For transport of air cargo much cheaper than plane. Everything else is done better by train or planes if you need it prompt.

My god man, are you mad? What if the hydrogen explodes?

>>12715037
A plane uses vastly more fuel. You need to get it up to speed to stay aloft. An airship just floats gently in the wind. Problem is that it's more suspectible to weather influences. You'd need to load it with ballast up to its maximum capacity, to create inertia, or make a dual system. Lifting gas up to a certain point, speed for the rest.

>>12715080
You mean, the helium?

Holds promise.

Planes work best on an economy of scale + just-in-time delivery. As fuel prices start to -really- go up we'll have to reconsider a lot of this stuff and begin to restructure the way we run our economy and our personal travel.

I think zeppelins would be a lot less energy-intensive than planes, and with modern technology we can solve a lot of the structural problems that led to their demise. Plus I like the longer journeys, so yes, I'll join you on your airship, provided my drink's a gin-tonic.

I would rather rob your skyship.

>>12715002


>What do you think /tg/, would you take a ride with me, in my airship?

HELL YEAH!

>>12715080

Not OP, but:

Better design decisions and materials could result in a blimp where, even if one cell did ignite, it would not ignite every cell and could possibly vent the burning hydrogen in a non-explosive manner. Other considerations (inert gas blankets, etc.) could prevent most ignition scenarios save for lightning, which would need to be arrested through other means. Hybrid airships (rigid airships that have an airfoil shape) could glide into a fall and apply air brakes to recover from a loss of buoyancy safely.

I have no doubt that we can do it, but after the Hindenburg nobody's going to give a hydrogen filled passenger airship a second chance unless the gondola is capable of independent flight somehow.

would have to be a luxury ride. the zep is outclassed in everything you want to do with it except for maybe fuel.

It's the same reason almost every ship that isn't for personnel use is a luxury cruise liner. The airplane gets you there faster, and it's a fairly comfortable ride.

>>12715112

Yes, the fuel aspect is very key. The cost of planes is, probably going to become very awful. To fly my zepplin, should be very cheap. And of course we'll use helium. It'll be cheaper than flying a helicopter, thats for darn sure. I was thinking of basing out of Tillamook OR, out of an old Navy blimp basin.

I appreciate your sense of adventure sir. Those prices of fuel will go up. By a lot. And short commuter trips are just going to become worse and worse. I think there will be a market, for these commuter trips, where passengers are treated well, and given a recognizable meal. Maybe delivered by a pretty lady.

Computer Scientist here.

I WILL CODE AND PROGRAM YOUR PLC SYSTEMS, MY GOOD PILOT.

Any engineers here? Are there any really lighter-than-air gases that won't ignite?

>>12715147

Should also have explained, the lifting gas is divided into gas filled cells or bladders with protective barriers between each in many newer designs.

>>12715148
>Cargo Ships

>>12715161
But is there a chance the bladder will bend?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU5auHNTX2w

>>12715160

Helium, and because The World Is Stupid (TM) we here in the United States were about the only ones saving it. Helium gas is running out. You can't just make more, you have to mine it (from irradiated natural gas deposits no less) and store it.

Since Helium is only getting more scarce and expensive and leaks slowly anyway, just like Hydrogen, we might as well bite the bullet and go with the safest possible Hydrogen based design out there.

>>12715162
>For thousands of tons of CARGO, not people
>people which OP made clear is his main purpose

>>12715160
The Hindenburg only went up because the USA had all of the helium and wouldn't share with nazis, so they used hydrogen.

>>12715160
Helium. Now shut up.

No, OP, it's not going to work. The simple fact is that dirigibles of any type are significantly more susceptible to the wind and any other weather patterns. Trying to fly in all but the calmest weather is significantly more difficult (and often impossible) than attempting to do so in a heavier-than-air aircraft.

The only reason they stayed around after the invention of airplanes was their cargo capacity and ability to linger over a an area. The former was solved when people invented engines large enough to get larger aircraft into the air, and the latter was solved by helicopters.

There are actual applications of lighter-than-air aircraft these days, but it's almost entirely limited to scientific and military-intelligence data gathering.

>>12715191
Er, no. Hydrogen doesn't burn without oxygen, and the hull coating was made of something that not only attracted lightning, but was basically thermite. With a fire retardant hull, the Hindenburg wouldn't have caught fire. Also remember that it was the time before plastics.

