Greentext

4591 readers

936 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

691

Anon wants to ride a zeppelin (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 7 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

184 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] birbs@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (8 children)

There are companies trying to bring airships back. The Airlander 10 is expected to be flying flights over Spain in 2026.

[–] GenosseFlosse@lemmy.nz 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

While i would love to travel by airship, I dont think there would be a commercial success in airship passenger travel in the near future:

travel times of multiple days means you probably need 2-3x the crew, compared with a plane on a 8h flight
this also means a plane that is 4x as fast can make the same trip 4x more often, bringing in more money for the airline in the same amount of time
you probably can't land on existing airports, because an airship the size of a large building would be crawling accross your airspace blocking all flight traffic, or shaken by the turbulences behind a large jet powered airliner
new technology without any existing infrastructure is much more expensive than building on top of existing things
tickets would be much more expensive than a commercial plane because of the reasons above, the lower passenger capacity and the fact that you have to carry more supplies (water + food for days multiplied by people on board) for a longer trip. Each passenger with cabin and supplies was calculated as 300kg weight on a transatlantic flight on the hindenburg
Hindenburg could not fly in a direct straight line, because it travels at a height of only 400-600m. This means you had to go around high mountain ranges, because people and the combustion engines need oxygen which you dont have much above 4000m. However i dont know if this is still a problem with modern pressurized cabins, or if there is another limitation from the lifting gas...

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Could work more along the lines of a cruise ship though. Not as an efficient way to get somewhere but just to go float around doing vacation stuff.

[–] GenosseFlosse@lemmy.nz 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well, you can have a lot of space for casinos, shops and pools with waterslides on a cruise ship to entertain passengers because weight is not important. But on an airship...?

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 0 points 7 months ago

Not impractical really, according to Wikipedia even the old Hindenburg: "held 200,000 cubic metres (7,062,000 cu ft) of gas in 16 bags or cells with a useful lift of approximately 232 t (511,000 lb). This provided a margin above the 215 t (474,000 lb) average gross weight of the ship with fuel, equipment, 10,000 kg (22,000 lb) of mail and cargo, about 90 passengers and crew and their luggage."

So if it has a capacity of 40,000+ lb beyond all the needed crew, passengers, fuel, and whatever cargo with a 100 year old design using diesel engines I imagine you throw a small nuclear reactor for power in a modern design you could probably float around for a while with some pretty comfy accomodations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)