Ray Osborne's Comments

Hi Ray, thanks for asking. Here is the point paper I recently provided to a local reporter in hopes of generating some publicity. It's about 4 pages, but an easy read. Keep in mind this is a summary backed by years of research, and I have a plenty of other material to expound on the plan...

The Challenge:
In 2001, there were 650 million air travelers in U. S. airspace. The FAA estimated that by 2010 that number would double, overwhelming an already straining system. At present, aircraft are landing and taking off within 45 seconds of each other, the narrowest margin for safety. All major airports are at capacity, and the cost to build more would be prohibitive, even if the land were available, which it’s not. Building larger aircraft seems to be the only answer, like the Airbus A380. However, it is tragically inevitable that this aircraft will crash at some point, with a tremendous loss of life (600+ passengers & crew). Other growing concerns about the airline industry include rising fuel costs and dependency on foreign oil (In 2002 the industry spent $10 billion dollars – in 2007 it was almost double that number,) environmental issues (carbon emissions of 400,000+ tons per year), and safety concerns over airspace/airport congestion and sliding maintenance standards, as well as vulnerability to acts of terrorism.

The Solution:
Design, manufacture, test, and field a fleet of giant airships. In the almost 80 years since the Hindenberg disaster, airship technology has continually been progressing. Neither Hindenberg nor Zeppellin have ever shut their doors, and the modern airship is a perfect solution to The Challenge. Here’s why:

(1) Air Congestion: The proposed airship design has a lift capacity of 4.4 million pounds, enough to transport 2,500 passengers per flight. Three round-trip flights from New York to Chicago would potentially move 15,000 people. It would take approximately 20 round-trips in a traditional 747. These airships would ease congestion around major airports, by using the thousands of under-utilized municipal airports in and around major cities.
(2) Costs: The airship will be powered by a hybrid of solar power and dry fuel cells, eliminating the high cost of fossil fuels, and significantly reducing our dependence on foreign energy. The savings would be passed along to the consumer, providing an economical alternative to jet travel. The airship will be filled with Helium gas, of which the U.S. produces 99% of the world’s supply. Other cost benefits include eliminating the need to construct new airports. As mentioned above, there are thousands of municipal airports around the country that are unable to handle large scale passenger aircraft because of the length of their runways. Since airships land vertically, this does not present a problem. In fact, airships landing at these under-utilized facilities will provide commercial benefits to the local communities in terms of job opportunities (upgraded security, baggage handling, rental car & travel agencies) and traveler’s dollars. Finally, each airship will only cost two-thirds of the common $140 million dollar 747 ($80 – 90 million,) making it a far cheaper and cost effective vehicle.
(3) Safety: Most people don’t realize the first five Hindenbergs crashed, but because of their basic design there were no deaths in the first four crashes. The famous Hindenburg explosion was caused by unsafe design flaws which have long been remedied. The highly flammable Hydrogen gas and canvas skins soaked with ammonium nitrate have been replaced with Helium (an inert gas) and Kevlar/Teflon skins. The proposed airship design does not carry giant tanks of highly flammable jet fuel, which usually causes the death of those passengers who survive an aircraft’s crash impact. Airships can remain aloft for weeks at a time, meaning that even if a catastrophic power failure occurred, the airship would remain airborne until the problem could be resolved, or slowly lowered to a suitable landing site through release of the buoyant Helium gas. Finally, because of their size and flight characteristics, airships will fly in the range of 15,000 feet, significantly lower than the 30,000+ range of jet aircraft. The frequency and human cost of airship crashes would be dramatically less than jet travel.
(4) Consumer Service: Because there are far more municipal airports throughout the country than major airports, service could be established in many cities which are growing to metropolitan size, but without a major transportation hub to support them. Airships could provide that support. Consumers will see cost savings from aircraft prices, fuel and maintenance costs. Consumers will also appreciate the panoramic beauty of a 3-hour flight at 15,000 feet versus the microscopic, cloud-blocked view at 35,000. Finally, because of the unequaled capacity of the airship, other amenities will liken an airship flight more to that of a cruise ship, with a wide variety of choices and vendors for consumers. Examples would be food courts, in-flight access to luggage, choice of free movies and music, and vendor services such as book shops, etc.
(5) Environmental Benefits: The airship will operate with a very small environmental footprint. While utilizing alternative, renewable eco-friendly fuel sources the airship also drastically reduces the carbon emission output of jet aircraft while also utilizing Helium gas, which is found abundantly in the U.S.

Collateral Benefits/Uses:
The versatility of the proposed airship design will allow it to be used for many other applications. For example, virtually every year, millions of dollars in property go up in flames in the California wildfires, not to mention the lives that may be lost in any given year. Teams of firefighters manually digging firebreaks and lone helicopters dumping pitifully small buckets of water can get the job done after weeks of hard fighting, at great risk to their lives. Instead, the fire that took weeks to be put out could be suppressed in days. With a massive 4 million pounds of water, foam or simply carrying firefighters quickly in and out of remote areas and reacting to the fire conditions, the airship could remain aloft and on scene for the entire effort, and save millions of dollars in lost property and lost lives.

Humanitarian/disaster relief efforts would also be an ideal application for this airship. During Hurricane Katrina, individuals in small boats, or lone helicopters would roam in search of victims, finding one or two people and returning them to safety, before once again going to look for survivors. Because the airship can remain aloft and on scene for weeks at a time, it could become a floating evacuation/rescue/medical aid station. The airship could evacuate survivors, and treat them onboard, even while continuing the search for others. Once a load of victims has been gathered, rather than simply dumping them at the edge of the hurricane’s damage for over-strained relief efforts to deal with, they could be flown en masse to anywhere in the U.S. The dispersion of the victims to various national sites would ensure resources would be sufficient for the need, instead of trying to rush these resources to the site of the damage. The conglomeration of resources during Katrina resulted in a tremendous amount of waste, fraud, and delay. If the victims were dispersed to national sites, the local needs would be reduced to a manageable level.

Transportation of goods and services has also been affected by the rising fuel costs. The airship platform can also be structured to transport food, heavy machinery and bulk products to market far faster than traditional trucking. Crops can be picked closer to their ripening, which will allow significantly less spoilage and crop losses due to those products not having to be left behind. Large machinery that normally has to be disassembled can be moved intact, saving time and money.

These are only a few of the dozens of applications for the airship platform.

Why This Cannot Be Accomplished By Commercial Enterprise:
This are three main reasons why this plan cannot be accomplished without the aid of the federal government:
(1) Financial Investment: The initial investment to design, test and manufacture a fleet of airships will cost billions of dollars. There are no commercial investors willing or able to bankroll this endeavor. They might if the opportunity was available, but reasons number 2 and 3 assure it won’t be:
(2) Industry Resistance: Airline companies have far too much invested in their way of life to lose any market space to a new venture. Add the fact that every few months another airline goes bankrupt, they restructure, cut routes, or have to pay increased fuel costs, and their instinct for self-preservation trumps all other considerations. The airship will challenge them and potentially force several out of business. Therefore, they won’t take a chance on being the one that gets culled. The industry will band together to raise their powerful lobbies and squelch any capitalists brave enough to try moving into their market.
(3) Regulatory interference: Without suggesting that short-cuts relevant to safety be made, there is much red-tape to flight certification of a new aircraft that could be expedited. Statistical data from the booming tourism airships markets in Europe can be referenced, where testing facilities and flight standards for airships are already in place. Given priority as a national transportation project, the airship could be realized.

Bottomline, not enough money, too many walls to climb over.

These three reasons are why this solution must be implemented by the federal government; it has the power to override the airline industry’s lobbyist efforts, the oversight to accelerate flight certification, and the deep pockets to fund such a large-scale project. Once the pieces are all in place, the government can then start releasing parts of the system to commercial interests, privatizing routes and airships, recouping some of its expenses, and bringing balance to a national transportation industry in crisis.