Finally, after almost 100 years, we are overcoming the trauma caused by the incident of the Hindenburg[1]. I am really looking forward to what opportunities it may open.
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.
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.
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?
"A popular myth claims that the top of the Empire State Building was meant to serve as a docking station for dirigibles, but the building's owners say that the story is just hot air."
> Without doubt, the tallest mooring mast ever designed was the spire of the Empire State Building which was originally constructed to serve as a mooring mast, although soon after converted for use as a television and radio transmitter tower due to the discovered infeasibility of mooring an airship
Now I’m curious what it actually is.
There used to be a commercial heliport on top of the Pan Am Building over Grand Central Station. The first helicopter crash that sent chunks of metal flying 600 feet down to streets with huge amounts of foot traffic permanently closed it. I'm sure something similar would have happened had the Empire State Building 'port' actually been used.
This photo shows a much less tall airship mooring mast.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/mooring-mast-1930s/
It doesn't look like that kind of mooring would be up to the modern safety standards, especially when you add high winds that are common at the top of skyscrapers.
The picture below has an airship getting flipped on its nose by a gust of wind while moored to a tower.
It seems to me that airships really need two mooring masts. One at the front and another at the back. Maybe the one at the back flips up to lock on once the one in front is secure?
Ground handling and docking is one of the main, and fairly frequently fatal, causes of airships accidents, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents. Fwiw mitigating is definitely possible. But it requires specialised docking equipment to be available anywhere they are to set down. Which is why I suspect they'll make rather better Bazillionaire play things than humanitarian aid delivery mechanisms. They are very cool though.
You can read reports of Nobile airship trips. And wind could delay trips by days.
The Empire State Building mooring wasn't a one-off. There were many others. What is now the InterContinental Hotel in Chicago was one.
I read accounts of using airships in the exploration of the North in the early 20th century and I got the impression that they often dropped ropes in a clear spot away from the exact landing point and were led by a landing team to the final docking, which would be hard to do in the middle of a city today.
A fun example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPn3MBNt7Rc
In terms of wind, airships with the right control systems can be designed to hold position in 50+MPH guts. That takes a lot of power and rapid response, but modern airships can do 110kph and presumably commercial adoption would need higher speeds.
I am not sure: countering the change in direction seems very hard. But I do wish luck to those who are working to push this technology along.
> modern airships can do 110kph
That is how fast the Zeppelins of 100 years ago traveled: cruising speed of 76 mph.
Minus the lift v. float economics. That would strike at some combination of affordability and availability of attractions.
With that kind of thinking there would be no market for ocean cruise ships - but there is :)
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.
Slow float over Mt Everest.
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.
> 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...
Given your stats that you're provided and I'm choosing to assume are true, then I'm abnormal but it does not change my experience on average. Hopefully the increasing obesity issue will cause some ancillary changes that may benefit tall people at the same time some day. At least let me pay for it, you know?
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.
You could have luxury travel with dance floor and bar in the front and sleeping cabins and air freight in the back.
I believe someone else mentioned wind turbines, which is a great idea.
The USS Akron loss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron#Loss
The USS Macon loss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_(ZRS-5)#Loss
Only the USS Los Angeles was decommissioned (not crashed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Los_Angeles_(ZR-3)#Operati...
Aeroplanes became superior by all useful metrics and there hasn't been a practical reason to use airships since.
Depending on cost, there might be a niche market for some types of freight but that's all I can think of, along with tourism.
I don't have the numbers but my wishful-thinking-o-metre is high.
And since that metric was off the radars in 1930s, that is definitively new compared to the last era of airships.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28278515
That links to a YC company building small cargo blimps introducing themselves and providing some good detail:
> We build small unmanned cargo airships and use them to move air freight at half the cost per mile of a small plane.
What a marketing BS. It's also probably like 1/10th of the speed (in the best case) and whatnot else.
If you hang fruit low enough, anybody can pick them.
Half the cost of the most expensive mode of transportation.
But there is a niche for advertisement, aerial photography, observation platforms, heavy weight transportation and of course tourism.
See for example the seven Zeppelin NT, witch seem to have find some usage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT
Airships are absolute garbage at heavy lifting.
The lifting power of hydrogen or helium is about 1kg/m^3. This means as you scale weight up the size of your envelope grows quickly which greatly hinders manoeuvrability. And obviously the increase in envelope size means you need more structure and systems (propulsion & al) which are heavier and reduce your useful payload.
Here's a previous comment with some links and photos of my flight:
… great more pollution
Also if I read it right their cargo capacity is about double that of a 747-400F.
Edit: nope, it’s 1/5th the cargo weight of a 747.
The niche use case I see for large airships (aside from pleasure rides) is deliveries in remote area with no infrastructure. For example delivering a big generator in Alaska.
In such use case, the comparison should maybe be against large transport helicopters.
> LTA's goal is to build huge airships to provide humanitarian aid in places where conventional transportation can't reach, such as in the aftermath of a disaster. (...) "We believe that lighter-than-air technology has the potential to revolutionize humanitarian relief efforts with its ability to reach remote locations that have little or no infrastructure," Weston said.
I'm trying to think of a scenario where this would actually be more beneficial than other means of transport.
Again from article
> Pathfinder 3 (...) is designed to carry about 20 tons and be able to traverse as many as 10,000 miles using electric-only, zero-emission propulsion.
A quick search tells me that an Mi-26, the largest cargo helicopter can carry approximately the same weight.
Sergey Brin also has a ship that provides aid: https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/news/sergey-brin-secre... - so I don't know what advantage he sees in this airship.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/30/alphabet-gives-some-loon-p...
You could basically fly without fuel.
Planes on the other hand are indeed much faster etc. but they only are because they burn lots of kerosine.
But all in all, as long as kerosine remains so cheap, airships cannot compete, except in niches.
Moreover, is there a design of an airship that doesn’t create a radar blimp the size of medium-sized asteroid?
But yes, they are not easy to hide, are vulnerable and cannot be not deployed on the frontlines because of this, but rather in the back.
But they can stay up for eternity.