Do you think we’re going to be seeing more airships filling the skies in the future?And if you liked this video, check out "The Future of Solid State Wind Energy - No More Blades" ruclips.net/video/nNp21zTeCDc/видео.html
Helium for special blimps that support rescue missions and scientific endeavors are okay. Otherwise, I think this is a bad idea considering our limited helium supply. We need to think about our helium usage with at least a _next-200-years_ mindset. It's necessary for so many very important scientific applications like MRI, making fiber optics, computer chips, arc welding, deep sea diving, etc. Replacing even a quarter of air travel and maritime shipping with helium would require crazy amounts of helium. I'd imagine it would decimate our supply. Speaking very broadly, if we could double the best lithium ion battery energy density _(per liter),_ it would compete reasonably with gasoline. That should make it very doable for planes and maritime cargo ships.
There may indeed be specialized use cases for air ships, but in comparison to something like electric aircraft, I'm personally doubting their true likelihood as viable transport, in particular with regards to the helium consumption. When airships were first fielded in the US they accounted for virtually 100% of the worlds helium consumption (Edit: 2.1 MILLION ft³ or 59,000 m³ of the stuff). I find myself curious what optimizations might be made in thermal differential lift conveyances (hot air balloons, say, heated by solar or those unidirectional thermal convection polymers) or even the vacuum-filled neutral buoyancy theoretical vehicles (an ultra lightweight, rigid-structure, hollow sphere filled with, well, nothing - that is, as close to vacuum as is feasible - is lighter than air. Given a shell made of "unobtainium" - a substance yet to be provided by current material science - of sufficient diameter, one could float a city in midair. The trick is ensuring it doesn't collapse in on itself/implode. It's all about displacement of mass (the same way we can build 100,000 ton super carriers out of metal that still float on the ocean). I dunno. Maybe it's just me, but I feel revisiting a technology long-since supplanted by others, that consumes vast quantities of a non-renewable resource that could be better applied to other, trivial technologies like, oh, MRI's, when myriad other, novel technologies are competing for the same space strikes me as rather myopic.
@@grumblycurmudgeon I didn't know about precedent with regards to previous airships and helium supply. That confirms my assumptions about what a current move to airships would do our helium supply. I'm in agreement. I don't want to use helium for our travel excluding special situations.
I’m 65 years old. For as long as I’ve been alive they declare the “return of the airship” every 10 years or so. Used to be a regular cover story in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science. Glad to see even in the digital age, the tradition lives on.🤣
The one thing that seems a little more possible this time, to me, is the possibility of unmanned hydrogen cargo airships. If it's efficient enough, cargo companies will adopt it, and unmanned vehicle technology is certainly more advanced now then ever before. But I'm not holding my breath.
I think it's because on the surface it seems like a fairly obvious solution to many problems we have with conventional jet aircraft. And even if you dig in, it still seems like it's only an issue of lack of development at the same pace as jets. Basic issues that could be tackled with some good old fashioned 'getting it into the field'. The problem is not much different than that of Tilt-rotor aircraft. It seemed like a win-win, but there were risks. People heavily criticized it for crashes and deaths, but it was still far less than when we first got helicopters working. Someone will just have to take the plunge and absorb the risks and costs to get them common enough and worked with enough to bring the costs down and address some of these other technical risks.
I used to help build airships. I didn’t meet anyone in the business who thought airships are the future. They are instead the best solution for a very limited and specific set of problems. I enjoyed building them.
Not to mention the amount of He available is limited, and we will run out of it relatively soon. Hydrogen is not an option as it is practically an explosive where oxygen is present - like on Earth.
@@bztube888 they're going to use hydrogen for unmanned cargo flights, sure hydrogen is dangerous BUT only at certain ratios once its 100% hydrogen then it can't explode.. the Hindenburg didn't explode because of hydrogen but it went up in flames because of its coating (most if not all of the hydrogen was vented out before the Hindenburg went down in flames)
Relegating blimps to unmanned cargo shipping only would be a good way to introduce the benefits of the technology to the economy while letting boxes and packages bear the safety uncertainties.
I'd definitely say that the rarity and non-renewability of helium is going to be a major limiting factor in this. Maybe if we can figure out a way to generate helium, or a way to make hydrogen safe then this could work.
There is no reason why hydrogen could not be as safe as jet fuel. We never consider when flying that we are sitting in a metal tube filled with an explosive liquid.
The truth is the Hindenburg was a very unlikely event that happened to have been televised. Even back then you are far more likely to survive a hydrogen blimp crash then an airplane crash. Most people on the Hindenburg survived completely unscaved.
I'm disappointed this video glossed over the fact that almost all helium used on Earth comes from natural gas mining and separating it from NG is itself an energy intensive process. It also didn't mention that helium on Earth is already in a supply crunch and it's used for far more important things than airships, like critical medical testing. Also, $8200 is about as much as a first-class ticket from JFK to Heathrow costs.
I think hydrogen will make a comeback for cargo airships. Hydrogen is so cheap in comparison. Once they prove their safety, due to modern materials, passenger airships will follow. Hydrogen balloons are commonly used by airborne forces to practice parachute jumps, so they are used today already.
@@parajacks4 unfortunately hydrogen suffers from many of the same issues. Currently it's mostly made from natural gas, and making it is extremely energy intensive and emit a lot of carbon. There are alternate ways (hydrolysis), but they are also extremely energy intensive, so until we have more green energy, they too can be problematic.
@@bill_and_amanda Using excess green energy to make hydrogen is a hot topic at the moment, when a region produces too much wind or solar powered electricity it is either sent long distance through the grid, which is wasteful, or wind turbines are turned so they stop producing. In the near future there will be more options for excess electricity including grid scale batteries and hydrogen production. The tech is there, open to some improvements and refinements, no doubt, but tech is not so complicated for hydrogen production, it’s just an anode a cathode and water, not much more. Storing the hydrogen is the difficult bit, as it’s so small hydrogen has a habit of slowly escaping through any container, faster when under pressure.
@@parajacks4 How about magnetic confinement, since we can get ions of hydrogen from catalysed electrolysis? I realized it's not the the same order of energy as plasma in fusion, but it should still be magnetic-confinable. We can then reduce loss-to-percolation-through-container a lot. Unsure of how much of that loss would have to be prevented to make the magnetic field worthwhile to keep Edit: this is stupid, we want to decrease density, not increase it.
They aren't coming back and the last commercial airship I think was the Hindenburg in 1937. There was a sister airship, but it never operated with passengers. Airships from that time onward were restricted to experimental military use up until WWII and may be a little beyond. Any kid that would remember one other than an advertising one would have to be at least 75 now.
Hindenburg had a flammable skin, which modern ships wouldn't. Also, bear in mind, that in the Hindenburg disaster, a lot of people survived. You don't see that when jet airliners crash. I would love to see a return of elegant, slower-paced sky travel.
YOu make a point. Jets are flying bombs. A hydrogen filled airship would be dangerous but less so. Obviously helium would be best if feasible in the long term.
One of the problems that most discussions of airships tend to ignore is that they provide more surface area and leverage for turbulent air currents - including air currents that will flip them end-to-end and/or put substantial stresses on the frame. The larger they get, the more susceptible they are to this risk.
It's unfortunate that this video did not mention that the defining characteristic of these "hybrid airship" designs is that they are almost always heavier than air, unlike the always lighter than air rigid airships of the past. The gases are just used to offset some of the weight of the air frame and cargo. They don't fly without power, just like a plane. It's the only reason remote landing can even be considered as historically airships would require significant ground crews to immediately tie them down and add weight. Apparently that design shown with the air cushion pads can reverse them and suction itself to an airstrip if needed.
@@GarthMitchell modern airships can use submarine inspired technology to control lift and land without a ground crew by compressing their lifting gas, thus increasing their density above that of the surrounding air. Dragon Dream used that design before their prototype was crushed by its hangar collapsing, sending the company to oblivion.
Why does the frame have to be larger? why can't it be a series of smaller frames connected together. (a shitty example, instead of using 1 empty drum, instead lash or weld together a bunch of drums together. kinda like if you were to make a raft, where you would use more bottles or drums for more buoyancy.) I do understand the more frames used, the heavier it would be. I also know carbon-fibers are really expensive to print out, but why not use carbon-fibers as the frames? (They have them on cars, it's true they can't stand up to crashes too well, but the frames would be lighter!)
What I think would be a very promising hybrid is if an airplane is designed with a (hydrogen?) jet engine where the hot air is fed into a balloon for lift. That way it is easy to throttle it down to land. I think this kind of plane could be extremely promising. Perhaps the balloon could even be collapsible or detachable in freak weather or emergency. Imagine to lift capacity and speed provided by wings aided by hot air balloons fed by the hot exhaust of the jet engines that now largely goes to waste. It could also provide significant safety benefits.
As an engineer, I'm an airship fanatic. Zeplin never stopped working on the technology nor did England. The Hindenburg is remembered for it's crash but the airship itself was a great success. It never missed a scheduled departure and it never turned back in three seasons. It carried lots of passengers and freight successfully. Also there is a tendency to ignore the airship successes "The Norge" the " Italia". The tremendously successful one design by Barnes Wallace. To mention just a couple. After the 747 collision at Teneriffe people still kept getting into airplanes. Germany's "Cargo lifter" was planned to carry 160 tonnes. A bridge could be fabricated any where and airship-ed to a site almost anywhere in the world because of their ability to hover. Air ships may left the sky, but some of us can still hear the engines Airships Are the Answer.
@@4rumani what analogy? There was no analogy. A analogy is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. The dude only talked about airships… never once did he make an analogy.
I'm interested in airships because given modern materials and construction methods, helium instead of hydrogen, solar assist and silent electric propulsion, a helluva amazing airship is possible. Nature flights over the Amazon ?
Blimps have been "making a comeback" for over 20 years. It seems every year we read these same articles and arguments about how blimps could revolutionize travel. Still waiting.
Well I disagree with the idea blimps are necessarily the future but I have to say 20 years is nothing. People always assume things will stay the same which is funny considering how much the world has changed even in just the past decade.
BLIMP-TRANSPORT/AIRSHIP-TRANSPORTATION/AIRSHIP-HELICOPTER-DRONE-CARRIERS/AIRSHIP-DRONE-CARRIER/RESOLVED-AIRSHIP-TRANSPORTATION-STABILITY-RESOLUTION/HEXAGON-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-BUOYANCY-PLACEMENT-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-UMBRELLA-SHAPED-WEIGHT-SUPPORT/HEXAGON-WEIGHT-DISPLACEMENT-MECHANISM/[HEXAGON-DOME-SHAPED-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-FORMATION-WEIGHT-DISTRIBUTION-MECHANISMS/HEXAGON-AIRSHIP-CARRIER-AI-AUTOMATED-BUOYANCY-MECHANISM Conventional airship cargo-carriers experience instability issues when loading and offloading cargo. The instability in buoyancy (levels); created by the fluctuating mass of the cargo, as well as unstable air-currents (especially at higher altitude), makes conventional designs for airship cargo-carriers inefficient, unstable and potentially unsafe... when compared to alternative modes of cargo transportation vessels, e.g. conventional cargo-ships that travel via a body of water/sea. When all is said and done... I have come to realize that the technology should be paired with 'vertical', cargo-transport carries, i.e. [droned] helicopters. Helicopter technology should be incorporated with Ai; so that the drones will be outfitted with cargo (of specific weight/mass). With their proven prowess in vertical takeoff, they will be utilized to safely mount cargo on a giant airship (said cargo will [obviously] need to be spaced/tired-down and stationed relative to each other. Inspiration from the hexagon shape should aid the intended 'fair and even [weight] distribution' of mass, across the storage site within the airship). Like an orchestra, when coordinated, the swarms of vertical [helicopter] drones (coordinated & assisted Ai; will take the shape and form of a 'helicopter', for its vertical functionality... they will double and function as integral, and additional transportation-carriers) will 'double and function' as 'construction-pulleys'; in their purpose in safely and relatively steadily mounting cargo onto the large storage site (that will be situated on top of the airship. I envision a small, but functional runway built on the surface of the airship. It is in this additional, supportive function that the airship will resemble an "aircraft carrier, battle ship"). New and emerging technologies will facilitate this mode if cargo transportation. NOTE: When all is said and done... When we take a step back, and observe the construct in action, its coordinated functionalities and mechanisms will resemble the (relationship and transport mechanism) 'worker-bees and their beehive'. Through further research and development of the quantum mechanics; that is at play, and is responsible for buoyancy (its essence is [efficient] mass/weight-distribution within a [specified] medium volume)... It will be possible to reroute/engineer buoyancy (how lighter than air gas behave), i.e. how mass is distributed within a specified [enclosed] medium-volume/volume of a specified medium. REMEMBER: that buoyancy takes the path with the least resistance. Point is, if you can manipulate/[quantum] engineer how lighter-than-air gases behave, you will have an easier time using Ai to coordinate their behaviour (with greater efficiency and precision, e.g. making lighter-than-air gases even lighter; manipulating their mass at the quantum scale). Were such endeavours researched, developed and refined to an art, then what we will be left with are the components to anti-gravity technology and [quantum] know-how. NOTE: There was a successful scientific experiment; where Rubidium was used to give additional mass to the photon. This resulted in slowing down the photo. The experiment supported the feasibility of hard-light technology. The essence of the experiment was that the mass of subatomic particles could be altered/manipulated to bare desirable outcomes. That research should have been concocted with quantum mechanics in mind. Engineering at the quantum scale is exciting and bares monumental possibilities. /Close.
I saw this video in my recomendations and I was like "neat, an alternative to planes". Then I realized that at this level of capacity, route length and speed, high speed trains are way way wayyyy better. The issue is that something like "regional flights" should not exist. We have train that can reach almost 400 km/h, there is literally no reason to use airplaines for such short trips. Planes should be limited exclusively long travels, talking 1000+ kms. Unfortunately at the moment there is no substitute for that, unless you have like a week available for the trip. As pointed out airship have niche applications like reaching isolated places for goods and passengers or as sky cruises for rich people. But come on, "Future of Sustainable Air travel"? Not even close.
@@LyadinDima well yeah, but we try to be realistic ahah :) One application could be connections to islands. Trains are definitely off the table, airplanes pollute a lot and boats are super slow (and also pollute). Airship could be a better solution (which fall in the "reaching isolated places", I guess)
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
Speed and rich people amusement are not the focus. They can be used for heavy lift loads for delivery to difficult locations to access. Large scale supply and equipment dumps after natural disasters, supply remote research locations in jungles and mountainous terrain, cheap to operate for routine work in poor counties. You think to small. These blimps can be made much larger.
@@MrBonners I swear people do not read before commenting. I said " As pointed out airship have niche applications like reaching isolated places for goods and passengers" So never said that airship donvt have uses. But alternative to planes? Not even close.
Engineering companies I've worked for have seriously looked at this technology for transporting oversized equipment and modules from fabrication facilities directly to site without any of the traffic restrictions. I can definitely see the feasibility of this method of travel.
And for typical transport of civilians and freight, and everything else that is done by vehicles, and then some. That's their proper potential and that's what I want to see, no compromises.
This can work really well but would need light gases like helium to do it or hot air too, companies are building hydrogen fuel planes that use fuel made by H2O by separating the H2 and O and is a good fuel to use and when burn together it turns back to water
I’m a little confused. At the start you said we don’t often have the time for the train, but then later the top speed for an airship is only 130mph. Trains in many parts of the world have top speed well above that - the TGV in France for example goes up to 186mph. Even in countries without that infrastructure yet (like UK) we are already at 125mph on the main train lines.
I thought the supply of helium is a rare, and essentially irreplaceable resource. Hydrogen is really the only way to support airships in scalable sense.
Nope, the hydrogen once mixed with air (oxygen) is very flammable. Germany used to bomb England in WW1. The ships were shot down and typically would burst into flames in a spectacular fashion. What I find fascinating is that in one account, a British pilot firing incendiary bullets staffed a ship to no effect. Meaning the bullets pasted through the pure hydrogen and didn't ignite. The solution of course was firing at one point.
@@tomlewis2880 Hydrogen will only ignite when in the presence of oxygen. If the bullet just plunged right into the middle of the pure hydrogen, its flame would be extinguished immediately.
maybe we can build vacuum airships in the future, they would float even better. Just need a very strong hull that is also light (carbon nanotubes for example)
@@tomlewis2880 it proved surprisingly difficult to bring down a hydrogen lifted zeppelins it took a few good attempts and a sustained attack using specialised bullets to bring the first one down and that may well be down to igniting the outer covering which then spread to the escaping gas.
Hydrogen is really the only way to go. People seem fine sitting on giant tanks of jet-fuel so I'm not sure why hanging under a big bag of hydrogen would be any worse. Like anything, it is an engineering problem.
Hi, I didn’t hear any mention of the impact of weather on these aircraft. Do they have the ability to avoid storm cells, fly higher to avoid weather or around a storm?
@@moos5221 You _are_ aware that there are airships flying around right now though, right? The Goodyear Zeppelins, for example. And during World War 2, USA military blimps had the highest mission readiness (days out of the year where they were able to go out on missions) of any aircraft. Weather is an issue, as with any low-flying aircraft, but not an insurmountable one. Modern airships have to pass the same airworthiness certifications as any other aircraft.
@@Jjames763 you don't seem to understand. that zeppelins exist doesn't mean they are viable alternatives to aircraft or any other transportation. winds heavily affect airships and make them not a viable choice, because there are many weather scenarios where they just can't fly or where they just get destroyed or have to emergency land on open field. that's why you don't see zeppelins being used right now outside of experimental scenarios, because they are not viable.
It’s exceedingly difficult to shoulder the R&D costs while also breaking into such a highly regulated and technical industry, while also competing against other aircraft that have an uninterrupted century of amortized research and infrastructure supporting them.
@@zteaxon7787 uhmm... No. By the Time ww2 was ongoing, all nations were working hard on jet engine driven aircraft, including the Germans (ME 262), the japanese (kikka), the british (Meteor), and probably many more.
@@zteaxon7787 Not at all. The Axis powers used a grand total of 1 airship during the War, and the Allies used over a hundred of them. The USA was the side with blimps in that conflict!
I worked as a designer on the Airship Industries Skyship 500, 600 & Sentinel in the 1980’s and the marketing was saying exactly the same as your video. I think the issue for airships is the weather, which you didn’t mention, to which they are susceptible. I watched Two airships rip apart on their masts due to high winds. The 500 & 600 airships also required large ground crew which basically cancelled any profits when they operated their London site seeing trips. That was 30+ years ago so I am optimistic that new technology will overcome the problems we had with the 500&600 designs
Blimps have always been highly susceptible to high winds which makes them totally unsuitable for scheduled passenger flights and only marginally suitable for freight.
I suggest HUGE ANCHORS that they let fall at any time when the winds are too strong. Yes some cows and people will be lost but I think it would be a good solution
@@isychia4947 DEAD WEIGHT. Unless... -> This could be the batteries (for the all_electric engine versions). With dual cables for the anchoring & power transmission (to keep powering the engines of the main ship activelly fighting the wind), each one of this "anchors" would be self_propelled drones with cameras & A.I. cappable of choosing a good location "on the fly" (no pun intended). As an extra, with only one of this "anchor batteries" landing on a (very small footprint) pad with a high power connector, it could be posible to quickly recharge itself plus all other batteries on the main ship (via the power cable); without the whole ship having to land [something that in moderate/chaotic wind conditions could be unsafe, while keeping itself in place on the air would be relatively easy].
bad weather was my main question as well, but i suspect, coupled with todays satellite weather prediction tech being rather accurate it is possible to re/route and avoid inclement weather. But i could see blimps experiencing even more delays due to poor weather than heavier-than-air-craft. Another factor that was not addressed was cost of production. The helium sourcing cost/availability was mentioned, but not the cost to produce the structure and materials of the blimp in comparison to traditional aircraft.
I've been hearing these promises for twenty years, yet I've only seen the "Goodyear" blimp every once in a while over that period of time. I'll believe it when I see one!
One big issue you didn't address is weather. Lighter than air vehicles are extremely sensitive to convection and wind given their high aspect ratio and light weight. That was a big reason the Navy abandoned their lighter then air vehicles program in the 30s and 40s. Storms kept wrecking their blimps.
I can understand the idea and do think that it does provide a reasonable alternative for hard to reach locations. Also I think that it will work better as a tourism method than a way to cut plane travel as I see it more in line with a cruise ship, or a better option for travel between islands as a ferry.
Good points. However time and tourism are directly linked. In the 1930s and1940s the only way for regular people to go from the US to Europe was by boat. Now, no one would prefer to take a boat to Europe unless it were a cruise ship but, then again, a cruise is about experiencing the boat ride with lots of side amusements, so you are already on vacation when you leave the dock. There is also somethig very vsiceral about being outdoors looking down at the water on a cruise ship. There would be no real "outdoor time" on anairship.
A powerful, timeless quote from Classical Antiquity which is spot-on in understanding the absence of a modern airship industry, from Roman historian Tacitus: The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
That brings up a question though, how many people have died in modern airliners and other aircraft? Are the airships REALLY less safe? (Especially if using helium rather than hydrogen)
@@captin3149 Most people don't think about the broad scope of innovation and development. They just see an apparatus or vehicle, whatever, that works of fails, and simplistically go from there with judgements and opinions.. When SpaceX rockets fire up, fall over and explode, Musk's monitor probably lights up with elated excited (maybe even joyful) messages saying stuff like "I got it. We'll send you the simulation. And brewskies are on me." The SpaceX team don't see horrendously defective technological impediments. They only see answers to their specific problems, and opportunities for tweaking things until arriving at desired performance. So, unfortunately, we don't have any AirshipX companies around with bottomless deep pockets and no-end-in-sight perseverance, like we see with Musk and team SpaceX. But for a modestly funded airship development program, we do have the option of testing/operating such craft remotely and unmanned, drone-like, allowing for crashes without the worry of on-board crew loss etc.. Each crash and vehicle loss brings developers closer and closer to ideal safe operation, suitable for commercial production.. But since there's such a huge safety concern with the use of airships, a good way to begin, might be in using them exclusively for air freight rather than passenger transport, giving the new tech sufficient time in operation to demonstrate safety/reliability etc...
There is, in my opinion, distinct media bias in regards to airships. The SpaceX company is contemplating using its big rockets, which are mostly comprised of extremely explosive booster fuel tanks to engage in commercial passenger service. The media is mum on the idea of such a rocket failing and all the loss of lives. But bring up an airship topic, and that' becomes a major focus of concern... Oh the humanity.. -The mainstream media plays the public mind like a fiddle..
These things can be a green alternative for helicopters, with the added benefit of being quieter and the ability to fly longer distances. But with a speed comparable to a train, and capacity and cost comparable to an airplane, don't expect them to replace either of those.
The two fundamental problems of airships were not mentioned in this video... they are: (1) you have to carry ballast if the return operation has no payload, and this requires expensive and complex logistics; and (2) when on the ground, the airship stays on the mast, at the mercy of the wind, rotating in a circle. This makes the loading and unloading operation enormously difficult. Finally, it was mentioned in the video that it does not require ground infrastructure. OK, when compared to an airport, but yes, it does require masts, ground handling personnel, and a hangar when very strong winds are active. In other words...it is apparently simple and the solutions are wonderful, but a closer examination will show that some barriers will be very difficult to overcome for a large-scale commercial operation.
Another thing people seem to forget is emergency situations. What happens when a giant blimp full of 200 people has an emergency? Planes have wings, even if all engines fail you can still glide to a clear enough area to make a crash landing. A blimp like these ones could just fall like a brick in the middle of a city? Would just have to stay put until another blimp drags it to the landing zone? Nobody would want to be the guy who pushed for blimps then.
@@maximipe too slow for anything long haul with that number of people. One thing they could be used for (and has already been put forward) is as low level satellites/transmitters ...
The main benefit of this recurring "airships are the future" thing is that it allows people such as the narrator to signal their virtues on the topic of carbon footprints, thereby proving their lack of knowledge on the topic under discussion.
I would love to see an experiment where one of these airships flies around the world at the equator. Also i would like to see an endurance test that measures how long a small group of people can live on this type of airship without landing. Successful completion of tests like these would go a long way towards exciting public interest in funding this project.
@GH0STST4RSCR34M You know that you're responding to somebody's comment, right? And you said that "it" wouldn't happen because physics. So I'm not sure why you are confused.
Airships can be trains too. One expensive manned, high-powered airship using safe helium lifting gas can be the locomotive for several cheaper unmanned, low-powered airships using less safe hydrogen. Perhaps a “locomotive” on each end for speed or tension for dynamic stability. 🙃
now that is an interesting idea. manned helium ships acting as tug/main controller to a train of unmanned hydrogen ships. you could also have data lines on the linkage so that each one can have it's own propulsion to better manage the line
The safety problem of Hydrogen is not much of a problem anyways. The key problem of the Hindenburg was its very flammable outside material. That was somewhat necessary back then because very few reasonably light & reasonably cheap hydrogen-tight materials were known. But material science has come a long way in the last 84 years. Of course nothing discussed in this video is new, it has been attempted and failed 20 years ago in Germany (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter). One of the key problems in the end was that a huge Airship with a lot of lift capability starts to try and get away with a lot of force when you unload it. So the loading/unloading process ended up being either very lengthy and inefficient, or very dangerous. So the CargoLifter project was canceled, and the technology now is only used to fly tourists around over Lake Constance. All for the small price of ~400$/ 350€ for a 45-minute trip.
I just took a flight, it wasn't whimsical at ALL. It wasn't a flight of fancy at ALL. By the end of it, I really started to wonder why I couldn't have taken a blimp? I say bring on the blimps, I'll blimp down, blimp back. Blimp both ways. Take an overnight, get there in the blimp of an eye. Sounds great to me. The captain comes out, holds his tophat in front of his chest, and sings jaunty preflight tune, his curly moustache bouncing along his chubby red cheeks, purple coattails swaying to the jolly music. That's Blimping. That's what commercial flights don't want us to have.
From what I've seen, airships fly incredibly safely and efficiently. It's the landing and keeping wind from wrecking them when you want them to stay still.
The way you work those puns into the script so damn smoothly just gets me every time. I love this channel and I appreciate your dedication to entertainment
Imagine you're all out at the airship swimming pool, basking in the sun in the clouds and then you notice ya boy Brett's normally incredibly deep voice has upped a whole octave
One space I see a huge opportunity for blimps are carrying wind turbine blades. I thought blades were limited by the roads they need to travel on. If you had a blimp carry a couple blades hanging from them it wouldn't be a problem. Plus you could use the blimp to assist with constructing.
@@augmentedfourthssuperfan7297 problem is they can't carry much weight to be really useful other then a few specific reasons. size/weight to lift capability is not great.
The issue with finite helium and flammable hydrogen to me seems like the biggest hurdles, but it would be cool if hydrogen could be a solution to unmanned cargo flights.
I'm pretty sure we can make safe H2 airships nowadays, like with an outer Faraday cage, or oxygen buffers to keep a hydrogen leak from igniting near the ship
I would absolutely love to travel this way. No sardine can seating. No roaring engines. In fact, I would like to live in one, solar powered of course. Find a gorgeous spot off the beaten track and hover.
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
I feel like hydrogen-duterium fusion is better simply because there's more hydrogen out there. The moon is the main source of helium (specifically helium-3).
Me, the biggest FF7 fan: I see this as an absolute win. I can’t wait to listen to “Highwind takes to the skies” in remake, and in real life when I blast that shit in my AirPods while riding an airship.
There are HUGE problems with airships. … They are highly inefficient at anything above 30 kts, as they have so much drag. … In any significant winds, they start going backwards. … They need enormous airfields, as they need to swing 360 degrees around the mast. … Using jetstreams is pointless, from the UK you could only go to Russia. … Aerodynamic airships are useless, because they cannot hover, just like an aerodynamic heavier than air aircraft cannot hover. … They are only useful for tourist flights, surveillance platforms, and perhaps some military freight transport. But do remember that if you drop off freight in a remote location, you have to load up the airship with the equivalent weight in water or dirt….! Ralph
I agree with your sentiment and think what you are pointing out is that this is likely a niche application. I would think remote places in times of good weather. However, I would add that these places tend to add to environmental problems (supporting 100 people 100 miles from anything is costly and inefficient).
Run it on rails at neutral buoyancy in a streamlined version with magnetic drive . No load/unload issues/ no load bearing bridges/ no ground contact / propulsion without rolling resistance - this would follow a cable to anywhere. Put some 'rise' in the cable and it will go by itself. Make it an elevator to the stratosphere and launch from there etc.
@@ronaldvankuyk908 ships can sail upwind by tacking. Airships cannot. Yes we discovered the world on wind power, but thousands died in the process and it took months or years for a single journey.
Also I believe the paint used on the hindenburg was basically chemically similar to thermite. That metal that basically burns on its own and hotter than basically anything and can spontaneously self ignite.
It was hilarious seeing the hermetically sealed smoking room on the Hindenburg compared to the canvas, wicker, and aluminum construction of everything else. They knew they were lighting up next to several thousand cubic meters of hydrogen and had very limited weight capacity, but smoking was important enough to have it's own special room.
@@SgtNomadZero In completely separate layers and the wrong concentrations needed to create thermite. It was the hydrogen. This has been tested over and over again, including on shows like Mythbusters. Seriously, why do people like you believe this bullshit without even considering the possibility that engineers aren't complete idiots? No, you're not smarter than everyone else in the world. Neither are the people you're getting your information from. So stop pretending that every accident is caused by ignorance and stupidity. Most are caused by a wilful disregard for safety, not by stupidity or ignorance.
