Where is it etched in stone that a Cargo Carrier — for this is what we envision as the most sensible primary use of an Airship— must travel at high altitudes or at high speeds, no matter how one defines them ? Read the objections raised carefully !
A vast amount of cargo is carried in slow speed, zero altitude barges or merchant vessels. Problems with ships and barges include :
1. The need to wend one’s way up a sinuous waterway like the Mississippi River, lock one’s way through an arduous series of locks and gates on a canal, or inch across treacherous, slippery, thin ice. Airship : straight line course, source to destination !
2. The incredibly complex set of regulations, personnel certifications, staffing requirements, and Jones Act restrictions on vessels built outside the United States, — but all seen as necessary for maritime on-the-water vessels, saddled with complex regulations .
3. Airships : almost an iconic Garage Project. Technology is available as are new envelope fabrics and surface treatments . Remote control and operation options are available at hobby shops. Competent mechanics can rig a carry-hook for lifting and holding standard cargo containers .
4. Given the new Remotely-Operated technologies now available, it is not necessary to restrict a cargo carrier, travelling below Federally mandated altitudes, to an on-board crew.
5. Equipped with navigational aids like GPS, high-definition video cameras, and other remote sensing devices, cargo carriers carrying substantial loads can fly without a crew to the most remote areas of the earth — Polar, tropical, flooded, mountainous — much as military drones are now (January 2012).
6. Surface ice on water does not impede travel, nor does it require huge, expensive full-crewed ice-breakers to clear a path for the cargo carrier.
7. No, it does not go as fast as a jumbo jet cargo plane —- but neither does it require the monumental infrastructure of the latter — no runways, buildings, or maintenance, no air traffic control system or controllers, no replacement parts such as extraordinarily expensive tires, or expensive carbon-based fuel, (if the power system and fuel choice are wisely chosen), no carbon particulate emissions — that’s why we recommend fuel cells.
8. We recommend electrically-powered engines turning ducted fan props, in hybrid airships , utilizing both static lift from the lifting gas and dynamic lift using the Bernoulli Effect provided by air travelling at speed over the suitably curved surface of an airfoil as the external envelope of the airship --- think Deltoid Pumpkin Seed --- and using hydrogen as both a lifting gas and fuel for the Fuel Cell. We notice one of your correspondents is Marc de Piolenc, a stalwart veteran of airship technology and a pioneer in ducted fan research. He is an excellent resource in that area.
9. Lack of an onboard crew also helps avoid Hindenburg-tainted issues regarding crew injury or death when utilizing inexpensive hydrogen as both fuel (for the fuel cell) and lifting gas.
10. Fly essentially from anywhere to anywhere, greatly simplifying supply-chain logistics.
11. Sadly, these days, water-borne freight is subject to the hazards — long thought forgotten — of piracy and terrorists.
Despite the fears of Know-Nothings, airships are NOT merely bags of gas that can be brought down by “… a fat, blind, old man with a pellet gun." This has been proven again and again.
Despite the fears of Know-Nothings, airships are NOT merely bags of gas that can be brought down by “… a fat, blind, old man with a pellet gun." This has been proven again and again.
12. Wait for winter for some critical supply situation to freeze hard enough to support the significant weight of truck + cargo.
13. Dr. Barry Prentice, of the "Airships to the Arctic" Conference series (and now under the banner of ISO Polar Airships, Inc.) has been Fighting the Good Fight in this regard for many years. We are pleased to note that he is — at last — being heard by shippers, users, airship builders, and governmental officials.
14. One of the major complaints when comparing the speed of airship travel to that of conventional airplane flight, as calculated by those who have not taken into account the whole picture — the Systems Approach — is that when we factor in
a. the travel time to the airport,
b. the new and ever increasing security measures,
c. the scattered location of large airports,
d. cargo restrictions,
e. crowded traffic patterns, and many more issues along those lines, and then the similar constraints at the destination end, the apparent difference in travel times between the two modalities shrinks down to almost negligible proportions.
f. the fuel savings, especially weighing the cost of hydrogen (yes, we said hydrogen) against the cost of petroleum- based fuels
g. the carbon footprint,
h. the cost and futility of preposterous security measures,
i. the cost of maintaining the canal-and-lock system of inland waterways,
j. the cost of complex cargo-container-handling equipment at ports, or of full-draft dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers
k. the cost of other infrastructure such as the air traffic control system , the runways for conventional aircraft, the cost of aircrews (minimum of two highly-paid commercially-licensed flight officers per flight vs. the cost of what are essentially well-trained video-game players OR radio-control-hobbyists that can fly remotely-controlled airships), and
k. the cost of other infrastructure such as the air traffic control system , the runways for conventional aircraft, the cost of aircrews (minimum of two highly-paid commercially-licensed flight officers per flight vs. the cost of what are essentially well-trained video-game players OR radio-control-hobbyists that can fly remotely-controlled airships), and
we see a vastly different picture from one which considers only the variables and factors that are convenient to your world view.
We also suppress a smile when hearing arguments that evaluate every cargo movement as though it were traveling through a war zone populated by mujaheddin wielding Rocket Propelled Grenades. You know, "Puncture the skin with an RPG and all that hydrogen will explode like (here it comes) The Hindenburg !!" This by people who drive around every day without a care in the world in automobiles carrying enough highly explosive gasoline in their fuel tanks to blow them to tiny flaming fragments. Have a nice drive ! When one slows down dramatically past a bad traffic accident with all the other rubberneckers, it reminds one of nothing so much as herds of buffalo standing around as early hunters slaughtered other members of their herd one by one, the other animals not budging an inch as the massacre continued.
Some day , we will wonder why we waited so long to replace surface cargo carriers like merchant ships and ice road truckers with cargo airships... not for every cargo movement (Remember "Horses for Courses", that is, suit the mode of transport to the specific job required!), but for enough to justify any minor inconvenience. Rearrange those mind-sets, folks ! Airships make a great deal of sense !
If you're looking for perfect methodologies, you'll have to wait for the Second Coming; if you're looking for effective, reasonable ways to move cargo, you should consider Airships .
No comments:
Post a Comment