UFO

peter · Post by **peter** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:19 pm

Lately I looked out of my window and I didn't believe what I saw!

Post by **daiv** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:58 pm

Ha! That's a whopper!

perrycornish · Post by **perrycornish** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:10 pm

Yes! I bet that was hard to believe

hegar · Post by **hegar** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:03 am

Hello Peter,
I assume that the Zeppelin is one of those smaller airships that they call "blimps" here. They are used for advertising and to take photos and moving images during ball games (superbowl, etc.). Was there any special occasion that you are aware of, which brought that rare visitor to your neighborhood?
Here in El Paso we do have a much better chance of getting a glimpse of a hot air balloon, because they are way more common around here.

Harald

peter · Post by **peter** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:33 pm

Hi Harald
Yes I know what a Blimp is and I think the Zeppelin NT isn't a Blimp.
The Zeppelin NT is a rigid airship.

A photo of the back propeller on Wikipedia
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:GR_NT ... peller.jpg
Also infos here (rigid or non-rigid?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT

Best regards

hegar · Post by **hegar** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:56 pm

Hello Peter,
thank you for the information of the modern Zeppelin. I was mainly interested in its size and what its purpose is. Your references answered all my questions. I had no idea, that it actually is a passenger transport and anyone could purchase a ticket to fly in it. Looks like the planned version for 19 passengers will be over 300 feet or approximately 100 m long - just a guess of course. Do you already have any idea about its dimensions?

Harald

peter · Post by **peter** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:12 pm

Thats right Harald
They plan a version for 19 passengers for 2007.
This airship will be 85 m long.
In the future they will plan a version for 45 passengers.
Infos here ( click on "Project Info")
http://www.zeppelin-europe-tours.com/en/index.html
Size comparison
http://www.zeppelin-europe-tours.com/ga ... gleich.jpg

Best regards

nicholas · Post by **nicholas** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:11 pm

Airships are on the way back, with some of the smaller ships (holding equiv to a small plane e.g. dozen plus) operating commercially in the UK. They are been touted as an alternative to plane flight for those with the time to leisurely cruise - also they have greener credentials.

There's a 66m one in the UK

Mind you it doesn't stop at these small ships, with Germany looking to bring back the bigger brother

The CargoLifter is intended to carry payloads of up to 160 tonnes - about the weight of 27 full-grown African elephants - at a speed of 100 km/h (62 mph) and a maximum height of 2,000 metres (6,500-feet) non-stop over several thousand kilometres.

Filled with 500,000 cubic metres (17.6 million cubic feet) of non-flammable helium, the airship will be 260 metres (850-feet) long and is designed to carry large loads to remote locations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/769642.stm

though they went insolvent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolifter

peter · Post by **peter** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:05 pm

Hello Nicholas
Yes the "Cargolifter AG" went insolvent.
Only, they built a big hangar.

Best regards

nicholas · Post by **nicholas** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:57 pm

I saw the photo's.

Mind you even if it had been built, there would only be limited places it could be used! Airships are so prone to weather fluctuations, that something of this size would only be able where the weather is stable.

I like the quote I saw on the dubai site about their airship - it uses less fuel in 24 hours of operation than a 747 does taxiing on the runway

Post by **daiv** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:54 pm

nicholas wrote: I like the quote I saw on the dubai site about their airship - it uses less fuel in 24 hours of operation than a 747 does taxiing on the runway

The only problem is that the energy required to build and maintain the thing might actually be worse for the environment.

I am pro-recycling and all for more fuel efficient transportation -don't get me wrong there, but all to often, you are just moving the ineffeciency to a different stage in energy consumption.

Hydrogen powered cars are great for example, but making the hydrogen and the cars is worse for the environment than gasoline powered cars.

Again, dont' get me wrong. I think we should continue to find more efficient ways to do everything.

In the meantime, the best thing we can do is simply reduce consumption. It doesn't take advanced technology for people to simply turn lights off in unocupied rooms, walk on short distances, or adjust the thermostat a bit one way or the other.

My kids think I'm always harping on them about this kind of thing, but that's OK. I hope they value their resources when they're on their own some day.