/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1849523

[62 / 7 / 45]

Anonymous Sun 11 Sep 2022 13:42:12 No.1849523 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1849572 >>1849589 >>1849626 >>1849636 >>1849647 >>1850164 >>1851615 >>1851670 >>1853532 >>1860103 >>1860680 >>1864577 >>1870822

Why wouldn't it work as a viable means of transportation? Landing issues aside it works pretty well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Sep 2022 17:05:19 No.1849572 Report

Quoted By: >>1860127 >>1870898

>>1849523
>Helium shortage
>All that shit just to lift that little cap
>public perception from disaster more that 100 years ago

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Sep 2022 18:18:45 No.1849589 Report

Quoted By: >>1851761 >>1870898

>>1849523
Massive, slow, tiny capacity, helium requirement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Sep 2022 20:45:56 No.1849626 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849523
>Ignoring one of the main issues, what are the issues?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Sep 2022 21:10:24 No.1849636 Report

Quoted By: >>1849641 >>1849961 >>1851761 >>1857096 >>1870898

>>1849523
It either runs on Helium which is slowly becoming a valued item or it'll run on Hydrogen and be a death trap. There's no winning with it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Sep 2022 21:27:01 No.1849641 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849636
Didn't the one top gear built run on hot air?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Sep 2022 22:18:28 No.1849647 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849523
niqqas with guns and plenty of free time

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5b9fa79d150f7.image.jpg, 153KiB, 1200x630

Anonymous Mon 12 Sep 2022 17:46:39 No.1849961 Report

Quoted By: >>1849994 >>1857132 >>1860681

>>1849636
The Graf Zeppelin, a hydrogen-filled rigid airship, made 590 flights covering more than a million miles over 10 years of accident-free service.
The Hindenburg was intentionally destroyed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Sep 2022 18:42:54 No.1849994 Report

Quoted By: >>1854340

>>1849961
>The Hindenburg was intentionally destroyed.
This, it was the most obvious sabotage, like hell the newsreels and radio reporters just coincidentally happened to be covering the arrival of the Hindenburg.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2022 03:35:06 No.1850164 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849523
It got blown around if I recall. Not really great at navigating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 17 Sep 2022 07:25:10 No.1851615 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849523
Well, its fucking massive, slow, can't be flown in high wind, can't be flown around power lines, phone lines, tall buildings, or street lights, needs to be tethered to a post with enough space to move 360* with the wind when landed, so parking requires an entire parking lot for one vehicle, and landing and takeoff require a groundcrew.
Overall, really it's just a horrible idea for personal transportation and remarkably impractical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 17 Sep 2022 13:24:20 No.1851670 Report

Quoted By: >>1851675

>>1849523

so how do you steer? the wind just pushes it around? what if you want to go west and not east?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 17 Sep 2022 13:57:16 No.1851675 Report

Quoted By:

>>1851670
there is a rudder

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 17 Sep 2022 15:00:10 No.1851684 Report

Quoted By: >>1851709 >>1860684

The real blackpill is when you find out that lighter than air transportation is actually less fuel efficient than fixed wing.

Air resistance > lift

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO index.jpg, 113KiB, 1072x720

Anonymous Sat 17 Sep 2022 17:46:10 No.1851709 Report

Quoted By: >>1852250

>>1851684
the doomposter fears the hybrid airship

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 17 Sep 2022 22:02:31 No.1851761 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849589
>>1849636
Helium will only spike in price until it becomes viable to extract new reserves. We are still on WW2 stuff, and until that's gone nobody can compete by extracting.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot 2022-09-19 201913.jpg, 71KiB, 644x480

Anonymous Mon 19 Sep 2022 10:19:31 No.1852250 Report

Quoted By:

>>1851709
im gonna coom

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 01:03:47 No.1853532 Report

Quoted By: >>1853551 >>1853575 >>1853576 >>1853582 >>1853597 >>1863839 >>1870898

>>1849523
Helium is exorbitantly expensive and hydrogen is explosive and there are no other options.

I was curious if there was a way to mix hydrogen and other gasses to reduce its flammability. Turns out there isn't. A gaseous mixture with even a very low % of hydrogen is still flammable. So basically hydrogen is completely unworkable. Leaving only helium as a usable lifting gas. And it's too expensive.

