Hacker News Reader

Comment by notafraudster | Hacker News Reader

Naive but skeptical questions:

- How much of the carrying capacity is eaten up by the batteries necessary to hit the range target?

- Would anyone operationally want to fly a 10,000 mile flight? Is speed a huge barrier for trying to do this in a single round the world flight?

- Is helium scarce enough that there'd be negative externalities for medical helium if they actually produce these in any numbers?

- What's the status quo ex ante here? I would guess you airlift relief supplies to the nearest safe staging zone using a herc or similar and then use chinook or similar to get directly to the disaster zone? Is there actually a problem to be solved here?

(I like dirigibles and electric tech, so I hope there are good answers to all of these that make me look foolish)

View on HN

Here is more information than the shared article it goes into some depth on the concept of the plane. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airships-r...

They reduce the planes use of Helium by it's shape and design, when the engines are turned off it's heavier than air and it will sink. However, Helium is a scarce resource. I don't approve of a billionaire fun ride between LA and Los Angeles taking up all the helium (which will leak out over time and may need top ups every time it departs).

I'm also, wondering if people (the demographic) have time to sit for long periods of time, they seem to value their time, and a private jet is faster.

Overall this is presented as an another green tech that will ensure carbon free travel. I see this as greenwashing a billionaire fantasy.

I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner. Anachronistic novelty travel where the craft itself is the main attraction and the destinations just happen along the way.

I feel that the main appeal of a cruise liner is that the trip is also part of the vacation. You can enjoy comedy shows, play in the pool, relax in the sun, drink, gamble, etc. It's like a mini Las Vegas that moves. Where as I feel this would be more like waiting for the ferry to get from point A to point B while there's also a bridge that's much faster.

With all that said, travel is not the purpose of the airship. It's to help humanitarian aid response and relief for areas that are difficult for planes and boats to access due to destroyed infrastructure.

Heh, I go out of my way to ride on ferries. If you have time to spare, the Alaska Marine Highway (a ferry) is a very pleasant trip. But a Vegas-like experience on a cruise ship sounds like hell to me. For each their own I guess.

Since I was a child it's been my dream to travel, slowly and low, in one of these over the tree tops in New England during leaf season, or through Fjords, or across beautiful countryside in France or Italy or wherever. I don't want to travel quickly and I don't want internet connectivity. I just want to slowly take in nature.

VIA Rail has tried to pitch the four-day trip from Toronto to Vancouver in these kinds of terms, I think in part to justify the big cost, particularly of a berth or cabin:

https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/ro...

It makes sense, but as with a blimp, there are certain technological limitations that just plain make it hard to compete with conventional air travel.

Every now and then I think about taking one of the long distance Amtrak trains. But I've always suspected the idea is probably greater than the reality. (And it's not inexpensive.)

There’s another post on it - it IS worth it and the prices aren’t insane if you consider it as a moderate hotel on wheels.

There are fancier long-distance trains that run on different schedules.

>>I could see it having the same appeal as a cruise liner.

Except it won't enjoy the international law that is the core of the cruise industry. Cruise ships are essentially just resort hotels that don't have to obey wage laws.

Airships also could use hydrogen, but since the Hinderburg disaster there has been stigma on it.

Incidentally the deadliest airship crash of all time was a helium airship, the USS Akron.

Nevertheless, hydrogen does pose a real risk to the passengers in the event of an accident. In other helium airship crashes (for instance the USS Shenandoah), some people managed to survive by riding the debris down to the ground. And in some hydrogen airship crashes (for instance R101), some people managed to survive the crash to the ground, but subsequently died in the fire.

We've learned to safely fly in airplanes filled with fuel that loves to burn. We can do it with airships the same way.

We now know the multiple factors that caused the Hindenburg disaster, and they are all easily fixable.

More airships were lost to poor weather than thermite paint or whatever other specific Hindenburg problem you're thinking of. Planes have numerous inherent advantages in this regard: They're faster, which makes weather forecasting and route planning easier. Smaller planes can land almost anywhere, but airships require mooring towers. Airplanes are more robust when left outside in the elements, and their hangers are much smaller and cheaper than airship hangers.

I think in principle, a blimp that could land on a field and stow its balloon rapidly could address these problems. But rigid airships seem inherently problematic; the fundamental nature of an airship (very big and very light) makes it susceptible to high winds, in the air or on the ground. I don't see any way around that.

Does the equation change if we factor in airship’s capacity of carrying cargo?

Airships don’t have much in the way of lifting capacity, not compared to a fully-loaded 747.

"fun ride between LA and Los Angeles"

Should be a short trip, at least

Depends on traffic. The 110 is a beast.

I've talked with airship people about the helium question.

Basically, hydrogen is better. Hydrogen has an image problem because of the Hindenburg, but there are compelling reasons why nothing of the sort would happen again.

The idea is to regain airship capacity using helium, while it's still cheaply available from a couple natural gas wells, and switch to the better lifting gas in a friendlier political climate.

> but there are compelling reasons why nothing of the sort would happen again.

What are these reasons?

So it's a lot to get into, but these fellas put together a wonderful break-down of why blimps are worth trying again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU

That's three hours of stuff

Tl;dw anyone?

We can make less-flammible gas bags, and hydrogen can be made to vent upwards in case of fire.

The weather issues are somewhat more handleable but there’s still maneuvering issues. Planes can outrun storms, airships light have a time doing so.

You did the work of an angel. Thank you!!

I love their description of the first airship, a rich weirdo's toxic balloon that is destroyed immediately upon landing by a mob of confused peasants.

but the hydrogen part?

The other advantage of using hydrogen is (in an emergency fuel situation) being able to slowly 'rob' the ballast ballon for fuel for use in either the motive engines or an ICE genny if the solar setup failed for some reason or you needed 'hyper-drive tubo-boost' levels of power

The irony is that 1/3 of the passengers walked away from the Hindenburg crash vs 100% casualty plane.

The bad optics in an era where there was little video competition really set dirigibles behind for a century.

Hydrogen should be the Lighter than Air gas choice for airships.

Helium prices have risen significantly over the past few years. We can obtain some as a byproduct of natural gas extraction but it's limited.

https://geology.com/articles/helium/

> Would anyone operationally want to fly a 10,000 mile flight? Is speed a huge barrier for trying to do this in a single round the world flight?

I'll take a crack at this: Since it is targeted towards humanitarian relief, it may travel to places without electrical infrastructure to recharge it. So, 5000 miles each way. Presumably charging takes a non-trivial amount of time, so in a time sensitive application like delivering medical supplies, there is also an advantage to not having to stop and charge.

That being said, I am also skeptical this is faster or more practical than using traditional cargo aircraft and/or helicopters. A C130 doesnt need much of a runway to land or takeoff.

I think a lot of the benefit is not necessarily about flying continous long distance flights but being able to carry lots of weight and to easily hover and stay in a general area. Like a base of operations for the military for example.

Helium is a non-renewable [1] resource. Once it's gone, it's gone forever, and we are running out.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/helium-shortage-why-the-worl...

[1] Earth's helium supply comes from decaying uranium, so it is kinda-sorta renewable, but the renewal time scale is millions of years.

No we are not running out. There's a lot, its just not profitable to mine.

Just like there is almost infinite gold in the earth

There isn't infinite anything on earth. Earth is finite. And running out of resources that are economically viable to access is effectively the same as running out. (Also, helium is a by-product of crude oil production, and so its production has some rather dramatic externalities.)

Your parent obviously knows the definition of "infinite", pedantry isn't helpful.

We ran out of $15 oil quite some time ago. That was not the same as running out of oil. "Economically viable" is not a static target.

The earth is very deep. We are only mining the very tip of it. There are thousands of miles of unmined resources down there. That’s not infinite but a lot. And sure, we can’t get to it today, but who knows what 100 or 200 years will bring.

Barely scratching the surface, so to speak. There's a lot of earth under our feet!

I heard a line once that was if the earth was an apple we are yet to mine past the skin.

So a heap of exploration potential plus the off planet side.

$15 might still be the extraction price in Saudi Arabia.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-believe-w...

Oil at that price can't supply the entire market, though (unless they're just being really prudent).

No.

But oil at that cost provides a huge land-rent income to the Saudis when world (market) oil prices top $50, $100, $150, $200, ... bbl.

KSA's extraction price remains $15. The rest is pure profit to them.

(Discounting the hundreds of millions of years of geological accumulation and transformation which created the resource in the first place. See "Burning Buried Sunshine" by Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.... (PDF).)

What is economically viable to access is constantly shifting, either due to technology improvements or increased demand (hence prices).

Yes, you are correct. Contrary to gold, however, which is largely useless and ornamental (aside from some marginal use in microelectronics), helium is necessary for a large amount of critical medical infrastructure, as well as research at cryogenic temperatures, superconductors, etc. To see helium steeply rise in price according to supply and demand would spell disaster for many of these applications.

Also, gold doesn't spontaneously escape into space if it's not contained.

But it might get robbed if not properly secured..

Unless it's robbed by space aliens, that doesn't diminish the recoverable supply.

That all depends on the temperature ;-)

If that ever becomes a factor, helium (and gold for the matter) will be the least of our worries.

On the bright side, there would probably be no worries.

The meme that gold is useless is not true. It is not used nearly as much as it could be due to price, but it has plenty of medical uses:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187395981...

If gold were as cheap as iron, it would be ubiquitous in society.

I guess cryptocurrency hate is spilling over into precious metals now.

Moot. With natural resources, it's entirely about the cost of recovery. Nothing else matters. Who cares the core of the Earth is all iron, if it's eternally unavailable? What matters is $/ton.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com