# Why not use the jet stream and lighter than air craft for cheap intl transport? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 19, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963 "2005-10-19T19:24:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/1 "2005-10-19T19:24:21Z")
The jet stream travels around the world at an altitude of about five miles, at 150-200 mph. [Here’s a handy cite.](http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Jet_Stream/DI68.htm) So, why not use lighter than air craft to ferry large payloads between countries and continents in the jet stream’s path cheaply? That 150-200 mph tailwind would probably scoot a zeppelin right along, at very little in the way of fuel costs. I know there must be some factor I’m leaving out, so I’m giving the savage pit bulls of the Dope a chance to point out the flaws in this plan before I find myself in a natty captain’s suit, piloting a zeppelin and screaming “I’m Master of the World!!!” ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/2 "2005-10-19T19:31:02Z")
You’ll recall that the biggest problem with zeppelins wasn’t that they occassionally burst into flames, but that they were torn apart by thunderstorms. Besides, lighter than air craft have relatively low payload capabilities, and at a speed of 200 mph, would take 18 hours to cross the ocean. That negates a lot of the speed advantage they’d have over cargo ships. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/3 "2005-10-19T19:35:40Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > That 150-200 mph tailwind would probably scoot a zeppelin right along, at very little in the way of fuel costs. Very little in the way of fuel costs for the zeppelin’s _engines_. However, you’ve still gotta fill that gas bag with something to keep your zeppelin aloft. If you fill it with hydrogen, you’ve got the whole Hindenberg problem. If you fill it with helium, you’re talking about an enormous monetary investment in lifting gas, a little of which is inevitably going to leak out with each trip. If you fill it with hot air, you’ve got to burn something to heat the air and keep it hot. So, it won’t be as cheap as you think. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/4 "2005-10-19T19:39:05Z")
The jet stream is narrow and moves rapidly over a wide range of latitudes, taking some serious turns along the way. How would you know it was going to be where you wanted it to be at any given time? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/5 "2005-10-19T19:42:41Z")
A big hurdle would be the turbulence associated with entering or leaving a 200-mph jetstream and its propensity to rip a lighter-than-air ship apart. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/6 "2005-10-19T20:09:17Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > You’ll recall that the biggest problem with zeppelins wasn’t that they occassionally burst into flames, but that they were torn apart by thunderstorms. Yeah, but haven’t we come up with some super light, super strong metals since the heyday of the zepps? What if we made zepps out of the same stuff they make racing bikes out of? Besides, lighter than air craft have relatively low payload capabilities, and at a speed of 200 mph, would take 18 hours to cross the ocean. That negates a lot of the speed advantage they’d have over cargo ships. [/QUOTE] Granted, there are lower payload capabilities, but the fuel savings might more than make u pfor that. I’m thinking the REAL disadvantage for zepps is that they have to follow the jet stream or pay an enormous fuel penalty. As for the speed advantage – you have to admit, that’s a hell of a speed advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/7 "2005-10-19T20:10:50Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Very little in the way of fuel costs for the zeppelin’s _engines_. > > However, you’ve still gotta fill that gas bag with something to keep your zeppelin aloft. > > If you fill it with hydrogen, you’ve got the whole Hindenberg problem. If you fill it with helium, you’re talking about an enormous monetary investment in lifting gas, a little of which is inevitably going to leak out with each trip. If you fill it with hot air, you’ve got to burn something to heat the air and keep it hot. > > So, it won’t be as cheap as you think. I wasn’t aware that helium was such an expensive commodity to produce. C’mon, they put it in kid’s party balloons and use it to talk funny, what can it cost? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/8 "2005-10-19T20:12:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The jet stream is narrow and moves rapidly over a wide range of latitudes, taking some serious turns along the way. How would you know it was going to be where you wanted it to be at any given time? That I think would be a serious problem. Maybe by having a series of zepp ports along the usual path of the stream, the zepp would be able to disembark somewhere on the far side of the ocean or the continent with its payload. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/9 "2005-10-19T20:20:55Z")
> [@](#): > > If you fill it with hydrogen, you’ve got the whole Hindenberg problem. More like, if you use thermite as your sealant, you’ve got the whole Hindenberg problem. The hydrogen itself wasn’t the problem. I’m not sure what kind of wind shear you would get on the edges of the stream, though. ---
