Apparently as energy costs rise, there's a renewal of interest in zeppelin technology. I'd say that investing in proven, workable high-speed rail where we know the technology works fine and just has high star-up costs makes more sense.
« Hispanics And Pocketbooks | Main | What Have I Done? »
The Dirigibles Are Coming
05 Jul 2008 10:55 am
Comments (41)
Oh, the humanity! I can't go on!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Great. First an approving link to Sailer and now this Mixner bait served up on a platter. Are you trying to destroy your comment threads?
Great. First an approving link to Sailer and now this Mixner bait served up on a platter. Are you trying to destroy your comment threads?
I concur. We ought to be making fun of K-Lo this morning for printing insanity like this:
A totally crazy Saturday-morning thought: Wouldn't George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher? Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service? How's that for a model? Who needs Harvard visiting chairs and high-end lectures? How about Crawford High? (Or wherever?)
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGQ2NjRkZTI0OWIyZWIxNDg5N2RhMTViNTQ3OTRmYmU=
I assert that National Review Online has officially jumped the shark with this post. What say you?
Great. First an approving link to Sailer and now this Mixner bait served up on a platter. Are you trying to destroy your comment threads?
I concur. We ought to be making fun of K-Lo this morning for printing insanity like this:
A totally crazy Saturday-morning thought: Wouldn't George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher? Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service? How's that for a model? Who needs Harvard visiting chairs and high-end lectures? How about Crawford High? (Or wherever?)
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGQ2NjRkZTI0OWIyZWIxNDg5N2RhMTViNTQ3OTRmYmU=
I assert that National Review Online has officially jumped the shark with this post. What say you?
Studies show that trains suck! What we really ought to develop are personal zeppelins. There's plenty of room in the sky for everyone to have their own, and this would be far more efficient than the multi-passenger type.
Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service?
No, it wouldn't. Bush has shown no trace of the flexibility, tolerance, subject-area knowledge or people skills needed to make a decent HS government teacher.
The only question is whether he'd be turned in for inappropriate behavior (Angela Merkel, anyone?) before or after he got non-renewed as a probationary teacher.
Plus he's the kind of man who 'borrows' other people's lunch stuff from the faculty room fridge.
I heard that Pizza Hut was going to be first to introduce the personal pan zeppelin.
Davis X. Machina, I think you misunderstand. What K. Lo is trying to say is that "those who can, do; those who can't, teach." She's admitting that Bush has no understanding of government.
(yes, I know, the saying is stupid - but I'm trying to justify the words of someone who is just that stupid)
I agree with your second sentence in substance - except for the implication that we need to choose. If you mean the sequence in which public investment should focus on them, I might agree. But you're being less specific with it: "not that - this."
You're also being a bit static in your "proven" "we know the technology works fine" approach. There is a potential value in more options and increased breadth of options. (Is there also a shadow presumption that dirigibles can't come to anything?)
I've gotten a bit gun-shy about this sort of thing, particularly in R&D. Enthusiasm for cutting the other priorities' funding so that one's own great hope can go forward has led to a general rhetorical emphasis on how the right thing, this thing right here, should be funded - picking winners in advance. What tends to follow is a number of lessons pointed to by public-funding sceptics on how the government can't pick winners accurately. Support for high levels of investment in a range of possibilities is much less common or influential.
There's a joke about a stupid CEO who read that 9 out of 10 R&D projects will fail: "We need to cut those 9 and only do the one." Distribute responsibility a bit and overlay our political landscape, and this comes close to being the dominant understanding of how public investment should be.
(Meanwhile, long-term research has dwindled to near nothing in private industry, as opposed to research geared toward immediate product development because of stockholder demand for short-term returns, so we are wrong to presume they are filling out the possibility spectrum... although this is usually missed by people who say that government shouldn't fund big science but merely unleash the private sector who do it more efficiently. A proper role of government, or at least a strongly arguable role, is to fill exactly this sort of incentive gap.)
