7 ms·

I'd like to draw your attention to "killing 35 of the 97 people on board in the inferno." The Hindenburg had 7 million cubic feet of Hydrogen gas. It was the b

I'd like to draw your attention to "killing 35 of the 97 people on board in the inferno." The Hindenburg had 7 million cubic feet of Hydrogen gas. It was the biggest aircraft disaster of its time. It had such rudimentary technology that the cockpit looked more like a sailing ship than an aircraft[1]. Despite that, well over half the passengers jumped out the windows[2], ran away and survived with few or no injuries. When was the last time a jumbo jet crash landed with complete loss of the aircraft and all the combustible stuff burning it into a molten metal heap, and half the passengers simply jumped out and escaped? In terms of risk, fatality, and compared to aircraft of the day, it was surprisingly good. And the huge raging fire and prominent news footage of it being caught on camera did it a bit of a disservice. By comparison, look at Wikipedia's list of worst aircraft crashes[3], and see how many are marked 'no survivors'. What if some of those "flew into a mountain", "engines failed", "mid-air-collision" had been captured on video in the earlier days of aviation, would we still have widespread planes? [1] https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/inside-hindenburg-zeppelin-luxury-interior-vintage-photographs-21-5c6ac3a82ebd3__700.jpg https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/i... [2] https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/inside-hindenburg-zeppelin-luxury-interior-vintage-photographs-14-5c6ac39983ff7__700.jpg https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/i... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_aircraft_acc... (NB. people now want aircraft which can legally be pushed horizontally by hydrogen, but cannot legally be pushed upwards by hydrogen.)

