I love the idea of zeppelins. It started when I saw Blade Runner and I saw the add blimp. I want to know, is their a possibility for zeppelin travel to return? Could modern technology be used to make economical and safe airship travel?

High winds are a very difficult thing for them. Finding a shelter is always

going to be difficult. Building and Maintaining them is a problem. They are

very very slow in getting from place to place. They can't hold to many

people. Those are just a few of the problems with them.

I personally think this is a very untapped market. They could make them sooo safe nowadays. Some people are in no particular hurry and wouldn't mind traveling this way.


They might be a necessity someday, as they could probably be powered from solar energy alone.

I can think of quite few military applications I won't go into.

A company called Worldwide Aeros is trying to develop a hybrid airship with small wings for additional lift:

http://www.aerosml.com/gallery.htm

I personally think this is a very untapped market. They could make them sooo safe nowadays. Some people are in no particular hurry and wouldn't mind traveling this way.


They might be a necessity someday, as they could probably be powered from solar energy alone.

I can think of quite few military applications I won't go into.
Elaborate please…you have peaked my interest!

These things can operate above cloud cover and have a lot of surface area, that screams solar energy.

Military, off the top of my head and non-terroristic:

Awacs
Refuel
Retaliation strike Platform
Supply drop
Naval search(and long range engagement - bring back the phoenix)

Considering modern asymmetrical warfare(including complete air supremacy for one side), just about anything a jet can do, an airship can do..cheaper.

These things can operate above cloud cover and have a lot of surface area, that screams solar energy.
Especially of the 'thin film' variety.

An airship can handle fair wind, and match light planes for speed (far outpacing cars, ships, or most trains).

They probably need to be hydrogen filled, to become prevalent. Helium is too expensive and too heavy, as well as being a non-renewable resource. Hydrogen is not as dangerous as advertised.

The big German Zepps carried over a hundred people, and in style - grand pianos, wine bars, etc - at over 70 mph in 1932. They were probably the safest means of long distance travel ever invented. And serious technological advances ahve been made since.

I'm surprised no South American country has looked into them. Road and track building is hell on that continent.

They were probably the safest means of long distance travel ever invented

Actually ships were far better and safer as well. Ships could also carry

thousadnds of people. Todays aircraft hold up to 500 people with over 800

people that are going to be carried by new designs in the future. Airships or

blimps don't have any place in the skies today. They are like dinosaurs,

obsolete. Helicoptors can carry people fasrer short distances as well.

Advantages :

-Almost no energy expended to stay aloft
-VERY high altitude potential

Disadvantages :

-Price of buoyant gases
-Speed limit, due to aerodynamic cross-sectional area

Feel free to add to the pros/cons list.

I saw a design for airships that lift horizontally, and could lift A LOT. A suggested use was using them to move stuff from, say, the pier to your factory a short distance away, since it wouldn't matter on the size of the roads, etc.

Airships are generally bulky, slow, expensive to maintain, expensive to refuel, and make easy targets for pretty much anything that is moving in its general direction.

The good things are that they are capable of being steady and make good platforms for moving very large quantities of cargo or people. Basically an airship can be a floating cruise ship.

Too bad engineers cant figure out how to use perfects vacuums to provide lift. I imagine that would be lighter than hydrogen...too many structural problems I guess.

Too bad engineers cant figure out how to use perfects vacuums to provide lift. I imagine that would be lighter than hydrogen...too many structural problems I guess.

How... how would that even work?

Would nothing float to the top or sink to the bottom?

How... how would that even work?Probably wouldnt work. I just recall there was a science fiction novel back in the 50s-60s about a futuristic city where folks flew around in ships kept aloft by large vacuum capsules.

Zero air is lighter than hydrogen...but probably not by much.

Maybe airships would be better off shaped like frisbees. If something goes wrong they can just float gently to the ground. :cool:

Airships generally are designed to go 30 to 50 MPH. They can be designed to go 70 MPH at a higher altitude (less drag). So they can be a good solution to Cargo transport by sea.

Flying Casino anyone?

Airships generally are designed to go 30 to 50 MPH. They can be designed to go 70 MPH at a higher altitude (less drag). So they can be a good solution to Cargo transport by sea.

Flying Casino anyone?



Better to have a supertanker converted to a casino with launches from

shore to it.

Flying Casinos, hotels, RVs? That would be interesting and a big buisness if it was ever created.

Actually ships were far better and safer as well. I don't know about "better" (a zep can drop you at your local bus station in a fifth the time it takes a very fast ship to get between major ports, across the Atlantic)

and "safer" I would have to see demonstrated. The German Zepps had never lost a passenger until the Hindenburg - that was new technology (less than a generation of experience) being used in regular passenger transport across a major ocean long before modern weather reporting, etc, in perfect safety.

