Dare We Deploy Dirigibles?

[Ug make hammer]

Riight, show me an airship that can carry as much cargo as an Airbus A330. Go on.

And you keep ignoring trains even though they also carry cargo, simply because you dont know anything about them.

So tell me, how much is a salary of train driver compared to an airline pilot?

I think you have the wrong idea from the start. I was arguing firstly against your claim that only carbon emissions could make airships seem like a good idea.

Then (with help from others) I made the point that airships have low fuel cost.

I then handed you on a platter, the counter-argument that pilot costs outweigh fuel costs for something that travels so slow.

There, do you think you can pick it up from there? Or do you need more help?

 

[PoS]

I think you have the wrong idea from the start. I was arguing firstly against your claim that only carbon emissions could make airships seem like a good idea.

Then (with help from others) I made the point that airships have low fuel cost.

I then handed you on a platter, the counter-argument that pilot costs outweigh fuel costs for something that travels so slow.

There, do you think you can pick it up from there? Or do you need more help?

Low fuel costs compared to much faster jet aircraft than can get cargo and passengers to their destination many times quicker?

Youre doing an apples to oranges fallacy, because the two are not comparable in terms of speed or cargo capacity, so claiming fuels costs savings is idiotic.

Then you switch over to another apples to oranges by claiming pilot costs, even though you once again failed to address the speed of each type of aircraft.

It's just one retarded post after another for you, isnt it?

 

[Glitch]

That is what I was thinking, great for sightseeing, but for travel the trains in Spain are already
competitive with Airlines for travel within Spain.
If one were traveling between say Madrid and Barcelona, the flight would only be 45 minuets, but
getting to the airport and security checks ect, would make the 2.5 hour train ride competitive.

I lived in Europe for a few years, and what most Americans don't comprehend is how close together their villages/towns/cities are to each other. In the US, particularly west of the Mississippi River you can drive 100 miles between towns. In Europe the towns are at best 10 miles apart. What they consider "living in the country" we would describe as living in the sub-burbs. They have no real country-side. They are packed together like sardines, which is why they have such an efficient train system. I never needed a vehicle when I lived in Europe, I just took the train everywhere I needed to go.

 

[Glitch]

I think you have the wrong idea from the start. I was arguing firstly against your claim that only carbon emissions could make airships seem like a good idea.

Then (with help from others) I made the point that airships have low fuel cost.

I then handed you on a platter, the counter-argument that pilot costs outweigh fuel costs for something that travels so slow.

There, do you think you can pick it up from there? Or do you need more help?

The biggest problem with these new breed of helium dirigibles isn't the carbon emissions, or the lack thereof, nor is it the fuel costs. The biggest problem is the helium itself. It is in short supply already, and can only be harvested or refined, it cannot be manufactured or created.

We extract our helium from natural gas, which contains approximately 2.7% helium by volume. Helium is also produced as uranium decays into thorium, and as thorium decays into radium. Helium is a natural renewable resource, but only in extremely small quantities. To complicate things further, once helium reaches the surface it escapes into space rather quickly. Earth loses approximately 50 grams of helium every second to space, or 4.75 tons per day.

Contrary to popular belief, the fusion reaction of either deuterium or tritium (hydrogen-3) does not produce elemental helium. The by-product of those reactions is helion (helium-3), which has two protons and one neutron.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Low fuel costs compared to much faster jet aircraft than can get cargo and passengers to their destination many times quicker?

Youre doing an apples to oranges fallacy,

It's not a fallacy. It's just a matter of math. It's neither right nor wrong, until one of us does the math.

I have said more than once that pilot costs probably outweigh fuel savings.

because the two are not comparable in terms of speed or cargo capacity, so claiming fuels costs savings is idiotic.

It's probably wrong. It's not "idiotic" until you bring the math.

Then you switch over to another apples to oranges by claiming pilot costs, even though you once again failed to address the speed of each type of aircraft.

For the fourth or fifth time I think pilot costs probably outweigh savings on fuel.

It's just one retarded post after another for you, isnt it?

Just one more post, refusing to do the math for you.

You want to prove your point? Do the damn math.

Are you intimidated by math? You really shouldn't be. Just assume an airship needs the same pilot as a cargo jet. Find out the fuel costs of a jet, scale that for an airship given the claimed fuel savings. It's two equations (Fuel airship plus pilot airship, versus fuel jet plus pilot jet) and I'm not going to be particularly critical.

I'm comfortable with math, meaning I don't require precise calculations to make a broad point. You however, are chicken with math.

 

[Peter]

I lived in Europe for a few years, and what most Americans don't comprehend is how close together their villages/towns/cities are to each other. In the US, particularly west of the Mississippi River you can drive 100 miles between towns. In Europe the towns are at best 10 miles apart. What they consider "living in the country" we would describe as living in the sub-burbs. They have no real country-side. They are packed together like sardines, which is why they have such an efficient train system. I never needed a vehicle when I lived in Europe, I just took the train everywhere I needed to go.

Even in the UK there's plenty of wide open countryside.
If Europe was as densely packed as you claim how would we be able to grow any crops?
East Anglia (the bulgy bit on the east of England) where I live is called the breadbasket of England and has loads of farms and wide open fields.
Scotland and Wales both have vast areas of stunning wide open countryside to explore and enjoy.

