
Sergey Brin rumored to be building an airship for humanitarian missions - bhartzer
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/26/google-sergey-brin-building-largest-aircraft
======
phreeza
I will use this to plug my favorite books on all things which involve energy
"Sustainable Energy – without the hot air" by David MacKay. In one of the
appendices he works out that the energy efficiency of airship transport is on
the order of 10 times more efficient (wrt energy per weight and distance
transported) than conventional airplane. He also points out why there are
theoretical limits to how efficient a plane can ever be.

The efficiency of the airship turns out to be on the same order as train
transport, really quite remarkable!

[http://withouthotair.com/cC/page_280.shtml](http://withouthotair.com/cC/page_280.shtml)

------
petra
The real competitor here is Lockheed-Martin, who has developed a hybrid
airship: that combines a lighter than large structure, with an aerodynamic
figure + propellers, that gets 80% of buoyancy from the helium gas.

With a first model planned to release in 2018 carrying 23 ton, for use mainly
in oil&gas fields , where's it's really hard to get stuff to(so landing
anywhere without an airport is a huge plus). They cost $40 million each And
they already have 12 letters-of-intent for purchase. And they think they may
sell hundreds per decade.

Their later model, planned for mid-2020's would carry 500 ton.

Considering that such ship doesn't require an airport, can deliver containers
without landing(using cables like a SWAT team), and their fuel costs are much
lower and they carry a huge weight, there's a large transportation potential
for it. Some guesstimates about an hong-kong to US link, talk about a cargo
lane that costs half the price of air, while only doubling transit time which
is much faster than cargo ships.

So really, there's probably an up and coming industry serving the same goals
as Brin's project, So maybe his project isn't needed.

But i wonder to what extent the fact that the Brin have decided to work on
this field, have convinced Lockheed-Martin to go after this ?

[1][http://www.straightlineaviation.com/news/9-webnews/15-aviati...](http://www.straightlineaviation.com/news/9-webnews/15-aviation-
week-lockheed-martin-readies-lmh-1-hybrid-airship-assembly)

~~~
phreeza
Lokheed had a 50% size demonstrator of these in 2006, so I think they have
been doing it longer than Brin.

------
louprado
We may (or may not) have a helium shortage[1] and it requires surprising
effort to ignite the hydrogen in an airship[2].

Perhaps we should reconsider if our hydrogen ban is warranted for autonomous
or remotely piloted airships. Note, the article makes no mention how this
airship is piloted, but its primary use is to supply humanitarian relief
missions.

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2016/06/dire-helium-shortage-vastly-
in...](https://www.wired.com/2016/06/dire-helium-shortage-vastly-inflated/)
[2][https://youtu.be/wzW4258oIyg?t=46m56s](https://youtu.be/wzW4258oIyg?t=46m56s)

~~~
fnj
> it requires surprising effort to ignite the hydrogen in an airship

They burned like tinder, in large numbers. The following is a list of
hydrogen-filled airships which burned. These exclude losses due to enemy
action.

    
    
      1902, *Pax* explodes over Paris
      1908, Zeppelin LZ-4 caught fire while moored
      1912, *Akron* explodes off Atlantic City
      1913, Zeppelin LZ-18 caught fire during test flight
      1915, Zeppelin L-4 burned when struck by lightning
      1915, SL-6 explodes after takeoff
      1915, Zeppelin L-18 burned in hangar
      1916, Zeppelin L-6 burned when being inflated
      1918, 4 Zeppelins and one other burned in mass hangar fire
      1918, Zeppelin L-59 explodes during flight
      1919, US Navy blimp C-8 explodes while landing
      1919, British blimp N.S.11 burned in flight
      1919, US blimp *Wingfoot Express* burned over Chicago
      1920, US Navy blimp D-1 burned at base
      1921, US Navy blimp C-3 burned at Hampton Roads, VA
      1921, British rigid airship R.38 broke in half and burned in mid-air
      1921, US Navy blimps D-6 and C-10 burned in hangar fire
      1922, US Army *Roma* struck power lines and burned
      1922, US Army blimp C-2 burned while exiting hangar
      1923, French Navy *Dixmude* struck by lightning and burned in flight
      1930, British rigid airship R.101 struck hillside during storm and burned
      1934 Soviet blimps V4, V5, and V7 all burned in a hangar fire
      1935, Soviet blimp V7-bis struck a powerline and burned
      1937, Zeppelin *Hindenburg* caught fire due to unknown cause and burned
    
      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents
      [1] http://www.zeppelinhistory.com/zeppelin-facts/airship-accidents/

~~~
kmm
So less than one incident per year, most with a low amount of casualties, on
what I assume was quite a big population of airships. And that is without
modern technology, because we've made some progress in flame retardant
materials

I find that rather makes the case of bringing back hydrogen filled airships.

~~~
CommieBobDole
> what I assume was quite a big population of airships

That might be a bad assumption. Hard to find numbers for all producers but
based on the various lists of airships (links below), it looks like total
number of airships produced was probably in the "few hundred" range, and only
a small portion of those were in use at any given time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zeppelins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zeppelins)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airships_of_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airships_of_the_United_States_Navy)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sch%C3%BCtte-
Lanz_airs...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sch%C3%BCtte-
Lanz_airships)

------
acjohnson55
Immediately made me think of the Spruce Goose [1]. He's going full on Howard
Hughes! "Wave of the future, wave of the future, wave of the future".