A better idea is enormous Wing In Ground Effect aircraft. Picture an aircraft 100 times more massive than a 747 cruising the oceans at a height of 30 feet. That's more probable than airships making a comeback.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DC10_flying_safely_at_cruise_alt (...).jpg, 93KiB, 900x602

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 01:35:29 No.1853551 Report

Quoted By: >>1853573

>>1853532
>A better idea is enormous Wing In Ground Effect aircraft.
we already have that mate

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 02:57:55 No.1853573 Report

Quoted By: >>1853576 >>1853577 >>1853597

>>1853551
You're not familiar with the concept. Basically a WIG aircraft gets more efficient the bigger it is.

Boeing's Pelican concept WIG aircraft was designed to carry 3,000 combat troops and all their gear. Or 17 abrams tanks. Or 10 chinook helicopters. WIG aircraft make a lot of sense on paper. The Russians didn't build their Ekranoplans because they were retarded. On paper it's a brilliant vehicle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 03:04:13 No.1853575 Report

Quoted By:

>>1853532
>A better idea is enormous Wing In Ground Effect aircraft. Picture an aircraft 100 times more massive than a 747 cruising the oceans at a height of 30 feet.
picture a massive retard. that's (you)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 03:06:27 No.1853576 Report

Quoted By:

>>1853532
>>1853573
good thing that real life is all on paper then

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 03:07:30 No.1853577 Report

Quoted By:

>>1853573
He's making a joke about the DC-10's common effect of putting the wing into the ground. Everybody knows what a ground effect craft is. Fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 03:33:00 No.1853582 Report

Quoted By:

>>1853532
>A better idea is enormous Wing In Ground Effect aircraft. Picture an aircraft 100 times more massive than a 747 cruising the oceans at a height of 30 feet.
picture a retard, that's (you).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2022 05:06:47 No.1853597 Report

Quoted By:

>>1853532
>Picture an aircraft 100 times more massive than a 747.
>>1853573
>Boeing
>3,000 combat troops
picture 20 737 MAXs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2022 21:40:56 No.1854340 Report

Quoted By: >>1854468 >>1857175

>>1849994
saborage by whom? who profits from destruction of a civil airship?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Sep 2022 07:26:40 No.1854468 Report

Quoted By:

>>1854340
Big plane

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Oct 2022 12:44:45 No.1857096 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849636
Just use hydrogen.
>Buh muh flammability!
Compartmentalize Hydrogen balloons within a larger balloon of nitrogen, flammability risk negated.
Did you know planes are full of Jet Fuel?
Did you know there are Hydrogen Fueled planes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Oct 2022 16:32:29 No.1857132 Report

Quoted By: >>1857148 >>1857158 >>1857233 >>1860683 >>1870832

>>1849961
I can’t wrap my head around the size of these things and at this point I’m convinced dirigibles are just one big historic shitpost. A giant ship the size of a city block built before the days of mass production capable of holding massive quantites of fucking hydrogen for weeks at a time while it meandered across the Atlantic with like 20 passengers on board? Right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Oct 2022 17:32:57 No.1857148 Report

Quoted By:

>>1857132
Imagine my rage when I come across linkedin posts about bringing back airships daily

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Oct 2022 18:02:18 No.1857158 Report

Quoted By:

>>1857132
>I can’t wrap my head around the size of these things
yeah because you're stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Oct 2022 18:34:38 No.1857175 Report

Quoted By:

>>1854340
heavier than air aerospace industry, which has more military value

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Oct 2022 21:45:52 No.1857233 Report

Quoted By:

>>1857132
not only that, but they used to show up above your city and drop thousands of pounds of bombs. some steampunk ass shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Oct 2022 23:24:42 No.1860103 Report

Quoted By: >>1860108

>>1849523
Everyone is going to "discover" airships when they find out that hydrogen powered airships make a lot more sense than hydrogen powered airplanes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Oct 2022 23:38:07 No.1860108 Report

Quoted By: >>1860112

>>1860103
Airships are too slow. Hydrogen planes can be done

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Oct 2022 23:53:59 No.1860112 Report

Quoted By: >>1860117

>>1860108
but hydrogen planes are much worse than hydrocarbon planes in terms of performance, safety and payload, the only reason they are even considered is because of the co2 witch hunt.

