https://poe.com/s/HSLvUK85ia1HTMzwLojV
Assistant
Using balloon travel for daily luggage transport in limited amounts could be an innovative approach, especially for lightweight items. Here are some potential advantages and considerations:
Advantages of Balloon Travel for Luggage
Direct Transport:
- Balloons can provide a direct route from point A to point B, avoiding the complexities of port logistics and customs that come with sea transport.
Reduced Transit Time:
- Depending on the altitude and weather conditions, balloon travel could potentially reduce transit times compared to slower sea routes.
Unique Service Offering:
- Offering a balloon service could attract customers looking for an unconventional and eco-friendly method of transport.
Minimal Infrastructure:
- Balloons require less infrastructure compared to ships, which need ports and extensive facilities.
Considerations
Capacity Limitations:
- The amount of luggage transported would need to be carefully managed due to weight restrictions inherent in balloon travel.
Weather Dependence:
- Balloon flights are subject to weather conditions, which could affect reliability. Consistent scheduling might be challenging.
Safety and Security:
- Ensuring the safety and security of the luggage during transit would be critical, requiring secure packaging and handling procedures.
Regulatory Compliance:
- Navigating airspace regulations and obtaining necessary permits for regular balloon flights would be essential.
Market Demand:
- Assessing whether there is sufficient demand for such a service is crucial. It would need to be economically viable to sustain operations.
Conclusion
If balloon travel for luggage transport is structured carefully, it could serve as an alternative for specific markets or use cases, particularly for lightweight items. However, addressing the challenges related to capacity, reliability, and safety would be essential for its success.My idea
QUORA-
The free market has spoken on airships: They are good for being a huge slow-moving billboard above sporting events, but every other role they used to fill is better and more cheaply accomplished by another mode of transport. Sea ships are no longer used to a great extent for passenger transport from point A to point B; they are for cruises as a destination unto themselves. Those ships survive by packing as many paying people at a time into a floating tin can of a city and feeding the heck out of them.
Dirigibles can’t carry nearly that many people (or food.) As far as speed, you’ll get 70 mph out of an airship on a good day with no winds. Airships are extremely finicky beasts regarding the weather.
They don’t like storms or wind shears and must go many miles out of their intended direction to avoid them.
If the sun heats up their interior gasses too much, they become extremely dangerous and unpredictable to land. There are days where they need to just stay in their cavernous hangar if there is one near, or become storm fodder.
They are more comfortable than airplanes, but people ride airplanes for speed, not comfort.
They are cool, and maybe even romantic, but building one today for the cool factor would mean they can’t compete with cruise ships on ticket price for the average Joe because of the low number of passengers. They would be an expensive vacation for the super wealthy.
STILL IT MAY BE WORTH FOR CARRYING LOADS CARRIED BY SHIPS
At first sight, an airship seems the perfect way of travel. Flying, albeit at a far lower speed, with the luxury of a cruise ship, instead of being stuck in a narrow seat with no legroom. Soaring over the land, looking out through the big windows while having a cup of tea seems great. Still, there are a few problems:
- Contrary to what you might think, an airship's lifting force is pitiful. One m³ of gas (helium or hydrogen) can lnly lift less than 1 kg. To lift a ton, it needs about 1150 m³ of gas. That's why airships were so huge. 90% of the volume consisted of gas bags. As the structure of the airship itself, with the engines and fuel, had to be lifted, only little was left for the payload. The Hindenburg was larger than the Titanic and still could only take 70 passengers. That made flying very expensive. A ticket cost several times the price of a first-class ticket on an ocean liner.
- Airships are dangerous. The Hindenburg disaster is well-known because it happened in front of the cameras, but exploding gas was not the worst danger. A huge airship was very vulnerable to bad weather. It had no means to fly above the weather. If caught in a storm, it was helpless. Most airships were lost in bad weather.
STILL IT IS GOOD FOR TRANSPORT-96 HOURS BY BALLOON FROM GERMANY TO NEW YORK
Seaships are not really a means of “travel” these days. They’re too slow, and it’s too expensive to spend multiple days on ship just to get from A to B. The people who travel on ships mostly want them to be floating resort hotels. And the people who want to get from A to B will fly by jet airliner, because it’s quick and cheap.