The major virtue would be the lack of need for roads or tracks or even large airports (the Empire State Building was designed as a Zeppelin port).

In a place already heavily invested in roads and such infrastructure, the competitive advantages of balloons are less. In other places, however - -.

Airships are generally bulky, slow, expensive to maintain, expensive to refuel, Compared with what, is the question. A thousand miles of freeway with ten bridges and a fleeto of semis ?

could a rotor sail help to increase a zeplins payload?
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_ship)

Can we use both hydrogen and helium? Hydrogen balls at the center surrounded by helium ballons....so that the hydrogen does not come in contact with oxygen?

if te hydrogen gets out then the helium is sure to follow, something denser that solidifies when it comes in contact with air would be better, no?

Can we use both hydrogen and helium? Hydrogen balls at the center surrounded by helium ballons....so that the hydrogen does not come in contact with oxygen?


Use Helium alone it isn't flamable. Again airships are just stupid to use today

with helicoptors, planes, ships, trains and trucks as well as barges.

Use Helium alone it isn't flamable. Again airships are just stupid to use today

with helicoptors, planes, ships, trains and trucks as well as barges.

Well there are such things like cruises and the whole experience probably feels like a 5 star air balloon.Personally I wouldn't mind taking a tour over the amazon then follow the coast line etc. But then again as a means of transportation? No I don't think so. A other usuful apllication might be as unmaned controlable balloons that can take over satelite tasks at a fraction of the costs

Use Helium alone it isn't flamable. Again airships are just stupid to use today

with helicoptors, planes, ships, trains and trucks as well as barges.

Stupid, why? For lift, you need energy, for sea you can not go faster (energy limiting). Somewhere I read, for a given weight and long distance, airships will be more nergy efficient.

Airships require less onboard fuel than a traditional aircraft .

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1032/

http://www.ecogeek.org/images/image/airshipmoby.jpg

Now picture that thing in the winter with howling winds exceeding 40 knots

and a blizzard out. What do you think its going to do? Where is it stored?

How long will it take with a 30 knot headwind to go 200 miles?

All this talk of lighter than air technology has got me thinking of the possibility of using hollow carbon fiber fins on ships such as this:

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/7358/cimg0311sh5.jpg

With all the air sucked out to form perfect vacuums inside for more buoyancy.

How long will it take with a 30 knot headwind to go 200 miles?

Long time. That never prevented sailing ships with mast on for many many years. If people can take advantage of the wind then, and travelled the world... why not now?

Long time. That never prevented sailing ships with mast on for many many years. If people can take advantage of the wind then, and travelled the world... why not now?



Because today we have other modes of transportation, or haven't you read

my posts? These new and improved modes of transportation are faster,

carry more people and are safer than airships.

These new and improved modes of transportation are faster, carry more people and are safer than airships.

Which airship system you are comapring to? There is no modern airship in operation. ???

Which airship system you are comapring to? There is no modern airship in operation. ???


I'm not refering to airships if you will reread my post. I was saying there are

better ways to transport people today than with airships.

I'm not refering to airships if you will reread my post. I was saying there are

better ways to transport people today than with airships.

And I am saying that you can not compare something to an imaginary product or system. Did you get it this time? :D

Heres a wacky idea...nuclear airships.

Some types of pebble reactors already use helium to transfer heat from the uranium to the water boiler.

It is circulated between the spheres of graphite containing fissionable uranium.

Sooo...why not use a small reactor to heat the helium up to several hundred degrees?

Providing far more lift than cold helium...and using perhaps no more than a few kilograms of uranium.

Now picture that thing in the winter with howling winds exceeding 40 knots

and a blizzard out. What do you think its going to do? Where is it stored?

How long will it take with a 30 knot headwind to go 200 miles? The German Zepps, designed to fly in a German winter with 1920's technology, operated in winter with howling winds across the Atlantic Ocean on regular passenger runs in perfect safety. Never lost a passenger, millions of miles covered, no modern weather gear or fabrics or satellite reports or radar or anything.

They made upwards of 80mph with pre-WWII heavy deisel engines driving giant propellers accellerating a steel and iron frame supporting a resin-impregnated canvas body.

Of course once you've got the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in freeways, tunnels through mountains and under rivers and oceans, land set aside for huge airports and thousands of square miles of parking and so forth, an airship might not add up as a further investment. But across South America, the Indonesian Archipelago, the Siberian permafrost, the Saharan Desert, etc, the economics might be different, for some applications.

Heres a wacky idea...nuclear airships.

