Large, Slow Airships Could Move Buildings 184
Algorithmnast writes "The Economist has a short article on using big, slow-moving airships to move large objects without the need to dismantle them. The company mentioned, Skylifter, refers to the lifting ship as an 'aerial crane,' not a Thor weapon. It could easily help move research labs to new parts of the Antarctic, or allow a Solar Tower to be inserted into an area that's difficult to drive to, such as a mesa in New Mexico."
Buildings falling from the sky (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Unless it's Xzibit putting a house in your house so you can be at home when you're at home, dawg.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know, there have been incidents where a flatbed carrying a house has crashed into things and destroyed them, they haven't shutdown all flatbeds yet. I'm sure insurance on something like this would be astronomically expensive, at least until the method is proven, but I don't think a single incident would immediately shut them down.
Re:Buildings falling from the sky (Score:5, Funny)
That or the owner's pissed off sister is coming back to reclaim her shoes.
Is the company called ACME? (Score:5, Funny)
Because I know a very well educated coyote that would be really interested in this sort of innovative technology with his work in high speed pest control.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, blimps weren't exactly "high speed". I can't see the boys at Top Gun coming up with a course for zeppelin pilots any time soon ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wile E. Coyote? Road Runner? A high speed pest?
Giant building sized anvil dropped from excessive heights courtesy an ACME Skylifter?
The joke - it is now explained
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see the boys at Top Gun coming up with a course for zeppelin pilots any time soon ...
I can foresee airship recon, but Zeppelin [wikipedia.org] would have to undercut other airship makers by 50 percent to win the contract under the Buy American Act, Berry Amendment, or other applicable law.
Stolen Idea (Score:2)
Stolen idea [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_yAnQHHIgs
Burden not Columbia with your chaff.
cargolifter (Score:2)
a german company which planned something similar in the nineties . They ran out of money when germany went into recession.
Goodbye Building Industry (Score:4, Funny)
And I thought local builders were relatively safe from outsourcing. Now it seems like China has a way to take another industry...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Goodbye Building Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought local builders were relatively safe from outsourcing
Easy enough to do with panelized construction, components, etc. When they were still building houses like crazy, most of them were probably framed by illegal immigrants, and fitted with imported appliances.
Now excuse me while I prop another 2x4 against my office wall...
In all seriousness, I've been told that when looking for a house you want to find one that was built during a recession. In theory, people were able to chose better contractors during hard times, whereas boom-time houses are more likely to be slapped together quickly to make a buck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In all seriousness, I've been told that when looking for a house you want to find one that was built during a recession. In theory, people were able to chose better contractors during hard times, whereas boom-time houses are more likely to be slapped together quickly to make a buck.
I don't think that is a reliable indicator. Its true boom-time houses are often built as quickly as possible to get on to the next project; its true some developers cut corners get cut to save time.
But recession housing has a cou
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt moving buildings long distances in their final form will ever be economical, the value density isn't high enough.
Flatpack is probablly a better option if you want to import buildings.
good title (Score:2)
I would have preferred this title:
OMFG HUGE and putting me to sleep kind of slow airships MAYBE could move buildings IF the company in question ever gets investment and builds them and it all works out at the end.
It's a freaking startup, not jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that somebody has tried this every 5 years since we were promised flying cars! I think we need a few of these, just like we need a few AN-22, but remember In August 2006 a single Antonov An-22 aircraft remains in airline service with Antonov Airlines [wikipedia.org].
Yeah, I saw that movie too. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, I saw that movie too. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
seriously, though, the system used in that movie is a lot more robust than this disaster...
Starcraft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or another idea ... (Score:3, Insightful)
use it to move the ever increasing wind turbine parts that, a year ago, seemed to be getting too large to move over roads especially as regulations pushed them into less and less accessible areas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think too small young apprentice.
One of these could conceivably move a complete wind turbine into place. Just bolt it to a waiting foundation.
Helium (Score:3, Interesting)
anyone care to do the crossref math and tell us how much helium it will take to lift 150 tons and how that relates to the dwindling supply?
Re: (Score:2)
They can use hydrogen almost as easily.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you're not going to move humans around, though, it's not that big a deal.
So nobody’s on the thing if it happens to blow...
but what about under it?
Thermite paint (Score:3, Insightful)
Those building will soar high above the skyline, just like the Hindenburg! Wait...
