Airships for Cargo

easychair

I read this article in todays Telegraph about NASA developing airships to transport cargo. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/8739368/New-generation-of-airships-to-transport-goods-around-the-world.html

The article seems quite positive about what looks like more than a possibility, and I wonder will they be more environmentally friendly than transporting cargo by pantechnicons/trains/airplanes.

It's an interesting concept and I have yet to decide if this might be beneficial.

Macha

Interesting idea. I wonder what altitude they'd operate at. We have a massive amount of passenger flights taking place at any one time.

dashboard_hula

Would an airship transporting goods from say East Coast to West Coast USA be faster than a truck?
I love the idea personally, I also like the idea of airships replacing cruise liners as a way to see the world in a slow and relaxed way.
Nice use of NASAs time

easychair

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Would an airship transporting goods from say East Coast to West Coast USA be faster than a truck?
I love the idea personally, I also like the idea of airships replacing cruise liners as a way to see the world in a slow and relaxed way.
Nice use of NASAs time

I think the article says they can travel up to 110 mph. bearing in mind trucks could not hope to maintain anything approaching that speed, and that trucks can't go to their destination in a direct route, but must follow the usually longer route because they have to stay on roads, if its true on the face of it the airship seems as if it might be considerably quicker.

However, commercial air transport travels at speeds of 500 mph or more, so will still be faster on long journeys.

dashboard_hula

easychair wrote: »

I think the article says they can travel up to 110 mph. bearing in mind trucks could not hope to maintain anything approaching that speed, and that trucks can't go to their destination in a direct route, but must follow the usually longer route because they have to stay on roads, if its true on the face of it the airship seems as if it might be considerably quicker.

However, commercial air transport travels at speeds of 500 mph or more, so will still be faster on long journeys.

This could be quite handy though for goods that aren't required immediately (courier) and are non-food or non-perishable, in theory reducing both airmiles, delivery costs and jet fuel usage.

Wikipedia states that the use of hydrogen was part of the reason for airships downfall in the past, because it was highly flammable. Helium is safer, however I note that there are conservation issues with helium also - is there more helium than oil?

Mahatma coat

I've read about Heavy lift Airships being used to transport mining equipment across Africa where they have really come into their own as a cost saving device

110MPH tho thats a new development

crushproof

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Helium is safer, however I note that there are conservation issues with helium also - is there more helium than oil?

Reminds of an arcticle in THe Economist a couple of years ago about the diminshing helium supplies and how it's affecting the rapid rise in the cost of helium balloons!

The worlds largest helium reserve is in Texas and I read that it will be exhausted in 8-10 years, apparently Clinton back in the day decided to sell of the majority of the reserve to private companies. So it was cheap for a while but eventually crisis mode kicked in and it's been skyrocketing ever since. There's other reserves in Russia and some other places but it costs a fortune to extract...so perhaps we'll be saying goodbye to the humble helium balloon at some point

So I guess the cost of helium will be the main issue with this concept, which is pretty good, but of course one little crash or incident will lead to public outcry, derail the whole project, and send thousands of gas guzzling trucks back on the highways

recedite

The demo model sounds like it has an electric motor. I can't see it going at 100mph unless its in galeforce winds of 100mph.
The concept one is shown carrying tanks and military equipment. But it would be a turkey shoot for any enemy with a rpg launcher or a sam missile.

Still, I hope they do become viable for goods transportation.

dashboard_hula

I guess if helium were a non-starter to begin with, then maybe they could work on the safety aspects of hydrogen? Can helium be created?
The other fuel I saw listed was steam, but sher by the time you've enough steam created you'd have used nearly as much fuel as the helium/oil, no?

I think that they'd be great as a kind of constant air-ferry. If there were a high enough number in circulation to either large population hubs or isolated areas with a high enough population, it could be a great way to transport non-perishables or refrigerated goods but still be low impact.

I quite like this idea actually, hope it works out!

Capt'n Midnight

Helium is mainly found in natural gas wells in the US.


Hydrogen is fairly safe, Hindenburg was a thermite problem, and 2/3rd's of the people on board supplied.


Airships are faster than ships. But not faster than trains.

Airships can't fly above the weather.

Airships can carry dimensionally large loads that would be very difficult to do by road because of bridges , overhead power cables and other obstructions.

Ben D Bus

recedite wrote: »

The concept one is shown carrying tanks and military equipment. But it would be a turkey shoot for any enemy with a rpg launcher or a sam missile.

