8 ms·

I think there's room for an airship renaissance, for a number of reasons. Firstly, speed doesn't matter as much as it did, particularly for tourists - if I can

I think there's room for an airship renaissance, for a number of reasons. Firstly, speed doesn't matter as much as it did, particularly for tourists - if I can take two days crossing the Atlantic in luxury rather than crammed into a tiny seat, at a not-huge price differential, I'm game. Secondly, communications. Easy enough (albeit still pricey) to use the likes of iridium for internet everywhere. No longer so important to reach your destination fast. Thirdly, technology. No longer does the thing need to be stuffed with hydrogen - rather helium. Give it a little while and we can stuff it with vacuum in spun carbon vessels. In place of the fossil driven air-screws, make the entire thing a fat flying wing, cover the top in PV, use electric propulsion. Finally, given the ever increasing popularity of cruises, I can see people paying serious money for an inland cruise over the alps etc. Additionally, even the Hindenburg was arguably safer than a modern airliner. If the latter catches fire or crashes, the likelihood is 100% mortality for the souls aboard - whereas an airship allows for slow ditching or even emergency parachute pods. Please, somebody, tell me why this is a bad idea.

jfries 9y ago
One advantage of getting to the destination quickly is that the vessel can get new paying customers onboard. If the trip takes 48 rather than 6 hours, operation needs to be eight times cheaper to keep the same ticket price.
- madaxe_again 9y ago
  Sure - or you aim principally for the cruise market and charge a commensurately premium price. I was recently on a trip to the Antarctic that some folks had paid $30,000 a head for the experience - so the market certainly exists.
- psadri 9y ago
  You could have more of them in flight (8x) to get the same volume of passengers.
  - avar 9y ago
    If this Quora post[1] is to be believed it takes 10 years for an airline to break even on a 747. Assuming similar costs for the blimp that 8x turns into 80 years. 1. https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-an-airline-to-break-even-on-a-new-airplane-purchase https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-an-airline-t...
anovikov 9y ago
Because of staff salaries and operating costs that will need to be covered with 10-20% the number of tickets sold, because the thing is many times slower. It might make 150 flights one-way per year vs ~700 for a jet. So the ticket will be much, much more expensive.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  I don't know that this logic holds up if fuel costs are lower. It might work if the blimp is significantly cheaper than a plane (likely), and fuel is cheaper (or can use, eg, solar). The cost for crew is about $100/ticket. So if you figure $500/ticket (cost from NYC to London a few months out, coach), then you have about $400/ticket to cover food, fuel, maintenance, etc. So if fuel is cheaper, I'm not convinced it's actually (that much) more expensive.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Animats 9y ago
    The big cost is helium. I met the CEO of Airship Ventures, the company that used to have a big sightseeing Zeppelin II based at Moffett Field in Mountain View. The price of helium doubled, and that killed the business. Fuel cost was minor.
- mmphosis 9y ago
  Not just on airships, but running transports without zero on board staff might have added benefits and efficiencies. I know that in Vancouver the Sky Trains ran without on board staff. If the airships can be run like transit in Switzerland then the costs of traveling through airports can be removed. <rant> Adding six or more hours, or more days in expensive hotels if the dates and times are bad which they usually are, to air travel and all of the new hassles is less and less worth the bother. Having to arrive 3 hours early, lining up early to check-in, possibly paying for and trusting the airport with larger baggage, lining up again and going through security, lining up again to board the plane. Queuing again out to the runway. Do all of that again when you land. All of this with the possibilities of flight delay, cancellation and other changes that airlines will foist upon paying clients. I think travel should be like riding the bus, you show up, you swipe your phone / ticket / pass and go. </rant> If done right and at low cost, I would like to see airships displace jets.
chickenfries 9y ago
For the same price, I think I would rather have an extra day and a half of vacation.
- _ph_ 9y ago
