrust produced by the engines, or the drag force from the atmosphere (since we're comparing forces instead of accelerations). Put that together and you get the speed of the aircraft with respect to the air outside. Because the aircraft is suspended in the air, its ground velocity is its velocity w/r/t the air plus the wind velocity w/r/t the ground; the speed is an equilibrium, and aircraft reach that equilibrium reasonably quickly. If the aircraft climbs into a 60kts headwind, it will quickly have a 60kts lower groundspeed. Theoretically, an incredibly massive ship with low cross-sectional area might take a while to reach equilibrium again. Likewise, if it's *way* off equilibrium (e.g. re-entry), it takes a while to reach equilibrium. But at airship scales, it's not taking very long to do that. In cruise, any aircraft is equally affected by sustained winds.

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.

Where mass *does* help is for gusts. More massive things with lower cross-sectional area take longer to reach their equilibrium when the wind changes, which means that if the wind is rapidly shifting they won't be nearly as affected. However, airships do worse than planes in this respect (they have much higher cross-sectional area per unit mass).

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.

Also, the equilibrium doesn't necessarily shift as much as you might think when you increase the size of the airship. The greater payload is irrelevant; what matters is how engine power scales with size. There's a limit on the power you can put into a single propeller (you can put more power in by changing pitch, adding blades, making it spin faster, and making it bigger; the first has a limit, the second has seriously diminishing returns, the third and fourth are constrained by the tips of the propeller needing to stay subsonic), so it's unclear exactly how it would scale. If you're using the PV idea (which Aeroscraft isn't, incidentally), available power would scale with the square of the length (and thrust grows slower than power).

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.

The company that builds the infrastructure and the ones that drives the vehicles aren't always the same company. If there are no airship transport companies around, no one will build the airstrips/landing pads able to support their operations. Even when given free tax for the first few years to stimulate growth, the airship landing pad would be beaten chiefly by regular airports and ship docks that don't need to do such things, and are able to return the investment faster. All made worse by the fact that there are literally thousands of airplanes and ships already in service, but almost no airships.

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.

What's available today is this:

Truck->Ship(roundabout route)->Truck->Final Mile: $40-50 in 1 month (30 days)

Truck->Ship(direct route)->Truck-Final Mile: $75-100 in 2 weeks (14 days)

Truck->Airplane(roundabout route)->Truck->Final Mile: $125-175 in 1 week (7 days)

Truck->Airplane(direct route)->Truck->Final Mile: $200-300 in 3 days

There's your middle option.

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.

The difference between this and Concorde is that the Concorde planes are so horribly expensive, the manufacturers never got a profit from them. This cargo airship thing is trying to compete in a market already dominated by far more developed and cost-effective vehicles, and does so by offering something the competitors are already able to do.

It does not matter how dominate is already a market if you provide lower price than the alternatives.

I bet the people is going to cry 'GMOs are evil!' and boycott this fruit from the market.

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.

Airports could not support this vehicle. You quote the "standard" 250 tonne capacity as being 233 m long - airports have no capacity for any vehicle larger than 80 metres. Special arrangements have to be made for visits by the An-225, which is only around 86 m. Yet this thing is three times that size. This would require specialised landing sites with specialised infrastructure, at least if it was to ever carry significant payload mass.

You will not park this aside an airplane.. Also we are talking of freight for now, not people transport.

Edited April 6, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Red Iron Crown]

WRT the last point, freight entering a country still needs to go through customs, so some sort of port is required.

[shynung]

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.

The return-of-investment time for airports and docks serving regular airplanes and ships are much shorter than ones serving airships, because there are thousands of airplanes and ships already in service, but very little number of airships. Any decent government seeking to maximize value, both in terms of profit and/or utility for the transportation system as a whole, would have chosen to build airports or docks rather than

airship-ports without much consideration.

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.

It is possible that no demand exists for a middle option in any particular market. Very unlikely, but not impossible.

While freight transport isn't one of those markets, the middle option has more or less been covered by direct-route ships (fast cargo ships also exist), and multiple-stop cargo planes. Even so, the larges percentage of transport has always been, and still is, transported by ship.

Also depending the case if you add another option like:

truck --> airship -->truck --> final mile : $100-150 (4 days)

The choice will be obvious

No, it won't happen. Ever.

No airship can travel a distance needing 7 days' worth of trip by plane, even going directly to the destination, unless it goes suborbital (if it does, there goes your cheap transport), due to enormous amounts of drag it would face. Even then, airline companies aren't stupid; they wouldn't choose to route their plane across an entire country just to deliver to a nearby city. All the intermediate stops will be more-or-less between the first and last airports in the entire route.

Not to mention the direct choice:

factory --> airship --> factory.

