It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zepherian
Several reasons imo: nobody would pay to travel in a ship full of volatile gases
Originally posted by Zepherian
With GPS and a weather monitoring grid it might be technologically feasible...
Originally posted by Zepherian
All this said, I think we should focus our research on electromagnetic or gravitic systems, I have a hunch the replacement of planes will come from there, not a step backward in history to the 20's and 30's.
Modern airships have a natural buoyancy and special design that offers a virtually zero catastrophic failure mode. The internal hull pressure is maintained at only 1–2% above surrounding air pressure, the vehicle is highly tolerant to physical damage or to attack by small arms fire or missiles.
While on long-haul flights weather patterns would be flown to avoid bad weather, the hull’s mass largely dampens the effect of turbulence – just as a large tanker rides through rough seas.
An airship is usually a poor lightning target, as it is constructed mainly from composite materials. If it is struck, built-in protection devices minimise the risk to the vehicle and its cargo.
A series of structural vulnerability tests were done by the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency DERA on a Skyship 600, an earlier airship built by the Munk team to a similar pressure-stabilised design. 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.
because your fuel is expended for turning, not lift.
Originally posted by sherpa
... They would not necessarily have to use fossil fuels either they could easily run on vegetable oil, bio-diesel or waste vegetable oil.
...
Originally posted by firepilot
Well and propulsion too. They dont just magically go forward. Fuel economy may not be exactly what you think, since airships like that are slower, then headwinds have more of an effect on them than something much faster.
A Zeppelin Flight – Something very Different
Cruising with the Zeppelin NT – a view from above, smoothly and gently along the Alps, over towns and cultural landscapes – a unique flight adventure from the bird's eye view. Large panorama windows provide an impressive view from every seat. Look forward to a flight of some special kind.
The DZR offers a variety of different routes. Flights with a duration between 30 minutes and 2 hours are offered. The flight operation can directly be monitored from the check-in pavillon at the hangar and at the take-off and landing site of the Zeppelin NT.
The check-in pavillon and the terrace next to it welcome all visitors. The hangar of the airship may also be visited. Competent guides will provide you with a vivid picture about the development of the Zeppelin NT. Enjoy an unusual atmosphere with interesting material at your fingertips.
www.zeppelinflug.de...
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Originally posted by firepilot
Well and propulsion too. They dont just magically go forward. Fuel economy may not be exactly what you think, since airships like that are slower, then headwinds have more of an effect on them than something much faster.
This brings up another question. What if you have SAILING MASTS on the dirigible? Kind of a strange question, but ships have been doing it for thousands of years. This kind of ship is just bouyant in a different medium.
security concerns about hijackers using planes as flying bombs,
global warming concerns about pollutants and emissions,
with skyrocketing fuel costs that show no signs of going back down,