• HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mlEnglish
    20·
    7 days ago

    Helium is rare on Earth and is not renewable.

    The reason Germany had the “best” blimps? They used hydrogen which is a fraction of the cost while having even more lifting force than helium. It’s what allowed them to build airships as big as they did. It’s also why the Hindenburg exploded.

    We haven’t solved the first problem, so the prospect of succeeding a second time is, while not inconceivable, very limited.

    More importantly, most people probably wouldn’t want to spend several days crossing the Atlantic or Pacific when a plane gets you there in 12 hours or less. Even if the experience on a plane sucks, saving multiple days worth of your time is extremely hard to compete with. What really killed airships was airplanes, not the Hindenburg disaster. Airships had already been in decline when the Hindenburg blew up, and the decline was proportional to the advancement of passenger airliners.

    • mercano@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      Germany didn’t choose hydrogen because of its greater lifting capacity, they had to use it because the US was the only country at the time with industrial quantities of helium, and they weren’t exporting it. The Hindenburg was originally planed to use helium, but once the Zeppelin Company resigned themselves to having to use hydrogen, they added addition passenger staterooms to take advantage of the excess lift capacity.

    • Phoeniqz@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      2·
      6 days ago

      what about short-haul flights? Routes such as Berlin-Copenhagen seem to make sense, as in: Not as fast as a plane but faster than a train and possibly cheaper than both (using hydrogen airships). I don’t know much about airships but that is what came to my mind (besides obviously the freight side of things that is being researched).

      • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        I doubt it would be faster than a train though. The Hindenburg had a maximum speed of 135 km/h, and even if we were generous and assumed that a hypothetical modern airship would go twice that speed, 270 km/h is still not as fast as high speed trains, many of which can run at 400 km/h, with 300-350 km/h being the most common in Europe. There’s also the same issue of takeoff and landing as with planes. While trains can just pull into a station, open its many doors to exchange passengers, and pull right out of the station, all types of aircraft have complex takeoff and landing procedures that take a significant amount of time. On short flights, the takeoff and landing time accounts for a big portion of the total flight time, so it’s an even bigger issue.

        Again, I’m not flat out saying that airships will never see a revival, but these are the problems that need to be overcome for that to happen.

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    121·
    8 days ago

    YES PLEASE GIVE ME ZEPPELINS AGAIN. i don’t care you don’t think its profitable.

    they took this from us.

  • Anna@lemmy.ml
    8·
    8 days ago

    Just fill it with hydrogen instead of helium. Or was it the other way around. Ahh… Its OK it’s just 1proton and an electron difference it’ll be alright.