There was an article about this in the London Independent during the week.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-inventor-whos-putting-blimps-back-on-the-radar-2353673.html

The Independent wrote:

The inert helium is at such a low pressure that even if the blimp is holed by bullets it would take days to seep out (though 20,000ft is well beyond the range of anything not rocket-fuelled anyway). Surface to air missiles, meanwhile, bounce off without exploding and the ship cannot be detected by radar.

One defence industry official who saw the tests conducted on a prototype said: "We shot at it with 120 half-inch armour-piercing rounds and three days later the balloon was still flying. It's a remarkable piece of kit."

Capt'n Midnight

some anti aircraft missiles use a mechanism that unfolds into a large loop that slices through the fuselage - would rip through gas tanks like tissue paper

easychair

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

some anti aircraft missiles use a mechanism that unfolds into a large loop that slices through the fuselage - would rip through gas tanks like tissue paper

Are you sure? Would anti aircraft missiles be more likely to pass through as they would not realise they had hit anything.

In any case, it seems pretty unlikely that someone is going to use anti aircraft missiles on an airship carrying toilet paper or tins of baked beans or water pipes.

Capt'n Midnight

Here you go, military airships can be taken out with existing weapons
airships would be used to carry high value/time critical cargo so it's a prime target

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead
http://www.okieboat.com/Warhead%20history.html

The Mk 46 produced one continuous circular expanding ring. It expanded with full continuity to a radius of about 60 feet, and was 90% continuous at a radius of about 90 feet.

recedite

I could see a use for the airships in somewhere like Afghanistan as an alternative to road convoys which are vulnerable to ambush and IUD's.
Lets say a convoy of armoured cars were delivered to some remote spot a few Km from the final destination, and they then continued by road. The airship is only vulnerable on the final steep descent to the landing area, which cannot be predicted in advance by the enemy. Even if enemy fighters happen to be in the vicinity, the chances of them having the specialist missile and being ready to fire it are slim. So, compared to travelling all the way by road, much safer.

Capt'n Midnight

recedite wrote: »

I could see a use for the airships in somewhere like Afghanistan as an alternative to road convoys which are vulnerable to ambush and IUD's.
Lets say a convoy of armoured cars were delivered to some remote spot a few Km from the final destination, and they then continued by road. The airship is only vulnerable on the final steep descent to the landing area, which cannot be predicted in advance by the enemy. Even if enemy fighters happen to be in the vicinity, the chances of them having the specialist missile and being ready to fire it are slim. So, compared to travelling all the way by road, much safer.

shoulder mounted SAM's

There are situations where they excel
in WWII they reckoned that no convoy escorted by a radar equiped blimp lost any ships

they make excellent mine detection platforms, no ground pressure not even downwash

you can get 1Kg of lift per cubic meter of lifting gas bag - add in structure and spaces between the gas bags and the ballonet and fuel etc. and you are getting a lot less than 1Kg lift per cubic meter (volume of an semi detached house would be about 400m3 ) you'd a whole housing estate to lift an airship big enough to carry the 20-30 tonnes that a large truck can carry


The air density in Kabul is a little over 80% of that at sea level. This means your cargo capacity has dropped by 20% of the maximum gross weight

At present much of the cargo carried into Afghanistan is done by civilian drivers. Over 145 of them have been killed. Unfortunately it still by far the cheapest way.

recedite

Good points.... although re SAM missiles, it was stated earlier that (presumably standard warhead) "Surface to air missiles, meanwhile, bounce off without exploding"

Capt'n Midnight

recedite wrote: »

Good points.... although re SAM missiles, it was stated earlier that (presumably standard warhead) "Surface to air missiles, meanwhile, bounce off without exploding"

http://www.maritimesecurity.com/rpg7.htm

The RPG-7 has also been adapted to serve as expedient anti-aircraft artillery against low-flying helicopters. The first generation of RPG-7 rounds had no self-destruct mechanism and only detonated on impact. These older rounds can be lobbed out to approximately 1400 meters by super elevating the launcher; newer generation RPG-7 rounds self-detonate after a time of flight equivalent to roughly 900 meters, which limits their range as improvised indirect-fire weapons, but increases their effectiveness as anti-helicopter weapons because they burst in mid-air.

recedite

Also, If military airships were deployed, it wouldn't be long before a purpose designed RPG warhead with more sensitive detonation and a fireball or shrapnel type explosion became available to counter them.