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules)

~~~
cleetus
Spruce Moose!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZJsla2TG6E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZJsla2TG6E)

------
peatmoss
The article talks about how hydrogen was originally planned as the lifting
gas, and that those plans were scrapped due to the FAA requiring non-flammable
lifting gasses.

Given that Brin was apparently ready to try it with hydrogen, perhaps the
risks of using hydrogen as a lifting gas are overrated? Given the scarcity /
non-renewable nature of helium, the greater lifting potential of hydrogen, and
advances in engineering, I wonder if these FAA regulations are in need of a
rethink?

Also, even if the risks of hydrogen explosions are unmitigatable, I can still
imagine unmanned cargo applications for hydrogen airships that could mitigate
a lot of risk.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
This [unmanned cargo applications] is assuming you're flying it over
uninhabited areas the Hindenburg was fortunate in that when it came down it
wasn't over, say, Manhattan or over one of the many areas highly prone to
forest fire. However I do like the idea of an unmanned airship doing long haul
delivery over calmer parts of the ocean.

~~~
peatmoss
Exactly. There are already restrictions for transport of other hazardous
goods. (EDIT: Finding sky routes should certainly be easier than finding
restricted road routes) I'm also not sure that the biggest risk of a hydrogen
explosion isn't simply the dropping of the cargo. Hydrogen explosion up in the
sky is likely to burn upward and quickly. As long as the cargo or airframe
isn't also burning, it seems likely the fire would never reach the ground.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#/media/Fil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#/media/File:Hindenburg_disaster,_1937.jpg)

~~~
peatmoss
Yes, but the Hindenburg was basically already on the ground (coming in for a
landing) when it went up. Also, I remember reading that the airframe itself
was pretty flammable.

Additional safety at terminals seems prudent, but would a non-flammable
airframe still be burning on the ground if it caught fire at 10,000 feet? I
don't know.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
Considering the nature of hydrogen that would be totally dependent on the
availability of O2 in surrounding compartments.

------
devy

       Brin’s airship was originally intended to use hydrogen as a lifting gas. 
       Hydrogen is much cheaper than helium and provides more than 10% more lift, 
       but will forever be linked with the infamous Hindenburg disaster in 
       New Jersey in 1937 that claimed 36 lives.
    

First of all, the true cause of the airship fire is still debatable. According
to retired NASA scientist Addison Bain's incendiary paint theory (IPT)
proposed in 1996, the Hindenburg would have burned even if it were filled with
helium. So by switching to Helium as the lifting gas for airships still may
not make it 100% fire-safe even in the example that was given.[1]

Second of all, Helium is a RARE natural & non-renewable resource (it cannot be
artificially produced, at least not yet), albeit abundant on Earth. Most
helium on Earth is a result of radioactive decay, which occurs for a long long
time.[2] Hence, I think most Physicists would argue the usage as a lifting gas
to commercial airship is a wasteful and eventually non-economical way to
consume them due to the sheer amount and no practical recycling
measures.[3][4]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Incendiary...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Incendiary_paint_hypothesis)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Natural_abundance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Natural_abundance)

[3]: [https://qz.com/718830/we-rely-on-helium-for-life-saving-
care...](https://qz.com/718830/we-rely-on-helium-for-life-saving-care-and-
were-swiftly-running-out/)

[4]: [http://www.zmescience.com/science/chemistry/wasting-
helium-r...](http://www.zmescience.com/science/chemistry/wasting-helium-
recycle-052543/)

------
timdorr
Hopefully this goes better than the barges:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_barges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_barges)

------
richardboegli
What's old is new again....

He's been investing in airships since the late 2000's [0].

[0]
[https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=sergey+brin+airship&hl...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=sergey+brin+airship&hl=en&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2007%2Ccd_max%3A2010&tbm=)

------
graphitezepp
Hope to see this materialize. I share a fascination with airships, only way to
have low energy cost air travel. However I doubt airships will be relevant to
shipping period, but I severely doubt so unless someone figures out a way
helium can be ditched for hydrogen due to both lift and supply concerns.

~~~
phreeza
I don't really understand why hydrogen is not used for this, except the
obvious historical connotations.

Airplanes are full of highly flammable jet fuel, nobody suggests that they
must run on non-flammable fuel. Of course one would need to take appropriate
safety measures, probably some combination of compartmentalization of the
bladder and controlled release (away from passengers) in the case of an
ignition, but it seems like something that should be solvable with modern
engineering.

~~~
graphitezepp
The government is a bit trigger happy with bans of things that are associated
with high profile disasters, at least in my opinion. Shame getting laws
removed is so difficult, especially for something as niche as gasses for
airships.

------
jraines
Well, it seems like a more practical billionaire project than yet another
flying car.

------
zmoreira
What's wrong with Volga-Dnepr Airlines?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga-
Dnepr_Airlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga-Dnepr_Airlines)

------
jpm_sd
The "humanitarian" part is just PR:

"Brin wants the gargantuan airship, funded personally by the billionaire, to
be able to deliver supplies and food on humanitarian missions to remote
locations. However, it will also serve as a luxurious intercontinental “air
yacht” for Brin’s friends and family."

If by "also" they mean "primarily"...

------
lodi
$150M is actually pretty cheap compared to some of the most expensive luxury
yachts out there.

------
EJTH
Taking the trafficking from Libya to whole new levels eh?

------
bamboozled
Pay your taxes and stop the filter bubbles, then build plane.

------
programminggeek
Howard Hughes.