**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 19, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/10 "2005-10-19T20:56:14Z")
Even solving all these problems mentioned above, you’d still have to change the minds of the aviation and travel communities, which closed the book on lighter-than-air decades ago. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/11 "2005-10-19T21:20:27Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The jet stream travels around the world at an altitude of about five miles, at 150-200 mph. > > [Here’s a handy cite.](http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Jet_Stream/DI68.htm) Wikipedia’s [page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream) (I know, I know, but they sound like they know what they’re talking about) on jet streams says “The wind speeds vary according to the temperature gradient, averaging 55km/h or 35 mph in summer and 120km/h or 75 mph in winter”, which wouldn’t be fast enough to be worth bothering with. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/12 "2005-10-19T22:38:04Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > At a speed of 200 mph, would take 18 hours to cross the ocean. That negates a lot of the speed advantage they’d have over cargo ships. 200 mph is an order of magnitude faster than cargo ships. It’s a pretty big advantage. Plus, unlike ships, you wouldn’t have to have much crew. They could probably be remotely controlled. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/13 "2005-10-19T23:14:14Z")
Cheaper and slower than a jumbo jet? Faster and more expensive than a ship? I think there’s gotta be a market for this (if such a thing can be built and operated). Your businessmen are still going to want to take a 747, and if you want to send twenty thousand tons of iron ore somewhere, then the ship is the only option, but there must be a lot of passengers and medium-priority, relatively light goods that would be happy to use a 24 hour crossing of the Atlantic, if it were cheaper than a regular aircraft. Mail is the big one that comes to mind. Often, letters are whisked overseas in a Boeing, only to sit in some sorting facility for hours and hours at the other end before the bags are even opened. If mail is unloaded from a plane in the morning in London, it’s missed that day’s postal delivery, and will sit there until it is sorted that evening, and delivered the following day. This means the postal administrations are paying for a high speed service they don’t always need, simply because sending it by ship isn’t an option. When a letter or a parcel takes a week in transit between international addresses, a few extra hours of actual travel can be absorbed, and the postal administrations would jump at the opportunity if there were savings. Private courier articles, airfreighted newspapers and magazines, small items ordered online, etc, would be the perfect commodities to be transported this way. There would even be a willing passenger market for it too, I’d imagine. Backpackers come to mind. ---
**Author:** ![robcaro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df705f/32.png) [@robcaro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robcaro)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/14 "2005-10-19T23:23:54Z")
What about the return trip? I don’t think there is a jet stream coming back the other way. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/15 "2005-10-19T23:57:04Z")
> [@TheLoadedDog](#): > > There would even be a willing passenger market for it too, I’d imagine. Backpackers come to mind. I’d think you’re better off cargo only. Passengers require adding all kinds of life support that can get heavy quite quickly. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/16 "2005-10-20T00:03:19Z")
> [@iamthewalrus(:3=](#): > > I’d think you’re better off cargo only. Passengers require adding all kinds of life support that can get heavy quite quickly. I was considering this, and you’re probably correct. However, air travel is a tight business profitwise, and if some operator (maybe a Virgin-type outfit) sees even a few dollars in it, then somebody somewhere will run passenger flights. Those guys are always looking for angles. ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/17 "2005-10-20T00:04:13Z")
In addition, the exact path of the jet stream fluctuates. ---
**Author:** ![Rhubarb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/59ef9b/32.png) [@Rhubarb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhubarb)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/18 "2005-10-20T01:31:50Z")
Slightly off-topic; I saw a design many years ago for an LTA SST. That’s right, a supersonic zeppelin. The theory was to use a zeppelin to raise the vehicle to an appropriate altitude and then light off the jets. The reason for using a zeppelin for lift was that the vehicle had a circular wing (like a hollow cylinder) because a circular wing wouldn’t produce a sonic boom, but also provided no lift. I don’t know how practical the idea was, but it made the cover of Popular Science back in the '70s. ---
**Author:** ![Chairman\_Pow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Chairman\_Pow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chairman_Pow)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/19 "2005-10-20T03:37:37Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Besides, lighter than air craft have relatively low payload capabilities, and at a speed of 200 mph, would take 18 hours to cross the ocean. That negates a lot of the speed advantage they’d have over cargo ships. Ships like boats? 200 mph? Them’s some fast boats. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/20 "2005-10-20T04:15:00Z")
> [@TheLoadedDog](#): > > Cheaper and slower than a jumbo jet? Slower? - certainly. Cheaper? - not likely. An airship that could carry even a moderate fraction of the load of a jumbo jet would not be cheap at all. If the eastbound Atlantic crossing will take something like 24 hours, then the airship must include sleeping accommodations - a further burden on its payload. Against the prevailing winds, its flight time will be much longer, and so will its costs. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963.md?page=2)