I think it might actually make sense to transport extremely heavy freight.

But for passenger and pleasure cruises. . don't know.

Not OP here but.
Jet engine meet Airship.
Airship, meet jet engine.

I know it wouldn't work that well, but the image is nice...

>>12715160
>Any engineers here? Are there any really lighter-than-air gases that won't ignite?

Vacuum.

>>12715191
Hindenburg went up because they were idiots who painted it with super-flammable shit. Otherwise, the ignited hydrogen would've leaked out in a spurt of flame but not burn the whole thing in minutes.

>>12715160

Well yeah, Helium. It's not nearly as buoyant as Hydrogen though, so it would be inefficient by comparison.

Thing about hydrogen is, it's not really that dangerous, if properly contained and handled. Each tank carrying hydrogen would simply have to be outfitted with an emergency system that vents the gas if there were ever to be a problem with that particular tank. That way, the worst thing that happens is a flamethrower shooting out the side of the zeppelin, and the crowd going 'oooh, ahhh'.

Of course, one could always muse at the notion of a jet-powered zeppelin that just uses the air around it for lift, in addition to some helium ballast for security. There would be intakes at the front, and each would lead to a chamber that heats the air and stores it, much like a hot air balloon. The air passes through the system as it is needed by pumps that funnel it into a jet turbine, propelling the craft forward. Probably 4-6 tanks, all leading to one or two engines would suffice.

I sort of want to drawfag this now... but I don't have a tablet.

>>12715234
>>12715228

Jet engine mind.

>>12715196
or adverts above a populace.

>>12715225
No it doesn't. The main methods of transporting freight are by train, truck, ship, and airplane. A dirigible would be as slow or slower than trains, trucks, and ships and significantly more costly. In other words, it offers no advantages over airplanes.

>>12715240
Well, yes. They have a use in advertisement.

>>12715229
Wouldn't the materials needed to contain a vacuum be heavy enough to erase the gains from using it in the first place?

>>12715244
Basic advantage of a zep: You can carry huge loads (larger than anything a plane can manage) into regions that are otherwise cut off from civilization. Imagine 1,500 tons of supplies carried directly into a flooded area, or an earthquake region.

>>12715234

What kind of speed are we talking about?
and how much more expensive would that be, than just dumping fuel into a propeller?


Picture is a zepplin about to dock with the KOIN6 building in Portland, where 200 people are about to board and enjoy an evening of free range buffalo steak, coho salmon and the musical stylings of white tie big band.

>>12715275
I... Am not sure. But it is a distinct possibility.

In b4 air pirates.

>>12715182

Isn't this why there are zeppelins in Watchmen? I heard that Doctor Manhattan creates it, which is a nice bit of setting flavour until you realise that he can teleport anything, create anything, and can divide his attention between many locations at the same time. It's like having an epic level Wizard in your setting; the implications of his power make everything else meaningless.

Still, stars manufacture Helium from Hydrogen. Who says no one will ever make a fusion reactor that's cost-effective? We'll have clean electricity AND zeppelins!

>>12715296
Your a little late there buddy.

>>12715282
Exactly like a helicopter; The main issue would be volume, would it be stable carrying a mass equivalent to, say, a chinook's load?

I am with you, brother. To the skies!

>>12715296

Your chart is missing the Defender and Coyote... which, I guess, is because there were no cardboard models for them in the game :(

>>12715167

Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

>>12715282
If you're dealing with emergency situations, then helicopters can perform the same function with existing infrastructure.

If you're dealing with the middle of the amazon or some such, there is no need to develop a hyper-specialized payload system because there is almost no reason to go there on any mass scale.

>>12715296

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uVJ-9qDado

>>12715299
We already have fusion, just not cost effective. We basically could make our helium with a Farnsworth Fusor or even a tokamak, but it takes huge amounts of power to keep it running.

>>12715002
Get. Out. Of. My. BRAIN.

>>12715321
A helicopter can't transport 1,500 tons at once, and it needs vast amounts of fuel - and why exactly do you pull that shit about "specialized infrastructure" out of your ass?

>>12715326
>We basically could make our helium with a Farnsworth Fusor

Good news, everyone!

>>12715345
>specialized infrastructure
I'm referring to the fact that there are helicopters around right now, dumbfuck. We don't have to develop entirely new systems to carry cargo and put them into production.

Look, zeppelins and the like are great little fantasy devices. But in the real world, where economics and reality actually fucking matters, there are a whole host of reasons why this concept has been largely abandoned for the last seventy years.

>>12715352

I've just designed an airship that can fly indefinitely!

>>12715191

The Hindenburg went down because it was an unsafe design. (Extremely unsafe, might I add.) Even if it were filled with Helium, the skin was also flammable.

>>12715196

Pivoting propellers around the sides of the craft solve that problem handily, IIRC.

>>12715345
Why would you need to take 1500 tons in/out of an area totally cut off from civilization?

>>12715363
Because those areas won't conquer themselves.

Known fusor designs produce a minute trickle of Helium. Not nearly enough to serve as a primary source of the gas.

As for arguments for or against practicality - lighter than air designs do use less energy overall to lift a load, and they require no fuel at all to remain aloft. This is important for high-endurance applications (of which there are many) but for every-day shipping and commuting it's a bust. Hybrid designs like the SkyCat might supplement existing helicopters (since they combine features of both) for heavy lift applications but I'm really not holding my breath. The biggest market for lighter than air craft besides UAVs would be luxury flights.

One of the few truly interesting things about the movie Stealth was the unmanned fueling airship floating out over the ocean. Practical?

>>12715363

Because a flooded city that is in need of help and crisis aid wouldn't need that much stuff, nope, lets just use over 9000 helicopters.

>>12715398
Why would you want to conquer such an area?

>>12715112
Is...is that a german airborne aircraft carrier?

>>12715431

Pick your flavour of newly discovered natural resource.

You can fly in an entire base at once.

>>12715431

Those dirty stinking Na'vi wont kill themselves!

>>12715429
Yes, that's what we do now, and it works.

>>12715431
If you start a sentence with "Why would you want to conquer", especially on /tg/, you're asking for trouble. Also, use your brain.

>>12715426
>luxury flights

It doesn't have to be luxury... like prohibitive for everyone. It'd be extremely cheap. Cheaper than riding a train. Another idea, is to fly out over the sea, and run a flying casino. then return.

>>12715439
If there is some magical fucking resource out in Antarctica, the only way you are going to be able to exploit it is by developing much cheaper infrastructure in the area - roads, railways, docks and the like.

It's alright to just say "RULE OF COOL," you know. Just don't pretend that it works in the real world.

>>12715454

Wouldn't it be more efficient to use 20 Airships instead of 9000 helicopters?
When they both can do the same thing, one costs extremely less?

>>12715478
Not when they have a development cost. The helicopters will be used for other things. If the dirigibles' only cost-effective use are these two rare things, then the cost of developing them, producing them, training crews, etc. simply makes it unfeasible.

>>12715478
Because ariships are really fucking slow.

It's quicker to draft in hundreds of Helicopters from all over the place making multiple trips than it is to try and get a couple of Ariships to make one trip.

FUCK YES I WOULD OP. IDEA OF THE CENTURY

>>12715487

Lets go with the hypothetical thing then.
1 airship = 9000 helicopter rides.
20 airships =180000 helicopters.

It takes 9000 'copters to do the job of 1 'ship.
20 airships would be more feasible than 180k helicopters.
Considering 20 airships could probably keep an entire city running for enough time for land or water based aid to get things set up.

>>12715502
Add fuel shortage to the mix, and airships suddenly become the only viable way.

>>12715502
The solution to this is to put rockets on the airships.

rolled 12 = 12

>>12715527
Your not factoring in time. How many times would a helicopter make the same trip a airship can?

>>12715520
BUMP FOR SAGE. OP'S IDEA IS AWESOME AND YOUR ARE FAG

>>12715002
Where I can get myself a ticket? Or better what qualifications must I have to be a captain of airship?

Isn't OP suggesting this as pleasure trips?
I mean sure I could take a plane ride to the dominican republic or travel around the countrys mediterranean with aircrafts in a hurry but with pleasure cruises it's supposed to take longer and you are supposed to have a good time, instead of just sitting in a cramped seat for a few hours.
I know I'd rather take a classy zeppelin ride over to finland with my lady then going on the awful cruise ships full of plebes.

>>12715560
Nobody classy is going to Finland. Thus, no classy service will include Finland on its itinerary.

>>12715553
Specialized pilot's license. You need to actually train on an airship. Sign up with Goodyear or Luftschiffbau Zeppelin in Germany.

>>12715573
Well England or Germany then.

>>12715545

Lets go with Soviet America then and Hurricane Katrina.
It took how long for any aid to arrive?
If you had Airships that could be based at least every 2 stats away and take off immediately to deliver 30k tons of supplies, and aid.
Would this not be more viable than gathering 180 THOUSAND helicopters?

>>12715290

Jet engines are almost always less efficient than a propeller. Almost. It really depends on the type of craft you're talking about.

In the case of a Zeppelin, the fact that you could drive the entire craft at about the same speed as 6-8 props could push it with one jet engine, that's pretty efficient. Only issue is maneuverability.

But, I've thought of that . Harrier Zeppelins!

Speed would be pretty good too; could probably get going at around 150mph or so. It'd take a while, though.

Jesus I want a goddamn tablet right now.

with modern carbon science we should be able to carry a lot more weight, thus having a much more pleasurable flight than the relative spartan means of the hindenburg.

A bump with wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

There are some very nice comparisons there, so read it.

do you think it'd be a poor idea to serve the LZ-129 hindenburg as a drink on board?

2oz orange juice
2oz gin

rolled 11 = 11

>>12715527
Expanding on this idea. A single helicopter could make the same journey around 4-6 times.

While a cargo plane could make it 18-20 times.

In a flooded city, in desperate need for relief, or a isolated area needing help, a plane or helicopter would probably be your better option.

>>12715602

Oh fuck yes, carbon fiber zeppelins with VTOL jets engines.

FLOAT ON A DIME, FERDINAND VON STYLE.
THRUST VECTORING RULES THE SKIES.

>>12715588
Actually, aid arrived relatively quickly. The problem was in rescuing people from their homes and moving them out of the area. The organization that was most free with its use of helicopters - the Coast Guard - was most able to get people out of the flooded parts of the city.

See, in operations in urban areas, the helicopters' small size and maneuverability gives them significantly more operational ability than dirigibles.

The problems of Katrina were largely organizational and governmental in nature.

>>12715625

Because a flooded city is going to have runways. A helicopter also needs a small landing pad. Which I digress does make it healthy. But it does not deliver in bulk.
An airship could do exactly what a helicopter could do, except better. But just slower.

Kevlar skin, composite frame.
Capacity to carry massive amounts of defensive countermeasures, powerful radar systems, and HUEG numbers of AMRAAM missiles.

> Park modernized Zeppelin in contested airspace
> Floating Anti-Air fortress complete, captain

>>12715573
Just did some calculations, a normal trip with a cruiseship from Stockholm to Helsinki takes about 12 hours and the distance is 400 km.
The Graf Zeppelin could cover 2800 km in 28 hours, so a Zeppelin could make that trip in 4 hours.
Basically you could travel anywhere in Europe in about 24 hours, pleasure cruise style instead of cramped aircraft style, I think it could work.

>>12715648

My bad.
Not healthy. *Helpful*
Don't "wat" at me yet.

>>12715545
Chinook, top speed 315km/h.
Modern Zeppelin NT, 125km/h.

So the helicopters can make two and a half trips in the same time the zeppelin makes one.

What makes things really interesting is their carrying capacities. Zeppelins can carry a load of 9000kg, while the Chinook's max load is 12700kg.

>>12715665

it beats the dick off a cruise ship. The views of flying over, correction, flying through the alps, would be a much nicer treat than a boat by some ice.

>>12715659

Why not just Anti air?
Add some muntions for sieging gound forces as well.

rolled 15 = 15

>>12715648
...Yes? It would. In that same logic, you could say that a flooded city won't have a docking area for a blimp. Heavens forbid, you would be looking for an immense section of flat level land in a city, so you can actually land with a airship. Helicopters are the only exception to that ruling, as they would land in an flat area with enough room to unload it's cargo. As for your stipulations. I say it would be mighty unfavorable to anything but airships in your ideal airship ready society.

>>12715678

I... you... wat?
Welp there goes my argument.
Though I would like a source.

>>12715687
Sure, you could thrown on some AC-130 level armament and some longer range stuff too; get some AGMs on there.

The whole thing could be remotely operated, with several onboard CIWS guns to shoot down inbound missiles.

>>12715698

Because in today's modern society we couldnt use a lift of some sorts to unload cargo without the blimp actually landing?

Just how large could a gondol be made exactly?

>>12715678

I'm curious where you got your speed for the Zeppelin. Is that for the WW2-era craft? Or a modern blimp?

