The World's Largest Aircraft Breaks Cover in Silicon Valley (techcrunch.com) 121
An anonymous reader shares a report: As dawn breaks over Silicon Valley, the world is getting its first look at Pathfinder 1, a prototype electric airship that its maker LTA Research hopes will kickstart a new era in climate-friendly air travel, and accelerate the humanitarian work of its funder, Google co-founder Sergey Brin. The airship -- its snow-white steampunk profile visible from the busy 101 highway -- has taken drone technology such as fly-by-wire controls, electric motors and lidar sensing, and supersized them to something longer than three Boeing 737s, potentially able to carry tons of cargo over many hundreds of miles.
"It's been 10 years of blood, sweat and tears," LTA CEO Alan Weston told TechCrunch on the eve of the unveiling. "Now we must show that this can reliably fly in real-world conditions. And we're going to do that." A series of increasingly ambitious flight tests lie ahead, before Pathfinder 1 is moved to Akron, Ohio, where LTA Research is planning an even larger airship, the Pathfinder 3. The company eventually hopes to produce a family of airships to provide disaster relief where roads and airports are damaged, as well as zero-carbon passenger transportation.
For the next year however, the gigantic airship looks set to become a Silicon Valley landmark as its novel materials and systems are methodically put through their paces within shouting distance of companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon. "I'm excited about the potential of not building just one airship, but laying the foundation for many airships to be built," said Weston. "The innovations and the technologies that we're about to demonstrate have the potential to lay the foundation for a new industry."
"It's been 10 years of blood, sweat and tears," LTA CEO Alan Weston told TechCrunch on the eve of the unveiling. "Now we must show that this can reliably fly in real-world conditions. And we're going to do that." A series of increasingly ambitious flight tests lie ahead, before Pathfinder 1 is moved to Akron, Ohio, where LTA Research is planning an even larger airship, the Pathfinder 3. The company eventually hopes to produce a family of airships to provide disaster relief where roads and airports are damaged, as well as zero-carbon passenger transportation.
For the next year however, the gigantic airship looks set to become a Silicon Valley landmark as its novel materials and systems are methodically put through their paces within shouting distance of companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon. "I'm excited about the potential of not building just one airship, but laying the foundation for many airships to be built," said Weston. "The innovations and the technologies that we're about to demonstrate have the potential to lay the foundation for a new industry."
Dwindling Helium Supplies? (Score:5, Informative)
And I thought there was a critical supply of Helium.... a non-renewable resource (without a nuke program at least...)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So I looked into it and it says "deliver humanitarian aid within the first 24 to 96 hours of a disaster." So that's the humanitarian part. Yeah, that time frame seems about right since this thing's top speed isn't even a num
Re:Dwindling Helium Supplies? (Score:5, Informative)
I would not be too concerned about titanium. There is plenty of it on Earth. Titanium minerals (e.g., titanium dioxide) are mined to the tune of 9 million tons per year [statista.com].
Titanium has long been used in aircraft because of its excellent strength-to-weight ratio and toughness. You'll find it in just about every commercial jet made in the past 25 years, and in just about every rocket. Fighter jets 10-33% titanium by weight.
If you are concerned about titanium being "wasted", then you're gonna be floored to learn that TiO2 is the principal pigment in white paint! It's also a component in some toothpastes, meaning that it's literally going down the drain! And let's not forget some of the more frivolous or luxurious uses for titanium, like golf clubs, wheel rims, and iPhones!
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed otherwise. The conversation was in "wasting" scarce resources on this project, like helium. My point was that titanium is not scarce.
Re: (Score:3)
Titanium metal is scarce for the reasons I mentioned.
That's like saying that the iPhone is scarce because you have to build them. It's artificial scarcity driven by production capacity, not actual resource scarcity.
I agree with you that it isn't particularly green, but I think it has strength advantages over other lightweight choices like aluminum, which for this purpose might actually be pretty critical. So the question boils down to whether it should have been built at all, rather than whether it should have been made of a particular material.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon is one of the most common elements in the universe, but nobody will blink if I say diamonds are scarce.
A few companies have managed to band together to artificially limit supply so that they could keep prices high, but diamonds are actually some of the most common gemstones in the world, and are not particularly scarce [wikipedia.org], with a worldwide supply estimated at 1.3 billion karats, though only about 20% of those are likely gem-quality. And that's just the known reserves. They're discovering more reserves on a regular basis. And at this point, about 2% of diamonds sold as gemstones are entirely synthetic, along
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that said companies have also engaged in significant efforts to brand artificially created diamonds as "not real" in the hearts and minds of those likely to buy or receive them.
Thus why artificial diamonds as grit and such for industrial use is quite common, but for jewelry much the opposite. Only technophiles like a lot of slashdotters are going to buy them.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.autosport.com/f1/n... [autosport.com]
"The sparks on F1 cars come from titanium skid blocks which are embedded within the plank. "
Re: (Score:2)
Oh also:
https://www.tomorrowstechnicia... [tomorrowstechnician.com]
https://www.lightmetalage.com/... [lightmetalage.com]
etc.etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep picturing the album cover of Led Zeppelin I, and hearing the opening notes of "Good Times, Bad Times".....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They can just switch to hydrogen. That won't be a problem. We have lots of experience with airships blowing up already.
Seriously, have you seen the film of the Hindenburg fire? They managed quite a significant disaster with low tech. No nukes or toxic chemicals or anything special needed. Just a giant bag of hydrogen.
Re: (Score:2)
They can just switch to hydrogen. That won't be a problem. We have lots of experience with airships blowing up already.
Seriously, have you seen the film of the Hindenburg fire? They managed quite a significant disaster with low tech. No nukes or toxic chemicals or anything special needed. Just a giant bag of hydrogen.
Who knew that hydrogen, skin made essentially of thermite, and sparks would have any issues?
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, they didn't :-)
Re: (Score:2)
It was mostly a PR disaster. It is very far down the list of actual disasters. It happened slowly, so there was footage of it, which horrified everyone. Most disasters do not get that kind of media coverage even today.
My favourite lifting gas is steam, which would require the airship to be 25% longer+wider+taller (~ double the volume).
Re: (Score:2)
If it could be made strong and light enough, it could use vacuum. An absence of all gas would be even lighter than helium.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
36 fiery deaths and 62 with severe burns is a very serious disaster. It's no Bhopal but it's memorable. Burning to death is one of the worst ways to go.
It happened in 30-40 seconds. In the air. With no where to run. That's horrific.
Supply and Demand (Score:2)
Helium prices have been going up. As a result, more people are looking for new sources of helium. They have found quite a few in Canada, which might have the largest helium reserves in the world, and are currently building out operations to pull it out of the ground.
Crazy how that works :)
Re: (Score:2)
And helium comes from oil wells so we need to keep drilling :D
Re: (Score:2)
Neal Stephenson suggested in Snow Crash that this is a self-solving problem, at least applied to aircraft like this:
[O]ur edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel.
Re: (Score:2)
waste of helium (Score:5, Insightful)
Chemical energy? pffft why would they do that? Hydrogen fuel cells? Clearly this is a hydrogen-free craft because it already looks like a flying bomb. Might as well not fill it with something renewable or power it in the most logical way. Throw a couple tons of batteries in it damn it!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, 75mph in a straight line over impassable terrain is a lot better than any ground based alternatives. Just not as good as helicopters unless fuel economy is your sole measure in which case this probably has the edge.
Re:waste of helium (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, 75mph in a straight line over impassable terrain is a lot better than any ground based alternatives....
Impassable terrain is also associated with extreme air currents and weather. Airships do not do well in bad weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Just a big jungle or rainforest could be a huge challenge for ground transportation. Or even a pretty small mountain could make transporting bulky items such as wind turbine blades extremely difficult if not impossible, without it being an issue for an airship at altitude.
Re: waste of helium (Score:2)
"Airwolf went mach one and it kicked butt."
That's not only fictional, it's a gunship, not an airship. Slashdot trolls these days are so dumb they make me long for the days of penis birds.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, 75mph in a straight line over impassable terrain is a lot better than any ground based alternatives.
Sure, if you didn't have to arrive at air port 2+hrs early, plus the 30 min drive to it, and also the inconvenience of still needed ground transportation.
Even a short flight of say Salt Lake City to Las Vegas is a 1.5hr flight vs 6hr drove. Me and friend left about the same time he flew I drove. I arrived on site first! (granted I did much of it ~10ish over the speed limit)
So in this case, his flight at 75mph strait line would save about 50 miles. I'd arrive 2.5ish hours before.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they're promoting it as an alternative to airliners. Clearly its way too slow and not nearly enough passenger capacity for that. But as a chopper alternative it may have legs.
