How Airships Could Overcome a Century of Failure

[@business]

What are some niche applications that you think modern airships could serve better than alternative modes?

[@walli6388]

Niche? They can take care of a lot of transport with no fuel by using the Passat wind.

[@hansolowe19]

There's already a shortage of helium, filling enormous balloons with it seems like a less than ideal use for this scarce and non-renewable resource.

[@kingcarter9975]

Fighting bushfires???

[@wayneyd2]

NONE!

[@ropro9817]

Errrrmmm... wasn't there an impending global helium shortage? 🤔

[@jimvanm]

I love the no-nonsense, realistic perspective of the people building these things. They're not trying to pitch some fairy tale; they know it's tough, and they know there's lots of risks, but they still believe it's worth doing. I hope they succeed; I suspect they will.

[@zocca0134]

@@deepupstrandedcreek9979 Yeah, elctric cars died out at the beginning of the 20th century because the petrol engine was invented, which gave a much much longer fuel autonomy (batteries are the problem now as they were now) and as technology improved, the petrol engine outperformed the electric motor in almost all aspects. Furthermore, trends and movements like the Futurism helped the petrol engine to triumph. Not everything has to be a conspiracy, you know.

[@bobloblaw7465]

This is a waste of time and going backward. This solves nothing.

[@bobloblaw7465]

@@deepupstrandedcreek9979 actually water/steam powered engines were invented first. Then electric, than ICE

[@yoboy6319]

I can honestly say I have 0 reason to buy a ticket for a blimp. Maybe if it's free I'd go, but this seems stupid. That Ireland example is probably the only route it would be better for. And it's only 2 hours faster than the boat.

[@pappi8338]

@@bobloblaw7465 I agree

[@tobiwan001]

I have heard all those arguments before in the 1990s. I fell for it for a while, but the main problems are not solved (wind resistance, aerodynamics, changes in weight through fuel burn and payload), while the commercial applications are very narrow.

[@walli6388]

Did they already use hybrid airships?

[@migo-migo9503]

Helium has also gone up in price since the supply in the world is running out, from what I’ve heard.

[@news2hedz227]

@@migo-migo9503 No no... Nuclear fusion creates helium so we'll have no problem 😅

[@migo-migo9503]

@@news2hedz227 nice! I did not know that. Thanks!

[@news2hedz227]

@@migo-migo9503 I was actually being a bit sarcastic, since fusion energy won't provide much and it's always 20 years away 😉 sorry for getting your hopes up

[@l.b.1974]

One of the biggest practical problems that I see for "air ships" is their vulnerability to weather.

[@Danuxsy]

well if you have great weather predictors you can make dynamics plans that follow the weather currents and time it efficiently (maybe)

[@michaelt.5672]

Counterpoint: Weather largely happens in the troposphere. Design an airship to fly higher than that, and you aren't dealing with much of the weather.

[@AlexKodek]

I think the shape design could be wrong here in the first place ... although it looks attractive ... I would consider it to be rather like a large single wing, filled with Helium ...

[@larsbee]

too many companies died trying to succeed .... I remember cargolifter in Germany whose airships could lift 160t. they build the biggest hangar in the world and went bankrupt after 6 years ... now the hangar houses another company called tropical island ...

[@jimwhelan9152]

@@michaelt.5672 LTA require a dense atmosphere. They have no lift at very high altitudes.

[@yossarianreborn2904]

My mum worked at Airship Industries in Cardington Hangers. Hard to believe how big these hangers are until you're inside. In the right condition's it would have its own small clouds inside at the top.

[@ericwiese7479]

Thanks for sharing this. 🤯

[@Spartan265]

Honestly it's pretty cool that the building is big enough to form it's own clouds. Kinda mind blowing.

[@ericwiese7479]

@@Spartan265 that got me too! Cool

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Airship Industries made a loss of £15 million in the year to 30 June 1989, compared to £3.7 million in the preceding year and £5.1 million the year before that. In early 1990, after refinancing efforts failed, the firm sought to improve its financial position through a sale and leaseback of the Cardington facilities, an attempted sale of its US operations to Lou Pearlman's Airship International and efforts to renegotiate the YEZ-2A contract from fixed-price to cost plus. However, share trading in AI's Isle of Man-based holding company was suspended in August 1990, and administrative receivers were appointed in September.

[@lukemallon4499]

Wow.🤗

[@leaf16nut]

I'd pay to fly around in an airship, like a cruise in the sky, seeing inaccessible sights at slow speeds. Would be an absolute joy!

[@lukemallon4499]

Absolutely! "See your world- the proper way"

[@anydaynow01]

It will be like the nascent space tourism industry, the trickle down effect of the technology will open it up to lower cost options and breakthroughs in the future. It will be pretty amazing to take airship adventures when traveling to different parts of the globe.

[@tonysykes4333]

Ya but more like a Viking Cruise or the Orient Express trains. A vacation in its own right. The comparison to Carnival sized cruise rides doesn't actually understand the application of a airship ride.

[@thatsawesome2060]

Until u get caught in fierce storms 😜

[@corail53]

@@anydaynow01 You do know this has all been tried many many many times before right. The negatives always outweigh the positives and there is no trickle down in tech with this because it doesn't use uninvented new tech - it rehashes old tech and calls it new.

[@etangdescygnes]

I conceived the idea of a heavier-than-air, helium-filled airship that would lift a payload by aerodynamic lift during my degree in aeronautical engineering, during the 1980s. On a long train journey not long after graduating, I did the basic calculations. The maths proved to be insurmountable. In the troposphere, the airship’s low airspeed, large skin surface, and large projected frontal and side areas made both steady winds and gusts a menace. A cross-wind or headwind of (say) 20 knots, would seriously affect scheduled operations. The problem worsened with flight duration. But that wasn't all. If the aircraft was flying at (say) 80 knots, generating lift for level flight, and there was a tailwind gust of (say) 20 knots, the decrease in lift would be severe. My hybrid vehicle faced serious wind shear problems during take-off and landing, and offered a nasty, bumpy cruise. In a place such as Britain, the periods during which acceptable weather would prevail throughout journeys would be a huge restriction versus conventional turbofan airliners. Due to its large area the envelope could bear a significant mass of rainwater, even as the water was draining off it. Snow and ice could be nightmares. I considered stratospheric flight, above the worst of the weather, but the low air density drastically cut the payload, posed a big problem for the ballonet (“swim bladder”) buoyancy control system, and necessitated cabin pressurisation. The airship could land as a substantially heavier-than-air vehicle, but as the payload was removed, it became lighter. This necessitated ballast, such as water, being pumped or loaded onto the airship as the payload was removed. If this wasn’t done, the airship began to suffer from the usual problem of all lighter-than-air vehicles, needing to be tied down. I figured the airship would have to be tied down between being loaded, but directional stressing problems would then ensue during thunderstorms and the like, necessitating the airship being parked in a hangar. At least a hangar would keep the seagulls etc. off the vehicle, which would be very difficult to clean due to its size. Flights that require just two or three meals in today’s turbofans, would need many more meals, plus greater provision for human, food, and other wastes, and legal working hours for flight and cabin crew would demand many more staff. The envelope would generate static electricity that could be discharged through wicks, but since it would be almost entirely non-conducting, special provision had to be made for lightning. (Conventional airliners are protective Faraday cages.) Productivity was a major issue. In the time my airship took to cross the Atlantic once, an airliner could make four crossings, but the airship could not carry anywhere near four times as many passengers, and in any case, why would they want to travel so slowly in a pitching and heaving airship at a low altitude across the menacing ocean, with only the roughest idea of their arrival time?! What was more, I discovered that while many companies want to dispatch freight quickly by jet airliner, and many more companies wanted to send freight much more cheaply by sea, there wasn’t an “in-between” market. In other words, there would be almost no demand to send freight that currently crosses the Atlantic in six or seven days, over the Atlantic in 36 hours by airship; if it had to arrive quickly, it would be sent by jet airliner. I concluded that while there are probably viable niche civil and military applications for a heavier-than-air airship, it would never be a big seller. It would make much more sense to develop biofuels to power conventional turbofans, or develop large 400 KTA turboprops powered by hydrogen. By the time I got off the train, I had dismissed the concept.

[@happydappyman]

I was looking for this comment. I'm not aeronautical, but mechanical (and a pilot) and I was going to make some of these same points. You've done a much better job of it than I would have. Totally agree with you. I don't see any scenario where an airship would carry passengers as long as there's just about any other option. It's extremely slow when compared to a normal plane or high speed rail. Even if you found the cliental, it's completely unreliable in scheduling or service due to the points you make about weather (and other safety concerns). I might see these used for heavy lifting in remote locations, but even then. You know what these industries really don't like? Having to plan an entire project around whether they might be able to use their equipment. It's probably cheaper to do a job in 3 helicopter loads than one airship load if it means waiting potential weeks for the proper weather conditions. Especially in areas that would make the airship impractical for half the year such as the mentioned northern Canada. This means these companies are going to have to invest in both the equipment they can use the bad half of the year AND the airship that might make things easier the other half of the year. It's cheaper just to use the all weather option all year. Oh yeah and I'll add one more point to do with Helium. It's expensive and getting more so every year. I'd need to look into it properly, but from what I think I know of helium, it seems like it's not something that could sustain a sudden massive surge in demand

[@x--.]

Great points. Calculation the same for hydrogen?

[@etangdescygnes]

@@x--. The calculation is different because the gas density versus temperature is different, but the conclusions are the same.

