# 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:** 2
**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, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/21 "2005-10-20T04:17:35Z")
> [@Beware of Doug](#): > > you’d still have to change the minds of the aviation and travel communities, which closed the book on lighter-than-air decades ago. The books would open quickly if there were economic advantages. My guess is that there aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![pilot141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e0b2c6/32.png) [@pilot141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pilot141)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/22 "2005-10-20T05:21:16Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > The books would open quickly if there were economic advantages. My guess is that there aren’t. If it was cheaper to get things across the Atlantic by airship, then it WOULD be in progress today. One of those advantages of the free market, eh? As it is, cargo is both profitable and plentiful…by heavier-than-air aircraft. Until that changes, expect nothing other than experimental blimps on the scene. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/23 "2005-10-20T08:28:24Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > 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? C’mon, they use platinum for catalytic converters in cars, what can it cost? ---
**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 20, 2005, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/24 "2005-10-20T09:18:03Z")
> [@pilot141](#): > > If it was cheaper to get things across the Atlantic by airship, then it WOULD be in progress today. One of those advantages of the free market, eh? The free market is a lovely thing to have around, except sometimes it bites the neighbor kid or shits on the rug. Not being able to zep across the ocean is one of those exceptions. > [@](#): > > Until that changes, expect nothing other than experimental blimps on the scene. [IT’S NOT A BLIMP!!](http://www.zeppelin-nt.com/pages/E/luftsch_u_zepp.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/25 "2005-10-20T09:30:18Z")
> [@Beware of Doug](#): > > The free market is a lovely thing to have around, except sometimes it bites the neighbor kid or shits on the rug. Not being able to zep across the ocean is one of those exceptions. So, the fact that we can’t “zep across the ocean” because it’s not attractive to a free market economy is a bad thing? I don’t understand your point. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/26 "2005-10-20T09:51:57Z")
The Japanese actually used this method with their balloon bombs during WWII. They would launch the balloons from Japan to an altitude high enough to catch the jet stream and in a few days they would reach the U.S. and drop their bombs. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/27 "2005-10-20T09:56:27Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Yeah, but haven’t we come up with some super light, super strong metals since the heyday of the zepps? Nope. We still make aircraft out of aluminum, just like the _Graf Zepplin_ and the _Hindenburg_. Oh, sure, we’ve got better envelope materials - the early 20th century zepps used “gold beater’s skin” for the gas containers, which was a fancy name for the inner lining of cow stomach. We’ve got synthetics now which can serve the same functions but are easier to work with and more durable , and equally if not more light in weight. Composite materials can replace some metal components with equal strength and less weight. But _any_ airship is going to mass tons, even if overall it’s lighter than the air it displaces. > [@](#): > > What if we made zepps out of the same stuff they make racing bikes out of? Different engineering problem entirely. > [@](#): > > Granted, there are lower payload capabilities, but the fuel savings might more than make u pfor that. Not really. And what savings you might have are going to disappear the moment you have a headwind. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/28 "2005-10-20T10:07:58Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > 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? You know, the husband and I actually looked into this a few years ago (we were considering building our own singe-seat airship for fun and recreation), but darn if I can remember the quoted price. The problem isn’t so much the _expense_ as the _quantity required_. Kid’s party balloons are pretty darn light, so you don’t need much helium (which, by the way, is mined/drilled for, not “produced” - it’s mostly a byproduct of natural gas extraction). But a cubic foot (or yard or meter or whatever) of helium only lifts so much. You need a _lot_ of helium to lift even a single person. According to the research we did, manned helium balloons, depending on payload, cost $3,000-10,000 a fill. We actually have a gentleman with a two-seat blimp in the area. He says a fill for the gas runs him about $3,000 as well. That’s for, what, a 300-400 lbs payload? That’s $10 to lift one pound (half a kilogram for you metric types). And the darned stuff _leaks out_ Helium exists as diatomic molecules that happen to be very small and can sneak through pores/flaws in just about anything. And there’s the volume problem - you’d need helium by the tanker-truck. And there’s the cost to transport the helium, even in a compressed state, from storage depot to your zepp. Hydrogen has _twice_ the lifting capacity of helium… but there’s that explosion potential you have to worry about. ---
**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, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/29 "2005-10-20T10:11:22Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Hydrogen has _twice_ the lifting capacity of helium… but there’s that explosion potential you have to worry about. This has got me wondering about unmanned, remote control cargo zepps, as somebody mentioned above. Semi-trailers drive to an out-of-town zepp-port on the coast, the thing is loaded up and guided across the ocean, where it lands at another similar port. In the rare event it does blow up, nobody is hurt. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/30 "2005-10-20T13:03:37Z")
> [@TheLoadedDog](#): > > This has got me wondering about unmanned, remote control cargo zepps, as somebody mentioned above. > > Semi-trailers drive to an out-of-town zepp-port on the coast, the thing is loaded up and guided across the ocean, where it lands at another similar port. In the rare event it does blow up, nobody is hurt. Except when the 50 or 100 or 300 tons of cargo come crashing down on their head. These would be even less economically viable than otherwise if they were limited to over-ocean operations. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/31 "2005-10-20T13:13:56Z")
