Disaster relief blimps: case made

  • Thread starter Thread starter maglifter
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential use of cargo blimps for disaster relief, particularly in areas with damaged infrastructure, such as Aceh. Participants explore the feasibility, advantages, and challenges of utilizing blimps compared to other transport methods like helicopters.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that cargo blimps can land nearly anywhere and are cheaper to operate than helicopters, making them suitable for disaster relief.
  • Others highlight historical concerns, such as the Hindenburg disaster, and the significant upfront costs associated with building blimps, including the need for specialized hangars.
  • One participant mentions that a Russian company is reportedly developing a large cargo lighter-than-air ship.
  • Concerns are raised about the cost and availability of helium, which is necessary for blimp operation, and the inefficiencies in helium usage due to permeable membranes.
  • Some participants question the validity of the claim that blimps can land anywhere, citing historical limitations on landing sites similar to those of airplanes.
  • There are suggestions that heavy lift helicopters may be a more effective solution for disaster scenarios.
  • A participant references a specific company, World SkyCat, which claims to offer a cost-effective alternative to helicopters for disaster relief operations.
  • Another participant acknowledges the potential of blimps for various operations but emphasizes that their effectiveness is highly dependent on weather conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of support and skepticism regarding the use of blimps for disaster relief. While some see potential advantages, others raise concerns about practicality, costs, and historical precedents. No consensus is reached on the overall viability of blimps compared to helicopters.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the availability and cost of helium, as well as the operational constraints of blimps in adverse weather conditions. These factors remain unresolved in the discussion.

maglifter
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
We're hearing all those reports about the difficulties of getting stuff to the disaster strucken areas in Aceh.

-They need helicopters because the roads are damaged
-The main runway for airplanes was closed yesterday because of an accident, making the logistical nightmare even bigger
-Egeland called for "ships on which helicopters can land" etc...

Isn't it about time that we seriously reconsider building cargo blimps?

These things can land nearly anywhere, are much cheaper to operate than helicopters (per ton lifted), and they are not dependent on other infrastructural chains.

Does anyone know of any companies creating such heavy lift blimps? After everything we've seen in South Asia, the case for such airships has now obviously been made.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why don't people build blimps...

Well, there are two big reasons...

1) The Hindenberg disaster is still the most common thing people think of when you say the word "blimp" (except maybe Goodyear tires). It may sound stupid, but to this day people in the US do not trust nuclear power due to Three Mile Island.

2) There are HUGE upfront costs associated with building a blimp, primarily in building the blimp hangar. Take a look at this story: CargoLifter Belly Up.

I for one would love to see blimps in common use. Here are some ideas I've had:

- heavy lift cargo transport
- airborne luxury cruise liners
- highway accident wreckage removal (think of never having to sit HOURS in traffic because of a 30 car pile-up)
- highway distressed driver assistance (flying tow-truck / maintenance garage)

What does everybody think?

Cheers...
 
I heard somewhere that the Russians are building a large cargo lighter than air ship.

KM
 
I worked very briefly on a subcontract to CargoLifter. The amount of helium they needed was enormous, and would have cost many millions of dollars. Helium is becoming a scarce commodity and costs are rising fast. In addition, Cargolifter required some way of purifying the helium in the blimps. The membrane is permeable, so you loose helium all the time, and air gets in or must be pumped into maintain the structure.

Regardless of those issues, I think CargoLifter was simply not cost effective overall. Their big sales point was the ability to move super large equipment, such as chemical processing columns, to different points on the globe. And there simply isn't enough business like that out there to support it.
 
"These things can land nearly anywhere."

Is that really a valid statement? From what I have seen of blimps back in their heyday, they had limitations on where they landed just like most airplanes.

All personal interests aside, I think heavy lift helicopters are the perfect answer for what needs to be done there.
 
FredGarvin said:
"These things can land nearly anywhere."
Is that really a valid statement? From what I have seen of blimps back in their heyday, they had limitations on where they landed just like most airplanes.

Sure, new blimp concepts can land anywhere.

For those who're interested, this company seems to be on the brink of delivering.

Check them out, they're really cool:

http://www.worldskycat.com/

They claim to be significantly cheaper than heavy lift helicopters.

Also check their section on disaster relief, with artist renderings:

http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skylift.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The SkyCat-20 offers the ideal solution to the vital need for a high-endurance, low-cost and versatile airborne platform for missions such as border control, counter-drug operations, coastguard search and rescue, harbour traffic monitoring and police surveillance – as well as civil uses such as surveillance of gas and oil pipelines."

I agree that a blimp or similar ship is ideally suited for these kinds of operations...with one very large caveat: in good weather. You are not going to get these aircraft operating in mountainous regions or areas that are prone to storms of any kind. I looked through that website and saw nothing regarding it's weather capabilities.

There is definitely a niche for these aircraft.
 

Similar threads

Disaster Recovery Infrastructure
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K