[@Zetsuke4]

Thanks

[@butchfajardo8832]

You're right. It's not feasible for meeting schedules. But it's a lot better than an aircraft in terms of maintenance. I like to have one here in the Philippines only during summer. But I know that someone can design something that is feasible in the future. Maybe when fuel becomes so expensive already that using an aircraft is not feasible anymore.

[@tsbrownie]

I've been fascinated by lighter than air (LTA) for the past 60 years. It's undeniably cool and graceful. But there's lots of "buts." It's slow. It's slow because it has a huge volume. That huge volume is filled with an expensive gas that is getting rarer and more expensive. They leak gas. And in a surprise twist, that gas weighs a lot (has mass) that has to be moved. One pound of helium is about 2.5 cu yards (or meters), a million cubic yards weights about 400k pounds. Like a boat on the water, it's hard to start moving, it's hard to stop. They have a limited ceiling in the single digit thousands of feet making them susceptible to storms / turbulent ground winds. Most aircraft talk about power/weight ratio, with airships it is that plus power to volume ratio; you need power to overcome even light winds because of the huge surface area. They require huge hangars. They don't like snow and ice, and rain is not their friend. The fabric is sun resistant, but we all know how that goes. And on and on. That's why we keep hearing about the rebirth of airships only to have our hope and dreams dashed by financial reality and physics.

[@hand587]

Looking at that first aircraft, there are also lots of "butts".

[@grahamstevenson1740]

@@hand587 We are far beyond that point. Airships STILL suck. And blow. A Boeing 747F can carry 150 tons of freight economically at high speed (suited for perishable produce) and deliver it anywhere in the world in 24 hours, THAT is the benchmark. There 's literally no hope whatever for the lumbering airship as a competitor. NONE AT ALL>

[@PanzerBuyer]

Imagine flying over Chicago and getting 100 bullet holes in the envelope.

[@lukemallon4499]

Very informative.Thanks.

[@comethiburs2326]

@@grahamstevenson1740 unless the utterly gigantic size required to transport 100 containers allows solar power to be viable through sheer scale to weight... then maybe? they would compete with cargo ships.

[@johnpaulcolthrust8207]

One problem is that unlike hydrogen, helium is a very rare and non-renewable resource with other very serious uses eg: MRI machines. Once it leaks away it is irrecoverable, so very aggressive helium conservation will have to be integral to the technology if it is to be a significant transportation option.

[@JellyAntz]

there's a decent amount on the moon and the zone of the gas giants like saturn and its moons in the form of helium-3 if im not mistaken, from solar wind, but that's a whole 'nother endeavor and reason to set up moon infrastructure

[@glennwall552]

Oddly it's called waste gas in Australia as it's split from hydrogen . We have given it away.

[@LyricLinguist]

This was absolutely my first thought. Helium is also used very heavily for testing equipment in research labs and pharmaceutical industries (which impacts both development and manufacture).

[@GrubbJunker]

Well, if we finally have functional fusion reactors (that is, Q > 1), we'll have helium as a biproduct. So that's a possible source. Though that's a little ways into the future still.

[@petercarioscia9189]

@@JellyAntz ah yes let's set up a helium mining operation on the moon to fuel our air ship fleets. Genius I tell yea. Sarcasm aside I know helium has more uses, and more important uses.

[@ibsn87]

As a regional pilot that's been dealing with weather extremes

[@Villageidiot42]

We could always use hydrogen. lol.

[@rais1953]

With better, fireproof construction materials hydrogen could be used for lift, especially for remote controlled cargo carrying drones. Some parts of the world have weather that is suitable for airships most of the time.

[@johnlucier5654]

Imagine a 1000ft long craft... In a building storm the barometric pressure has rapidly changing areas, the ship passing through them. What a nightmare when they tried moving gas from bag to bag to compensate.

[@rais1953]

@@johnlucier5654 Prior to the Hindenburg disaster zeppelins plied across the Atlantic for years without getting into trouble. Their structure and design was vastly inferior to anything that would be built now with modern materials and technology. I've been through a thundercloud in a small airliner that was being flung up and down by air currents. It was very unpleasant but the aircraft's structure was strong enough to handle it. An airship being buoyant should handle rough weather pretty well.

[@jankopiano577]

@@rais1953 I saw the Goodyear blimp flying through a storm front once over my house. It looked like a very bad situation. They were flying low under the clouds and it was heavily rocking nose to tail.

[@fdjw88]

i work years as a financial analyst, and let me tell you when i heard an investment only has "niche" application in the market, it gets the entire team nervous, especially when the investment also has a high price tag (in the case of "The Whale" already 5B euro development fee). there are a couple more things i want to add regarding airships 1. none existing infrastructure. currently no country on the planet has an experience ground crew to maintain and operate airship. in addition, there are no existing space to store and refuel the airship. literally everything will have to be build from the ground up. this alone is already very unattractive to the transport industry. as it was stated in this vid "the transport industry has very low margin." 2. another problem regarding "the whale" is vehicle maintenance vs transported value. the whale is 200m long, which requires an insanely large storage and maintenance facility. all that capital investment, at the end of the day, you get a transportation vehicle with a carry weight of 60t. that's extreme tiny compare to the size of the vehicle. anyone can do a quick research and see how much weight a 200m cargo ship can carry, there is simply no comparison. plus ship crews are widely available all over the world. 3. ease of operation. as mentioned in the vid, airship lose weight when cargos are dropped and the vehicle automatically gains altitude. it's just not practical to have 30t of water inside your airship all the time. imagine your airship flies to the destination, and before loading can start, the airship will first spend an hour or more unloading 30t of water. you certainly can't just open you loading bay and let all 30t of water randomly drop on the ground right? in the shipping industry, time is money. there is a reason why ship crew no longer get on shore free time when the arrive at a port. because shipping companies are paying interest and principles on those cargo ships every minute. personally, airship looks cool, but with the current technology, it's still not a viable transportation option.

[@vincentrusso4332]

Basic cost analysis.....

[@heyhoe168]

Basically railroads beats it any day.

[@tvdinner325]

Until they can control the wind, they are just pretty balloons. The same reason, we don't commute in wicker baskets.

[@David-yo5ws]

For EU$5B they could have built an aerial 'cable car type system' into a central point where the logs in France were and some internal road network to that central point, where they could transport the logs to, then lift and transport them out. No need for an airship and easier maintenance on the towers and wire cables etc. Luxury Cruise Airships for the well-to-do on specialist tours, is probably the only market where you might make a profit. Interestingly their airship recovering a SpaceX Falcon 9 would require a smaller version of their Whale, as the LT60 lifts 60 tonnes but the Falcon 9 Booster weighs 25.6 tonne. It would only be useful if SpaceX had 2 or more flights planned in a short time, as the Drone Recovery Vessel still has to return to port at some stage. Once again, a niche market.

[@Damorann]

Franky, if we always went by the financial analysis, nothing groundbreaking would ever come out. When it comes to new ideas, finance tends to be either way too optimistic about it, or so uninterested that they come in when the idea is mainstream.

[@da8874]

This is a fantsstic option to forest keeping. Think about it: a slow moving, enviromentally friendly airship where a small crew of national guards can constantly supervise a whole mountaij range 24/7 more effectively than a rescue helicopter. It doesnt need big airways, nor constant costly refueling. Put this over Yellowstone national park, or any place where a lot of people go missing and you have a market. EDIT: Maybe blimps to safeguard deserts and do search/rescue? mountains have too much wind activity

[@rose348]

..but mountains are windy and you really REALLY dont want to fly these where it's very windy and there are lots of mountains to crash against

[@da8874]

@@rose348 I would imagine this thing would be more like a balloon that would move slowly when faced with wind. Given that it has wings. But yeah didnt think of that.

[@leandrog2785]

Why don't they just use unmanned drones with high quality cameras? Seems a lot cheaper.

[@nickl5658]

Very strong winds near mountains makes this idea impossible. It will rip apart an airship or send it crashing on the mountain slope. We will need super materials to build such an airship that can fight the wind and withstand the engine power needed to do so.

[@1N2themystic]

@@nickl5658 not so much. Airplanes travel at high airspeed and experience turbulence as they hit air currents traveling in different directions which create giant horizontal rolling "eddys". An airship just riding the wind at altitude won't experience the same forces. Release a balloon with a pebble taped to the bottom on a gusty day. It will be happy.

[@pi.actual]

There was an enterprise, I believe it was called Zeppelin NT, that flew sight seeing tours over San Francisco about ten years ago. I think it was like $500/hr for a seat and they are no longer in operation. A large airship essentially has to be monitored and attended 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, an expensive endeavor. Even in a major metro area there are only so many people willing to pay that much money for a ride in a blimp.

[@-coolerlegothings-9784]

This isn't really about sightseeing tours. It's about cargo transport because hybrid airships could deliver cargo with 6% of the fuel as a modern jetliner, and could deliver cargo faster than a ship

[@s1lv3rbordeaux47]

@@-coolerlegothings-9784 the development & managed structure of our world has simply progressed to ensure the future infrastructures are hindered & poorly viable over all industries & from any basis. Greed, distraction, disillusion & control are issues all should become very used to. If it once existed or was prehaps developed, maybe even near finalized only to fail. These should be removed from the mindset of any proposals!! You won't find a reason to these failures! You do not & will not ever be of a level in which these answers are vindictive of your knowledge, reality & past history should make that blatantly clear!!

