←back to thread

Cargo Airships Are Happening

(www.elidourado.com)
220 points elidourado | 5 comments | 14 Oct 24 16:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cookiengineer ◴[15 Oct 24 02:05 UTC] No.41844222[source]▶
I think this has actually great potential for fruit transports.

Many countries export and import fruits from neighboring countries, because goods like fruits need a riping process and time, and storage space locally is more expensive than transporting them via container ship.

For example, almost the same fruits that are exported from Hawaii are simultaneously imported from Chile, and vice versa. Both nations grow those natively, but storage space on the ground is more expensive than shipment.

If this was part or focus of the airship freighting company, I'd see great potential there. Not even that, they wouldn't even need to transport anything, if they could invent a storage space in the air that's tax free, or maybe even offshore above the water.

replies(2): >>41844400 #>>41844591 #
jodrellblank ◴[15 Oct 24 02:38 UTC] No.41844400[source]▶
> "if they could invent a storage space .. offshore above the water"

like, a boat?

replies(1): >>41844662 #
1. cookiengineer ◴[15 Oct 24 03:36 UTC] No.41844662[source]▶
On water: More like atlantis, with a harbor and a loading dock.

Above water: maybe rope-anchored airships.

What I wanted to point out is that taxes are ground based, meaning the volume that's available above the ground usually is not used because of physical limitations of buildings and construction.

You could increase that efficiency of recurring costs for land vs storage space with airships.

replies(1): >>41845602 #
2. cjbgkagh ◴[15 Oct 24 06:35 UTC] No.41845602[source]▶
I don’t see how storage space in airships could come anywhere as cheap as storage space on land even taking land taxes into account. Airships are not cheap and would need regular maintenance. I guess the water analog of a warehouse would be a barge to get perhaps you’re thinking more of an airbarge concept. Even still, warehouses are cheap in a way that flying things are not.
replies(1): >>41846009 #
3. cookiengineer ◴[15 Oct 24 07:56 UTC] No.41846009[source]▶
Well, this discussion is in the context of airships, so there's no question that everything that doesn't require potential energy to defeat gravity and to stay in position is more efficient.

The most efficient solution is btw not doing anything, and just leave the goods where they are produced, and stop producing too much for the own population. I'm pointing out that the concepts of finance and economies don't necessarily come hand in hand with what's more efficient to build. Otherwise people would use trains and not cars and planes.

replies(1): >>41850374 #
4. cjbgkagh ◴[15 Oct 24 16:37 UTC] No.41850374{3}[source]▶
Color me confused. I do not understand what point you're making - it appears to be all over the map until the end where it makes no point at all.
replies(1): >>41855495 #
5. cookiengineer ◴[16 Oct 24 04:05 UTC] No.41855495{4}[source]▶
I guess what I was trying to say is that we first have to kind of agree on a common description of what we describe as the best solution for the problem of storage space.

Is it financial costs only? Is it energy costs over time? Is it taxes over time? Is it physical space vs ground area ratio? Is it popularity and convenience (like in the car vs train case)?

You were arguing that warehouses are cheap to build, but that only works far outside densely populated areas.

A lot of countries are settled more densely than the US due to sheer lack of available land. So if we want to describe this problem correctly, we'd also have to account for South-East Asian, or South-American, or Polynesian, or European countries in my opinion.