It wasn't just the hydrogen; it was also the fact that the envelope of the Hindenburg was painted with thermite. Zeppelin learned its lesson, and its modern airships use far less flammable materials for the envelope. So even if airships did have to go back to hydrogen, it'd be far less risky than in the 1930s.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen gas (dihydrogen or molecular hydrogen) is highly flammable and will burn in air at a very wide range of concentrations between 4% and 75% by volume. Hydrogen gas forms explosive mixtures with air in the concentration range 4-74% (volume per cent of hydrogen in air) and with chlorine in the range 5-95%. The mixtures spontaneously detonate by spark, heat or sunlight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen [wikipedia.org]
Uh, yeah.. far less risky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hindenburg paint as the cause of the disaster is a myth that has been debunked but alas still persists.
This is a good page I found with a quick Google search. Follow the links inside for in-detail information and maybe hopefully we can put this to rest.
http://www.airships.net/hindenburg-paint/ [airships.net]
Re: (Score:2)
The helium stays in the airship, it doesn't use it up when lifting.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to vent or compress the lifting gas. You can use one these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonet [wikipedia.org]
It's the air version of what submarines do. Subs have a few tanks that can be empty (full of air) for buoyancy or full (full of seawater) for a dive. The airships are like that, except "full" of air to lose lift, and "empty" to gain lift.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. The density of helium is about one sixth that of air, so one kilo of helium can lift about five kilos of not-helium. They mention lifting 150-ton loads, which would require 30 tons of helium. Worldwide production of helium is about 30 million tons a year. I think it'll be okay.
Re:Helium (Score:5, Informative)
"to lift 1000 grams (1 kg), you need about 163 grams (~0.16 kg) of helium" [anl.gov]
150 tons = 150,000 kg [wolframalpha.com]
150,000 * 163 = 24,450,000 grams of helium needed [wolframalpha.com]
24,450,000 grams of helium = 137,000 cubic meters [wolframalpha.com]
"A billion cubic metres - or about half of the world's reserves" [independent.co.uk]
2 billion / 137,000 = 14,598.5 [wolframalpha.com]
14,598.5 airships before we run out of the current reserves. I think we're good. (Except for that last half airship, it'll be kinda screwed.)
Re: (Score:2)
but wolframalpha? seriously?
;)
Re: (Score:2)
14,598.5 airships assuming that the entire planet immediately halts all welding of metal.
Re: (Score:2)
And a word to the wise: you don't need to show your work when you do simple multiplication/division. And you certainly shouldn't need Alpha to convert tons to kg. For shame.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you could just ask Wolfram Alpha to read the summary and compose the post for you.
Or maybe it did.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need helium - hydrogen is way more abundant and cheaper, and gives you slightly more lift. Sure there was that minor incident with the Hindenburg, but if we are dealing with a cargo ship servicing remote locations (which seems like the best application anyway) the risks to the humanity are much less.
I also think you could build a 2 layer balloon, with the outer layer containing helium and the inner hydrogen. The separating layer could be very thin (and thus not weigh much) and the outer helium l
Re: (Score:2)
There is no rational explanation for the proliferation of "Monster Airship" articles given the helium shortage. I've stopped trying to understand it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Helium is not the only lighter than air substance, large balloons are mostly hot air today. Also we know Hydrogen, methane, and ammonia will also work, each with at least one downside. Personally I think birthday parties would be way more fun with Hydrogen balloons anyway (then again, maybe that's why I never had any kids.)
Get the puns out of the way (Score:2)
This idea is full of hot air. It will go over like a lead balloon. It's just an idea to puff up managements' egos. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the budget will balloon out of sight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can no longer use that phrase as the MythBusters showed you can make a balloon out of lead [youtube.com] and have it float.
I prefer to use the phrase, "It will go over like a granite balloon."
Re:Get the puns out of the way (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice attempt at levity.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a little light comedy for a volatile world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I remember that episode, they had to use a special design designed to unfurl in a way that would put minimal stresses on the lead and they still had to tape on loads of patches.
Idea needs building industry support (Score:4, Interesting)
Skyscrapers may be vastly more affordable if built from interlocking modules on the ground that could be airlifted into place. Would such a structure be feasible (I'm not an architectural nor a mechanical engineer)?
As pointed out by somebody else, if anybody (these people aren't the first with this idea) could get this to market, it would be a boon for the growing wind turbine industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, I would think : how could using airlift ever be cheaper than a temporary crane on the top of the structure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are already construction methods for buildings which resemble assembly lines. They involve a construction module that rises with the building. I recall reading of a Japanese company which developed a process, if I recall correctly, where the building is raised as a new floor is built underneath. My memory is vague on that and I can't find a link.
But the point is that there already numerous efficient processes for building construction without having to complicate things by using airlifting.
The more I
Fat chance (Score:3, Funny)
We don't learn fast, do we? (Score:2, Interesting)
Large airships have been a recurrent proposal for moving large and bulky items which exceed the routine capabilities of the transport system.
The problem is that the airship needed is huge. That makes it very difficult to operate in anything other than good weather, even before attaching a massive but somewhat frail payload.
The record is full of airship and air lifter crashes because of bad weather or unexpected turbulence. Until that problem is resolved, the proposal is not serious.
Love the last paragraph of the design tab (Score:2)
Helium (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, it might be time to encourage capture from out many natural gas wells.
Don't worry; when big oil sees dollar signs from doing so, it'll do so.
real problem is wind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And drag.
There's a good reason that Zeppelins are long and narrow and filled with hydrogen, instead of just the natural shape of a balloon that has minimal ratio of mass to lift.
But there's no good reason to paint them with rocket fuel [clean-air.org].
BTW, as the link mentions, the Hindenburg carried its own hotel, with 50 cabins for passengers and berths for 59 crew members, plus common areas and a bridge, while fully occupied, and had short flight capacity for 20 more passengers, so the concept of moving buildings with a
150 tons. Hmmm. Firefighting? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has been done before - and failed spectacularly. (Score:5, Informative)
Remember Cargo Lifter [cargolifter.com]?
One of the most spectacular failures during the wild technology startup stampede a decade ago in Germany. They burned several hundred millions before folding.
The only remaining legacy is a huge indoor pool in their former airship hangar...
"large objects" = *small* buildings (Score:2)
Haar! That's just what we be needin'! (Score:3, Funny)
Not really for economical building moving (Score:2)
This looks like a fantastically expensive way to move things to places where the cost of building is astronomical. The shape of the beast looks very uneconomical, though. It's rare to see this shape of pressure vessel (outside of very small pancake air compressors). It takes a lot of force to restrain a surface from becoming a sphere or tube (which is why historic ships are built the way they are, and why nearly every airplane has a circular fuselage).
This also has the disadvantage of being dynamically u
this business will not float (Score:2)
-
it takes a sphere of 66m Diameter filled with H2 to get a lift of 150 t.
The H2 hull is surrounded by another hull filled with He to minimize H2 combustion risc
and catalysts oxidize escaped H2 safely outside, and diffused O2 inside the H2 hull
-
the reason it will not be made is that a balloon technologfy like that would allow the construction of a stratospheric radar platform which would be capable to discover stealth aircraft and low altitude flying cruise missile.
-
Th
Re:But what happens when they... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But what happens when they... (Score:5, Funny)
But what happens when they ...run into the building?
Did anybody think of that?
No, you're just waaaaaaaaay smarter than the large group of people in this liability-happy society working on this project. What's it like being a highly sought after engineer?
Re:Pffft... That's nothing. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah. And small, fast planes can move 'em, too!
If you define your movement as descent on a vertical axis... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Pffft... That's nothing. "Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world."
Spouting cliches only enhances your cosmetic intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Stand on the end of your lever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Absolutely Terrible Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Both you and the OP are correct in different ways - and aptly illustrate why this is such a bad idea.
Buildings (and pretty much everything else on Earth) are mostly designed to resist compressive loads I.E. the force of gravity. Thus, if you want to move a structure using this method your pretty much have two major options: First, to move an existing structure you can build a heavy cage around it so you can lift it from the top. Second, to move a new structure you can design in massive reinforcements so you can lift it from the top. Both are expensive and add considerable parasitic loads to the structure and the lift.
Not to mention, this idea has been floated a dozen times or more in the last fifty odd years, and always with the same result - a bankrupt company and penniless investors. While they've got some cool hacks in this scheme, they don't seem to have overcome the basic solution-in-search-of-problem problem. I.E. there doesn't actually seem to be a market.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can do what they currently do now which is shove a series of I-beams
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Absolutely Terrible Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a market, just not necessarily in the skyscraper size class yet. Build them smaller, but big enough to move a house. My house was moved to its present location decades ago. Aside from permanent structures, consider modular homes (trailer houses). I see four or five of those a week pass through on trucks, and I live in a small town. I also see a lot of wind farm equipment like tower segments, generators, and blades. Instead of running a convoy of 8 trucks plus spotter cars, load it all onto one or two of these lifters. Less than half as many people involved, can fly direct, doesn't impact traffic, and can carry objects larger than 2 highway lanes. Similar benefits apply to things like power substations or rail switching shacks, if you can do it cheaper than a helicopter.