[@BigVine-m5i]

Apparently, that zeppelin is back in Europe (Germany?) and is still in operation. I would have gone on it, but I missed my chance when it was here in the states.

[@TgWags69]

I live in an area where, on occasion, we get to observe the goodyear airships. One time a severe front blew through and the airship I was watching got caught in the turbulence. I am not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that the airship when from standing straight up on its tail to pointing straight at the ground rolling back and forth. It was so jaw dropping that its hard to find words to describe it! Roller coaster is mild to comparison. The only thing I can think of is the Niagara rapids at full flow above the falls. Imagine being in a barrel through that and it would probably compare. If you look at all the footage touting these airships, they are always beautiful days with no wind. I don't believe they will ever be consistently viable due to weather concerns. They can't help but be a bobber on a river of air.

[@KF1]

I was wondering about this. The video talks about sweet cruises for luxury passengers visiting the north pole. But arctic wind can be very strong, and I think the luxury passengers would be anything but comfortable not being able to lift off from a frozen wasteland that was supposed to be a nice visit.

[@TAP7a]

@@KF1 Airships fly lower than HTA planes and are typically protected from the worst winds. Following that, the piloting displayed by the Goodyear blimp mentioned doesn't sound particularly idiosyncratic with how airships were piloted during their golden age - where wind lower in the atmosphere was a concern, airships would be piloted more like sailing ships, with skippers looking to work with the wind, apply power when needed and float with it where necessary, to get to the destination, rather than the HTA approach of blasting straight through it or fully navigating right the way around

[@SovereignStatesman]

@@KF1 Windspeed is not the relevant factor, but turbulence. However with gyroscopes, LIDAR etc. then it should be possible to avoid it. Remember these ships are heavier than air, and so winds would simply provide lift. It's not as bad as a ship in a rough sea.

[@KF1]

@@SovereignStatesman No, sir. Turbulence is a factor when travelling at high speed and altitude, as is the case for a modern airliner travelling at cruise height. Of course wind speed is the relevant factor, because blimps 1- fly low, and 2- fly slow.

[@nzlemming]

It's called "Fasten your 5 point seatbelts, folks. It's going to get a little rough"

[@Mrdresden]

A 20 minute video talking about huge helium sinks but not once does it go into the reason helium is so expensive! There is a world wide scarcity going on for the gas, and with its use being critical in so many different industries already, with no new sources coming online, placing huge amounts of it in unproven niche transportation projects that will do little to curb overall emissions (as they say them selves, they can not replace the already entranched industry) sounds like lunacy to me. I do give it to them though, that airships do look fantastic.

[@shannonmikus550]

Using helium as a boyant gas makes as much sense as building canals full of mercury to carry river barges. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline and TWICE as effective as helium for boyancy. The official reports that blamed hydrogen for the Hindenberg have repeatedly been debunked and I am not suprised to see that this Bloomberg-sponsored pseudo-science advertisement fails to make that point in favor of pushing the agenda that is, "wow it would be nice to have effective airships, but we won't let the peasants have clean and effective transpportation while there is $$ to be made by lying to those peasants".

[@marrqi7wini54]

@@shannonmikus550 I do agree with your assessment. Yes hydrogen is quite flammable though at the same time, rocket fuel, jet fuel, gasoline, and nuclear energy can be just as dangerous if things go wrong. A whole bunch of safeguards will be needed to make sure that doesn't happen.

[@conniepoo]

I’ve always dreamed of a clubbing airship ever since I saw the one in just cause 2. Imagine a touring party airship that visits places like Greenland or Iceland.

[@segasys1339]

lol

[@nevillewran4083]

Or literally a clubbing airship, a licensed club with dancefloor, the patrons dancing as city-scapes pass by thru the transparent walls.

[@basedkaiser5352]

I really want to see these projects succeed, there’s something magical about airships.

[@linanicolia1363]

Not if you are in a hurry. I would like to see Concorde back, of course with improvements......3 hours to cross the Atlantic was fantastic ! Now, they found a way to eliminate the sonic booms that used to bother so many people......Also the landing gear was too vulnerable and too close to the fuel tanks. Such a tragic error.

[@onestep873]

Zомби

[@alexdemoya2119]

Technology is magical to an orc, hence why they steal such wonders like toilets.

[@siriussaracen8371]

So how long would it take to fly one of these 5,000 miles? I don't see these things going at high speed.

[@Ja2808R]

What’s with the z in pfp ?

[@Annatizer]

I would love to see airships actually become a thing again, commercially. For some reason, the idea of airships has a nostalgic feeling to it, because of one of my all time favorite movie series Indiana Jones.

[@jbj27406]

Sorry to burst your "bubble", but you'll have to change the laws of economics to do that. And the laws of economics are just about as rock solid as the laws of physics.

[@Simmsgreene]

Another thing! Helium is a finite resource. It’s mined along with other natural gasses.

[@Shiirya]

I always found them incredibly romantic, it has a little mystic flavour in it ! It kinda make you think about thing flying and staying in the sky like a suspended castle, or a boat you could sail and explore the world riding the cloud like you ride the ocean !

[@Annatizer]

@@Simmsgreene Yeah, and it sucks. I just wanna see the skyline dotted with slowly moving airships... I wanna feel like I live in some sort of steam-punk/ghibli like world...

[@Annatizer]

@@Shiirya I KNOW RIGHT?! that was exactly what I was thinking. Man, if only it could happen.

[@irahoppe3632]

I've always thought airships had a home in tourism. Also, since we now have automation it seems reasonable for cargo airships be drones so they can use hydrogen (which I understand has better lifting power than helium).

[@geraldg9226]

@@Machia52612 Not if they use both. If they keep the H and He in diff. bags . A lot of ways to work it out . Still a cool ship .

[@SabbaticusRex]

@@geraldg9226 Clever idea I bet if you mixed the two you would only get ~50% increase in lifting ability but the hydrogen would be much much more difficult to combust and achieve the correct oxygen ratio . There are so many cool ideas when it comes to airships because the tech sort of just stopped in its tracks a long time ago .. You can create hydrogen using electric current and that current could come from a tiny generation or solar panels on top of the craft.. Talk about cool I just love brainstorming these neat ideas . We need airships ;)

[@MrGottaQuestion]

Hydrogen is critically also a lot cheaper than helium. Helium is super, super, super expensive in these quantities.

[@lylyeoh]

@@MrGottaQuestion yeah and there are more important uses of helium - like for MRIs. Don't waste helium for airships. Airships can't compete with rail, ship and planes for most practical purposes.

[@jzk3919]

I spent two years at Bodensee, home of Zeppelin and I am fortunate to have acquinted with the staff of the Zeppelin Museum. About your video-It intruduced some new problems and solutions but it would have added to the overall aim of knowledge distribution if Russian, Chinese and other designs, R&D were included - at least mentioned.

[@kksmith244]

Hydrogen didn't doom the Hindenburg: static lightning and the flammable skin burned before the gas was engulfed. All they have to do is combine hydrogen / helium where the ratio isn't flammable if it leaks.

[@linanicolia1363]

Don't you think they should have known that ?

[@kksmith244]

@@linanicolia1363 The Hindenburg was less lethal than 737 MAX crashes due to how low and slow it was, but media hysteria would rather focus on the twisted remains and how "dangerous" hydrogen is. Not much has changed.

[@forcesightknight]

There must be a flash point of a helium/hydrogen mix. Hydrogen can be a on demand gas, for both ballast and fuel. As stated in comments though, is about the big oil not wanting this to be successful.

[@IBeforeAExceptAfterK]

I feel like we're not really going to see the return of airships until someone comes up with a viable solution for operating in suboptimal weather conditions. This video kinda glosses over just how limiting a factor weather is to the viability of airships.

[@matthieupicard3515]

and speed relative to planes

[@TheElnots]

They haven't, which is why this is only ever going to be a concept. I saw cargo airship prototypes like this back in the early 00s. This isn't anything new.

[@hirsebrei90]

had the same thought. So it seems, I've just watched a 20 minute commercial....

[@kiwitrainguy]

Weather also affects aeroplanes as well. Snow, high winds, fog and even heavy rain can ground aeroplanes or cause them to be diverted to alternative airports with consequent delays and extra costs involved.

[@BlueBalledMedia]

@@kiwitrainguy But airplanes are far more resistant to the weather, than the airship.

[@UniversalPioneer]

Cargo to remote communities is where I think this will be great for. The price to ship will be very low compared to helicopter and plane deliveries with fuel.

[@PeachesCourage]

If these airships were adjusted structurally say literally like a rotating something on it? The Air Car in France engine pumps air literally and can go 72 miles per hour however it is small & light Using the wind and propulsion of the airship electrically be feasible like Toyota using momentum to make electricity? If all of this were to be put appropriately would this airship perhaps be able to go faster should it be necessary? With safety in Mind

[@moltoniron633]

If airships could lower the logistics cost to the level of container ships it could be more beneficial especially for landlocked countries.

[@simonz5905]

Only with blimps and infinite energy This video politely avoid talking about the parking lots. You can not leave a big airship to long in the open. A 20km/h wind could rip off everything (mast, rope, ship) If not a rigid ship, you can deflate it for the night then refill when ready to go, but that's a huge energy cost The rigid ship can only work for short trips (in that you need super accurate weather forcast) and/or with dedicated giant building at each landing point

[@GreenGoblet22]

Airships are soooo cool and seem to capture the imagination more than any other form of aircraft (besides maybe The Concorde). I sincerely hope to take a trip on one these someday, glad this industry is being revived

[@Mashburn007]

Blackbird too

[@grahamstevenson1740]

You see a lot of them in steampunk fantasies. That's where they belong.