3:14 The Hindenburg caught fire because of the high volatility of the aluminium doping which sealed the craft - static electricity accumulated from the voyage through electric clouds over powered the cells of netting when currents earthed going down the guy ropes. The H2 itself inflamed - of course - as a secondary effect of this - but as people should know generally - it took its flames upwards rapidly - a thing which a petrol ignition is unable to do. Themain casualties were from people who jumped. If the footage is studied the descent of the ‘gondola’ is gentle and people who remained on board ran to safety once it landed. There were of course casualties from inflamed debris but H2 - though universally blamed since - was not the culprit.
The simplest explanation for the Hindenburg explosion was the hydrogen gas being ignited. Most of the passengers died from burns, not from jumping from the ship. Relatively few jumped.
Kevin Olson There’s a detailed documentary on the event somewhere whose findings I quoted - yes burns - and death from them - would have occurred but that was taken in by the phrase ‘falling debris’ and the burns would be caused by the ignited aluminium doping material and not H2. H2 - as you probably know - is much lighter than air and when released rushes upwards. It is physically impossible for it to have been involved in the casualties from burns. Yes - a lot of people died from jumping - but again - as said - if you study the footage there is a gentle landing of the ‘carriage’ and people can be seen running from it to safety. Thanks for replying.
Interesting, was not aware of that. As a note about the H2 igniting, it needed oxygen for that. Maybe a residual amount of oxygen was still in the "balloon" after it got filled with H2? Or was that balloon leaking already when the ignition happened?
@@silversungaming9451 Great idea! What did he have against H2?! (I think the 200 or so airships of that era - all showed bullet holes fired from below into the ‘blimp’. I think the Hindenburg recorded several hundred in any year - fortunately no one fired an explosive bullet into them - but it is also the case that of some 250 airships I think only one finished its design life in the way intended for it. It would be a great history to learn the fate of all the others and how they were ‘got’.
Perhaps THE greatest advantage of airships was unmentioned: loiter. While this has limited benefits for shipping, the military applications for advanced airships with long loiter are many. Applications range from simple radar and communications platforms to hypothetical multi-cell behemoths armed with stand-off missiles.
Biggest problem with that usage would probably be defending against attacks, especially because they are way bigger and slower than other aircrafts, so way easier to target.
@@Shimonotoki Very true. Could be mitigated by going BIG. Perhaps hundreds of independent cells linked together and dynamically stabilized. Taking the whole thing down could prove too much for most adversaries. 🤷♂️
Another great bonus is that they would be far quieter than typical planes. I live relatively close to an airport so you hear jets often, this would be a great change!
No, I lived near one of the Goodyear blimps. Not quite at all and it was a small blimp. You definite knew when it was flying over, especially if it was fighting any wind. This thing would be deafening.
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
When Matt Ferrell talks about your paper, you realize you made the right career choice! Thanks for sharing the research Matt! I love and watch all your videos!
Fascinating video as always! I have one suggestion though-pick a consistent method for representing percentages, and stick to it. It’s visually quite confusing to jump back and forth between graphs that show a 90% reduction in operating cost as “90%/100”, and ones that show using 10% of the fuel use as “10%/100”. They’re both the same percentage of reduction, so the graph should be represented using the same scale, especially when the graph doesn’t have a legend.
Hydrogen could be used for the upper half of the ship and a separate set of gas bags for helium down lower, closer to the cabins. Thus, if hydrogen did explode the flames would be shielded by the helium bags. It is also possible that if the helium bags were not damaged the airship could make an emergency landing using the lift from helium and propellers. This would reduce the amount of expensive helium required for operation.
Helium isn't expensive anymore. Rise of natural gas. Helium is one of the vent off gasses that comes off of getting natural gas and as prices on helium went up natural gas companies started capturing it to sell. We have more of it than we know what to do with. Natural gas companies let most of just out into the atmosphere and only capture enough to meet demand. Demand goes up, they capture more. Demand goes down they capture less. There's honestly nowhere to store it if we captured it all. It's just too much helium. So helium is kept at an artificial price high to meet a demand, when it's actually a dirt cheap byproduct.
I've been waiting on this to become a reality for over a decade now. There were articles talking about the advantages of this for heavy cargo into hard to reach areas or areas without infrastructure and it seemed like a no brainer. Considering the basic tech for this has been around for a long time I really expected this to come around much faster than it has. After this amount of time that this has been touted as a viable alternative I'm not holding out hope for it to take off any time soon.
For this to be viable long term they would need to figure out how to not use up that helium. I mean a way to make a closed permanently filled up helium balloon. That way once filled, it would never need a refilling, or a very little of it. After that they would need to find a way to control altitude around that.
The solution For the buoyancy is compressors and onboard tanks, which I suspect they're already relying on. But the helium problem isn't going away anytime soon, especially considering the most pressing use case for it is in the medical field. Considering the catastrophic consequences of problems in current air travel, I'm curious what the safety of hydrogen is in comparison. The main concerns are flammability and the need for static discharge mitigation, which might be solvable with an aerogel or porous foam.
I could very well be wrong, but if I remember correctly, I think the main probpem with Helium loss is that it's so small, that it can juat pass through molecular gaps.
@@jooptablet1727 That would be 'Hot Air' for now. Could there be a heat gathering component using solar, built into something like this, so that it collects its own lift by containing the suns' energy within its' lift system , in the form of heat ? We can focus solar into expansion chambers that become lighter than air, and back that up for emergency use. Why not ? Trap the hot air and you have lift. Would there be enough energy to reach altitude ? You'd have to dump air on the way up, like a diver coming to the surface from down deep - Solar Power turned into Lift.
Is hydrogen really more dangerous? I know its flammable but so is airplane fuel. Is the danger bad planning and design to deal deal with a flammable lift gas or is it actually too difficult to make safe?
Kerosene is far more forgiving over gasoline. A high flash point increases safety during day to day operations. Plenty of demonstrations online showing this, with pooled fuel, a flame, and no ignition.
The Hindenburg was originally designed to use a hydrogen-bag on the inside with a helium barrier around it as a flame-retardant. The US wouldn't sell the needed helium so they just filled the whole thing with hydrogen without significant design modifications. Having hydrogen as a lifting gas can be safe if your design accounts for it.
What a great concept. If they can just manage the control issues in bad weather. What a way to travel. Cruising slowly at low altitude over the African Veldt and all the wonders of the world.
It might be interesting to compare airship traveling with really fast trains (as they are only in many European countries and in Japan and China at the moment). Fast trains certainly can provide quick transportation for medium range travel without the loss of additional hours needed to travel to the airport and after the flight back to the next city center. But the question is: which one is the better solution: the airship or those fast trains? And the second question is: What are the respective costs to establish each of the two traffic systems, a nationwide high speed rail system (rails and trains) vs a nationwide airship traffic system (which is capable of moving a similar number of travelers) including the airships and the infrastructure; landing sites plus quick transportation to the city centers. My gut feeling tells me the train might be the winner in this competition, but I don't have any reliable data. I think I and many others are interested in a evaluation with fair data.
I think there is a lot of research that can be done in the airship arena due to new materials, electric engines, solar panels, etc, however I've seen some vides with people of the new airship companies saying trains are better than airships and airships are better when there is no infrastructure, they are targeting logging companies so they can take the logs directly from the logging zone to wherever they need it. Also luxury air-yachts. maybe turistic traveling. I can imagine turistic industry in the caribean. the main problem of airships is they need good weather.
I'm always amazed to see the estimates of cargo payloads being good for airships. The Hidunburg class of Zeppellins, could lift about 200 tons. That's a lot... but not even 1% of what your usual cargo ship can hold. You would never, ever be able to replace ships by airships, simply throught the sheer fact that even if they're cheaper, they would require anincredible increase of traffic.
No, the Hindenburg couldn't lift about 200 tons. The total weight respectively the gross lift of the gas filling was ~220 tons. 118 tons accounted for the dead weight of the airship. Up to 73 tons accounted for the diesel fuel. "Payload" was 11 tons of baggage and other cargo and up to 72 passengers (5-6 tons).
@@701983 I said he could lift about 200 tons. I didn't say 200 tons *of cargo*. That weight include the hull, fuel, engines and all. It's easy to assume that a modern airship of the same size, going lower distances (so less fuel) and unmanned could carry a bigger payload, but even fully optimized, there's just no beating 200 tons of cargo for an Hidenburg-sized airship. Even more so when you consider he ran on hydrogen and not helium (hydrogen being lighter, therefore a better gaz when it comes to lifting power). My point though, was that airships may be more cost-efficient to an extent, but there's just no point when an alternative is available: they are orders of magnitude away from being able to stand in for regular freight in terms of volume. And there is *nothing* you can do about it.
I love airships. But this will never be something practical. These projects only exist to absorb large amounts of money. They know it's never going to be a thing. However, why not just make it for the experience itself? Forget about cargo shipping and all the green, solar power bs etc. Just build something people can enjoy. Just like a cruise ship. It's an experience. I would book a flight if it's a somewhat reasonable price. But it has to be about the experience itself. It doesn't have to be efficient, just enjoyable. I would expect the same luxury and service i enjoy taking a first class cruise. Not something to replace the horrible experience of a plane flight and make the suffering last even longer.
@@benanders4412 I partially agree, but would rather suggest to bet on nostalgia. A replica of the Hindenburg, with similar "luxury". No TV, no internet connection (for the passengers), but a piano, a reading room, a smoking room,... Modern technology only in the background, to ensure a safe journey.
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
@@zoeysalazar7145 reads like bot copied random comment from someone else and put it here to gain interest... prove you ain't a bot by replying and i might read it.
@@Em.P14 He did copy & paste it, while spamming it as a response to many comments in this video. All caps & everything... People like that are just nutty.
@@corey2232 some appearently earn cash by doing so or they are attempting to do so at least, having one video on the channel and luring people to watch it with automated comments. This was only a mild one, the really annoying ones are the sexistical ones.
I designed an airship just like the opening pic of this video when I was 14 years old (70 now). Pool, tennis courts, and all the rest . . . glad to see the world catching up LOL.
Every time I hear people cry about hydrogen filled airships being a fire hazard, I am reminded how many folks don't understand the flammability of JP5/jet fuel...
@@MrBizteck And yet, the requirements for either to become unsafe are the exact same. If a handgrenade goes off in your lap or if a cruise missile goes off in your lap, you're just as dead. Properly designed and maintained, a hydrogen dirigible would be just as safe in daily operation as any aircraft.
Could have an interesting delivery application too. As companies are experimenting with drones for last mile delivery, imagine an Amazon delivery blimp that hovers around your city while a fleet of drones flies in and out of it, making the "short" connection between the blimp and your doorstep.
I have dreamed of living in a small airship my whole life. I have studied the realities of airships. The ghost cost is in the longevity of the light materials required and the expense and supply chain of helium. Steam/hot air/helium; they all have major draw backs.
It's grammatically correct to use both when presented in a correct syntax: "... while the _whatever_ industry contributes only 10% of global CO2 emissions, this *Thingy* produces 90% less CO2 than other *Thingies* in the _Whatever_ industry" - Matt is saying it right, even though it sounds like he is just spouting _Drama Digits_
The Hindenburg caught fire because the 'skin' was extremely flammable. Even if it had been filled with helium, it still would've crashed and burned. As for an alternative, it would be possible to simply pump the air out of the envelope. That amounts to roughly 2 pounds of lift for every cubic yard. That's probably not *quite* enough to get it off the ground with any substantial payload, but it would be light enough to make it easy to fly.
@Cancer McAids Since the Hindenburg was observed to have her stern low in the air (evidenced by how she was releasing ballast while coming in to land), its likely that one of the gas cells had a gash in it somewhere, possibly caused by a structural cable failing due to hard maneuvers. That leaking hydrogen was probably then set off by discharging static electricity, igniting the rest of the gas cells as well due to the ferocity of the flame. The flammable skin theory was tested out by professionals, as well as the mythbusters, and the results showed that, on its own, the skin wasn't flammable enough to cause the spectacular fireball that took her down. It probably contributed to how ferocious the blaze was, but it wasn't what brought her down. EDIT: Also, airship gas cells aren't pressurized, considering how buoyancy works that would only make the ship less buoyant.
@@valorousvigilante2491 Hydrogen would be the same as helium with a single bullet. Now, hydrogen is dangerous due to flamability, but that is hilariously over exaggerated at times. Hydrogen airships during WW1 regularly made it home with thousands of holes in the envelope, without exploding. It took the development of special incendiary ammunition to really ignite those airships, but even then, it took quite a few shots to ignite them.
@@valorousvigilante2491 Flak guns? Because that's what I was referring to, several of those ships survived ambushes by flak guns. Doent matter if someone has access to a full auto machine gun (which would be difficult to acquire btw), or a 40mm bofors gun, unless those bullets are incendiary/explosive and enough hydrogen has spilled out to mix with oxygen, it's not going to detonate the hydrogen.
@@valorousvigilante2491 Why would I need to work for a company that sells hydrogen to point out that its comically overstated how volatile hydrogen airships were? I certainly wasn't trying to make it political, just point out and correct a misconception. And what other comment? I don't see the comment where you mention the benefits of helium in this thread. Also, the heating the gas thing? That can be done with hydrogen as well. Hydrogen won't ignite just from heat (before a certain point at least), it would need to mix with a good amount of oxygen, and so long as there is no leak in the gas cell, there wouldn't be any oxygen to combust with, meaning no fire at all. Its basic chemistry really. Now, I am not advocating we build airships with hydrogen again. I KNOW how dangerous it can be. You seemed to have missed where I acknowledge that.
I've been watching this stuff closely for years now. Imagine one of these things the size of small freight ship, but it flies... think about that -- moving all that cargo, without having to go around land or use canals. Imagine a fleet of those things. This would change logistics and shipping in a huge way, not to mention the huge benefits it would bring to any military. There's obvious engineering challenges that have to be overcome first and safety is a big deal, even if its autonomous -- a big one with thousands of tons of cargo onboard, that would do a lot of damage if it came down over a populated area obviously. Procedures would have to be made to make the system airtight, literally and figuratively.
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
@@rogerpope6057 Everything always is hell even medication that's meant to save people ends up being used to hurt people if it has the chance to be weaponized it can and will be no matter how "Unjust" it is it's still going to be done at some point where it's now considering reasonable and maybe even mandatory
Run it on rails as a hover/ground effect/ magnetic drive/ bullet train with neutral buoyancy under load. Fly it a foot off the ground at high speed with no ground contact/resistance. Once moving the ground effect would assist in carrying the load while the magnets just moved it forward. More speed and efficiency but a huge infrastructure investment. The Saudi's are playing with a tunnel version concept now. This could be run over-land, lake, and sea. There would be no downward load on a 'bridge' for example. It would just be a guide across a gap in the terrain, not a megastructure that holds great weight. On another planet maybe ? That seems to be more important than here ?
