Is Sergey Brin Building the World's Biggest, Climate-Friendly Aircraft? (sfgate.com) 85
Google co-founder Sergey Brin is the ninth-richest person in the world — and he loves airships. Now new details have emerged about Brin's secretive airship company, LTA Research and Exploration (which stands for "Lighter Than Air"). SFGate reports:
Although back in 2017 the word on the street was that Brin intended the aircraft to serve at least in part as a luxurious "air yacht" for his family and friends, the LTA website states only humanitarian goals: "LTA airships will have the ability to complement — and even speed up — humanitarian disaster response and relief efforts, especially in remote areas that cannot be easily accessed by plane and boat due to limited or destroyed infrastructure." Unlike jet planes, airships have the ability to land or deliver goods almost anywhere.
In addition, the LTA site says that their airships are intended to serve as a zero emissions alternative to airplanes, used for both shipping goods and moving people. Climate change has made airships sound more appealing to scientists in recent years — while slower than airplanes, airships are faster than cargo ships and have fewer emissions than both boats and planes. In fact, airships produce 80% to 90% fewer emissions than conventional aircraft.
They're going to be huge — and they're not going to be cheap. "It's going to be massive on a grand scale," a source told the Guardian in 2017, estimating that Brin's airship would be about 650 feet long... A recent job description posted on the LTA website revealed the company's plans to build a 1.5-megawatt hydrogen fuel cell propulsion system.
TechCrunch reports that one airship — named Pathfinder 1 — has already been built, and could be ready to launch from Silicon Valley as soon as this year.
In addition, the LTA site says that their airships are intended to serve as a zero emissions alternative to airplanes, used for both shipping goods and moving people. Climate change has made airships sound more appealing to scientists in recent years — while slower than airplanes, airships are faster than cargo ships and have fewer emissions than both boats and planes. In fact, airships produce 80% to 90% fewer emissions than conventional aircraft.
They're going to be huge — and they're not going to be cheap. "It's going to be massive on a grand scale," a source told the Guardian in 2017, estimating that Brin's airship would be about 650 feet long... A recent job description posted on the LTA website revealed the company's plans to build a 1.5-megawatt hydrogen fuel cell propulsion system.
TechCrunch reports that one airship — named Pathfinder 1 — has already been built, and could be ready to launch from Silicon Valley as soon as this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with it. (Score:5, Funny)
What 1%er doesn't want his own airship?
It's way cooler than a helicopter for letting people know you're arriving.
Re: (Score:1)
What 1%er doesn't want his own airship?
It's way cooler than a helicopter for letting people know you're arriving.
Yes, nothing says a Need for Speed like stepping out of your Ferrari and onto your blimp.
"Brin's airship would be about 650 feet long..."
Load engineers might need to recalculate that. Not sure that's big enough to hold his ego. Or lift it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, nothing says a Need for Speed like stepping out of your Ferrari and onto your blimp.
If your blimp has a 5-star meal waiting for you and your guests then what's the hurry?
(followed by a large line of cocaine and four hookers, according to taste)
Re: (Score:2)
The newer airship designs mostly boast speeds around 100 mph. Jets typically cruise around 600 mph.
To translate this into terms that the target audience recognize, suppose Joe Highflier wants to travel from the Bay Area or Noo Yawk to South by Southwest. On a jet, this takes 2.5 to 3 hours -- enough time to eat a nice meal and arrive for the evening's parties. On a blimp, this takes 15-plus hours -- enough time to eat that five-star meal, watch the Snyder cut of Justice League, strangle the pretentious w
Re: (Score:2)
SF - Austin
* Airbus 320: 3.5 hours (return 4 hours) nonstop
* Highway: 26 hours + fuel & maintenance stops
* Greyhound: 46 hours
* Amtrak: 46.5 hours
A quick search says the A320 cruising speed is 511mph, max is 537mph.
It's probably in TFA or these comments, but I wonder how these airships handle turbulence.
I'm somewhat impressed Amtrak will almost equal driving, if you take in a motel stay, once high speed in California happens. Not bad, considering the state of rail travel in the southwest. And note that
Re: Good luck with it. (Score:3)
It is a bit crazy that Greyhound and Amtrak use almost the same amount of time for that. Amtrak is slower than highway too.
Anyway. Airship armadas could work for freight or personal travel to specific destinations. I think wind factor is most problematic when landing or taking off, but it is manageable like it was before (or I guess less hard with new innovations). They would not travel as high as jet planes either, and there is more freedom to choose the height according to conditions.
