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
Are you familiar with Dynalifter? Any thoughts on its potential?