Air ships always make me think of the TV show "fringe" & it's alternative universe, where the crash never happened, so the Empire State building was still a docking port for the airships (right next to a copper coloured Statue of Liberty)
@@scobbydoo. It is an awesome show isn't it! I hope you've finished watching it, I hope I didn't give you spoilers for a season you're not up to yet :(
when I was a child, my city housed one of the 4 Goodyear blimps in the country, and it was always a treat to see it flying by. especially and night with the sides all lit up from the panels along the sides showing advertisements, and the sound the engines made. i even had a battery powered toy blimp from Goodyear, and you could make your own "ads" that lit up from the inside. I always felt that airships should have another shot as a feasible method for passenger travel (and every time I think about the Hindenburg, just breaks my heart). I would LOVE to travel in comfort over the clouds in an airship... with an affordable ticket! Or, if I was just terribly, stinking rich, I could afford my own airship yacht!
"Why do alternate universes always have airships everywhere?" Because we're the rare alternate universes that DOESN'T have them everywhere. But also, I'd predict a rise in airships once we crack nuclear fusion. It may be super efficient, so not generate much helium, but it would still become a renewable resource nonetheless.
One of the problems that haven't really been overcome with airships is the suceptibility to strong wind. Given their large surface area relative to their engine output they tend to have trouble fighting the wind, not a massive issue in the air (unless you run out of power before reaching your destination) but near the ground it can create some serious problems. I'd be interested to know what wind-speeds these new airships are capable of operating in
I like the shape of the Airlander because it it more aerodynamic and therefore much safer to operate as it would be less likely to roll in the wind. This shape looks as if it would be most efficient lifting both cargo and passengers.
There’s some really cool airship designs shown here, their reduction in GHG emissions is awesome! I really like the 420 ton plan to fly people and cargo to Hawaii
called it. I've been pushing for this since I was a kid it's like oh because the Hindenburg burned we can't have these anymore? ridiculous. the Titanic sank and we still got boats
the problem with airships wasn't that hydrogen was flammable - it was that they couldn't handle pretty much any adverse weather, were massively expensive and unsafe. Sadly, the same problems still exist at the moment. Maybe they can get there, would be great (I live by an airport, I'd love it to get nice and quiet! :D) but at the moment the hurdles remain
@@asharak84 The same could be said of literally any aircraft back then, but there are modern airships flying today that are much, much safer. The Goodyear Zeppelins, for example.
Here's a crappy thought, why not combine the glider with the blimp/airship? at a certain height, the wings come out & it begins to glide. or make a really tall, somehow stable Space-Elevator...& winch or bring the airship to the top. Fill it up, then launch it. letting it glide outwards & downwards at a controlled angle. Basically use the engines or extra fuel to height & course correct! At worst, calculate out the distance between "Elevator Launch-Pads", then glide from one to the other. It might not be as effective, but I should be quicker than a train...especially if it's going over an ocean, or mountain range!
@@DarkArtsMage how about you make it in an airfoil design to begin with and use solar electrolysis to get hydrogen out of water for lifting gas? better yet make a giant Mana Tree style space elevator that uses geothermal vents at the bottom for thermoelectrics, and active support with lifting gas derived from the surrounding seawater, build it up to the jet stream and have air foil leaves up there to help generate more lift, and you can refill your airships from it like some kind of sky whale butterfly
With the amount of deaths caused by airships, it really doesn't make sense why they went away, considering cars kill that many people daily, more so early on.
It's probably a combination of a ratio and what is expected at the time. When you have 10 airships but 3-4 of them cause deadly deaths it doesn't look good for them especially when the number of airships increase and if the ratio of safe versus unsafe airships remain the same. Idk the actual stats about the number of car deaths versus total number of cars on the road but considering how wide spread cars are I feel it makes sense if it has a way better ratio. Can't research it right now though cuz I'm at work but if someone wants to verify and provide links that would be awesome.
@@raventhorX The safety ratio of airships was actually vastly superior to primitive contemporaneous airplanes, but the issue is that there were far, far fewer airships, so it was much easier for a few high-profile crashes to cause them to slip into obscurity. When all of Pan Am’s first M-130 airplanes and most of its Boeing 314 Clippers crashed at sea or met with disaster, it wasn’t filmed for all the world to see and splashed on headlines everywhere, and they were then free to continued advancing aircraft engineering and safety.
Very cool retro concept. I would ride one over land given a competitive price and abundant safety measures. An airship to Hawaii might be cool…until it gets hit by lightning somewhere over the Pacific.
Loved the grandeur of the early airships, promenade decks, luxurious dining rooms, grand staircases, even a grand piano (ok it was aluminium). We could make a return to this with acres of solar cells for power, helium and hydrogen both have their problems, with all that energy from solar cells, there is the possibility of additional lift from hot air, and from greenhouse/ solar absorption materials. I see Fleets of these steam punk creations sailing the jet stream in a land of perpetual sunshine above the clouds.
How did you come up with the number for the increase in carbon emissions for civil aircraft engines increasing? The current trend at the moment is making the engines more efficient not less, and with future concepts of blended body aircraft and turbo-electric engines, that efficiency is expected to be even higher. Not sure where this X4 higher by 2045 comes from.
It’s happened before. The _Norge_ and the _Graf Zeppelin_ both successfully visited the North Pole, while the _Italia_ got lost and crashed, its crew having to be rescued by an international effort. Two out of three ain’t bad, pretty par for the course for early 20th century aircraft. Every one of Pan Am’s first seaplanes ended up crashing, for example.
Hi. I've decided Matt! The most important drawbacks have been omitted from this video. First, blimps are totally at the mercy of the weather, especially strong winds. I took a tourist balloon ride, and waited for days until the wind was well below 25kph, and it was all on. Second, they are at the mercy of air pressure, which varies between 900 to 1020 millibars, and can change quickly, altering the flotation of the vehicle dramatically. Third, they can't fly high enough to avoid weather fronts in the troposphere, which means they must fly slowly around storms. I wouldn't like to be in a airship over the mid-Atlantic when the captain stammers; "passengers must fasten their seatbelts, we're going to pass through some extreme turbulence: if we're lucky!". And don't forget, Matt, "Montgolfiers" are infernal French devices, people should fly using spruce and cotton wings, as Sir George Cayley and the Wright brothers intended. Cheers, P.R.
@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 Hi there. Airships probably have a place doing heavy lifting for construction companies, but obviously a perfectly still day would be needed to ease a 100-ton bridge truss in place from the air. The time delay waiting for that one day would halt all progress on the bridge. Helicopters also do heavy lifting and are more able to cope with light breezes while hovering, although they don't have the huge lifting capacity of an airship. More market research is needed to find the airship's niche. I apologize for pouring cold water on a very interesting concept that may still be useful, but scheduled passenger travel by airship is not a possibility. Good ideas still need "feet on the ground" critical analysis to avoid wasting investor's money. For a blow-by-blow account of British airship development in the 1930's I suggest reading about Barnes-Wallis and the development of the R100 airship, and its ill-fated companion, the R 101. A ripping good read, it makes you-tube videos look like kid's picture books. Thanks for an interesting video, and the comments. Cheers, P.R.
"It's better for the environment" is hardly a significant enough motivator to promote this initiative. You said it yourself. Safety is critical and these have been proven to be unsafe.
High Speed Rail is fine in higher density areas of the country. There's actually a certain point distance wise where High Speed Rail is faster than flying with all the hassle at the airport. Outside that range flying takes less time. Maybe 20 years ago Car and Driver had 6 sets of travelers going from NYC to DC. The fastest was the person who I assume exceeded the speed limit by a considerable margin. Second took the Acxela. Third drove keep pace with traffic. Fourth place to the one who drove at the speed limit. Fifth was the one who flew. Last took the Greyhound. The journey was from one address in midtown Manhattan to a hotel in DC. The problem is when you get out into what is disparagingly called flyover country. Depending on where you live it may take two or three hours or more to get to an airport. As for HSR the passenger density simply isn't there.
I thought the main challenge was sealing rubber materials and that has changed a lot since back then. But I guess large and superlight containers is still really difficult to make, or at least expensive.
No, the funny thing about airships is that they're the _least_ affected when it comes to square-cubed law (or, as some people would say, square-cubed law _helps_ them).
There's an irony here. People get wigged out about having people in hydrogen filled airships, yet are perfectly fine with fuel-air bombs with wings flying over their heads every hour. That and the Hindenburg disaster was more about hubris and taking stupid risks than the dangers of Hydrogen lifting gas. You can engineer a LTA to use Hydrogen and be completely safe.
It's not that, its resentment. The author mentions that flying is "10% of our emissions" but people like me haven't flown in years. I've only flown a few times in my life, like twice or so.
5:13 talks about combining helium and aerodynamic lift. Anyone tried doing that with a ground effect vehicle? Could help get out of the water for liftoff.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think we’re going to be seeing more airships filling the skies in the future?And if you liked this video, check out "The Future of Solid State Wind Energy - No More Blades" ruclips.net/video/nNp21zTeCDc/видео.html
Helium for special blimps that support rescue missions and scientific endeavors are okay. Otherwise, I think this is a bad idea considering our limited helium supply.
We need to think about our helium usage with at least a _next-200-years_ mindset. It's necessary for so many very important scientific applications like MRI, making fiber optics, computer chips, arc welding, deep sea diving, etc.
Replacing even a quarter of air travel and maritime shipping with helium would require crazy amounts of helium. I'd imagine it would decimate our supply.
Speaking very broadly, if we could double the best lithium ion battery energy density _(per liter),_ it would compete reasonably with gasoline. That should make it very doable for planes and maritime cargo ships.
Does you head looks like a blimp to homage the future of Air Travel?
There may indeed be specialized use cases for air ships, but in comparison to something like electric aircraft, I'm personally doubting their true likelihood as viable transport, in particular with regards to the helium consumption.
When airships were first fielded in the US they accounted for virtually 100% of the worlds helium consumption (Edit: 2.1 MILLION ft³ or 59,000 m³ of the stuff).
I find myself curious what optimizations might be made in thermal differential lift conveyances (hot air balloons, say, heated by solar or those unidirectional thermal convection polymers) or even the vacuum-filled neutral buoyancy theoretical vehicles (an ultra lightweight, rigid-structure, hollow sphere filled with, well, nothing - that is, as close to vacuum as is feasible - is lighter than air. Given a shell made of "unobtainium" - a substance yet to be provided by current material science - of sufficient diameter, one could float a city in midair. The trick is ensuring it doesn't collapse in on itself/implode.
It's all about displacement of mass (the same way we can build 100,000 ton super carriers out of metal that still float on the ocean).
I dunno. Maybe it's just me, but I feel revisiting a technology long-since supplanted by others, that consumes vast quantities of a non-renewable resource that could be better applied to other, trivial technologies like, oh, MRI's, when myriad other, novel technologies are competing for the same space strikes me as rather myopic.
@@grumblycurmudgeon I didn't know about precedent with regards to previous airships and helium supply. That confirms my assumptions about what a current move to airships would do our helium supply. I'm in agreement. I don't want to use helium for our travel excluding special situations.
The Lockheed tech is based on the Airlander tech - I can only assume they're still paying Airlander a royalty, ^oo^
I’m 65 years old. For as long as I’ve been alive they declare the “return of the airship” every 10 years or so. Used to be a regular cover story in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science. Glad to see even in the digital age, the tradition lives on.🤣
There's a very good episode of the animation series "Archer" about that.
I saw this and thought "this again?". Yeah, not holding my breath for any airship departures.
The one thing that seems a little more possible this time, to me, is the possibility of unmanned hydrogen cargo airships. If it's efficient enough, cargo companies will adopt it, and unmanned vehicle technology is certainly more advanced now then ever before. But I'm not holding my breath.
I think it's because on the surface it seems like a fairly obvious solution to many problems we have with conventional jet aircraft. And even if you dig in, it still seems like it's only an issue of lack of development at the same pace as jets. Basic issues that could be tackled with some good old fashioned 'getting it into the field'.
The problem is not much different than that of Tilt-rotor aircraft. It seemed like a win-win, but there were risks. People heavily criticized it for crashes and deaths, but it was still far less than when we first got helicopters working. Someone will just have to take the plunge and absorb the risks and costs to get them common enough and worked with enough to bring the costs down and address some of these other technical risks.
Ditto. Almost as bad as cancer cures.
I used to help build airships. I didn’t meet anyone in the business who thought airships are the future. They are instead the best solution for a very limited and specific set of problems. I enjoyed building them.
After a lifetime of aviation - - - - - - - - - - - - - > *I'd strongly agree!*
Where were you building airships?
with better tech coming. do you think it could become a viable transport ?
So what's wrong with them? Why don't you agree with the numbers in this video?
@@eugeniustheodidactus8890 Tennessee, USA.
Every 20 years or so, people bring up modernized airships as a possible future transportation alternative, but the practicalities always shut it down.
Like... Wind. Lol.
Not to mention the amount of He available is limited, and we will run out of it relatively soon. Hydrogen is not an option as it is practically an explosive where oxygen is present - like on Earth.
*caugh* Cargolifter *caugh*
@steelhound duncan, there's no way to manufacture He in a cost-effective way and because it's so light it escapes the atmosphere.
@@bztube888 they're going to use hydrogen for unmanned cargo flights, sure hydrogen is dangerous BUT only at certain ratios once its 100% hydrogen then it can't explode.. the Hindenburg didn't explode because of hydrogen but it went up in flames because of its coating (most if not all of the hydrogen was vented out before the Hindenburg went down in flames)
Relegating blimps to unmanned cargo shipping only would be a good way to introduce the benefits of the technology to the economy while letting boxes and packages bear the safety uncertainties.
That makes sense in the case of hydrogen-filled blimps. I don't see why helium-blimps would be more dangerous than a plane or helicopter.
@@stanleywang7367 Simply by a million times less field experience I guess
I'd definitely say that the rarity and non-renewability of helium is going to be a major limiting factor in this. Maybe if we can figure out a way to generate helium, or a way to make hydrogen safe then this could work.
Hydrogen is safer than most fuels
@@cedriceric9730 Lifting gas is a very different application than as fuel
There is no reason why hydrogen could not be as safe as jet fuel. We never consider when flying that we are sitting in a metal tube filled with an explosive liquid.
The truth is the Hindenburg was a very unlikely event that happened to have been televised. Even back then you are far more likely to survive a hydrogen blimp crash then an airplane crash. Most people on the Hindenburg survived completely unscaved.
Another alternative is to simply pump the air out of the 'tanks'. No special gas necessary.
I'm disappointed this video glossed over the fact that almost all helium used on Earth comes from natural gas mining and separating it from NG is itself an energy intensive process. It also didn't mention that helium on Earth is already in a supply crunch and it's used for far more important things than airships, like critical medical testing.
Also, $8200 is about as much as a first-class ticket from JFK to Heathrow costs.
I think hydrogen will make a comeback for cargo airships. Hydrogen is so cheap in comparison.
Once they prove their safety, due to modern materials, passenger airships will follow.
Hydrogen balloons are commonly used by airborne forces to practice parachute jumps, so they are used today already.
@@parajacks4 unfortunately hydrogen suffers from many of the same issues. Currently it's mostly made from natural gas, and making it is extremely energy intensive and emit a lot of carbon. There are alternate ways (hydrolysis), but they are also extremely energy intensive, so until we have more green energy, they too can be problematic.
