
Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo - simonebrunozzi
https://onezero.medium.com/planes-are-ruining-the-planet-new-mighty-airships-wont-d8eb39418acc
======
VonGuard
This article doesn't seem to take into account that Helium is becoming scarce,
and when used in airships, it's eventually just released and lost forever. NYT
Article on the shortage: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium-
shortage-p...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium-shortage-
party-city.html)

We used to have a strategic Helium reserve in the US for zepplins and so
forth, then it was just kept for chemistry and other purposes. I think we
started selling it down under GW. Helium seems like it's more valuable as a
component in chemistry, super cooling, etc, rather than just using it for
lift.

Also, we tend to think of Zepplins as rare things, like singular one-off
vessels like the Hindenburg. In actuality, the Germans produced 131 of them!
Most were used in World War 1
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zeppelins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zeppelins)

~~~
ShorsHammer
It's the second most abundant element in the universe. Maybe we'll put in a
tad more effort to explore it if Helium runs out.

~~~
Sharlin
That doesn't really help if it isn't abundant where it's needed. There's no
primordial helium on Earth, all of it is created by alpha decay of radioactive
elements. As to the rest of the solar system, all that abundant helium is
locked in the bottom of particularly deep gravity wells.

~~~
ShorsHammer
There's a huge amount on our only moon.

~~~
Sharlin
A few parts per billion, about one gram of helium-3 per 150 tons of regolith.
For comparison, economical _gold mining on Earth_ typically requires a deposit
of at least 500 ppb or so. And there are no 3He "deposits" on the moon; it's
all fairly uniformly distributed across the 38 million square kilometers of
lunar surface!

------
melling
All air travel combined emits 2.5% of our yearly CO2 emissions.

That’s hundreds of thousands of flights a day.

We could just eliminate all coal electric plants in the world and make a real
impact. Then use that cleaner energy to power our electric cars.

~~~
simonebrunozzi
Except we're not demi-Gods, able to decide what to do at will with the entire
planet. Pursuing some serious efforts in one area can't be turned down simply
because there's something else that could be done in another area.

~~~
john_moscow
On the contrary, the rational way of solving a complex problem that cannot be
addressed entirely is to break it down into smaller ones, estimate their
individual cost/impact/risk and start with the most cost-effective options.

In fact, people who actively shame others for eating meat, having vacations,
and raising kids, are doing exactly that. Except, instead of optimizing the
ecological impact, they optimize their own emotional return through gaining
influence over others, similar to religious missionaries.

I think, for everyone who actually wants to solve the climate change problem,
being honest about their goals could be a good starting point.

~~~
BetaCygni
Not eating meat (or eating less meat) is VERY cost-effective and very easy to
do.

~~~
john_moscow
Only if you don't like the taste in the first place. Not being overweight and
counting calories is another topic, but restraining yourself to a highly
processed bean paste instead of grilling a steak in your backyard is a very
questionable thing in terms of cost/impact.

------
JasonFruit
What I don't see is a discussion of how these airships would avoid the sort of
weather-related accidents that destroyed the Shenandoah, the R101, the Akron,
and the Macon. The Hindenburg disaster gets all the attention, but the bigger
problem with the large rigid airships was their inability to avoid or weather
storms. I'd love to see it --- I really would --- but I never see this point
addressed.

~~~
em-bee
according to the article, these newer ships could fly high enough to be above
all the problematic weather. only take off and landing would be an issue. but
at the speed they are flying, a few hours delay won't make much off a
difference either.

~~~
nashashmi
I wonder if it would be easier to just lower the cargo instead of the entire
airship

~~~
em-bee
from their cruising altitude? more then 10000km up?

