I am not qualified in this sort of area but have a few ideas. Why must a large vehicle like this ever land? Surely taking on freight or offloading it could be done by lowering it on a tether without the vessel interacting with the ground turbulence or approaching dangerous obstacles?
If you can drop a truck on a parachute or capture a re-entry vehicle with a helicopter (http://www.arctus-spacecraft.com/) this shouldn't be too much of a chore.
Helicopters or something similar can ferry crew and plenty of maintainance can be done as well in the air as on the ground, judging by the scaffolding needed anyway.
Why should landing be so necessary?
Prepositioning only requires stuff to get up, be shifted and put down again. If landing the whole thing is so good then why didn't Mike Collins walk on the moon in 1969?

Posted by: PowerBill at February 24, 2008 06:03 PM

GO FOR IT. OF COURSE SOMETHING THAT IS COMMON SENSE IN IT'S APPROACH AND USE WON'T BE USED BY THE POWERS THAT BE.
SEMPER FI

Posted by: DONALD HEINKE, Sr. at February 16, 2008 06:34 PM

I'm sorry,I'm wrapping my mind around the concept of a convertible(the Rinspeed sQuba) that you can drive underwater.Those Swiss sure are smart.If Ted Kennedy had had a car like this,he'd have been president & not a murderer.
The idea of an airship that can perform ASW & mine clearing is a great idea.Like someone said before,it can stay in the air for days instead of hours & there can be bunks & a kitchen in it for the crew.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 16, 2008 03:55 AM

Why not? At 60,000 or 70,000 ft. Kevlar with a low heat and radar signature. Time on station days not hours.

Posted by: TMC at February 15, 2008 05:10 PM

The parasail powered cargo ship makes more sense than any LTA. How about individual armed hot air baloons powered by all of these LTA advocates privete and government. About as practical

Posted by: R.D. McDowell at February 15, 2008 04:23 PM

We ought to be happy that lighter than air craft already fill some niches:

balloons: recreation

blimps: advertising, sporting events

I think LTA could fill a niche in tourism, why it hasn't caught on I don't know, perhaps passenger capacity? I'm sure there is a market out there for LTA service in the Caribbean.

Posted by: Ken at February 15, 2008 11:35 AM

The blimps can be of commercial use for transport. They will serve as early warning and as communications transponders. They can be weaponed and robotic operated. A few techies might serve on board for maint. Blimps will serve as inexpensive platforms for surveillance and other multi task executions. Perhaps the blimps can be lift off transport for emergency back up satellite launches in the event killer satellite knock out sat com navnet and essential gps systems. Blimps will serve as fuel savers and help forecast weather and other sightings. They may provide early warning for oceanic and terrestrial activities. Blimps could help to intercept any undeclared enemy war scenarios such as another Pearl harbor. They can be used to launch drones for target practice and NORAD response capabilities. If something plans to get close like a silent service enemy bent on knocking out Manhattan ; a blimp and the civil air patrol might be an extra American advantage. We could prevent WWW III ? Don't throw out your Annapolis sextant and charts mates.

Posted by: sciampopscibuff1963 at February 15, 2008 09:09 AM

500 tons lift is probably out of reach for now, but with 40 tons it is doable, and would make a great antisub platform with sonobouys and torpedoes. People forget the Akron, which was a Navy airship and aircraft carrier which carried four lightweight fighter in 1929. Blimps were also feared antisub platforms during 1942-44. The navy operated over 100 K-class blimps. They carried depth charges, sonobouys, MAD gear, surface search radar and had 24 hours on station with a cruise speed of 50 knots. Not quite as fast as an airplane, not as heavily armed as a ship, but somewhere in between. Later, the Air Force in the 1960's built some early AWACS planes in giant blimps.

This would also make a great communications relay or perhaps COD service if outfitted with a winch.

AWACS- as long as you are radiating, why not get a platform with time on station measured in days, not hours? I'm sure there are other apps, too.

Why not put a big cellphone relay and float it over a damaged city? instant voice and data network over New Orleans after a flood.

Mine clearance- could you tow a sled with one of these?

Posted by: Rix at February 15, 2008 05:26 AM

Saw this on Trendhunter.com site some months ago OR mid 2007.
Cool concept.
Great for Slow Heavy Airlifting mode only.
NOT supersonic.

Posted by: stephen russell at February 14, 2008 09:34 PM

ak,
My problems with a personal jet pack is how do you keep your butt or your legs from catching on fire from the exhaust when you fly with it,how do you control & maneuver it in flight,& is it really wise to get into a gun fight with a jet pack full of rocket fuel on your back........oh wait,you were kidding,never mind.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 14, 2008 05:23 PM

Which will be first?
a) practical airship
b) hovercar
c) moonbase
d) personal jetpack

They *do* appear to make sense. Just like last time, and the time before, and the time before, and....

Posted by: ak at February 14, 2008 03:51 PM

"So... Is this the technology that people observed in Texas a couple weeks ago? See the January 24th post."

My thoughts exactly Dave. Initially DARPA managers said they planned to use plasma propulsion with their giant airship. Details at http://astroroach.blogspot.com/2008/01/could-stephenville-ufo-be-walrus.html

Posted by: AstroRoach at February 14, 2008 03:40 PM

I also remember that SkyCat had a proposal for a SkyCat-1000 "Arsenal Ship" that could carry & launch cruise missiles.Some people may roll their eyes at such an idea,but is it any more absurd or impractical than a propeller driven bomber(Tu-95 Bear)? I do however understand that there is less of a chance that the Tu-95 would be blown off course than for an airship.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 14, 2008 03:10 PM

Der Spiegel had an article about a French designer proposing an airship "hotel" in the shape of a flying white whale.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,533281,00.html

I have to agree with a previous post though,they are always proposing new types of airships,but then the companies planning them seem to disappear & nothing ever comes of the airships. I'm totally for the military use of them,knowing full well that they have to be operated well behind friendly lines.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 14, 2008 02:57 PM

Airships are not feasible for any sort of duty where they could hypothetically take fire. There are some applications for lighter than air vehicles in combat missions but none of the vehicles in those applications really deserve to be called airships. No technology in the foreseeable future could make an airship feasible in direct combat. They have to be massive in size and very light in construction. No amount of RAM could possibly make them stealthy, and you cannot armor the helium compartment and still be light enough to float.

The place where they hold promise is carrying heavy cargo over long distance much faster than cargo ships but much more economically than airplanes. The Ekranoplan doesn't fit the bill here because, like an airplane, it is expensive to maintain and keep fueled. The idea of an airship is that it doesn't need to devote massive amounts of power to generating lift, it just floats on its own like a ship does in the water, leaving the propulsion to be devoted entirely to moving it laterally.

The problem though still remains how to control such a large, light vehicle when it gets near the ground.

Posted by: ADyer at February 14, 2008 02:18 PM

A ground-effect aircraft would be much safer than an airship

those fly over the mountains alot or over cities?

Posted by: James at February 14, 2008 01:37 PM

Reassigning airship authority would be a quite trivial adjustment in the Key West Accord.

didnt that run out?

also if you took a more tiriangular frame made it alittle more airodinamic you might get more speed and lift.(also i remember reading how the bulbus things on whales tales and fins create more lift.)Like campbell said a rigid hilled airship could do many more things than a soft shell including with the right power setup anti aircraft and missile interception. When the light weight stronger materials come ito being they could be ungrade to do even more.

also think of the industrial potental no more huge ocean liners carrying freight to the shore to be carried off by fleets of 18 wheelers and such. go from japan to texas on a streight shot no more panama canal. how much are we paying in fuel for the mraps to be delivered by air?

as well as in the industrial zone i used to work at a lumber company theyd love a small robust version for everything from delivering supplies to logging sites, carring timber, delivering and setting up logging operations in remote areas without having to destroy places for roads. also in delivering construction materials from site to site in citties! think about it no more traffic constraints!!

plus coast guard for search, and rescue sub hunting, scientific reaserch, my god the applications are endless! as for the problems of wind well like the man said thrust vectoring computer controlled.

and last this doesnt need to be a one service thing thats stupid as hell and no generals involved either for that matter no admerals!!

Posted by: James at February 14, 2008 01:35 PM

So... Is this the technology that people observed in Texas a couple weeks ago? See the January 24th post.

Posted by: Dave at February 14, 2008 01:34 PM

A ground-effect aircraft would be much safer than an airship.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing-In-Ground_effect_vehicle

Crashing airship = "oh the humanity"
Crashing GEA = surface ship

DOD should save their money and just by the blueprints for the Ekranoplan.

Posted by: G at February 14, 2008 01:08 PM

I can see a few commercial, paramilitary, and military niches for airships.

Most prominently, airships make sense for large cargo delivery in roadless areas (e.g. Alaska, inter-island transport in Hawaii, Northern Canada, the Australian outback, interior South America, Africa, Antarctica, Western Pakistan) with larger volumes/lower costs than cargo planes and without the need to transfer shipments onto and off of ferries to ground transporation. An airship is, for example, the perfect way to get building materials to the site for your fishing cottage on a lake a hundred miles from the nearest road.

Indeed, airships are a good competitor with ferries in almost any application where the ultimate destination is not right at the coast (e.g. from Great Britain to Ireland). They also make sense as an alternative to short surface ship trips like those from North Africa to Europe.

Tourism, particularly eco-tourism is another positive niche where airships are used. Indeed, airships make the notion of having large roadless areas without removing roadless areas entirely from availability to the general public much more viable.

In a related notion, airships could greatly mute environmental opposition to natural resource exploration and extraction efforts in isolated, otherwise pristine areas. A fenced in 40 acre site with an underground uranium or gold or copper mine in the middle of nowhere is much less objectionable if hundreds of acres don't have to be cleared to provide access in and out of the location, and if temporary housing and equipment can be dropping in and dropped out. (The analysis is harder for oil and surface mining of coal which is high volume/low value).

Airships are a sensible alternative to building new intercity passenger rail lines or expanding highway in high population density areas (e.g. Florida, the I-70 corridor through the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific Coast) where obtaining rights of way for new surface corridors would be expense. I suspect that airship service could be set up for costs comparable to Amtrak (admittedly not a great economic model), more rapid and reliable service than Amtrak due to a lack of competition with freight rail, and similar spaciousness/tourist view virtues.

Airships are quite attractive for civilian search and rescue missions (on land in and coastal areas), for delivery of supply packages to locations foreign and domestic that have experienced disasters that disrupt transportation routes, and for mass evacuations (a la Katrina). One can similarly imagine an airship outfitted to be a mobile hospital (similar to the Navy's two hospital ships) for use in disaster areas foreign and domestic becoming a fixture in the American consciousness and symbol of American goodwill worldwide. They would be perfect for the Air National Guard and Coast Guard.

In military applications, one plausible use is as an alternative to fast sea lift/military convoy for shipments too large for airlift to be practicable with deliveries made only to behind the front lines destinations (e.g. from Hawaii or Japan to Kuwait).

The other plausible military use is as a localized alternative to spy satellites and communication satellites in places where allied forces control the air.

Of course, an airship's modest speed and manuverability, large size, and lack of armor makes it a poor choice for battle zones, any place where air superiority has not been secured, and places where surface to air missiles are a worry.

In the civilian world, a cooperative initiative of the Department of Transportation, Department of Homeland Security (Coast Guard and FEMA), the Department of Agriculture (since it would serve rural areas and roadless public lands), the Department of Interior (due to public lands service), and the Environmental Protection Agency, probably in an independent agency strucutre similar to Amtrak (which has had great bureacratic staying power despite poor delivery of services for reasons to a great extent due to the inherited system).

The regular Air Force seems like an agency whose primary missions are ill matched with these niches. Reassigning airship authority would be a quite trivial adjustment in the Key West Accord. In the military, the Army and the Air National Guard would probably be the best lead agencies.

Posted by: ohwilleke at February 14, 2008 12:53 PM

I will make another comment, regarding funding:

In 2004, in response to the DARPA solicitation for airship companies/ideas...I attended their first conference in Arlington (Wash.DC). I was told then, (as closely as I can quote it)

"...you may be Gods' gift to the world of airship design, but you're not going to receive funding, because we have no base of confidence in your ability to carry through with the project...."

Well....I am, dammmit!

Since then, only one simple demonstration ship has been built, from one of the two companies that received approximately $3.5 Million each....and "walrus" was cancelled, to soon. with no real competition.

