Airships were considered by McClellan et al. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034019 This report needs revision - as later analyses have shown unanticipated limitations with wing design (based on my interpretation of comments made at CEC17). Furthermore, their analysis of non-aircraft delivery modes (eg guns) was rather cursory.
Since this report's publication, various hybrid airships have been tested - such as those from HAV and Northrup Grumman - so the subject likely merits re-visiting. IMO, engineering is a neglected aspect of geoengineering. Andrew Lockley On 23 October 2017 at 21:17, Paul Beckwith <phbeckw...@rogers.com> wrote: > I think that the best way to go is to use airships. Blimps. Dirigables, > Zeppelins, Hindenburg with He…Huge lift capacity, extremely high altitudes, > easily automated controls… > > > > Regards, Paul > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@ > googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 7:20 PM > *To:* geoengineering > *Subject:* [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC > > > > From what I gather, it seems we have a bit of engineering drama. > Apparently, you can't just swap aircraft engines and do SRM, because the > wings aren't right on any aircraft with even a vaguely adequate payload. > > > > This is A Problem. > > > > We've either got to > > A) engineer a new aircraft, like the Delft team did (with a $100m expected > development cost) > > B) work out a way to make new wings for an existing jet (not simple) > > C) come up with something else > > > > If we assume it's C, then there's quite a lot decent new hardware around. > One choice is Blue Origin/Space X kit. Does anyone know how that would fare > in an up-and-down flight path? I know Blue Origin did that before. Payload > should be manageable, but I'm not sure how costs are coming down. > > > > Another alternative is one of the hybrid concepts. I got a flea in my ear > for mentioning BAE systems hybrid engines before. However, their power in > thin air may make them suitable for geoengineering use - either as zoom > climbers or cruise. > > > > I know that current thinking is to condense H2SO4 directly, but I guess > with any kind of zoom climb, you're pretty much stuck dumping bulk SO2 and > crossing your fingers it doesn't all coagulate to baseball-size and drop > out! > > > > Would be great to hear from people on the list. > > > > (Personally, my concern is that our best option for accessing the > stratosphere at the current rate of engineering might be to make a large > pile of climate engineering governance papers, and walk up that carrying > gas tanks! There will soon be enough of them ;) ) > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
