APR 17

this sounds extremely neat, and steampunk, and like it would maybe convince me to start travelling in fancy clothing and extravagantly coiffed hair. And also perhaps a pet golden monkey.

but at the same time, I have to ask- wasn't there a reason airships went away? A big flaming reason called the hindenberg?

Hindenberg happened because of the US/Ally embargo on Germany. We refused to ship Helium to them, so they used Hydrogen. I think the real reason they went away was because of speed, planes are faster. However as a airborn freight vehicle it has more potential. Certainly Trains can carry more, but what about 18 wheelers, do they carry 500 tons. Also, airships would be faster than trucks, higher speed and straighter lines. Also would help out regional airports in terms of business. Adding the the shipping portfolio. :)

I want one, I want one a lot

For fuel-cell cars, the often-expressed concerns about hydrogen safety are misplaced. Although no fuel is free from potential hazard, carrying
compressed hydrogen around in an efficient car could actually be safer than carrying an equivalent-range tank of gasoline.19 The car’s modest inventory of hydrogen20 would typically be stored in an extremely
strong carbon-fiber tank. Unlike spilled gasoline, escaped hydrogen likes nothing better than to dissipate—it’s very buoyant and diffuses rapidly.
While it does ignite easily, ignition requires a fourfold richer mixture in air than gasoline fumes do. Making hydrogen explode requires an
eighteenfold richer mixture plus an unusual geometry. Moreover, a hydrogen fire can’t burn you unless you’re practically inside it, in contrast
to burning gasoline and other hydrocarbons whose white-hot soot particles emit searing heat that can cause critical burns at a distance.
(Because of the gas’s unique burning properties, no one was directly killed by the hydrogen fire in the 1937 Hindenburg disaster. Some died in
a diesel-oil fire or by jumping out of the airship, but all sixty-two passengers who rode the flaming dirigible back to earth, as the clear hydrogen
flames swirled upward above them, escaped unharmed.21

Reinventing the Wheels, Chapter Two of Natural Capitalism (see www.natcap.org)

The Hindenburg disaster was an example of modern world media. Photographers were present and the arrival was being broadcast live over radio, so it made a huge impression on the public at a time blimps didn't have an edge.

Later studies into the Hindenburg fire were quite conclusive that the spectacular flames were not of hydrogen burning. Rather it was the skin of the ship which had been made from an unfortunate mix of metals and chemicals which much resemble the solid propellent found in the space shuttles boosters. Hydrogen burns blue not red and the Hinderburg most definitely burned red-yellow just as predicted.

Cool, it would be funny though to see a boat blow underneath ya on your way to Europe ;-)

faster than an oil tanker
or a container ship
or a fly

The Hindenburg did not likely explode because of the composition of its skin creating a thermite reaction. See the Mythbusters Hindenburg episode.

Andy is right. Although almost everyone can enjoy the exploits of a couple of nice guys using their combined experiences in the effects world of film and TV to attempt to prove or disprove various theories, no one should really be of the opinion that their one-off experiments lay all doubts to rest. Some pretty serious research (by a pretty wide range of theorists) into the Hindenburg disaster has taken place over the course of the past several decades. The upshot of this research *has* led to the conclusion that the explosion (a rather big "squeaky pop") most probably did happen as a result of the Hydrogen meeting naked flame, however that flame was most likely the result of the (incredibly flammable) skin being ignited by a spark, which in turn was (probably - none of this is certain after all) generated by either electrical build-up or a plain old nudge against the mooring mast. Hydrogen has been very unfairly demonized ever since the disaster... give the first element a break, OK?

i think there is full of weight so it couldnt pop up so that will make an impression in the chemical materials then its burned.

I hope this becomes reality as I love airships and I like flying, but not the stressful, chaotic mess that passes for modern air travel.
R.e the Hindenburg, ppl are quick to go on about the dangers of hydrogen, but planes are full of highly flammable kerosene so what's the difference. Also the Graf Zeppelin flew many successful flights and had a 100% safety record.
the only planes I do like are gliders - being a glider pilot is fun.

I would like to see the airship replace the plane as the the main form of air travel. I'm not anti-plane though as I do have a PPL, I think there are just too many unnecessary airliner flights that could be cut down on. I like piloting my small single engine, twin seater Cessna, but these days I'm running out of flying space thanks to the endless growth of commercial air travel and low cost airlines. We don't want to return to the days when flying was only for the rich though, and I think domestic flights should be scrapped and trains used instead and airships brought in to offer a slower, greener alternative to medium and long haul flights, and charge much higher prices for those who wish to fly long haul by plane. We should keep a few 747s and A380s for emergency use only, such as when there's a natural disaster and food aid needs to be flown in for example, but all other non essential air travel could be by airship - if people are prepared to slow down a bit.

First let me state, I am a huge airship fan.

The distance factor is the primary issue; if you want to use airships for anything beyond short regional travel, then you need a fast airship. Let's put in some numbers to see what I am talking about... The distance between London and NYC is 3471 miles. The Hindenburg, Graf Zeppelin, Shenandoah, and Los Angeles type dirigibles went ~80 mph. Suppose we could through improved materials, proper shaping, and more powerful motors (that still maintain good fuel usage), we could get an airship to go 150 mph. By my calculations, it would take ~23 hours to go between the cities.

Now the real issue is not really the time, it is the amount most folks get for vacation (at least in the US). With only 2 weeks of vacation per year, losing 2 days for travel is tough. Airships are a bit more susceptible to weather as well, so expect more delays (like 24 hours if a major front is passing through) driving up the need for further days of vacation. Otherwise, it will be travel for only the extremely wealthy that can afford the time off without pay or those that get more than 2 weeks. These should also link up with rail and metro/subway systems to allow the removal of the need for individual vehicles at the end points (unless you are going into rural areas).

More research is needed to the get the airship's speed up.