Airships have been vaporware for years. What are the technical / physical challenges they face to being actually viable as vehicles, platforms, or whatever else? I am still curious why Loon failed while starlink succeeded. With the cost of space launch included Starlink is actually far more expensive. The idea of a floating platform seems incredibly powerful to me so I am curious why a company like spaceX wouldn't be more invested in LTA research.
>>16478629For Loon, this is a guess, but I imagine it's a combination of lack of determination and the unpredictable nature of atmospheric balloons. LEO is far more predictable, even if more expensive. Also Musk is obsessive while Zuck loses interest quickly.I'm a big fan of airships in general but it appears that they simply haven't found many use cases that are financially viable. One of the most unique uses would be for airlifting large amounts of cargo to very remote locations. Something like a skycrane is limited in range and cargo. An airship like in your post could carry huge amounts of materials to a location that's otherwise not connected to the rest of the modern world. If you're building an isolated research facility and cabin, time pressure for the bulk of materials isn't going to be a big issue so the slow speed won't matter. This is something that would be useful to the military but the slow speed, large radar profile, and in general being a giant, easy to hit target probably makes it only useful in peaceful environments.
>>16478716>while Zuck loses interest quicklyLoon was a google X project.That being said this is a great point - it wasn't a project that had the blessings of an ultra billionaire like Musk or zuckerberg. While atmospheric winds are certainly not stable, they can be modeled well enough to pretty accurately control the direction that the balloons move in. This was one of the biggest advantages that Loon had (basically free to travel large distances) and I wonder what, if anything will come from their passive control research. It's also a factor that didn't really benefit their type of business at all. I think they should have tried something related to cargo instead. I don't know enough about why they didn't.
>>16478629I don't have any numbers to back it up, but I can't imagine airships being cheaper than Starlink. They have to battle the elements all the time and constantly expend energy to remain in place against the wind. You would also need way more of them since they're at a much lower altitude, and they are much easier for an adversary to shoot down in regards to military use.Starlink even beats them as emergency communications platforms because it's already up there and ready to go at all times.
>>16478738Sounds like it would make for a great domestic surveillance platform. High enough altitude that few criminals or enemies of the state would have an ability to knock it out. Lower cost that orbital platforms. Below some of the atmosphere that orbitals have to contend with seeing through, though obviously with plenty still below it. Lower altitude means more accurate data. It wouldn't be good for observing other nation states, at least not directly, as all but the poorest nations could manage to knock down something sitting over their territory and would have the right to do so. But for observing one's own population, the "bang for the buck" might be pretty good.
>>16478770Avoiding Kessler syndrome seems like one of the few advantages in an emergency situation. Even if LEO space trash clears out in a couple of years, that's a very long time to wait in an emergency. Also less infrastructure is necessary for balloons than for rockets, especially if you're in a situation there you can't easily use fixed location resources. They are however, as you pointed out, going to be pretty easy to shoot down if you're a nation-state military and not just Cletus with a shotgun.
>>16478629Airships are cover for anti inertial devices. Dont believe me?Ask why pic related gets so much hp and unlimited tesla bombsAnd what units in that game dont actually exist
Here's a business attempting air-freight:https://www.elidourado.com/p/airship-industriesThis would put pressure on the port unions we have here in the USA, which - you may know - has some of the least-efficient ports on the planet. The west coast ports are dominated by the literal Communist Party (CPUSA) and the east coast, of course, by the mafia.Inland aeroports like Vegas, SLC, Phoenix, and Denver can then compete.
Zeppelins are a trap for midwits
>>16480094Thanks for posting the link anon You might be interested in this article https://www.oliviali.me/projects/balloon
>>16480108the tech is incredibly interesting. It just hasn't been developed yet
>>16481975this, need the singing blimps
>>16482220whats the point of this
>>16487035>>16487035Enhanced manuverability, thrust capability and ideallgy should cymatically sustain different topologies to tack the wind or increase aerodynamicsStarts with ultrasoundEnds with anti inertia
>>16487035Probably just research now but a control system that's all internal has some benefits in preventing jamming or other issues caused by external sources.
>>16478629When are we gonna bring back blimp transportation?? One incident shouldn't halt an industry.
>>16478629It's a fucking balloon. Strong breeze? Stay grounded. Also there was thing you may have heard of called THE HINDENBERG. That shit ran on hydrogen which made it a bomb. But helium has some of its own unique problems - where do you get enough of it? It's a limited resource.>>16481975I think hydrogen should be revisited myself. You just need a back-up plan or two in case it catches fire, like a flame retardant parachute design.
>>16487529everything about the design of the hindenberg was retarded. it was built out of flammable material lmfao. it had ZERO plan for mitigating combustion overall a total piece of shit that never should've been allowed to fly
>>16487533old aircraft designs were wild west shit before everyone just copied birds. The germans made some crazy rocket-plane that melted someone alive. And there were the upright-launcher-landers that the USA tried
