• BougieBirdie
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 months ago

    I’m skeptical of the scalability.

    On paper, it sounds like a good idea. Competing in air freight for medium speed / cost makes sense. Fuel for an airship is probably easier on emissions than bunker fuel used for freight ships.

    Buoyancy is what I’m struggling with. We don’t have an unlimited supply of helium. Thermal airships don’t seem to be any faster than cargo ships. Hydrogen is too combustible.

    So maybe this does have potential to carve out a small part of the market, but I can’t foresee this being a huge disruptor in the global supply chain

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 months ago

      You don’t use Helium. You use Hydrogen. Hydrogen cannot burn without oxygen. Hydrogen is too tightly packed in an airship to get sufficient exposure to oxygen. Therefore, even in case of a fire, much of the hydrogen just escapes without burning. Airplanes too fell from the sky when the industry was not mature. We didn’t just ban airplanes outright.

      • @mojofrododojo
        link
        English
        22 months ago

        yup. and we don’t dope the envelopes with aluminum powder either.

      • @davidagain
        link
        12 months ago

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

        Likely static charge from a cloud causing hydrogen to ignite. Hydrogen burns freely at all concentrations both very low and very high and is therefore far, far more flammable even than natural gas, so I’m afraid hydrogen airships will always be a catastrophe waiting to happen.

    • poVoqOPM
      link
      fedilink
      112 months ago

      That hydrogen is too combustible is largely a myth. The main problem with it is leakage through the hull membrane, but that is a solvable engineering problem.

      • @mojofrododojo
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        is a solvable engineering problem.

        yet still a hard problem. don’t underestimate it.