Re: Where will the test flights happen?
They're based in San Diego, but that photo is in front of the Tustin hangers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Air_Station_Tustin Which have their own quite remarkable history.
Good news for airship fanciers this week, as it appears that the world's first rigid airship since the 1930s will soon take to the skies for flight trials: and better still, this ship has a new piece of technology which could actually change the existing landscape and permit the leviathans of the skies to return. Rigid ships …
Because the US is where the market will be, at least initially. Every attention starved company and Internet billionaire will have to have one. It also saves on airworthiness certification hassle and cost as they'd have to repeat a lot of the same tests done in Europe to get certified here anyway.
I'm guessing the fuel consumption for one of these things is low, even with the internal pumps. The materials look pretty standard, and since most of the size of the thing is gas, they would be relatively cheap to mass-produce.
This could really turn a profit.
Overnight sleeper flights, similar to the sleeper bus that Megabus is trialling at the moment, only in one of these things! Might even be cheaper than the Megabus. No traffic concerns, an as-the-crow-flies route, and most of the energy is used on forward momentum.
Since it seems to be a form of VTOL, you could stick the stations on the tops of hills and buildings in urban areas, away from the airports themselves.
They should shine as affordable long(ish) haul transportation. Sure, a plane can do it faster, but they are insanely fuel inefficient, have limited load capacity, are expensive to maintain and require huge dedicated ground facilities to accommodate take off/landing.
Your bus comparison is a good one. Faster, leaner transportation would become more expensive and airships would become the mode of transportation for those who don't have to be there this afternoon.
Exactly.
I have been flown around the country for meetings by bosses before. Not the "business meeting" type meetings, playing golf with Japanese oil barons or whatever, but the kind where a small company drags all it's regional and line managers down to HQ for training and mutual humiliation games.
In these cases, the PA just books everybody a cheap flight or train, and a room in a travelodge. If the Megabus sleeper had been going back then, we probably would have been shoved on there.
That's the kind of market I see for this. Summer music festivals, bank holidays, backpackers, and any other situation where time isn't an issue, but money is.
HippyFreetard,
Oddly enough, I couldn't get anyone to agree to do that when I was putting in the business travel miles, ten years ago. We had offices in 2 major European cities. It was a ten hour drive or a €700 flight. Until Ryanair gave Lufthansa the shafting they so richly deserved for their gouging... But, there was a sleeper service on the train. Leave at about 11pm, get in at 7am, only €150 for a double room to yourself, and of course, no need for hotels. I couldn't persuade anyone to do it. I never had a meeting there, so never got to do the trip.
I bet the miserable buggers would have even refused to go by airship too!
Back in the day I used this quite often. Good days work in Southern England. Leasurly drive to Euston/Bristol. Few beers & a bed (car elsewhere on the train with all my stuff). Arrive, Edinburgh, Carlisle, Aberdeen early doors. Tea & bickies from the steward. Prper breakfast in smack bang in the city centre in time to get to the 1st meeting before the target staff arrived. About £100 1 way. Suited me.
To cut a long story short I have a friend who suffered a lung injury on holiday{(vacation :)} in Florida. Once released by the Docs {Medics:)} he & his family had to travel home to the UK on a cruise ship.
It's a small application but would a commercial passenger Airship fly at a suitable altitude to negate this situation.
(Ironically, on arriving home, their insurance policy had small print indicating thay could have chartered a sub 10,000 feet flight home. (v.good insurance).
Hmmm, airships as buses. Now I have this vision of getting up early, and commuting to work on a combined airship/bus/cafe. Hey man, I'm living in the future! Where's my silver jumpsuit? Now pass me the bacon sarnie and tea.
Even better would be if the bus station was some sort of giant tower with a lift to get up to the top and a slide to get down.
Clearly this isn't going to happen for us normal peasants. But maybe Google will do it? They already have free buses with Wi-Fi to their offices, cafes and a tendency to go mad with slides and cushions when decorating. Plus a huge surface on which to run adverts in the sky, what's not to like?
That way of controlling buoyancy is exactly what submarines do: suck in and store compressed the lighter-than-outside substance (air resp. helium) and let in the outside neutral substance (water resp. air).
With gasses you can use flexible bags for the buoyant part (instead of open-at-the-bottom tanks) and inflexible bags for the compressed storage (instead of high pressure cylinders). Density of He is 4, density of air is about 30 (molecular mass of N2 + some O2) so you only need squeeze the He to about 8 bar and it's no longer at all buoyant.
Fair enough, subs discard the air when they dive, and use air they stored compressed earlier when they blow tanks; and it vents as it expands as they surface and pressure drops, but.... it's the storage that they have in common.
And yes, it is Thunderbird 2, hurrah!
As mentioned in another post above, it's not necessarily a matter of compressing the helium to 8 bar. If the thing is designed to be neutrally buoyant at the ceiling altitude and maximum loading, then it is a matter of compressing enough of the helium to reduce its buoyancy as cargo is offloaded, or you wish to descend. This could be a large amount of the helium compressed to a lower pressure, or a smaller amount at a higher pressure. For instance, compressing half of the helium to 2 bar would reduce the lift by 25% (if my mental arithmetic is right), which depending on how large the thing is could account for a significant amount of cargo weight. I would imagine that there is a trade-off between the size of the pressure tanks required, and their pressure rating, with an optimal balance at a somewhat higher pressure than this.
Isn't there a bit of a risk that if you attempt an analysis based on "this is how freight and passengers currently move around the world using method X,Y and Z so new method Q will only be able to take r% of the traffic" then you are not taking into account new traffic generation? The last couple of decades have shown that, yes, some new technogies really are just solutions looking for needs (and disappear shortly thereafter) but that in some cases it turns out there was a hidden need that just wasn't serviced by X,Y or Z but for which Q is just perfect. I don't have any ideas what that might be in this case but, for example, everyone who analysed the mobile phone market 10 years ago and said "I've analysed current phone usage and there is no demand for a phone that is too big to fit in your pocket and, seriously, why would it need a camera?" is probably feeling pretty silly now.
Presumably compressing air is just off setting the lift from the helium.
So ballast is increased. But the lift being generated is the same, but does produce an overall loss in buoyancy.
Whereas compressing the helium does the above plus also removes the lift it was providing in the first place. So a double effect.
So ballast is increased again. But the lift being generated is also reduced, so a greater overall loss in buoyancy.
> when you can take in and compress air instead?
Notwithstanding the excellent reason given by another poster, compressing air rather than helium could also be quite handy for giving the ship an extra push when taking off or as an aid to manoeuvring. You wouldn't mind ejecting compressed air at all, as opposed to expensive helium. Given the quantities involved it's probably not practical, though.
I agree that Richard has an excellent point. You have to compress helium to 8 bar to offset its buoyancy, if you compressed the same volume of air to only 2 bar you'd get the same effect. Or compress 1/4th as much air to 8 bar. Either way it should require less energy.
Moving the helium around increases the risk you lose some, and moving air around only takes place one way (since you just vent it when you want your buoyancy back) meaning twice as much plumbing or more complex two way valves for the helium solution.
I also like the idea of squirting air to aid maneuvering. Having some air outlets around the bottom controlled by computer to aid maneuvering during takeoff/landing is cheaper than having a bunch of small extra propellers used only a few minutes per flight.
from aeroscraft's own website:
Another way to understand VTOL is to compare the Aeroscraft to a submarine. For example, when a submarine needs to dive into the water, it takes on water to make it heavier. When the submarine needs to surface, it releases that water to become lighter. Similarly, the Aeroscraft can control its weight by releasing and taking on air, controlling the heaviness or lightness of the vehicle.
Perhaps they could be used to bring high bandwidth internet via long distance microwave connections to outback Australia. (There is already a microwave connection over 580 km between Adelaide in South Australia and Broken Hill in New South Wales, using towers.) In that scenario they would be fully automated to remain at specific latitudes and longitudes, with height maintained through the use of COSH.
We can use a lot of new materials developed since the last rigids. Carbon fibre composites replacing aluminium alloys, synthetics replacing cow intestines in gasbags, kevlar replacing steel wires; there are so many better choices.
And sometimes the engineers of that era just got it right. What might Barnes Wallis have done with our tools?
Although hinted at by a few other commentards, I think leisure trips (air cruises) could be the greatest money spinner for this. It has just about everything going for it. Quiet smooth travel, lots of room, stunning views, and can comfortably go where absolutely no other form of transport can.
I'd never entertain the idea of a sea cruise, but I'd certainly pony up for a week over Europe.
Are rather nice. I like.
I am quite sure I have seen an old Soviet rigid (or a semi-) in the air when I was a kid and I thought it looked awesome.
To pass time while we are waiting for the test results of the COSH ship I would recommend listening to the magnificent "Curly's Airships" by Judge Smith:
The whole songstory is about the R.101 disaster but these 2 tracks are about the R.33
There isn't much more on the internet - get a CD from Amazon while they are still in stock...
collecting Airbus parts from around Europe, and dropping them off at the factory in France. Doesn't the current Airbus wings have to do a barge-boat-truck trip from Wales to Toulouse?
Vertical take off and landing from hanger door to hanger door with minimal packing would save lots of hours and £££.
For about four years, Airship Ventures ran a Zeppelin in the San Francisco Bay Area and occasionally took it on the road around the US. It was built in Germany, and while it was a lot smaller than the Hindenburg, it was a real dirigible. It used helium, and held a dozen passengers. It was based out of the old Moffett Field blimp hangers in Silicon Valley, and ran tours, usually flying at 500-1000 feet for an hour or two, and it was an amazing ride. It was also used for some local scientific research. In spite of the economic decline, there were still enough people to keep a Zeppelin flying around, though the 10x rise in the price of helium finally killed them.
Flotation is all about your mass versus the mass of the air you displace. If the air mass is greater, you float. If not, not.
Now the point of all the jiggery-pokery is not to lose any mass at all from the airship. it follows that you can compress, decompress or dance the conga, it won't change your flotation unless you displace more or less air in the process. So COSH must either change the displacement (by inflating or deflating bags) or the total mass (by taking on or releasing something, probably air).
COSH seems similar to an idea i had about adding to full industrial size quad copters. Never calculated the feasibility. But the pressurized helium would be in rigid tanks and the envelope would be flexible and retractable. It would aid in take off, hovering and landing. Saving fuel in the most thirsty portions of a jaunt.
If COSH offers the chance to choose your own height then you maybe have an airship that can cruise at 30,000 ft like a modern jet. Then you're above the weather and drag will be a fraction of what the Zeppelins experienced down at 3000 ft or less - so with good aerodynamics 250 kt cruising? And I guess loitering up there for a few days is no problem
Some of the technology already exists. German diesels from WW2 gave full power at 40000ft and had fuel comsumption still impressive today. And all this talk about tyres bursting - 19th century train brakes operated at 5 bar, truck tyres come in around 8 bar and don't even ask about aircraft hydraulics.