  The idea is though, that the airship travel itself is so nice it can be counted as part of the vacation.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    That's the sort of thinking that had me take Amtrak on a cross-country trip back in the 1990s. Never again. We had 1st class tickets, so it was nice having a private compartment, real beds to sleep in, a shower, and decent food to eat. The dining car was nice and comfortable. But we had two mechanical breakdowns, and then had to make an emergency stop when a car was stalled on a grade crossing. After about an hour delay we then had to proceed very slowly (I'd guess 30mph) to the next station for an inspection. We ended up being over 48 hours late to our destination. No refunds, no compensation. Never again. I'd rather drive.
    - _ph_ 9y ago
      If your train had not broken down, you might have enjoyed the trip?
      - JadeNB 9y ago
        > If your train had not broken down, you might have enjoyed the trip? This is a somewhat meaningless hypothetical with Amtrak, though. I love to travel Amtrak, but it is pointless to speculate about what it would be like if your long trip arrived on time, because it won't. It might not break down—I've only once (as far as I know) been on a train that experienced significant mechanical issues—but it will be delayed by freight. 48 hours late is extreme (though not at all unprecedented), but 5–9 hours late for a 24-hour trip is just what to expect, at least in my experience.
xixixao 9y ago
Doesn't look like it's survived into 2017 looking at its press releases, but Aeros was supposed to be building airships with the main advantage of not requiring a runway for delivering cargo: http://aeroscraft.com/press-releases/4591577189 http://aeroscraft.com/press-releases/4591577189
MichaelGG 9y ago
For transit it probably wouldn't work for reasons listed in other comments. But as a cruise... Like an air version of the Orient Express? That sounds amazing, and they could open up places existing tours find it hard to reach (go inland into countries with shitty infrastructure but nice geography).
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Just did a Google for "cruise blimp" and got some interesting hits; e.g. https://twitter.com/jetsettersflyin/status/596142098241310720 https://twitter.com/jetsettersflyin/status/59614209824131072... It could totally work for that market. Heck, just attach a blimp to a cruise ship for multi-day inland outings.
  - mastax 9y ago
    I doubt you could put swimming pools on a craft that size and still have it be lighter than air. Look at how small of a livable space there was on hindenberg-class airship: http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors/ http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors/ Materials science has improved, but not that much.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Ya, we need some gas with more lift, or, well, a way around gravity. It might work on a planet with a really desnse atmosphere, like Jupiter.
      - JadeNB 9y ago
        > It might work on a planet with a really desnse atmosphere, like Jupiter. Talk about "places existing tours find it hard to reach"!
    - spc476 9y ago
      Certainly roomier than a train, and some of the train cars are gorgeous. I had a chance to ride in the Georgia 300 [1][2] and man, that's the only way to travel. [1] http://boston.conman.org/2015/08/05.4 http://boston.conman.org/2015/08/05.4 [2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/14589121@N00/sets/72157612828066356 https://www.flickr.com/photos/14589121@N00/sets/721576128280...
vivekd 9y ago
Interestingly enough, there is a startup that is working on this: https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/aircraft/airlander-10 https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/aircraft/airlander-10
syedkarim 9y ago
>>Give it a little while and we can stuff it with vacuum in spun carbon vessels. How much of a while? This is nowhere near being a reality. Helium is expensive and getting more and more scarce. Airliners are pretty safe. Safer even than walking, when measured by passenger miles. I'm sure therr is a market for airships (similar to train travel), but I don't see how it would be arguably better than fossil-driven air screws.
evan_ 9y ago
Helium is much more expensive than hydrogen and lifts less.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tetraodonpuffer 9y ago
If global internet was a reality I could see working remotely on an airship as being quite attractive as well, just go wherever slowly in your flying apartment, stopping to pick up food & supplies once a week or so, and occasionally mooring in places you enjoy for more extended stays...