Look at the debate over energy policy. A lot of winners have been picked. The emerging problems with the ethanol option have been well-covered. Continuing fratricidal opposition to "the wrong directions" being funded goes on more quietly. What I've been very impressed with, meanwhile, is how Congress pulled all funding for ITER this last year and I only found out about it by accident - I just happened to wonder how it was going. The EU and Japan fought over which of them would host the site and have to pay a full half of the cost, China and Japan and the other players are spending additional billions of their own building their own fusion research sites to tandem with ITER... but the fusion effort is not a Solution used as a billboard by any large group in the States - and so the line "your grandfather's energy of the future" became the dominant analysis in whether it should be pursued.
I can think of possible economic arguments against the success of dirigibles, but you didn't give one. Is there any reason why high-speed rail shouldn't go forward while dirigible development makes the attempt as well?
I think Matt Y is missing the big picture here. Dirigibles are awesome. Straight up awesome.
Bush would be the kind of HS teacher who shows "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" to prepare his kids for AP History.
Let me just note that helium is a nonrenewable resource and has an insane number of uses for which there are not really good alternatives. Liquid helium as a coolant comes to mind. Unless they fill this with something other than helium, i can't see this as a particularly good idea.
This comes up every once in a while. I remember seeing some 'artists conception' of an air-ship terminal in daily scholastic. That would be in the '50s. (the NINEteen 50s, smartasses) They're s'posed to solve the 'problem' of ground transportation--that superhighways and rails take up expensive space on the ground--leaving room for walk-able and bike-able urban living. Airships (zepelins) have a semi-rigid frame and aren't as susceptable to weather.
I agree with our host, rail technology is already so advanced there's really no reason no to pursue it for inter-city travel.
Large dirigibles aren't an alternative to fixed-wing aircraft or to high-speed rail; they're an alternative to cruise ships. Like a cruise ship, they're slow, so they'd take days to cross the Atalantic, or to go from New York to LA. Compared to their size they have a limited payload, so they're useless as freight haulers.
Even assuming away problems with vulnerability to weather and shortages in the helium supply, their only possible market niche is as luxury cruise vehicles for those rich enough to pay big for the (presumed) awesomeness of leisurely dirigible travel.
First of all, as all card-carrying nerds know, the idea of zeppelin travel is super cool.
second of all.... but there is no need for a second point!
Zeppelin travel is super cool- now, let's make it happen!
Maybe with balloons the Fall would play here again rather than just in England and Estonia.
Unless they fill this with something other than helium, i can't see this as a particularly good idea.
There's always hydrogen, which is plentiful, and reasonably cheap, and .... oh wait.
I assert that National Review Online has officially jumped the shark with this post. What say you?
Posted by calipygian | July 5, 2008 11:09 AM
I thought that the political version of that saying was now "punched the frog."
Except that with with Oklahoma and Texas natural gas fields starting to run out the world is also facing a helium shortage, since that is the only place it has been found in quantity.
Cranky
Everyone seems to be missing the main point which is the dirigibles are really really cool.
Nuclear powered dirigibles!
Yes! Of course, nuclear powered dirigibles would be need to be shielded, making them... lead zeppelins.
Horses for courses ... maybe there's a niche for things that do not fit easily in a rail freight container going somewhere that a barge can't get to.
For passenger surface travel, between ordinary regional rail, express inter-metro rail, genuine High Speed Rail, and when the land runs out ships and ground-effect aircraft of ships are too slow ... its hard to see even that much of a niche.
However much it seems mostly like its designed to sell issues of Popular Science/Mechanics, if it can get going competing on a level playing field for subsidies with cars and trucks, go for it. Every once in a while the Japanese seem to do OK having their government pick winners, but by and large our govt. seems to be teh suck at doing it ... there should be a broad competition for infrastructure funding based on energy saved per dollar total capital and operating cost, and if dirigibles can get a piece of that, more power to them.
Airships may be feasible for some freight purposes, but for passenger transportation they're always going to be limited to small niche markets like sightseeing.
