FLOATING INTO THE FUTURE: A new generation of airships is targeting air transportation in places where infrastructure presently does not exist.
Image: NASA
The notion that airships represent the future of air cargo is being revived by a new generation of entrepreneurs some 75 years after a catastrophic fireball brought the industry to a screeching halt.
Far safer than the Hindenburg, whose tragic 1937 docking remains an icon of aerospace gone wrong, these modern airships are a hybrid of lighter-than-air and fixed-wing aircraft. They can loft enormous payloads without requiring the acres of tarmac or miles of roadway necessary for conventional air and truck transport. And they do so at a fraction of the fuel and cost of aircraft.
Airships "give you access and much larger payloads at much lower costs," said Peter DeRobertis, project leader for commercial hybrid air vehicles at Lockheed Martin's Aeronautics and Skunk Works division in Fort Worth, Texas. "It's also a green aircraft; you're not polluting."
Today's airships could conceivably be used to transport everything from ripe pineapples to heavy industrial equipment direct to the customer. Shippers, for example, could roll tractors, backhoes, and road graders onto a 50-ton hybrid vehicle at a factory and roll them off at the job site, easing logistics and cost.
A handful of companies have prototypes under development. Lockheed has an airship in the works dubbed SkyTug that should be commercially available by late 2013 with a range of 1,000 nautical miles and a 20-ton payload. The 50-ton Skyfreighter is expected to follow in late 2014.
The industry's future is initially aimed at leapfrogging the conventional cargo transport infrastructure, freighting goods where highways and airports don't exist – Canada's frozen north; China's western frontier; remote parts of Africa, Asia, and South America. No airships are commercially available for cargo transport there yet. But once established on the frontiers, experts say their versatility, cost and fuel advantages should allow airships to penetrate mature freight markets like the United States.
Optimistic entrepreneurs have made similar predictions before, however. Germany-based Cargolifter AG burned through some $500 million without building so much as a prototype before it went belly-up in 2002.
But today's technology is much improved from earlier, flawed approaches. And the potential market is vast.
In northern Canada, for instance, some 4 million square miles of real estate lie north of rail lines and all-weather highways, and warming winters are making seasonally-constructed ice roads less reliable. Historically, ice roads were open three months during the winter. Today, they barely see 30 days of operation per season.
"The cost of building all-weather gravel roads in northern Manitoba is $1 million per kilometer," said Barry Prentice, a transport economist at the University of Manitoba. As permafrost melts and drains away, the road slumps – an increasing problem in the rapidly warming Arctic and sub-Arctic. "If transport airships were available, then it would be hard to justify any roads."
The world has changed radically since the era of the Hindenburg; today's satellite weather forecasts, GPS-tracking, radar, computer-controlled avionics and in-flight management systems have paved the way for this new wave of hybrid airships.
New aerodynamics and structural design, as well as advanced materials technology and advanced engine design have made for more durable airships capable of longer, more autonomous flights.
"Now you don't need a mooring mast or a ground crew," said Lockheed's DeRobertis. "With the addition of the air-cushioned landing system, you can land anywhere. The onboard computer tells the aircraft what to do and it does it."
The Hindenburg was carrying flammable hydrogen in part because the U.S. government had banned the export of helium to Nazi Germany. Today's airships carry helium.
"And if all the engines quit, it won't come down like an aluminum tube," said Gil Costin, chief executive officer of Millennium Airship in Bremerton, Wash., which hopes to have a fleet of airships in service by 2020. "So the risk of losing cargo in a bad scenario is greatly mitigated by using this aircraft. If it has to ditch, it can land right on the water."
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentAs had once been learned in the past, maintaining stability in a turbulent atmosphere can be a dangerous challenge. Many airships have been disintegrated landing "right on the water."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever will be enough helium unless we get to fusion power. Hydrogen is just fine except for the bad PR. Will not happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a better alternative on the horizon. Go to www.concordlift.com
This is a novel configuration, spanloader, potentially able to transport large numbers of standard containers at a cost near that of ocean ships.