>>12715701
Wikipedia articles for CH-47 Chinook, Zeppelin, and Zeppelin NT. Nothing fancier nor more reliable than that, I'm afraid.

>>12715678
>implying that the Zeppelin NT is anything more than a glorified scale model for test purposes

>>12715704

Where is /k/ when you need them.
I think they would orgasm over a mobile weapons platform like that.
Couldnt it also be used a psychological device as well.
Seeing something that is a mobile fortress floating over your head.
But I would think it would vunerable to small arms fire and Missles yo.
Or a tank just aiming up and shooting it.
Unless you know its somehow impervious to that.

>>12715716
Doesn't matter, because larger airships use it only for the cockpit. The main hold is actually inside the hull.

Since I see people talking about airships being slow, do we have any actual data on that?
A know that Mi-26 can lift up to 20000kg of cargo and that its top speed is about 290km/h.

On the other hand top speed for airships is about 160-170km/h.

For example LZ-127 could lift up to 60,000 kg and move at top speed of 128km/h.

I can't find any stats at the moment, but I doubt that modern cargo ships could move at greater speed than 100km/h. I'd be surprised if cargo ships with comparable carrying capacity could pull more that 60km/h.

>>12715704

One of the books in the Sprawl trilogy talks about the aftermath of a railgun attack on a megacorp compout from a stealth blimp.

>>12715749
True, I don't know how resilient you could make the skin for things like small arms / cannon hits. I was thinking more of a "park several km away" approach, and use the zep's ability to hold a big load of cruise missiles / BVR AA missiles to provide supporting fire with a long on station time and which isn't hindered by rough terrain.

Imagine going downtown, taking the elevator to the roof, where you're greeted by an amiable uniformed gentelmen.... around you are the gleaming lights of a busy city. Traffic below sputters by, and the chilly wind makes your lady clutch her coat. You step aboard the the warm airship where golden floorway lights guide you to your seat. You hand your coats to a cute girl in a noir outfit and short skirt with cute silver modern wings on her jacket, and take your place. The band starts up and drinks are brought to you. The ship lifts up, and the city falls away, unrivaled views entrance you as the alcohol, band and delicious steak dinner take affect. You sail out of the city and away into the night. You awake in your room, with a gorgeous vista of snow capped peaks and blue ribbon rivers for a hundred miles. A nice breakfast is brought to you and the airship circles your destination. It comes around and you see your arrival port, the empire state building. You are handed your coat, and you step off into the new rome, marveling at the busy streets below and an elevator ride to the bottom brings you safely and enjoyably to new york city. A glance up, before you climb into a cab shows a beautiful blue sky and three colossal airships floating like clouds...

>>12715717
That number was for a modern Zeppelin NT. There's one doing sightseeing tour flight things in San Francisco.
If we're talking about historical ships only, wikipedo places the Hinderburg's top speed at 135km/h.

>>12715678
>The design currently has a range of some 900 km (500 nautical miles) and reaches top speeds of 125 km/h (70 knots or 78 mph). The standard cruising speed of 70 km/h for tourist flights can be attained using the rear propeller only. Standard operational altitude is 300 m (1000 ft), but up to 2,600 m (8,500 ft) is possible. Their maximum permitted takeoff weight is 10,690 kg, with a payload of 1,900 kg.

In contrast, most versions of the Chinook have a payload capacity of about 9000 kg.

>>12715756
So basically you could fit hundreds of passengers in it?

>>12715772

hhaha. I forgot there are no mountains like that near new york. substitude all new york jazz for Vancouver BC. hahah.

>>12715768

It would sure as hell be useful to have a mobile weapons platform/HQ/Radio tower in warzones like Iraq or Afganistan where there are bumfuck tons of mountains and no signal.

>>12715766
>Stealth blimp

>>12715772
>Mfw I will never experience this

>>12715818

Ya see boyz, we painted it black so its more killy and sneaky like.
Dem 'umies 'ad no idea wat hit them.

And now im imagining Orcs trying to outfit a blimp with Dakaa.

>>12715772
Blimps couldn't go anywhere near a skyscraper.

Tall buildings and lots of people = crazy stong wind.

Blimps would be blown all over the place, the only feasible location for a blimp to tether is to a custom built mast in an open flat field.

Which pretty much ruins any attempts to make them 'convenient'.