Direct factory-to-factory ships and trains already exist. These are cheaper than airships, and the infrastructure is already there. Airships need some 150m long landing pads just to unload the thing. Combined with the fact that most factories are close to major cities (and therefore have pretty expensive real estate value), the only place left for airships to land is on the roof. Even more, most factory-to-factory cargo aren't time sensitive, so a faster transport vehicle is of little value (and significantly more costly) in such a market. The factory-to-factory cargo that are notably time-sensitive would be farm produce (grains, milk, livestock) delivered from farms to factories, and these industries are generally pretty close together that straight delivery by truck is already adequate.

It does not matter how dominate is already a market if you provide lower price than the alternatives.

It matters a lot. There are numerous variables regarding what will sell in a market, including transportation market. Price alone won't be the final word.

Besides, an airship would still be more expensive than the cheapest option, the ship and the train. Pushing these airships into the transportation market means squeezing between the ships/trains and the airplanes, and the price gap between them is getting smaller.

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.

Genetically Modified Organism. Go figure.

Edited April 6, 2015 by shynung

[cpast]

WRT the last point, freight entering a country still needs to go through customs, so some sort of port is required.

He's been bringing up the EU a lot as a possible target, and there are (AFAIK) no intra-EU customs (or maybe it's intra-Schengen, or something; the point is, a lot of Europe is a single area as far as customs is concerned, and you don't need to go through customs with stuff shipped within that area).

[Red Iron Crown]

He's been bringing up the EU a lot as a possible target, and there are (AFAIK) no intra-EU customs (or maybe it's intra-Schengen, or something; the point is, a lot of Europe is a single area as far as customs is concerned, and you don't need to go through customs with stuff shipped within that area).

That's true, and there are large single countries that could benefit from this for domestic use (I live in one of them). Just pointing out a reason why some port infrastructure might be required for them, at least for some international routes.

[cpast]

No, it won't happen. Ever.

No airship can travel a distance needing 7 days' worth of trip by plane, even going directly to the destination, unless it goes suborbital (if it does, there goes your cheap transport), due to enormous amounts of drag it would face. Even then, airline companies aren't stupid; they wouldn't choose to route their plane across an entire country just to deliver to a nearby city. All the intermediate stops will be more-or-less between the first and last airports in the entire route.

Actually, that timeframe isn't preposterous. No trip *requires* 7 days by plane; much of a 7-day plane trip is spent going elsewhere, going to hubs, or sitting in a warehouse (I'm pretty sure you can fly from anywhere to anywhere in at most 36 hours from initial wheels-up to final touchdown). Freight can go way away from a direct line (hell, next-day packages via Fedex from LA to Seattle have a good chance of ending up in Memphis along the way). An airship at 120kts ground speed could circumnavigate the world in 7.5 days; while actual groundspeed varies significantly based on wind, you could probably pull off a 7-day one-way trip without too much trouble, and four days would be achievable in many cases. That said, I *do* question why truck-direct airship-truck is rated as cheaper than roundabout flight; the premium of a direct flight over an indirect routing is paying for the cargo to be prioritized over other things, and I can't really imagine a direct airship as being much cheaper than indirect planes (while you have more cargo to spread the fixed costs among, a direct routing involves paying a significant premium to get an expensive airship devoted to this one route).

Direct factory-to-factory ships and trains already exist. These are cheaper than airships, and the infrastructure is already there. Airships need some 150m long landing pads just to unload the thing. Combined with the fact that most factories are close to major cities (and therefore have pretty expensive real estate value), the only place left for airships to land is on the roof. Even more, most factory-to-factory cargo aren't time sensitive, so a faster transport vehicle is of little value (and significantly more costly) in such a market. The factory-to-factory cargo that are notably time-sensitive would be farm produce (grains, milk, livestock) delivered from farms to factories, and these industries are generally pretty close together that straight delivery by truck is already adequate.

That said, one thing this could do well at is oversize cargo. Currently, the only real options for very bulky things is to disassemble them, or to put them on a barge, or (sometimes) to sling them under a helicopter. If this could handle oversize goods, that would be worth some amount of money.

It matters a lot. There are numerous variables regarding what will sell in a market, including transportation market. Price alone won't be the final word.

Indeed. Transportation methods vary quite a bit in details -- in addition to price-per-ton (using whatever packaging method is best for it), there's speed of an individual item from pickup to dropoff, reliability in terms of speed, reliability in terms of not losing the cargo, ancillary costs (e.g. facilities for handling it), how easy/hard it is to package stuff for the trip, how long it takes from realizing you need to send something until it can be picked up, how much of your stuff it can carry per week, constraints on individual items (e.g. max dimensions, max weight), etc. They differ in a lot of ways.