credit_guy 4y ago
There's actually no need for hydrogen. Helium would do just fine. From the blog post, filling the hypothetical airship with helium would cost $8 MM, while filling it with hydrogen would cost only $100k. Sounds like a no brainer. But, the overall cost of the airship would be at $100 MM. Hydrogen would result in a less than 10% cost reduction. Now, the FAA approved unleaded jet fuel in 2022. Yes, that's how conservative FAA is. We'll sooner achieve world peace than the FAA would approve hydrogen for airships.
- tiagod 4y ago
  Preventing the helium from leaking out of wherever its stored is challenging, it's not a "fill once and forget about it" kind of deal. Helium is bound to get more expensive too.
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  Helium is a non-renewable resource drilled out of the ground, of which there is a global 'crisis' shortage[1]. Hydrogen is easy to make in vast quantities and cheaper. But more importantly, while they have similar lift capacities on paper (Helium ~90% of Hydrogen), in practice they don't - https://www.airships.net/helium-hydrogen-airships/ https://www.airships.net/helium-hydrogen-airships/ has an explanation and calculations. Hydrogen lift airships set off fully inflated and vent Hydrogen along the way for control of altitude and to stop their lift cells expanding too much as they rise into lower pressure air; Helium is too expensive to vent casually, so they have to start less inflated to protect the lift cells, and other concerns so Helium lift ends up with half the payload carrying capacity, less fuel, shorter flight distances. And, nb. the deadliest airship disaster was the USS Akron which was was a Helium lift airship which crashed in a storm with 73 deaths and 3 survivors. It's not as simple as Hydrogen = danger, Helium = safe. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/omerawan/2022/11/10/the-helium-crisis-how-it-will-affect-you-and-your-loved-ones/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/omerawan/2022/11/10/the-helium-...
  - triceratops 4y ago
    If fusion power takes off, could you produce helium as a by-product?
    - aae42 4y ago
      if we figured out fusion, it would alter the economics of all of this why not fusion powered ships/trains/airplanes
      - worik 4y ago
        > why not fusion powered ships/trains/airplanes[?] What could possibly go wrong?
mabbo 4y ago
> What if some of those "flew into a mountain", "engines failed", "mid-air-collision" had been captured on video I'm now picturing how each of these situations would look with airships. Most of them, in my mind, make a very nice "Boink" sound.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  My guess is the relevant sound is rrrrrrip.
  - flavius29663 4y ago
    airships have multiple cells though, a single rip wouldn't doom the entire thing
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      But what caused the airship to rip? If it was wind, then you now have that same destructive wind ripping through the inside of your airship through the hole.
      - andrewflnr 4y ago
        I mean, I was specifically talking about the collision scenario...
  - mikepurvis 4y ago
    Even still though, you'd come down to the ground for a soft-ish landing (relative to a jet or helicopter, anyway).
nradov 4y ago
I guess the last time was in 2013. Asiana Airlines Flight 214, a Boeing 777 jumbo jet, crashed at SFO with only 3 fatalities. Those are tough airplanes and low-speed crashes are often survivable if passengers can evacuate before the inevitable fire spreads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214?wpr... It was kind of freaky seeing the burned-out wreck sitting next to the runway when I flew out of SFO a few days later.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I was going to say that the 777 isn't a jumbo, but it looks like they're now calling it a 'mini jumbo'. Feelings of inadequacy, I guess, compared to the 747.
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    Meh, terms like this are pointless. Completely arbitrary where you put them. It's probably more sensible to use terms like wide body, implying 2 aisles.
Jean-Philipe 4y ago
I completely agree. In addition to that, the Nazis neglected a lot security measures that this aircraft actually had in place. There's a nice episode of "well there's your problem" on the Hindenburg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU
evrimoztamur 4y ago
Aircraft today are so safe because we had decades of improvements in both engineering and safety regulations. I am adamant that we could improve reliability and reduce potential damage in accidents so as long as we apply the same principles to airships.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Aircraft survive because they're mechanically reliable, and airships could also be made mechanically reliable. But aircraft also survive because they're reasonably robust in adverse environmental conditions. Airships aren't and never will be, because they have to be built very large and very light or they don't work at all. Furthermore airships are slower and harder to hanger, which makes it even harder for airships to avoid bad weather. Better weather forecasting could help some, but keeping airships out of storms really is of the utmost importance.
LarryMullins 4y ago
Everybody always focuses on the Hindenburg, but it's not as though helium airships were much safer. In some scenarios they were marginally safer, but the deadliest airship disaster of them all was the USS Akron, a helium airship. 73 dead and 3 survivors, vs the Hindenburg's 36 dead and 62 survivors. As for marginally safer: There were some cases of helium airships breaking up due to weather and people surviving the ride to the ground on still somewhat buoyant sections of the destroyed airship, whereas that was less likely with hydrogen airships because the wrecks would also burn. Compare the crash of the USS Shenandoah to the British R101; both were destroyed by bad weather but R101 had far fewer survivors because the wreck burned. But even with helium, airships are still very fragile and dangerous. Using helium isn't truly a panacea to the hazards of airships.
- worik 4y ago
  > But even with helium, airships are still very fragile and dangerous. True. But with high speed landing and takeoff aeroplanes are extremely dangerous too. Thousands of gallons of high octane fuell in the tanks on board does not help
  - criddell 4y ago
    > high octane fuel Doesn’t jet fuel have a relatively low octane rating compared to most liquid fuels?
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      Yes, but I think he's using it in the colloquial sense that means "highly energetic".
    - bruce511 4y ago
      It depends on the plane, but both your point and the parent point are correct. Piston engines run on high octane gasoline (Avgas) . This is the stuff that powered planes up to, and just past, ww2. Today it's still used in planes from that era, and some smaller general aviation planes. Jet fuel (jet a1) is basically paraffin. All turbine engines (think "jets", but also turbofan etc) run on this. It's a lot less flammable than Avgas, but, well, still makes a big bang if you fly it into a mountain. In short both are dangerous because they are high-density liquid energy. Hydrogen is also dangerous, and there does appear to be a double standard here.
hedora 4y ago
People often forget that the metallic paint used to coat the Hindenberg is now used as solid state jet fuel.
hackerlight 4y ago
You have to multiply by the respective probabilities of both of these things happening to arrive at the expected number of deaths. 0.01*(35/97) would be significantly bigger than 0.000001*(97/97), as a hypothetical example. That said, planes have had years of safety R&D which helps get that number down to 0.000001, and maybe the same could have been done with blimps if they were given the opportunity?
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  The Graf Zeppelin, one of the Hindenburg's contemporaries, flew regularly accross the Atlantic, flew into the Arctic Circle and exchanged mail with a ship there, was the first vehicle to fly around the world and set a round the world speed record, was the first vehicle to cross a million miles flown, did 590 flights, carried 34,000 passengers, and did so with no harmful accidents and no fatalities, despite losing four engines on one flight and needing a forced landing. Yes I imagine something similar could have been done in the last 70 years if they'd kept being built en-masse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin#/media/File:LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin_over_Rio.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin#/media/Fi...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dtx1 4y ago
> (NB. people now want aircraft which can legally be pushed horizontally by hydrogen, but cannot legally be pushed upwards by hydrogen.) I laughed out loud when I read that, thank you!

