Interesting news spot from the BBC.

I've been thinking about what will replace ice road supply trucking in the arctic when the permafrost melts. This looks interesting.

I wrote an adventure many years ago that involved airships dumping trash over the Barrens ala the prison planet in the movie "Solider". I might have to revisit that idea.

The Idea of combining airships with a lifting body concept isn't all that new i think . .
I still remember there being a similar project in germany some years back that failed.

The idea about resurrecting the airship has been around for a while, and as I recall, a German company did make it through to the prototype stage some years ago. I think they were in competition with the people behind the one in the video here. The idea about airships is pretty damn old, and you did have a number of them flying around decades back. The Hindenburg incident pretty much put a lid on the industry though, and besides the Goodyear Blimp, you don't really have all that many airships flying around any more. Conceptially the idea is pretty good though, as the airship doesn't need landingstrips and can carry potentially very high loads, which should really make them interesting for the transport industry, with regards to operating them in remote areas where the infrastructure is crap.

Also: Difference between Blimp and Zeppelin:
Blimp has not rigid internal structure for the most part but is basically just a balloon.
Whereas a Zeppelin has a rigid inner structure around which the air cells are situated.
Problem with these things is the same as it was back then.
You have a REALLY BIG FLOATING BODY. Meaning wind is going to push you around quite a bit.
And anything pointy nees to be shot down before getting inside 500m of this thing.

and yet there are rules for their use in SR4, fun fun fun....method, pbangarth, yall might just have working ideas there

Look into the War Gear and Rules thread.
We had some pretty nifty ideas for a Shadowrun Iron Vulture there ^^

The accident happend because of the political tensions in the late thirties. Germany didn't get helium from the US and thus the Hindenburg used highly explosive hydrogen. The final deathblow was the outbreak of WWII. There have been a couple of airship projects in the last years but thus far none of them was successful. Maybe that will change with more efficient solar cells, batteries and electrical drives once we run low on oil and kerosine prices go up.

Except that the planet may be running out of easy to get helium as well, as we are basically leaking helium into space continually.

I've always wanted to stat up the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier or have an airborne airstrip show up in my game. That'd be awesome.

That's didn't cause the accident. The hydrogen only exacerbated the accident when it happened. The Hindenburg was on fire before the hydrogen started combustion.

Ah, to have unlimited fuel budgets...
Not sure if there is any way to violate the second law of thermodynamics more than that monstrosity does...

The chief problem with any airship is ballast. If you have a cargo zep, this thing needs to take on just as much weight as it lets off, or you have to vent precious helium (or find a way to take it on).

Well, todays technology would allow for it to be pumped back into the gas bottles, would it not?
Else, just tie it down with strong chains and who cares about how much it wants to go up?

Quite, and by reducing its volume it ceases being lighter than air.
(Because floating is a function of density, and by increasing the density of the helium causes the balloon to sink)

and because full bottles are heavy as all fuck, it doubles as actual ballast too ^^

That's kind of...related to...density...yes.

The fully inflated balloon weighs the same as it does compacted down into a bottle, you just can't tell because of buoyancy.

fuck physics, fuck em in teh eye <.<

Well, I guess, then we'll have to mine our outer gas giants. Just have to get that damn space elevator to work...



One thing's for sure, this wound not have happend with helium.

...this is actually a concept that has been considered. Helium would be pumped into lightweight spherical filament wound vessels while on the ground to eliminate excess lift while moored. However, removing all the helium from the lifting cells could pose structural issues as the buoyancy of the gas also helps to support the craft's massive frame.

that's a solveable engineering problem. you could possibly increase the number of cells, and keep certain ones inflated constantly for structure, and have others inflated or deflated for ballast.

the Hindenburg disaster was really only the final nail in the coffin. the US navy had lost 3 of its 6 airships in storm accidents eariler in the 1930s. modern zepps will need to have the climb rate and flight ceiling to get over bad weather, or they will fail. again.

lifting body tech will help, i think. so will high-bypass turbofans.

...lifting body technology would also help with structural integrity. For one, it would have an outer skin of composites that would be more rigid than fabric. In one of the concepts I considered, helium would be employed for "neutral buoyancy" only as the shape of the craft would provide the actual lift. Granted it wouldn't have the extreme short field characteristics of a blimp, however, it would still require less "runway" than a present day jetliner. Another means to assist with lift would be to bleed heat from the UHB turbofans into special lifting cells (like a hot air balloon). With a more rigid structure and lifting body shape, cruise speeds could approach those of a postwar propliner.