> [@Beware of Doug](#): > > 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. Why do I have to change their minds? I build the airship, book cargo/passengers, make money. I bet that whole “making money” thing would be VERY INTERESTING to the aviation and travel industry. Especially outfits like Delta. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/32 "2005-10-20T13:15:58Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > The Japanese actually used this method with their balloon bombs during WWII. They would launch the balloons from Japan to an altitude high enough to catch the jet stream and in a few days they would reach the U.S. and drop their bombs. Yes, with low reliability, & no accurancy. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/33 "2005-10-20T13:35:45Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > 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. You’re thinking passengers. I’m thinking cargo. The major expense in the transportation industry will increasingly be fuel as prices go up. Even if zepps have a lower payload capacity than a jet, an enormous savings in fuel costs would still help. The stratosphere is 7 miles up, once you get there, your fuel costs shrink to virtually zero (there might be some need for steering power, but so little it might be accomplishable by solar powered motors). On a transoceanic or transcontinental trip, that’s a significant savings, to say the least. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/34 "2005-10-20T13:38:32Z")
> [@pilot141](#): > > If it was cheaper to get things across the Atlantic by airship, then it WOULD be in progress today. One of those advantages of the free market, eh? Frankly, this was what I expected when I started the thread – that there was some obvious and well-known issue that made airship transportation impossible, under current conditions. [/quote] > [@](#): > > As it is, cargo is both profitable and plentiful…by heavier-than-air aircraft. > > Until that changes, expect nothing other than experimental blimps on the scene. To judge by the major airlines’ habit of going belly up with a certain dull regularity, that statement is disputable. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/35 "2005-10-20T13:40:28Z")
> [@TheLoadedDog](#): > > 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). > > 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. I was thinking of Mrs. Evil Captor and her love of buying things via Ebay. And the cost of shipping things from Japan. Bet there might be some money for a big carrier that could do cheap interocean or intercontinental transport. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/36 "2005-10-20T13:42:49Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > C’mon, they use platinum for catalytic converters in cars, what can it cost? Point taken. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/37 "2005-10-20T13:45:30Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > The Japanese actually used this method with their balloon bombs during WWII. They would launch the balloons from Japan to an altitude high enough to catch the jet stream and in a few days they would reach the U.S. and drop their bombs. [It was not a tremendously successful campaign.](http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm) ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/38 "2005-10-20T13:50:30Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Not really. And what savings you might have are going to disappear the moment you have a headwind. How you gonna have a headwind when you are in the jet stream which AFAIK, travels more or less east to west as it circumnavigates the globe? My idea is you have several zepp, they all circumnavigate the globe via the jet stream (there’s also one south of the equater that IIRC runs in the opposite direction). It’s a lot like river transportation. Rivers are slower than land travel. Their direction of flow and their boundaries are fixed. But they offer advantages that more than make up for that, so there is still plenty of barge traffic on the Mississippi. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/39 "2005-10-20T13:53:35Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > You know, the husband and I actually looked into this a few years ago (we were considering building our own singe-seat airship for fun and recreation), but darn if I can remember the quoted price. The problem isn’t so much the _expense_ as the _quantity required_. > > Kid’s party balloons are pretty darn light, so you don’t need much helium (which, by the way, is mined/drilled for, not “produced” - it’s mostly a byproduct of natural gas extraction). But a cubic foot (or yard or meter or whatever) of helium only lifts so much. You need a _lot_ of helium to lift even a single person. > > According to the research we did, manned helium balloons, depending on payload, cost $3,000-10,000 a fill. We actually have a gentleman with a two-seat blimp in the area. He says a fill for the gas runs him about $3,000 as well. That’s for, what, a 300-400 lbs payload? That’s $10 to lift one pound (half a kilogram for you metric types). > > And the darned stuff _leaks out_ Helium exists as diatomic molecules that happen to be very small and can sneak through pores/flaws in just about anything. And there’s the volume problem - you’d need helium by the tanker-truck. And there’s the cost to transport the helium, even in a compressed state, from storage depot to your zepp. > > Hydrogen has _twice_ the lifting capacity of helium… but there’s that explosion potential you have to worry about. Well, this might well be the issue I was expecting to find. A zepp large enough to carry cargo might indeed require that $10,000 fill, and if we don’t have materials that can stop helium leakage. Hydrogen is out of the question. Hydrogen filled zepps would be incredibly tempting targets for terrorists, and assholes in general. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963/40 "2005-10-20T13:56:36Z")
> [@pilot141](#): > > If it was cheaper to get things across the Atlantic by airship, then it WOULD be in progress today. One of those advantages of the free market, eh? By that logic (“if it’s a good idea, somebody would be doing it already”), there would never be any new developments in the world. That said, I think this particular idea has some problems. Airships are susceptible to bad weather, so I imagine weather delays would be frequent. And airships don’t have a very high payload capacity. The Hindenburg was basically the size of the Titanic (about 10% shorter) and carried only 100 people, including crew. Even with today’s technology, the [Zeppelin NT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT) is longer than a Boeing 747 and only carries 12 passengers. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Hydrogen has twice the lifting capacity of helium… That’s not correct. Hydrogen has _half the density_ of helium, but that doesn’t translate to twice the lifting capacity. Lifting capacity is the difference in weight between the gas and displaced air, so it’s proportional to the difference in density. Average molecular weight of air is about 30, helium is 4, and hydrogen is 2, so hydrogen has (30-2)/(30-4)=1.077 times more lifting capacity (i.e 7.7% more) than helium. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-the-jet-stream-and-lighter-than-air-craft-for-cheap-intl-transport/326963.md?page=1) [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=3)