That demo ship is a POS....it is still A BLIMP, although as if three were combined.

STOP BUILDING BLIMPS! DO NOT BUILD "ZEPPELINS"!

please, send notice to whomever you know in the circle of power/money in our military branches....get more airship work done.

Not strictly my own....(though that would be nice)....but I still encourage OTHER airship work as well......

Darrell Campbell
Turtle Airships

Posted by: campbell at February 14, 2008 12:35 PM

The biggest problem I foresee is that the operation of lighter-than-air craft (airships) for military operations is that it requires complete and utter dominance of the surrounding airspace. If someone can launch an an S300 or lob an R27/77 at it there is not much this thing can do. It will make an unbelievable target on any radar screen and won't be able to get out of its own way. We cannot afford enough airframes for dedicated SEAD and/or air superiority (F15/F22), but yet assume that we will be able to loiter these things around for days? Color me very skeptical.

Posted by: Bob at February 14, 2008 12:31 PM

I to have seen the announcements for the return of the airship through the years, and the problem has always been about funding.
The Air Force have never really funded development of this technology. The Navy did have a program (I am unsure where it is now) but it was never truly taken seriously (the "wings" of a blimp pilot were one wing, not two).....
The issue with Airships has always been one of control and vulnerability.
I would like to suggest that with:
-Fly by wire control, the pilot tells the aircraft where he/she wants to go, and the computer gets it there
-Vectoring thrust. If they can make a heavier than air turbo-jet hover, they can make a lighter than air craft stay still in bad weather and land/takeoff without issue
-Carbon Fiber structure the craft can be very light, and very strong
-Stealth technology to make it much less vulnerable.
-and finally computer controlled counter measures against aircraft and missiles
That this technology has real potential.
The Army needs ways to get heavy equipment to places...fast.
The new ship designs that are out there (fast ferries and such) can do it, but that would require the Navy and Army to work together. I am not going to hold my breath on that one......
Plus the Navy has a hard enough time building there own Gator freighters.....
Ships can only get to the coast, where a lighter than air ship can go anywhere we control the airspace.....
I am not saying there is not a lot of work to be done (screwed up and overcharged by contractors), but the fact they can loiter for weeks or transport huge amounts of freight make it a configuration worth funding.
At least a prototype……

Posted by: Dennis at February 14, 2008 11:52 AM

Oh the humanity!......

(I only posted that to get it behind us, now back to this very cogent discussion)

Posted by: Group W at February 14, 2008 11:47 AM

How many articals heralding "The Return of the Airship" have I seen in the past 20 years? 100? 200?

And still I see no blimps wallowing around outside my window.

Posted by: Wes at February 14, 2008 11:20 AM

I have seen various forms of lighter than air aircraft come and go. It seems the major issue, as Campbell indicated, is the affect of high winds on these craft. That is what doomed the use of airships during WWII. And it continues to do so. You can always create jettys for allowing ships to go into port during high winds. This isn't the case for airships. Therefore, they are not inherently reliable enough for military applications.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 14, 2008 10:34 AM

well Hi there. Kudos to my competitors at Aeros; they've come a long way and are heading in an (almost) correct direction.

Their craft pictured, the Lockheed Martin P-791, the ATC "skycat"....all proprose to use a type of hovercraft landing system. It is fundementaly flawed; a hovercraft operates only because of the WEIGHT of the craft forces blown-in air to vent out the underside of the craft.

Hello? an airship does not have the weight...

and so called "hybrid airships" are minimally heavy....they become nothing more than huge, lightweight airplanes...susceptible to the same surface winds that even now plague much heavier airplanes in landings.

Even if the airship will be able to change its' bouyancy using engines to compress helium into so called "DARPA tanks", it will not be enough to offset the huge SAIL area that the airship hull presents when in ground contact.

Airship flight is simple physics; not even a small aerodynamic challenge. Put enough helium into a container, and you can lift any container.

The greatest hurdle is the ground handling.

Airships, PROPERLY DESIGNED using some simple common sense, offer a paradigm shift in military applications in many roles.

I welcome serious discussions about airships.......

Posted by: campbell at February 14, 2008 10:02 AM