[shynung]

Actually, that timeframe isn't preposterous. No trip *requires* 7 days by plane; much of a 7-day plane trip is spent going elsewhere, going to hubs, or sitting in a warehouse (I'm pretty sure you can fly from anywhere to anywhere in at most 36 hours from initial wheels-up to final touchdown). Freight can go way away from a direct line (hell, next-day packages via Fedex from LA to Seattle have a good chance of ending up in Memphis along the way). An airship at 120kts ground speed could circumnavigate the world in 7.5 days; while actual groundspeed varies significantly based on wind, you could probably pull off a 7-day one-way trip without too much trouble, and four days would be achievable in many cases. That said, I *do* question why truck-direct airship-truck is rated as cheaper than roundabout flight; the premium of a direct flight over an indirect routing is paying for the cargo to be prioritized over other things, and I can't really imagine a direct airship as being much cheaper than indirect planes (while you have more cargo to spread the fixed costs among, a direct routing involves paying a significant premium to get an expensive airship devoted to this one route).

Looks like I overestimated. Though, I never really thought that a direct route is actually that expensive.

That said, one thing this could do well at is oversize cargo. Currently, the only real options for very bulky things is to disassemble them, or to put them on a barge, or (sometimes) to sling them under a helicopter. If this could handle oversize goods, that would be worth some amount of money.

One thing I'd agree with is that a high-capacity airship is good at assembling wind turbines at the installation point. Though, that's probably more of a niche market, but still.

[Iskierka]

It's a niche market, but it would potentially be enough to fund this thing - many wind turbines are built in rather poor locations for actual wind strength, as no road or other suitable transport infrastructure goes there. And even if it does, for large, highly effective wind turbines, you need a fairly high capacity road to fit it down, which is going to be very expensive to assemble even over a short distance. This would reduce ground transport to assembly crew, who can get to good, high-wind locations by offroad trucks, and until the parts needed to be put in position, the craft could be anchored and left while the crew leaves, such as if problems arise. This vehicle is extremely good at this one task, and I won't be surprised at all if we see it developed solely to do this - but I'll be quite surprised if we see it doing too much else, given its low capacity, low speed relative to aircraft, and very large, impractical size.

[AngelLestat]

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?

That's true, and there are large single countries that could benefit from this for domestic use (I live in one of them). Just pointing out a reason why some port infrastructure might be required for them, at least for some international routes.

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

The return-of-investment time for airports and docks serving regular airplanes and ships are much shorter than ones serving airships, because there are thousands of airplanes and ships already in service, but very little number of airships. Any decent government seeking to maximize value, both in terms of profit and/or utility for the transportation system as a whole, would have chosen to build airports or docks rather than

airship-ports without much consideration.

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.

Direct factory-to-factory ships and trains already exist. These are cheaper than airships, and the infrastructure is already there.

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.

Besides, an airship would still be more expensive than the cheapest option, the ship and the train. Pushing these airships into the transportation market means squeezing between the ships/trains and the airplanes, and the price gap between them is getting smaller.

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.

Genetically Modified Organism. Go figure.

thanks.

It's a niche market, but it would potentially be enough to fund this thing - many wind turbines are built in rather poor locations for actual wind strength, as no road or other suitable transport infrastructure goes there. And even if it does, for large, highly effective wind turbines, you need a fairly high capacity road to fit it down, which is going to be very expensive to assemble even over a short distance. This would reduce ground transport to assembly crew, who can get to good, high-wind locations by offroad trucks, and until the parts needed to be put in position, the craft could be anchored and left while the crew leaves, such as if problems arise. This vehicle is extremely good at this one task, and I won't be surprised at all if we see it developed solely to do this - but I'll be quite surprised if we see it doing too much else, given its low capacity, low speed relative to aircraft, and very large, impractical size.

ok, you are talking of the year 1. just wait 7 years more lets see what routes airships take.

[shynung]

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.

Government seeks maximum utility, as in, how useful will the thing become. In this matter, an airship-port serving purely cargo airships will see less use than a comparable airport or dock since the number of operational airships are low.

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 would have comparable loading times to a ship of a similar payload capacity, which is to say isn't very fast. Loading infrastructures aren't going to be much more different either, especially if we're talking about intermodal containers. The only time savings left is the one gotten from loading and unloading only once each in the entire trip, but that means dedicating an expensive airship for a single route, which won't play nice with the price. The transport company would probably charge more for that.

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.

Again, there are niches where a cargo airship can do what others can't (delivering wind turbine parts and assembling them on site, or other similarly difficult job), but getting into the market already dominated by ships, trains, trucks, and airplanes would always be difficult. The cost of airship building and maintenance must be lowered to unrealistically low levels in order to compete favorably with regular modes of transport.

As a side note, anti-snow infrastructures for trucks and trains are already available. For high-throughput routes, snow usually don't become a significant problem.

Edited September 7, 2015 by shynung

[cpast]

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?