triplesec 9y ago
I think a big problem is that helium is a very scarce Resource and which we get only from fossil fuels. Much helium has been wasted in the past couple of decades and prices of it will only go up as its scarcity increases. It's really highly needed for medical equipment and other things and I can't see it being used in bulk for this purpose. Now using hydrogen has been mooted, using newer technologies to keep it safer. I love this idea mentioned in this thread of a vacuum glimpse as well
- Retric 9y ago
  Hot air is also completely viable and in many ways simpler to work with, though you need very high temperature or the volume gets extreme. However the most reasonable option is probably multiple layers with hydrogen inside a nitrogen envelope which makes small leaks a non issue.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    The numbers don't work for hot air. You just can't get the lift.
    - Retric 9y ago
      It's altitude and temperature dependent. 100 °C Which is normal hot air balloon temperature. If the outside temp is 27c that's 1-(300/370) or 19% lighter than air vs heliums 1-1/14 = 93% lighter than air. But you lift increases significantly with temperature. The downside is you end up spending fuel to add heat. But hot air balloons also have terrible insulation. Further volume has great scaling if you save 93% with hydrogen having 4x the volume means being ~20% lighter than air provides the same lift. Now yes scaling the airframe adds weight and drag as does the fuel to provide all that hot air. But you can also significantly past 100c before you encounter massive issues.
- gozur88 9y ago
  But you don't actually expend the helium. You lose a tiny bit through leakage. In airship companies today, the helium is the least of the problems.
WalterBright 9y ago
Zeppelins have problems with severe weather. Only one of the Zeppelin accidents was due to fire.
frutiger 9y ago
> if I can take two days crossing the Atlantic in luxury rather than crammed into a tiny seat Do you count business class as being crammed into a tiny seat?
InclinedPlane 9y ago
Technology, yes, but Hydrogen has almost nothing to do with it. The Hindenburg was only one of many great airship disasters of the early 20th century, and several of those ships were filled with Helium. Airships have two great weaknesses. One is that they are just really expensive to build and operate. Today that's a little less of a problem because of the availability of financing and improvements in technology reducing the labor and cost of materials for constructing an airship. The other major weakness is the double combo of airships being highly susceptible to weather and also fairly fragile. An airplane can take off and land in a thunderstorm, travel at 600 mph across the country, and then turn around at the destination very rapidly and keep going. This is why airplanes, particularly jet aircraft, won the air travel competition, they have a much higher duty cycle and are much more reliable than many alternatives. Technology has greatly improved our ability to spot and predict adverse weather and has also improved construction materials, designs, control systems, etc. all of which can make operating airships much more predictable and safer. But they will never be competitive with airplanes for travel, they serve a niche. Also, in regards to safety it's just blatantly untrue. Airships crashed, a lot, airplanes crash almost never (it's so rare that any time it does happen it's newsworthy, often on a global scale), any other hypothetical advantage of airships is mooted by that basic fact.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  I think they almost lost the Graf Zeppelin when four of the five engines failed and it could no longer fly upwind. They had to fly down wind and hook the only mooring tower between then and Atlantic.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  To be fair, at the time, airplanes also crashed a lot.
Zaephyr 9y ago
Airships, particularly rigid airships (Zeppelins), are massive and it's the mass that becomes a problem. The airship is inflated to a state of neutral buoyancy so it floats and can hang in the sky (cool!) but the mass has to be dealt with when you want to start, stop, or change direction. I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. It's also a problem in flying in the vicinity of strong storms. You also have to maintain the neutral buoyancy as you burn fuel. Zeppelins could use diesel but the preference was for 'blau gas' which had a density close to air, and didn't cause the airship to lighten as it was burned. Maintaining buoyancy also complicates using an airship as a freighter; an offsetting load is needed when making a delivery, otherwise you end up venting your lifting gas. All that said, if I had the money I'd totally blow it building a Zeppelin-style (and size) airship.
