6 ms·

In the article they talk about how the airships would be unmanned due to the risk of fire.

squarefoot 7y ago
Which is a very shortsighted view from them IMO. An unmanned hydrogen filled airship may spare passengers and crew in case of an accident because there is none of either, but if catches fire over a stadium or a highway while carrying 5 grand pianos that wouldn't make it less deadly than the Hindenburg.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Compared to a landing accident with a plane an airship is safer.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  They can plan routes to avoid places like that, and most space is not populated (fields, etc.)
- bewo001 7y ago
  In fact, two thirds of people aboard the Hindenburg survived. Since the we had a lot more aircraft landing accidents where all passengers died in the jet fuel fire.
  - mkl 7y ago
    There also weren't many people on board altogether: "Of the 36 passengers and 61 crew aboard, 13 passengers and 22 crew died, as well as one member of the ground crew." [1] Many aeroplane disasters have involved far more people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg
  - usrusr 7y ago
    But on the other hand, the whole class made less than 100 flights, which makes it more than a thousand times more deadly than the 737 MAX even with two thirds surviving. So the bad reputation is not just the outcome of exceptional media coverage (I do wonder how the failure rate compares to it's fixed wing contemporaries though, they surely were quite terrible by today's standards as well)
- perlgeek 7y ago
  If the unmanned zeppelins operate some time without any such incidents, maybe they'll reconsider this aspect. > An unmanned hydrogen filled airship may spare passengers and crew in case of an accident because there is none of either, but if catches fire over a stadium or a highway while carrying 5 grand pianos that wouldn't make it less deadly than the Hindenburg. The riskiest bits seem to be takeoff and landing, so one should take care that those don't happen near a stadium, at the very least.
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    As of today, one more problem with big slow bags filled with hydrogen flying around, is also that any fool armed with a shotgun and explosive bullets, or probably even a small drone carrying a small homemade explosive charge can bring them down. In a perfect world I wouldn't even think about that eventuality, but alas this one is far from being perfect.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Fortunately, there's a lot of the Earth that's not (yet) occupied with stadia or highwaiim.
alexpotato 7y ago
I remember watching a documentary on the Hindenberg that said it was more likely that the fire was caused by the type of silver paint they used. Apparently it was very flammable.

Which is a very shortsighted view from them IMO. An unmanned hydrogen filled airship may spare passengers and crew in case of an accident because there is none of either, but if catches fire over a stadium or a highway while carrying 5 grand pianos that wouldn't make it less deadly than the Hindenburg.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
Compared to a landing accident with a plane an airship is safer.
CalRobert 7y ago
They can plan routes to avoid places like that, and most space is not populated (fields, etc.)
bewo001 7y ago
In fact, two thirds of people aboard the Hindenburg survived. Since the we had a lot more aircraft landing accidents where all passengers died in the jet fuel fire.
- mkl 7y ago
  There also weren't many people on board altogether: "Of the 36 passengers and 61 crew aboard, 13 passengers and 22 crew died, as well as one member of the ground crew." [1] Many aeroplane disasters have involved far more people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg
- usrusr 7y ago
  But on the other hand, the whole class made less than 100 flights, which makes it more than a thousand times more deadly than the 737 MAX even with two thirds surviving. So the bad reputation is not just the outcome of exceptional media coverage (I do wonder how the failure rate compares to it's fixed wing contemporaries though, they surely were quite terrible by today's standards as well)
perlgeek 7y ago
If the unmanned zeppelins operate some time without any such incidents, maybe they'll reconsider this aspect. > An unmanned hydrogen filled airship may spare passengers and crew in case of an accident because there is none of either, but if catches fire over a stadium or a highway while carrying 5 grand pianos that wouldn't make it less deadly than the Hindenburg. The riskiest bits seem to be takeoff and landing, so one should take care that those don't happen near a stadium, at the very least.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  As of today, one more problem with big slow bags filled with hydrogen flying around, is also that any fool armed with a shotgun and explosive bullets, or probably even a small drone carrying a small homemade explosive charge can bring them down. In a perfect world I wouldn't even think about that eventuality, but alas this one is far from being perfect.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Fortunately, there's a lot of the Earth that's not (yet) occupied with stadia or highwaiim.

alexpotato 7y ago

I remember watching a documentary on the Hindenberg that said it was more likely that the fire was caused by the type of silver paint they used. Apparently it was very flammable.