Amtrak is slower because of SF-LA (Score:2)
Amtrak doesn't serve SF. So the Amtrak reservation includes two buses and a train totaling 13 hours to get from SF to LA. And then it's a 33 hour straight shot from LA to Austin. The LA to Austin trip is comparable to the bus or about 50% longer than a highway drive.
Re: (Score:3)
> once high speed rail in California happens. Not bad
ROTFL. Yeah after another 18 trillion bucks they'll have six miles of high speed rail actually operating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing apples to oranges. Compare private blimps to private jets, and commercial aviation to other commercial aviation. You can't land an airship in your back yard, your blimp still needs FAA approval and air control clearance, and you bypass the TSA by going through the general aviation sector.
Re: Good luck with it. (Score:1)
Compare private blimps to private jets
Better yet, compare them to something that doesn't require a runway.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Just get a Pilatus. Sure you still require a runway, technically, but there's likely to be something acceptable pretty close to anywhere a rich private jet type is likely to want to go.
No need for that (Score:2)
Four to six people for as little as $1,500 to six thousand. A little larger plane for two to three times that amount. So figure one to three thousand per person. Which is pretty close to the price of a first class ticket on an airline. Those prices are shorter flights.
People who would consider owning an $80 million air
Re: (Score:2)
It does raise an interesting issue with a blimp and international travel. Pr
Re: (Score:2)
If you own a luxury blimp, I'm pretty sure it's "drive my Ferrari into the onboard garage".
Re: (Score:2)
What 99%er doesn't want his own airships? Airships are awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, me for one. I've no real use for an airship.
Now, my own spaceship? Damn straight I want one. Alas, I'll be in the ground a long time before that possibility can be realized. And I'm not even thinking "spaceship" like Star Trek. I'll settle for something that can go to Mars and back....
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on how old you are...
NASA appears to be edging towards getting serious about building gas stations in orbit with commodity fuel availability. Once that happens you could have a launch provider put your spaceship in orbit, fill it up at the SpaceX station, buy some snacks, and off you go.
If Starship works out, that kind of thing is possibly within reach of the type of person who spends $80 million on an airship. Racing yachts around the moon. And if you feel like being shoved in a can for nine mont
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopters are capable of only several hours of operation and have a range of about 500 miles. They're also noisy as hell inside. Not really specifications you want in an "air-yacht".
As far as billionaire yachts go, if it really cost around $150 million, that's actually pretty typical.
Re: Good luck with it. (Score:2)
Am I the only one thinking of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [slashdot.org]â>Gulliverâ(TM)s travels ?
Re: (Score:2)
What 1%er doesn't want his own airship?
1%? I'm not sure the US could cope with 3 million airships.
You mean 0.01%? That is 30,000 people, and there are around 13,000 private jets in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing between those two already exists, and it's called "rail". In most areas, rail is electrified, so this isn't a competitor for "environmentalism". In the rest, it would be easier to make it electrified than create giant airships.
Re: (Score:2)
And the irony is that utilisation of rail freight (not passengers) is one area in which the USA beats a lot of the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually a matter of prioritisation. Rail is highly limited in throughput, so you must prioritise loads.
Here in Europe, we prioritise passenger traffic. As opposed to US, where freight is prioritised instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Rail can't go into disaster areas (Fukashima, for example) or back country. Rail requires ahead-of-time preparation to serve an area and it is subject to disruption at any point along its length.
I'm not saying airships are a good idea, but rail definitely isn't the in-between solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it gets awfully damp if you're not careful where you go.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with it. (Score:5, Informative)
"Helium is also a greenhouse gas"
Not true. Source?
"so it just sits around the atmosphere forever"
Also wrong. Source?
"If it requires hydrogen, it's technically environmentally friendly"
Completely wrong.
I'm guessing you haven't had coffee yet.
Re: (Score:3)
If it requires helium, it's not environmentally friendly (Helium is also a greenhouse gas, and unlike Hydrogen, doesn't react, so it just sits around the atmosphere forever.)
Helium is not a greenhouse gas - it conducts heat very well, almost as good as hydrogen, six times better than air and nine times better than CO2, and it's monatomic and does not react with other gases.
Helium also does not sit in the atmosphere forever - it's so light that it regularly escapes the atmosphere by floating to the top, and then being carried away by the solar wind.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a limited supply of helium on Earth https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Helium certainly doesn't sit around forever. If it did Earth would look more like Neptune.
