# Another thread on the future of airships **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154 "2006-10-27T18:28:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/1 "2006-10-27T18:28:22Z")
In [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277967) old thread, we had some fun discussing the possible future revival of LTA airships. [Now](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/3764027.html) it appears at least one company is exploring that field in a big way with a new hybrid ship, the Dynalifter – it looks like (and is) a dirigible with wings stuck on. But it’s intended only for cargo shipping. Does this new approach have any possible application to passenger service? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/2 "2006-10-27T18:39:07Z")
I forgot to mention – it’s also being considered for military applications: > [@](#): > > One major potential customer: the military. In 2004 DARPA, the Pentagon’s research arm, released a request for proposals under its Walrus program, which explored the feasibility of hybrids. DARPA -envisioned craft that would carry an entire military unit halfway around the world and deliver it to an unimproved landing area within seven days. Defense giant Lockheed Martin is also working on a hybrid airship. > > Rist and Martin–or, for that matter, DARPA and Lockheed–aren’t the first visionaries to pin their hopes to a gas-filled craft. The history of aviation is littered with airships that never got beyond the prototype stage. Will the idea ever truly, well, get off the ground? > > The major difference between hybrid airships and old-fashioned dirigibles can be summed up in a single word: weight. Blimps, zeppelins and all other lighter-than-air vehicles rely on a lifting gas–usually helium–to keep them floating. Hybrid airships use gas to generate 30 to 80 percent of the lift they need to get off the ground, and depend on aerodynamic lift–the flow of air over wings or fuselage–for the rest. That means that when hybrids stop moving through the air, they sink. The advantage? Once on the ground, they stay put. A major problem for conventional airships is the difficulty in handling them on the ground. Large and buoyant, they’re always eager to fly away on the slightest breeze. The Goodyear blimp requires 17 handlers; the zeppelins of the '20s and '30s employed hundreds. > > A hybrid airship can land itself. “You can turn off the master switch, turn the key, walk away,” says Edward Pevzner, the business development manager for Worldwide Aeros, a small California company that builds blimps and is also currently investigating hybrid airships. “You come back in the morning and it’s still in the same place.” > > The same is true of a jet cargo plane, of course. And a jet is much faster than a hybrid airship, which is limited to about 100 mph, thanks to its huge, draggy envelope. But because it generates much of its lift passively, a hybrid airship has a higher fuel efficiency–no small advantage in a time of soaring energy costs. “The basic thing to know about the Dynalifter,” Martin says, “is that it’s fuel-efficient.” ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/3 "2006-10-27T18:47:06Z")
If the things really can go 100 MPH, they might serve the passenger who was considering a train. I imagine sunk costs and overhead to provide slow-speed air transport via these hybrid airships ought to be far less than for long-distance passenger locomotives, and I’d also imagine the landing strips would be relatively easy to locate almost anywhere. They also might provide nice local connectors, or transport to underserved areas, maybe less expensively than turboprops. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/4 "2006-10-27T19:03:50Z")
Lockheed Martin P-791 looks more interesting. > **[Lockheed Martin P-791](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-791)** > > The Lockheed Martin P-791 is an experimental aerostatic and aerodynamic hybrid airship developed by Lockheed Martin. The first flight of the P-791 took place on 31 January 2006 at the company's flight test facility at United States Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, CA. The P-791 has a tri-hull shape, with disk-shaped cushions on the bottom for landing. As a hybrid airship, part of the weight of the craft and its payload are supported by aerostatic (buoyant) lift and the remainder is supported by a... [http://www.hacinc.us/industry\_news.htm](http://www.hacinc.us/industry_news.htm) > [@](#): > > The Defense Dept. is showing interest in two categories of airships–those that can carry large cargo at low altitude, exemplified by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) Walrus program, and those that can operate in high-altitude low-wind conditions and remain on station for long periods of time. The configuration of the Skunks Works ship indicates it is the former–a hybrid heavy-load carrier. > > The interest is across the services and the notional applications are diverse, ranging from logistics–delivery of an integrated fighting unit within theater, for example–to sensor, communications and even laser-weapon relay platforms. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/5 "2006-10-27T19:44:11Z")
There have been long rumors of black, stealth, airships. How true they are remains to be seen, but with our merchant marine issues, heavy lift airships are a pretty darn good idea, I think, and a entirely logical solution to our issues. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/6 "2006-10-29T01:49:25Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] There have been long rumors of black, stealth, airships. How true they are remains to be seen, but with our merchant marine issues, heavy lift airships are a pretty darn good idea, I think, and a entirely logical solution to our issues. [/QUOTE] What “merchant marine issues”? ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/7 "2006-10-29T02:52:25Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] If the things really can go 100 MPH, they might serve the passenger who was considering a train. [/QUOTE] If anybody gave two shits about said passenger. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/8 "2006-10-29T03:24:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] …But it’s intended only for cargo shipping. Does this new approach have any possible application to passenger service? [/QUOTE] It might find a niche market for vacationers. It’d probably be marketed toward cruisers. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/9 "2006-10-29T04:11:37Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] It might find a niche market for vacationers. It’d probably be marketed toward cruisers. [/QUOTE] The money I’ve been saving for an around the world voyage by ship, I will gladly spend on an around the world voyage by zeppelin. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/10 "2006-10-29T08:48:01Z")
Heck, depending on how fuel efficient they are, and if they are able to make them all-weather capable, they might replace long distance buses and trains. Plus, it seems like it would be a more convenient way to transport the huge wind turbines I see being taken down I-20 almost daily. I had no idea the LTA market had anything going on in it, thanks for the thread. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-thread-on-the-future-of-airships/378154/11 "2006-10-29T14:27:55Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What “merchant marine issues”? [/QUOTE] Mostly that it’s not what it was in WWII, and we really can’t move stuff as fast as we need to hotspots. Our tanks are currently too big for most cargo planes, though the next generation will be smaller, and generally, the concept of the equivalent of a supertanker for military transport would be a good idea. If you add the large number of foreign-flag registrations, it’s just not big enough, IMHO. I don’t think that’s a controversial statement.