I'm a huge fan of lighter than air craft and have been for many years, decades now. So saying that, I don't see this system ever actually working in the real world.
* If the departure and arrival points currently exist, they likely have roads available. Even the best case autonomous airship isn't going to be cheaper than a truck.
* With a maximum cargo capacity of 650lbs whatever cargo loaded onto an airship will likely have to be broken down. A standard 48"x48" pallet can easily be loaded with two to three times that weight.
* FAA regulations for helicopter landing pads [0] want a final approach, take off (FATO) area to be 1.5x the overall length of a helicopter. For an airship with partially aerodynamic lift I don't see why this wouldn't be larger but if it was the same you'd need a FATO area 90' on a side for a 60' long airship.
* The airship terminals would need their infrastructure and operations to include these huge cleared areas for the airships. A lot of consideration would need to go into vertical clearance for things like fork lifts because of the overhang dimensions of the airship.
* Urban heat islands and microclimates will severely hamper airships in ways that heavier than air craft don't worry about.
While I'm not in love with trucks, they make far more sense than airships for cargo in 99% of all cases. For one trailers and tractors don't need to be handled at the same time. A container(s) can be broken down and pallets moved to trailers and then a tractor called in once that's complete to move it out.
They also don't require some huge land area for loading and unloading. Middle mile terminals will have loading docks and/or forklifts. A mechanical problem with a tractor or trailer can be handled relatively easily on-site. If an autonomous airship has an issue at the terminal it can't be towed away easily unless even more space is dedicated to storage. If it breaks down during transport it can land on all sorts of stuff that doesn't want a half ton of airship landing on it.
I'm a fan of airships too and have been for decades, still I think I have to agree with your points. That said, some people obviously don't including those with money to chuck at the problem. What do you say to this report?
With lifting and speed specifications like that it'd be a game-changer if they ever pulled it off. It seems to me if its high proposed speed were ever attained in practice then it'd also be useful for passenger services for continental-sized distances (say 1000 to 2000 miles) where its potentially quick embarking/disembarking would be advantageous over normal air travel.
(I bookmarked this url some months ago, I think I may have even gotten it from a HN story.)
I'm extremely skeptical about that proposal. The sky crane is a nice idea on paper but in practice I don't think it will work. A fully loaded 20' shipping container can mass thirty tons (US). Even a light wind could turn a container on the airship's crane into a giant building destroying flail. There's also issues with static discharge that could be extremely hazardous and difficult to work around. Suggesting the airship will just use its crane to lift containers without extra infrastructure is really fantastical.
Then there's the fantastic promises of payload and speed. Even with their combination of hot air and helium for lift they would have to be ridiculously large to lift the proposed payloads. Until they've got an actual working full sized model I just don't believe their numbers. The Hidenberg was stupendously large and only had a payload of about ten tons using hydrogen, that's not even a single fully loaded 20' shipping container.
* If the departure and arrival points currently exist, they likely have roads available. Even the best case autonomous airship isn't going to be cheaper than a truck.
* With a maximum cargo capacity of 650lbs whatever cargo loaded onto an airship will likely have to be broken down. A standard 48"x48" pallet can easily be loaded with two to three times that weight.
* FAA regulations for helicopter landing pads [0] want a final approach, take off (FATO) area to be 1.5x the overall length of a helicopter. For an airship with partially aerodynamic lift I don't see why this wouldn't be larger but if it was the same you'd need a FATO area 90' on a side for a 60' long airship.
* The airship terminals would need their infrastructure and operations to include these huge cleared areas for the airships. A lot of consideration would need to go into vertical clearance for things like fork lifts because of the overhang dimensions of the airship.
* Urban heat islands and microclimates will severely hamper airships in ways that heavier than air craft don't worry about.
While I'm not in love with trucks, they make far more sense than airships for cargo in 99% of all cases. For one trailers and tractors don't need to be handled at the same time. A container(s) can be broken down and pallets moved to trailers and then a tractor called in once that's complete to move it out.
They also don't require some huge land area for loading and unloading. Middle mile terminals will have loading docks and/or forklifts. A mechanical problem with a tractor or trailer can be handled relatively easily on-site. If an autonomous airship has an issue at the terminal it can't be towed away easily unless even more space is dedicated to storage. If it breaks down during transport it can land on all sorts of stuff that doesn't want a half ton of airship landing on it.
[0] https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...