I'd say that investing in proven, workable high-speed rail where we know the technology works fine and just has high star-up costs makes more sense.
I'd say that the chances of any significant expansion of high-speed rail in the United States are pretty close to zero. It's too expensive, too slow, and too inflexible.
I assert that National Review Online has officially jumped the shark with this post. What say you?
K-Lo is the shark!
Different applications entirely than rail.
The cool thing about dirigibles is, not only did they not work, but they have become dramatically less competitive with time. They are one of the few ideas which we can say has been totally tried and totally failed.
As far as I know, the only dirigibles that didn't get wrecked in flight were those that burned up. And they were awesomely hard to handle on the ground.
However, the Germans did experiment in the 30s with a cool dirigible shaped propeller-driven high-speed rail vehicle. In spite of being built by Germans, it worked about as well as you might expect. You can probably guess that this was one of Hitler's bright ideas.
Also, zeppelins are lethally vulnerable to storms -- as the US found out the hard way the last time we tried to use them.
Blimps, having flexible envelopes, are much less so -- but still, I imagine, somewhat vulnerable, as well as having a natural tendency to get blown seriously off course. I wonder about them for trans-ocean transportation, though -- we already know that airplane transport is much more energy-efficient than ship transport simply because of the lack of friction, and this might more than compensate for the amount of fuel that trans-oceanic blimps would need to compensate for being blown off course.
As far as I know, the only dirigibles that didn't get wrecked in flight were those that burned up.
Being burned up is much less likely if you are using helium as a lifting gas. And theoretically, a dirigible built with modern materials could be considerably stronger and lighter than those made in the 30's were. Modern engines develop much more power per unit of weight, so a new dirigible could fly faster. Also better weather data and communications could allow a dirigible to either avoid storms, fly over them, or worst case, arrange to be on the ground when they hit.
Having said all that I still doubt dirigibles are ever going to make a comeback.
The cool thing about dirigibles is, not only did they not work, but they have become dramatically less competitive with time. They are one of the few ideas which we can say has been totally tried and totally failed.
Intercity passenger rail in the United States, while not yet a "total" failure, is almost at that point.
There's a wonderful book -- twenty-five years-plus old now -- by John McPhee, The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed, that goes into the niches dirigibles and dirigible-lifting body hybrids might fill, and a successful attempt to test a prototype.
I tried to calculate how much fuel could be saved, per passenger, by flying a dirigible or a blimp across Atlantic.
I have a problem getting any savings. Allegedly, most of fuel at highway speed of a car is consumed by air resistance. So a dirigible would have to be (a) enormous, and (b) quite slow. However, if we build a mile long airship for 10 thousand passangers, it could indeed have a nuclear engine.
Another possibility would be to use a combination of wind energy and ethanol. The airship would be circumnavigating Northern Hemisphere using the jet stream, and ethanol would be provided to passengers to make them more patient (alternatively, they could be lulled to complete stupor by being provided with broadband access). Say, 4 days to get from North America to Europe, and 3 times longer for the return (through North Asia and Pacific), with a scant use of actual fuel.
Answering:
The cool thing about dirigibles is, not only did they not work, but they have become dramatically less competitive with time. They are one of the few ideas which we can say has been totally tried and totally failed.
Posted by Mixner | July 5, 2008 8:44 PM
Intercity passenger rail in the United States, while not yet a "total" failure, is almost at that point.
Reading Is Fundamental. To say that the US has ""totally tried" intercity rail is what they call a "obvious blatant lie".
Mind you, in the places where it has been "totally tried", it proved reasonably successful even in the age of ultra-cheap oil. As we pass into the transitional period of only moderately cheap oil and escalating costs of air travel, it is doing even better, in the countries where it was "totally tried".
BruceMcF,
To say that the US has ""totally tried" intercity rail is what they call a "obvious blatant lie".
