[0xCMP]

I think they're aware of all these problems because they do mention almost everything you said in the linked post thinking through the idea: https://www.elidourado.com/p/cargo-airships

Obviously that was simply a post thinking through everything hypothetically and I didn't read anything that seemed like they actually had the best solution, but at least they seem to be aware of the challenges to landing and off-loading cargo efficiently.

[ben-schaaf]

Reading that article I see no proposed solutions to this sail problem. They mention wind as an issue for delivery times but not safety. There's also no acknowledgement that the "scaling law" that makes building huge airships lucrative also makes these problems worse.

[wang_li]

You're failing to see the secret that is exposed by the fact that their Chief Engineer comes from hyperloop. They're going to dig tunnels connecting all their destinations and run the airships underground in a vacuum sealed network. No atmospheric drag at all! Bingo!

[withinboredom]

How can you call yourself an engineer and work on the hyperloop. Literally only takes about 30s of thought to realize it is an impossible idea.

[alluro2]

I don't particularly defend feasibility of Hyperloop, but did want to point out that your comment sounded awfully like when people were ridiculing the idea of human flight, landing on the moon etc... Finding engineering solutions to what looked as "impossible" challenges were some of the best feats of humanity so far.

[dr_dshiv]

Please reveal the impossibility of the idea?

[withinboredom]

Sure.

If you put it above ground, you are a few short bullets from killing everyone in the loop. Hitting a wall of air in a vacuum at hundreds of miles per hour is going to be like hitting a brick wall. Ask any reentering spacecraft.

The same problem exists underground, the weakest points being the stations themselves which can be bombed.

A failure in the system itself (even just a power outage or malfunctioning equipment) would mean people suffocate inside after a matter of minutes.

So, sure, it is possible to create it, but it is impossible to make any sort of safety guarantees. In other words, literally any other mode of transport would be safer, including a hydrogen-filled dirigible.

So, sure, the concept itself might be possible, but an engineer doesn't concern themselves with possible. That is for scientists. An engineer considers what is realistic AND possible, because that is an engineer’s job: to make the possible real. This cannot be real; literally no regulator would ever sign off on it.

[yellowapple]

> So, sure, it is possible to create it, but it is impossible to make any sort of safety guarantees.

Right, because cars and planes and trains and boats and bicycles and footpaths and airships all famously have 100% perfect safety track records, right?

[incrudible]

> The same problem exists underground, the weakest points being the stations themselves which can be bombed.

Few if any modes of transportation are safe when bombs come into play.

[milo256]

Huh? In what world is a hyperloop going maybe 700mph comparable to a spacecraft reentering from orbit at 17,000mph? Also, maybe there's something I'm missing but spacecraft can and do renter from orbit intact, thus proving that this problem is solvable even when the forces at play are orders of magnitude greater. Apply your safety argument to passenger airliners or even ordinary trains and you'll see that they are also "impossible to make safety guarantees" for.

[0xCMP]

Right, I am not saying they're right or wrong (not something I would know anything about), but it seems they've been vaguely aware of the issues from the start. Namely, before the SpaceX engineer and starting the company.