Why did so many airship projects fail?

A place to generally discuss airships and anything related to LTA-aviation.
User avatar
AvA
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:55 am
Gender: None specified

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby AvA » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:35 pm

Materials that don't burn soudn great, but to my knowledge there is no such product at the moment that could be used for airships with it being readily available, unless you use new prototype materials in the industry, but that would drastically increase expenses, wouldn't it?

turtleairships
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:15 pm
Gender: None specified
Contact:

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby turtleairships » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:59 pm

Yes, using new and better materials will be expensive.
One must compare this with the decades-old losses already experienced in a moribund airship industry.

There is a phenomenal opportunity for airships in the future; but it can only be realized if the industry turns away from re-creating the airships of the past and moves on to modern materials, propulsion, manufacturing, etc.

It will take enormous amounts of money. But, the money is there, waiting for a successful airship design to prove the potential. Creating a demonstration or prototype craft will do the trick..........

User avatar
AvA
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:55 am
Gender: None specified

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby AvA » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:22 am

I think I can conclude that too high expenses is the final reason why so many projects failed
New high tech materials won't solve that problem :P

But using hydrogen as a lifting gas should vastly reduce flight costs for current airship operations, hopefully allow it to grow & expand, create more revenue and use that to engineer safer, fireproof materials - eventually -. I think I can also conclude that helium sadly removes that incentive and kind of keeps the industry away from expanding

Ntransportation
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:20 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby Ntransportation » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:57 am

I don't believe subsidy has to be bad necessarily. It depends on the situation. The government is going to subsidize things either way, and they've spend their stuff on more worthless things so might as well subsidize great wonders of engineering and technology.

For instance, the Zeppelin Company is intertwined with the history of the German nation. If I were a German citizen I would completely approve a company like that receiving state subsidy to help it operate, because that company is more than just a company, it was and still is part of the German nation, history, culture and pride and could still play an important role in this day.

Same reason why I still support state subsidy for space exploration. The free market is great but sometimes you need the government to 'force', as libertarians like to call it, the construction of great everlasting monuments, works or machines. Things that would not have been contemplated by entrepreneurs because the lack of profit or the giant risks involved. And I am talking about things like the Saturnus V, The Hindenburg.. but also monuments for example. Once it's built and completed and the new territory is explored, then the more efficient free market can jump in and take over.

pyronaught
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:04 am
Gender: Male
Flag: United States of America

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby pyronaught » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:16 am

We also have technology like oxygen sensors that can be put inside of a hydrogen filled gas bag to monitor oxygen contamination and warn us of dangerous levels, or hydrogen sensors that could be used to detect leaks inside of a rigid airship so that the scenario that brought down the Hindenburg could be detected before it reached dangerous levels. These sensors and the electronics to monitor them didn't exist back in the 1930s.

Is there a ban on filling even personal, experimental airships or free balloons with hydrogen in the US? I knew the nanny state was bad, but didn't know it was THAT bad.
Last edited by pyronaught on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pyronaught
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:04 am
Gender: Male
Flag: United States of America

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby pyronaught » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:26 am

Ntransportation wrote:For instance, the Zeppelin Company is intertwined with the history of the German nation. If I were a German citizen I would completely approve a company like that receiving state subsidy to help it operate, because that company is more than just a company, it was and still is part of the German nation, history, culture and pride and could still play an important role in this day.



The Zeppelin company that produces NT is subsidized actually, it is just a private subsidy setup by the original Zeppelin company in the form of a trust fund that is to be used only for funding airship projects. Geffa Flug, the German thermal airship company, also benefited from this fund. I have heard that the Zeppelin NT operation would not be self sustaining if it were not for the subsidy, which is surprising considering how much a Zeppelin NT sells for. I guess they just don't sell one very often and they are expensive to make.
Last edited by pyronaught on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pyronaught
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:04 am
Gender: Male
Flag: United States of America

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby pyronaught » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:31 am

AvA wrote:I think I can conclude that too high expenses is the final reason why so many projects failed
New high tech materials won't solve that problem :P



If I could list one reason it would be this: airships are much better at consuming money than they are making it. As the saying goes, the best way to make a million dollars in the airship industry is to start with 10 million.

Sean
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:07 am
Gender: None specified
Flag: United States of America

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby Sean » Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:23 am

Unless humanity creates an affordable, anti-gravity, flying saucer that could hover silently at most altitudes and go anywhere, there's nothing that could replace the flight experience of an airship.

Sean
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:07 am
Gender: None specified
Flag: United States of America

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby Sean » Tue Aug 23, 2016 12:10 pm

But building and flying an airship is one thing, that's the easy part. The hard part is scraping the cash together, finding contracts, investors, building hangars, getting permits, good marketing, creating a business around it, and in the end of the day, still be able to make a buck of it.

Setting up a thermal airship company would probably be the easiest way of getting in this world and the needed experience and expertise

pyronaught
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:04 am
Gender: Male
Flag: United States of America

Re: Why did so many airship projects fail?

Postby pyronaught » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:44 pm

One scenario where rigids could return is if someone with a lot of money were to have one built. Some of the yachts they currently have built are within the same price range.
Last edited by pyronaught on Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest