reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Faster isn't necessarily always better.
Consider: the vast majority of current air travel (passenger and commercial) operates at speeds far below what is currently possible. Military
aircraft routinely fly in excess of Mach 1, yet commercial aircraft for the most part still fly at sub-Mach speeds.
In fact, there has yet to be a commercial airliner that was able to fly faster than Mach 1
Profitably.
(the fabeled Concord SST never broke even on its flights; however, its value as a promotional aircraft was seen to out-weight its money-losing
operational expenses).
When slow is cheap, slow is the best business model.
I read over the referenced blog.
What you need to understand is that we are not talking here of a conventional airship, which is designed to operate at relatively low altitudes.
Such vehicles are, of course hampered by the limitations outlined in the blog. But the Airships
we are discussing are meant to operate high
above the stratosphere for the majority of their flight profiles; passing quickly through the lower atmosphere only long enough to reach flight
ceiling, or landing.
True, even these airships will be sensitive to wind and weather conditions on the ground.
But consider; conventional rocket launches share the same weather-related limitations for launch. And yet no one argues that rockets will never be a
viable means of reaching space.