Needlessly complicated, ridiculously expensive, illegal at least in the US (you aren't getting the FAA to approve thousands of quadcopter flights in a tiny area; that's a big part of why Amazon hasn't actually *done* their quadcopter delivery, because it's illegal). Also likely to be unreliable. Advantage over trucking: not affected by road traffic (very affected by air traffic). Low altitude over a city is the *opposite* of safe.

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

Manitoba has lots of communities very far from everyone else, without many people there. Ground transport is unreliable there. This is a niche that airships might fill. It's not a terribly big one. It's not one that is associated with factories, because you don't build factories in the middle of nowhere with no proper transportation infrastructure around unless you have an *extremely* good reason.

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.

But they *do* seek something that will be useful. As we've been trying to explain to you, airships aren't really that outside of special cases.

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.

Have you even *looked* at the numbers? The truck-ship-truck is an order of magnitude cheaper than what the people who are selling airships claim the cost will be. The secret is that trucks don't take cargo very far. You build factories where there's good infrastructure for your needs. Also, you messed up the truck-ship-truck route. You don't unload intermodal containers to move them between places. In the US at least, trucks often use 53' trailers until they approach a port or (sometimes) railyard where cargo is put in 40' containers, but then it stays in the same container until it reaches near its destination (where it *sometimes* transfers to a 53' trailer). As it turns out, this whole process is extremely cheap, in large part because the vast majority of the trip costs very little per mile.

For factories with lots of things, it's not unusual to build a branch line straight into the factory. Then, this becomes load in container -> put on railcar -> put container on ship -> put container on railcar -> unload container at destination.

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?

Legitimate uses. And a textbook definition of "niche."

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.

And we're still challenging your absolutely unsupported assertion that the cost reaches a competitive level with rail and road. Again: The people selling this don't think it's cheaper than rail or trucking or ship. They think it can beat *air* for price; their view is that this can work where infrastructure is lacking. The trouble with that is that it's often cheaper in the long run to build the infrastructure, because it gives you cheaper transport for a long, long time.

[AngelLestat]

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.

Needlessly complicated, ridiculously expensive, illegal at least in the US (you aren't getting the FAA to approve thousands of quadcopter flights in a tiny area; that's a big part of why Amazon hasn't actually *done* their quadcopter delivery, because it's illegal). Also likely to be unreliable. Advantage over trucking: not affected by road traffic (very affected by air traffic). Low altitude over a city is the *opposite* of safe.

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?

Manitoba has lots of communities very far from everyone else, without many people there. Ground transport is unreliable there. This is a niche that airships might fill. It's not a terribly big one. It's not one that is associated with factories, because you don't build factories in the middle of nowhere with no proper transportation infrastructure around unless you have an *extremely* good reason.

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.

But they *do* seek something that will be useful. As we've been trying to explain to you, airships aren't really that outside of special cases.

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.

Have you even *looked* at the numbers? The truck-ship-truck is an order of magnitude cheaper than what the people who are selling airships claim the cost will be. The secret is that trucks don't take cargo very far. You build factories where there's good infrastructure for your needs. Also, you messed up the truck-ship-truck route. You don't unload intermodal containers to move them between places. In the US at least, trucks often use 53' trailers until they approach a port or (sometimes) railyard where cargo is put in 40' containers, but then it stays in the same container until it reaches near its destination (where it *sometimes* transfers to a 53' trailer). As it turns out, this whole process is extremely cheap, in large part because the vast majority of the trip costs very little per mile.

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.

For factories with lots of things, it's not unusual to build a branch line straight into the factory. Then, this becomes load in container -> put on railcar -> put container on ship -> put container on railcar -> unload container at destination.

each of those single process takes a lot of time and it cost money, plus papers..

And we're still challenging your absolutely unsupported assertion that the cost reaches a competitive level with rail and road.

What about my US country center to China country center?

I show how it can compete even with ships.

Again: The people selling this don't think it's cheaper than rail or trucking or ship. They think it can beat *air* for price; their view is that this can work where infrastructure is lacking. The trouble with that is that it's often cheaper in the long run to build the infrastructure, because it gives you cheaper transport for a long, long time.

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.

[Nibb31]

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.

Angel, I think you are the one being obtuse here. This is exactly like the previous discussion we had, where no matter how much logic, how many examples, and how much real-life experience we bring to the thread, there is no moving you. As soon as we counter any of your arguments, you either just repeat the same ones over and over until we get bored, or you divert to some other topic. It's annoying as hell.

We all recognize that airships might be useful for some small niche sectors. But the rest of the thread is starting to look like the old Argument Clinic sketch:

There's one thing to learn here. When you think that you are the only one who has the right ideas against the entire world, including people who are actually experts in the subject matter, then it is usually time to reconsider your ideas. In other words, when everyone says you are wrong, then chances are that you are.

What about my US country center to China country center?

How much time-sensitive cargo actually needs to go from the center of the US to the center of China? Is there even 250 tons per year? Both American and Chinese populated areas have existing railroads and adequate logistic systems.