Some types of pebble reactors already use helium to transfer heat from the uranium to the water boiler.

It is circulated between the spheres of graphite containing fissionable uranium.

Sooo...why not use a small reactor to heat the helium up to several hundred degrees?

Providing far more lift than cold helium...and using perhaps no more than a few kilograms of uranium.



Then a problem develops and it crashes into a populated city releasing radioactivity everywhere. Or terrorists take it over and collide it with a structure which again send off radioactivity.

There is an ideal shape for a given speed of airship, but generally speaking the speed ranges are much less than those of jet-powered aircraft.

The ellipsoidal shape is very desirable and efficient. The size of today's airships, if we want them to be a competent form of transportation and shipping, should be vastly larger than the zeppelins of the 1930s.

The main problem is the price of helium. Carcano pointed out that there can be means of trying to inflate the volume further using energy sources such as nuclear. Probably an airship could be half-hot air, half helium, since hot helium is difficult to control due to its diffusion characteristics. Same thing with hydrogen surrounded by helium (kmguru).

Probably an airship could be half-hot air, half helium, since hot helium is difficult to control due to its diffusion characteristics.
I imagine the lift gas gets very cold at high altitudes, so warming it up to 200 degrees seems a good idea.

These things can operate above cloud cover and have a lot of surface area, that screams solar energy.

Military, off the top of my head and non-terroristic:

Awacs
Refuel
Retaliation strike Platform
Supply drop
Naval search(and long range engagement - bring back the phoenix)

Considering modern asymmetrical warfare(including complete air supremacy for one side), just about anything a jet can do, an airship can do..cheaper.
The only mission area where airships are being looked into for military applications is as UAVs for surveillance due to the endurance potential they offer beyond conventional aircraft. It is extremely unlikely that you will ever see them carrying ordnance or personnel.

These things can operate above cloud cover and have a lot of surface area, that screams solar energy.

Military, off the top of my head and non-terroristic:

Awacs
Refuel
Retaliation strike Platform
Supply drop
Naval search(and long range engagement - bring back the phoenix)

Considering modern asymmetrical warfare(including complete air supremacy for one side), just about anything a jet can do, an airship can do..cheaper.


I'd have to disagree. I don't see blimps/airships as having any practical military application. If you wanted to fit and airship to do the job of an airplane or jet, it would more than likely end up far less efficient.

Should not we have an air platform like Navy Aircraft Carrier?

Should not we have an air platform like Navy Aircraft Carrier?
How many cubic parsecs of hydrogen would it take to float 80+ combat aircraft, millions of gallons of JP-5, hundreds of tons of ordnance, ~3000 personnel (at least), and the facilities to launch/recover, store, maintain/repair, operate, feed, and berth them?

A lot? Either that or work on an antigravity gizmo?

"In April of this year DARPA initiated a program to develop a heavier-than-air, intercontinental airship capable of rapidly transporting military men and equipment to a war zone. The plan, designated WALRUS, would call for a fleet of airships capable of transporting upwards of 500 tons of cargo 6,000 miles in 4 days. Not bad when you consider a standard C-130 C-130 cargo plane, can carry about 22 tons. In addition, it is expected that these airships will also carry sufficient supplies (food, ammunition, fuel, parts, and equipment) to sustain the force for at least 72 hours. In the current war on terrorism, with an increased need for strategic airlifts, that's a hefty amount of equipment and personnel, and given our current fuel crisis, the relative fuel efficiency of an airship compared to a standard cargo aircraft is something Defense budgeters can agree with."

"In April of this year DARPA initiated a program to develop a heavier-than-air, intercontinental airship capable of rapidly transporting military men and equipment to a war zone. The plan, designated WALRUS, would call for a fleet of airships capable of transporting upwards of 500 tons of cargo 6,000 miles in 4 days. Not bad when you consider a standard C-130 C-130 cargo plane, can carry about 22 tons. In addition, it is expected that these airships will also carry sufficient supplies (food, ammunition, fuel, parts, and equipment) to sustain the force for at least 72 hours. In the current war on terrorism, with an increased need for strategic airlifts, that's a hefty amount of equipment and personnel, and given our current fuel crisis, the relative fuel efficiency of an airship compared to a standard cargo aircraft is something Defense budgeters can agree with."

Gee, I just wonder how the bad huys are going to shoot that thing down. I guess they have to find it going so slow and stealth like!:eek:

Which type of bad guys? You need a surface to air missile not an RPG at that height. While the range is about 900 meters, accuracy falls off after 300 meters.