If you go to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprojectmaat.org
a new and revolutionary utilization of airship technology
signdovesf does not appear to have noticed the portion of the article in question, that states that this is a green technology. His "better alternative" is just a bigger airplane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's inevitable. The lift, the safety, the reliability, the the cost of the craft, the cost of the energy... no other solution has as much potential. The people are just going to have to get over it, because the bean counters will force the decision. With the advances in materials and avionics over the last century, its time is coming. We're sure to see a mix of helium and hydrogen LTA craft. The "good enough" of ungodly inefficient, much more dangerous heavier than air craft is looking worse and worse each year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article says they can land anywhere, but do not account for the size of the superstructure that modern LTA craft would still require. They are not going to land on mountain sides or in large forests. The article implies that landing requirements are minimized, but I imagine wind conditions and ground effect issues would set some requirements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think they will come close to replacing existing RR freight lines due to the limitations of cargo capacity vs superstructure required. 20 tons is equivalent to a modern tractor trailer load, but again, what about the jet stream and wind conditions that begin 100 to 200 feet in altitude and up?
In the 70's I loved reading Sci Amer, even though much of it was way over my head. Now they seem to have gone too far in the opposite direction in oversimplifying and omitting details that are necessary to draw even basic conclusions from. Perhaps there is still a print magazine version that is a little more informative than the online articles I have found here.
These articles seem to be geared as fodder for attracting comments, which I can appreciate, obviously, but its like getting an appetizer, and then being told the restaurant is out of food. Can't they include links to more in depth information?
Sigma- SA was a lot better just a few years ago. I don't know why, but they seem to only be interested in maintaining a bully pulpit for their agenda these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as this article is concerned, somewhere in the last year I read another article about the shortage of helium on the planet. Seems this might be a drawback to a new industry dependent on this element.
Well, I have not ferreted out what the SA agenda might be, but I would assume they are owned by a corporate mega conglomerate that does have one. And that you are seeing the effects of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for my own nostalgic curiosity, sometime in the decade after Lyall Watson wrote "SuperNature," I remember an article about growing vegetables in atmospheric conditions that existed roughly about the end of the age of dinosaurs when most life on earth was gargantuan by current standards. (high atmospheric pressure, high nitrogen, as I remember, but current documentaries suggest much higher oxygen content at that time) They grew huge tomato plants and other produce, and get this: without (before) genetically modified seeds! Of course corporate agendas would preclude any interference with forcing GM crops on the world, but I think environmentally and atmospherically controlled greenhouses could have benefited humans where GM crops are harmful to life and environment.
I'd like to see some science on that - ice cores can revel atmospheric mixtures 65 million years ago. Modern paleontologists have worked with biologists to breed generations of insects in many atmospheric mixtures resembling that time period, and claim increased size. Why aren't we pushing produce production in a manner with similar conditions?
Alas, as you wrote, helium was the issue. But I hope you will endeavor to expose and point out where you feel an agenda is precluding facts or filtering what articles and subjects end up being presented.
Airships are too large. Helicopters are smaller. I think a helicopter, that utilizes a toroidal (doughnut) air flow to create lift, could save fuel like an airship but have control of motion like a helicopter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAir spinning in a toroid has low pressure at its center of rotation, which makes the toroid of air rise. To use toroidal airflow, a helicopter could force air down at the tips of its blades, and force air up near the rotor shaft. Such a concept would require the helicopter to have longer blades than current helicopters.
As the author, I appreciate your taking the time to read the story with such attention, however, I want you to know that an earlier version of the story, which was subsequently cut somewhat in editing, did mention the caveat that these airships still need several hundred feet of clear landing area. But these new airships are going to be robust in cross winds, so I wouldn't discount their ultimate feasibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for length and detail of individual articles posted on Scientific American's online service, you must remember that every article can't be "War and Peace." There's a space limit to available length and detail in any given online story. It's an online dance that every media outlet is having to learn these days.
