TPO 66

The article and the lecture are both about the popularity of airships in the future. While the writer claims some advantages to support the idea that airships could become more used again, the speaker challenges each of her points.

First, even though the lecturer agrees that airships use less fuel than a typical aircraft, he points out this kind of aircraft can't balance between safety and fuel cost. Unlike airplanes and helicopters which use special kinds of gases to run, airships fly using a balloon filled with lighter-than-air gases, such as hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen is known to easily catch fires and have caused many tragic accidents, while helium is not only too difficult to obtain but also too weak to lift the airship up.

Second, the speaker feels that the use of airships for carrying heavy logs from forests will be more of a challenge than an advantage. In fact, in order to make sure the logs will be safely carried without crashing, aircraft has to come down slowly to get the logs and stay steady while pulling them up. However, airship is a large and light aircraft that can't be kept steady, especially if there's a strong wind blowing. As a result, it will cause damages to the logs and the forest as a whole.

Third, it was mentioned in the article that airships could be used to replace satellites. Nevertheless, the lecture is doubtful that this is possible. It is true that airships can rise high above the surface but only at the height of about 45km. However, there’s a problem at this height, which is active strong wind. In order to resist the wind, airships will have to use a lot of fuel and thus, quickly running out of it. Consequently, airships used as satellites will have to go back to the surface once in a while and get refueled, which can’t be cost-efficient as the current satellites.