Yes the towns and cities are densely packed but we have extremely strict planning guidlines about not building on green field sites and we have some large national parks that get visitors from all over the world.

 

[Ug make hammer]

East Anglia (the bulgy bit on the east of England) where I live is called the breadbasket of England and has loads of farms and wide open fields.

I have this image of a dirigible being gored by an angry billy goat. Excuse me.

 

[Glitch]

Even in the UK there's plenty of wide open countryside.

You mean there is a few miles between your towns. I never made it past the Heathrow airport, so I cannot comment on English country-side having never been there. However, as a general rule if you can walk between towns in under a day, then you don't have country-side. I have been all over Germany, Austria, France, Spain, and Italy and other than a few small designated forested areas, they have no country-side. If it is not occupied by farms, then the towns and cities spill into a sub-urban sort of life-style.

The only place I can achieve that in the US would be someplace like Los Angeles, where I can walk from Hollywood to Beverly Hills to Santa Monica in less than a day, because they also do not have country-side in the greater Los Angeles area.

In case you were wondering, this is what I mean by "country-side" (this is my backyard):

If Europe was as densely packed as you claim how would we be able to grow any crops?

You wouldn't, at least not enough crops to feed your population. Which is why Europe has to import a lot of its food. Much like Alaska, although we import our food for other reasons, and not because we are crammed together like sardines. Approximately 93 million tons of food has to be imported from outside Europe by EU member nations every year, and that number is increasing as the population of Europe increases.

East Anglia (the bulgy bit on the east of England) where I live is called the breadbasket of England and has loads of farms and wide open fields.
Scotland and Wales both have vast areas of stunning wide open countryside to explore and enjoy.

Yes the towns and cities are densely packed but we have extremely strict planning guidlines about not building on green field sites and we have some large national parks that get visitors from all over the world.

You and I have very different definitions of "vast" and "large" and farmland does not count as "country-side." However, I will grant you that England is better able to feed its population than other European nations. It probably goes back to WW II and the shortages that occurred. As I understand it, there was a serious effort to get English citizens to grow more food and harvest what they could from the land.

What you consider to be a "large" national park is tiny by comparison. Just one of our national parks in just one State is the size of Wales. Wales = 13,298,560 acres, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park = 13,175,680 acres.

 

[LittleNipper]

They're 3-4 times as slow as an ordinary jetliner, so it's not exactly for people who have a schedule to keep.

True; however, they can be much faster for shorter distances. I mean that zeppelins were supposed to be able to dock at the top of the Empire State Building. No jetliner is able to do that unless it is aiming to crash into it.

 

[PoS]

It's not a fallacy. It's just a matter of math. It's neither right nor wrong, until one of us does the math.

I have said more than once that pilot costs probably outweigh fuel savings.



It's probably wrong. It's not "idiotic" until you bring the math.



For the fourth or fifth time I think pilot costs probably outweigh savings on fuel.



Just one more post, refusing to do the math for you.

You want to prove your point? Do the damn math.

Are you intimidated by math? You really shouldn't be. Just assume an airship needs the same pilot as a cargo jet. Find out the fuel costs of a jet, scale that for an airship given the claimed fuel savings. It's two equations (Fuel airship plus pilot airship, versus fuel jet plus pilot jet) and I'm not going to be particularly critical.

I'm comfortable with math, meaning I don't require precise calculations to make a broad point. You however, are chicken with math.

Your "math" is moronic. You dont even take into account speed or cargo capacity, so your silly little argument doesnt hold up. It seems common sense doesnt mean much in Norway.

 

[LittleNipper]

Lighter than air pilots can expect to start somewhere around $25,000 per year. An experienced lighter than air pilot can earn more like $70,000 per year. On the other hand The average (mean) salary in 2021 of a commercial jet pilot was $198,190, and the median salary was $202,180.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Your "math" is moronic. You dont even take into account speed or cargo capacity, so your silly little argument doesnt hold up.

I'm trying to help you MAKE YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, based on SPEED. All you can do is point out cargo capacity, like that's what makes the calculation too difficult for you. It's just one more factor, sheesh.

It seems common sense doesnt mean much in Norway.

It seems like math is always too hard in the US.

 

[PoS]

I'm trying to help you MAKE YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, based on SPEED. All you can do is point out cargo capacity, like that's what makes the calculation too difficult for you. It's just one more factor, sheesh.



It seems like math is always too hard in the US.

The only thing youre helping is to prove you dont know what youre talking about. So good job on that.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The only thing youre helping is to prove you dont know what youre talking about. So good job on that.

YOU don't know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps you're unable to grasp that I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not willing to do the math for you. Intellectual laziness deserves no reward.

 

[PoS]

YOU don't know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps you're unable to grasp that I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not willing to do the math for you. Intellectual laziness deserves no reward.

No one knows what youre talking about, because none of your posts make any sense.

 

[Ug make hammer]

No one knows what youre talking about, because none of your posts make any sense.

Don't expect me to dumb it down any further for you. If you can't be bothered, then I don't care.

 

[PoS]

Don't expect me to dumb it down any further for you. If you can't be bothered, then I don't care.

Apparently you do care since you keep responding with even more stupid posts, so we can add hypocrisy to the list too.