Hydrogen airships at least have enough volume to carry their own fuel and can even use the water byproduct as ballast. Their top speed in the 30's was 70 knots or so, which is not great but probably can be improved considerably.

Hell i'd say that the real reason airships fell out of favour after ww2 was not the Hindenburg accident (there have been plenty of worse and more graphical airplane crashes than that) but because the US sucked at building them so much everyone else decided it was probably not worth it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Oct 2022 00:14:25 No.1860117 Report

Quoted By: >>1862756

>>1860112
yeah when you transpose hydrogen onto existing aircraft. It's something that can be improved with engineering. I'm only for green energy because I don't like the idea of shitting up the air that you breathe. Besides it would be advantageous to decouple for OPEC and other international faggotry that affects fuel prices.
Airships also don't fill the same role as jets. Airships are like cruise ships but can move over land.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Oct 2022 00:24:10 No.1860127 Report

Quoted By: >>1860132

>>1849572
Helium shortage was solved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Oct 2022 00:27:16 No.1860132 Report

Quoted By: >>1870826

>>1860127
how?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Oct 2022 09:13:58 No.1860680 Report

Quoted By: >>1865004 >>1865026

>>1849523
airships are based, but we need a way to make hydrogen lifting safe
i'm thinking an expanded polymer material like EPS but blown with hydrogen instead of whatever it is normally
make a huge ship and lift 300 tons
applications are many: construction, bulk carrier, mining

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Oct 2022 09:15:17 No.1860681 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849961
>it had a fucking smoking area
then they had to kill the nazis, today you can't vape on a train

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Oct 2022 09:17:30 No.1860683 Report

Quoted By:

>>1857132
imagine with modern materials and CAE

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Oct 2022 09:20:12 No.1860684 Report

Quoted By: >>1862751 >>1870921

>>1851684
how?
the graf zeppelin had a lifting capacity of 200 tons and the fuel tanks are much smaller than an airbus a380 (for roughly the same range)
also diesel fuel costs less than jet fuel

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Oct 2022 17:40:38 No.1862751 Report

Quoted By:

>>1860684
You'd be thinking of the graf zeppelin ii perhaps, but 200 m3 is the total gas volume; total lifting capacity is 230 tons for an 130 ton empty weight and 100 ton useful load (fuel + cargo).

The a380 has a 575 ton max takeoff weight, of which 285 ton are empty weight and 290 ton are useful load. That said, it needs a much bigger fuel fraction (250/575 vs 65/230) to acheive it's maximum range so the idea that airships are not fuel efficient doesn't seem to make sense.

They are not able to carry as much load as an aircraft of the same weight (let alone size), and can't go nowhere near as fast, so the kg x distance / (n° vessels x time) ratio that determines how much money a transport company can make compared to the costs of paying for workers heavily favours planes (and ships and trains, because while they are as slow or slower than airships they can also carry a lot more weight in a single trip).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1642089277874.png, 152KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Thu 27 Oct 2022 18:06:34 No.1862756 Report

Quoted By: >>1863833

>>1860117
>I'm only for green energy because I don't like the idea of shitting up the air that you breathe.
What other reason would there be ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Oct 2022 03:26:19 No.1863833 Report

Quoted By:

>>1862756
Virtue signaling

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO puffair.jpg.jpg, 154KiB, 750x750

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Mon 31 Oct 2022 04:05:50 No.1863839 Report

Quoted By: >>1865043

>>1853532
>no other options
,,,yes,,imeano,,,butyes,,,nonothing.,
,isnothing,,something?ifits doing thing?,
,,,,so,nothing it is!,and thelessthebetter!,
,,space tech allows materialsthatare lighter then air.,,howdoiknow?, it flew over myhouse!,
,infuture,,Skypoker buildingsmiles high,,,'Allahsnackbar!,,, topart breaks off,,screamsas it drifts up and away.,
,,,,,,LIGHTERTHENAIR!,,,baby.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Nov 2022 14:05:57 No.1864577 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849523
Better question is why not semi-rigid and ufo shaped just cause of cross winds. And not just slightly heavier than air with stronger propulsion, or on ziplines like a skycar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Nov 2022 14:31:37 No.1865004 Report

