Cargo Airships Are Happening

1. satisfice ◴[15 Oct 24 02:51 UTC] No.41844466[source]▶

The article said nothing about weather hazards or the fact that it’s a big fat target for a war drone to bring down.

It’s not just an easy target to hit, it’s a symbolic target.

Airships were abandoned because very large objects falling out of the sky did not appeal to the public… and too many of them fell.

Extremely severe weather brings down relatively tough aircraft, but once on the ground or in hangars they are relatively safe. Airships are flying cheesepuffs.

replies(2): >>41844501 #>>41844931 #

2. imoverclocked ◴[15 Oct 24 03:01 UTC] No.41844501[source]▶

>>41844466 (TP) #

Luckily, we have much better weather forecasting than we did last time we tried airships for realsies.

replies(2): >>41844547 #>>41845230 #

3. bobthepanda ◴[15 Oct 24 03:12 UTC] No.41844547[source]▶

>>41844501 #

Severe turbulence in clear conditions is increasing due to climate change: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240524-severe-turbulenc...

replies(2): >>41846003 #>>41847011 #

4. MitPitt ◴[15 Oct 24 04:25 UTC] No.41844931[source]▶

>>41844466 (TP) #

> too many of them fell

How many of them fell? Tried searching this up and barely any fell. Very few deaths too.

replies(2): >>41845255 #>>41845405 #

5. dudisubekti ◴[15 Oct 24 05:28 UTC] No.41845230[source]▶

>>41844501 #

But even then, forecasted storms mean more delay to the already-slow airship.

Also the airship is simply too slow to dodge any sudden severe weather, even if they saw it coming hours before.

replies(1): >>41846078 #

6. dudisubekti ◴[15 Oct 24 05:35 UTC] No.41845255[source]▶

>>41844931 #

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

This list is quite comprehensive I think

replies(1): >>41845465 #

7. ben-schaaf ◴[15 Oct 24 06:05 UTC] No.41845405[source]▶

>>41844931 #

A partial list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents.

The list of Zepplins is also enlightening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zeppelins

8. hluska ◴[15 Oct 24 06:16 UTC] No.41845465{3}[source]▶

>>41845255 #

That’s a good article. I found this one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-8

The L-8/Ghost Blimp took off with a crew of two from San Francisco in 1942. They found an oil slick (which was the last time either crew member was known to be alive) and then drifted before it crash landed in front of a home in Daly City.

I had never heard of this event before now and it’s a heck of an interesting late night rabbit hole. Thanks for the link!

9. imoverclocked ◴[15 Oct 24 07:55 UTC] No.41846003{3}[source]▶

>>41844547 #

Turbulence for an airliner is going to be experienced differently for an airship. I'm not sure what to expect, TBH, but the difference between a plane moving at Mach 0.8 and an airship moving at 80 mph will definitely be real.

10. imoverclocked ◴[15 Oct 24 08:03 UTC] No.41846078{3}[source]▶

>>41845230 #

Perhaps. Airships will likely want to travel along jet streams since the wind speeds can outpace the airspeed of the airship. The neat thing here is that weather that will be problematic can be predicted days in advance, not just hours. Even 2 hours gets you pretty far in an airship in wind-calm, especially compared to (say) container ships. When you aren't in wind-calm, you can probably take advantage of winds by choosing your altitude wisely.

11. mike_hearn ◴[15 Oct 24 10:19 UTC] No.41847011{3}[source]▶

>>41844547 #

There has been no increase in air turbulence accidents per passenger mile over the past 30 years despite a quadrupling of air traffic (so more chances to encounter turbulence).

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101....

After normalizing the data by annual flight hours, there was no obvious trend over time for turbulence-related Part 121 accidents during this period [1989-2018].

The BBC article cites a modelling paper. In a conflict between real data and a simulation, real data should win.