Er, for a long time, railroad was the only form of motorized intercity passenger travel in the United States. So the claim that passenger rail has not been "totally tried" is what they call "nonsense."
Intercity passenger rail began to lose market share to cars, buses and airplanes because it simply could not compete on time, price or convenience with those other transportation modes. Its share is now so low, and it is now so uncompetitive, that it retains what tiny market share it still has only through massive government subsidies.
Posted by Mixner | July 6, 2008 3:59 PM
Intercity passenger rail began to lose market share to cars, buses and airplanes because it simply could not compete on time, price or convenience with those other transportation modes.
The claim was that the US came close to "totally trying and totally failing". And since the plain fact is that since the 1920's, there has been more subsidy from government of all levels for cars, buses and airplanes than for rail, the plain fact is that the claim is simply a lie.
Indeed, the last two times that the US "totally tried" to promote rail, in the 1800's and during WWII, they totally succeeded.
BruceMcF,
The claim was that the US came close to "totally trying and totally failing".
It not only "totally tried," but for a long time rail had a monopoly. Rail hasn't yet "totally failed," but it's very close to doing so. It would already have totally failed were it not for decades of massive government subsidizes that have allowed Amtrak to maintain the tiny market share it still has.
And since the plain fact is that since the 1920's, there has been more subsidy from government of all levels for cars, buses and airplanes than for rail, the plain fact is that the claim is simply a lie.
You invent your "plain facts" out of thin air. You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support these claims of fact.
Posted by Mixner | July 6, 2008 4:50 PM
It not only "totally tried," but for a long time rail had a monopoly. Rail hasn't yet "totally failed," but it's very close to doing so.
Any claim that the US has pursued a policy of promoting passenger rail over passenger car and bus transport at any time since the 1920's other than World War II is simply a lie. Any claim that the US has pursued a policy of promoting rail usage over passenger air transport at any time since WWII is simply a lie.
So in making the claim that the US has come close to "totally trying" to promote passenger rail, you are simply lying.
Whether it was delusion or an effort at deliberate deception of the under-informed, is, of course, nothing that can be determined through inspection of the text.
I have seen how you operate if numbers are introduced, but if you admit that the original statement you made was simply a lie, and present a sum total of passenger rail subsidies for a given decade that you will stand behind based on publicly available data, I'm happy to find the federal, state and/or local subsidies for car, bus and air transport in excess of your sum total.
OTOH, until you admit that your original statement was simply a lie, why would I go to the trouble?
Trains require tracks. If we're really going to ramp up passenger rail, we need to build a lot more tracks for them to run on, or we need to route rail freight away from metropolitan areas: delays caused by freight are frequent on the commuter rail line I ride, and that appears to be true elsewhere. Laying new tracks will be costly and take a long time, and routing freight away from metropolitan areas is going to be very difficult and will probably cause prices for goods to jump.
The big problem I can see is the cost per passenger per trip of blimps or zeppelins versus rains. You have to be able to get things so that the airship ride is comparable in cost to a commuter train ride. This isn't true now, especially since things like the Zeppelin NT don't carry too many passengers.
Power is an issue, too, though it'll be less of one if they are solar-powered. You can't totally rely on solar power, but you could keep an engine that runs on something else for the times when there isn't power.
This won't work for every city, but it could work for Chicago. A blimp or zeppelin run from, say, Naperville to a landing strip built as an add-on to Navy Pier would work pretty well.
BruceMcF,
Still waiting for you to produce evidence to support your assertion that "since the 1920's, there has been more subsidy from government of all levels for cars, buses and airplanes than for rail." Do you have any evidence for this assertion or are you just making it up?
Before his recent "successes" with Grizzly Man and Rescue Dawn, Werner Herzog languished in unpromising and usually unyielding projects. One of them, The White Diamond, is about exploring a rain forest in a 2 man dirigible.
Comments closed July 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Therefore we desperately need the zeppetrain. Giant flying lighter than air trains would make everyone happy.
Posted by El Cid | July 5, 2008 11:00 AM