- chiph 9y ago
  If they could get the fare down to the equivalent of a business class airline ticket, I'd do it. Even if food + beverages were extra-cost. > I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. A solution might be to never land. Have a helipad on top of the airship, and have passengers arrive/depart via helicopter (as well as resupply via containers slung under a helicopter).
- gozur88 9y ago
  >I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. It's also a problem in flying in the vicinity of strong storms. The ground handling problems have been solved. You either use directional thrust like Zeppelin NT, or you make the airship a lifting body that's slightly heavier than air, landing it on a runway like an airplane like Airlander 10. Both work.
cardiffspaceman 9y ago
> Please, somebody, tell me why this is a bad idea. One of your mitigations, though I agree in principle, may not be as strong it appears in practice. When you think of comms on a airship crossing the Atlantic, you shouldn't think of having a reliable Iridium connection, you should think of: You're in a slowly-moving hotel, using their WiFi, with really "indifferent" attendance to its coverage and speed, with no possibility of using 3G or LTE as a backup. I mainly picture the scenario of crossing the sea, but I think this would apply to an airship at cruising altitude as well. Source: my last vacation was on a cruise ship and I'm glad it was a vacation and not a business trip where I had to be in touch the whole time.
gozur88 9y ago
You're right about everything except the Hindenburg being safer - hydrogen can never be made that safe because of the way it migrates through just about anything. We'd have to use helium. The real problem is planes benefit from a huge existing market plus military utility. The first passenger airplanes were essentially WW II bombers with seats where the bomb bays had been. When Boeing or Airbus builds a new jet, they amortize the cost over hundreds of civilian air frames, plus potentially hundreds more military tanker and transport versions. If you were to build an airship the size of Hindenburg, you'd build, what, three or four at the most? The unit cost would be about a billion dollars by the time everything was done and you had passenger certification. You'd need a lot of high-priced tourists to fill the gap. You can go to Friedrichshafen and ride an existing airship. It costs about $250 for a half hour, and I'm not convinced they actually make money. There's a chance we could see the return of airships, but the only way it's going to happen is an enormous increase in the price of fossil fuels. Even then, though, they'll never be as efficient as ocean or rail travel, so it's likely airships would be the mode of transport for the rich and politically connected. The rest of use would be back in steerage.
lostlogin 9y ago
> No longer does the thing need to be stuffed with hydrogen. It didn't need to be then - the helium constraint was artificial due to the US not allowing Germany to import the gas. Link at bottom. Nowadays it's a rather rare and precious gas though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship
stellar678 9y ago
I think staffing costs would make this difficult if it's even possible. How many staff run a modern airline on a cross-Atlantic trip, maybe 10? With an 8 hour trip time, that's 80 hours of staff time for about 300 passengers. Or about 1/4 hour per passenger. The Hindenburg had 61 staff and a 60 hour journey for around 3600 hours of staff time for 36 passengers. Or about 100 hours per passenger. 400x staffing costs is a yawning gap and it seems like you couldn't bridge it without selling an entirely different service. Which is too bad because it sounds awesome!
upofadown 9y ago
Meh, we could use hydrogen if we really wanted to. If you separate the lift from the people/propulsion there is little chance of a strongly rising gas leak causing a fire. Heck, you can even do electronics in an explosive hydrogen atmosphere (I've personally done it). It just takes a lot of care and as a result is expensive to design. What you can't do is have random people inside the outer envelope that also contains the gas bags. Anything that is going to be light enough to fly is going to leak a lot of hydrogen.

