Why are dirigibles not a thing anymore for common travel?
>>1523515>Once the gas leaks into the atmosphere, it is light enough to escape the Earth's gravitational field so it bleeds off into space, never to return. We may run out of helium within 25–30 years because it's being consumed so freely.
>>1523517>But by capturing this vented gas, up to 95% of it can be reliquefied, stored and reused.
>>1523501Very slow, uncomfortable and inefficient.
There are no overpriced universities teaching pilots, so therefore they must be impossible to fly. How else could judge a pilot applicant without testing their skills whatsoever? It's 2020 and competence is racist; only fraudulent credentials matter.
>>1523501Because they fall between two stools>Too slow to be an alternative to aeroplanes>Not enough capacity to be an alternative to ships
>>1523580>slowof course>uncomfortableplease explain
>Hindenburg class airship>72 passengers>10,000 kg payload capacity>130 km/h maximum speed>Boeing 747-400>416 passengers>100,000 kg payload capacity>1,000 km/h maximum speedI wonder.
>>1523517>>Once the gas leaks into the atmosphere, it is light enough to escape the Earth's gravitational fieldNah.It just gets trapped somewhere in the outer layer, unable to actually leave earth. But capturing gas from the outer edge of the atmosphere is a gigantic PITA, so it will never be cost effective.
>>1523765but you're comparing a modern plane to a blimp made in 1937. It was normal at that time for airliners to hold 30-50 people. A Douglas DC-3 for example held a crew of 2 with 21-32 passengers. Can you imagine the amount of passengers could be lifted if airship technology was allowed to progress for almost 100 years?
>>1524052The same bloody amount Hydrogen is the best candidate for Airship lifting gas as it's cheap and plentiful but you fundamentally cannot make lighter gasHydrogen is literally the lightest stable element, and it still had the drawback of being fairly explosive By the time we have a stable helium supply we'd literally be making routine trips to the moon for it
>>1524052>Can you imagine the amount of passengers could be lifted if airship technology was allowed to progress for almost 100 years?72, and light luggage. Unless you make blimps even bigger, or start building hybrid blimps that are half floaty and half winged.
>>1525296Well unfortunately to maintain a vacuum you need steel to contain it and that's a lot heavier than air
>>1524021Helium can be made by fusing hydrogen. Which can be done in fusors.
>>1523691Silent alternative to helicopters in cities?
>>1525526How about simply not using helicopters in cities other than for emergency services? Aren't quadcopters and multi rotor drones supposed to be quieter than single rotor helis as well?
>>1525528>How about simply not using helicopters in citiesNo>Aren't quadcopters and multi rotor drones supposed to be quieter than single rotor helis as well?Not for the given capacity
>>1525530Why not? What gives the rich the privilege to get shuttled around quickly with a shit ton of noise? Have em use the road and deal with traffic like the rest of us.
>>1525531And that's why we need blimps
Nuclear fusion produces helium as a byproduct, so one day we may have more helium than we know what to do with. And then we take the skies.
>>1525253we'll be fine once we have cold fusion... 20 years from now
>>1525528I can't see quadcopters and multi rotor drones ever being used for passengers for the simple reason that they can't autorotate.
>>1525883Stop doing drugs before 4chan
>>1526360Leave BaconRider alone, he's an ico/n/.
>tfw no ultralight or LSA airships
anyone ever met an airship pilot?
>>1529254I fucked one
>>1529274you fucked a unicorn
>>1523763>please explainThe wooden seats never have any cushions
>>1529274that's very gay
>>1525883How can one tripfag be so based when every other tripfag in existence is a complete waste of protoplasm
>>1523517There's new helium produced all the time.
>>1526360on the contrary, he should keep doing drugs before 4chan
https://newatlas.com/the-sub-us200000-family-aircraft-the-sky-yacht/6595/What say you /n/ would like to chip in and get us a personal blimp?
>>1531834pretty sure you can get a hot air airship for half that price
>>1529318It isn't "new", it is stored in the ground and is finite. And unlike fossil fuels which theoretically replenish slowly over millions of years, helium can't "replenish". The only way to make new helium out of nowhere is by fusion, like the sun does. There isn't any fusion naturally going on anywhere on earth.>>1523520>"""can""" call me back in a century when they can do this efficiently on a large scale.
>>1533060No. There really is new Helium produced by radioactive decay. Almost all helium on Earth is alpha radiation, nothing is left from the initial stockpile.