Quoted By: >>1865043

>>1860680
Maybe aerogels would be a better option

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Nov 2022 16:50:40 No.1865026 Report

Quoted By: >>1865043

>>1860680
With modern materials, couldn't we build a rigid body and just keep it in vacuum? Literal nothing weighs less than hydrogen and isn't flammable. Would the thickness of steel/aluminum/titanium/whatever negate the benefit of a 0g/mol lift?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Nov 2022 18:04:06 No.1865043 Report

Quoted By: >>1865100

>>1865004
>>1863839
Did you ever notice that aerogels don't actually float, despite supposedly being lighter than air? That's because they actually aren't. Their external volume divided by their weight is less than the density of air, but that's because internally they are full of holes and bubbles in which air can go through, so their actual density is the same as the material they are made of, which if it's silica is similar to sand.

>>1865026
Lightweight vaccum containers are possible, the problem is that the skin material would be subject to compression instead of tension like in an pressure tank, so it's vulnerable to buckling rather than simple structural strenght so it has to be made much thicker. Hydrogen gas H2 has about 10% of air's density so it's not really woth the improvement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Nov 2022 22:33:05 No.1865100 Report

Quoted By: >>1868916

>>1865043
Why would I think that aerogel by itself floats? By aerogel I mean fill it with hydrogen. The aerogel just forms the shape of the blimp with the lightest possible support structure so there's no need to pressurize it to maintain the shape

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Nov 2022 11:29:44 No.1868916 Report

Quoted By: >>1869567 >>1870732

>>1865100
But aerogel can't trap hydrogen within itself, you'd need to envelop it with a gas bag to do so and that weights more than the gas bag by itself. Aerogels would be useful to make the blimps support structure though, since by nature it's very large but very lightly loaded. The problem with aerogels is that they are stiff but brittle, so they have to be employed very carefully.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Nov 2022 23:04:41 No.1869567 Report

Quoted By:

>>1868916
I think the outer skin can be much lighter since it doesn't have to hold in pressure. Even the aerogel structure can be just a lattice or honeycomb like, just the bare minimum to hold the shape.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Nov 2022 12:16:07 No.1870732 Report

Quoted By:

>>1868916
it can if it's sealed on the outside

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Nov 2022 22:16:03 No.1870822 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849523
Because you're a Nazi that's why

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Nov 2022 22:44:43 No.1870826 Report

Quoted By:

>>1860132
The shortage wasn't an absolute one, it just wasn't economical to extract any until reserves from WWII ran out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Nov 2022 22:51:52 No.1870832 Report

Quoted By: >>1870846

>>1857132
imagine if we only let white men be engineers and chemists and doctors and had them run everything. the world could have been a utopia.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Nov 2022 23:38:55 No.1870846 Report

Quoted By:

>>1870832
we did that for a couple hundred years and all we got out of it was genocide.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Nov 2022 05:12:35 No.1870898 Report

Quoted By:

>>1849572
>>1849589
>>1849636
>>1853532
start HODLing helium tanks because a few years from now theyll be worth more than their weight in gold

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Nov 2022 07:02:56 No.1870921 Report

Quoted By: >>1870980

>>1860684
>how
Do the math.
Fuel per passenger mile .

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Nov 2022 14:50:06 No.1870980 Report

Quoted By:

>>1870921
Did you do the math? graf zeppelin ii carried 70 passengers and 40 crew members, and used 65000kg of diesel fuel (so 79000l) for a 16500km range. That's around 479 liters spent every 100 km, or a 6.84 l/100km fuel consumption per passenger - which sounds high compared to current aircraft (2.27 to 3.76 l/100km), but that fails to consider that every passenger had it's own cabin while modern airlines try to cram as many people as possible for a given payload.

Using the 787 as a reference, that can carry a maximum of 440 people for a 57277 kg payload - as the graf zeppelin ii can carry a 37000 kg payload, that would mean that given the same passenger density it would have 284 seats, and consume 1,69 l/100km per passenger. Argue all you want that you can't cram that many people in trips that take days instead of hours, but that still means that 1930's technology beats any new passenger plane in terms of raw fuel efficiency...

Once again, airships have quite a few problems (travel time, construction costs, lack of climb ability, sheer size), but fuel consumption isn't one of them.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches