There is an on-line periodical named "ScientificAmerican.com" that I'm sure many hold in great regard. However, they recently published an article by an independent design and systems engineering consultant, which continues the history of bad reasoning and misguided information that has dogged airships ever since the days of Santos-Dumont and that, unfortunately, will furnish still more authority to those who oppose airships.
The article, Helium Hokum, is subtitled "Why airships will never be part of our transportation infrastructure".
It contains such vitriolic statements as that, during the author's lifetime, roughly five billion dollars (in today's dollars) have been spent chasing airships for transportation, money that could have been spent building a lot of road and a lot of track, of which the only result has been a vast mountain of paperwork --- most of which ended up in local landfills.
Whew !
He goes on to say that the Airship Renaissance has always been just around the corner since about 1945, but that the only result has been the employment of a bunch of engineers who just don't get the simple fact of engineering science that, in his words, the only true measure of the result is efficiency ---- how fast can you go for how cheaply you want to get there.
In Jan Huss's penetrating phrase, "O Sancta simplicitas !" ; in this article, what a gross oversimplification .
Judging all means of transportation solely on the basis of "efficiency" --- and a very narrowly construed expression of efficiency at that--- is equivalent to judging all vehicles solely on the basis of miles-per-gallon.
If you're a suburban housewife driving on average American roads, perhaps that is one criterion by which you might want to choose the best transportation for you.
If you're in an army tank under fire, assigned to destroy an enemy emplacemenet, NO.
If you're racing in the Indianapolis 500 , NO.
If you're driving the Queen of England to Parliament, NO.
If you're a teen-age boy trying to impress a girlfriend, NO.
... and on and on !
The British have a wonderful aphorism, "Horses for courses", that is, choose the tool to suit the job.
The presumption of the article, that all transportation can be judged by the single criterion of efficiency, borders on bad logic.
Let's consider the very real and present problems presented by the wide variety of missions undertaken by our military services, despite a wide variety of obstacles and environments.
1. They must anticipate that the transportaton infrastructure of the area to which they have been dispatched will be damaged or destroyed. The military unit might be required to carry and disembark a brigade-sized unit to the Point-of-Need in three-to-five days, with no facility prepared to receive it. .. and do it in the dark, silently, landing on uncertain terrain, land or water.
2.Consider the case where they encounter incompatible rail gauges, as in the Baltic States, or a single rail line that is blocked or destroyed.
3. ... or where access in mountainous regions is hampered by bridges and tunnels.
4. ... or if the transportation is over the untracked Arctic tundra
Clearly one could go on forever --- exaggerating for effect --- reciting the vast number of impediments that they may encounter, where the ONLY means of transportation is designated "advanced lift platforms that are not dependent on improved airports and seaports". Why on earth (literally) then, would one even begin to discuss efficiency. Cost per mile ??? Miles per gallon ?!?
OR consider the need for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) of an area, as when the U.S. Coast Guard was assigned the task of persistent surveillance of our southern borders, often hovering in one spot for days on end. Efficiency ? A textbook engineer with little imagination would probably slide-rule it at INFINITY ... or ZERO .
Too military for you ? Stay tuned for discussions of the logistical support of oil and precious minerals exploration in the Arctic, an ongoing responsibility that Dr. Barry Prentice, of the University of Manitoba, has kept our eyes focused on for many years ... or the logistical and humanitarian support of people in the Arctic ... not just food and fuel, which can be determined in advance, but also the evacuation of injured or ill personnel in the event of a medical emergency.
These ---- and many other real world needs --- exist for which considerations of efficiency must be set aside . Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment