Well Afghanistan has alot of natural mineral resources, and Africa has a crap load. It could encourage development in these regions, due to easier transporation of their goods.
If the Hindenburg was Carrying Helium...
- Thread starter Rognvald
- Start date
Well Afghanistan has alot of natural mineral resources, and Africa has a crap load. It could encourage development in these regions, due to easier transporation of their goods.
I am I reading that right? Did you just proposed a nuclear Zeppelin TL?!
Ditch the shocked smileys. Many serious proposals have been made by serious engineers for nuclear powered airships in the 1950-2012 period.
Link please?
I'd be interested in reading more. I know that people have toyed with the idea of nuclear powered aircraft, but I never would have thought of the idea of a nuclear zeppelin. Its very awesome and interesting image.
Yes and no. A large airship today can't really lift more weight than a modern jet transport like the C-17. Because of their huge size, however, they can be configured to carry substantially bulkier cargo. This was the stillborn Cargolifter from Germany in the early 2000's, which was probably the last, best, chance for large airships (not zeppelins, though).
I think its important to remember though that if you are talking about serving a mining operation, you'd probably have to run your Zeppelin fleet in convoys. So, if one Zeppelin can lift, say 100 tons, then 50 should be able to lift, 5 or 6, 000 tons, and because its built for cargo, and not passengers, the crew requirement will be the bare minimum.
http://www.agaeroplast.com/new/engl/Nigel_e.pdf
This is a nonspecialist article which surveys several design proposals offered in the 50 years after WW2. They range from fairly fanciful to serious and scholarly. None ever received any funding support, but for several years immediately after WW2 Goodyear (of the Blimps) was a strong proponent. No way of knowing if any of these ideas had merit since they never reached the final design stage, let along prototypes, and of course today given the hysteria surrounding all things nuclear the concept is probably a non-starter.
True. And a large airship would not have to actually land to lower its cargo to the ground, so the need for hangars and mooring equipment at the work site would be minimal. There would be altitude limitations though because a heavy-lift airship would probably be limited to locations less than 3000 meters above sea level. This is probably the only use for large airships today that makes economic sense, which is why Cargolifter got as far as it did.
Well, there are probably other niche uses, like supplying scientific expeditions in remote locations, but yeah if you want a commercially viable Zeppelin industry, this is probably what it will look like.
On a range of epic, with the most diabolical James Bond villain at level one/adept and the creation of the Earth at 10/biblical/big bang, a nucular-powered Zeppelin is at least a three.
I am I reading that right? Did you just proposed a nuclear Zeppelin TL?!
Is there ever a wrong time for nuclear-powered airship TLs? I think not!
There is a wonderful cutaway drawing here of the People's Glorious Red October Atomic Dirigible, although sadly it lacks the lowerable convention hall found in the capitalist version at the top of this page.
BlondieBC
Banned
I am I reading that right? Did you just proposed a nuclear Zeppelin TL?!
Nuclear power works. Due to the vast size and emptiness, you can skip a lot of the radiation shielding and just use the distance to protect you. Nuclear plant provides electricity for the engines. Also, instead of ballast and venting of helium to control altitude, I can use hot air to trim altitude. Who would do this? Militaries. With about 1965 technology, I can build you an AWAC Zeppelin with two shift crew of a 15 each shift that can stay airborne for weeks at a time. Where to use? You could cover West Germany with one or two of these, but you have political issues. But for the Warsaw pact, these are manageable. More likely NATO type roll is early warning picket line in Canada (Dew Line) or over an ocean. Say a fleet of 9 of these would give you the ability to setup ad hoc "DEW Lines" as threats arose in a rapid manner. Now you can also just go with in air refueling (OTL), but both options work.
I wrote a German win in WW1 TL, and frankly the use is so limited that they are mainly covered as the novelty item. The main use was naval daylight picket lines, just ITTL. I also used them in the Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean out of African bases. It also provide me a way to rush critically needed items to the African bases early in the war before the Merchant Submarines were finished - Additional officers with missing skills, additional technical men to setup ad hoc arms industry, blue prints, machine tools, etc. I also needed something to test multi-ton glide weapons with in Africa. And I used them to take out a few dozen light naval artillery positions where the enemy lacked air defense. And I crippled a few Russian ships in port in a surprise attack. All similar to what happen in WW1 IOTL with minor modifications. Many of these type actions would not work a second time since the counter measures are so easy.
Now post war, with generous navy funding, they will have uses but they will likely not be covered in much detail since they are an unimportant item. Much like midget submarines or cargo submarines, they are a niche item that occassionally have a grand success. Basic uses in best case scenario.
1) Demo stunts showing German technological superiority. Scientific expedition supply, whale counting, whatever. Much like what we do IOTL in with the international space station or Antarctic research stations.
2) I am going to build AWAC type height climbers since the underlying radar technology is around ITTL ant OTL, just waiting for funding. Probably semi-rigid ships with pressurized cabins. You can detect things like enemy ships or planes at 200-300 miles out, at least conceptionally. IOTL, the USA missed the boat with the Macon since blimps are better at scouts than attacks. If you say have 6 or so AWAC Macons at Pearl, it become largely impossible to do a surprise attack. Or even over the PI. Sure it may die in the first hours of the attack, but this would be no different than if I had a line of picket destroyers NW of Pearl or PI.
3) I may play around with Macon concept low-altitude ships. There are a lot of issues finding a role. They are not really that good a troop movers, but for a really, really high value target you might use one. A Macon type ships made in a production run (not one off) will have a cost of a CL or DD, so you will send on a likely one way commando raid with about the same frequency as you ground a CL on a sand bar so you can do a commando raid. Almost never. You can get 10-20 planes on it for a CVL role. Very, very hard to not see coming, the big advantage is it can move at 5 times the speed of a ship. Even if the USA had 9 Macons at the start of WW2 and they all survived the initial attacks, I am not sure they are that much use. My guess is they cover convoys in the western North Atlantic.
And when I do base analysis for Germany even with good overseas bases, I am not sure it survives the budget cuts. Pickets to make my bases largely immune from surprise attacks is hugely useful, the Zeppelin CVL is harder to find a role for. It is too light to attack military convoys, and it is too heavy to justify attacking lone merchant ships. An AMC with a 2-5 obsolete seaplanes with 12" torpedoes is enough really.
4) I don't see the industrial cargo role. Not enough lift. Now for commercial items that need to be moved fast, sure. German freighter blew its engines in NYC harbor and needs spare parts to fix that are in Germany plus a technician, send it on the next Zeppelin and save a few days travel. Critical machine breaks in remote African mine, send spare parts. You just will not be moving fuel, food, ore or anything else heavy this way.
5) And its lasting role is tourist or prestige travel role, where they still could be in service today. A way for wealthy people to show they are wealthier than you are. And there are destinations that they work better than a ship, since they travel faster. At 150 mph with a overnight travel time, you can make 1800 miles from the base to the sight seeing location. Think of all the scenic trains still in service today, but going a longer distance. Something like the Hamburg to Iceland overnight excursion is quite possible. Or the 7 day cruiser from Hamburg to Iceland where you layover for two days, then on a scenic air tour of eastern Greenland to watch whales and icebergs calve.
BlondieBC
Banned
No for this to work, you need a finished product. So mines don't make a lot of sense. Metal is heavy. You want bulky, but light weight high value items since Zeppelins are weight limited but volume unlimited for all practical purposes. And there has to be no existing other transports methods that work. So maybe in a world without the transsiberrian Railroad, you bring fly in trade goods to trade with the local for furs. These are hard to write POD, since you would never justify the initial investment based on something like this trade, so it takes a military budget to fund, then civilian knockoff uses. Much like GPS system or the internet (DARPA). At one time clippers were used to race each season tea harvest to markets for premium prices, so maybe before 1950, they do the same. The problem is that once something a C-130 or even a C-47 from WW2, it does not make sense. I bet a WW2 era flying boat is more economical. And this is why it looks a lot more like people than cargo. A rich Englishman might pay a big premium to save a travel day to India on a Zeppelin versus a c-47, but it is hard to think what cargo would justify the expense.
Zeppelins are a fun technology to write, but most POD are not really Zeppelin buff, but slowing other technologies or improvements.
Certainly it does.
Nuclear power is also heavy, very heavy. You'd need near weapons grade fuel to get a light enough reactor, I think. If it could be done at all.
And you really don't want weapons grade reactors in the air where they can crash to earth...
Can anyone point out a real world design, with whatever fuel, that has the necessary power to weight ratios?
NothingNow
Banned
Nope. For anything but high-value shipping, they're useless.
Only thing they'd be really useful for post-war is Tourism, maritime patrol work, and the odd scientific study.
Something with a 50 ton working payload in the Tropics would be really useful in the Amazon, Borneo and New Guinea etc. for studies high up in the canopy, and surveying. Something longer-ranged, with good station-keeping abilities would also be nice for looking over places like Inaccessible Island and Ball's Pyramid, since they wouldn't be as disruptive as a Helicopter.
Cook
Banned
You can give up the idea of serving a serious mining operation then. Ore rail cars carry 55 tons, and I counted 300 cars on the last train I saw; that’s 16,500 tons in a single train, and they run every half hour. You will not have the number of zeppelins to match that, even if you could match the loading and turnaround time (which I doubt.)
That was my first thought, I thought a reactor would weigh tonnes, even if it was small
BlondieBC
Banned
One of the links in the post had details with a 50 ton reactor. It was lighter than the IC engine + fuel. Also, you remove the weight needed for ballast. And we use near weapons grade or weapons grade in the USN now. I don't see a huge issue.