In December 1941 and the first months of 1942, the Goodyear blimp Resolute was operated as an anti-submarine privateer based out of Los Angeles. As the only US craft to operate under a Letter of Marque since the War of 1812, the Resolute, armed with a rifle and flown by its civilian crew, patrolled the seas for submarines

>>12715894
>armed with a rifle

>>12715588

So you just have airstrips everywhere with crewed airship willed with FUCKTONS of supplies at all times.

Dude this shit just isn't efficient. It's a very cool idea, but not a real life effective one.

>>12715876

what is happening here then?

>>12715964
Experimental, small scale attempts to dock at a skyscraper. Yes, they tried it several times. And then they stopped. Gee, I wonder why.

>>12715964
Notice how there are no other skyscrapers around?

Try doing that in modern day New York.

>>12715836
There's as piece of fluff writing in Titan Legions, about an ork whose land fortress had broken a track and was running in cycles. In comes Klokwurk, the ticking mekboy, on his steam powered dirigible. He sees the lone ork sitting on the broken juggernaut, sticking out a lone thumb, and uncharacteristically doesn't carpetbomb him. He takes him aboard and flies on to Orktown, to help building the Mega-Gargant. Yep, the waaagh makes orks weird.

>http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/travel/2677-the-bullet-580-airship.html
>made of kevlar material 10 times stronger than steel
>biggest airship ever made
>planned to be used for recon by the military

Fuck yeah

>>12715999
Biggest EXISTING, not biggest ever made. Noticew the tiny difference.

>mootings dephas
Seriously, captcha?

Could the space for passengers be made to resemble this? In that case fund it, fund the shit out of it.

http://www.faktaomfartyg.se/silja_symphony_1991_inr_1.htm

>>12716093
what is that?

>>12715987

Since the destruction of the Twin Towers, the Empire State building has reclaimed its old position as the tallest building in Manhattan.

I was just in NYC a month ago, staying at the New Yorker Hotel in a room with a great view of it. I couldn't help myself but imagine what it would have been like to see Zeppelins docking at it.

Well, there's one way I can think of to make airships work again in a modern economy.

Super very rich people.

If there was one thing that the old zeppelin corporation tried to push back in the day was that traveling in an airship was traveling in STYLE. If you got on a direct flight from Berlin to Rio you knew you would get every possible comfort that the 1930s could provide. When the Graf Zeppelin circumnavigated the world they hit up at least a dozen major cities and never ran out of wine and cheese for the dignitaries to feel classy with. Something capitalizing on catering to the ultra-luxurious desires of the mindbogglingly wealthy might not be the easiest sell in this economy, but at least it makes more sense than supercopter bulk cargo adventures

>>12716115
It's the interior of a Silja line cruiser called Serenade, it and it's sistership Symphony are built with those boardwalks, resturants, bar, shops and other stuff at "ground level" including a large panoramic window and cabins on the levels above.

>>12716115
Interior of a baltic ferry

>>12715002
Is that a copypasta? I swear I've already read exactly same thing before.

>>12716205

OP here. No, its not copypasta. Just me wishing and day dreaming. Haven't brought the idea up on /tg/ before.

bump

>>12715002
OP still here.

any new perspectives from either business men or engineers?

Sure for people who have the money for that stuff it is alright, but airships aren't exactly fast and that's what a lot of people want. Sure selling it as an airborne hotel of some sort that is mobile is alright. Like say dinner a movie and an overnight trip to wherever in hippie land northwest is pretty romantic I guess. You would have to have good accommodation though. Essentially this would be for a higher class of transportation and this economy that aint exactly flying high. Sure you would get a fuck ton of steam punk people who would want to flight (Like make a steam punk murder mystery or some shit on it if you want to cash in on it.) The thing is, with something like this your going to have to sell the romance, not the fact that it's slow or the fact that it is crowded

also OP airships are not cheap and only a few facilities could make the one you are looking for. The good news is most of those facilities are abandoned and could be rented for dirt cheap, though you might have to compete with the mythbusters and others for using them. Additionally weather for airships is another issue you are going to have to look into.

GOD DAMMIT DEREK

GET OFF OF /tg/

>>political ramous

YOU TOO

>>12716698
Im telling you, why america? This shit would be perfect for europe, pleasure cruising on a route that starts in London, route goes to Oslo, Berlin, Prauge, Wien, Rome, Monaco, Madrid, Paris and back to London.

>>12716802

Europe also has better weather for this sort of thing. The US has much more hostile weather.

