4 ms·
The article talks about how hydrogen was originally planned as the lifting gas, and that those plans were scrapped due to the FAA requiring non-flammable liftin
by peatmoss 9y ago
The article talks about how hydrogen was originally planned as the lifting gas, and that those plans were scrapped due to the FAA requiring non-flammable lifting gasses.
Given that Brin was apparently ready to try it with hydrogen, perhaps the risks of using hydrogen as a lifting gas are overrated? Given the scarcity / non-renewable nature of helium, the greater lifting potential of hydrogen, and advances in engineering, I wonder if these FAA regulations are in need of a rethink?
Also, even if the risks of hydrogen explosions are unmitigatable, I can still imagine unmanned cargo applications for hydrogen airships that could mitigate a lot of risk.
- newzzy 9y agoI was thinking the same thing. Helium is scarce, don't fill balloons with this precious resource. The future thanks you.
- peatmoss 9y agoI'm all for filling party balloons with hydrogen too. Kids gotta stay on their toes.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y agoThis [unmanned cargo applications] is assuming you're flying it over uninhabited areas the Hindenburg was fortunate in that when it came down it wasn't over, say, Manhattan or over one of the many areas highly prone to forest fire. However I do like the idea of an unmanned airship doing long haul delivery over calmer parts of the ocean.
- peatmoss 9y agoExactly. There are already restrictions for transport of other hazardous goods. (EDIT: Finding sky routes should certainly be easier than finding restricted road routes) I'm also not sure that the biggest risk of a hydrogen explosion isn't simply the dropping of the cargo. Hydrogen explosion up in the sky is likely to burn upward and quickly. As long as the cargo or airframe isn't also burning, it seems likely the fire would never reach the ground.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#/media/File:Hindenburg_disaster,_1937.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#/media/Fil...
- peatmoss 9y agoYes, but the Hindenburg was basically already on the ground (coming in for a landing) when it went up. Also, I remember reading that the airframe itself was pretty flammable. Additional safety at terminals seems prudent, but would a non-flammable airframe still be burning on the ground if it caught fire at 10,000 feet? I don't know.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y agoConsidering the nature of hydrogen that would be totally dependent on the availability of O2 in surrounding compartments.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> the Hindenburg was fortunate in that when it came down it wasn't over, say, Manhattan No, it wasn't really "fortunate" that a disaster which seems most likely to have been (based on the credible hypotheses for the cause) immediately related to landing operations happened exactly at a landing field and not somewhere else.