this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
193 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
71842 readers
4814 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly? I would love to take a 2-day trip to London on an airship. That sounds like a great adventure. You're not on a ship, so you don't get seasick, and you're not on a plane, so there's plenty of room to move around.
FYI you can get motion sick in aerial vehicles, including blimps.
I have a few flight hours at the controls of a Cessna-152 (never did took it all the way to an Amateur Pilot License because it's a pretty expensive hobby, at least in Europe) and still remember just how bad the first few flights were until I got used to it: in a small plane you feel every little shitty-shit updraft/downdraft/windshear caused by the most stupid of things (say, the wind hitting the boundary of a forest or the asphalt of a car park heated by the sun more than the surrounding area).
Lets just say I was green in more ways than one in those first couple of flights.
It didn't help that the arfield where I did my training was near enough a major international airport and we weren't allowed to go above 3000 feet unless quite far way from the airfield, because of the Terminal Approach Ways for landings and takeoffs in that airport.
Granted, the bigger the aircraft the less the "up and down and wiggle it all around" feeling of flying is, but it's still quite surprising just how bad the damn thing is on a perfectly normal day if you're only 1 km or less from the ground.
Did you take a look at the cabin? Seems in line with something like a private jet.
That's Pathfinder 1. Pathfinder 3 is supposed to be much bigger. And the Hindenburg had cabins for sleeping, so there's no reason these couldn't be equipped with that sort of space.
I think you forgot about the shareholders.
If they could, shareholders would liquify passengers prior to boarding
So that's how the transporter pads got greenlit.
Oh, if they actually manage to run a passenger line for a little while I'll try to go for a ride on it - you know, just to see it before they go bankrupt.
But that's the thing, it's only attractive as an "adventure" or publicity stunt (I can see a short-lived market for "influencers"), kind of like taking passenger rail in the US - it's fun to ride the train when you can afford multiple days of travel time. The difference is, freight rail is practical, useful and economically viable and pays the maintenance cost of the rail lines. This gasbag won't ever be useful in that sense, and it won't ever have value as a regular commuter vehicle.
The only practical use I can see for this is if you need to stay in the air over a particular area for an extended time - maybe an observation platform? but you could just put cameras on a smaller, cheaper balloon...
None of the proposed use cases make sense.
This is a farcical pipe dream. How would it respond? It can't carry enough weight to be useful, and a helicopter would be faster and more flexible for delivering medical personnel or extracting victims. If there's one thing you want in emergency response, it's speed. And you certainly wouldn't take this thing anywhere near a recently erupted volcano or a hurricane because the air currents would be crazy hazardous for a lighter-than-air vehicle.
You could make all those arguments about cruise ships, yet they still exist. At least this will be more environmentally friendly
Cruise ships are more about the amenities on board. Not sure how many amenities you could get on an airship because of the weight. So it would be a two days boring as hell trip and most people aren't going to give up the vacay time to sit around and do nothing.
Right, so we need holodecks! Someone convince Bezos or Musk that they are feasible "in five years," or "next year."
I mean... if you have some idea for creating the kind of matter/energy conversion technology needed for a holodeck you'd probably end up richer than both of them combined.
Yes, and I could see some equivalent to a cruise line possibly, but that's really it... there's no practical use for this, only tourist stuff.
Also cruise ships are like floating hotels with hundreds of rooms, with giant shopping malls and resorts attached. You don't get any of that on an airship because there isn't enough space or carrying capacity.
i bet they would milk the available space for every inch like they do on planes lol
They won't if they want to keep any benefit compared to airplanes
what are the benefits?
IIRC blimps are hard to work with
What's the benefit of a cruise ship when planes are so much faster?
Its not always about purely practical concerns
The benefit of a cruise ship is that you can fit a massive hotel, shopping mall, resort and maybe even theme park rides on it.