jfries 9y ago

One advantage of getting to the destination quickly is that the vessel can get new paying customers onboard. If the trip takes 48 rather than 6 hours, operation needs to be eight times cheaper to keep the same ticket price.

madaxe_again 9y ago
Sure - or you aim principally for the cruise market and charge a commensurately premium price. I was recently on a trip to the Antarctic that some folks had paid $30,000 a head for the experience - so the market certainly exists.
psadri 9y ago
You could have more of them in flight (8x) to get the same volume of passengers.
- avar 9y ago
  If this Quora post[1] is to be believed it takes 10 years for an airline to break even on a 747. Assuming similar costs for the blimp that 8x turns into 80 years. 1. https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-an-airline-to-break-even-on-a-new-airplane-purchase https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-an-airline-t...

anovikov 9y ago

Because of staff salaries and operating costs that will need to be covered with 10-20% the number of tickets sold, because the thing is many times slower. It might make 150 flights one-way per year vs ~700 for a jet. So the ticket will be much, much more expensive.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
I don't know that this logic holds up if fuel costs are lower. It might work if the blimp is significantly cheaper than a plane (likely), and fuel is cheaper (or can use, eg, solar). The cost for crew is about $100/ticket. So if you figure $500/ticket (cost from NYC to London a few months out, coach), then you have about $400/ticket to cover food, fuel, maintenance, etc. So if fuel is cheaper, I'm not convinced it's actually (that much) more expensive.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Animats 9y ago
  The big cost is helium. I met the CEO of Airship Ventures, the company that used to have a big sightseeing Zeppelin II based at Moffett Field in Mountain View. The price of helium doubled, and that killed the business. Fuel cost was minor.
mmphosis 9y ago
Not just on airships, but running transports without zero on board staff might have added benefits and efficiencies. I know that in Vancouver the Sky Trains ran without on board staff. If the airships can be run like transit in Switzerland then the costs of traveling through airports can be removed. <rant> Adding six or more hours, or more days in expensive hotels if the dates and times are bad which they usually are, to air travel and all of the new hassles is less and less worth the bother. Having to arrive 3 hours early, lining up early to check-in, possibly paying for and trusting the airport with larger baggage, lining up again and going through security, lining up again to board the plane. Queuing again out to the runway. Do all of that again when you land. All of this with the possibilities of flight delay, cancellation and other changes that airlines will foist upon paying clients. I think travel should be like riding the bus, you show up, you swipe your phone / ticket / pass and go. </rant> If done right and at low cost, I would like to see airships displace jets.

chickenfries 9y ago

For the same price, I think I would rather have an extra day and a half of vacation.

_ph_ 9y ago
The idea is though, that the airship travel itself is so nice it can be counted as part of the vacation.
- ams6110 9y ago
  That's the sort of thinking that had me take Amtrak on a cross-country trip back in the 1990s. Never again. We had 1st class tickets, so it was nice having a private compartment, real beds to sleep in, a shower, and decent food to eat. The dining car was nice and comfortable. But we had two mechanical breakdowns, and then had to make an emergency stop when a car was stalled on a grade crossing. After about an hour delay we then had to proceed very slowly (I'd guess 30mph) to the next station for an inspection. We ended up being over 48 hours late to our destination. No refunds, no compensation. Never again. I'd rather drive.
  - _ph_ 9y ago
    If your train had not broken down, you might have enjoyed the trip?
    - JadeNB 9y ago
      > If your train had not broken down, you might have enjoyed the trip? This is a somewhat meaningless hypothetical with Amtrak, though. I love to travel Amtrak, but it is pointless to speculate about what it would be like if your long trip arrived on time, because it won't. It might not break down—I've only once (as far as I know) been on a train that experienced significant mechanical issues—but it will be delayed by freight. 48 hours late is extreme (though not at all unprecedented), but 5–9 hours late for a 24-hour trip is just what to expect, at least in my experience.

xixixao 9y ago

Doesn't look like it's survived into 2017 looking at its press releases, but Aeros was supposed to be building airships with the main advantage of not requiring a runway for delivering cargo: http://aeroscraft.com/press-releases/4591577189 http://aeroscraft.com/press-releases/4591577189

MichaelGG 9y ago

For transit it probably wouldn't work for reasons listed in other comments. But as a cruise... Like an air version of the Orient Express? That sounds amazing, and they could open up places existing tours find it hard to reach (go inland into countries with shitty infrastructure but nice geography).

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Just did a Google for "cruise blimp" and got some interesting hits; e.g. https://twitter.com/jetsettersflyin/status/596142098241310720 https://twitter.com/jetsettersflyin/status/59614209824131072... It could totally work for that market. Heck, just attach a blimp to a cruise ship for multi-day inland outings.
- mastax 9y ago
  I doubt you could put swimming pools on a craft that size and still have it be lighter than air. Look at how small of a livable space there was on hindenberg-class airship: http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors/ http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors/ Materials science has improved, but not that much.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Ya, we need some gas with more lift, or, well, a way around gravity. It might work on a planet with a really desnse atmosphere, like Jupiter.
    - JadeNB 9y ago
      > It might work on a planet with a really desnse atmosphere, like Jupiter. Talk about "places existing tours find it hard to reach"!
  - spc476 9y ago
    Certainly roomier than a train, and some of the train cars are gorgeous. I had a chance to ride in the Georgia 300 [1][2] and man, that's the only way to travel. [1] http://boston.conman.org/2015/08/05.4 http://boston.conman.org/2015/08/05.4 [2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/14589121@N00/sets/72157612828066356 https://www.flickr.com/photos/14589121@N00/sets/721576128280...

