AIRSHIPS

[Anonymous No.10967965]

Why don't we have these?

https://youtu.be/0dnl6NoEVdo

[Anonymous No.10967969]

We already tried them. Planes worked better.

[Anonymous No.10967971]

>>10967969
We tried them with primitive technology

[Anonymous No.10967979]

>>10967965
on Venus maybe

[Anonymous No.10967989]

>>10967971
What kind of tech do you think we have now that applies?

[Anonymous No.10967991]

>>10967989
Tesla and water vacuums

[Anonymous No.10968034]

>>10967965

[Anonymous No.10968066]

>>10968034
that's sad

[Anonymous No.10968075]

>>10968034
when you order 1 day shipping on your new dildo.

[Anonymous No.10968094]

>>10968066
OH NO ITS A MEGACORPORATION USING NEW AND SCARY TECHNOLOGY EVERYONE HIDE

[Anonymous No.10968147]

What qualifies as an airship?

[Anonymous No.10968170]

>>10968147
large vehicle that can hover and move, not just move, and not small

[Anonymous No.10968187]

>tfw dream of permanent floating airship where you can sleep/eat/shit/bathe/masturbate/don't pay tax/electricity from solar/wind is dead

[Anonymous No.10968194]

>>10968147
a real life Gaw

[Anonymous No.10968238]

>>10967965
The problem is we are running out of helium

[Anonymous No.10968239]

>>10967965

Its rather self evident. In short, there's no good solution for both anti-gravity, aside from hydrogen/helium. When using this as the primariy lift mechanism you in turn limit what you can carry in terms of both fuel/cargo, limiting the size/propulsion type you're capable of utilizing. In short, you can get more lift/propulstion/speed from actively burning fuel with a foil than using Hydrogen/Helium to try to cancel off the cargo weight and being lighter than air

[Anonymous No.10968248]

>>10967965
BECAWZ U TUCH URSELF AT NITE

[Anonymous No.10968260]

>>10968034
>Attention ground units. Anticitizen reported in this community. Code: lock, cauterize, stabilize

[Anonymous No.10968277]

>>10967965
Cause no one wants a 2 week sea cruise by air to london

[Anonymous No.10968481]

>>10968238
use hydrogen

[Anonymous No.10968497]

>>10968094
bootlicking faggot

[Anonymous No.10968642]

>>10967965
>>10968170
basically this:>>10967969
So there are two ways to stay in the air, being lighter than air or throwing air down. Air doesn't have a very high density, so one has to displace a very large amount of air to stay up. Such a lightweight structure is prone to getting blown around by the wind and can't go very fast. Throwing air down just takes energy. However, in terms of power required per payload and speed, throwing air down is more effective. We can get the same payload much faster with a plane for about the same energy usage with a plane than we can an airship. Really the only interesting case for lighter than air vehicles today is for transporting hydrogen by riding the jet stream:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590174519300145
By riding the jet stream, we don't have to expend much energy moving the hydrogen. Although the locations we can transport hydrogen to and from may be limited.
>>hover
there's not much benefit to making a big thing that can hover.

[Anonymous No.10968933]

>>10968497
quaking fearfag

[Anonymous No.10968992]

Airships would be cool.

[Anonymous No.10969026]

>>10968147
needs canards

[Anonymous No.10969162]

>>10968034
>hey let's make delivery slower than it is now
>"great idea, jeff!" *suckles on Jeff's asshole*

[Anonymous No.10969164]

>>10968094
Into the cage wagie.

[Anonymous No.10969167]

>>10968992
Except in bad weather.

[Anonymous No.10969172]

>>10967965
>>10968642
>>10968239
>>10967969
planes are way better for anything long distance but imagine airship rides between two cities located close to eachother (Europe not America so it's all alot smaller)
that would take off pressure from the roads, it'd be relatively cheap as well as safe (due to naturally safe non-flammable helium)
and it does what planes can't do, travel a short distance over air

[Anonymous No.10969204]

>>10969172
>helium
They are better off using water vapor as a lifting gas instead. Helium is in limited quantities and there's none being made to replace what is escaping the atmosphere. Water is plentiful and with aerogel insulation technologies, making steam balloons is now quite viable.

[Anonymous No.10969216]

>>10969204
If you're using aerogel youd be safe with hydrogen. Its very heat resistant and the hydrogen would be trapped in the micropores so it would be harder to have a catastrophic failure.

[Anonymous No.10969559]

>>10969172
>>that would take off pressure from the roads
unless you had a huge number of airships, then it'd make fuck all of a difference.
>>europe
and where would you build all the HUGE airship hangars?
>>10969204
no. If you disagree then prove that's better in anyway at all. Tip: aerogel ain't that flexible, steam ain't a great lifting gas.

[Anonymous No.10969738]

>>10969216
if we used with aerogel maybe we could combust the hydrogen for extra lift and speeds.

[Anonymous No.10969841]

>>10969559
moron

[Anonymous No.10970294]

>>10969559
use train stations, add a floor and some height and done, you've got yourself a brand new airship hangar for every city
or actually wherever, just need some space for an elevator and some concrete
and if there were a huge number of airships then surely by then had the roads been all by themselves there wouldn't have been a single moving car anywhere