>>1533060There is an untapped and massive helium supply in the moon, however building a cost effective mining transport capable of simultaneously going to the fucking moon and back and actually making anything resembling a profit is currently beyond human ability
>>1531834If normies weren't so annoying and their puppet masters didn't exist, a carbon fiber (or other composite) version of this with Hydrogen (it can be safe despite what the hivemind says), a lifting body and fuel cells would be absurd.
>>1534066And you can heat the hydrogen using solar light if you pick the proper materials and color.
ok blimpbrosif i want to get an airship rating, but goodyear isnt hiring, where can i go
>>1525319>start building hybrid blimps that are half floaty and half winged.
>>1538026You can also use the balloon itself as a huge wing and some bigger prototypes did this.A similar idea:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Inflatoplane
>>1538888lets get absolutely retardedwhat about huge inflatable rotary wings
>>1523509This belongs in /mu/.
All LTA aircraft, in general, are only suited to CAVU conditions. Even WW2 barrage balloons were lost from their moorings in thunderstorms.Venting and replenishing gas as altitude varies is another concern.Interestingly enough, in the US, an LTA pilot license is also an LTA Instructor ticket, for the respective type rating.
>>1539262I think the situation improved after more than half a century of (mostly suppressed) technological development.
>>1539424Technological development that will make LTA aircraft immune to updrafts, downdrafts, wind shear, lightning, icing and hail? Please share.
>>1539450Yes, that's how technological development works. Material sciences, CAD with structural analysis, CFD, composites without metals, ...I don't know why most aircrafts trigger shitty people so much.
>>1539450Heating large surface under constant solar light isn't impossible either:>>1534760Hydrogen begins to burn at extremely high temperatures, heating it would get more buoyancy and avoid icing partially (an electric heating system could do the rest if needed). And it's also a fuel for the aircraft.Blowout valves, segmented balloons, flame retardants, parachutes for recovery and much more could be used to make it safe.
>>1539424modern computer tech could make this thing actually viable
>>1539511Compact electric motors with fine controls, high output/density electric power sources (anything except batteries), automations for stabilizing the aircraft... already exist.
>>1523501Bad reputation near irrelevance and low payload capacity. Hybrid airships that mix lighter than air technologies with more conventional methods to create lift might have a chance, but the good fuel efficiency isn't enough of a seller for such a massive and expensive product. Nowadays if you want to move cargo boats are the unquestioned champion. They scale well and can hold more while offering lower prices than planes. A cargo zeppelin or dirigible would just be a less efficient more expensive and maybe even q slower boat.
>>1538976Here ya go. Took it from the other thread.
>>1543252>>1543253Looks like a proper replacement for noisy and low range delivery drones.
>slower than jets>more expensive than boatsThere's your answer, it's as slow as a boat at the price of a jet.
>>1543367Or small aircraft (at most 5 seats).
>>1525531it's called money. Helicopters consume an enormous amount of fuel. Airships require huge amounts of gas and storage space. Both very maintenance intensive. You think the people on Hindenburg were proles like you and me?I was curious to look it up. According to Smithsonian Mag the ticket from Frankfurt to New York cost $450. In today's money that's $8300. The average income then was $1350, although that was during the Great Depression. A ticket on the air ships was not just for the rich, like short range helicopter flights today that cost a few hundred bucks. It was for people who would buy a single ticket for the price of a car. that was almost enough to get a Ford 74.
>>1543521It's different from what commies and rednecks parrot all the time, let's say the people who rule us are closer to mafiosi than actual rulers and their focus on running their criminal rings makes the cost of everything explode instead of contract, which is something you would expect from a civilization that claims to be technological and advanced.
>>1523501They're associated with crime in my area.
>>1523501If solids like this one become affordable enough, then it would be revolutionary:https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/153063-graphene-aerogel-is-seven-times-lighter-than-air-can-balance-on-a-blade-of-grass
>>1544994whatare you saying your area has airship bandits
>>1543252It's 13 tons of payload at 140 km/h, it's much faster than a freighter and much cheaper overall than an aircraft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_HAV_304/Airlander_10
>>1525739cold fusion is a myth.
>>1523501because not really practical?
>>1523501More links from previous threads:http://www.adb.ind.br/?language=enhttps://www.solarship.comhttp://aeroscraft.com/https://zeppelin-nt.de/en/zeppelin-NT.htmlhttp://www.allsopp.co.uk/index.php?mod=page&id_pag=40https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511843/The-flying-hotel-Thunderbird-2-The-700ft-super-airship-gently-float-world.html
>>1547813My heart doesn't care about practical my heart wants a steampunk filled sky
>>1546734who is she ? sauce plz
>>1551966Nah, it's like a slower cargo airplane, but much cheaper:>>1546591Heebs get extremely triggered by airships.
