Perhaps a novelty more than anything else. In this age, I don’t see people hopping on a zeppelin to London for business purposes.
“consigned to being a quick shorthand for alternate universes in science fiction”
Fringe fan?
I suspect they meant kilometers, instead of miles.
That said, the article is correct about the potential for airships in remote regions.
Just don’t fill them with hydrogen, paint them with solid rocket fuel, and fail to ground them properly.
Thanks for posting.
Well thank God Clinton decided to sell off our helium reserves in 1996. /sarc
that would be sweet....
Even helium airships can have horrible problems with bad weather:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_%28ZR-1%29
No need for hydrogen to make it dangerous....
Seriously though, this story is older than the internet
12 Nov 2010 ... Airships are making a comeback!
9 Jun 2008 Floating the idea of an airship comeback - News - Travel - smh.com.au
28 Aug 1996 ... Airships' comeback is more than hot air.
And pre Google, I remember stories like this going back to the 1960s.
In 1903, large reserves of helium were found in the natural gas fields in parts of the United States, which is by far the largest supplier of the gas.
People said that ocean liners were dead when the Boeing 707 went into service. Now we have the cruise ships. They are for fun, not for business travel.
The Hindenburg was an aberration, destroyed in inferno.
All the other huge dirigibles died in windstorms: Shenandoah, R-100, R-101, Macon, Los Angeles. The Graf Zeppelin and Graf Zeppelin II survived to be broken up for their scrap value.
Doesn’t the seventy year success of the U.S. nonrigid blimp fleet say anything?
Anyway, a balloon is a balloon, regardless of its shape, and is always at the mercy of the winds. Commercial applications, oh please. The Nazis got more use out of the Hindenburg during their 1936 `plebiscite’ when forty-two on board `Ja’ votes for Hitler were counted when there were only forty names on the manifest. Oh well.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but hydrogen was not the fuel of the Hindenberg, but the lighter-than-air gas that provided it with its buoyancy in the atmosphere.
To be truthful, the Hindenburg couldn’t have used helium, even if it was available. The use of helium would have required additional gas cells with even more supporting structure. The consequences of which would be critical sacrifices in the range/load equation that would have seriously impacted its marketing image. It would also have had serious impact upon already marginal handling qualities.
On departure on its famous last flight it was so heavily loaded it had to make use of “dynamic bouyancy” (in effect “surfing” the air in a nose up attitude) in order to takeoff. At cruise every effort was made to avoid rain showers to avoid incurring the additional weight of rain water absorbed by the aluminum doped (and extremely flammable in consequence) fabric covering as this might have forced the jettisoning of fuel and the embarrassment of an unscheduled landing at the flight’s outset.
Can modern “airships” overcome these limitations ? Its problematical, even given the advances in materials available to today’s designers. Even “aerodyne” designs are still subject to the same physical laws that governed the Hindenburg.
Airships don’t fit well in our modern air traffic environment. They require open spaces and low winds. Turbulence is their deadly enemy. But turbulence from jet traffic is endemic at all large airports. dUnless the purveyors of these “cruises” are prepared to create alternative landing zones not in conflict with normal air traffic and provide the ground control, safety and passenger services needed, I don’t see the idea having much chance of success. >PS
To be “accurate” the Hindenburg’s fuel wasn’t “flammable hydrogen”. It was diesel. In fact the Germans went to some lengths to recover the Hindenburg’s engines after the crash on order to preserve their “secret” -they thought - technology.
>PS
Good article. Thanks.
Imagine a small bridge that could be built in sections near the place it is to span. Once the old bridge was dropped the new bridge sections could dropped into place by an airship. The disruption to traffic would be reduced from weeks to days. I assume the construction of the bridge would also be far simpler if it was done on the ground.
I’m going to royally pissed if after more than 100 years of powered flight, I have to get on a stupid blimp.