vivekd 9y ago

Interestingly enough, there is a startup that is working on this: https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/aircraft/airlander-10 https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/aircraft/airlander-10

syedkarim 9y ago

>>Give it a little while and we can stuff it with vacuum in spun carbon vessels. How much of a while? This is nowhere near being a reality. Helium is expensive and getting more and more scarce. Airliners are pretty safe. Safer even than walking, when measured by passenger miles. I'm sure therr is a market for airships (similar to train travel), but I don't see how it would be arguably better than fossil-driven air screws.

evan_ 9y ago

Helium is much more expensive than hydrogen and lifts less.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tetraodonpuffer 9y ago

If global internet was a reality I could see working remotely on an airship as being quite attractive as well, just go wherever slowly in your flying apartment, stopping to pick up food & supplies once a week or so, and occasionally mooring in places you enjoy for more extended stays...

triplesec 9y ago

I think a big problem is that helium is a very scarce Resource and which we get only from fossil fuels. Much helium has been wasted in the past couple of decades and prices of it will only go up as its scarcity increases. It's really highly needed for medical equipment and other things and I can't see it being used in bulk for this purpose. Now using hydrogen has been mooted, using newer technologies to keep it safer. I love this idea mentioned in this thread of a vacuum glimpse as well

Retric 9y ago
Hot air is also completely viable and in many ways simpler to work with, though you need very high temperature or the volume gets extreme. However the most reasonable option is probably multiple layers with hydrogen inside a nitrogen envelope which makes small leaks a non issue.
- gozur88 9y ago
  The numbers don't work for hot air. You just can't get the lift.
  - Retric 9y ago
    It's altitude and temperature dependent. 100 °C Which is normal hot air balloon temperature. If the outside temp is 27c that's 1-(300/370) or 19% lighter than air vs heliums 1-1/14 = 93% lighter than air. But you lift increases significantly with temperature. The downside is you end up spending fuel to add heat. But hot air balloons also have terrible insulation. Further volume has great scaling if you save 93% with hydrogen having 4x the volume means being ~20% lighter than air provides the same lift. Now yes scaling the airframe adds weight and drag as does the fuel to provide all that hot air. But you can also significantly past 100c before you encounter massive issues.
gozur88 9y ago
But you don't actually expend the helium. You lose a tiny bit through leakage. In airship companies today, the helium is the least of the problems.

WalterBright 9y ago

Zeppelins have problems with severe weather. Only one of the Zeppelin accidents was due to fire.

frutiger 9y ago

> if I can take two days crossing the Atlantic in luxury rather than crammed into a tiny seat Do you count business class as being crammed into a tiny seat?

InclinedPlane 9y ago

Technology, yes, but Hydrogen has almost nothing to do with it. The Hindenburg was only one of many great airship disasters of the early 20th century, and several of those ships were filled with Helium. Airships have two great weaknesses. One is that they are just really expensive to build and operate. Today that's a little less of a problem because of the availability of financing and improvements in technology reducing the labor and cost of materials for constructing an airship. The other major weakness is the double combo of airships being highly susceptible to weather and also fairly fragile. An airplane can take off and land in a thunderstorm, travel at 600 mph across the country, and then turn around at the destination very rapidly and keep going. This is why airplanes, particularly jet aircraft, won the air travel competition, they have a much higher duty cycle and are much more reliable than many alternatives. Technology has greatly improved our ability to spot and predict adverse weather and has also improved construction materials, designs, control systems, etc. all of which can make operating airships much more predictable and safer. But they will never be competitive with airplanes for travel, they serve a niche. Also, in regards to safety it's just blatantly untrue. Airships crashed, a lot, airplanes crash almost never (it's so rare that any time it does happen it's newsworthy, often on a global scale), any other hypothetical advantage of airships is mooted by that basic fact.

Gibbon1 9y ago
I think they almost lost the Graf Zeppelin when four of the five engines failed and it could no longer fly upwind. They had to fly down wind and hook the only mooring tower between then and Atlantic.
kalleboo 9y ago
To be fair, at the time, airplanes also crashed a lot.