@@bill_and_amanda
Using excess green energy to make hydrogen is a hot topic at the moment, when a region produces too much wind or solar powered electricity it is either sent long distance through the grid, which is wasteful, or wind turbines are turned so they stop producing.
In the near future there will be more options for excess electricity including grid scale batteries and hydrogen production.
The tech is there, open to some improvements and refinements, no doubt, but tech is not so complicated for hydrogen production, it’s just an anode a cathode and water, not much more. Storing the hydrogen is the difficult bit, as it’s so small hydrogen has a habit of slowly escaping through any container, faster when under pressure.
@@parajacks4 How about magnetic confinement, since we can get ions of hydrogen from catalysed electrolysis? I realized it's not the the same order of energy as plasma in fusion, but it should still be magnetic-confinable. We can then reduce loss-to-percolation-through-container a lot. Unsure of how much of that loss would have to be prevented to make the magnetic field worthwhile to keep
Edit: this is stupid, we want to decrease density, not increase it.
@@parajacks4 in theory using excess green energy to produce hydrogen through electrolysis is a great idea.
some british Grandpa when he see's a airship over London: "shit, they're back"
Hey mate, what’s the last thing you thought you’d see in the night sky?
Well that’s a deep question, but-
Nah nah cause there’s blimps…
"bloody bastards!..."
Just running into the yard with a rusty Lee-Enfield that hasn't seen daylight since 1945, "We sent you back to Berlin once, we'll do it again!"
They aren't coming back and the last commercial airship I think was the Hindenburg in 1937. There was a sister airship, but it never operated with passengers. Airships from that time onward were restricted to experimental military use up until WWII and may be a little beyond. Any kid that would remember one other than an advertising one would have to be at least 75 now.
@@fireblast133 I appreciate a cultured person when I come across them. I bow to you!
Hindenburg had a flammable skin, which modern ships wouldn't. Also, bear in mind, that in the Hindenburg disaster, a lot of people survived. You don't see that when jet airliners crash. I would love to see a return of elegant, slower-paced sky travel.
YOu make a point. Jets are flying bombs. A hydrogen filled airship would be dangerous but less so. Obviously helium would be best if feasible in the long term.
Also, these companies planned it for unmanned cargo operations only. Which mean that, if it crashes, there's nobody onboard.
One of the problems that most discussions of airships tend to ignore is that they provide more surface area and leverage for turbulent air currents - including air currents that will flip them end-to-end and/or put substantial stresses on the frame. The larger they get, the more susceptible they are to this risk.
It's unfortunate that this video did not mention that the defining characteristic of these "hybrid airship" designs is that they are almost always heavier than air, unlike the always lighter than air rigid airships of the past. The gases are just used to offset some of the weight of the air frame and cargo. They don't fly without power, just like a plane. It's the only reason remote landing can even be considered as historically airships would require significant ground crews to immediately tie them down and add weight. Apparently that design shown with the air cushion pads can reverse them and suction itself to an airstrip if needed.
@@GarthMitchell modern airships can use submarine inspired technology to control lift and land without a ground crew by compressing their lifting gas, thus increasing their density above that of the surrounding air.
Dragon Dream used that design before their prototype was crushed by its hangar collapsing, sending the company to oblivion.
smaller crafts are more unstable; once they are larger than the typical turbulence cell size, they will just ride over the pothole.
Why does the frame have to be larger? why can't it be a series of smaller frames connected together. (a shitty example, instead of using 1 empty drum, instead lash or weld together a bunch of drums together. kinda like if you were to make a raft, where you would use more bottles or drums for more buoyancy.)
I do understand the more frames used, the heavier it would be. I also know carbon-fibers are really expensive to print out, but why not use carbon-fibers as the frames? (They have them on cars, it's true they can't stand up to crashes too well, but the frames would be lighter!)
What I think would be a very promising hybrid is if an airplane is designed with a (hydrogen?) jet engine where the hot air is fed into a balloon for lift.
That way it is easy to throttle it down to land. I think this kind of plane could be extremely promising.
Perhaps the balloon could even be collapsible or detachable in freak weather or emergency.
Imagine to lift capacity and speed provided by wings aided by hot air balloons fed by the hot exhaust of the jet engines that now largely goes to waste.
It could also provide significant safety benefits.
As an engineer, I'm an airship fanatic.
Zeplin never stopped working on the technology nor did England. The Hindenburg is remembered for it's crash but the airship itself was a great success. It never missed a scheduled departure and it never turned back in three seasons. It carried lots of passengers and freight successfully. Also there is a tendency to ignore the airship successes "The Norge" the " Italia". The tremendously successful one design by Barnes Wallace. To mention just a couple.
After the 747 collision at Teneriffe people still kept getting into airplanes.
Germany's "Cargo lifter" was planned to carry 160 tonnes.
A bridge could be fabricated any where and airship-ed to a site almost anywhere in the world because of their ability to hover.
Air ships may left the sky, but some of us can still hear the engines
Airships Are the Answer.
NO IT WASN'T. IT WAS A CATASTROPHE... A DISASTER. WE REMEMBER THE HINDENBERG!!
Terrible analogy
@@4rumani what analogy? There was no analogy. A analogy is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. The dude only talked about airships… never once did he make an analogy.
I'm interested in airships because given modern materials and construction methods, helium instead of hydrogen, solar assist and silent electric propulsion, a helluva amazing airship is possible. Nature flights over the Amazon ?
How did they never miss a departure? Weren't they somewhat weather sensitive?
Blimps have been "making a comeback" for over 20 years. It seems every year we read these same articles and arguments about how blimps could revolutionize travel. Still waiting.
Helium
They said the same thing about electric cars ... there's always another delay but it seems eventually ...
Welll shiiiiit you try making them!
Well do you want them to rush things? And pump out some trash that dies if a fingernail touches it?
Well I disagree with the idea blimps are necessarily the future but I have to say 20 years is nothing. People always assume things will stay the same which is funny considering how much the world has changed even in just the past decade.
I want airships, trams, and trains! 🙏🙏🙏
Me too i love airships
BLIMP-TRANSPORT/AIRSHIP-TRANSPORTATION/AIRSHIP-HELICOPTER-DRONE-CARRIERS/AIRSHIP-DRONE-CARRIER/RESOLVED-AIRSHIP-TRANSPORTATION-STABILITY-RESOLUTION/HEXAGON-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-BUOYANCY-PLACEMENT-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-UMBRELLA-SHAPED-WEIGHT-SUPPORT/HEXAGON-WEIGHT-DISPLACEMENT-MECHANISM/[HEXAGON-DOME-SHAPED-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-FORMATION-WEIGHT-DISTRIBUTION-MECHANISMS/HEXAGON-AIRSHIP-CARRIER-AI-AUTOMATED-BUOYANCY-MECHANISM
Conventional airship cargo-carriers experience instability issues when loading and offloading cargo. The instability in buoyancy (levels); created by the fluctuating mass of the cargo, as well as unstable air-currents (especially at higher altitude), makes conventional designs for airship cargo-carriers inefficient, unstable and potentially unsafe... when compared to alternative modes of cargo transportation vessels, e.g. conventional cargo-ships that travel via a body of water/sea.
When all is said and done... I have come to realize that the technology should be paired with 'vertical', cargo-transport carries, i.e. [droned] helicopters. Helicopter technology should be incorporated with Ai; so that the drones will be outfitted with cargo (of specific weight/mass). With their proven prowess in vertical takeoff, they will be utilized to safely mount cargo on a giant airship (said cargo will [obviously] need to be spaced/tired-down and stationed relative to each other. Inspiration from the hexagon shape should aid the intended 'fair and even [weight] distribution' of mass, across the storage site within the airship). Like an orchestra, when coordinated, the swarms of vertical [helicopter] drones (coordinated & assisted Ai; will take the shape and form of a 'helicopter', for its vertical functionality... they will double and function as integral, and additional transportation-carriers) will 'double and function' as 'construction-pulleys'; in their purpose in safely and relatively steadily mounting cargo onto the large storage site (that will be situated on top of the airship. I envision a small, but functional runway built on the surface of the airship. It is in this additional, supportive function that the airship will resemble an "aircraft carrier, battle ship"). New and emerging technologies will facilitate this mode if cargo transportation.
NOTE: When all is said and done... When we take a step back, and observe the construct in action, its coordinated functionalities and mechanisms will resemble the (relationship and transport mechanism) 'worker-bees and their beehive'. Through further research and development of the quantum mechanics; that is at play, and is responsible for buoyancy (its essence is [efficient] mass/weight-distribution within a [specified] medium volume)... It will be possible to reroute/engineer buoyancy (how lighter than air gas behave), i.e. how mass is distributed within a specified [enclosed] medium-volume/volume of a specified medium.
REMEMBER: that buoyancy takes the path with the least resistance. Point is, if you can manipulate/[quantum] engineer how lighter-than-air gases behave, you will have an easier time using Ai to coordinate their behaviour (with greater efficiency and precision, e.g. making lighter-than-air gases even lighter; manipulating their mass at the quantum scale). Were such endeavours researched, developed and refined to an art, then what we will be left with are the components to anti-gravity technology and [quantum] know-how.
NOTE: There was a successful scientific experiment; where Rubidium was used to give additional mass to the photon. This resulted in slowing down the photo. The experiment supported the feasibility of hard-light technology. The essence of the experiment was that the mass of subatomic particles could be altered/manipulated to bare desirable outcomes. That research should have been concocted with quantum mechanics in mind. Engineering at the quantum scale is exciting and bares monumental possibilities.
/Close.
As long as we make it the final place for a Yugioh tournament I’m there.
"Screw the rules, I have money"
I saw this video in my recomendations and I was like "neat, an alternative to planes". Then I realized that at this level of capacity, route length and speed, high speed trains are way way wayyyy better. The issue is that something like "regional flights" should not exist. We have train that can reach almost 400 km/h, there is literally no reason to use airplaines for such short trips.
Planes should be limited exclusively long travels, talking 1000+ kms. Unfortunately at the moment there is no substitute for that, unless you have like a week available for the trip.
As pointed out airship have niche applications like reaching isolated places for goods and passengers or as sky cruises for rich people. But come on, "Future of Sustainable Air travel"? Not even close.
would be a lot cooler if they did though
@@LyadinDima well yeah, but we try to be realistic ahah :)
One application could be connections to islands. Trains are definitely off the table, airplanes pollute a lot and boats are super slow (and also pollute). Airship could be a better solution (which fall in the "reaching isolated places", I guess)
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
Speed and rich people amusement are not the focus. They can be used for heavy lift loads for delivery to difficult locations to access. Large scale supply and equipment dumps after natural disasters, supply remote research locations in jungles and mountainous terrain, cheap to operate for routine work in poor counties. You think to small. These blimps can be made much larger.
@@MrBonners I swear people do not read before commenting. I said
" As pointed out airship have niche applications like reaching isolated places for goods and passengers"
So never said that airship donvt have uses. But alternative to planes? Not even close.
Engineering companies I've worked for have seriously looked at this technology for transporting oversized equipment and modules from fabrication facilities directly to site without any of the traffic restrictions. I can definitely see the feasibility of this method of travel.
This is by far the most brilliant use case
So what you're saying is there may be a need for future pilots too? I would like to learn
Wow that’s a really good use case
And for typical transport of civilians and freight, and everything else that is done by vehicles, and then some. That's their proper potential and that's what I want to see, no compromises.
This can work really well but would need light gases like helium to do it or hot air too, companies are building hydrogen fuel planes that use fuel made by H2O by separating the H2 and O and is a good fuel to use and when burn together it turns back to water
I’m a little confused. At the start you said we don’t often have the time for the train, but then later the top speed for an airship is only 130mph. Trains in many parts of the world have top speed well above that - the TGV in France for example goes up to 186mph. Even in countries without that infrastructure yet (like UK) we are already at 125mph on the main train lines.
I thought the supply of helium is a rare, and essentially irreplaceable resource. Hydrogen is really the only way to support airships in scalable sense.
Nope, the hydrogen once mixed with air (oxygen) is very flammable. Germany used to bomb England in WW1. The ships were shot down and typically would burst into flames in a spectacular fashion. What I find fascinating is that in one account, a British pilot firing incendiary bullets staffed a ship to no effect. Meaning the bullets pasted through the pure hydrogen and didn't ignite. The solution of course was firing at one point.
@@tomlewis2880 Hydrogen will only ignite when in the presence of oxygen. If the bullet just plunged right into the middle of the pure hydrogen, its flame would be extinguished immediately.
maybe we can build vacuum airships in the future, they would float even better. Just need a very strong hull that is also light (carbon nanotubes for example)
@@tomlewis2880 it proved surprisingly difficult to bring down a hydrogen lifted zeppelins it took a few good attempts and a sustained attack using specialised bullets to bring the first one down and that may well be down to igniting the outer covering which then spread to the escaping gas.
Hydrogen is really the only way to go. People seem fine sitting on giant tanks of jet-fuel so I'm not sure why hanging under a big bag of hydrogen would be any worse. Like anything, it is an engineering problem.
Hi, I didn’t hear any mention of the impact of weather on these aircraft. Do they have the ability to avoid storm cells, fly higher to avoid weather or around a storm?
Reliability, is NOT a factor in this equation. My trackin # ain't wokin good nuf
It looks like they can fly around a mile high, maybe edging toward two miles. So not high enough to fly over storms like jets do.
It's not mentioned, because that's one of the main reasons why this technology is not viable.
@@moos5221
You _are_ aware that there are airships flying around right now though, right? The Goodyear Zeppelins, for example. And during World War 2, USA military blimps had the highest mission readiness (days out of the year where they were able to go out on missions) of any aircraft.
Weather is an issue, as with any low-flying aircraft, but not an insurmountable one. Modern airships have to pass the same airworthiness certifications as any other aircraft.
@@Jjames763 you don't seem to understand. that zeppelins exist doesn't mean they are viable alternatives to aircraft or any other transportation. winds heavily affect airships and make them not a viable choice, because there are many weather scenarios where they just can't fly or where they just get destroyed or have to emergency land on open field. that's why you don't see zeppelins being used right now outside of experimental scenarios, because they are not viable.
People have been talking about a blimp revival for thirty years, but nobody seems to be able to get it together. Now we have a helium shortage, too.
Yey for more tropical theme parks in the hangars for these proposed megaprojects...
It’s exceedingly difficult to shoulder the R&D costs while also breaking into such a highly regulated and technical industry, while also competing against other aircraft that have an uninterrupted century of amortized research and infrastructure supporting them.
If the right people won world war 2 zeppelin airships would definitely be one of the most common forms of mass international transport.
@@zteaxon7787 uhmm... No.
By the Time ww2 was ongoing, all nations were working hard on jet engine driven aircraft, including the Germans (ME 262), the japanese (kikka),
the british (Meteor), and probably many more.
@@zteaxon7787
Not at all. The Axis powers used a grand total of 1 airship during the War, and the Allies used over a hundred of them. The USA was the side with blimps in that conflict!
I worked as a designer on the Airship Industries Skyship 500, 600 & Sentinel in the 1980’s and the marketing was saying exactly the same as your video.