Too bad about that whole helium shortage thing. Hydrogen can, however be used quite safely. Technology has advanced a bit since Nazi Germany.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho knows? Maybe material science and engineering can bring us near or total vacuume craft. Maybe powered by a fuel cell or laser light!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Marine transportation Gas Tankers such as LNG carriers have a very good safety record partly because the Cargo Tanks which contain the inflammable liquified gas (Methane in the case of LNG) are surrounded by spaces (usually Ballast tanks or void spaces) containing inert gas which excludes Oxygen. The inert gas used at sea is usually Nitrogen but in an Airship, the main lift cells could contain Hydrogen and the surrounding inerted spaces could contain Helium. This type of structure could be much safer and reduce the quantity of Helium required by at least 85%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Now you don't need a mooring mast or a ground crew," said Lockheed's DeRobertis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there more information on this? (Most interesting!)
I have often observed that lighter-than-air advocates are sometimes worse enemies of the industry than its detractors. For one thing, they tend to attack heavier-than-air, implying that LTA is a superior rival, which is utter nonsense. Modern transport airplanes are highly efficient, and are still far from realizing their full potential; nothing can compete with them for speed over long distances. They will not be replaced by airships or anything else. Neither will railroads, ships or motor freight. LTA has its own zone within the transport continuum, where nothing can challenge it, and for all its confusing digressions this article does mention part of that zone of application, namely transport of outsize loads and feeder transport services in areas with poor infrastructure. The latter requires ships that can land and take off in a very small cleared space - barely larger than the ship itself - or (better) pick up sling loads from a safe altitude. Both require very powerful maneuvering and station-keeping capability, and both require instant lift modulation. The only airship type ever built that has those capabilities is the only one NOT currently under development, namely helicopter/airship hybrids. Unfortunately, the Piasecki Helistat accident put a damper on enthusiasm for that type of machine, though Boeing did show an interest recently. The current generation of conventional blimps won't do the job, no matter how big you make them; neither will the hybrids being worked on by the military and their contractors, which require forward motion to produce dynamic lift.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot true, they failed because of frame fatigue or overload and Hydrogen fires. Even with those problems the old Zeppelins and US Navy blimps were safer per passenger or crew mile than fixed wing aircraft of the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern hybrid air vehicles or blimps do not have frames to fail and use Helium that can put a fire out. They are even changing over to diesels using safer jet fuel.
Regards JB (Airship & Blimp Consultant)
Hi There,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry asking a survivor of the Hindenburg, R101 or R34 about Hydrogen use. The FAA and Lloyds have banned it for commercial manned use.
There is no shortage of Helium in the vast natural gas fields of Qatar, Siberia, Algeria, Poland and Australia.
There is not much point suggesting new aircraft that need any type of runway as the new cargo operators need vertical lift and long range point to point.
Regards JB (Airship & Blimp Consultant)
The current range of new hybrid air vehicles that will be used by Discovery Air in Canada use forward turbines for heavy lift and diesel stern engines for range.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou will not improve on their fuel efficiency or range with any other type of aircraft. The HAV 366 can lift 50 tonnes in normal flat area operations and 20 tonnes pure vertical lift and drop operations.
Regards JB (Airship & Blimp Consultant)
Hi Folks,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCargolifter was an all German joke who never even finished their basic design work, which was seriously flawed anyway, as you can only do serious cargo operations with a hybrid air vehicle. They wasted all their money on a monster hangar and never flew anything that could carry a passenger apart from a Skyship 600 designed and built years before by Roger Munk in Blighty.
Rogers new baby the LEMV (HAV 304) is almost ready to fly in the US and his design team are leading the world with a huge new order for civil HAV 366's for Discovery Air in Canada, to be built in Cardington.
Regards JB (Airship & Blimp Consultant)
What happened in the past with airships is no guide to the future as we are talking about a very different type of vehicle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no shortage of Helium, in fact there are serious reserves overseas of Helium rich natural gas in Qatar, Siberia, Algeria, Poland, Canada, Australia, China and Indonesia. A new discovery in Iran will put that country in the top three when is developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main market for the new hybrid air vehicles is for areas where there are no roads, railways or airports and it is too expensive to build them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new contract between Discovery Air in Canada and Hybrid Air Vehicles in the UK is the first serious development on the civil side and follows the LEMV contract from the US Army.