Zaephyr 9y ago

Airships, particularly rigid airships (Zeppelins), are massive and it's the mass that becomes a problem. The airship is inflated to a state of neutral buoyancy so it floats and can hang in the sky (cool!) but the mass has to be dealt with when you want to start, stop, or change direction. I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. It's also a problem in flying in the vicinity of strong storms. You also have to maintain the neutral buoyancy as you burn fuel. Zeppelins could use diesel but the preference was for 'blau gas' which had a density close to air, and didn't cause the airship to lighten as it was burned. Maintaining buoyancy also complicates using an airship as a freighter; an offsetting load is needed when making a delivery, otherwise you end up venting your lifting gas. All that said, if I had the money I'd totally blow it building a Zeppelin-style (and size) airship.

chiph 9y ago
If they could get the fare down to the equivalent of a business class airline ticket, I'd do it. Even if food + beverages were extra-cost. > I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. A solution might be to never land. Have a helipad on top of the airship, and have passengers arrive/depart via helicopter (as well as resupply via containers slung under a helicopter).
gozur88 9y ago
>I believe that the Hindenburg required a ground crew of ~200 to control the airship during landing and mooring. It's also a problem in flying in the vicinity of strong storms. The ground handling problems have been solved. You either use directional thrust like Zeppelin NT, or you make the airship a lifting body that's slightly heavier than air, landing it on a runway like an airplane like Airlander 10. Both work.

cardiffspaceman 9y ago

> Please, somebody, tell me why this is a bad idea. One of your mitigations, though I agree in principle, may not be as strong it appears in practice. When you think of comms on a airship crossing the Atlantic, you shouldn't think of having a reliable Iridium connection, you should think of: You're in a slowly-moving hotel, using their WiFi, with really "indifferent" attendance to its coverage and speed, with no possibility of using 3G or LTE as a backup. I mainly picture the scenario of crossing the sea, but I think this would apply to an airship at cruising altitude as well. Source: my last vacation was on a cruise ship and I'm glad it was a vacation and not a business trip where I had to be in touch the whole time.

gozur88 9y ago

You're right about everything except the Hindenburg being safer - hydrogen can never be made that safe because of the way it migrates through just about anything. We'd have to use helium. The real problem is planes benefit from a huge existing market plus military utility. The first passenger airplanes were essentially WW II bombers with seats where the bomb bays had been. When Boeing or Airbus builds a new jet, they amortize the cost over hundreds of civilian air frames, plus potentially hundreds more military tanker and transport versions. If you were to build an airship the size of Hindenburg, you'd build, what, three or four at the most? The unit cost would be about a billion dollars by the time everything was done and you had passenger certification. You'd need a lot of high-priced tourists to fill the gap. You can go to Friedrichshafen and ride an existing airship. It costs about $250 for a half hour, and I'm not convinced they actually make money. There's a chance we could see the return of airships, but the only way it's going to happen is an enormous increase in the price of fossil fuels. Even then, though, they'll never be as efficient as ocean or rail travel, so it's likely airships would be the mode of transport for the rich and politically connected. The rest of use would be back in steerage.

lostlogin 9y ago

> No longer does the thing need to be stuffed with hydrogen. It didn't need to be then - the helium constraint was artificial due to the US not allowing Germany to import the gas. Link at bottom. Nowadays it's a rather rare and precious gas though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship

stellar678 9y ago

I think staffing costs would make this difficult if it's even possible. How many staff run a modern airline on a cross-Atlantic trip, maybe 10? With an 8 hour trip time, that's 80 hours of staff time for about 300 passengers. Or about 1/4 hour per passenger. The Hindenburg had 61 staff and a 60 hour journey for around 3600 hours of staff time for 36 passengers. Or about 100 hours per passenger. 400x staffing costs is a yawning gap and it seems like you couldn't bridge it without selling an entirely different service. Which is too bad because it sounds awesome!

upofadown 9y ago

Meh, we could use hydrogen if we really wanted to. If you separate the lift from the people/propulsion there is little chance of a strongly rising gas leak causing a fire. Heck, you can even do electronics in an explosive hydrogen atmosphere (I've personally done it). It just takes a lot of care and as a result is expensive to design. What you can't do is have random people inside the outer envelope that also contains the gas bags. Anything that is going to be light enough to fly is going to leak a lot of hydrogen.