Hacker News Reader

I don’t think airships are as bad as it may seem today. Perceived badness is a lot due to lack of networking effects which airplanes enjoy today. There is infrastructure for landing airplanes everywhere. If the same had existed for airships I he economics and practicality of using airships would have been very different.

Many of the problems that existed with airships in the past are solved today. Weather forecasts are much better today. Elevation can be controlled better with compressors which can expand and reduce volume of ballonets on demand combined with propellers which can be more fine controlled and directed to cause lift of descent.

Not to mention access to a plethora of advanced materials they did not have in the 30s.

Most importantly we are in a green shift. When airplanes took over nobody cared about CO2 emissions. Airships can realistically run using electric motors driven by batteries or preferably fuel cells. For airships volume matters less, so you can more easily have large quantities of hydrogen in the ship. In theory you could use hydrogen as lifting gas and fuel.

The dangers of hydrogen is somewhat overrated. Hindenburg was about paint coating more than hydrogen. We also got much better techniques for handling it yet today. You can have an outer shell of a different gas e.g.

During WW1 German airships got frequently fired on without causing any them much damage. They had to fly close with incendiary grenades to take them out.

I think there is big opportunity windmill blade transportation now how to transport blade is the limiting factor and airlifting those huge blades to construction site would solve this. https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/wind-turbine-blade-sizes-a...

Taking an airship would be like taking a cruise but in the sky.

Also one advantage airships have is that they can dock to pretty much any tall building. The Empire State Building has airship docking capability.

Imagine taking a transatlantic cruise on an airship that leaves from the top of the Empire State Building and docks at the top of the Eiffel Tower?

That would be very risky: those monsters aren't friends with the wind. Any glitch and a lot of power gets applied to that building. Another glitch and a large frame falls down on the street.

You can read reports of Nobile airship trips. And wind could delay trips by days.

You wait for hurricane, typhoon and/or cyclone for quick travel.

Apparently not too risky, since, as the parent pointed out, in the early part of the previous century, it wasn't unusual for tall buildings to be used for airship docking.

The Empire State Building mooring wasn't a one-off. There were many others. What is now the InterContinental Hotel in Chicago was one.

That's because human lives were cheaper back in those days. The problem with docking a giant people carrier above a densely populated area is that you have even more lives at stake.

We send airplanes over densely pack cities all the time. We even let the rather pointless Goodyear blimp do so. Docking an airship would be safer if the area beneath it was completely clear such as a river, but in normal wind conditions it isn’t particularly dangerous.

Goodyear blimp only flies in relatively good weather. On airplanes over cities though: compare the cross-section and the corresponding force exerted by the wind on a modern jet and a blimp. Jet engines can compensate for wind gusts that would make landing an airship in a tight spot hopeless.

A fun example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPn3MBNt7Rc

Airline landings really aren’t very precise which is why runways are so wide.

In terms of wind, airships with the right control systems can be designed to hold position in 50+MPH guts. That takes a lot of power and rapid response, but modern airships can do 110kph and presumably commercial adoption would need higher speeds.

> In terms of wind, airships with the right control systems can be designed to hold position in 50+MPH gusts. That takes a lot of power and rapid response

I am not sure: countering the change in direction seems very hard. But I do wish luck to those who are working to push this technology along.

> modern airships can do 110kph

That is how fast the Zeppelins of 100 years ago traveled: cruising speed of 76 mph.

The response speed is via reversible variable pitch propellers, which is a very cool technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-pitch_propeller_(aero...

Any flying machine has some maneuverability when flying PASS a populated area, even in emergencies. If you just dock above the area at all time, it will increase the risk immensely.

Thank you, I will look it up. I wonder what the success rate was for those, I thought they sometimes went to backup locations.

I read accounts of using airships in the exploration of the North in the early 20th century and I got the impression that they often dropped ropes in a clear spot away from the exact landing point and were led by a landing team to the final docking, which would be hard to do in the middle of a city today.

> The Empire State Building has airship docking capability.

This photo shows a much less tall airship mooring mast.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/mooring-mast-1930s/

It doesn't look like that kind of mooring would be up to the modern safety standards, especially when you add high winds that are common at the top of skyscrapers.

Tbh, it'd probably be inherently safer. The ship should be easier to control because the air at the top of a skyscraper is likely to be less turbulent. And if there is an unexpected down draught, then there is a lot more leeway before the ship and its compliment get smashed into the ground.

Ground handling and docking is one of the main, and fairly frequently fatal, causes of airships accidents, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents. Fwiw mitigating is definitely possible. But it requires specialised docking equipment to be available anywhere they are to set down. Which is why I suspect they'll make rather better Bazillionaire play things than humanitarian aid delivery mechanisms. They are very cool though.

> Without doubt, the tallest mooring mast ever designed was the spire of the Empire State Building which was originally constructed to serve as a mooring mast, although soon after converted for use as a television and radio transmitter tower due to the discovered infeasibility of mooring an airship, for any length of time, to a very tall mast in the middle of an urban area.

The picture below has an airship getting flipped on its nose by a gust of wind while moored to a tower.

It seems to me that airships really need two mooring masts. One at the front and another at the back. Maybe the one at the back flips up to lock on once the one in front is secure?

I also used to 'sort of know that' and then I came across something on YT about the updraughts and air turbulence etc. Can't find the clip I saw but this link says pretty much the same.

"A popular myth claims that the top of the Empire State Building was meant to serve as a docking station for dirigibles, but the building's owners say that the story is just hot air."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wimlrgwhgg

Sibling comment has a page that says:

> Without doubt, the tallest mooring mast ever designed was the spire of the Empire State Building which was originally constructed to serve as a mooring mast, although soon after converted for use as a television and radio transmitter tower due to the discovered infeasibility of mooring an airship

Now I’m curious what it actually is.

They did build the Empire state building with a mooring mast and a a lounge / ticket area and a way for the passengers to get on the plane. But it was purely speculative, and though they took publicity photos, they never used it(remember: there were only a handful of commercial airships).

There used to be a commercial heliport on top of the Pan Am Building over Grand Central Station. The first helicopter crash that sent chunks of metal flying 600 feet down to streets with huge amounts of foot traffic permanently closed it. I'm sure something similar would have happened had the Empire State Building 'port' actually been used.

Unlike the Empire State Building airship dock, the Pan Am heliport was an actual and working mini 'airport' with regular scheduled flights / pick-ups-drop-offs for years.

This is also why none of the companies building powered lift eVTOL aircraft like Joby and Lillium are unlikely to achieve mass market success. Even if they can achieve FAA certification, there aren't enough places to land in dense urban areas.

> like taking a cruise but in the sky

Minus the lift v. float economics. That would strike at some combination of affordability and availability of attractions.

Modern air travel outside of business class and select airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and glamour of the Pan Am days. Maybe people will pay to take a cruise among the clouds.

The question is price. Air travel 'sucks' but has also become a lot more accessible, even long haul. If an airship takes 4 days and costs the same as business class on a regular plane I think many people will just business class.

And there is a transatlantic ocean liner option--albeit on a fairly limited basis.

Your assuming that for airship travel the journey wouldn't be the point of the trip, not an inconvenience in getting from point A to point B.

With that kind of thinking there would be no market for ocean cruise ships - but there is :)

There's a market for cruise ships... as a destination. There's basically no market for ocean liners. There's, what, one left?

Perhaps people could be convinced to take an "air cruise", though it'll never have the amenities of a ship, but as transportation there's very little room for slower and more expensive.

An air cruise over the Rockies or up the Appalachian trail when the leaves turn would be swank.

Slow float over Mt Everest.

>Modern air travel outside of business class and select airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and glamour of the Pan Am days.

Not really. It was comfortable if you had first class seating--at a price above today's business class. But the first class lounge was fairly lightly used for the most part and became business class seating when that level of service came in. While airports are worse in some ways because they're often so crowded, modern international lie-flat business class seating is more comfortable in general--and there are more entertainment options--than first class on Pan Am was.

Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if you're talking about the luxury pods. Those business class sleepers are tiny and you will have to crook your knees.

I'm six foot and am pretty comfortable in them. In any case, they're more comfortable (even if you don't put them all the way down) than old first class seats--which were basically like the seats you get in most domestic business class today.

Just six foot? Lucky you! I say that with sincerity from the top of my head to my crinkled flight-legs.

> Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if you're talking about the luxury pods.

> Just six foot?

The average height for men in the US is 5'9" [1]. The Netherlands is the world's tallest country with an average height of 5'11" [1].

[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/average-height-for-men#u-s...

First, did not mean to offend people shorter. If that was how it was received, allow me to give my full apology. I'm sorry.

Given your stats that you're provided and I'm choosing to assume are true, then I'm abnormal but it does not change my experience on average. Hopefully the increasing obesity issue will cause some ancillary changes that may benefit tall people at the same time some day. At least let me pay for it, you know?

The big difference is that back in the day we had the interstate commerce commission establishing a minimum ticket price so that airlines didn't have to engage in "ruinous" price competition. Everyone had to pay what would now be business class ticket prices but everybody got business class service because that was the only thing airlines could compete on.

Appropriate taxation on fossil carbon could make a difference. Flying in kerosene-fueled planes should be made a lot more expensive than any alternatives.

> I don't see airships ever taking back a significant chunk of that market.

I would agree, not without a change in the market's parameters.

Environmental parameters coming into play can usher in such a change, though - I'm thinking of the lower carbon footprint of an airship compared to that of an airplane, that could push a change through.

I'm all for airships too, to be honest, as long as they are so cool and spacious as the one in Indiana Jones.

It seems like we should be able to make a solar cell light enough to cover the top of an airship and use electric power. Most solar aircraft don't make sense because there isn't enough surface area to get a minimum amount of power to keep the aircraft aloft. Airships don't have this problem. The issues are weight and expense and being limited to operating only during the day. Cloud cover isn't a huge issue, you can rise above it.

Airships fly 2x the cargo with 2/3 the fuel a plane would use.

You could have luxury travel with dance floor and bar in the front and sleeping cabins and air freight in the back.

Not for passenger but heavy lift transport.

That’s what I am wondering as well. Can airships replace long distance truck lines?

They won’t compete with rail, but last mile logistics especially to remote or austere regions, absolutely.

I believe someone else mentioned wind turbines, which is a great idea.

To be fair, nothing can compete with rail on land, but replacing trucks might be a nice idea, especially for international hauls, as there would be no extensive border and customs check in every country on the way.