[@Neetje42ever]

@@grahamstevenson1740 >steampunk fantasies The way the world is going right now, it may not be a fantasy for long.

[@haysnairte4]

@@grahamstevenson1740 This guy might not know yet of a Full Scale Fantasy Robot being built in Yokohama Japan

[@grahamstevenson1740]

@@haysnairte4 Aha, I found a video of it. I'm not sure of any connection with Airships though.

[@rob379lqz]

Couple issues: 1. Can you outrun/outskirt a weather system? 2. Helium is safe, however very expensive. Perhaps a hybrid system with in inner bladder of Hydrogen… surrounded by the helium bladder, which acts like a safety cell.

[@justmoddie5963]

Helium isn't very easy to produce. You can catch it the best. I am more scared that we are running out of the usable Helium of the world. Aren't we already running out of Helium in like 8 years or so?

[@IBeforeAExceptAfterK]

@GR-75 Medium Transport Tell me you're an Elon Musk fanboy without telling me you're an Elon Musk fanboy.

[@michaelt.5672]

About 1: Weather issues could be circumvented by flying higher than the troposhpere. Besides that, it's a matter of how to achieve the nessecary structural integrity to withstand certain forces. And for that, modern engineering has a LOT more materials to work with than they had back in the 10s and 20s.

[@rob379lqz]

@@justmoddie5963 Yes… just like we were told in 1977 that we were out of oil by 2023… and like OAC tells us we have aboot 11 years left… Helium is an element that is renewing at aboot 700 million tons per minute from our sun. That’s what I read…

[@IBeforeAExceptAfterK]

@@rob379lqz And if we're willing to count the rest of the universe, helium is so abundant that the idea of running out is downright ludicrous. Still doesn't really mean anything when we don't have any way of getting to it. Those 700 million tons produced per minute in our sun don't mean a thing at our current level of advancement.

[@melvin9898]

Who ever named it flying buttocks has my respect.

[@news2hedz227]

Wonder if the ground crew plays Back That Azz Up while maneuvering? 🙌🍑

[@quincyquincy4764]

I would love to do a "sky cruise" above the Caribbean, Africa, Eastern Europe ect. I also like the idea of it being a flying cargo ship

[@hg-yg4xh]

Imagine sitting on your patio from your room just sipping a drink, smoking a cigar and watching the gazelle run across the African grassland just hundred of feet above.

[@quincyquincy4764]

@@hg-yg4xh Beautiful! Just like watching drone shots from Nat Geo on tv

[@IdbaCo.]

@@hg-yg4xh beautiful until you see Rocket

[@rickbiessman6084]

Such a fantastic documentary. When I realized it was over, I was extremely surprised that these 20 minutes had already passed. Thanks to everyone involved in making this documentary! =)

[@dr.redstone7980]

I did some back-of-the-envelope math on what kind of airship would be required to emulate existing container ships. For a 500.000 tonne airship with 1 kg/m3 of lift and scaling the Hindenburg's dimensions and power, it would need to be 3.3 km long and need 650.000 Kw (870K Hp) to move at the same speed as Hindenburg. For comparison, A 500.000 tonne container ship needs ~80.000 Kw. It would also need half a cubic kilometre of helium, at a cost of $1.5 billion.

[@WengStansWorld]

true, Helium is the second-most common element in the universe, but it's comparatively rare on Earth.

[@kamron_thurmond]

I don't think they want to replace container ships, but container trucks such as semi-trucks, 18 wheelers, and big rigs.

[@phoephoe795]

Container ships are also crazy efficient- there isnt a chance of replacing them. Airships are looking at replacing helicopters, freight transport across land/into remote areas, and passenger transport across oceans.

[@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537]

It's not realistic any air vehicle does any major freight. These things replace short distance air freight at best. Long distance air freight will always be done by large HBR turbofans. The only novel application i have any degree of confidence of them fufilling is as high altitude communications relays, for civilian and military markets alike. These ballons have incredible endurance, quite literally in the order of months. At high altitude they could service more mobile phones than land based cellular towers and will have lower latency and cost than space based LEO sats.

[@weblure]

@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Until it gets blown away by a bad storm.

[@vitor900000]

Import things to consider: Helium is rare and too important to be used carelessness. Luxury flights aren't worth. Look at 979 concord and ticket price was one of the major reasons it failed. While the rich is the most likely to fly they still are a very little portion of the people that fly.

[@sterlingodeaghaidh5086]

The Concord was supprisingly profitable, the reason it went away was because the profit margins were smaller than that of conventional airplanes and the routes were limited. They didn't fail because tickets were too expensive, they failed because the concept didn't fit the marketing airlines wanted to work with. Plus public perception fell away after a few bad P.R incidents.

[@peterreber7671]

My thoughts too. Not in touch with reality as evidenced by "the obvious example, flying to the north pole". Noooo, it is not.

[@vitor900000]

@@sterlingodeaghaidh5086 if the profit margins where thin yet the ticket prices where still too high to have a significant demand it means it failed because it wasn't worth. So yes ticket price was one of the many reasons it failed.

[@sterlingodeaghaidh5086]

@@vitor900000 demand wasn’t an issue tho, yes they never filled every seat but the plain ran on average 60%, financial experts and the airlines all said that it was more than enough to justify the plane as ticket prices were set to where it was above business at the time meaning they could break even on every flight with 20-30% capacity of the plane. It wasn’t really a factor at all as demand was there and was justifiable. It’s hard to explain but no ticket prices wasn’t a factor.

[@VanquishedAgain]

The concord failed because supersonic flight was banned over land

[@ifritreaper69]

airship train sounds awesome, you could also imagine if you give major fire and wild life departments this could help against fires if you attach a water attachment system, this would be great also for farming to do a over look on crops.

[@timothywhite8932]

I think that there has been very little development within the shipping industry because large diesel engines are so cost effective. It might be simpler to create a ship with low emissions than build an airship.

[@gamebox131]

Maybe we can use the wind! The natural currents of the sea?

[@90enemies]

It's definitely more cost efficient to build that than an airship. Air ship by all means will never be able to carry as much as Ships. If one day they can, they won't be called air ships. My rant aside Some Cargo ships and cruise ships are trying *Rotor Sails* to see if it has potential. So you might want to look out for that.

[@helloitsjay38]

@@gamebox131 I read something about that recently. There was a proposal for some hyper efficient automated sails for cargo vessels. Basically just as a secondary form of propulsion to reduce diesel engine use during the longer trans-oceanic portions of their journey. Haven't seen anything about it in the last couple years but that would be amazing to see us return to an age of sails ha! Lots of engineering challenges there though. Tricky to get the shipping companies to buy into something so different from the norm.

[@rexbentley8332]

Always yappin' about emissions. Really worried about it?Then quit breathing a couple minutes every day. You put out more co2 per day than the average car does. Why? You're running 24/7 average car only runs a few hours a day.

[@in4mal_baker270]

@@rexbentley8332 Here king you dropped this /s

[@TAP7a]

I really hope it works. Airships are beautiful, and having an environmentally friendly way of doing mass transit by air would be a big win. Trains are amazing, but as identified the infrastructure gaps can be served by this mode. But ultimately, I'm not intimately familiar with the economic case, I just want airships to make a glorious return for the sake of having airships again.

[@nickl5658]

Problem is airships are huge. And the sky has strong winds. Material science simply cannot build an airship strong enough to fight the winds and not be torn apart.

[@petermclelland278]

Milk is brilliant too.

[@jjjcanas40]

With Helium being a finite, mined resource and having read that we are quickly running out of stocks, combined with the fact that helium is used in medical equipment and scientific research, I think the feasibility of a sustainable airship industry would be seriously compromised.

[@anandsharma7430]

@Buzz Baldwin On similar lines, there could be distributed vacuum balloons inside a larger space of much lesser helium gas, thus causing overall buoyancy to be the same with much lesser helium. Maybe they could use another gas, if they could control the temperature and pressure. All of this requires super light but super strong materials. Changing the temperature could allow control of buoyancy. But you need to use such a gas (easy) and build the mechanism using a super light and super strong material (very hard).

[@edwardbrito4010]

N2 gas mix seems ideal for low altitude missions seem best.

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

My pals in medical-tech have been concerned about helium shortages/depletion for years. I wonder how that issue competes with the needs of this industry?

[@lucasgrey9794]

Clean Helium is NOT required for airships. Dirty Helium is abundant and common.

[@TheDetailsMatter]

Helium is derived from natural gas. I don't recall hearing about a shortage of natural gas lately. I'm also a bit disinclined to give credibility to claims of shortages when helium is widely sold as a party favor.

[@rruysch]

@@TheDetailsMatter there is a shortage. In fact they number the helium shortages because its a recurrant problem.

[@uprightape100]

The main problems? Slow, expensive, and just more playthings for the rich and the tedious....a Fyre Festival in the sky. Also subject to being “destroyed by high winds”, as most airships have been through history. Edit: maybe provide gambling? A brothel? Casino/brothel? That might work.

[@anhbinhle2727]

no =))) stop with the casino and brothel talks mate! We are saving the planet here!!!!

[@RedRocket4000]

The curse of one extremely effective radio guy on the Hindenburg crash despite the low death toll vastly exceeded by top passenger railway crashes and much greater airliner deaths following WWII made people way more scared of airships. Yes the fire part scary but that airplanes as well. It just shows how lack of context in reporting shifts things massively in similar way tons of people scared to death by airliners while the trip to the air port way more dangerous.

[@SteelSkin667]

Helium is a finite resource, so the idea of using it to regularly fly commercial aircraft sounds a bit irresponsible. If the idea is to reduce the carbon footprint of commercial aviation, this makes biofuels a sensible solution by comparison :/

[@jimvanm]

The helium isn't consumed, so it's not destroyed. Other than leakage, the same volume of helium can last the life of the airship (or at least for a long time).

[@karfumble]

@Theodore Olson I really dont understand why its still so easy to buy helium.

[@Knowbody42]

Why don't they use a vacuum instead?

[@iosifciuca5381]

@@Knowbody42 the airship would implode like a soda can

[@tcveatch]

Helium comes from mining; released, it rises to the top of the atmosphere and gets blown away from Earth into space. Lost forever. Not for a while: forever. Not a renewable or even a long-term-available resource.

[@jimmooney8195]

At 6:33 - the passenger travel sounds intriguing, even appealing, especially with so much space to mill about and use restrooms without climbing over 2 other people. But such flights would have to be limited to sunny and relatively calm days. Airships have a lot of surface area for a given passenger or cargo load, so they are more vulnerable to turbulence, and they can't fly high enough to rise above storms. They'll take far longer to cross an ocean, and most passengers would not be pleased with flying in thunderstorms or other turbulent weather on long trips.

[@owenstockwood5040]

@Kyle Wooldridge Probably not, as that would put them in direct competition with conventional aircraft, which airships cannot compete with. The only passenger market that might work for airships is luxury cruising. People are not going to travel by airship if it takes days instead of hours to get to your destination, all for a relatively paltry saving on airfare.

[@midgetman4206]

Wait, why couldn't they fly above storms? Wouldn't a pressurized cabin be part of the design? It is a luxury craft right? That's something they would want, if anything at least to see the cloud cover from above (because that's awesome).

[@nzlemming]

@Kyle Wooldridge I know what you mean, but I think the point of weight vs lift might limit that.

[@nzlemming]

@@midgetman4206 It depends how big the storm is. Probably easier to fly *around* storms rather then to take them on directly.

[@midgetman4206]

@@nzlemming Though that would probably be true for most storms, my point is that you'd need a pressurized cabin in order to see other views. Some locations are really high up, mountains and plateaus, not being able to scale them will limit the aircraft quite a bit.

[@jeshiseifo34]

From Ethiopia I just love the idea and it can fix more problems

[@johnjephcote7636]

I know that there is little comparison with the hydrogen dirigibles of the past (such as the R101), but even with the greater lift of hydrogen and the sheer size of those dirigibles, their speed (even in calm conditions), their pressure height and their surplus lifting capacity were all severely limited.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Indeed. Big airships were a 'flash in the pan'. The age of the large airship lasted less than 20 years FOR A VERY GOOD REASON ! Trying to bring them back is a senseless waste of time. I've seen several ventures in this sector fail in my lifetime. They are as ridiculous as flying cars.

[@index7787]

@@grahamstevenson1740 agreed on all but the flying car, we already have flying cars, they are just called helicopters, they are just expensive AF, multi-rotors can easily change this in our life time, I have personally made an X8 that i can ride around in at 90+ mph for under $2000. And any improvement in battery technology will only make them more viable.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

@@index7787 NO. A helicopter is not a CAR. It has no ability to drive along roads. I can tell you that any advance in battery 'technology' is likely to be quite a small improvement. You'd need to understand their electrochemistry and practical manufacture to understand why in any detail though. What is this 'X8' ? BTW, it's HOVERING that uses huge amounts of power. There's no way of avoiding it in rotary wing aircraft. In conventional winged aircraft, the required lift is generated much more efficiently by forward motion of the wing.

[@CactusCowboyDan]

2 problems. Helium is not a renewable resource and is already running low on earth. So need to find an alternative to that. And what does an airship do in high winds?

[@kingduckford]

That's why hydrogen worked so well. Yes, extremely dangerous. But extremely cheap and expendable.

[@CactusCowboyDan]

@@kingduckford well we can’t use hydrogen because like you said, too dangerous. We don’t want a repeat of the Hindenburg. Nobody will ever infest in something that can easily explode while riding it.

[@sudokuacrobatics]

Hydrogen is only dangerous with a dangerous design, which was practically the norm back in the day.

[@TheElnots]

Hey I remember hearing about these airships transporting cargo in the 90s! I think Modern Marvels did a special on it. Glad to see that in over 20 years they have made a tiny amount of progress on it!

[@phoe8523]

I think it´s interesting to mention that Zeppelin developed the "Zeppelin NT" and most of it´s customers returned the Airships after leasing ended or even before that, because their business model failed. Okay, they "lost" one Airship in Africa to a heavy storm and later rebuilt it. The only companies flying these now are Goodyear and Zeppelin themselve. They don´t even attempt to join the Airship renaissance. The other company that tried to use an Airship for Cargo was CargoLifter. They had to file for bankruptcy later and the giant hangar is now housing the "Tropical Island".

[@marvinidler2289]

Cargolifter pretended to build an airship, never did. It was a scam, to collect subsidies and sell shares. This part worked well, people just wanted to believe.

[@phoe8523]

@@marvinidler2289 They actually had a working lifting cell and a working load transfer system, so they had more than other companies have right now.

[@marvinidler2289]

@@phoe8523 What they had was bought elsewhere. They didn't produce anything themselves. The celebrated the start of production with politicians, but never started.

[@tomc.5704]

Airship Ventures also tried to find a business model for airships. They lasted from 2007 - 2012 before disassembling their airship and sending it back to the factory

[@phoe8523]

@@tomc.5704 Yes, they have had a leasing contract and returned the ship and all the included ground equipment back to Zeppelin BEFORE leasing ended. They had a hard time finding flight passengers because that was unusual for the US. The other company was from Japan. Now both of them are flying over Europe.

[@markdavis2475]

I lived near to Cardington, it really was mind-blowing to see the Airlander flying over during testing! Shame they crashed it! They won't be the first or last airship company to set up, go to Cardington, spend huge amounts of cash, almost succeed, then fail! Sad but that's how it's been so far!

[@nogymrequired7534]

Hey, I live in Bedford too and a few years ago it flew over my house. The coolest thing ever, looks like it's straight out of the future.

[@nosnibor800]

Its such a persistant idea !

[@christianblu]

Only Americans could take a word spelt 'niche' and pronounce it 'nitch'. It makes them sound so idiotic. Ironically the word mostly gets used in documentaries and intellectually stimulating media at which point spoils the immersion of buying into the concept described.

[@PassTheSnails]

@@christianblu 1: who asked 2: I have almost exclusively heard individuals with a british accent pronounce it “nitch”

[@christianblu]

@cvo777 You have almost exclusively heard have you? So most Americans pronounce it correctly and it is exclusively the ones that make it into mainstream media that then decide to pronounce it "nitch"? I guess you are a "nitch" user. As you have incorrectly used "exclusively". I wonder do you also put "literally" in every second sentence for no reason? It is not your fault you are a product of your upbringing and it has failed you. Living in a country that has butchered so many things in their 300 years of "history" and have culminated in making Donald Trump the individual to lead them forward who could blame you?

[@lady_draguliana784]

Love this! One idea is Carbon Offset by Expansion. In developed countries where there are increasingly taxes and fees associated with Carbon Emissions, companies could perhaps be convinced to plug some of their gaps with airship tech for that purpose. Repurposing their existing 'fast' transport for priority shipping and shunting slow-speed jobs to new airships; essentially sacrificing nothing while reducing carbon-per-ton emissions. In particular, heavy shipping could end it's dependence on sea routes and fly directly to and fro, avoiding canals and circuitous routes entirely (except where needed to avoid certain airspace, o/c) and could also, potentially, utilized high altitude, high-speed air currents (like the trade winds) to accelerate voyage times just as ships use oceanic currents. So, if the cost of construction and cost per ton for operation is reasonable, shipping companies could build airships instead of *new* cargo sea ships, cross-country trucks, or rail lines; to expand their fleets or replenish tonnage capacity in need of replacement. This would potentially cheapen the shipping costs to companies and even *shorten* shipping times in the case of intercontinental and remote target area shipping.

[@onastick2411]

Eager to live in a third world country are you. Why go back to airships? Lets go the whole hog, oxen and cart, lets get our groceries from them, if you love ancient failed technologies so much.

[@michelemarcolin2548]

Nonsense. Emissions and CO2 issues are hoaxes. Ways for milking money that can not be motivated otherwise. There is no evidence of any increase of CO2 nor of the possibility to control its amount on earth.

[@AFMR0420]

It occurs to me that one could use anchors, tie lines and dynamic control surfaces that act as anti-lift wings (like a spoiler on a car), for controlling payload drop off better.

[@zuutlmna]

Ever wonder how the Germans during WW1 handled cargo/supply off-load situations, with those early Zeppelins?.. My guess is they took on ballast (water, sand bags) during the process of unloading, a well calculated weight-exchange process. Or think of those big passenger airships of the same era taking on passengers, baggage, supplies, fuel and other misc. all while at the mooring mast, as with the British airships. As weight increased during that process (boarding/loading), there were likely frequent water ballast discharges that maintained a comfortable equilibrium at the mast. The German Hindenburg airship delivered an small airplane to Brazil on one occasion, and an automobile (Volkswagon?) on another occasion. So the Hindenburg was moving both passengers and cargo.

