petebarrett@unknown.co.uk (Pete Barrett) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:39:44 GMT, fairwater@... (Derek Lyons)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, it is an argument. The other fuels have some combination of
>>significant handling problems, low energy density, or high
>>weight/horsepower. There are reasons why the alternative fuels were
>>abandoned for petroleum based liquids.
>>
>Yes, of course there are; but those reasons won't apply if there are
>no petroleum-based liquids. In that case, the best of the rest will be
>used.
Yes, those reasons apply because they determine whether or not
airships with alternate power sources are feasible and at what price
and what performance levels.
>>>People will want to fly, and airships are possible, even if they're not
>>>as good as OTL.
>>
>>*Assuming* they work economically and perform reasonably. If an
>>airship can't be built and operate economically, have a decent range,
>>and make headway against a modest wind - they won't happen.
>>
>Whether it's economic depends upon how much people are prepared to pay
>for it. A trip by ATL airship would be more expensive and perhaps
>slower than the same trip by OTL airship - but I don't see that it
>would be at so much a premium that no one would be prepared to pay for
>it. It would be a luxury, I expect, but so was airship travel OTL -
>more like a cruise than a ferry.
It's not just expense, it's performance. Germany tried multiple times
in OTL to set up intercity airship service, all failed miserably
because the airship fared worse than the train. Intercontinental
airship travel in OTL had plenty of paying passengers for the novelty
value, but still required subsidies to stay afloat.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
