ooooh, shiiny
Feb. 23rd, 2006 12:37 pmHere, this is very cool. Hopefully it'll work once they actually build the prototype. I haven't been able to get any information on energy consumption from a site I consider sound; I found one source that said it was less than half the energy need of airlines of comparable capacity airliners, but it also called it a lighter-than-air vessel, which it apparently isn't. (It's buoyant, but only 2/3 of the carrying weight is lifted by the gas envelopes.) I like very much that its propulsion is electric.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 08:59 pm (UTC)Wow. That's not very many. But it is a floating luxury hotel.
I guess it'd need to be - it's 6000 mile range would take it over a day at top speed. You don't have much else to do.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 09:41 pm (UTC)I believe that a large light weight structure is very vulenable to winds and storms. The fact that only one drigiable of the US Navy didn't crash because of weather is a big clue.
However if I was trying to run one of those. I think it would make much more sense to fly people and supplies up to it, than to land and pick people up.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 09:57 pm (UTC)They have the VTOL capability in part because of the cargo version of the same craft; the idea is to have the flexibility of trucks at three to five times the speed over any distance of note.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 10:01 pm (UTC)Thing that irked me about the article was that they claimed hydrogen fuel cells as a 'renewable power source'... ah well. I wonder how much of the power requirements you could get if you covered the top surface with some of the lightweight solar panels... probably not near enough, but still. :)
Overall, nice, but frankly just a toy for the rich with little environmental benefit. You can bet it isn't going to be cheaper to travel on that. There have been several attempts to use airship technology for freight, however (they did mention that too), which might make more sense as airfreight is a bit less time-sensitive than passenger travel. And I guess 'luxury liners', if they actually work, could open a market into which other more efficient options might arise. (Particularly when aviation fuel prices increase another significant jump or two.)
Of course, you can also now actually fly in a genuine Zeppelin. (A new one.) Unfortunately, it only takes 16 passengers on short tourist trips :) Still, good brand name.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 10:49 pm (UTC)Yes. But unlike a dirigible, it doesn't have a flat-wall facing. The wind resistance from sides should be much lower, which will help significantly.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 11:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 01:57 am (UTC)The folks who really want this tech the most, of course, are the military.
Coolness
Date: 2006-02-24 12:11 pm (UTC)