Except heavy lift choppers... (Score:2)
....can fill that niche now unlike 100 years ago.
Re: Good luck with it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Landing is the difficult bit with airships. It will be interesting to see what solution they have come up with.
Back in the day airships coming off moorings, getting blown into things as they tried to land or crashing into the ground were some of the most common types of accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Engineering and materials have progressed dramatically in the last century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A blimb is not what people name an airship. :D
But I envy you for having piloted one
Re: (Score:2)
Skytanic (Score:2)
CAPTAIN: All aboard for safety and adventure on the rigid airship Excelsior, where the pampered luxury of a cruise ship meets the smoothness of modern air travel. Yes, when you fly Excelsior, you're flying in style and safety.
TIMMY: Safety? But isn't hydrogen flammable?
CAPTAIN: And how, Timmy. That's why Excelsior is filled with safe, natural helium. Why, it's actually fl
Airships come around every 10 years or so (Score:3)
We had a few companies here in the UK that were going to change the aviation market as we know it. Then they vanished. The only difference with this one is its got a fuel cell. Big deal.
There are very good reasons fixed wing aircraft replaced airships back in the 1920s and in those days they didn't even have to worry about very expensive and limited helium supplies either.
Re: (Score:2)
We had a few companies here in the UK that were going to change the aviation market as we know it. Then they vanished. The only difference with this one is its got a fuel cell. Big deal.
The only difference with this one is money. Gobs and gobs of money. Buckets and baskets of money. If the engineers designing the thing want a nap, they just mound up some of the money in a nice pile under their desk. LTA will have no trouble building a working airship.
YouTube, in their infinite wisdom, has just recently been suggesting luxury yacht tour videos to me, for some reason. I watched one. It had a salon on board. It had a spa complete with sauna. It had hand laid marble mosaic floors. It
HAV Airlander (Score:2)
Sounds like pure nonsense (Score:2)
So yeah.
Maybe there is a commercial application for a drone ship that can carrying goods slowly using
Re: (Score:3)
The Hinderburg could carry something like 13 tonnes payload and even if we assume the airframe & engines of a modern blimp are lighter and it can carry 30 tonnes, that's no better than a modern military aircraft. And regardless of lifting capacity it's going to be slow as fuck to actually get from wherever it is at the time, to wherever it needs to pick up supplies to wherever it needs to drop them.
I mean yes but also not exactly?
Obviously if you're going point to point with tons of infrastructure, you'
Re: (Score:2)
Billionaires with so much money they don't know what to do with it, so they throw it at rockets and airships and vaccine programmes and whatever else they think is cool at the time. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes you get Virgin Galactic.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to deliver a bunch of stuff reasonably quickly to an area not set up already for an aircraft, then this is your machine.
Most populated places on earth will have an airport or airstrip nearby where planes and helicopters can land and form the nexus of a relief operation. Or a port with nearby activity. You'd have to be living super remotely for it to have application or purpose and even there I wonder if it does because a giant blimp still has to have somewhere to safely land / moor itself.
Spruce Goose (Score:1)
Will he call it the Spruce Goose?
I have figured a long time that such a project would eventually be where Elon Musk ends up.
Train (Score:3)
The most climate friendly aircraft is an electric train.
I don't think he's building this primarily for humanitarian reasons, I think $150m could be used far more efficiently if you want to deliver a couple $m of food.
Sounds like a pet project with very poor shareholder value.
Ait travel 100% isn't environmentally friendly ever.
Re: (Score:3)
The most climate friendly aircraft is an electric train.
The minor problem with trains is that you need to build the infrastructure to a destination before you can send the train there.
So there is a use case for large airships, but whether that use case is profitable is a different question.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that it could be used in emergencies doesn't fly! The thing about airships is they are slow and short distance, the thing with emergencies is they are typically a long way away. And the problem is already solved - helicopters.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that it could be used in emergencies doesn't fly!
Nice goalpost move there!
The thing about airships is they are slow and short distance, the thing with emergencies is they are typically a long way away. And the problem is already solved - helicopters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Max range: 200 nm
Cruising speed: 91kn
Max load: ~10 ton
And you won't get to max out all three of those values at once.
Now go and compare that to the specs of this airship. At the very least they are talking about a 900nm range - that "short" distance is already 4 times your fancy helicopter's range
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. It's not like airships ever crossed the Atlantic or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
They are faster than a ship.
