GAWDA Edge Blog 
  

When you think of the future of flight, you probably think fast. But lately I’ve been noticing a trend in the opposite direction. It seems aircraft companies are thinking slow. The good news is they are turning to gases such as hydrogen and helium to make this happen.

The U.S. Army and Boeing both recently announced projects for aircrafts capable of hovering at a standstill for use with surveillance and communications. The Army paid half a billion dollars for the development of helium airships to hover unseen, miles above hostile area. From there, the unmanned vehicle can relay information to the military.

It could just be that air travel is cyclical, but airships appear to be making a comeback. However, these airships are definitely not for anyone who is in a hurry. An airship built by E-Green Technologies tops out at 80 mph (Watch the inflation of the airship). Their airship, at least, can support a 2,000 lb payload, but that only adds up to little more than a handful of people with small luggage.

Apart from a military contract here or there, is there really a future in airships? Sight-seeing might be a novel application. I imagine they might find their way into the Super Bowl and other sporting events—the surveillance capabilities can provide some good replay angles. The concept of a virtual floating billboard, at low altitudes, could be attractive to advertisers (Think souped-up Goodyear Blimp that can float for 4 days without landing). Among other “practical applications” listed on the E-Green Technologies website are “forest fire monitoring” and “agriculture assessments.” Is there anything I’m missing?

There are a few applications, but it’s still hard to see this catching on. Transportation is probably not a large market for airships. These days, people want to get around faster, not slower. But then again, half a billion dollars from the military will work wonders for the advancement of technology. It’s kind of like a slower, lower altitude space race. Although it would be fun to ride in an airship, do you think it’s worth the hefty investment?

Photo: Pslawinski

The world is running out of helium.

At 2008 usage rates, it’s estimated that the world’s helium supply would only last for another 25 years. Take a minute to digest that.

I came across a memorable quote from Robert C. Richardson, 1996 Nobel Prize winner in physics and Cornell physics professor, a credible source who has devoted much of his life’s research to helium. “That which God has taken 4.7 billion years to create will be dissipated in a little more than 100 years,” Richardson stressed.

The question is: what can be done? To address the anticipated shortage, should the price of helium be regulated to control usage? Richardson says a 20-fold increase in the price of helium would be about right. The idea may not be easy to swallow, but in the best case scenario, higher costs would fuel innovation—finding ways to recycle helium and finding alternative gases to replace helium, like using argon in welding. It goes back to the famous quip, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”

Higher costs for helium may not be an attractive solution, but it is better than the alternative of completely depleting the world’s helium supply. But hey, in another 4.7 billion years, everything will be back to normal.

Do you think it’s a good/bad idea? Is there a better solution than raising the cost? Tell me what you think.