Your factory to factory concept doesn't work either. Imagine a car factory. They assemble cars with parts from various suppliers. Seats are made by one company, plastic parts, switches, fasteners, tyres, oil filters, hinges, fluids, windows, etc... all come from different factories. Car manufacturers don't want to be delivered 250 tons of screws, then 250 tons of seats, 250 tons of switches, and 250 tons of headlights, because that would increase inventory and storage, which is a huge liability for them because they are taxed on their inventory and storage becomes a huge cost. Companies don't want stock. Instead, they want JIT (just in time) delivery and minimized inventory. Note that JIT delivery does not mean fast, it means getting parts in the supply chain when they need them. They don't care if the parts take 3 months to get there. That is a huge difference.

So in the end, in order to supply the car factory with 250 tons of cargo, the airship would have to fly around the country to pick up 10 tons of car seats here, 1 ton of screws there, 20 tons of engines parts elsewhere, and so on.... In the end, the airship would be travelling an indirect route all over the continent, which would take much longer and be much more expensive than by train or truck. And for most of that route the airship would be half empty, unless you make an even more indirect route by picking up and dropping off other things along the way. And each stop needs some sort of logistics hub for landing the airship, loading and unloading, and freight storage.

Also, car manufacturers don't typically build factories in the middle of nowhere with no roads or rail system. They also don't have acres of spare land to turn into landing pads and loading areas for airships, or the warehouses to store cargo, because they are usually near urban areas.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Nibb31

[shynung]

Are not?

Are not. Here we go again.

-the only trasport vehicle capable of zero fuel consumption

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.

-does not need infrastructure.

An airship needs a landing spot at least as big as itself in order to unload efficiently. Plenty of people have pointed this out before, so don't bother telling it again.

-high potential to become very cheap with high productions and bigger scales, so cheap to compete with ships.

Ships are built out of structural steel. Airships are built out of lightweight alloys and some polymer canvas. Steel is considerably cheaper than aluminium.

Even when approaching the production rates of ships, airships will never be cheap.

-its landing cushiond can act as suction or overcraft, are folding.

What?

[Iskierka]

About Illegal... Who cares what USA said??

Also what altitude you think the goodyear semi rigid airship fly over the cities?

Air traffic?

Someone who wants to operate a new vehicle cares what the USA says.

The goodyear blimp gets special permission to operate in a small airspace away from airlanes and specifically avoids getting near housing or large buildings. Air traffic must remain above 500 ft unless on final approach, and typically is held at 2000 ft, or nearly half a mile up, and kept away from inhabited areas as much as city geometry and winds allow.

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."

Much closer to "Wait, I can transport thousands of tonnes of material from one location to another for nearly no fuel, and all I need is to slap some cheap wood/concrete and steel down between those locations?" Versus airships, "Wait, so it barely carries anything, it's goddamn enormous, I need somewhere to unload this at both ends, and it's not as fast as the planes everyone can offer already? Why would I bother?"

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.

-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. 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. A fuel cell that can provide that is too heavy for a blimp.

-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.

-Which is useful why? In the general case, it isn't, unless you're going to make use of thin air at altitude to provide transport at near Mach 1 so that you can provide transport to anywhere on the planet within 24 hours, as planes do. This doesn't - it's not a big benefit outside small niches.

-As above, VTOL is only applicable to flying vehicles, and flying isn't providing a big advantage. This only removes a disadvantage of flying to help small niches.

-Again, a limited niche use. Unless it's something that -has- to be delivered to rough terrain, why not land? Other than the fact this thing is far too big to land, which is its own problem. Helicopters are far more stable than you think - and they won't be nearly as affected by wind as this thing.

-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

-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. This is too big for regular operations at airports, but it's small enough that special arrangements can be made when there's cargo that has to make use of its large payload or internal size. Again, how are you going to land 233m of airship at a place that hasn't built a landing area? Aircraft do also have a very similar ratio of increased size versus payload - they're operating on more similar principles than you think.

-Very dubious, it certainly isn't simpler to operate, needs special infrastructure, and if it wants to be FAA certified it needs to be as well maintained as any cargo aircraft.

-As do aircraft, at least due to the denser air. If we were still talking about your PV suggestion, this would be totally false for the airship, as it'd be getting a fraction of the sunlight it's designed for.

-Again, false. You can't land a 233m long vehicle just anywhere, especially if you want to unload. Maybe you could on African plains that are hard ground that trucks could deal with, but you're dealing with a lot of payload that needs to transfer to something else that can reach it. Anywhere making big use of it needs proper landing sites, and nearby - and you won't find this much space anywhere near a city.

-Former is false, what use is the latter? For sea-based wind farms, perhaps, as an extension of what we've all suggested, but this provides no advantage there - a simple barge can carry the parts for several turbines, and float around using far less energy than this.