Re: (Score:2)
But as a chopper alternative it may have legs.
"Get to the dirigible!"
Re: (Score:2)
Flexible solar panels are crap. If they want solar it needs to be made of rigid panels/tiles. One thing at a time. Using Helium is daft, though. We can safely use hydrogen with a multicellular design and it's readily available, they could even make more in flight using solar power. Yeah hydrogen is hard to contain, but not so much at the relevant pressure, and also we have technology for that.
I don't know that airships even make any sense at all in a world where global wind speeds are both getting more unpr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they add more weight then they provide useful energy to counter their own weight then it's a no go on inefficient panels.
Also, real panels wear out over time producing less power and require replacement eventually when they no longer cover their own weight. That ain't cheap.
And finally, that's an additional capital expense which may never cover itself.
"Slap solar on it" isn't always the right answer.
I did buy home solar in a big way but it may never pay for itself. That's a risk they may not be willing
Re: (Score:2)
real panels wear out over time producing less power and require replacement eventually when they no longer cover their own weight. That ain't cheap.
Real panels last for 20+ years. Typical commercially available panels from reputable brands are warrantied for 20-30 years, including 20+ years of guaranteed-over-spec output. An aircraft is expected to last 20-30 years. That is a non-problem. You claim to be smarter than other people but you can't compare some two digit numbers? GTFOH troll
Re: (Score:2)
They don't just pop at year 20. They wear out over time. There is some point over their life span where they're not carrying their own weight. It could be at year 20. It could be the day they're installed. But just saying "slap solar on it!" is not automatically the right answer.
And yes I am way smarter than you as proven repeatedly. But it's a very low bar most days. One day you might grow smart enough to realize you're at the bag of bricks level. It doesn't even take me any effort to swat you down
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb coward posts stupid fact free reply. As per norm. You have crawled under the low set bar, as usual.
I'll bet you don't even own a home solar. Pussies like you who live in mom's basement eating Cheetos and jerking off to animal porn don't have solar.
mediocre. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure that others will chime in, but isn't this just waste helium that is not suitable for other purposes? Basically, it would be garbage / off-gassed if not put into a balloon.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that others will chime in, but isn't this just waste helium that is not suitable for other purposes? Basically, it would be garbage / off-gassed if not put into a balloon.
All helium can be made pure by running it through an ordinary air liquifier. Once you make liquid nitrogen the only thing left is helium and maybe a tiny amount of neon (but you can liquefy that also).
Re: (Score:3)
There is enough high-grade helium available that purifying junk helium isn't cost effective.
And that was before the massive new find.
Thanks to compressors very little additional helium is mandatory between airship flights and that can be junk helium.
Net-net: we should not waste high-grade helium at this point. Basic conservatism is advised.
Two reasons why [Re:waste of helium] (Score:3)
These types of crafts were gotten rid of for a lot of valid reasons that are still relevant.
Primarily that reason was that airships are very vulnerable to bad weather.
Since the 1930s, we have invented satellites looking at the weather 24/7, and now have detailed global knowledge of where the dangerous conditions are. As long as you're willing to avoid bad weather, airships are now much more practical.
...but the second "valid reason" that airships disappeared was that airplanes simply got better faster, and the market niche for them disappeared. Airships do use less fuel than airplanes, though, so
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the other main problem with airships is the ballast issue. Yes, you can build an airship to carry an arbitrarily big payload, but then if you want to offload 100 tons of cargo, you need to take on 100 tons of ballast, limiting their destinations to places where a suitable supply of ballast is available (likely not the case in many disaster-relief scenarios such as they seem to be targeting). Nobody has really solved that yet. The Hybrid Air Vehicles approach of building a vehicle with some negative bu
Re: (Score:2)
OK, fair point.
If the ballast is just seawater, it's free and abundant, shouldn't be a real problem, but that limits what ports you can access to only those near water.
The alternative is to offload helium when you offload cargo. That requires, as you say, "heavy pumps and tanks", but those pumps and tanks can be at the ground site, don't have to be on the airship. That leaves the helium at your port, where you can use it later.
It's complicated by the fact the buoyancy is also a function of temperature (and
Re:Two reasons why [Re:waste of helium] (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to offload helium to reduce buoyancy. Just compress it into onboard tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to offload helium to reduce buoyancy. Just compress it into onboard tanks.