[@Nill757]

Anchor cables can work (and were/are) if they can be set in still air conditions. They’re not going to be a reliable way of securing an airborne ship in high wind conditions. The only reliable way of securing a fixed buoyancy ship in most weather conditions, so far, is a high tower, which the ship can approach slowly upwind. Only a massive high tower is suitable for loading/unloading tons of cargo. The industry doesn’t want to for pay for such structures, so they push PR pieces like this in hopes of opening the public purse. The only way of practically managing airships is via dynamic buoyancy as w submarines, which would also be expensive.

[@carloscarrillo6493]

They do have "anchors" or as we {Crew of Airship} call them, 25-pound lead bags...! You have to carry two in each hand for offsetting the weigh of each passenger coming off the Airship while the blimp is moving and you are running to keep up with the motion all the while the propellers are turning at 33000 RPM at two feet away from your arms.

[@Nill757]

@@carloscarrillo6493 The anchors referenced above were fixed tie down cables. Still, the heavy bag transfer sounds like a very effective procedure, until bad weather or high winds come up, given all your procedures must be doable outdoors and with the ship airborne.

[@rexbentley8332]

Just turn the thing in to the wind.

[@futurehofer1564]

I think making airplanes greener and invest in rail seems easier and better I can see the utility of it but those are some major issues

[@bombasticbuster9340]

Use A.I. to anticipate weather and wind patterns. Action- Reaction props ran by the program. When unloading or loading an airship drop a hose for relieving , or compressing/ add lift gas and balast. We have tons of tech now to apply to these ships. It makes sense to get into remote areas and keep costs low for resource retrieval.

[@garethdavies9848]

I worked at Airship Industries, and trust me when it was a small fun idea it worked .Alan Bond(Swan Later Australian entrepreneur) ran us well at a distance. Once we started down the airborne early warning (potential navy)contracts path, we started employing waves of designers in London and eventually sold out to Westinghouse it was game over after that ,a couple of months of late to no pay and the alarm bells rang.The skyship 600' were great (can't go wrong with Porsche 911 engines) and a fantastic original design. Fond memories-sorry about the original badly written 1st draft thanks for the comments

[@garethdavies9848]

Thanks yes that was pretty bad have edited that

[@passerby4507]

Nick Allman, COO of Hybrid Air Vehicles, finally gets some global press coverage and the message he wants to tell the world is the pilot of the airship will have an amazing view. I wonder why no one is buying into this.

[@pappi8338]

Because of Helium-3 shortage, no mass production of vehicles, inefficient in speed and cargo capacity, etc...

[@Ithirahad]

@@pappi8338 Not sure where He-3 comes into this. It's a worse lifting gas than regular helium.

[@sean8514]

I absolutely love this idea, reborn as it is. If I could contribute to anything to it including sweeping floors, I would do it. This is what we need IMO to be applied in so many ways to so many industries.

[@SabbaticusRex]

It won't be economically viable right away ; the tech sort of stopped cold ages ago and it will take time , money and effort in order to create such new vehicles . But don't you agree that we sort of need passion projects like these where people donate their brain power , elbow grease and enthusiasm to offset the fact that 'oh no it wont make us tons of money so may as well trash it and all its future potential!' ... Imagine having co-ops in the fields of tech and aerospace and not just produce markets . heh . I would donate so much time and effort to such a project ..

[@hichamsaddek9496]

I love the way these owners are realistic with their idea, really great product but they dont dream of the impossible but only the possible and ways to make the impossible possible in a client's perspective not theirs, really great job there !

[@llejk]

I’d love to see more airships, but i’d never invest into helium based approaches. With nowadays tech, maybe we can build a capsule that can handle H2 explosions like nothing and still land save. I mean, people fly into space on skyscrapers build from explosives more energetic than H2, and return save all the time.

[@lucasgrey9794]

Dirty Helium is abundant and common. Clean Helium is the one that's rare. Dirty Helium is enough for airships.

[@JGott0001]

@@lucasgrey9794 I looked up "dirty helium" and found nothing. What are you talking about?

[@svsproductions1]

@@JGott0001 Quick definition... Balloon gas - or ‘dirty helium’ as it is sometimes known - is a by-product of the Grade-A helium used in technology and medicine.

[@JGott0001]

@@svsproductions1 thanks!

[@rougeomen7649]

I’ve been working on 27 patents that fix every problem talked about here. My dream is to revolutionize aviation with airships. I’m blown away that I never see any of these videos have any of my ideas already. I just need to save enough money working as a pilot for fedex then I’m going to fund a larger prototype. I have smaller models I have one large enough to fly me around with no fuel consumption. Fully electric. Pure solar 10 hour flight time. I keep in mind worst case scenarios like sandstorms, fire etc.

[@DieNextInLINE]

While the whole airship as a luxury passenger thing is silly, I really like the idea of it being used in the way that Flying Whales wants to. Im really not sure exactly how economically viable it is to design and build this thing, but ideally it does sound like a decent idea. I could see something like this being used in areas that our infrastructure hasn't been developed. Who knows, though. I'm still skeptical about how viable it is.

[@Chu6um]

The viability is intriguing, to say the least. I could see the upper skin being covered with newer, flexible solar panels providing electricity, and perhaps air condensing intake aspects for collecting water for use in shower or dining needs, using energy from the solar grid for heat and engine needs. A lot of conceptual possibilities if research progresses. It would be interesting to see this option progress, especially with the western nations pushing so hard to convert to 'green energy' solutions.

[@sammoschel2235]

perovskite solar cells

[@allenmorseiii295]

Fascinating! I did talk to a person who flew across the Atlantic in the sister ship to the Hindenberg and they said it was unlike anything they've experienced since...an oceanliner of the skies. However the Macon, as well as others used by the US Navy went down in squall lines. They're sensitive to weather, particularly crosswinds. So I'm not sure how an airship is going overcome this problem. The Airlander looks amazing in the interior but it would cruise slow and storms might be a problem. I would have to think twice before boarding one. Do I really want to do this?

[@Danielevans2]

It's just an enormous kite! I get scared landing a plane in bad weather but imagine it in an blimp 😳

[@phoe8523]

. . . and even ON the ground the danger is not over yet. The Zeppelin company lost only one of the "Zeppelin NT" and that was due to a heavy storm in Africa when the Airship was tied to the mast. They did not had a hangar there, only the mast vehicle. A Blimp (like Airlander) is the weakest form of an airship. It deforms in high winds but a hard landing is no problem. A Semi-Ridgid (like the Zeppelin NT) has a inner skeleton, connecting the fly-cells, motors and control surfaces, but it is still soft enough not to get damaged on a hard landing. A Ridgid Airship has a outer skeleton (like the FlyingWhale concept or older Zeppelins) and can fight even higher winds without significant damage, but it absolutely does not like any kind of harder ground contact.

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

If people wanted slower travel from one landmass to another, people would rather just use a cruise liner or a ferry. Blimps and Zeppelins won't see a surge in passenger service for a very long time. However, they could prove valuable for lifting cargo to specific sites that are difficult to access via other means; if they could fix the issue with wind direction.

[@user-uy1rg8td1v]

Cruise liners can't fly low and slow over rain forests, waterfalls, and mountains. Airships would be great for eco-tourism among other things.

[@williamburroughs9686]

13:20 There is another solution to the lift difference problem. Earlier in the video you stated that this type of airship was a heavier than air build. Meaning that you need to use the propellers and forward momentum to keep the aircraft airborne. Why use that to counterbalance the cargo. Then scale it down when you unload? You could also use a combination of propellers and ballast to maximize efficiency. You talked about using propellers would defeat the purpose, but you would also note that you would only need to additional force while carrying the load. Not while traveling to and from the site to pick up the load. Again, propellers and ballast in combo should help alleviate the additional cost.

[@Marthyboy88]

Use Graphite batteries and small turbines to keep electricity flowing to the propellers as well. Keeps overall weight lower by completely avoiding the need for fuel

[@AnalystRK]

I do not see it very practical for passenger transport, but it can play major role in cargo transport.

[@bliglum]

As a fan of Tale Spin as a child. I am looking forward to the resurgence of airships... Giant, airborne air-cruise ships, offering the best views, maybe a small airport..

[@PRH123]

Have been reading articles and watching programs for ~40 years about the relaunch of passenger and cargo carrying airships. There's none being used yet. Reminds one of flying cars or fusion power. Weather ballons and observation airships never stopped being used. This is the niche where they are truly useful.

[@Doofwarrior88]

I think an air ship passenger liner would be pretty awesome. I think people would enjoy flying in between major cities that are close together. You make it fun and luxurious. Like a party in the sky

[@Makeyourselfbig]

How many people do you think could afford something like that?

[@__-pl3jg]

I've been wanting to ride in a zeppelin ever since I was a kid so I hope these companies are a success.

[@phoe8523]

I had the chance to fly "Zeppelin NT" at the Bodensee/Lake Constance and it was just amazing. We had perfect weather and it was like floating. I flew with a helicpter before, but the NT was a completely different level.

[@frzstat]

The new fleet of Goodyear airships are Zeppelin NT

[@reedroffis]

the top speed being 80 mph is easily it's biggest issue. also the world is quickly running out of helium

[@ryan49805]

One of these that could run safely and effectively on solar would be soo cool and fun IMO.