Fit one out with crane equipment like that found at a major port. Now if a freighter has a problem in the open ocean, you can fly one of these to it and offload the cargo to another ship (or ships, more likely). You could also haul out a complete replacement power train, and if new ships were designed with this in mind you would eventually be able to drop-in major components in most ships afloat. Same gear could be deployed to a train derailment, or to replace a malfunctioning locomotive on the track in the middle of nowhere. The way that scale affects LTA craft is very different from how it affects HTA craft like helicopters. If you can build one big enough and fast enough, you could anchor to a sinking ship and keep it afloat, or simply pick it up and haul it to a dry dock. This could be useful for deep-sea salvage, though the existing barge-style ships are quite effective already.
In short, there may not be much of a market right now for moving large buildings, but there are plenty of other markets that such a device could tap.
Re: (Score:2)
But we already have [relatively] cheap truck that are all but immune to weather to fill that niche - [very] expensive airships (which require considerable extra lifting infrastructure to transfer to loads from the bottom of the structure to the lifting point on top) which require fairly calm weather conditions are a poor replacement indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, I've got you there! What if I already live in a cage, smarty pants?!
Posted from my iPhone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the time you've built the road to get the heavy machinery up to clear the area and build the foundation - bringing up the components and labor to build the structure itself is fairly trivial. Actually, once you've cleared a road so people can access the completed structure,
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they first move the building onto a platform and lift that platform?
I have seen them move lighthouses that are a few hundred years old. The concept is not too different. Instead of moving the structure on the ground the whole distance, they are moving it a short distance on the ground then switching to the air. Also new structures could be designed to be lifted from the top. I see this more as a way of moving new structures then moving existing structures. Don't forget that certain equipment has to be
Re: (Score:2)
Yup (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By "buildings" they obviously mean purpose-built specialty structures. ISO shipping container-format building modules would be one example.
The thing could be a handy industrial hauler, but using it would have to be a better deal than just schlepping the parts fairly close than airlifting them with ordinary heavy-lift helos.
There is also the "eggs in one basket" issue. Losing a small load in the crash of an expendable helicopter is no big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so now whenever someone spots a UFO, the government can say it was a skylifter. Easy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly amazing. People like stories. Considering how long we've had nonsense like astrology, homeopathy, religion, and all sort of other superstitious nonsense, how can you be surprised that the UFO nutters are still at it?
Re:U.F.O. (Score:4, Interesting)
Or even someone playing a prank.
I remember a TV show (called "a very British UFO hoax") about a group of special effects guys trying to pull off a UFO hoax. They were pretty successful, the flying saucer they built wasn't very big (I don't remember the exact size but it could be broken down into segments that would fit in a SUV) but the eyewitnesses reported it as much larger.
Most people don't understand their own vision. An eye doesn't directly tell us the size of or distance to objects just the angle is subtends on the retina (which roughly corresponds to size/distance).
Binocular vision tells us distance but it only works effectively over short distances .
So our brains use various clues to judge the size and depth of objects. One of those clues is how big we expect the object to be. An object flying at night takes away the other clues so if people are expecting it to be big they will see it as big!
Re:U.F. O.T. - your sig (Score:2)
I tried to look up http://slashdot.org/~plugwash [slashdot.org] and was returned the following:
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, profile pages are just fucked today.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to look up http://slashdot.org/~plugwash [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] and was returned the following: /. account including this one and your account
I'm getting that error when I look at any
While I registered the plugwash account here years ago I never actually posted anything using it (IIRC i screwed something up during registration but it was a long time ago and I don't even rememeber what email I used)
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone who sees a strange (unidentified) flying object is on drugs, insane or seeing a weather balloon? Better tell that to the people who saw that failed rocket test in Norway last year.
A lighted spiral in the sky? Pfft, buncha crazy drugged-out weather balloon-seers.
Re: (Score:2)
Though, if you lifted it from the bottom....
Yeah some people do "move house" like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T6Md60pBd4 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at Cargolifter. It is ARCHAIC in its design. It would have had extreme difficulty in small winds, let alone heavy winds. All sorts of balance issues, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if the energy that went into snapping your fingers went into pushing off the "rod from god" that would be enough force. A little C battery-sized cylinder that releases a little puff of compressed air could do the job nicely. You just have to get it moving and gravity does the rest...although I guess it would be easier to target if it were moving at a more easily measurable speed. Maybe a pringles can-sized air cylinder would be better.