Tx discussed that two posts above:
Compressing some of the lift gas to offset buoyancy requires heavy pumps and tanks, and nobody has made the maths work for that yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the third reason why, which is also the same reason Gen-Z buys $30 vinyl albums to hang on a wall, and don't even own a record player; For Fashion and Fucks sake. That's plenty enough reason for those with too much money to piss it away regardless of impact. Landfills will be full of vinyl again soon, ironically by Generation Go-Green. Another layer of ignorance in the waste crust for future historians to enjoy laughing at
Meanwhile, Greed on earths surface is marketing battery-powered hypercar
Re: (Score:2)
These types of crafts were gotten rid of for a lot of valid reasons that are still relevant.
If you're speaking of safety reasons... the weather-related destruction of the US Navy airships as an example.... then those reasons are null and void now. Two things that could have saved the Navy giants are readily (and cheaply) available today: onboard radar for weather scans, giving the craft a heads-up about brewing storms, and now we've had aircraft rocket-assistance packs since the 1950's. A few would help an airship rapidly rise to an altitude safely above a storm.
So what of the economics? Well, if
Re: (Score:2)
Try the 1920's. [wikipedia.org] JATO units were used by both sides in the European Theaters, and by the Allies in the Pacific. Don't know if the Japanese ever used them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they'll just have to make more Helium then.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a shortage of high grade helium. Low grade stuff used for children's balloons, not so much. So it depends what type they are using, and in what quantities.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe some rigid airship engineer can explain this to me, but it seems like you could safely run these on hydrogen. There are 13 helium bags inside the frame. Could they not put cheap hydrogen in those, then fill the interstitial space with cheap nitrogen as a buffer? Then, monitor the hydrogen levels as they slowly rise and at some threshold of diffused hydrogen in the nitrogen, flush the envelope with fresh nitrogen. I'd guess every week or so? Nitrogen is even a slight lifting gas (3% lighter than air),
this is a dirigible, submittard (Score:3)
It may look large, but the useful shit it carries fits in the small cabin below, so in terms of what it can do, it is actually small airplane-sized.
Disaster relief? (Score:2)
Wouldn't helicopters and air drops be better, more efficient and faster means of disaster relief compared to waiting a week for an airship to mosey its way over, weather permitting?
Re: (Score:2)
Short term, sure. Logistics involves longer term stuff. Absent a decent road network, you can burn a lot of fuel transporting relatively small amounts of supplies.
I could see this thing being useful in that situation. I mean it's effing useless in a war zone, so there is that, because you could shoot the thing down with a .22 rifle. Presuming no one is going to shoot, it can move stuff around with reasonable efficacy.
Redneck relief? (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in a rural (US) area. There isn't a single sign outside of town that hasn't had at least a few high powered rifle rounds put through it in an "excess of high spirits" by the locals. Most US citizens have seen how new cars are transported by rail — in armored railcars [wikipedia.org].
There's a reason for that. My neighbors are that reason.
I really wouldn't want to be riding in this thing if there was a disaster in my area. Well, I mean a disaster other than my neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in such a place until last year. I didn't plink stuff because i care about liability and I know trajectories can't be predicted well. There is the conscience thing, too. The slack-jawed can't be bothered with things like that. It is all as you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Most US citizens have seen how new cars are transported by rail — in armored railcars [wikipedia.org].
"armored"???
That sheet metal isn't going to stop a .22. And usually larger calibers than that are used on signs.
Those railcars *do* protect the vehicles from a graffiti "artist" putting their tag on the side of a vehicle. And provide protection against hail storms - or the unlikely case of a tree branch that is long enough to reach the tracks.
But I suspect the main reason for their design is it's a cheap way to make a car transport - sheet metal gives a lot of strength edge-on, so it's probably cheape
Re: (Score:2)
Most US citizens have seen how new cars are transported by rail — in armored railcars [wikipedia.org].
Less than 10 years ago I saw one of the largest railcar lines in Germany pulling what appeared to be a few miles of brand-new BMWs.
I guess you could say what I saw was "free-range" BMWs compared to this armored nonsense.
Ironically, the real crime happens at the stealership. Even the rednecks know that by now with their tee-rucks going for $80K+
Re:Redneck relief? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean it's effing useless in a war zone, so there is that, because you could shoot the thing down with a .22 rifle.
Sure, vulnerable in a war zone but asserting that putting tiny holes in it would bring it down is absurd. It leaks a little anyway. Do you think that dirigibles are balloons that just pop? Not even big balloons do that. The most effective way to bring it down would be to fire missiles at it - rocket powered giant pins that would tear large holes all the way through. There are 13 gas cells, which might take several missiles in side shots, or only one if you hit it lengthwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I would presume with helium the buoyancy is close to the edge because helium is not a wonderful lifting gas.
Re: (Score:2)
In the first world war, the Germans used airships ( Zeppelins ) early in the war to bombard England. .22 round will make a small hole, it will not loose gas fast enough to bring it down in any reasonable timeframe.
The fighter aircraft of the day could not shoot them down until they started using explosive bullets.
A
Re: (Score:2)
because you could shoot the thing down with a .22 rifle
You can't. That makes a tiny hole and the gas would take forever to leak out, more so if it has multiple gas cells. According to contemporary reports one pilot had to empty 3 drums of (probably .303) incendiary ammunition into a hydrogen filled Zepplin to actually down it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tracking, but I was considering the lesser buoyancy of helium. I know the US-transferred Zeppelins post WWI were not very effective with helium as a replacement lifting gas.
Re: (Score:2)
This will use less fuel than a chopper (frankly just about everything does short of a rocket) but thats probably the only pro, the rest are cons.
Oh look nearly 200 year old technology (Score:2)
So innovative, they built something that was first flown in the mid -1800s.
Also, if it's powered by diesel generators can they really claim, "...will kickstart a new era in climate-friendly air travel"?
Re:Oh look nearly 200 year old technology (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Recycled dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
helicopter and pterodactyl
Hello Airplanes? (Score:3)
State of Airships (Score:2)
See also: IEEE Spectrum talked about Pathfinder 1 getting FAA clearance [ieee.org] about two weeks ago. But, then again, IEEE Spectrum also did an in-depth article in 2010 [ieee.org], which just goes to show how slow this field has been to...take off.
Worlds' largest? (Score:2)
I am forgotten [gannett-cdn.com].
I think This is Cool (Score:2)
Guessing the reasons for it (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing the reasons for this are:
1. It can hover in place almost indefinitely. The US used small blimps for aerial monitoring in Afghanistan. You could have a few sit in place over a disaster zone without having to deal with the travel times of helicopters.
2. It can carry more than a helicopter. This is made to carry tons of cargo. They are maximizing capacity by using composites for the structure.
https://www.compositesworld.co... [compositesworld.com]
3. It won't require a runway to pick up/drop off cargo and could operate in primitive areas.
4. Some are looking at safer hydrogen based ships due to the global strain on helium supplies.
"“Each airship will be filled with 180,000 cubic meters of helium,” says Schlack. With 160 million cubic meters produced globally in 2021, each airship would account for around 0.1% of annual helium production."
https://www.cnn.com/travel/art... [cnn.com]
Of course it seems he can't resist indulging himself:
According to The Guardian, Brin also wanted the blimp to be luxuriously appointed so it could serve as an "intercontinental air yacht" for his friends and family.
Re: (Score:3)
As a compromise, a helium-filled airship could be supplemented with 15% to 20% hydrogen and, assuming the hydrogen and helium remain well-mixed, a leak would never get above the LFL of hydrogen in air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re-compress it back into tanks and fill the void in the envelope with the ballonet... This has been a solved problem for over 100 years.
Fly it to Manchester Township, NJ (Score:2)
"Oh, the humanitarian!"
Silicon Valley billionaire blimps (Score:2)
Calling Mayday [youtube.com]
why white? (Score:2)
Why is it painted white? Why not paint at least the top and sides black to absorb solar radiation and help with lift? Does it make control too difficult because there are different lifts in the day than at night? Why not then use hot air, so you can take advantage of solar-driven lift, and not deplete helium resources in a stupendously misguided way? Punt the photovoltaics idea that others have mentioned and just absorb the photons directly, purely for lift. If you need additional PV panels for drive, f
Re: (Score:2)
Having the density / volume of the aircraft randomly changing by an external factor you can't control - IE the amount of sunlight striking it - is a bad thing. You want to remove any variables you cannot control, not add more of them.