Gee, I just wonder how the bad huys are going to shoot that thing down. I guess they have to find it going so slow and stealth like!:eek:

It's not a combat drop lol

It's not a combat drop lol

From my take on what was said it seems that it was bringing in supplies to the military somewhere. If they are going to be over hostile areas I'd think that airships will be a vety big, fat juicy target for S A M S. Although you might not consider them easy targets for smaller types of R P G's , they do have to land somewhere and again gee wiz look at them sitting on the ground waiting to be R P G at! Airships just aren't the thing to have during any conflicts.

"In April of this year DARPA initiated a program to develop a heavier-than-air, intercontinental airship capable of rapidly transporting military men and equipment to a war zone. The plan, designated WALRUS, would call for a fleet of airships capable of transporting upwards of 500 tons of cargo 6,000 miles in 4 days. Not bad when you consider a standard C-130 C-130 cargo plane, can carry about 22 tons. In addition, it is expected that these airships will also carry sufficient supplies (food, ammunition, fuel, parts, and equipment) to sustain the force for at least 72 hours. In the current war on terrorism, with an increased need for strategic airlifts, that's a hefty amount of equipment and personnel, and given our current fuel crisis, the relative fuel efficiency of an airship compared to a standard cargo aircraft is something Defense budgeters can agree with."
Heavier than air though. This was (WALRUS has been canceled) one of those trojan projects that DARPA has going on all the time, which is a feasibility study more than a proof of concept.

As a general rule, transport aircraft are operated in areas where enemy air defenses have been suppressed and air dominance has been achieved. For extremely valuable strategic assets like these, you can bet your life that they wouldn't overfly an active enemy air defense zone.

Thank you Echo3, it is nice to have a person inside.

People are itching to build Airships and looking for excuses. May be a cruise line?

There was something in the press a couple of months back where a reporter expressed how their flight in an airship was in comparison to the cramped conditions of a plane. Pre-war airships had cabins and even grand piano's on board, I'm not suggesting we need airships as extravagant however it gives you an idea as to how much weight they could take.

The reason for the Hindenburg disaster was mostly down to the use of Hydrogen, it wasn't the choice fuel for airships because of it's known combustibility however the Germans at the time were under trade embargo's where they couldn't purchase Helium from the USA, which is why they were left with Hydrogen.

They attempted to make it as safe as possible but it still resulted in the disaster that most think of when thinking of airships.

The US government has a Surveillance Blimp for trying to track drug runners and immigration over the souther border.

In essence they actually make far greater sense than aircraft because you don't necessarily have to combust any fuel for propulsion (Solar paneling) which definitely lessens the pollutants that would otherwise be sky bound.

The US government has a Surveillance Blimp for trying to track drug runners and immigration over the souther border.

There are such blimps and they are radar types that don't have a manned crew. They are tethered to something and hoisted into the air for better radar tracking of unknown ships and aircraft.

There was something in the press a couple of months back where a reporter expressed how their flight in an airship was in comparison to the cramped conditions of a plane. Pre-war airships had cabins and even grand piano's on board, I'm not suggesting we need airships as extravagant however it gives you an idea as to how much weight they could take.

The reason for the Hindenburg disaster was mostly down to the use of Hydrogen, it wasn't the choice fuel for airships because of it's known combustibility however the Germans at the time were under trade embargo's where they couldn't purchase Helium from the USA, which is why they were left with Hydrogen.
Don't forget the dope on the fabric, which had a sort of quasi-thermite compound in it that the Germans thought contributed to the fire. A majority of the hydrogen actually floated away before combusting.

Don't forget the dope on the fabric, which had a sort of quasi-thermite compound in it that the Germans thought contributed to the fire. A majority of the hydrogen actually floated away before combusting.

That would be down the Aluminium present that was suppose to stop radicals catalysing the hydrogen (Basically it attempted to shield the hydrogen from various radiologicals). The one thing that is commonly missed is that during the same week of the disaster, The US's 1st Army Signal Corps was conducting experiments involving the first Radar systems. There is a remote possibility that the accident involved the run up usage of such equipment prior to a demonstration of RADAR, since the Zeppelin would not have been shielded against RADAR Doppler's at the time. (Admittedly the only way to test this would be build a small replica model and attempt to ignite it using a scaled down version of the RADAR in testing)

Helium is a mined, non-renewable resource. It's expensive, it has other uses more valuable, and it's twice as heavy as hydrogen. Hydrogen is not that dangerous - the Hindenburg was a freak thing with a brand new technology, and we've learned a lot since 1930 about fabric, static, etc. It just doesn't work for military stuff.

The lack of military application may be what has kept the dirigible from finding its niche. Few major transport technologies have ever been developed without military impetus - even the freeways of the US were laid out with military purpose.

More people die in car accidents than plane crashes.... airtravel is the way to go.