If this were relevant, cruise liners would be cheap.
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
But, In a lot of ways the cruise ship is the destination.
I don't think you'll see airship as a passenger format anytime soon as they certainly don't have the capacity to create a cruise environment at 10000 feet.
corduroygt
Banned
Well someone here suggested (I forgot who) underwater trains.
How big part of the cruise ticket price pays for bed, food and upkeep of the ship+crew? How big part is for the live concerts, heating the various pools, "free" foodstuff and visits to N+1 countries with tour guides?
[edit]
I live in Tallinn. Helsinki is around 80km by sea, Stockholm about 400-ish, my parents live 100km away from me by land. It costs me more to take a bus to my parents than to get a ship to Helsinki. Trip to Stockholm with bed and two meals is about 4x more expensive than that bus ride.
Last edited by a moderator:
just imagine the water slides you can create to a pool sittin 10 thousand feet under the air ship. It be epic man !
Problem with that is you'll need MASSIVE investment to build the infrastructure for it and it's a bitch to keep working. Airships only need the ships themselves and places for landing.
Good question.
Well, with liquid fuel you can rather easily gauge how much of it remains in your tank(s). Not so with batteries...
Best option there is a somewhat educated guess, but it's not more than that. You can't actually tell for sure how much charge remains in the cells, even though a readout on a display says x% remaining. That's what scares me more than anything with regards to electric aircraft, you think you might have a certain amount of power at your disposal - in reality it may be less, even perhaps considerably less, and if you're high up in the air there might not be time enough to make a safe landing.
...And it's not going to be because of faulty sensors or whatever, it's just the nature of batteries, they degrade, performance varies with temperature, number of charge cycles, how much was charged and at what rate, manufacturing variability and whatnot. It doesn't strike me as a particulary safe way to power an aircraft. With a car, worst thing that happens is you'll be standing at the side of a road if the juice runs out (and if it's winter, you'll get cold if nobody comes by for a while to give you a lift), you're not going to fall out of the sky and squish on impact, and possibly land on top of someone else too.
waters pretty cheap in most places.
Food let the ppl bring their own or buy it onship from takeaways up to 5 star resturants. Some airlines are charging passengers for drinks/meals already, I remeber the first time I struck this ~15years ago, its far more common nowadays.
The ratio of crew vs passengers will easily favour the ship methinks.
1 captaiun for 350ppl vs 1 captain for 35000ppl
WhiningKhan
Regular
Come on, battery power will not just cut off instantly. A helicopter could be controllably landed nearly anywhere when power starts to fade. For a fixed-wing aircraft, your options at that point are finding a long clear flat area in immediate vicinity for emergency landing or crashing. I don't understand how you consider fixed-wing better in that respect.
Not true. CO2 is consumed by the majority of life on this planet, so if no new CO2 was released on a very regular basis and in very large quantities, we would run out and die, in a short time.
Er, what? We have the opposite problem. Or do you somehow think it makes sense to run around screaming, "Fire! Fire!" during a flood?
No, it means that you post something that simply isn't true, disguised as science, to help your chosen party.
It's called "propaganda".
The carbon bound in biosmass is largely recycled. Plants are eaten by animals, either big ones, or by bacteria when plants die and rot. Animals exhale CO2.
A fraction of this carbon cycle is lost due to sedimentation. Sediments that are recycled into the earth's mantle in subduction zones. The loss of carbon has been in equilibrium with the CO2 injected into the atmosphere by volcanoes for millenia, if not millions of years.
Cheers
What in the hell are you going on about? I make a post that points out the well-documented fact that an increased emission in CO2 today affects the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for centuries to come, and you go on with some ridiculous shit about CO2 being necessary?
Look, if we stopped all emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels living organisms would still emit just about as much CO2 as they absorb. There simply isn't any concern whatsoever with CO2 levels dropping too low. Biology basically can't let CO2 levels drop too low, in fact, because as CO2 levels start to get really low, plant metabolism slows down. In any event this isn't the problem we are having.
Autogyro:
Notice the lack of a tail rotor to keep it from spinning. You only need that if you're actively powering the rotor around.
With a helicopter, you steer by tilting the rotor, and regulate thrust by changing the angle of the rotor blades. So, a helicopter is like a plane with a build-in parachute, which can be steered and slowed while descending unpowered, as long as you can still change the geometry of the rotor (ie. as long as you still have pressure on the hydraulic system, for a big one).
Or how about this (clickable):
The interesting thing here is the Li-Poly battery for a toy costing $22.50, including the remote-control.
Most cheap model helicopters use a mechanical way to achieve somewhat level flight, mostly through counter-rotating rotors, or a gyro instead of one of those. But you can use a microcontroller to do the actual flying, and attach gyro-sensors for the tilt and rotation, an accelerometer for the speed and an altimeter for the height. Here is a short description, and here a longer one.
You can make one of those yourself, buy a complete unit, or a fully assembled helicopter, like this one.
Notice the lack of a tail rotor to keep it from spinning. You only need that if you're actively powering the rotor around.
With a helicopter, you steer by tilting the rotor, and regulate thrust by changing the angle of the rotor blades. So, a helicopter is like a plane with a build-in parachute, which can be steered and slowed while descending unpowered, as long as you can still change the geometry of the rotor (ie. as long as you still have pressure on the hydraulic system, for a big one).
Or how about this (clickable):
The interesting thing here is the Li-Poly battery for a toy costing $22.50, including the remote-control.
Most cheap model helicopters use a mechanical way to achieve somewhat level flight, mostly through counter-rotating rotors, or a gyro instead of one of those. But you can use a microcontroller to do the actual flying, and attach gyro-sensors for the tilt and rotation, an accelerometer for the speed and an altimeter for the height. Here is a short description, and here a longer one.
You can make one of those yourself, buy a complete unit, or a fully assembled helicopter, like this one.
Liquid fuel tank can be in two states:
1) has fuel
2) has no fuel
When state 2 starts you're be screwed.
Batteries will not instantly go from "has power" to "no power". Yes, there will be a sharp decline in their output but it will be enough to power engines (at somewhat lower speed) for a while.
As has been mentioned, with sufficient airspeed, a helicopter has no problem landing safely without power.
Yes I know, I just pointed out that when running on "battery fumes" you can furtner extend that period when the machine is still properly steerable
- Status
Similar threads