~~~
bshipp
I assume you mean metres, not kilometres? There wouldn't appear to be much
atmosphere to benefit a lighter than air ship at 10000 km.

~~~
em-bee
uhm, yes, _facepalm_

------
dr_dshiv
Airplanes fly high and have tiny porthole windows. You can't appreciate the
beauty of the earth.

Zeppelins can have huge windows and fly relatively low. The experience of
flight would be amazing -- focused on the beauty of the natural world.

Zeppelins offer a low-carbon earth-conscious luxury good that the superrich
should spend money on -- so that eventually it's affordable to the rest of us.

~~~
perilunar
> Zeppelins can have huge windows and fly relatively low

Also they are constrained by weight, not volume, so there's plenty of legroom.
The Hindenburg had private cabins, a lounge, a bar, and a dining room (and a
smoking room!). More like a cruise ship than an airliner.

~~~
dr_dshiv
Here is a picture:

[https://images.app.goo.gl/7Q7T2DLDjwU3xk367](https://images.app.goo.gl/7Q7T2DLDjwU3xk367)

~~~
kaffeemitsahne
Never realized there was passenger space inside the hull! That makes me
slightly less stupefied about the enormous size/capacity ratio of zeppelins.

------
etaioinshrdlu
I got a dumb idea. Permanently stationed blimps around the world that never
land. And cable cars for moving between them, on pulleys.

Pros: Energy efficient: no need to generate lift. No need for fans to move the
cars as you are on pulleys, which are more efficient. Minimal noise! You could
go as fast as you want but your efficiency will start to drop due to drag.

It can't be any worse an idea than a hyperloop can it?

~~~
haspoken
Sounds like they would need to keep the same position.

Would that be practical for such a large, light ship that can not avoid the
weather?

~~~
etaioinshrdlu
Yes... They may have to be grounded occasionally during extreme weather.

But they can be tethered to the ground and use the tether for power for
maneuvering with electric props.

------
emanuensis
If they used H2 (vs He) for buoyancy they could make (liquefied) H2 fuel very
cost efficient: When you want to come down you are high up and it is cold!
Perfect time to liquefy!

Making H2 gas is also subsidized on the production end, as Airship travel is
cheaper than any other method, so making H2 has that cost advantage.

Safety is not an issue for transport. Human travel has that tradeoff though
over He.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Safety is not an issue for transport.

It's _less_ of an issue. You still don't want a burning hydrogen zeppelin
crashing down on a populated area, and unless you've fully automated it you'll
still have human crew aboard (though they'll be better trained and equipped to
deal with problems).

~~~
andechs
If it's filled with Hydrogen, it doesn't burn for very long - it would be an
explosive burn. The cargo is still aloft in the air though, but that's also a
theoretical problem with planes.

------
xwdv
Why wouldn’t people think this is a serious idea?? We can make far safer
zeppelins with current technology even if we use H2 gas. And when you’re using
it for something mundane like cargo instead of human recreational activity
it’s a no brainer.

~~~
garmaine
Wind shear.

------
sllabres
German company Cargolifter tried, about 20 years ago.

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

~~~
TN1ck
My father worked at the company back then, designing the rudders. After that,
he worked at Airbus until retirement. He always said that his coworkers at
Cargolifter where really good engineers and much brighter on average than at
Airbus, I always wonder where they might be if they didn't run out of funding
/ if they would have started the company today, where people are much more
willing to invest into risky firms like these.

------
crazygringo
The article's headline seems misleading: the article is actually about cargo,
not traditional travel -- since airships are so slow.

But I don't see what needs this would meet -- either you need something to be
shipped between continents quick (~overnight) so you use a plane, or you don't
so you use a container ship.

This seems like it has neither the speed advantage of a plane, nor anything
close to the size and scale advantage of a container ship.

So aside from the niche use of large deliveries to remote areas inaccessible
by ship or rail... I'm not getting it.

~~~
cdolan
How do you drive a container ship over land?

I Think the point is that you could use this across the USA or other large
geographic bodies for similar efficiency that you see with a container ship on
water.

~~~
riffic
Wonderful thing called a railroad network.

