7 ms·

Those opportunities would be limited. Given that commercial airlines operating airplanes were in it's infancy before WWII, there was a potential market for rigi

Those opportunities would be limited. Given that commercial airlines operating airplanes were in it's infancy before WWII, there was a potential market for rigid airships. World War II changed all that. The Hindenburg wasn't just a commercial airship, it was very much used as a propaganda prop by the German regime in the 1930s. By the time of the Hindenburg disaster, the market for commercial flight was about to be stymied by the War. The disaster didn't just create trauma, above all it marked the end of an era of relative infancy in human flight. And even at the time, competing airlines already were building long range aircraft such as Pan Am / Boeing's famous "Yankee Clipper". Technological advances and massive investments during the War favored airplanes such as we know them today. In the late 1940-1960's, airplanes allowed for cheap and fast international travel which could easily be scaled upwards. By that time, few if anyone wanted to spend 9 days crossing the Atlantic in luxury if traveling from London to NY could be done in mere hours. I don't see airships ever taking back a significant chunk of that market. If anything, they might appeal to certain niches. Maybe in the same vain as one could - even today - still ride parts of the Orient Express in style.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Modern air travel outside of business class and select airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and glamour of the Pan Am days. Maybe people will pay to take a cruise among the clouds.
- valzam 4y ago
  The question is price. Air travel 'sucks' but has also become a lot more accessible, even long haul. If an airship takes 4 days and costs the same as business class on a regular plane I think many people will just business class.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    And there is a transatlantic ocean liner option--albeit on a fairly limited basis.
  - EricE 4y ago
    Your assuming that for airship travel the journey wouldn't be the point of the trip, not an inconvenience in getting from point A to point B. With that kind of thinking there would be no market for ocean cruise ships - but there is :)
    - jccooper 4y ago
      There's a market for cruise ships... as a destination. There's basically no market for ocean liners. There's, what, one left? Perhaps people could be convinced to take an "air cruise", though it'll never have the amenities of a ship, but as transportation there's very little room for slower and more expensive.
      - MrFantastic 4y ago
        An air cruise over the Rockies or up the Appalachian trail when the leaves turn would be swank. Slow float over Mt Everest.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >Modern air travel outside of business class and select airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and glamour of the Pan Am days. Not really. It was comfortable if you had first class seating--at a price above today's business class. But the first class lounge was fairly lightly used for the most part and became business class seating when that level of service came in. While airports are worse in some ways because they're often so crowded, modern international lie-flat business class seating is more comfortable in general--and there are more entertainment options--than first class on Pan Am was.
  - 0des 4y ago
    Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if you're talking about the luxury pods. Those business class sleepers are tiny and you will have to crook your knees.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I'm six foot and am pretty comfortable in them. In any case, they're more comfortable (even if you don't put them all the way down) than old first class seats--which were basically like the seats you get in most domestic business class today.
      - 0des 4y ago
        Just six foot? Lucky you! I say that with sincerity from the top of my head to my crinkled flight-legs.
        bhelkey 4y ago
        > Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if you're talking about the luxury pods. > Just six foot? The average height for men in the US is 5'9" [1]. The Netherlands is the world's tallest country with an average height of 5'11" [1]. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/average-height-for-men#u-s-height https://www.healthline.com/health/average-height-for-men#u-s...
- Symmetry 4y ago
  The big difference is that back in the day we had the interstate commerce commission establishing a minimum ticket price so that airlines didn't have to engage in "ruinous" price competition. Everyone had to pay what would now be business class ticket prices but everybody got business class service because that was the only thing airlines could compete on.
jedberg 4y ago
Taking an airship would be like taking a cruise but in the sky. Also one advantage airships have is that they can dock to pretty much any tall building. The Empire State Building has airship docking capability. Imagine taking a transatlantic cruise on an airship that leaves from the top of the Empire State Building and docks at the top of the Eiffel Tower?
- ptero 4y ago
  That would be very risky: those monsters aren't friends with the wind. Any glitch and a lot of power gets applied to that building. Another glitch and a large frame falls down on the street. You can read reports of Nobile airship trips. And wind could delay trips by days.
  - mirekrusin 4y ago
    You wait for hurricane, typhoon and/or cyclone for quick travel.
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    Apparently not too risky, since, as the parent pointed out, in the early part of the previous century, it wasn't unusual for tall buildings to be used for airship docking. The Empire State Building mooring wasn't a one-off. There were many others. What is now the InterContinental Hotel in Chicago was one.
    - nsonha 4y ago
      That's because human lives were cheaper back in those days. The problem with docking a giant people carrier above a densely populated area is that you have even more lives at stake.
      - Retric 4y ago
        We send airplanes over densely pack cities all the time. We even let the rather pointless Goodyear blimp do so. Docking an airship would be safer if the area beneath it was completely clear such as a river, but in normal wind conditions it isn’t particularly dangerous.
kiliantics 4y ago
Appropriate taxation on fossil carbon could make a difference. Flying in kerosene-fueled planes should be made a lot more expensive than any alternatives.
antupis 4y ago
I think there is big opportunity windmill blade transportation now how to transport blade is the limiting factor and airlifting those huge blades to construction site would solve this. https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/wind-turbine-blade-sizes-and-transport-a-guide/623444/ https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/wind-turbine-blade-sizes-a...
newsclues 4y ago
Not for passenger but heavy lift transport.
- csunbird 4y ago
  That’s what I am wondering as well. Can airships replace long distance truck lines?
  - newsclues 4y ago
    They won’t compete with rail, but last mile logistics especially to remote or austere regions, absolutely. I believe someone else mentioned wind turbines, which is a great idea.
    - csunbird 4y ago
      To be fair, nothing can compete with rail on land, but replacing trucks might be a nice idea, especially for international hauls, as there would be no extensive border and customs check in every country on the way.
MonkeyClub 4y ago
> I don't see airships ever taking back a significant chunk of that market. I would agree, not without a change in the market's parameters. Environmental parameters coming into play can usher in such a change, though - I'm thinking of the lower carbon footprint of an airship compared to that of an airplane, that could push a change through. I'm all for airships too, to be honest, as long as they are so cool and spacious as the one in Indiana Jones.
- jandrese 4y ago
  It seems like we should be able to make a solar cell light enough to cover the top of an airship and use electric power. Most solar aircraft don't make sense because there isn't enough surface area to get a minimum amount of power to keep the aircraft aloft. Airships don't have this problem. The issues are weight and expense and being limited to operating only during the day. Cloud cover isn't a huge issue, you can rise above it.
- MrFantastic 4y ago
  Airships fly 2x the cargo with 2/3 the fuel a plane would use. You could have luxury travel with dance floor and bar in the front and sleeping cabins and air freight in the back.
socialdemocrat 4y ago
I don’t think airships are as bad as it may seem today. Perceived badness is a lot due to lack of networking effects which airplanes enjoy today. There is infrastructure for landing airplanes everywhere. If the same had existed for airships I he economics and practicality of using airships would have been very different. Many of the problems that existed with airships in the past are solved today. Weather forecasts are much better today. Elevation can be controlled better with compressors which can expand and reduce volume of ballonets on demand combined with propellers which can be more fine controlled and directed to cause lift of descent. Not to mention access to a plethora of advanced materials they did not have in the 30s. Most importantly we are in a green shift. When airplanes took over nobody cared about CO2 emissions. Airships can realistically run using electric motors driven by batteries or preferably fuel cells. For airships volume matters less, so you can more easily have large quantities of hydrogen in the ship. In theory you could use hydrogen as lifting gas and fuel. The dangers of hydrogen is somewhat overrated. Hindenburg was about paint coating more than hydrogen. We also got much better techniques for handling it yet today. You can have an outer shell of a different gas e.g. During WW1 German airships got frequently fired on without causing any them much damage. They had to fly close with incendiary grenades to take them out.

Apocryphon 4y ago

Modern air travel outside of business class and select airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and glamour of the Pan Am days. Maybe people will pay to take a cruise among the clouds.

valzam 4y ago
The question is price. Air travel 'sucks' but has also become a lot more accessible, even long haul. If an airship takes 4 days and costs the same as business class on a regular plane I think many people will just business class.
- ghaff 4y ago
  And there is a transatlantic ocean liner option--albeit on a fairly limited basis.
- EricE 4y ago
  Your assuming that for airship travel the journey wouldn't be the point of the trip, not an inconvenience in getting from point A to point B. With that kind of thinking there would be no market for ocean cruise ships - but there is :)
  - jccooper 4y ago
    There's a market for cruise ships... as a destination. There's basically no market for ocean liners. There's, what, one left? Perhaps people could be convinced to take an "air cruise", though it'll never have the amenities of a ship, but as transportation there's very little room for slower and more expensive.
    - MrFantastic 4y ago
      An air cruise over the Rockies or up the Appalachian trail when the leaves turn would be swank. Slow float over Mt Everest.
ghaff 4y ago
>Modern air travel outside of business class and select airlines like Lufthansa is a far cry from the luxury and glamour of the Pan Am days. Not really. It was comfortable if you had first class seating--at a price above today's business class. But the first class lounge was fairly lightly used for the most part and became business class seating when that level of service came in. While airports are worse in some ways because they're often so crowded, modern international lie-flat business class seating is more comfortable in general--and there are more entertainment options--than first class on Pan Am was.
- 0des 4y ago
  Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if you're talking about the luxury pods. Those business class sleepers are tiny and you will have to crook your knees.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I'm six foot and am pretty comfortable in them. In any case, they're more comfortable (even if you don't put them all the way down) than old first class seats--which were basically like the seats you get in most domestic business class today.
    - 0des 4y ago
      Just six foot? Lucky you! I say that with sincerity from the top of my head to my crinkled flight-legs.
      - bhelkey 4y ago
        > Lie flat does not exist for those of a normal height if you're talking about the luxury pods. > Just six foot? The average height for men in the US is 5'9" [1]. The Netherlands is the world's tallest country with an average height of 5'11" [1]. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/average-height-for-men#u-s-height https://www.healthline.com/health/average-height-for-men#u-s...
Symmetry 4y ago
The big difference is that back in the day we had the interstate commerce commission establishing a minimum ticket price so that airlines didn't have to engage in "ruinous" price competition. Everyone had to pay what would now be business class ticket prices but everybody got business class service because that was the only thing airlines could compete on.

