The Airship may be making a comeback and if current projects are successful then a second airport for Sydney need only be a few acres in area and High Speed Rail will wilt before its first bloom.

See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-a-future-for-airships/
http://gizmodo.com/the-aluminum-airship-of-the-future-has-finally-flown-1301320903
and
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/technology/airships-carry-us-back-to-future

‘morning Is Mise,

Just thought I might add something to your post as it seems to have died. This is sad because it’s an interesting and dare I say, low emissions form of global transport, particularly to service third world or developing nations.

Ever since the early disasters to this form of air transport, there has been interest in developing it more, based on modern technology.

In the early 1990’s I was associated as a consultant with TNT Global Freight who were looking at such technologies for freight delivery. Unfortunately they were acquired by the then recently privatized Dutch postal services and their focus became redirected to Pan-European freight services.

The combination of rigid structures, modern propulsion and inert gas lift has breathed a little life these concepts however, there remain many technological issues to be resolved.

The loaded mass and surface area of such craft impart a great deal of inertia that has to be overcome. This also plays into the vulnerability of such structures to air resistance and severe weather patterns.

That said, they do offer huge payload capacity, low relative fuel consumption and the elimination of traditional airport requirements. All that is needed are an “anchor tower”, access to freight handling, storage and distribution facilities.

In determining a cost benefit analysis, the issues to be taken into account are the facts that traditional air freight services are much faster, airlines already carry large volumes of freight in addition to what they refer to as “walk on freight” (passengers).

There was consideration given at that time to passenger travel however, this was considered to be “boutique” travel that is not “travel time sensitive” and not a high return or volume market.

Whilst this form of air travel still presents some economic difficulties, I personally believe we need to consider the journey rather than the destination and the opportunity to slow down the pace of life.

Hope this adds some value

Thanks spindoc, you have got the subject 'air born' as it were!,
I'd just like to add, at this juncture, that an airship seems to be a natural for carrying solar panels and deriving some of its power needs from the sun.

From my reading on the things it was not the hydrogen that was the main problem, but structural integrity.

Most of those built in the UK or north America failed due to storm damage. There may be much stronger light weight materials & construction techniques available today, but there are some new questions about the suitability of mixed carbon-fiber & metal components when subject to lightning strike.

These large constructions are subject to stresses equal to ocean going ships in thunderstorms, but can not be heavily constructed.

I would not be investing in the things, but at some stage we should have the ability to build them, perhaps even now.

'morning Is Mise,

Well, we seem to have your thread to ourselves so why not float a few idea's?

I agree that modern airships seem a natural for solar power. Large surface area, neutral buoyancy and the propulsion required only to to provide motion and not lift. A match made in heaven it seems.

It's interesting that we imagine airships as very big, this has its origins in the very early use of the type and volume of gas to provide lift however, with modern gases and structures, it may be possible to develop much smaller, faster and more agile versions.

This might just be capable of cracking some of the technological and marketing issues that have limited the scope of airships in recent times. If I were to let my imagination run wild, I can imagine the development of hybrid airships that look just like a more "bulky" version of modern aircraft.

They obviously will never match the speed of modern aircraft however, as hybrids often do, they could bridge the gap between the two technologies with acceptable compromises for the right markets with the added advantage of significantly reduced fuel consumption.

Thanks for the opportunity to speculate on a technology that I personally feel has some potential.

'morning Hasbeen,

Good points about structural integrity but remember that most modern versions of airships have emulated the tubular construction model. You are right that this configuration is a challenge for structural engineers, even with modern materials and this shape remains exposed to side winds, but this applies to some extent to any "flying machine", particularly wind shear.

Current thinking seems to be on a much flatter (saucer) shape. This is both easier to engineer for structural integrity, is less exposed to side wind, can provide "lift" or "flying" properties and thus much greater stability at both low and operational speeds.

I remain convinced that if we can put a man on the moon, venture into deep oceanic trenches and produce aircraft such as we see in our skies currently, then a commercial hybrid airship cannot be that far away.

No, I wouldn't invest my money in it just yet but hey, it won't take much "technology readiness" to prise a bit of dosh out of my pocket.