>>12715147
parachutes everywhere.

I'm not sure if there are even any blimps that you can ride around in, but I'd be interested in it. But what about the size? for their speed, planes just jam-pack everyone in there because it's a short trip. how long would a 2 hour plane ride take by blimp, and how many people could one carry, in relation to the normal long-distance travel airplane, such as the 747?

>>12715999
> Each Bullet 580 costs US$8M (€6.3M)
> the company plans to build eight airships to rent at US$290,000-800,000 (€230,000-630,000) a month.
>rent at US$290,000-800,000 (€230,000-630,000) a month
>US$290,000-800,000
at first I thought this was in the millions, but now it looks much more reasonable.

>>12716928
Cruising speed of the Boeing 747-8, the most recent model, is 570 mph. Cruising speed of the Hindenburg class airships was around 70 mph. That means that a two hour trip with the Boeing 747-8 would take around sixteen and a half hours with an old style cruise airship.

>>12715002
I think you'd be able to get away with not having a luxury cruise liner. I'm not sure how long a zepplin ride would take, but If you had one that serviced trips between NYC, Philladelphia, Pitsburgh, Boston, Baltimore, I don't think that it would take very long, and the cost of such a (relatively) short distance should be low.

But I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Anyway, HELL YEAH I'm interested in flying in your airship!

Quicker? no.

Classier? yes.

Stay classy /tg/

>>12716988
thanks. looking around, one of the new ones, maybe the Bullet 580, I can't really remember, had a cruising speed of 35mph and a top speed of 80 mph. So, I think it would only really be practical if you're flying a short distance, like in one region of the US, provided tickets are about the same price as gas.

BUT THE BIG PROBLEM IS:
>http://news.discovery.com/space/airship-blimp-bullet.html
>The Bullet 580, a helium-filled tanker, can carry 1,000 pounds of payloads up to 20,000 feet above Earth.
> can carry 1,000 pounds of payloads
>ONLY 1,000 POUNDS
>THAT'S LIKE 1/5 THE WEIGHT OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN
THAT'S. NOT. PRACTICAL. You've got to at LEAST carry a bus worth of people. Shit, 3 hot air balloons could carry that.

>>12717203
dude, heavy lift blimps can haul 80k pounds, thats twice as much as 40k.

I still think it would work very well as a substitute for normal seagoing cruiseships.

>>12717254
yeah, for some reason that was in the title, then reading more,
>The ships are designed to haul payloads as heavy as 15,000 pounds up to 2,500 feet
what the hell. but if it could carry up to 80K, that would be amazing.

What about using ion drives to replace propellers? You could run the thing off straight electricity from a photovoltaic array spread over the main body. It'd be greener than most trees.

Plus you'd have the advantage of giving it a more futuristic look, which would prevent unpleasant associations (Hindenburg) in the minds of customers and investors.

>>12717326
google JHL-40

I'm currently in university learning HVAC.
I would gladly service your airship, OP

>>12717431
>I would gladly service your airship, OP

so that's what they are calling it now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airships

>Several hundred high-velocity bullets were fired through the hull, and even two hours later the vehicle would have been able to return to base. The airship is virtually impervious to automatic rifle and mortar fire: ordnance passes through the envelope without causing critical helium loss. In all instances of light armament fire evaluated under both test and live conditions, the vehicle was able to complete its mission and return to base

What?

>>12717466

Airships confirmed for the big brother of A-10 Thunderbirds

>>12717413
that could easily be configured to transport people

>>12717203
That's why we should be using Hydrogen instead.

>>12717578
hydrogen's more bouyant?

Time for some thought and perspective.

Sure a Chinook can carry 9000 pounds. Things a Chinook cannot carry? Up-armored Strykers, Bradley IFVs, and other large vehicles that will fit into either a C-17 or a C-5. Most of the vehicles that we put overseas are put there via ship or C-5. Ship is much, much more economical, but you're limited to transportation by sea. Airships would have no such limitation and truly massive ones - the ones with manufacturing mass and size similar to large cargo ships - could transport those vehicles and other massive supply crates and supplies directly inland. The transfer time would be similar and the reduction in costs for transportation overhead due to "base to port, port to port, port to base" different methods of transfer could be significant.

Airships are not fast enough to make effective close air support. They have incredible loiter times, but fast response?

