The Git-style workflow is super clever. How do teams typically collaborate around it? For example, can multiple people work on different branches of the same agent (visual and code), or is the sync more linear?
For now -- more linear. n-player simultaneous edits with instant versioning for any edit is something we're working on.
You can always "pull" a project to a staging folder so you can resolve conflicts in code manually if someone made changes in visual while you made changes in code.
The final one we're building will be 60 feet and have a 650lb payload, so would have to be an ultralight house! And you'd also need a place to park a 60'x20' airship. Or I suppose you could just keep it in the air? There's actually a startup that's supposedly building air yachts like you're talking about. I forgot the name but I think they're 150-200 feet.
We have a pretty cool plan for managing icing that I can't talk about here because of IP disclosure. In general we don't think icing will be an unsolvable problem.
We anticipate these will have operating bases with lifting gas storage tanks, hangars, tiedowns, etc. The hybrid design we're using doesn't need ballast because the total vehicle mass is heavier than air. In emergencies, we would land them in a field or on water for recovery when conditions improve, or fly to an area with better weather.
These are awesome questions! Here's a couple answers:
1) We're building our full size airship to fly at 60 mph, which increases the usability in inclement weather.
2) Joe answered this in another comment, but our airships use pretty small quantities of helium compared to the bigger ones, so it's not a major operational cost.
3) For sure this is an issue, but the bigger the blimp is, the more bullet holes you'd have to fill it with to prevent it from reaching its final destination. The german zeppelins of world war I were really hard to shoot down. See 5:47 of the below video.
I just attended a 7 year old girl's birthday party who was gifted a bb gun by her domestic-swilling uncle. We confirmed the temptation to shoot balloons is real. That said it seems like the other points you mentioned are working in your favor. The chances of hitting a small moving aircraft at a relatively high altitude is much lower than a 747 loaded onto a passing train. Plus I would like to imagine the temptation to shoot at something would diminish significantly as our hill billy wouldn't necessarily know it is unmanned. Not to mention anyone who has listened to a firearm safety talk is well-versed in how gravity affects projectiles. I wouldn't anticipate this being a significant problem, but it was a fun thought to entertain nonetheless.
And hey I'm just spit-balling here but isn't wind a much less of an issue at dusk, night, and dawn? Would this not be a significant factor in when you would operate? I would imagine most people shooting 747s on passing trains aren't getting out of bed to do that, after all.
I mean for 3, it's called 'vandalism' but it should be considered assault, attempted murder or even domestic terrorism. I'd put a security system on there (using e.g. high speed cameras) so that hopefully you can pin down where the shots come from, then sick the authorities on them. I have no tolerance for people using guns irresponsibly.
Also if the idiots know they're unmanned and used to deliver goods, they could be even more motivated to attempt to shoot them down to steal the cargo. I also would consider putting cameras and the necessary technology to help identifying anyone attempting to shoot them down.
Or maybe paint them as sharks, then add some powerful lasers on their back:)
We're not planning to build something that's 600 feet long and costs hundreds of millions, we're building something that's 60 feet long and costs hundreds of thousands. Unmanned blimps of this size don't require the same amount of capital, so we can fly faster and get to market faster.
Supposing you had unlimited engineering resources and development or capital costs weren't an issue, are smaller blimps fundamentally superior to larger ones in some important way? For instance, are smaller blimps inherently faster or easier to control in windy conditions?
Very good answer. The key difference is the size it also offers you much more flexibility it would seem in terms of the role you can fill. You can always add more blimps.
We'll spend a lot of time on certification. We need two things: a type-certification of the aircraft, and operator certifications for the organizations flying them. Both require a lot of flight hours, which will be our main development activity. There's no escaping aircraft regulation, but we have a clear path
Hopefully we've responded to practical constraints in other answers, but if not let me know questions.
A bored or malicious person will definitely be able to shoot our airships. The nice part about an airship is that if you shoot it with a gun, the hole will be small so it will take a long time for the gas to leak out. The failure mode is the airship will gradually lose lift and have trouble flying, probably on the order of hours before it wouldn't have enough to fly.
Most of the time we'll be operating over areas without people, so if the airships do get shot at, they should be in an area where they can safely land and be recovered. The envelope will be tough enough to handle birds landing on it.
Regarding banditry, we hope that we are providing enough value to these communities that there will be peer pressure to prevent it.
It's relatively easy to transport them when not in use, either keeping them inflated and flying to the end location, or packing them up and assembling/inflating on location.
The goal is to make them completely autonomous, though a pilot observer will likely be required for the near future.
Business model is something we're still figuring out. We have interest on both sides, but at first we'll definitely be operating themselves as the 'FedEx of the low skies.' Once the airship is certified (1-3 years after we build it), we can sell them.
On-board pilot/observer? Or remote, like a military drone operator?
If you build the infrastructure for the latter, one operator could likely manage multiple craft.
That said, what does either type of pilot do, if the vehicle misbehaves? What's the abort protocol, esp. over populated areas? Given a 600-lb payload, self-destruct is not an appealing way to exit.
Remote pilot like a military drone operator! If a vehicle misbehaves, worst case scenario would be a total control failure (will definitely have redundancies designed in), which would result in the airship slowly falling to the ground. Hopefully, people would see it coming and be able to get out of the way!