-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

-Entirely false, as mentioned - it's using huge amounts of not-cheap material. And it won't reach high production, given how niche it is.

-So, like helicopters and aircraft are when supplemented by simple trucks, only much less practical?

-Again, false, as the fuel cell idea won't work for any kind of large-ish aircraft. It'll be just as range-limited as anything else.

-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.

-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.

-What?

-Not an advantage if it's free-floating anyway. That would just make it harder to control while moving. Small reduction in fuel use in movement if it's a heavier-than-air airship, but then it can't float for no energy, as you're suggesting it would.

That's pretty much every point either false or fairly negligible. This is a potentially very useful vehicle for very small niches, it is not useful for general transport.

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.

Did you read that part? He's saying that even choosing now, for the future, it's more desirable to build expensive new infrastructure that would provide more trains and ships that will be cheaper, and more nodes that transition to trucks to minimise the length of the more costly leg - which airships couldn't cover anyway, due to their immense size making them so impractical for last-leg transport.

[AngelLestat]

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.

[Nibb31]

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 think we've provided plenty of proof and first-hand experience. But you are just repeating the same arguments over and over again without listening. It's pretty clear at this point that you just want to have the last word, which is a bit childish. So I guess I'll let you have it after this. There's only so much repeating the same arguments one can do.

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..

Alright. What you are saying is that maybe airships might work in a futuristic utopia with different economics, different transportation needs, different infrastructures, and different politics. I guess you're right there. Unfortunately, there is a real world that we live in and any new proposal has to embrace the reality of it.

But in theory.. Airships like Aeroscraft does not need infrastructure.. they can load and unload cargo in the middle of nowhere.

You keep on saying that, but that doesn't make it true. We've already explained "101 times" that when you are going to handle thousands of tons of cargo, you *need* infrastructure.

You can't load and unload dozens of trucks in a field without ruining the field and getting bogged down. Except for some niche requirements, nobody needs to deliver or pick up thousands of tons of cargo in the middle of nowhere. Freight has to go from a point A to a point B, and at least one of those points (usually both) must be a logistic hub, a factory, a warehouse, or a triage-distribution facility. Those sites are going to need tarmac and wide areas for storage and/or loading trucks. You also need hangars for maintenance and protecting the airship.

Airship may find a problem with size in case they need hangars to be made.. But that may be solve.

Large airship hangars are an engineering problem by itself, and they are not cheap. You can't just wave them away. Aeroscraft lost its prototype to a collapsed hangar and the airship must be parked in a hangar when it's not in use because the envelope is relatively fragile.

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.

http://www.chetoba.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/el-canon-del-talapmaya1.jpg

Who needs to deliver or pick up thousands of tons of cargo in that canyon?

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.

Why would you want to do that? There is zero demand for building cities in the middle of nowhere with no roads.

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

*sigh* There are no facilities that can handle a half-kilometer airship anywhere near existing logistic hubs, industrial areas, or major cities, nor is there free space to build such facilities in those places. A 570m airship would be useless because it would have nowhere useful to land.

Also there is a capital cost on the time that cargo delay, never is free to have merchandise or actives freeze in time.

Delay is when a shipment is late. A shipment can takes 30 days and still be on time. There are actually more delays when the freight is sent over a fast transport system. For example, a plane has more chances of arriving late than cargo ship, because it's harder to catch up the delay.

On the other hand, there is a much larger capital cost on stock and storage. Companies don't want stock. They want JIT delivery, which means that smaller volumes are usually better for them. Getting a 250 ton shipment in 2 days instead of 25 tons every 2 weeks is useless if it's just going to sit in a warehouse with a storage and inventory cost.

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..

No, it's a reality check. When you think everyone around you is crazy, it's usually time to go see a doctor.

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.

Only 5 suppliers for a factory? You have never worked in a factory have you?

I know what a knock-down kit is. It's typically used as a way to avoid import taxes by putting an "Assembled in Argentina" sticker on a product where all the components are made elsewhere. It has it's uses as a tax evasion technique or as a way to start up a new factory, but it's not a rational manufacturing process. You will want to source from local suppliers as soon as you can.

Such kits are not typically time-sensitive, so they are shipped using the cheapest method available, so they won't be paying a premium (even a small one) for fast delivery. But even then, your knock-down kit has to be packaged somewhere, from parts that are delivered by various contractors. Just replace "product" with "kit" and the problem is exactly the same.

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.

Who cares how the energy is produced? What matter are the economics.

And an airship can't go anywhere either (for "101 times"). If it's going anywhere near a logistic hub, it needs a regular landing and loading facility much larger than a train station. It also needs to avoid power lines and aircraft traffic.

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.

Look at a map of Paris or London, for example, and try to find a landing and unloading area for a 1000-meter airship with thousands of tons of freight per year at less than 30 km from the city center. Good luck.