What a combat airship could do that no other vehicle really could is airborne UCAV carrier.

apparently, google says there aren't many zepplins flying passengers now. there were 3 back in 2008 (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6473153) but nothing more recent than that.

damn. I want to fly on a zepplin

>>12717699
You are now imagining a zeppelin dropping scores of Predator drones onto a hot zone, the whole swarm twisting and shifting like a flock of birds, before straightening onto a unified attack vector and raining bombs and bullets sufficient to level the pissant town the foolish enemy thought it could hide in...

...and up in the zeppelin, there's just one guy, sipping a rum and cola and laughing his ass off.

The space shuttle has door gunners, airships need them too.

>>12717837

>>12717837
Scariest thing: That was a military use of airships in Shadowrun since 2e, around 1992. Stay high up, drop a metric fuckton of semi-automatic drones in swarms controlled by riggers, kill all hostiles, collect drones, fly off.

bump

>>12717837
>>12717955

CARRIER HAS ARRIVED

>>12717837
"What is it?"

"This radar... it must have a fault of some kind. Look at this, the cross-section. It is bigger than a cruise ship."

"You checked the others?"

"I did. Same thing happens. There must be a problem with the computer system."

"Not good. We will have to pull the- Wait. The lookout is calling." *click*

"Target approaching! It is an American carrier blimp!" *click*

"Allah preserve me."

>>12715275

So far? Yes. That's why the vacuum dirigible remains the holy grail of airship design.

But if we can build a light enough airframe, it's the obvious choice. It has more lifting power than hydrogen, it doesn't catch fire, and all you need to obtain it is the energy required to pump the air out of the envelope.

>>12719320
>>12715229

such a sweet idea

continuing with the vacuum idea what if we capsuled low pressure helium/hydrogen for lighter then normal version of hydrogen/helium with less pressure on the shell kinda a halfway idea.

Lighter-than-air flying machines built around the use of nanotech constructed materials. Vacuum dirigibles use the ability of nanotechnology to create lightweight fabric-like materials that are strong enough to hold their shape and contain a low-pressure or even vacuum-equivalent region against the pressure of an external atmosphere. Using this technology it is possible to create a lighter- than-air lifting body without the necessity of gases such as hydrogen or helium, or a heating element.

The structure containing the vacuum must be strong in compression, as the surface is subjected to the ambient atmospheric pressure. Suitable structures include most regular solids, and geodesic spheres of various kinds; however the closer the structure is to a spherical shape, the more likely it is to buckle. The strongest vacuum balloon is in fact a tetrahedron. Other shapes benefit from lightweight internal bracing, either arranged radially or using a regular framework, often tetrahedral or cubical in arrangement. Nano-assembled, effectively flawless diamondoid material is very strong in compression so can be used for very lightweight, strong internal bracing. One very strong allotrope of carbon is ACN, aggregated carbon nanorod material, which can be stronger in compression than any other conventional material if nanofactured correctly.

Rather than a hard vacuum, some designs of balloon use low pressure gas (generally helium) to reduce the required strength of the balloon structure. Of course the use of helium gas at normal pressure (that is to say in regular high pressure helium balloons in tension) is widespread in Earth-like atmospheres containing mostly nitrogen and oxygen.

The difference between the lift available from helium and the maximum possible lift from a vacuum balloon is very small. If the lift from pure vacuum (disregarding the weight of the balloon structure) is considered to be 1 unit in an Earth-like atmosphere, then the lift from hydrogen is 0.93 units and from helium 0.86 units. This obviously constrains the weight of the balloon structure to be very small indeed, if the total lift is to be greater than that afforded by helium or hydrogen.

In the atmosphere of a gas giant this tiny advantage is useful, as a typical gas giant's atmosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium, and has a very low density. Only vacuum balloons, or heated hydrogen or helium can be used. In fact the same designs which are used for vac-balloons are also useful for certain kinds of hot helium balloons, as diamondoid is not only strong in compression but also has a high melting point.

Vacuum dirigibles are ubiquitous in many nanotech capable areas. They range in size from insect-sized units supporting small sensor or effector platforms, to huge, multi-volume arrays carrying entire communities above the ground.

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48586cc9eb91a

>>12717326

It can haul 15,000lbs up to 2,500ft and 1000lbs up to 20,000ft.

Air gets thinner the higher up you go.

>Composite Hull High Altitude Powered Platform (CHHAPP)

>CHHAPP

>CHAP

WELLCHAPS THEN ITS TIME WE GET GOING