• @bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    406 months ago

    Yup, no one is going to hop an airship when they can get somewhere in a fraction of the time. The only difference might be cost, but spinning up a zeppelin industry likely couldn’t compete in terms of ticket price compared to jets.

    • @Garbanzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      216 months ago

      If they have a future it’ll be moving stuff, not people. If it’s faster than a container ship and can carry more than a plane then it could have a valuable niche.

      • @bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        166 months ago

        They also have a potential advantage in moving large things.

        For instance wind turbine blades, which are quite difficult to move by trucks. Airships don’t require infrastructure for the transport or delivery and could rope it down to sites with difficult terrain.

        • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I would think a large team of purpose-built remote controlled quadcopters would be cheaper, faster, and more maneuverable than a zeppelin for that kind of application. Assuming we don’t have to go huge distances (say, from an inland port or a railway to final destination).

          Maybe better for last-mile. Zeppelin could probably get you close but unless you’re building in a large open field, it’ll be difficult to get it exactly where it needs to be.

          • @bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Sure that would be a solution too. An airship would have an advantage in not using energy to stay up, so it could theoretically fly very long distances with heavy weight, where drones would need constant energy depending on both the weight and distance.

            I’m not saying it is a good idea in practice, but theoretically it might make sense.