You take off with a neutral buoyancy (bladders fore and aft are filled with water to both balance the craft and achieve neutral buoyancy), then the sun starts shining and your ship starts ascending out of control and you cannot take on more ballast. At that point the only thing
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it painted white? Why not paint at least the top and sides black to absorb solar radiation and help with lift?
Ballooning 101: heating the lifting gas has no effect in a sealed system other than to increase the gas pressure against the envelope. In air balloons, heating the air inside causes air to escape out of the open bottom of the envelope. The weight of the displaced air then becomes lift.
Re: why white? (Score:5, Informative)
Rigid airships 101. The gas cells are not pressurized. The outer envelope you see is to provide streamlining, while the multiple internal gas cells are limp unpressurized bags full of the lifting gas. So, yes heating that gas would increase lift. But as others have mentioned, that would add undesirable uncontrolled variables.
Frankly, what originally killed the airships was the lack of reliable weather prediction, which is no longer a problem. And the Hindenburg was a disaster waiting to happen. It was designed to to helium as its primarily lifting gas. And since helium was also expensive back then, its gas cells were made as double cells. A small gas cell filled with hydrogen, completely encapsulated by a larger cell filled with helium. The intent was that if gas needed to be vented, they would vent the easily replaced hydrogen while keeping the helium. But since the United States wouldn't sell helium to Germany due to Hitler, they instead filled the Hindenburg using only hydrogen.
Every Airship Project Ever has failed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to some multi-billionaire pissing away money, one has to wonder if it's not so much a waste if the alternative for that multi-billionaire was to simply not invest money into corporate tax shelters that are quite warped by tax law, and instead be forced to...*gag*...pay taxes like some normal citizen would.
In fact, one doesn't even have to wonder anymore. One man's monorail salesman is another mans fuck-it list of 101 Fun Things To Do Instead of Paying Taxes Like a Pleb.
Re: (Score:2)
Airships were quite widely used prior to the Hindenburg. Discounting the fact that they loaded a bunch of heavy battery propulsion onto this thing, they're the most effective, cost efficient way to move materials over long distances. They're just slow.
There's no reason why they could not have used hydrogen and more intelligent, modern technologies. A lot has changed since then.
Re: (Score:2)
...advocating for using airships to transfer goods up north for decades....For remote communities with no airstrips is has some potential.....
Airships simply trade problem set for another. Airships don't need airstrips. Good. Airships need very large airship hangars. Bad. Airships can hover indefinitely over a point. Good. Airships can be destroyed by weather that would not be a significant hazard to an airplane. Bad. Airships don't use as much fuel compared to aircraft. Good. You cannot just park and airship outdoors and leave it, it's always flying. Bad.
I think on the whole, the problems inherent to operating airships in real world conditio
Biggest Cliffhanger of the Whole Article? (Score:3)
A series of increasingly ambitious flight tests lie ahead, before Pathfinder 1 is moved to Akron, Ohio, where LTA Research is planning an even larger airship, the Pathfinder 3. The company eventually hopes to produce a family of airships to provide disaster relief where roads and airports are damaged, as well as zero-carbon passenger transportation.
What happened to Pathfinder 2? WHAT HAPPENED TO PATHFINDER 2?!
Re: (Score:2)
A series of increasingly ambitious flight tests lie ahead, before Pathfinder 1 is moved to Akron, Ohio, where LTA Research is planning an even larger airship, the Pathfinder 3. The company eventually hopes to produce a family of airships to provide disaster relief where roads and airports are damaged, as well as zero-carbon passenger transportation.
What happened to Pathfinder 2? WHAT HAPPENED TO PATHFINDER 2?!
We don't talk about Pathfinder 2. Also moving it to Akron? Someone clearly didn't look up the USS Akron before deciding that.
So Blimps (Score:2)
3 747s? (Score:2)
Yes, but how many football fields is that? Use American units, damn it.
Steampunk? (Score:2)
That's no steampunk.
Airships are just not useful (Score:2)
Airships are slow - so slow that winds are a huge problem, a 30 knot wind isn't a big deal if you are cruising at 300 knots, but if you are cruising at 50, it more thand doubles your travel time
Airships are very weather sensitive, they can't climb above weather and their huge surface area / weight ratio makes th
Is it big? (Score:2)
So, it's half the length of the Hindenburg, am I supposed to be impressed? When I read the summary I was expecting something new, something that broke the mold on rigid airships -- and then I saw that it was just a pint sized Hindenburg. [sigh]
Bad article stealing... again. (Score:3)