[@MildMisanthropeMaybeMassive]

How feasible would it be to install wind turbine generators? They are already up in the air and using turbines to push.

[@Darkdenice06]

When thinking airships I can't help but think about the cross section of these things... how even a small wind could push it and create a ton of turbulence... not sure how stable you can get even with thrusters. As a passenger I would probably be terrified. Not to mention the ground crew have logs over their heads hanging when they are being loaded. Now for the French whale, they say one of the technologies needed would be compressors for helium that are efficient. Why not then just go down that road? Build these compressors, be the first one to. Then you can sell the tech to other companies or use it directly.

[@webstercat]

Flying North South / South North the Airship is moving 1 k mph “sideways”.

[@nzlemming]

Compressors (and compressed helium) are heavy. I think it will go that way eventually, but it needs a step change in technology.

[@jimwhelan9152]

True. The demise of large rigid frame airships (which differ from blimps) was due mostly to structural failures due to an inability to cope with things like wind shear. Modern materials may help but natural forces are very powerful. Keeping a large, light weight, structure stable is tremendously difficult.

[@DallasGunther]

A luxury airship trip over the top of the earth would be dope.

[@Gurci28]

Dirigibles include rigid airships (like the Hindenburg), semi-rigid airships (like the Zeppelin NT), and blimps (like the Goodyear blimp). A blimp (technically a “pressure airship”) is a powered, steerable, lighter-than-air vehicle whose shape is maintained by the pressure of the gases within its envelope. Zeppelins still fly today; in fact the new Goodyear airship is a not a blimp but a zeppelin, built by a descendant of the same company that built Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg. 12:21 [Airships Net]

[@danntrev]

60 mph cruise sounds great until you factor in, you know, THE WIND

[@walli6388]

You travel with the wind by using the Passat. So, you can be even faster.

[@danntrev]

@@walli6388 right so there are no strong gusts of wind at the North Pole. Totally a calm and predictable environment for a balloon

[@walli6388]

@@danntrev Google Passat wind l. Inform yourself before you write sth

[@danntrev]

@@walli6388 Google DEEZ

[@walli6388]

@@danntrev yeah, because I don't think someone like you has a book about geography at hand.

[@smitty1245]

I have no idea how much helium you would need to lift 60 tonnes, but it would cost a lot. Beyond possibly capsizing a ship from an unstable load, I don't see this as realistic outside of a niche luxury tourism item in remote areas. Why not put some PV panels on it to help generate power to help with all electric flight? Perhaps by the time that prototype is finally ready, we'll also have fusion energy that can take care of both our energy needs and helium production. :P

[@СоюзниксОкинавы]

Modern airships need to restore their He aprox every 4 years and that cost ~100R dollars.

[@AstraOG]

i think there could be a market for something similar to a houseboat but in the air. While the weight issue is a fairly straightforward answer to solving, an issue of concern would be how you have these not interfere with current air traffic. Personally, I would limit travel around high-traffic air corridors, and find some way to prevent interference with smaller aircraft. Perhaps places could have a designated flat, clear area near runways that is specifically meant for airship landing and parking.

[@jfobear1953]

He + H2? Surely there is a concentration of H2 that when added to He in an airship does not present a problem. Wouldn’t the addition of some H2 assist in further lightening the craft?

[@paulnwachukwu1175]

Helium is a Noble gas, i.e, it hardly form compounds. So I don't think this is possible, but even if possible would be under conditions like temperature (low or high), certain pressure, or maybe something else which would make it more expensive.

[@pappi8338]

No. He-3 is inert. H2 is diatomic. They won't mix anymore than water with oil. It would make it lighter, but the danger of H2 volatility would make anyone think back to the Hindenburg.

[@chrisbraid2907]

I think that there is a case for combining the gasses, just like adding solar powered compressors to regulate lift . If we can guarantee leak free containment of both gasses and work through which gas would be better left static and which better compressed, we could resolve the Safety issue that doomed the Hindenburg … think submarine principles but contained gas ….

[@pauleohl]

@@pappi8338 Science lesson for you. All gasses mix uniformly with each other unless they react with each other.

[@pauleohl]

The gain in lift is possible. Right now you can buy blends of hydrogen and nitrogen that are totally safe. The gas is used with a hydrogen leak detector to detect leaks in a factory setting.

[@lukemallon4499]

I love airships. ( I always imagined how cool one that looks like Thunderbird Two would look- especially if it was carrying one of those little yellow submersibles!)

[@johnghostwriterbr]

For loading and unloading cargo you could just lending the ship and attach it to a structure on the soil, it could make everything easier

[@johnlinden7398]

But how would these airships perform in bad weather or high winds , thunder , lightning , snow , etc ? But , seems like a great way to travel and enjoy the scenery !

[@mrspeigle1]

The true viability of this is going to be in the cargo sector particularly if it can be scaled up to carry larger loads. Getting cargo planes in-and-out of remote areas can be difficult, And if something like this could Be used the number of viable areas that could be exploited expand dramatically..

[@alanfriesen9837]

They need to design them so that they can dock at a port facility and get loaded and off-loaded by a crane.

[@marrqi7wini54]

@@alanfriesen9837 There are two solutions to that. One is to fix existing ports up to where loading and uploading cargo can be done in a safe and efficient manner. Two is to develop land for these airships.

[@alanfriesen9837]

@@marrqi7wini54 While I think that land facilities are fine, I'd like them to be able to take advantage of shipping docks because they are already designed to handle large carrier vehicles. Dirigibles could lower themselves to the water surface near a harbor and maneuver into a dock perhaps with the help of a pilot tug. Hydrogen compression would be crucial for this approach and their underbelly would have to be flat instead of rounded, but it would give them the traffic network that they would need to become successful.

[@puebespuebes8589]

1:15 this is just wrong, when the first zeppelin got to the sky they where a huge success, the 'graff zeppelin' was even known for it's safety and loonnng range, rigid airship either got canceled because of the media backlash of the hindembourg or because of ww2.

[@the_worst_of_friends924]

This was my 8th grade project and my sophomore project. A couple years ago, did a flying shipping company that got hydrogen from collecting water vapor in the atmosphere and then use electrolysis to obtain hydrogen.

[@flybobbie1449]

Problem, Europe tends to be windy. We had ships based at the airfield i operate from. One struggled to land in wind, then it snowed on the airship. Hour later we heard that it had crashed on a hill side. No one hurt though.

[@SK-zi3sr]

In Australia where our trains are slow I could see blimps being useful. The price of boarding would be a make or break. It doesn’t need to be high luxury necessarily

[@apocraphontripp4728]

I thought of this too. Respectfully, Id use a candermeran design, having 2 air ships with the passager area hanging on the bottom, for an increase stability. Imagine a 747 body in a triangle structure with 2 air ships above. The weight on the bottom would also give stability in heavy winds. Youd have reversible electric propellers on the front and back of each of the air ships, to give roll pitch yaw ect. You could also add long wings down from the higher airship parts, to increase stability and give a stabile platform for landing. It would be slow but you could carry heavy cargo efficiently. Added lift might be able to be achieved by having tungsten wires inside the airship parts to heat the inert helium, causing the helium to expand and create more lift. I could draw you a diagram to better explain it.

[@elliottre5019]

I have always supported the use of airships. Any problems they have can be easily overcome. Unfortunately most people just can't see the advantage. I hope the airship supporters don't give up.

[@hirsebrei90]

how do I overcome the weather? Cant turn it of...

[@drfirechief8958]

It does seem like a very niche endeavor. Things like an elevated electronic repeater system that can be used for observations, emergency communication or remote networking systems solves many of the weight issues. It also allows for more R&D with actual aircraft that are being positively used during a period of testing. Example would be airships orbiting a remote area or area of disaster constantly providing real-time information to and from a command center (not wartime). With two or three ships, you could provide 24 hour coverage. Also get lots of air hours with minimal personnel onboard.

[@gavving8364]

Interesting video. I was wondering if there has been any investigation into designing the motor propulsion system to be in two gondolas top and bottom . These gondolas would be structurally attached to each other and to the lifting frame such that the gondolas could turn 360 degrees relative to the lifting frame. The intent would be to have the lifting structure always turned into the wind while the gondolas turn and point in the direct you wish to travel. This would significantly decrease the side wind forces while traveling.

[@musaran2]

I remember a project with lenticular skin, and motors on a rail around.

[@nzlemming]

360? Which axis? I think we need to move away from jet thinking to sailing ship thinking, which was about moving with the wind, rather than fighting against it.

[@steveramsey7983]

@@nzlemming The horizontal plane. Depending on the direction of the wind, the nose would point into the wind on the horizontal plane.

[@IARRCSim]

An air ship flying in Venus's atmosphere might spark some more interest. The research invested in carefully designing and planning that spacecraft might solve some of the mentioned problems too. Deploying a miniature air ship on Jupiter would be a fascinating way to get extremely close up data from its atmosphere. Earth has strong competition from many other flying vehicles but space missions in thick atmospheres can make great cases for air ships. Many problems mentioned in the video aren't problems for a vehicle that is intended to simply maintain an elevation in a thick atmosphere and collect data wherever it goes. Actively controlling elevation with a helicopter or air plane wouldn't be sustainable for a months long mission in a thick atmosphere of another planet but floating with an air ship would work.

[@willfitz100]

And how do you propose an airship on Jupiter would work? Jupiter’s atmosphere is essentially all hydrogen.