~~~
usrusr
Rail can only carry objects that can fit inside the cross-section and streets
aren't much better.

The defunct Cargolifter protect was quite open about not attempting to be
competitive for loads that easily fit conventional transport. They saw their
market exclusively in loads that are too bulky for ground transport and I
don't think that anything has changed.

Other than that this hypothetical market could be really huge now that wind
turbines have grown into the "untransportable" realm for offshore use where no
practical transport restrictions exist. (At least in countries that haven't
universally given in to NIMBY and are still expand their land-based wind
capacity)

~~~
boomlinde
_> Rail can only carry objects that can fit inside the cross-section and
streets aren't much better._

Trains typically carry the same intermodal containers that cargo ships do.

~~~
usrusr
That answers GP's "how do you drive a container ship over land" but we seem
agree that container transport is a solved problem that airships can't
meaningfully contribute to.

But there are objects that don't fit the rail profile that still need
transportation.

And a lot more objects that don't fit that profile, or the more generous
limitations of an oversize road load, that could exists if matching overland
transportation existed. A lot of technology is severely size-constrained only
because roads between factory and deployment site are size constrained. A
cargo airship that can take those loads could completely change whole
industries.

------
s_gourichon
A former neighbor of mine now works at [http://flying-
whales.com/en](http://flying-whales.com/en) . Spot on the topic. They plan to
specialise on special fret counting in dozens of tons, plus clever engineering
to quickly transition between cargo on-the-ground to cargo airborne, and on
arrival, airborne to on-the-ground.

~~~
jdfellow
Off topic but I couldn't help but find it funny that a French airship company
is called Flying Whales given that one of the best known songs by French metal
band Gojira is called Flying Whales.

------
danschumann
When I see old pictures with zeppelins in the sky, I am jealous and think
they're more futuristic than we are.

------
crca
Airships don’t make sense for commercial travel. But they make a lot of sense
for transporting cargo, specifically to regions that are difficult to serve by
road or rail. LM has had a scalable, deployable system for years but no one
has pulled the trigger on actually buying it yet.

~~~
tropo
An ordinary suburban location is difficult to serve by road if you'd like to
ship a large house.

~~~
scythe
I hadn't even considered that. You could blimp all sorts of things that won't
fit on the road. Houses, windmill blades, HVAC units, pods for modular
buildings, extremely large pianos, ...

------
dr_dshiv
There is huge potential for solar energy production on zeppelins. Back of the
napkin:

The Graf Zeppelin had a surface area of 27,299 square meters. If the top ⅓ was
covered in solar, it could produce 10,800 kWh per day, assuming 1.2 kWh per
day per square meter.

~~~
dr_dshiv
Also, they could harvest sea water or condensation to generate hydrogen.

To produce one kilogram of hydrogen, 12 cubic meters, it takes 9 kg of water
and 50 kWh of electricity. The solar Zeppelin described above could generate
2,589 cubic meters of hydrogen a day. At this rate, it would take 77 days to
fill the Graf Zeppelin's 200,000 cubic meter capacity

~~~
dr_dshiv
So, perhaps we could float giant plastic solar balloons in a lake -- and semi-
organically "grow" enormous hydrogen cells for aerostatic lift.

------
geocrasher
This article reads like Popular Science or Popular Mechanics.

From the late 80's.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but this ship has already sailed. Pun
intended.

------
rb808
Incidental article about Macys Thanksgiving parade baloons are filled with
Helium [https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2019/11/27/macys-
than...](https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2019/11/27/macys-thanksgiving-
parade-balloons-may-not-rise-helium-costs/4318407002/)

At the end the gas is released, not recycled.

~~~
nojvek
I think recreational use of helium ought to be banned. It’s a rare gas that
once gone is gone from the atmosphere. It’s likely that our great great
grandchildren won’t have it left for other uses.

Well it’s also likely that they really won’t have a habitable planet too.

But we gotta start somewhere right ?

------
sekou
Like the render on the Lockheed Martin site the first thing that came to my
mind was Africa. This could be a solution for heavy-load cheap transport
across huge swaths of land where road or rail infrastructure would be
inefficient or too expensive to develop. It could help extend commerce beyond
coastal regions both on the continent and worldwide.

------
fhars
Reminds me of
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter)

------
aaRopi
"... using almost no energy at all if we used airships to harness the free
winds of the jet stream, the narrow band of fast-moving air above the
troposphere, where planes fly." But what if the jetstreams are already
transporting something useful in nature? Sucking off energy from there will
mean messing up with those natural systems that rely on the jetstreams. Oh
Consequences!

------
dr_dshiv
Here is a short slide presentation with great pictures of future zeppelins and
an exploration of possible applications:

[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r6CPFJ1AX1ZULacguTf6...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1r6CPFJ1AX1ZULacguTf6IyCS1dyiqFz_HsjH-
evYiHg/edit?usp=drivesdk)

------
pvaldes
A different way to reduce the fuel bill and contamination without being
constricted by scarce non scalable resources could be to design a new
generation of (small?) cargo airplanes flying in a zig zag pattern of spending
fuel to gain elevation and then gliding with some extra big pliable wings,
extensible membranes or something like that...

------
C1sc0cat
Great now if we can just stop Bedford council building houses all over
Cardington we can get the Sheds back in use.

------
exabrial
And where will they source the helium? Gas wells?

We already waste the stuff and it's an incredibly useful substance.

------
teslaberry
Better idea ultra high speed megascale nuclear powered cruise ships that never
dock. They pull in 1 km from port and use deckside drones to transport tens of
thousands of passengers safely on shore in different places all at once or as
needed. Speed should reach at least 150mph. And with nuclear power become the
domina t coastal form of circuit/belt transport. Not just people but cargo.
Nuclear powered merchant marine should have happened. One day it will.

Problem with zepllins is the skin will never be robust...because the bigger
and faster the zepplins go the thicker the skin must be and the more difficult
self healin smart skin systems will be to invent iterate and operate.

Forget c02 and global warming. Think about simple economics. Next generation
systems must be an order of magnitude more efficient in delivering a passenger
to his ultimate goal or to any goal. That doesnt always mean only energy
efficiency and operation and fuel price per passenger mile but these are
strong factors in the equation.

~~~
cardamomo
I'd hate to think what the propellor noise would do to whales and other sea
life.

~~~
jbay808
If we're already fantasizing about going nuclear, why not also use classified
military submarine propulsion systems? That ought to keep the noise down.

------
nazgulnarsil
If they were serious they would have calculated the max theoretical energetic
efficiency of Zeppelin cargo hauling and realized they should stop

~~~
vba
Can you expand, or give some numbers?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/helium-
hokum...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/helium-hokum-why-
airships-will-never-be-part-of-our-transportation-infrastructure/)

------
haspoken
One problem with airships is the shear size and hence the handling,
particularly during the time the airship is in dock.

~~~
growlist
I suppose it could be possible to leave the airship in the air almost
indefinitely, with smaller craft doing the loading/unloading at each end.

------
starpilot
Resurrecting dirigibles comes up every 5 years or so. This attempt looks no
more serious than the others.

------
m4r35n357
Why not sailing ships while we are at it?

~~~
MikeTaylor
The article addresses this. Ships are restricted to docking where there are
ports, which are expensive and potentially fragile infrastructure (e.g. after
a big storm), and can only be situated at the water's edge; while airships can
pick up put down essentially anywhere.

------
obituary_latte
Anyone have a non-paywalled version? Frustrating to only be able to read the
first paragraph.

------
randiantech
Seven days from Dallas to China? How is this considered a serious alternative
to current planes?

~~~
zarkov99
Maybe an alternative to cruise ships is a better option.

