• poVoq@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    You could make the exact same argument for any mode of transportation. And there are many possible applications for airships that are not possible with current technology, for example 100% carbon free overland travel in remote areas.

    The wind issue is also not nearly as bad as you make it sound. Basically it is only a problem during start and landing or very high winds (which are also problematic for helicopters during start and landing). If you have small electric quad-copters that shuttle passengers and cargo to and from the airships it is basically a non-issue.

    • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yet other forms of transportation already exist and are well developed. Out of the years of experience in development we know that speed and efficiency is key. We need to move goods as cheap and fast as possible.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Airships were only abandoned because in the 1930ties fuel was extremely cheap and military applications for airplanes reigned supreme. Airships are actually vastly more efficient than airplanes and fast enough to beat most other modes of transportation.

        • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Planes are less efficient, but extremely fast. Weight to speed ratio, airships are a joke compared to ships. Transportation with airship is way more expensive then a container ship. It may be better for the environment, but companies care about profits, and it’s the companies using the service. Either it needs to travel fast for more money with planes, or slow in bulk for cheap. Slow and expensive makes no sense. It makes sense to you and me, caring about the enviroment. But I’m not importing and exporting goods on a massive scale.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Ships don’t work on land, and trains/trucks require expensive infrastructure.

            Once the technology for airships is out of the re-development phase again it will favour very well cost-wise against other land-based options (of course container-shipping is hard to beat).

            • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Trains need expensive infrastructure, yes, but it’s already there.

              I sure hope airships make it, as it could be a very eco friendly alternative. But I highly doubt it will be able to win from conventional forms of transportation.

          • CharlesMangione@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            buddy what are you not getting about “fuel makes the planet hot we should seek alternatives”

            also we superduper do not need to move goods as cheap and as fast as possible, that’s some capitalist dogmatic brainwashing

            • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It’s companies which are the ones moving the goods. I agree we all should change, I’m against capitalism, but good luck convincing companies to cut deeply into their profits.