I think the issue for airships is the weather, which you didn’t mention, to which they are susceptible. I watched Two airships rip apart on their masts due to high winds.
The 500 & 600 airships also required large ground crew which basically cancelled any profits when they operated their London site seeing trips.
That was 30+ years ago so I am optimistic that new technology will overcome the problems we had with the 500&600 designs
"Sounds uplifting." Can we get a slow clap for our man here? That was a fantastic dad joke. 10/10
What did you think about the hemorroid pillow comment?
👏 👏 👏
Blimps have always been highly susceptible to high winds which makes them totally unsuitable for scheduled passenger flights and only marginally suitable for freight.
Where there s niche, there s a market!
@@bobjob3632 All it takes is a couple of crashes and it'll be shut down AGAIN.
@@grantkruse1812 Humans are too afraid of danger and failure, sadly....it will hold us back.
I suggest HUGE ANCHORS that they let fall at any time when the winds are too strong. Yes some cows and people will be lost but I think it would be a good solution
@@isychia4947 DEAD WEIGHT. Unless...
-> This could be the batteries (for the all_electric engine versions).
With dual cables for the anchoring & power transmission (to keep powering the engines of the main ship activelly fighting the wind), each one of this "anchors" would be self_propelled drones with cameras & A.I. cappable of choosing a good location "on the fly" (no pun intended).
As an extra, with only one of this "anchor batteries" landing on a (very small footprint) pad with a high power connector, it could be posible to quickly recharge itself plus all other batteries on the main ship (via the power cable); without the whole ship having to land [something that in moderate/chaotic wind conditions could be unsafe, while keeping itself in place on the air would be relatively easy].
Oh, the puns. I’m a fan of low-hanging fruit!🤣
The hemorrhoids one was painful and unexpected. Which makes it more accurate.
Weave them together for spun puns
@@tomellis4750 FoLHF and acronyms!
Low-hanging fruits? So we're still talking about buttocks?
@@lonestarr1490 Depends how your mind works. Peach of a reply.
I know there are a few shipping companies n Europe that use a sailships. And they are going pretty well in terms of demand, because of their prices
How do they handle extreme weather? We are seeing more and more of that. 🤔
Actually , we're not.
Specially sudden thunderstorm
bad weather was my main question as well, but i suspect, coupled with todays satellite weather prediction tech being rather accurate it is possible to re/route and avoid inclement weather. But i could see blimps experiencing even more delays due to poor weather than heavier-than-air-craft.
Another factor that was not addressed was cost of production. The helium sourcing cost/availability was mentioned, but not the cost to produce the structure and materials of the blimp in comparison to traditional aircraft.
Shoot down all the Weather control Planes , the "Bad Weather" goes away.
@@firecloud77 Actually , we are...
I've been hearing these promises for twenty years, yet I've only seen the "Goodyear" blimp every once in a while over that period of time. I'll believe it when I see one!
Only 20 years? I've seen this story 2 or 3 times a year since I was ten. I'm 74 now. Glad I didn't hold my breath. So disappointing....
@@davidkermes393 Why you watching RUclips? Stay off it, it's really depressing sometimes with all this new crazy stuff😅. A lot of it is garbage
Goodyear purchased three of them from Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH situated at Lake Constance in Germany.
Don't wait for others to complete your wish, if you really want it then go for it. There's no other more trustable person than yourself.
@@davidkermes393 Soon you will be able to take your flying car from your driveway to the Zeppelin Port.
One big issue you didn't address is weather. Lighter than air vehicles are extremely sensitive to convection and wind given their high aspect ratio and light weight. That was a big reason the Navy abandoned their lighter then air vehicles program in the 30s and 40s. Storms kept wrecking their blimps.
Nope, Zeppelin managed just fine for almost 30 years and that was a century ago !
I can understand the idea and do think that it does provide a reasonable alternative for hard to reach locations. Also I think that it will work better as a tourism method than a way to cut plane travel as I see it more in line with a cruise ship, or a better option for travel between islands as a ferry.
Good points. However time and tourism are directly linked. In the 1930s and1940s the only way for regular people to go from the US to Europe was by boat. Now, no one would prefer to take a boat to Europe unless it were a cruise ship but, then again, a cruise is about experiencing the boat ride with lots of side amusements, so you are already on vacation when you leave the dock. There is also somethig very vsiceral about being outdoors looking down at the water on a cruise ship. There would be no real "outdoor time" on anairship.
A powerful, timeless quote from Classical Antiquity which is spot-on in understanding the absence of a modern airship industry, from Roman historian Tacitus: The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
That brings up a question though, how many people have died in modern airliners and other aircraft? Are the airships REALLY less safe? (Especially if using helium rather than hydrogen)
@@captin3149 Most people don't think about the broad scope of innovation and development. They just see an apparatus or vehicle, whatever, that works of fails, and simplistically go from there with judgements and opinions.. When SpaceX rockets fire up, fall over and explode, Musk's monitor probably lights up with elated excited (maybe even joyful) messages saying stuff like "I got it. We'll send you the simulation. And brewskies are on me." The SpaceX team don't see horrendously defective technological impediments. They only see answers to their specific problems, and opportunities for tweaking things until arriving at desired performance. So, unfortunately, we don't have any AirshipX companies around with bottomless deep pockets and no-end-in-sight perseverance, like we see with Musk and team SpaceX. But for a modestly funded airship development program, we do have the option of testing/operating such craft remotely and unmanned, drone-like, allowing for crashes without the worry of on-board crew loss etc.. Each crash and vehicle loss brings developers closer and closer to ideal safe operation, suitable for commercial production.. But since there's such a huge safety concern with the use of airships, a good way to begin, might be in using them exclusively for air freight rather than passenger transport, giving the new tech sufficient time in operation to demonstrate safety/reliability etc...
There is, in my opinion, distinct media bias in regards to airships. The SpaceX company is contemplating using its big rockets, which are mostly comprised of extremely explosive booster fuel tanks to engage in commercial passenger service. The media is mum on the idea of such a rocket failing and all the loss of lives. But bring up an airship topic, and that' becomes a major focus of concern... Oh the humanity.. -The mainstream media plays the public mind like a fiddle..
Airships definitely have a public perception of being dangerous and unsafe, largely due to the hindenburg being in the cultural zeitgeist even still.
These things can be a green alternative for helicopters, with the added benefit of being quieter and the ability to fly longer distances. But with a speed comparable to a train, and capacity and cost comparable to an airplane, don't expect them to replace either of those.
They can also work as flying aircraft carriers!!
A hybrid of plane and blimp, recessed turbines, delta wing,
blimps are all fun until you hear "kirov reporting!"
I was looking for such a comment!
KIROV REPORTING!
those things move so slow that i would forget about them until i lost my freaking construction yard.
You see droves of them along with Russian... C-130s(??) near New York... du du du dun dun
Great concept. The problem will be ground to air projectiles when traveling over land, especially urban areas.
The two fundamental problems of airships were not mentioned in this video... they are: (1) you have to carry ballast if the return operation has no payload, and this requires expensive and complex logistics; and (2) when on the ground, the airship stays on the mast, at the mercy of the wind, rotating in a circle. This makes the loading and unloading operation enormously difficult. Finally, it was mentioned in the video that it does not require ground infrastructure. OK, when compared to an airport, but yes, it does require masts, ground handling personnel, and a hangar when very strong winds are active. In other words...it is apparently simple and the solutions are wonderful, but a closer examination will show that some barriers will be very difficult to overcome for a large-scale commercial operation.
and yet people persist with these things !
Another thing people seem to forget is emergency situations. What happens when a giant blimp full of 200 people has an emergency? Planes have wings, even if all engines fail you can still glide to a clear enough area to make a crash landing. A blimp like these ones could just fall like a brick in the middle of a city? Would just have to stay put until another blimp drags it to the landing zone? Nobody would want to be the guy who pushed for blimps then.
@@maximipe too slow for anything long haul with that number of people. One thing they could be used for (and has already been put forward) is as low level satellites/transmitters ...
The main benefit of this recurring "airships are the future" thing is that it allows people such as the narrator to signal their virtues on the topic of carbon footprints, thereby proving their lack of knowledge on the topic under discussion.
The hybrid airships are not lighter than air so solve the issue regarding ballast and staying put on the ground.
I would love to see an experiment where one of these airships flies around the world at the equator. Also i would like to see an endurance test that measures how long a small group of people can live on this type of airship without landing. Successful completion of tests like these would go a long way towards exciting public interest in funding this project.
@GH0STST4RSCR34M Where did you get the idea of a city? He wrote "a small group of people."
The Graf Zeppelin did an "around the world" flight in 1930. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin
@GH0STST4RSCR34M You know that you're responding to somebody's comment, right? And you said that "it" wouldn't happen because physics. So I'm not sure why you are confused.
@GH0STST4RSCR34M you're arguing literally no one while @ and guy who said nothing weird
@GH0STST4RSCR34M physics wouldn't allow us but Mathematics will allow us.
It takes time to develop an airship in the strict meaning.
Airships can be trains too. One expensive manned, high-powered airship using safe helium lifting gas can be the locomotive for several cheaper unmanned, low-powered airships using less safe hydrogen.
Perhaps a “locomotive” on each end for speed or tension for dynamic stability. 🙃
now that is an interesting idea. manned helium ships acting as tug/main controller to a train of unmanned hydrogen ships. you could also have data lines on the linkage so that each one can have it's own propulsion to better manage the line
The safety problem of Hydrogen is not much of a problem anyways. The key problem of the Hindenburg was its very flammable outside material. That was somewhat necessary back then because very few reasonably light & reasonably cheap hydrogen-tight materials were known. But material science has come a long way in the last 84 years.
Of course nothing discussed in this video is new, it has been attempted and failed 20 years ago in Germany (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter). One of the key problems in the end was that a huge Airship with a lot of lift capability starts to try and get away with a lot of force when you unload it. So the loading/unloading process ended up being either very lengthy and inefficient, or very dangerous.
So the CargoLifter project was canceled, and the technology now is only used to fly tourists around over Lake Constance. All for the small price of ~400$/ 350€ for a 45-minute trip.
There's a helium shortage last I knew.
Or we could, you know, USE GODDAM ELECTRIC TRAINS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FLOAT THINGS ON THE AIR.
or you could even use an actual train to kite the airship from ground.... just for the fun of it!
I just took a flight, it wasn't whimsical at ALL. It wasn't a flight of fancy at ALL. By the end of it, I really started to wonder why I couldn't have taken a blimp? I say bring on the blimps, I'll blimp down, blimp back. Blimp both ways. Take an overnight, get there in the blimp of an eye. Sounds great to me. The captain comes out, holds his tophat in front of his chest, and sings jaunty preflight tune, his curly moustache bouncing along his chubby red cheeks, purple coattails swaying to the jolly music. That's Blimping. That's what commercial flights don't want us to have.
Ok Dr. Seuss
I always thought an airship would be good for the job ice road truckers do.
From what I've seen, airships fly incredibly safely and efficiently. It's the landing and keeping wind from wrecking them when you want them to stay still.
So my dream of becoming a steampunk airship pirate is coming along just fine.
Kirov Reporting
Helium optimal
Yes we'll be living the dream
The way you work those puns into the script so damn smoothly just gets me every time. I love this channel and I appreciate your dedication to entertainment
Imagine you're all out at the airship swimming pool, basking in the sun in the clouds and then you notice ya boy Brett's normally incredibly deep voice has upped a whole octave
That was awesome... :]]
One space I see a huge opportunity for blimps are carrying wind turbine blades. I thought blades were limited by the roads they need to travel on. If you had a blimp carry a couple blades hanging from them it wouldn't be a problem. Plus you could use the blimp to assist with constructing.
blades are too heavy, too long for airships. A small wind would destabilize the airship most likely with that huge airfoil under it.
@@glennewdick They could be stowed in an underbelly structure.
@@gregspecht3706 adding even more weight in the process
@@glennewdick That is kind of the purpose of airships designed to hold things... ya know, to carry weight?
@@augmentedfourthssuperfan7297 problem is they can't carry much weight to be really useful other then a few specific reasons. size/weight to lift capability is not great.
The issue with finite helium and flammable hydrogen to me seems like the biggest hurdles, but it would be cool if hydrogen could be a solution to unmanned cargo flights.
The unmanned vehicle will provide a platform for testing whether it will be safe for passengers.
I'm pretty sure we can make safe H2 airships nowadays, like with an outer Faraday cage, or oxygen buffers to keep a hydrogen leak from igniting near the ship
I would absolutely love to travel this way. No sardine can seating. No roaring engines. In fact, I would like to live in one, solar powered of course. Find a gorgeous spot off the beaten track and hover.
The way I see it, a future with fusion is also a future with airships. Helium sourcing wouldn't be a problem then. Fingers crossed for both of those.
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
I feel like hydrogen-duterium fusion is better simply because there's more hydrogen out there. The moon is the main source of helium (specifically helium-3).
@@zoeysalazar7145 Dont you people ever name any airship *other* than the Hindenburg? Seriously. The R101 for christ's sake.
Me, the biggest FF7 fan: I see this as an absolute win.
I can’t wait to listen to “Highwind takes to the skies” in remake, and in real life when I blast that shit in my AirPods while riding an airship.
Finally, a final fantasy reference 🙂
Cid makes a comeback!
There are HUGE problems with airships.
… They are highly inefficient at anything above 30 kts, as they have so much drag.
… In any significant winds, they start going backwards.
… They need enormous airfields, as they need to swing 360 degrees around the mast.
… Using jetstreams is pointless, from the UK you could only go to Russia.
… Aerodynamic airships are useless, because they cannot hover,
just like an aerodynamic heavier than air aircraft cannot hover.
… They are only useful for tourist flights, surveillance platforms, and perhaps some military freight transport. But do remember that if you drop off freight in a remote location, you have to load up the airship with the equivalent weight in water or dirt….!
Ralph
Onboard compressors can be used to adjust ballast much like how submarines work, but I agree with every other point.
I agree with your sentiment and think what you are pointing out is that this is likely a niche application. I would think remote places in times of good weather. However, I would add that these places tend to add to environmental problems (supporting 100 people 100 miles from anything is costly and inefficient).
Run it on rails at neutral buoyancy in a streamlined version with magnetic drive . No load/unload issues/ no load bearing bridges/ no ground contact / propulsion without rolling resistance - this would follow a cable to anywhere. Put some 'rise' in the cable and it will go by itself. Make it an elevator to the stratosphere and launch from there etc.
Sail with the wind no drag like a gallion thats how we discoverd the world cheerup ronadamn
@@ronaldvankuyk908 ships can sail upwind by tacking. Airships cannot.
Yes we discovered the world on wind power, but thousands died in the process and it took months or years for a single journey.
Also I believe the paint used on the hindenburg was basically chemically similar to thermite. That metal that basically burns on its own and hotter than basically anything and can spontaneously self ignite.
It was hilarious seeing the hermetically sealed smoking room on the Hindenburg compared to the canvas, wicker, and aluminum construction of everything else. They knew they were lighting up next to several thousand cubic meters of hydrogen and had very limited weight capacity, but smoking was important enough to have it's own special room.