Are not sea locked.
Can go every where.
And certainly have no real range restriction.
They go as far as any ship or plane goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For an airship, you got to build the landing facilities beforehand also. You cannot just land an airship anywhere you wish. It just doesn't work like that. (Spoiler alert: I have worked with a 50 meter blimp. It is not nearly as much fun as it seems to be.).
I would think that someone who is spending $$$ on an airship which is being touted as a humanitarian aid transport device has already figured out the landing problem. It's kind of obvious you can't predict where aid will be required.
Re: (Score:1)
The most climate friendly aircraft is an electric train.
There's are valid applications for massive lighter-than-air cargo vehicles and while there are valid applications for trains, there is - shockingly - not much overlap.
Poor choice of username, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
There might be valid applications but they are highly unlikely to be profitable, this is Brin spending company money on his pet project that is highly unlikely to recoup the $B+ costs.
And the point is that aircraft aren't environmentally friendly and won't be any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
America has a problem when it comes towards investing into infrastructure.
Aircraft at least to the voting public seems like it would require less tax payer infrastructure. You have private airports, with aircraft that fly over unowned airspace.
While high speed electric trains will be more affordable, manageable and require less oversight funding from taxpayers, as well becomes a better fit for most of our long range commuting behavior (accounting for airport waiting times, you may get to your location fast
Re: (Score:2)
Yet airports don't pay property taxes on airport operations, every commercial airport in operation was built with public money, and even the FAA is subsidized.
Denver moved their airport farther away from downtown because they realized they were losing a colossal amount of money on that valuable land. Then they redeveloped the old land and ran a train from downtown to the new airport.
The only place an airport ma
Re: (Score:2)
Given that overground trains often need subsidies and that digging tunnels is more expensive than going overground I can't really see hyperloops ever being able to compete with trains or planes. I expect planes in the future will be
I don't know much about train track engineering, you'd think they'd be able to replace slow speed tracks with high speed tracks without gargantuan sums of money being needed but that isn't the case even though China seem to be able to build high speed at low cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Underground trains make sense where the land is very expensive, especially if somebody is already using it. That's why big cities tend to have subways. If you have a minimal level of social coordination you just run your inter-city trains right into your subway system.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming, of course, that your electricity isn't made with coal. Or Natural gas. Or diesel fuel. Or gasoline.
So, where is it that we're making enough clean electricity that we can afford to start adding trains to the list of "green"?
Re: (Score:2)
If Jet A were more environmentally friendly that whatever you were using to generate electricity for the train, you could switch to using Jet A to generate electricity for the train. The train can never be *less* environmentally friendly since you can just switch the electricity source for the train to whatever is available. The plane can never be *more* environmentally friendly since you can't switch sources.
great, helium (Score:2)
At a time where medical professionals are struggling to get the helium they need to treat their patients, lets give it to billionaires to entertain their hobbies... great plan.
In other words: for this to have a noticeable impact on the environment, you would need a lot more helium than is available. Oh and you cannot 'make' helium in any reasonable way. It is a byproduct from -of all places- the oil industry...
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it encourages cold fusion production so we can get that sweet He leftovers.
Re: (Score:2)
There is enough helium available.
It just needs to be harvested, instead of letting it escape with what ever way nat gas is used for.
And where does the hydrogen come from? (Score:2)
Currently hydrogen is produced almost exclusively as a fossil fuel byproduct, so it's about as climate-friendly as a flex-fuel car with no access to ethanol.
Not sure about the economics (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to it... (Score:2)
....because "commercially viable airships" and fusion power are both usually about the same distance away into the future....if one finally arrives the other might be close.
Of course, it's vastly more likely that they both remain "about 20 years away" next year, and the following years.
Air Warehouse Prototype (Score:2)
1) Build safe helium airship with near zero stationary positioning costs, immediately creating new sky real estate over insanely expensive cities
2) Store tons of fine small expensive goods in the sky immediately above city center as a drone delivery base.
2) Profit
Sign of a market top? (Score:2)
This reminds me of Airship Ventures [wikipedia.org] which operated tourist flights around the Bay Area, making for some interesting photo ops [flickr.com]. Yes, he's not talking about tours; but something about yet another airship revival in the works makes me feel like it's the sign of a market top--lots of money floating around in the top tiers being used to fund pet projects. Not financial advice.
Call it the ... Titaniberg?! (Score:1)