European cities don't have room for airship landing sites and 1km-long airship hangars. When a new airport is planned in Europe, it's typically 50 to 100 km from the city center. Europe also has a dense rail system, large port facilities, and decent roads. Your airship couldn't compete in Europe and would be a complete failure.

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

Yes, but the railroads already exist. There is no need to build new infrastructure, only to expand existing capacity and only when necessary.

Also in some cases inside cities, just 1 km may cost 1 billion.

https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/

That's the price for underground lines on small sections in urban centers. But those are places where an airship can't go at all, so I don't really see your point.

-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.

It depends on the volume of freight. It's more efficient to use a truck than a train (or an airship) if you are only delivering a 10 ton shipment over 20km. It will be more efficient to use a cargo ship to cross the Atlantic.

But as I said, if you add the investment cost and is far than 500km, better solve the problem with an airship.

Trains, railways, and stations already exist. Roads too. Airships, hangars, and landing fields near industrial areas and urban centers don't. Again, you are denying reality and handwaving away the real investment cost to set up an airship transport infrastructure.

-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.

Of course they have a limit. There is always a size limit to anything we build. There are structural limits (You can't built a 10km high skyscraper because it couldn't support it's own weight) and practical limits (You can't build a 500m wide aircraft because there are no airports where it could land) and economical limits (You can't build a 20km long oil tanker because it would cost more than building a pipeline). You would reach those limits on an airship too. Those limits are dictated by the price of materials, structural strength, hangar size, landing area size and also economical demand. The actual demand for regular transport of heavy freight to empty 1km-wide fields in the middle of nowhere is extremely limited.

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.

That was for a subscale prototype that can barely lift itself.

SpaceShipOne was developed for half that price, and that was for two aircraft. And you could buy a whole fleet of container ships for $50 million.

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.

We have already recognized 101 times that airships do have benefits in some small niches (oversize loads in remote locations for civil engineering and military customers). But they are not likely to ever be competitive for general freight transport.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Nibb31

[shynung]

Who cares how the energy is produced? What matters are the economics.

And an airship can't go anywhere either (for the 101th time). If it's going anywhere near a logistic hub, it needs a regular landing and loading facility much larger than a train station. It also needs to avoid power lines and aircraft traffic.

I don't think I can say it better than this.

Let's just leave this thread alone, people. There's nothing constructive out of it.

[Kohai_Khaos]

-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.

Been watching this for a while, saw this, felt like it was worth my time.

Okay, so let's see what happens if I do the math, and show everyone each step and each assumption made.

For a truly massive airship, 1 km by 300 m, you have a total area when looked at from above of something less than 300,000, dependent on just how you curve the shape of the balloon. Since I can't predict this, I'll be generous and give you the full rectangular area.

I'll be even more generous, I'll give you some of the best solar panels on the market right now, to cover the entire roof of the thing. ~46% efficiency.

I'll be even more generous, I'll give you 1000 W/m² of solar insolation, despite your likely location and the fact that you only get that much energy per square meter at around noontime on a clear day in equatorial regions during the warmest part of the year.

300000 * 0.46 * 1000 = 138,000,000 W

Okay, I had to go through some work for a comparison, but I'm going to compare this thing's engine to a Boeing 747's, a plane with a maximum payload of 154 tons, sadly not quite as much a heavy lifter as our little airship, but no matter.

Here's the annoying thing about jet engines, they measure their output via thrust, in kN. I want watts. So let's take a Boeing's 4 JT9D engines (193,000 N), and see what we get right after takeoff, and at cruising speed.

Power = Force * velocity

Minimum takeoff speed for a fully loaded Boeing is about 180 km/h, so 80.5556 m/s. 80.5556 * 193000 * 4 = 62,188,923.2 W

Okay, so we've respectfully doubled it's wattage at takeoff, but what about when we're at cruising speed?

Cruising: 893 km/h, so 248.056 m/s. 248.056 * 193000 * 4 = 191,499,232 W

Oh. Well, now it's gotten a lot better than the absolute best we could hope for with this blimp...

Oh, and don't forget: This blimp has a lot more drag than that Boeing. Having that much less power is a big issue for it in the speed game.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are not going to be running for free off your little fuel cell and some solar panels. If you even tried it, this thing would never keep up; you have to cut its power supply by more than half to account for the fact that no only are you charging its power storage so that it can continue flying in a controlled fashion overnight, but also to account for the fact that the shape of the blimp will *not* allow for that full area of power collection, both due to loss of area and poor angles on the part of the power cells, but also the fact that you will not always have a noontime sun directly overhead, and you're not going to always be flying in equatorial regions in the summer.

Your average numbers are in the range of 300-400 W/m², bringing you down to not even the takeoff power of a Boeing.

Then I remember I should bother calculating the Aeroscraft's power supply, so with it's lovely 64.008 x 35.9664 m size, it gets an amazing 1,058,983.172352 W.

With solar power, we have turned this airship into a 1 MW engine. A P51-Mustang is stronger than a solar-powered Aeroscraft under more than ideal conditions.

You're not going solar, and you're not going self-sufficient on this thing. So stop pretending that this thing is going to be powered by anything other than an actual fuel supply.

[EdFred]

...not to mention that many solar panels will be quite heavy.

[AngelLestat]

I think we've provided plenty of proof and first-hand experience.

Is hard to convince someone which only objective is to be negative from the begining for reasons that we both know.

Alright. What you are saying is that maybe airships might work in a futuristic utopia with different economics, different transportation needs, different infrastructures, and different politics. I guess you're right there. Unfortunately, there is a real world that we live in and any new proposal has to embrace the reality of it.

-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.

You keep on saying that, but that doesn't make it true. We've already explained "101 times" that when you are going to handle thousands of tons of cargo, you *need* infrastructure.

Which you can also carry in the first trips.. I wonder how do you solve problems in your real life in case you do...

You can't load and unload dozens of trucks in a field without ruining the field and getting bogged down. Except for some niche requirements, nobody needs to deliver or pick up thousands of tons of cargo in the middle of nowhere. Freight has to go from a point A to a point B, and at least one of those points (usually both) must be a logistic hub, a factory, a warehouse, or a triage-distribution facility. Those sites are going to need tarmac and wide areas for storage and/or loading trucks. You also need hangars for maintenance and protecting the airship.

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.

Large airship hangars are an engineering problem by itself, and they are not cheap. You can't just wave them away. Aeroscraft lost its prototype to a collapsed hangar.

Why would you want to deliver or pick up thousands of tons of cargo in that canyon?

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.

Why would you want to do that? There is zero demand for building cities in the middle of nowhere with no roads.

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 when a cargo is late. Just because it has 30 days shipment doesn't mean it arrives late. There are more delays when the freight is sent over a fast transport system. A plane has more chances of arriving late than cargo ship.

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.

On the other hand, there is a much larger capital cost on stock and storage. Companies don't want stock. They want JIT delivery, which means that smaller volumes are usually better for them.

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.

Only 5 suppliers for a factory? You have never worked in a factory have you?

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.

I know what a knock-down kit is. It's typically just a way of avoiding import taxes by putting an "Assembled in Argentina" sticker on a product where all the components are made elsewhere. It's not a rational way of manufacturing products. Also, such kits are not time-sensitive, so they are shipped using the cheapest method available, so they won't be paying a premium (even a small one) for fast delivery.

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.

Look at a map of Paris or London, for example, and try to find a landing and unloading area for a 1000-meter airship with thousands of tons of freight per year at less than 30 km from the city center. Good luck.

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.

Yes, but the railroads already exist. There is no need to build new infrastructure, only to expand existing capacity and only when necessary.

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.

That's the price for underground lines on small sections in urban centers. But those are places where an airship can't go at all, so I don't really see your point.

It can with the last-mile airship idea. Is the only solution to solve the increase traffic on cities.

It depends on the volume of freight. It's more efficient to use a truck than a train (or an airship) if you are only delivering a 10 ton shipment over 20km. It will be more efficient to use a cargo ship to cross the Atlantic.

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.

That was for a subscale prototype that can lift 2 tons.

We have already recognized 101 times that airships do have benefits, in some small niches (oversize loads in remote locations). But they are not likely to ever be competitive for general freight transport.

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.

Been watching this for a while, saw this, felt like it was worth my time.

There is something wrong with your numbers, I will answer you later.

...not to mention that many solar panels will be quite heavy.

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.

Edited April 8, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Iskierka]

I'm sorry, but can you cite for your calculations where the 66 tonne variant can move 120 knots with only 822 kW? (Which is already more power than you estimate being available to the 250 tonne version, I'd note)

When I run the drag calculations, using an underestimated area (80ft x 160ft), using a slightly lower frontal drag coefficient than has ever been demonstrated (0.05), and assuming it can lift to far above where it likely can (I assumed air density of 0.5 kg/m^3), I still find it needs 3200 kW total power to move at 120 knots, or around 4300 hp. This is the result when I'm generous to it - it's more likely to end up well over 10,000 hp, especially when you have to factor in propulsive efficiency, motor efficiency, storage efficiency, and so on, which I've ignored. This would mean best-case equivalence in conventional aircraft engines would be an A400M turboshaft, providing around 11000 hp. It's not unlikely that it would need two, either. That would put it around 16 MW supply needed - how are you going to get that from solar?

Equation you can put into google to confirm the power requirements:

80 ft * 160 ft * 0.05 * 0.5 * 0.5 kg/m^3 * (60 m/s)^3

Area -- -- -- -- Cd, --- dynamic pressure, multiplied by speed again to get power rather than force.