The hydrogen didn't matter, it was the fact the thing was literally covered in thermite.
@@SgtNomadZero wait seriously?
@@jericho1733 yes. The "silver" paint they used on it was actually the correct mixture of aluminum and iron to create thermite.
@@SgtNomadZero L O L
@@SgtNomadZero In completely separate layers and the wrong concentrations needed to create thermite. It was the hydrogen. This has been tested over and over again, including on shows like Mythbusters.
Seriously, why do people like you believe this bullshit without even considering the possibility that engineers aren't complete idiots? No, you're not smarter than everyone else in the world. Neither are the people you're getting your information from. So stop pretending that every accident is caused by ignorance and stupidity. Most are caused by a wilful disregard for safety, not by stupidity or ignorance.
3:14
The Hindenburg caught fire because of the high volatility of the aluminium doping which sealed the craft - static electricity accumulated from the voyage through electric clouds over powered the cells of netting when currents earthed going down the guy ropes. The H2 itself inflamed - of course - as a secondary effect of this - but as people should know generally - it took its flames upwards rapidly - a thing which a petrol ignition is unable to do.
Themain casualties were from people who jumped. If the footage is studied the descent of the ‘gondola’ is gentle and people who remained on board ran to safety once it landed. There were of course casualties from inflamed debris but H2 - though universally blamed since - was not the culprit.
The simplest explanation for the Hindenburg explosion was the hydrogen gas being ignited. Most of the passengers died from burns, not from jumping from the ship. Relatively few jumped.
Kevin Olson
There’s a detailed documentary on the event somewhere whose findings I quoted - yes burns - and death from them - would have occurred but that was taken in by the phrase ‘falling debris’ and the burns would be caused by the ignited aluminium doping material and not H2. H2 - as you probably know - is much lighter than air and when released rushes upwards. It is physically impossible for it to have been involved in the casualties from burns. Yes - a lot of people died from jumping - but again - as said - if you study the footage there is a gentle landing of the ‘carriage’ and people can be seen running from it to safety.
Thanks for replying.
Interesting, was not aware of that. As a note about the H2 igniting, it needed oxygen for that. Maybe a residual amount of oxygen was still in the "balloon" after it got filled with H2? Or was that balloon leaking already when the ignition happened?
I read in some kid's journal that the Hindenburg went down to a rocket launched by some gangster with a grudge.
@@silversungaming9451
Great idea! What did he have against H2?!
(I think the 200 or so airships of that era - all showed bullet holes fired from below into the ‘blimp’. I think the Hindenburg recorded several hundred in any year - fortunately no one fired an explosive bullet into them - but it is also the case that of some 250 airships I think only one finished its design life in the way intended for it. It would be a great history to learn the fate of all the others and how they were ‘got’.
Perhaps THE greatest advantage of airships was unmentioned: loiter. While this has limited benefits for shipping, the military applications for advanced airships with long loiter are many. Applications range from simple radar and communications platforms to hypothetical multi-cell behemoths armed with stand-off missiles.
For loiter maybe you can power the whole thing only with solar and wind or maybe with very little extra energy consumption. A huge advantage indeed.
ye, i mean, maybe stick with the helium if your doing that though. :D
@@TheEightshot Indeed. By Pentagon budget standards, Helium is basically free.
Biggest problem with that usage would probably be defending against attacks, especially because they are way bigger and slower than other aircrafts, so way easier to target.
@@Shimonotoki Very true. Could be mitigated by going BIG. Perhaps hundreds of independent cells linked together and dynamically stabilized. Taking the whole thing down could prove too much for most adversaries. 🤷♂️
I would love to fly in an airship to commute from state to state. We should make this happen.
Then they need to also ban BB guns =))
Another great bonus is that they would be far quieter than typical planes. I live relatively close to an airport so you hear jets often, this would be a great change!
No, I lived near one of the Goodyear blimps. Not quite at all and it was a small blimp. You definite knew when it was flying over, especially if it was fighting any wind. This thing would be deafening.
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
When Matt Ferrell talks about your paper, you realize you made the right career choice! Thanks for sharing the research Matt! I love and watch all your videos!
Wow, congratulations! I'm assuming this gives you more of a rush than a few citations?
Ha! Thanks so much, Julian.
@@TheHellogs4444 Definitely! This paper only got 7 citations. A video from Matt Ferrell counts as 1000 citations!
Fascinating video as always! I have one suggestion though-pick a consistent method for representing percentages, and stick to it. It’s visually quite confusing to jump back and forth between graphs that show a 90% reduction in operating cost as “90%/100”, and ones that show using 10% of the fuel use as “10%/100”. They’re both the same percentage of reduction, so the graph should be represented using the same scale, especially when the graph doesn’t have a legend.
Hydrogen could be used for the upper half of the ship and a separate set of gas bags for helium down lower, closer to the cabins. Thus, if hydrogen did explode the flames would be shielded by the helium bags. It is also possible that if the helium bags were not damaged the airship could make an emergency landing using the lift from helium and propellers. This would reduce the amount of expensive helium required for operation.
Helium isn't expensive anymore. Rise of natural gas. Helium is one of the vent off gasses that comes off of getting natural gas and as prices on helium went up natural gas companies started capturing it to sell. We have more of it than we know what to do with. Natural gas companies let most of just out into the atmosphere and only capture enough to meet demand. Demand goes up, they capture more. Demand goes down they capture less. There's honestly nowhere to store it if we captured it all. It's just too much helium. So helium is kept at an artificial price high to meet a demand, when it's actually a dirt cheap byproduct.
@@halycon404 Well hell then, let's make fleets of huge cargo dirigibles!
I've been waiting on this to become a reality for over a decade now. There were articles talking about the advantages of this for heavy cargo into hard to reach areas or areas without infrastructure and it seemed like a no brainer. Considering the basic tech for this has been around for a long time I really expected this to come around much faster than it has. After this amount of time that this has been touted as a viable alternative I'm not holding out hope for it to take off any time soon.
For this to be viable long term they would need to figure out how to not use up that helium. I mean a way to make a closed permanently filled up helium balloon. That way once filled, it would never need a refilling, or a very little of it. After that they would need to find a way to control altitude around that.
The solution For the buoyancy is compressors and onboard tanks, which I suspect they're already relying on. But the helium problem isn't going away anytime soon, especially considering the most pressing use case for it is in the medical field. Considering the catastrophic consequences of problems in current air travel, I'm curious what the safety of hydrogen is in comparison. The main concerns are flammability and the need for static discharge mitigation, which might be solvable with an aerogel or porous foam.
Or develop a way to create a cheap, renewable lighter-than-air gas.
I could very well be wrong, but if I remember correctly, I think the main probpem with Helium loss is that it's so small, that it can juat pass through molecular gaps.
@@jooptablet1727 That would be 'Hot Air' for now. Could there be a heat gathering component using solar, built into something like this, so that it collects its own lift by containing the suns' energy within its' lift system , in the form of heat ?
We can focus solar into expansion chambers that become lighter than air, and back that up for emergency use. Why not ? Trap the hot air and you have lift. Would there be enough energy to reach altitude ? You'd have to dump air on the way up, like a diver coming to the surface from down deep - Solar Power turned into Lift.
@@youdonthavetoreadthispost.5850 I like the way you think!
Is hydrogen really more dangerous? I know its flammable but so is airplane fuel.
Is the danger bad planning and design to deal deal with a flammable lift gas or is it actually too difficult to make safe?
Kerosene is far more forgiving over gasoline. A high flash point increases safety during day to day operations. Plenty of demonstrations online showing this, with pooled fuel, a flame, and no ignition.
The Hindenburg was originally designed to use a hydrogen-bag on the inside with a helium barrier around it as a flame-retardant. The US wouldn't sell the needed helium so they just filled the whole thing with hydrogen without significant design modifications. Having hydrogen as a lifting gas can be safe if your design accounts for it.
Watch the original newsreels and you can see what is burning on the Hindenburg is its highly flammable outer skin.
What a great concept. If they can just manage the control issues in bad weather. What a way to travel. Cruising slowly at low altitude over the African Veldt and all the wonders of the world.
It might be interesting to compare airship traveling with really fast trains (as they are only in many European countries and in Japan and China at the moment). Fast trains certainly can provide quick transportation for medium range travel without the loss of additional hours needed to travel to the airport and after the flight back to the next city center. But the question is: which one is the better solution: the airship or those fast trains?
And the second question is: What are the respective costs to establish each of the two traffic systems, a nationwide high speed rail system (rails and trains) vs a nationwide airship traffic system (which is capable of moving a similar number of travelers) including the airships and the infrastructure; landing sites plus quick transportation to the city centers.
My gut feeling tells me the train might be the winner in this competition, but I don't have any reliable data. I think I and many others are interested in a evaluation with fair data.
Eh, there’s still the American market! Also, oceans…
I think there is a lot of research that can be done in the airship arena due to new materials, electric engines, solar panels, etc, however I've seen some vides with people of the new airship companies saying trains are better than airships and airships are better when there is no infrastructure, they are targeting logging companies so they can take the logs directly from the logging zone to wherever they need it. Also luxury air-yachts. maybe turistic traveling. I can imagine turistic industry in the caribean.
the main problem of airships is they need good weather.
The train wins, easily.
Because of a thing called capacity.
Airships just can't do economics of scale...
I'm always amazed to see the estimates of cargo payloads being good for airships.
The Hidunburg class of Zeppellins, could lift about 200 tons.
That's a lot... but not even 1% of what your usual cargo ship can hold.
You would never, ever be able to replace ships by airships, simply throught the sheer fact that even if they're cheaper, they would require anincredible increase of traffic.
No, the Hindenburg couldn't lift about 200 tons.
The total weight respectively the gross lift of the gas filling was ~220 tons.
118 tons accounted for the dead weight of the airship.
Up to 73 tons accounted for the diesel fuel.
"Payload" was 11 tons of baggage and other cargo and up to 72 passengers (5-6 tons).
@@701983 I said he could lift about 200 tons.
I didn't say 200 tons *of cargo*. That weight include the hull, fuel, engines and all.
It's easy to assume that a modern airship of the same size, going lower distances (so less fuel) and unmanned could carry a bigger payload, but even fully optimized, there's just no beating 200 tons of cargo for an Hidenburg-sized airship. Even more so when you consider he ran on hydrogen and not helium (hydrogen being lighter, therefore a better gaz when it comes to lifting power).
My point though, was that airships may be more cost-efficient to an extent, but there's just no point when an alternative is available: they are orders of magnitude away from being able to stand in for regular freight in terms of volume. And there is *nothing* you can do about it.
I love airships. But this will never be something practical. These projects only exist to absorb large amounts of money. They know it's never going to be a thing. However, why not just make it for the experience itself? Forget about cargo shipping and all the green, solar power bs etc. Just build something people can enjoy. Just like a cruise ship. It's an experience. I would book a flight if it's a somewhat reasonable price. But it has to be about the experience itself. It doesn't have to be efficient, just enjoyable. I would expect the same luxury and service i enjoy taking a first class cruise. Not something to replace the horrible experience of a plane flight and make the suffering last even longer.
@@benanders4412 I partially agree, but would rather suggest to bet on nostalgia. A replica of the Hindenburg, with similar "luxury". No TV, no internet connection (for the passengers), but a piano, a reading room, a smoking room,...
Modern technology only in the background, to ensure a safe journey.
@@701983 A replica of the Hindenburg would be nice.
i'd love to see huge flying structures again, hopefully one day they will be back
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
@@zoeysalazar7145 reads like bot copied random comment from someone else and put it here to gain interest...
prove you ain't a bot by replying and i might read it.
@@Em.P14 He did copy & paste it, while spamming it as a response to many comments in this video. All caps & everything... People like that are just nutty.
@@corey2232 some appearently earn cash by doing so or they are attempting to do so at least, having one video on the channel and luring people to watch it with automated comments.
This was only a mild one, the really annoying ones are the sexistical ones.
I designed an airship just like the opening pic of this video when I was 14 years old (70 now). Pool, tennis courts, and all the rest . . . glad to see the world catching up LOL.
Every time I hear people cry about hydrogen filled airships being a fire hazard, I am reminded how many folks don't understand the flammability of JP5/jet fuel...
Comparing the amount needed and fire safty of Hydrogen and Jet A1 is like comparing the size and power of a Cruise missile to a hand granade !!!
JP5 is no longer used. JP4 is used now which has a much higher flashpoint. Essentially the same as diesel.
@@MrBizteck And yet, the requirements for either to become unsafe are the exact same. If a handgrenade goes off in your lap or if a cruise missile goes off in your lap, you're just as dead.
Properly designed and maintained, a hydrogen dirigible would be just as safe in daily operation as any aircraft.
@@johnpostelwait7306 That is completely false. JP5 is absolutely still in use. JP4 was phased out in the 90s due to safety concerns.
Could have an interesting delivery application too. As companies are experimenting with drones for last mile delivery, imagine an Amazon delivery blimp that hovers around your city while a fleet of drones flies in and out of it, making the "short" connection between the blimp and your doorstep.
> imagine an Amazon delivery blimp that hovers around your city
fetches rifle
@@ranjaxwolf9725 RAOFLMFAO!
I have dreamed of living in a small airship my whole life. I have studied the realities of airships. The ghost cost is in the longevity of the light materials required and the expense and supply chain of helium. Steam/hot air/helium; they all have major draw backs.
I'm sure hybridisation of hot air and hydrogen, together with other aeronautical advancements will get us there relatively soon
Would hot helium be more efficient?
That’s weird so have I. Ever since I ready a hardy boys book as a kid
Rewatching Fringe and it's cool how they use airships in the show. I wont give any spoilers but the context that they use them in is fantastic.
Switching between stats like “90% less” and “10% of” is a bit confusing. Maybe stick to one format?
nah no need to stick to one
It's grammatically correct to use both when presented in a correct syntax: "... while the _whatever_ industry contributes only 10% of global CO2 emissions, this *Thingy* produces 90% less CO2 than other *Thingies* in the _Whatever_ industry" - Matt is saying it right, even though it sounds like he is just spouting _Drama Digits_
@@Vodhin I’m not saying it’s wrong or for drama digits, but in the presentation style it gets a bit confusing.
The Hindenburg caught fire because the 'skin' was extremely flammable. Even if it had been filled with helium, it still would've crashed and burned.
As for an alternative, it would be possible to simply pump the air out of the envelope. That amounts to roughly 2 pounds of lift for every cubic yard. That's probably not *quite* enough to get it off the ground with any substantial payload, but it would be light enough to make it easy to fly.
No!! It was the hydrogen inside the envelope that caught fire! Germany had no easy access to helium and the US wouldn't sell it!
@Cancer McAids Since the Hindenburg was observed to have her stern low in the air (evidenced by how she was releasing ballast while coming in to land), its likely that one of the gas cells had a gash in it somewhere, possibly caused by a structural cable failing due to hard maneuvers. That leaking hydrogen was probably then set off by discharging static electricity, igniting the rest of the gas cells as well due to the ferocity of the flame.
The flammable skin theory was tested out by professionals, as well as the mythbusters, and the results showed that, on its own, the skin wasn't flammable enough to cause the spectacular fireball that took her down. It probably contributed to how ferocious the blaze was, but it wasn't what brought her down.
EDIT: Also, airship gas cells aren't pressurized, considering how buoyancy works that would only make the ship less buoyant.
@@valorousvigilante2491 Hydrogen would be the same as helium with a single bullet.
Now, hydrogen is dangerous due to flamability, but that is hilariously over exaggerated at times. Hydrogen airships during WW1 regularly made it home with thousands of holes in the envelope, without exploding.
It took the development of special incendiary ammunition to really ignite those airships, but even then, it took quite a few shots to ignite them.
@@valorousvigilante2491 Flak guns? Because that's what I was referring to, several of those ships survived ambushes by flak guns.
Doent matter if someone has access to a full auto machine gun (which would be difficult to acquire btw), or a 40mm bofors gun, unless those bullets are incendiary/explosive and enough hydrogen has spilled out to mix with oxygen, it's not going to detonate the hydrogen.
@@valorousvigilante2491 Why would I need to work for a company that sells hydrogen to point out that its comically overstated how volatile hydrogen airships were? I certainly wasn't trying to make it political, just point out and correct a misconception.
And what other comment? I don't see the comment where you mention the benefits of helium in this thread. Also, the heating the gas thing? That can be done with hydrogen as well. Hydrogen won't ignite just from heat (before a certain point at least), it would need to mix with a good amount of oxygen, and so long as there is no leak in the gas cell, there wouldn't be any oxygen to combust with, meaning no fire at all. Its basic chemistry really.
Now, I am not advocating we build airships with hydrogen again. I KNOW how dangerous it can be. You seemed to have missed where I acknowledge that.
I've been watching this stuff closely for years now. Imagine one of these things the size of small freight ship, but it flies... think about that -- moving all that cargo, without having to go around land or use canals. Imagine a fleet of those things. This would change logistics and shipping in a huge way, not to mention the huge benefits it would bring to any military. There's obvious engineering challenges that have to be overcome first and safety is a big deal, even if its autonomous -- a big one with thousands of tons of cargo onboard, that would do a lot of damage if it came down over a populated area obviously. Procedures would have to be made to make the system airtight, literally and figuratively.
Plus I just want my own air ship to float around in
"Thousands of tons of cargo", in an airship? Are you kidding? You'd be lucky to get 100 tons in a huge airship.
Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!
I would like this technology not to be corrupted by military applications.
@@rogerpope6057 Everything always is hell even medication that's meant to save people ends up being used to hurt people if it has the chance to be weaponized it can and will be no matter how "Unjust" it is it's still going to be done at some point where it's now considering reasonable and maybe even mandatory
I truly hope that airships do make a comeback! they were an elegant means of travel.
I always thought having a personal blimp would be one of the few ways to survive the apocalypse!
huh. some power armor would probably be helpful too. some people too. maybe like a brotherhood type of thingie.
And maybe we should hoard technology so other people can't cause another apocalypse
same
Does the word Airhaven means anything to you?
Just have a nice bout
Not a word about weather risk, the factor that kills this idea.
Yeah and the claim that they require no infrastructure...like a massive hangar for, amongst other things, shelter from bad weather
Run it on rails as a hover/ground effect/ magnetic drive/ bullet train with neutral buoyancy under load. Fly it a foot off the ground at high speed with no ground contact/resistance. Once moving the ground effect would assist in carrying the load while the magnets just moved it forward. More speed and efficiency but a huge infrastructure investment.
The Saudi's are playing with a tunnel version concept now. This could be run over-land, lake, and sea. There would be no downward load on a 'bridge' for example. It would just be a guide across a gap in the terrain, not a megastructure that holds great weight. On another planet maybe ? That seems to be more important than here ?
@@youdonthavetoreadthispost.5850 3 words for you: cross sectional area
@@kirkc9643 That would slow it down but not prevent it from working at transport speeds.
There's always a catch : )
Air ships always make me think of the TV show "fringe" & it's alternative universe, where the crash never happened, so the Empire State building was still a docking port for the airships (right next to a copper coloured Statue of Liberty)
I love that show i got hook on it 2 years augo im looking this up cause of the show time less
@@scobbydoo. It is an awesome show isn't it! I hope you've finished watching it, I hope I didn't give you spoilers for a season you're not up to yet :(
when I was a child, my city housed one of the 4 Goodyear blimps in the country, and it was always a treat to see it flying by. especially and night with the sides all lit up from the panels along the sides showing advertisements, and the sound the engines made. i even had a battery powered toy blimp from Goodyear, and you could make your own "ads" that lit up from the inside.
I always felt that airships should have another shot as a feasible method for passenger travel (and every time I think about the Hindenburg, just breaks my heart). I would LOVE to travel in comfort over the clouds in an airship... with an affordable ticket!
Or, if I was just terribly, stinking rich, I could afford my own airship yacht!
"Why do alternate universes always have airships everywhere?"
Because we're the rare alternate universes that DOESN'T have them everywhere.
But also, I'd predict a rise in airships once we crack nuclear fusion. It may be super efficient, so not generate much helium, but it would still become a renewable resource nonetheless.
Much as I'd like to see airships back in the sky, I've been hearing about their renaissance ever since I was a kid
One of the problems that haven't really been overcome with airships is the suceptibility to strong wind. Given their large surface area relative to their engine output they tend to have trouble fighting the wind, not a massive issue in the air (unless you run out of power before reaching your destination) but near the ground it can create some serious problems. I'd be interested to know what wind-speeds these new airships are capable of operating in
I like the shape of the Airlander because it it more aerodynamic and therefore much safer to operate as it would be less likely to roll in the wind. This shape looks as if it would be most efficient lifting both cargo and passengers.
There’s some really cool airship designs shown here, their reduction in GHG emissions is awesome! I really like the 420 ton plan to fly people and cargo to Hawaii
called it. I've been pushing for this since I was a kid it's like oh because the Hindenburg burned we can't have these anymore? ridiculous. the Titanic sank and we still got boats
the problem with airships wasn't that hydrogen was flammable - it was that they couldn't handle pretty much any adverse weather, were massively expensive and unsafe. Sadly, the same problems still exist at the moment. Maybe they can get there, would be great (I live by an airport, I'd love it to get nice and quiet! :D) but at the moment the hurdles remain
@@asharak84
The same could be said of literally any aircraft back then, but there are modern airships flying today that are much, much safer. The Goodyear Zeppelins, for example.
Here's a crappy thought, why not combine the glider with the blimp/airship? at a certain height, the wings come out & it begins to glide. or make a really tall, somehow stable Space-Elevator...& winch or bring the airship to the top. Fill it up, then launch it. letting it glide outwards & downwards at a controlled angle. Basically use the engines or extra fuel to height & course correct!
At worst, calculate out the distance between "Elevator Launch-Pads", then glide from one to the other.
It might not be as effective, but I should be quicker than a train...especially if it's going over an ocean, or mountain range!
@@DarkArtsMage how about you make it in an airfoil design to begin with and use solar electrolysis to get hydrogen out of water for lifting gas?
better yet make a giant Mana Tree style space elevator that uses geothermal vents at the bottom for thermoelectrics, and active support with lifting gas derived from the surrounding seawater, build it up to the jet stream and have air foil leaves up there to help generate more lift, and you can refill your airships from it like some kind of sky whale butterfly
@@DarkArtsMage
It’s been done before. Just look at the Aereon for example, or the kite balloons used for observation or as a kind of wind generator.
I'd definitely take one of these, even if it took twice as long as a plane, if it gave me more comfort! Also they look amazing!
Superyachts of the skies.
@The Richest Man In Babylon That would make it slower than driving.
What about using Ether to replace helium and somehow separating these gases?
Hello 👋 how’re you doing?
I definitely believe the way of travel is evolving to something like this. It's inevitable. Absolutely cool.
With the amount of deaths caused by airships, it really doesn't make sense why they went away, considering cars kill that many people daily, more so early on.
It's probably a combination of a ratio and what is expected at the time. When you have 10 airships but 3-4 of them cause deadly deaths it doesn't look good for them especially when the number of airships increase and if the ratio of safe versus unsafe airships remain the same. Idk the actual stats about the number of car deaths versus total number of cars on the road but considering how wide spread cars are I feel it makes sense if it has a way better ratio. Can't research it right now though cuz I'm at work but if someone wants to verify and provide links that would be awesome.
It went away, because a far superior technology was developed: airplanes.
@@raventhorX
The safety ratio of airships was actually vastly superior to primitive contemporaneous airplanes, but the issue is that there were far, far fewer airships, so it was much easier for a few high-profile crashes to cause them to slip into obscurity. When all of Pan Am’s first M-130 airplanes and most of its Boeing 314 Clippers crashed at sea or met with disaster, it wasn’t filmed for all the world to see and splashed on headlines everywhere, and they were then free to continued advancing aircraft engineering and safety.
@@Jjames763 pretty much where my point was headed.
I've always been mesmerized by the Zeppelin. I'd love to see them return.
With Bonham gone, that can never truly happen :(
@@concernedliberal4453 This comment made me feel sad.
@@thomashiggins9320 Glad someone got it
luckily you won't see them return. High speed rail is way better.
@@myelffleym1889 Hi Speed Rail are a bunch of wannabe sellouts. Zeppelin was the real deal and it's tragic we don't get to see them anymore.
Very cool retro concept. I would ride one over land given a competitive price and abundant safety measures. An airship to Hawaii might be cool…until it gets hit by lightning somewhere over the Pacific.
maybe it would be limited to over land and not the ocean
Countermeasures for lightning are not that complicated
Loved the grandeur of the early airships, promenade decks, luxurious dining rooms, grand staircases, even a grand piano (ok it was aluminium). We could make a return to this with acres of solar cells for power, helium and hydrogen both have their problems, with all that energy from solar cells, there is the possibility of additional lift from hot air, and from greenhouse/ solar absorption materials. I see Fleets of these steam punk creations sailing the jet stream in a land of perpetual sunshine above the clouds.
How did you come up with the number for the increase in carbon emissions for civil aircraft engines increasing?
The current trend at the moment is making the engines more efficient not less, and with future concepts of blended body aircraft and turbo-electric engines, that efficiency is expected to be even higher.
Not sure where this X4 higher by 2045 comes from.
An airship flying to the north pole? Gives me some His Dark Materials kinda vibes.
It gives me Frostpunk vibes.
It’s happened before. The _Norge_ and the _Graf Zeppelin_ both successfully visited the North Pole, while the _Italia_ got lost and crashed, its crew having to be rescued by an international effort.
Two out of three ain’t bad, pretty par for the course for early 20th century aircraft. Every one of Pan Am’s first seaplanes ended up crashing, for example.
@@Jjames763 I didn't know that.
Hi. I've decided Matt! The most important drawbacks have been omitted from this video. First, blimps are totally at the mercy of the weather, especially strong winds. I took a tourist balloon ride, and waited for days until the wind was well below 25kph, and it was all on. Second, they are at the mercy of air pressure, which varies between 900 to 1020 millibars, and can change quickly, altering the flotation of the vehicle dramatically. Third, they can't fly high enough to avoid weather fronts in the troposphere, which means they must fly slowly around storms. I wouldn't like to be in a airship over the mid-Atlantic when the captain stammers; "passengers must fasten their seatbelts, we're going to pass through some extreme turbulence: if we're lucky!". And don't forget, Matt, "Montgolfiers" are infernal French devices, people should fly using spruce and cotton wings, as Sir George Cayley and the Wright brothers intended. Cheers, P.R.
Brilliant! I enjoyed reading this;)
Lmfaoo nice. He definitely forgot to mention these things on the video xD
@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 Hi there. Airships probably have a place doing heavy lifting for construction companies, but obviously a perfectly still day would be needed to ease a 100-ton bridge truss in place from the air. The time delay waiting for that one day would halt all progress on the bridge. Helicopters also do heavy lifting and are more able to cope with light breezes while hovering, although they don't have the huge lifting capacity of an airship. More market research is needed to find the airship's niche.
I apologize for pouring cold water on a very interesting concept that may still be useful, but scheduled passenger travel by airship is not a possibility. Good ideas still need "feet on the ground" critical analysis to avoid wasting investor's money.
For a blow-by-blow account of British airship development in the 1930's I suggest reading about Barnes-Wallis and the development of the R100 airship, and its ill-fated companion, the R 101. A ripping good read, it makes you-tube videos look like kid's picture books. Thanks for an interesting video, and the comments. Cheers, P.R.
"It's better for the environment" is hardly a significant enough motivator to promote this initiative. You said it yourself. Safety is critical and these have been proven to be unsafe.
Per journey, your 10 times more likely to die on a plane than in a car" ruclips.net/video/uI-4sCJ7s1Q/видео.html&ab_channel=NakedScience
You have an interesting concept of "proven".
we should have diversity. USA should heavily invest in high speed trains like the rest of the world and do things like this
High Speed Rail is fine in higher density areas of the country. There's actually a certain point distance wise where High Speed Rail is faster than flying with all the hassle at the airport. Outside that range flying takes less time. Maybe 20 years ago Car and Driver had 6 sets of travelers going from NYC to DC. The fastest was the person who I assume exceeded the speed limit by a considerable margin. Second took the Acxela. Third drove keep pace with traffic. Fourth place to the one who drove at the speed limit. Fifth was the one who flew. Last took the Greyhound. The journey was from one address in midtown Manhattan to a hotel in DC.
The problem is when you get out into what is disparagingly called flyover country. Depending on where you live it may take two or three hours or more to get to an airport. As for HSR the passenger density simply isn't there.
I thought the main challenge was sealing rubber materials and that has changed a lot since back then. But I guess large and superlight containers is still really difficult to make, or at least expensive.
No, the funny thing about airships is that they're the _least_ affected when it comes to square-cubed law (or, as some people would say, square-cubed law _helps_ them).
In ww1 German airships we're made from cow guts stretchy fat part to make the the air bags on the zeppelins but it requires 250,000 cows
How do they handle in bad weather?
Government: "Fly less to help the planet."
Me who can't even afford to fly: 👁👄👁
Don't know where you live but in Europe flights can be so cheap they can cost less than the bus/train fare to the airport.
@@thegorgon7063 it's literally 5 times cheaper to fly to Germany then fly back to leads than to catch the train from London to leads 😆.
It's fucked
There's an irony here. People get wigged out about having people in hydrogen filled airships, yet are perfectly fine with fuel-air bombs with wings flying over their heads every hour.
That and the Hindenburg disaster was more about hubris and taking stupid risks than the dangers of Hydrogen lifting gas.
You can engineer a LTA to use Hydrogen and be completely safe.
It's not that, its resentment. The author mentions that flying is "10% of our emissions" but people like me haven't flown in years. I've only flown a few times in my life, like twice or so.
5:13 talks about combining helium and aerodynamic lift. Anyone tried doing that with a ground effect vehicle? Could help get out of the water for liftoff.