[@Gnefitisis]

@@willfitz100 Yep. Jupiter wouldn't work at all. Not sure about Saturn either; would probably just need orbital velocity. However this would work wonderfully on Venus and the Ice Gaints.

[@IARRCSim]

@@Gnefitisis did you read and understand what I said about Jupiter? How would those points not work on Jupiter? I explained how the balloon could float in Jupiter using both heat and more complete filtering of hydrogen and helium. Jupiter doesn't have 100% hydrogen in its atmosphere so there is some opportunity to increase lift from maintaining gas that is closer to 100%. Just read my other comment.

[@Juan-ll6sf]

Smaller, faster airships can be used for cargo transport in places inaccessible for trucks

[@planescaped]

Man, I remember 6 year old me back in the 90's wonder why the heck there weren't any modern airships around. Seems I wasn't alone. Though I'd have never had the guts to try to bring them back.

[@ezion67]

This docu is just an other remake of a film from the 80's (or 90'). Same story, same arguments. The reason the big airship idea fails over and over again is not that hard to understand. A airship will always be a object with a size to weight ratio of a balloon. The inherent sensibility to even moderate winds limits the use of big airships is a way technology may never be able to fix.

[@shawnlee6633]

0:42 that’s technically true but a bit exaggerated. It makes you feel like the fuel cost that keeps an airplane in the sky is comparable to flying a stone or a brick. However, airplane has been sophisticatedly designed to reduce the fuel cost and glide in the air more easily.

[@puebespuebes8589]

Yes but plane still need power to keep flying, all this power is not needed for airship, it would be like trying to make a Ferrari as fuel efficient as a small twingo.

[@acb9896]

1:25 "Every one has failed." Goodyear Blimp "Why do I feel like I'm a joke to you?"

[@JohnnosaurusREX]

"If you look at it, every project ever failed regarding *large capacity airships*" 1 A blimp by defenition is not an airship. 2 Large capacity: A modern Goodyear blimp is less than 60m long. The Hindenburg almost 100 years ago was almost 250m long. The Goodyear blimp is tiny. 3 What purpouse does a Goodyear blimp serve, other than "look I'm a blimp"? The purpose of the Hindernburg was to farry 72 paying passagers at a time over the atlantic ocean, faster than any other transport at the time (before airships got killed by the airplane).

[@phoe8523]

The problem is that Goodyear operates it´s airships primarily for marketing. The rest of the income for the operations cost comes from broadcasting and (since they started to operate the "Zeppelin NT") paid passenger flights. The other company operating a fleet of "Zeppelin NT" is Zeppelin itself. For them it´s only economical because they are the manufacturer.

[@shrimpflea]

Actually yes, the Goodyear blimp is a joke.

[@Uda007]

I love so much the idea and was impressed with what they had done. Look very interesting and easy. After going through this video, now I can understand it is almost impossible to break through so many aspects like cost-effectiveness, the profit margin, competition with the other modes of transportation, and most critical are the technical things in the ability to move up and down or confront different types of weathers or wind condition because it mostly depends on the relativity of weight. Just a slightly different in weight or force can affect the plane. Looks like it gonna take another decade to see it really flying in the air. Maybe when we ran out of fuel or energy sources.

[@lemons3738]

How cheap could they eventually be made? Having small airship tours pop up would be cool, short flight around scenic/popular areas. Solar electric would have no fuel cost, if it gets affordable enough you could see small businesses popping up. Also if its sky crane could they eventually replace cranes at docks, ships would just need to get nearby for airships to reach it and start taking the cargo to shore. This could also be used with the existing cranes. Maybe it'd clear up the jams electric propellers could be used to assist in lifting. you could get it so the airship weighs maybe even just 1lb with it's lifting gas so it has something pulling it down. Solar electric motors should atleast beable to make up that difference and then some they could also be used to assist in descending. I think giant airships that look like quad copters or even octo copters would be amazing. Have the lifting gas adjusted for your pay load to be almost neutral and then use the electric motors to ascend/descend. Also could the logic used at 16:10 be used with modern cars and the forced push of EV's? internal combustion engines still work, and they work very well. My 2001 diesel f250 just crossed 450,000 miles I bought it used and it needed very little work to get back up and running its pretty clean for the miles but its soo many miles still sounds fine and pulls great. Some cars are lemons though, ive owned a few.

[@BigFella9]

Trains are: cheaper, eco friendly, and we already have the tech to use them and I personally would much rather go to the restroom on a stationary yet moving train then a bumpy airship.

[@СоюзниксОкинавы]

Trains can't go directly from Asia/Europe to America.

[@marvinidler2289]

@@СоюзниксОкинавы You don't want to travel between continents with 80 or 60 mph.

[@BigFella9]

@@СоюзниксОкинавы true but for long range travel we can use a electric airplane

[@СоюзниксОкинавы]

@@marvinidler2289 Actually yes, I still think that blimps have no chances now. But you can travel on the same intercontinental distances over huge countries (Russia, China as example) via trains with speed of 80 mph or even less.

[@СоюзниксОкинавы]

@@BigFella9 Here is problem with heavy batteries.

[@andrewthornley5172]

I can see this technology working in places like Australia. Looking beyond the commercial applications like passengers and cargo transport where there is a limited market and towards governmental applications such as Search and Rescue where vast areas need to be covered (think of the current flooding in the Eastern States), Royal Flying Doctor Service where procedures could potentially be carried out in the aircraft or even create a mobile hospital, bush fire fighting where a large load of fire retardant can be carried as well as fire-fighters could be dropped off and picked up from hard to reach areas, non-time critical deliveries to remote towns and farms. Military applications as well, monitoring of remote sea lanes or areas of sea for Illegal Foreign Fishing / Arrival vessels. In regards to 'loiter time' how do they compare with latest drone technology? Are air-ships a more economic alternative?

[@donkeytwoddle]

I think cheap balloon transport with a big drone on the back of the box of load would be better for Aus. If it worked well, you'd have a viable low cost thing. A half billion dollar ultra slow blimp... doesn't seem like a thing to solve Australian transport. I don't think it will take the market by storm. Take something cheap & smart that works: $100-$1k drones. + something cheap & smart that works: $100-1k weather & survailence balloons. vs. Something expensive that doesn't work for reason they havent offered a solution to: A half billion dollar mega blimp. Until they actually make a discovery that vastly improves on the established limitting factors of a blimp - I'm not very excited. A slight breeze, ultra expensive gas that leaks so easily, super expensive storage for the gas type needed, special expensive materials for the balloon & poor global helium supply chains are just a few issues. These guys made no actual discoveries; nothing has changed today that hinderred 1930s blimps sweeping the stage yesterday.

[@JustmeQuinn]

I personally don't think it would work too well in Aus as our distances are so far. Most cities are 800+km apart at a minimum. It would be hard to justify a 10+ hour airship flight from Syd to Melbourne when a flight is 1.5 hours and frequently only $50

[@bbaker6212]

how do they handle high wind? especially during takeoff and landing? It seems like they would have a problem even parked on the ground when there is wind due to the enormous size versus weight ratio. Computer controls sufficiently compensate for wind? I don't see how these things could even stay "parked" when there's strong wind unless in a huge and costly hanger building.

[@ulvesparker]

I have been interested in reviving airships (and submarines) since childhood. Maybe I am not seeing the innards of the Flying Whale, but I don't see how it is much different from conventional blimp/dirigible. Why so much redesign? I have seen some small scale experimentation with different shapes, like flying wings (delta), "sharks" (lifting bodies like that UK design), elongated ovate spheroids (like a bar of soap with flatter ends), and the horus (an elongated tube which is itself a giant ducted fan, and we already know ducted fans work). Since airships intrinsically have large surface areas, I wonder if some type of photovoltaic skin could be employed as a secondary power source. Also, if the skin was a watertight membrane, I wonder if generating condensate on the large interior surface could be used as a water secondary water source, at least for showering. And depending on the shape of the dirigible, I wonder if the top surface could be used as a small airfield for small ultralight planes.I Similar to the French cargo concept, I wonder if detachable passenger gondolas could be used to lower a mini-bus sized aerodynamic pod down below the main ship, to embark/debark people efficiently, for observation/recreation, or, as an emergency lifeboat (over the ocean). I wonder if a chain of these airship vehicles days apart, largely using naturally constant, high altitude, 300 kph global jetstream/gulfstream air currents around the world, might be an energy efficient and practical means of travel. Like, from Japan to North America, or from New York to England. And finally, since strategic supplies of helium have been stagnant (for 40 years now) and expensive to produce again in large quantity, I wonder if alternative lighter than air or compressible gases can be considered.

[@kieranh2005]

There is always hydrogen 😜

[@r0cketplumber]

Aside from its vulnerability to adverse weather, the economics are abysmal. With the same flyaway cost as a comparable airliner but only 1/8 the cruise speed (and less in a headwind) the ticket price per seat-mile is inherently 8x that of a typical 0.7 mach airliner. The lower fuel burn per mile can't make up for the lousy annual productivity.

[@TheDetailsMatter]

If your goal is to get there yesterday, you take the 300 MPH sardine tin and put up with the discomfort. If urgency isn't high on your priority list, you seek a more comfortable, if slower, means of travel.

[@r0cketplumber]

@@TheDetailsMatter Sure, cruise liners vs air liners. Point is, airships, like cruise ships, are not useful transportation although they can be an entertaining vacation. That is Econ 101 stuff.

[@Riskijan]

paling cocok untuk eksplorasi alam dengan segala kondisi medan, semoga segera ada untuk wisata