jedberg 4y ago

Taking an airship would be like taking a cruise but in the sky. Also one advantage airships have is that they can dock to pretty much any tall building. The Empire State Building has airship docking capability. Imagine taking a transatlantic cruise on an airship that leaves from the top of the Empire State Building and docks at the top of the Eiffel Tower?

ptero 4y ago
That would be very risky: those monsters aren't friends with the wind. Any glitch and a lot of power gets applied to that building. Another glitch and a large frame falls down on the street. You can read reports of Nobile airship trips. And wind could delay trips by days.
- mirekrusin 4y ago
  You wait for hurricane, typhoon and/or cyclone for quick travel.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  Apparently not too risky, since, as the parent pointed out, in the early part of the previous century, it wasn't unusual for tall buildings to be used for airship docking. The Empire State Building mooring wasn't a one-off. There were many others. What is now the InterContinental Hotel in Chicago was one.
  - nsonha 4y ago
    That's because human lives were cheaper back in those days. The problem with docking a giant people carrier above a densely populated area is that you have even more lives at stake.
    - Retric 4y ago
      We send airplanes over densely pack cities all the time. We even let the rather pointless Goodyear blimp do so. Docking an airship would be safer if the area beneath it was completely clear such as a river, but in normal wind conditions it isn’t particularly dangerous.

kiliantics 4y ago

Appropriate taxation on fossil carbon could make a difference. Flying in kerosene-fueled planes should be made a lot more expensive than any alternatives.

antupis 4y ago

I think there is big opportunity windmill blade transportation now how to transport blade is the limiting factor and airlifting those huge blades to construction site would solve this. https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/wind-turbine-blade-sizes-and-transport-a-guide/623444/ https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/wind-turbine-blade-sizes-a...

newsclues 4y ago

Not for passenger but heavy lift transport.

csunbird 4y ago
That’s what I am wondering as well. Can airships replace long distance truck lines?
- newsclues 4y ago
  They won’t compete with rail, but last mile logistics especially to remote or austere regions, absolutely. I believe someone else mentioned wind turbines, which is a great idea.
  - csunbird 4y ago
    To be fair, nothing can compete with rail on land, but replacing trucks might be a nice idea, especially for international hauls, as there would be no extensive border and customs check in every country on the way.

MonkeyClub 4y ago

> I don't see airships ever taking back a significant chunk of that market. I would agree, not without a change in the market's parameters. Environmental parameters coming into play can usher in such a change, though - I'm thinking of the lower carbon footprint of an airship compared to that of an airplane, that could push a change through. I'm all for airships too, to be honest, as long as they are so cool and spacious as the one in Indiana Jones.

jandrese 4y ago
It seems like we should be able to make a solar cell light enough to cover the top of an airship and use electric power. Most solar aircraft don't make sense because there isn't enough surface area to get a minimum amount of power to keep the aircraft aloft. Airships don't have this problem. The issues are weight and expense and being limited to operating only during the day. Cloud cover isn't a huge issue, you can rise above it.
MrFantastic 4y ago
Airships fly 2x the cargo with 2/3 the fuel a plane would use. You could have luxury travel with dance floor and bar in the front and sleeping cabins and air freight in the back.

socialdemocrat 4y ago

I don’t think airships are as bad as it may seem today. Perceived badness is a lot due to lack of networking effects which airplanes enjoy today. There is infrastructure for landing airplanes everywhere. If the same had existed for airships I he economics and practicality of using airships would have been very different. Many of the problems that existed with airships in the past are solved today. Weather forecasts are much better today. Elevation can be controlled better with compressors which can expand and reduce volume of ballonets on demand combined with propellers which can be more fine controlled and directed to cause lift of descent. Not to mention access to a plethora of advanced materials they did not have in the 30s. Most importantly we are in a green shift. When airplanes took over nobody cared about CO2 emissions. Airships can realistically run using electric motors driven by batteries or preferably fuel cells. For airships volume matters less, so you can more easily have large quantities of hydrogen in the ship. In theory you could use hydrogen as lifting gas and fuel. The dangers of hydrogen is somewhat overrated. Hindenburg was about paint coating more than hydrogen. We also got much better techniques for handling it yet today. You can have an outer shell of a different gas e.g. During WW1 German airships got frequently fired on without causing any them much damage. They had to fly close with incendiary grenades to take them out.