credit_guy 4y ago

There's actually no need for hydrogen. Helium would do just fine. From the blog post, filling the hypothetical airship with helium would cost $8 MM, while filling it with hydrogen would cost only $100k. Sounds like a no brainer. But, the overall cost of the airship would be at $100 MM. Hydrogen would result in a less than 10% cost reduction. Now, the FAA approved unleaded jet fuel in 2022. Yes, that's how conservative FAA is. We'll sooner achieve world peace than the FAA would approve hydrogen for airships.

tiagod 4y ago
Preventing the helium from leaking out of wherever its stored is challenging, it's not a "fill once and forget about it" kind of deal. Helium is bound to get more expensive too.
jodrellblank 4y ago
Helium is a non-renewable resource drilled out of the ground, of which there is a global 'crisis' shortage[1]. Hydrogen is easy to make in vast quantities and cheaper. But more importantly, while they have similar lift capacities on paper (Helium ~90% of Hydrogen), in practice they don't - https://www.airships.net/helium-hydrogen-airships/ https://www.airships.net/helium-hydrogen-airships/ has an explanation and calculations. Hydrogen lift airships set off fully inflated and vent Hydrogen along the way for control of altitude and to stop their lift cells expanding too much as they rise into lower pressure air; Helium is too expensive to vent casually, so they have to start less inflated to protect the lift cells, and other concerns so Helium lift ends up with half the payload carrying capacity, less fuel, shorter flight distances. And, nb. the deadliest airship disaster was the USS Akron which was was a Helium lift airship which crashed in a storm with 73 deaths and 3 survivors. It's not as simple as Hydrogen = danger, Helium = safe. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/omerawan/2022/11/10/the-helium-crisis-how-it-will-affect-you-and-your-loved-ones/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/omerawan/2022/11/10/the-helium-...
- triceratops 4y ago
  If fusion power takes off, could you produce helium as a by-product?
  - aae42 4y ago
    if we figured out fusion, it would alter the economics of all of this why not fusion powered ships/trains/airplanes
    - worik 4y ago
      > why not fusion powered ships/trains/airplanes[?] What could possibly go wrong?

mabbo 4y ago

> What if some of those "flew into a mountain", "engines failed", "mid-air-collision" had been captured on video I'm now picturing how each of these situations would look with airships. Most of them, in my mind, make a very nice "Boink" sound.

andrewflnr 4y ago
My guess is the relevant sound is rrrrrrip.
- flavius29663 4y ago
  airships have multiple cells though, a single rip wouldn't doom the entire thing
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    But what caused the airship to rip? If it was wind, then you now have that same destructive wind ripping through the inside of your airship through the hole.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      I mean, I was specifically talking about the collision scenario...
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  Even still though, you'd come down to the ground for a soft-ish landing (relative to a jet or helicopter, anyway).

nradov 4y ago

I guess the last time was in 2013. Asiana Airlines Flight 214, a Boeing 777 jumbo jet, crashed at SFO with only 3 fatalities. Those are tough airplanes and low-speed crashes are often survivable if passengers can evacuate before the inevitable fire spreads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214?wpr... It was kind of freaky seeing the burned-out wreck sitting next to the runway when I flew out of SFO a few days later.

rootusrootus 4y ago
I was going to say that the 777 isn't a jumbo, but it looks like they're now calling it a 'mini jumbo'. Feelings of inadequacy, I guess, compared to the 747.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  Meh, terms like this are pointless. Completely arbitrary where you put them. It's probably more sensible to use terms like wide body, implying 2 aisles.

Jean-Philipe 4y ago

I completely agree. In addition to that, the Nazis neglected a lot security measures that this aircraft actually had in place. There's a nice episode of "well there's your problem" on the Hindenburg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU

evrimoztamur 4y ago

Aircraft today are so safe because we had decades of improvements in both engineering and safety regulations. I am adamant that we could improve reliability and reduce potential damage in accidents so as long as we apply the same principles to airships.

LarryMullins 4y ago
Aircraft survive because they're mechanically reliable, and airships could also be made mechanically reliable. But aircraft also survive because they're reasonably robust in adverse environmental conditions. Airships aren't and never will be, because they have to be built very large and very light or they don't work at all. Furthermore airships are slower and harder to hanger, which makes it even harder for airships to avoid bad weather. Better weather forecasting could help some, but keeping airships out of storms really is of the utmost importance.

LarryMullins 4y ago

Everybody always focuses on the Hindenburg, but it's not as though helium airships were much safer. In some scenarios they were marginally safer, but the deadliest airship disaster of them all was the USS Akron, a helium airship. 73 dead and 3 survivors, vs the Hindenburg's 36 dead and 62 survivors. As for marginally safer: There were some cases of helium airships breaking up due to weather and people surviving the ride to the ground on still somewhat buoyant sections of the destroyed airship, whereas that was less likely with hydrogen airships because the wrecks would also burn. Compare the crash of the USS Shenandoah to the British R101; both were destroyed by bad weather but R101 had far fewer survivors because the wreck burned. But even with helium, airships are still very fragile and dangerous. Using helium isn't truly a panacea to the hazards of airships.

worik 4y ago
> But even with helium, airships are still very fragile and dangerous. True. But with high speed landing and takeoff aeroplanes are extremely dangerous too. Thousands of gallons of high octane fuell in the tanks on board does not help
- criddell 4y ago
  > high octane fuel Doesn’t jet fuel have a relatively low octane rating compared to most liquid fuels?
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Yes, but I think he's using it in the colloquial sense that means "highly energetic".
  - bruce511 4y ago
    It depends on the plane, but both your point and the parent point are correct. Piston engines run on high octane gasoline (Avgas) . This is the stuff that powered planes up to, and just past, ww2. Today it's still used in planes from that era, and some smaller general aviation planes. Jet fuel (jet a1) is basically paraffin. All turbine engines (think "jets", but also turbofan etc) run on this. It's a lot less flammable than Avgas, but, well, still makes a big bang if you fly it into a mountain. In short both are dangerous because they are high-density liquid energy. Hydrogen is also dangerous, and there does appear to be a double standard here.

hedora 4y ago

People often forget that the metallic paint used to coat the Hindenberg is now used as solid state jet fuel.

hackerlight 4y ago

You have to multiply by the respective probabilities of both of these things happening to arrive at the expected number of deaths. 0.01*(35/97) would be significantly bigger than 0.000001*(97/97), as a hypothetical example. That said, planes have had years of safety R&D which helps get that number down to 0.000001, and maybe the same could have been done with blimps if they were given the opportunity?

jodrellblank 4y ago
The Graf Zeppelin, one of the Hindenburg's contemporaries, flew regularly accross the Atlantic, flew into the Arctic Circle and exchanged mail with a ship there, was the first vehicle to fly around the world and set a round the world speed record, was the first vehicle to cross a million miles flown, did 590 flights, carried 34,000 passengers, and did so with no harmful accidents and no fatalities, despite losing four engines on one flight and needing a forced landing. Yes I imagine something similar could have been done in the last 70 years if they'd kept being built en-masse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin#/media/File:LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin_over_Rio.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin#/media/Fi...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dtx1 4y ago

> (NB. people now want aircraft which can legally be pushed horizontally by hydrogen, but cannot legally be pushed upwards by hydrogen.) I laughed out loud when I read that, thank you!