I agree about a decent operating altitude, (say 6,000 - 8,000 meters) which would require pressurised cabins for crew and passengers. The one benefit we have available today that the old dirigibles didn't is access to onboard warning systems and satellite comm. Going any higher risks running into strong Jetstream winds.

One of the the beauties of an LTA/NBA over a standard jet/turboprop transport is that it can spend more time in a holding pattern if weather at the destination is an issue (particularly if it has electrical propulsion). Also, (with regards to passenger craft) since it would be billed as a more leisurely means of travel an extra hour or so would not make all that much of a difference.

Long past due for something like this. As stated, a lot of emergency situations could have benefited greatly from this.

The Hindenburg Disaster, however, just still sticks in people's eyes. Despite the Goodyear Blimp being a common sight in North America for Decades.

Would it be possible (with SR composite materials tech) to use a bunch of rigid plastic tanks that are simply sucked vacuum in order to achieve liftoff? To reduce lift, simply fill some of them with air again..

*blink blink*
wait what?
you want something that flies because you take something out of there? O.o

A large vacuum in a lightweight container would be buoyant, right? It's even lighter-than-air than helium.

given that i have seen a video demo of a steel thermos get crushed by simply having the air cooked out of it, good luck with that.

variant on the theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fX9C_K58C0

Yes, but there's a big difference between built for vacuum and not built for vacuum.

"Built for vacuum" tends to be "heavy."

I guess that depends on what kind of Future Tech new materials get developed in SR. Given the amount of surface-orbit traffic, there should be a market for ultra-strong light materials.

most of that traffic comes from going with a railgun rather then chemical rockets for most of the bulk cargo.

btw, i found this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w..._vessel#Scaling

anyone up for some math?

ewww! You got physics in my RPG! Gross!

Let's start with the simple balloon ball.

M = 1.5 Pressure * Volume * density of material / max stress of material

Assuming we have total vacuum, that gives us a pressure of 101k Pascal
Volume, let's use 1 hindenburg : ~200,000 m^3

So let's try a carbon-nanotube assembly, being the strongest, lightest material I can think of. They have a density of 0.55g/cm^3 => 550kg/m^3. Nanotubes appear to have 150G Pascals of compressive strength, per some quick google-fu.

M = 1.5 * 0.1 G Pa * 200,000 m^3 * 550kg/m^3 / 150G Pa = 110,000 kg

The displaced mass is 200,000m^3 x the density of air (1.2Kg/m^3) = 240,000kg.

Total gain: 130,000 kg that can be used for drive system, fuel, control systems, gondola, cargo, and crew. Considering that's enough mass capacity for 2 M1 Abrams tanks, I think that can be done.

The hydrogen-lifted hindenburg had a total capacity of ~250,000 kg (the bags were slightly larger than the nice, round 200k m^3 volume I used) and the craft massed 215,000 kg when fueled.


We can use the bullet-shaped vessel formula to get the classic cigar-shaped blimp. We'll use the dimensions of the hindenburg, 20m radius and 220m of cylindrical body for a total length of 240m.

M = 2 pi R^2 (R+W) * pressure /density
M = 2 * 3.14 * 20^2 * (20+220) * 0.1 Gpa * 550kg/m^3 / 150G Pa = 221,000 kg

This would have the same displaced mass of 240,000 kg, giving us 40,000kg gain for drive, fuel, controls, gondola, etc. That's quite a bit less than the Hindenburg.

good math there, however, we seem to be re-inventing a square wheel. perhaps materials science will improve enough one day.

I also dug up this interesting article with only a 7% advantage in lifting power over hydrogen, vacuum looks pretty terrible.

a thought occurs that you could use hydrogen for lifting gas, and as power for your turbines.

On the bright side, people are used to not smoking on flights now...

so perhaps it will work after all.

hmm, now i got the mental vision of 4 nanotube spheres linked via scaffolding and a single lifting/container rig in the center.

It's 7.5% (100/93, not 100-93), but close enough.

The problem is maintaining the same craft-weight to support your "vacuum balloon" (i.e keep it from being crushed by the atmosphere).