>>1523501Heebs on suicide watch:https://newatlas.com/aircraft/airlander-10-hybrid-electric-propulsion/https://newatlas.com/aircraft/production-version-airlander-10-airship/And if the project gets unjewed, I'm sure it can improve a lot (using hydrogen instead of helium, no purely electric bullshit, a generator or fuel cell powertrain, aerodynamic improvements...).
>>1554984That's good. Someday.
>>1538002You'd get less drag by having huge wings.
>>1559535Plus additional lift and control surfaces.Some posts from the other thread:>>1546393>>1556879>>1558128
>>1538026What are the benefits of wings on a blimp?
>>1559535nvm I just saw your post disregard my question here 1560353
>>1523501>slow>can't carry much>dangerously susceptible to wind and weather
>>1562113140 kph.13 tons.Every aircraft has this problem.And this with a high drag shape, regular engine and cringe helium inside.Gay jews can't read (or pretend to):>>1546591
>>1539450for drafts and wind shear?
>>1544994>n******s are scared to flysource: your ass
>>1562279Before the technology got jewed, there was research on Magnus effect propellers (or other vertical propeller) to use as stabilizer too.
>>1562390https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclorotor#Airship_propulsion_and_controlAnd a smaller cross-section also helps with this.>>1559535>>1559762
>>1562123>140 kph.slow as fuck>13 tons.that isn't much>Every aircraft has this problem.it is a far larger problem for airships with their fuckhuge cross sections and limited thrust. planes are far more tolerant of bad weather on average.
>>1562578Why airships also trigger the heebs so much?
>>1562707call me when people start flying blimps into hurricanes
>>1562617This man didn't agree with my retarded idea so therefore he must be jewish
>>1562832Seriously, every place on the Internet about this gets flooded with jewish idiots posting repetitive bullshit and your tribe sabotaged the Zeppelin to scare normie scum.
>>1525883Either your thermometer is broken or I'm impressed the chink plastic hasn't melted.
>>1526469Sad.>>1538888>>1539053>>1539461>>1539523>>1544869>>1546591>>1549461>>1555090>>1559762>>1562450Why can't you use sails, wingsails or kite sails in airships, at least small ones?
>>1562845take your pills
>>1563009Shut up jews:https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=154716
>>1523501High cost + tiny payload = no profits.
>>1538002what's the saying? there's a sucker born every minute.
>>1563027Seriously why do you schitzos always go off your meds after 3 weeks?
>>1562935The airship body IS a huge sail. If you are thinking that you could make airships be powered by wind, you are forgetting that sailboats or sailcars have a surface of water or solid ground they can use to push against the wind.The only way you could use wind to your advantage is by varying your altitude to try and find a wind directiom that's favourable to your progress, like the famous jet streams.
>>1569648The airship body is the hull, not the sail.
Time is money mentality.
>>1562935You can. It's just that nobody did it so far.
>>1569645I'd much prefer more comfortable air travel
>>1569860Yeah they have
>>1569860>>1571431>I know, how about we put this thing called a sail on this boat to make it go faster and use less fuellol. how the turn tables.
>>1523501They are not efficient to move in the air. Big bag means large drag. At first you like >free liftBut then you sere this bag and fun is overDirigibles can be good for low speed application:surveillance, vertical take off and landing (oversize cargo transport cargo to point), recreational flights.But not for general transportation.
>>1571572Average density of the plane 80 kg/ m3.Average density of the dirigable is no more than 1kg/m3. If you flying at sea level, more drag.At aircraft cruise altitudes dirigables need density no more than 0.3 kg/m3.So dirigables are 260 times larger in volume than airplanes of same weight. Dragging such huge body through air means drag. Air floating is cool when you don't need to move.
>>1523763You can't magic away the size/lift equation by bolting on more thrust to go faster, so compromises in the name of weight savings suck
Has there been any research on low pressure balloons? Vacuum balloons would be the theoretical best but not practical due to high strength pressure vessel requirements. But what about a rigid and light composite balloon with lower than atmosphere pressure hydrogen inside?
>>1571751They are always worse in terms of weight to atmospheric ballons. In theory they are better than preszurized ballons, but in practice the risk of buckling failure (because the material would be under compression rather than tension) makes it impractical.To make a vaccum ballon effective, You would need some kind of forcefield to keep the ball9n surface under tension, like for example electrostatic repulsion.
>>1573313Some airships used hard shells, carbon canisters are used to tolerate a pressure of 690 atm in hydrogen transport.That was the idea originally mentioned:>>1571751Mods deleted a lot of shilling and my replies here.
>>1523517>light enough to escape the Earth's gravitational fieldNahJust because its going to form the 2nd layer doesn't mean its going to escape. Its going to get stuck in the thin 2nd layer.
>>1573378But those hard sheel airships actually used a higher pressure than usual, not less. The goal was to avoid having to throw ballast overboard to compensate for gas leakage, and to have more ability to compensate for altitude compensation.
>>1574407Still it could be rigid to tolerate the extra tension. If you use hydrogen, you can throw away the gas or use it in fuel cells, and replace it with air for altitude control.Even keep some hydrogen pressurized or liquid for late use.
>>1539453Id say the best technology would be full gimbal motors that allow the airship more control in winds. It will still be wind limited. But i bet it could be as good as a small plane’s crosswind limit.
umm sorry to burst your bubble guys but if you didn't notice the general trend in transport is CONTROL and there is no way they would let average people fly anymore let alone use gasoline
>>1571499>But not for general transportation.if energy was cheaper then drag wouldnt matter and you would have a safer aircraft and safety == priceless
>>1575095Some homosexual jew or dyke kike deleted most of my posts here, but there are many ways to reduce drag in airships.
>>1523501They're safer, scenic, elegant, etc... But before 5G WFH, this meant wagies would stay unproductive for too long, so it was deemed unacceptable by our economic overlords.
>>1575095Go bomb some financial buildings about it in your stupid zeppelin
>>1578157I just wish some company was doing for this what Elon is doing for space flight
>>1581003Sabotaging it and wasting money on bullshit?
>>1523501Juiced:When designing an airship, it is important to take its normal operating altitude into account. The above lift capacity (mᴸ) is valid only for an altitude of 200 m, which was the Hindenburg's normal flying altitude. However, hovering just above sea-level, you would see 232 tonnes and at 1000 m its lift would be reduced to 202 tonnes.If the Hindenburg had been filled with the less flammable gas; helium, its carrying capacity would have been reduced. Not only would helium itself have generated less lift (208 tonnes instead of 225 tonnes) but it is also heavier than hydrogen. Therefore, if the Hindenburg had been filled with helium, the gas alone (being 44.5 tonnes heavier) would have reduced the Hindenburg's cargo and equipment carrying capacity from 108 tonnes to 46.5 tonnes. So you can see why its designers preferred hydrogen to helium.https://www.calqlata.com/productpages/00028-help.html
>>1523580lol I saw one of these things get blown away and rescued by coast guard. Obviously I live near the beach. Upper level winds were probably near 40knot, no idea why they were flying.
>>1529313How can one anon be such a cum guzzling faggot? Get a hold of yourself.
>not pogocoptingI can't even imagine being such a huge faggot. What's the matter? Weak neck?
>>1523501Because they are slow.
>>1523501>Why are dirigibles not a thing anymore for common travel?they will be, but for cargo. Lockheed has the most developed design, I actually visited SkunkWorks to investigate for work
>>1582807>only holds one-fifth the cargo of a single railcar>barely has a third of the capacity of a basic 767, half the capacity of upgraded versions>goes slow and gets btfo by windWhat's the advantage?
>>1582836Doesn’t need a massive runway to land, nor is it restricted to only going where rails have been embedded in the earth already and never exceeding a 1% grade
>>1582839Then you can send one or two trucks carrying the same cargo, by weight. The only thing I can think of is bulky cargo, and trucks are still readily adaptable to that purpose.
>>1582841It would be nice for embarrassing cargo, like dildos or something, nobody could see it way up in the air.
>>1582836If some people die (who may be related to you), at least 108 tonnes at more than 140 kph:>>1581115
>>1582836>What's the advantage?to move cargo where there are no roads/rails/runways. moves faster than a ship and costs much less per ton than fixed and rotary wing
>>1573774In principle, this does not change anything.Most likely, in the distant future, we will have to extract helium on Jupiter.
What's the smallest a self-propelled aerostat capable of carrying a person potentially be?I've had some ideas for tiny 1/2 person mass-produced sport blimps that would essentially create a new field of motorsports alongside ATV's and snowmobiling.
>>1581115https://sites.google.com/site/airshipwiki/the-team/hydrogen/hydrogen-safetyAnd there are many ways to improve its safety, I don't think the panic by normies is justified. From having a segmented balloon and ejecting any one that is compromised, to having an outer shell of helium (an inert gas) and an inner hydrogen balloon, to using a hard composite shell and low pressure inside of it (a similar concept to hydrogen storage in cars), using flame retardants, ... after decades the options are plenty.
>>1538976Considering the considerable fuel consumption of an helicopter, an airship /helicopter hybrid makes a lot of sense.
>>1585145Using hydrogen, you have about 1.2 kg of lift per 1 m3 of gas, so you'd need at least 1000 m3 to lift 1200 kg (very light construction), meaning a sphere with 14 meters in diameter at the very least.
>>1523517>Not having a fusion reactor to create helium out of hydrogen created by electrolyzing water. Ngmi
>>1581115Hindenburg was designed for helium and its engineers took the lower lift into account, the reason that never happened was the US helium embargo to Germany over mustacheman.
>>1587054Still Helium is rare, expensive and shitty at lift. And it's yet another case of normie idiots ruining everything because their masters told them to:>>1585359
>>1586942why does noone ever bring up we can make helium that way?
>>1523509remember kids, the film was recorded with no sound, that was studio added days later for the 'pity' effect.
>>1523517fine, when's the last time you critically needed a party balloon?
>>1523675>only fraudulent credentials matter.only skin colour matters now, unless it's White
>>1523765you forgot all the savings with the little airplane....dumbjew
>>1542761this shits never going to happen as long as niggers are allowed to be in the US. you fucks already forgot about the way they chimp out?
>>1543253like it, prob cheaper more economic and packs smaller for less storage needs. but I don't really know shit about LTA crafts
>>1544723eye in the sky for cops?
>>1545031cop surveillance over high crime areas?
>>1562832yep, that's the rule
>>1523501cant lift enough weight, too slow, gets btfo by strong wind
>>1566048we get bored with the reality on them
>>1582839this alone should make viable for specialty shipping big ass shit...picture the 'take my money meme' i'm to drunk to search for it
>>1525253>>1525319Completely disagree. https://www.airships.net/helium-hydrogen-airships/Says that out of 216 t of lift, 118 t was used as "dead weight", i.e. hull itself, and 59 t for fuel. Only 17.5 t for people + crew + food, i.e. 8% If we assume that modern diesels are at least twice as fuel efficient as pre WW2, that means we from fuel reduction alone have 26 t of free mass that we can use for more passengers/food/crew, with passengers capacity rising much more then crew needs. If we also assume that modern construction/materials (something like welding, introduction of titanium or carbon tubes, more modern materials for hydrogen storage etc) would allow us to reduce dead weight by at least 20% that's another 23 tonnes. I can easily see this airship having 300+ passenger capacity.
>>1595166Never mind using fuel, just use hydrogen fuel cells instead.
>>1595166Be aware, that passengers are 50% heavier since WWII.
>>1595257Shit, I didn't consider that
>>1586864I was thinking more along the lines of 300-500 kg with a little one or two person gondola that itself weighs roughly as much as a bicycle frame.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship_Industries#The_Sentinel_5000/YEZ-2A_programmeThis was unironically almost built.What a shame.
>>1595166And hydrogen is a fuel, so you can use of it as fuel, fuel cells are at least 60% efficient (old diesels are way below 30%), you probably don't need to use a hard (and heavy) shell anymore, the aerodynamics were terrible (drag being the biggest source of inefficiency, given classic airships gain lift via buoyancy and only use thrust to move around), it wasn't designed to generate lift using the hull and reduce the need for buoyancy, ...
>>1597957*use some of it instead of dieselAlso uncompressed hydrogen has way more energy content per mass than diesel.I'm taking a break.
>>1523501since they are kind of slow it would have to fill a role somewhat like a cruse ship
>>1538002like a giant Bedewing
>>1597997It's as fast as most helicopters.>>1597966This could be developed into an electrical propulsion system.
>>1597545>>1597547>>1597548Something like this might be great for a ~6 hour day cruise but they'd never make a profit unless they charge upwards of $5000 per person.Also, at 160 meters (530 feet), storing the damn thing is going to be a bitch.
>>1597997Cities should buy them for cross town traveling
>>1592159This is the only viable application for airships. Massive cargo lifting to remote locations when speed is not critical. I'm talking enormous, like 1km+ long airships. Only at massive scale do you get excellent lifting capabilities.
>>1600531Nah, there have been many small helium and hot air transportation for a few people since the end of the Kike Ages.There are very few of those with proper research and development done to them for juicy reasons.About hydrogen safety, and posts about it get deleted for some reason, you can also find a way to eject the gas (maybe quickly disassembling segments of the balloon), avoid oxygen getting in, burn it all using a lot of oxygen so it doesn't explode (inside a flame proof coated material or ejecting it), ...
>>1600531>>1601182It improves as you get bigger, but it's always good enough:https://erik-engheim.medium.com/calculating-lifting-capacity-of-airships-48df5cd7d147