You could build airships. But they’re inherently much slower than jet airliners; much more vulnerable to weather because they have to fly slower, and at lower altitudes; because they have to be very big and very slow, they would be expensive; and they can’t carry enough weight to compete with the luxurious amenities of a cruise ship.
They’re just not a good solution to any large problem.
In the 1920s and early 30s they had a brief spell of popularity, because fixed-wing aircraft were unreliable and didn’t have long enough range for nonstop travel across oceans. That passed due to various airship disasters, poor economics requiring huge government subsidies, improvements in piston engines and fixed-wing aircraft, and finally the huge number of large airfields built to handle WW2 heavy bombers.
Considering that seaships are not used for general travel much any more (aside from ferries which have a more specialised role) why is an alternative required ?
Airships have plenty of problems of their own, they’re NOT cheap to operate and not that fast. They can’t fly above the weather so a ride in one can be an unpleasant experience and they are adversely affected by the wind. They require dedicated mooring facilities at destinations and where’s your evidence that they are any more comfortable than a conventional plane ?
Aside from that, almost no-one makes them !
I think you need to revisit y
… (more)
QUESTION: What is the reason for the absence of airships in modern times? Are they potentially faster and more cost-effective than airplanes?
ANSWER to the last question first. Are they potentially faster and more cost-effective than airplanes?
They certainly aren't faster—not even close—the fastest airships of the past cruised at about 75 mph. That's about eight times slower than a commercial airliner’s 600 mph. A commercial flight from JFK to LAX is 6 hours. The trip in a lighter-than-air would be 4 days. That's a hard sell. On the other hand, airships are much more efficient than airplanes for heavy cargo lift that is not time sensitive. I can't find the numbers but lighter-than-air has to fall be between trains and airplanes for cost per cargo-mile. And in some cases, they have an advantage in logistics—they don't need a big airport or miles of rails, or roads, to operate. I saw a report back in the early 1970s by a major oil pipeline company, in which they looked at giant blimps as an alternative to the Alaska pipeline. The beauty of the thing is no costly pipeline a zillion miles long, and the oil could be transported using a "train" of skyships that ran 24/7/365. I don't know why they didn't do it, but perhaps because of the reasons I give below.
ANSWER to the first question. What is the reason for the absence of airships in modern times? The answer is really quite simple: WIND. Constant speed winds greatly affect travel time, and keeping the ship under control with GUSTS is nearly impossible.
WIND: Wind speeds of 15 mph are not uncommon in the US. Since you have to plan for the worst case (you can't tell the passengers you'll be there in 5 hours and then it takes 7 hours), that means you have to assume a flight speed of about 60 mph, rather than 75, in case you run into a headwind. Now your 48 hour trip from JFK to LAX just became 60 hours. So, point is, for passenger travel, airships only really work as luxury cruise ships of the sky with suites and all the free food you can eat.
GUSTS: This is the real problem. Have you ever held a balloon that's fluttering on a gusty day. Your basic helium balloon is 1/2 cubic feet. The Hindenburg was 7,000,000 cubic feet. Now image trying to control a balloon that’s 14 million times the size of a carnival balloon. That's exactly what the engines on the lighter-than-air have to do. They have to increase and decrease thrust fast to counter any motion gusts induce. But you just can't put engines that big on the thing—and if you did it wouldn't be lighter-than-air anymore. Here’s a list of some wind related airship crashes:
See the pattern?
What is the real reason airships are not used for travel anymore? They would be a great alternative to seaships being cheaper and faster. And they are much more comfortable than airplanes. Not speaking of how romantic they are.
In passinger travel, they are too sensitive to weather to maintain any sort of schedule for point-to-point service. They do fine in the local ride markets, and there are a few examples of this in operation.
For heavy cargo, the biggest issue is that there is a lack of backhaul opportunities that eat into any economic advantage LTA ships might enjoy. Ballast costs as much
… (more)
Because they are extremely slow and would take far too long to get from point-a to point-b. I can hop on a jet right now at Pearson Airport near Toronto and be in Edmonton Alberta in about 3 hours or so. The same flight in an “airship” would take around 30 to 40 hours. Its the same reason why “seaships” are no longer generally used for carrying passengers except as pleasure cruise lines or specialized ferries.
