Zepplins were also the first major aerial recon device and they were experimental bombers in WW1 in the same way tractors were fitted with armor forming the first experimental tanks.
The USS Akron was a bigger (repeat) disaster, and was also the first zepplin aircraft carrier.
*edit: corrected like half a dozen fat finger typos I missed the first go. Eesh.
I mean they’re probably fucking better than the unholy helicopter, to be honest. I’d probably like to see more research generally into hybrid airships, they’re kinda sick. I dunno, I mean, on one hand, if we’re all constantly complaining about jet fuel consumption being such a big issue, but still want air travel to be a thing, that seems like a pretty good method even if it’s slower by some order of magnitude. I might be wrong on that, though, who knows, maybe the tradeoff is worth it, maybe big intercontinental ships are more efficient. Maybe there’s some mass market hydrolysis rocket fuel jet idea, that someone might propose, and then it would get used as a way to greenwash basically what would be a normal jet that just runs on hydrogen derived from natural gas.
Somebody else said they could be a good alternative to cargo ships, which may or may not be the move over land, but I dunno, still probably trains beat them out on that 99 times outta 100.
I dunno, maybe if we get graphene, we’ll be able to make the big vacuum bubble airships, and that would be really cool, but if we have graphene then we’ve kinda won a lot of other cool things too, so that’s maybe one of the lesser theoretical technologies. Or maybe aluminum solves this?
I think what I’ve learned from the domestic train industry in america and from listening to podcasts about supersonic jets in the 50’s is that none of this is so much a huge technological issue, as much as it is kind of just a political or purely cultural decision. We could have CRTs again, if we really wanted, or even plasma screens, right, but fuck that, you’re getting LCD and LCD derivatives now and you’re gonna like it. Maybe one thing or the other is “less efficient”, right, but that doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s like freedom, it’s a meta-value, it’s a proxy for your actual values. If the thing you value most is like, disseminating durable displays all over the place, at a low cost, with low weight, then you’re going to opt for LCDs. But if you were more into video quality or motion clarity or a more optimal contrast ratio, you might very well decide on another approach. If you want to read outside without taking a book, you go with e-ink, you don’t go with LCD, you know? If that’s your priority, if that’s your value, if that’s your value as shaped by the context. So just saying that zeppelins are “less efficient” than planes is kind of reliant on like, an unspoken definition of efficiency. It’s just a simple matter of priorities.
They are kind of impractical nowadays. Nobody wants to get somewhere slow.
For recreational “travel for the sake of travel” it’d be kind of cool. I’d wager that a zeppelin “sky cruise” would be more environmentally friendly than a traditional ocean cruise, and offer way more diverse views. That’d be a real sweet vacation, actually.
Some 15-minute explainer channel (maybe HAI) had a video about risk perception recently, and I think this would be a pretty good example.
Technically Zeppelin was a company that made passenger blimps or rigid airships, of which the last built was in 1959-1960 as the AEREON III. It was a helium filled design that failed to slow down in a crosswind and turn, leading to it’s destruction during the testing phases.
It wasn’t just one zeppelin. The US Navy experimented with airship aircraft carriers and both of them were lost in stormy weather. They’re giant bags of gas, which means that turbulent air is a big problem.
The Empire State building had a airship mooring point at the top, but the constant updrafts meant the airship would be pointing nose-down while unloading.
They’re just too unwieldy in all but the most calm conditions that there’s not much use for them beyond writing “Ice Cube is a pimp” in the sky.
It’s more the case that back then, nearly every airship ever made ended up crashing in bad weather. Nowadays they’re sort of safe since we have much more powerful engines and weather services that can help them avoid the rough stuff, but even then they still can’t lift very useful loads.
Looking at what happened to every Zeppelin that Ferdinand von Zeppelin built you start to get a good picture on why it’s maybe not the best idea. I got to hand it to him though, dudes got dedication.
LZ1: damaged during initial flight, repaired and flown two more times before investors backed out causing the ship to be sold for scrap.
LZ2: suffered double engine failure and crashed into a mountain. While anchored to the mountain awaiting repairs a storm destroyed it beyond repair.
LZ3: built from salvaged parts of LZ2. Severally damaged in storm. After LZ4’s destruction LZ3 was repaired and was accepted by the German military who eventually scrapped it.
LZ4: suffered from chronic engine failure. While repairing the engines a gust of wind blew the ship free of its mooring and struck a tree causing the ship to ignite and burn to the ground.
LZ5: destroyed in a storm.
LZ6: destroyed in its hanger by fire.
LZ7: destroyed after crashing in a thunderstorm.
LZ8: destroyed by wind.
LZ9: this one actually worked and survived for three years before being decommissioned.
LZ10: caught on fire and destroyed after a gust of wind blew its mooring line into itself.
LZ11: destroyed while attempting to move the ship into it’s hanger
LZ12 & LZ13: both flew successful careers before being decommissioned a few years later.
LZ14: destroyed in a thunderstorm.
LZ15: destroyed during an emergency landing.
LZ16: was stolen by the French.
LZ17: decommissioned after the war.
LZ18: exploded during its test flight.
LZ19: damaged beyond repair during an emergency landing.
LZ129: the Hindenburg.
LZ127: retired and scrapped after flying over a million miles.
LZ130: flew 30 flights before being dismantled for parts to aid in the war effort.
It seems to rather drastically. When looking it up the average for commercial aircraft is 0.01 fatalities per 100,000 hours of flight time, however when I looked for data that included non commercial craft that figure jumps to 1.19 per 100,000 hours yielding a fatality, and 6.84 per 100,000 yielding a crash of any sort.
I then googled to find the average daily flight hours, and while I couldn’t find that, I did find the total flight hours in 2018, which came out to 91.8 million flight hours, or 251,507 flight hours daily, which should result in an average of 17 crashes per day, and an average of 3 fatalities per day, globally. Also one commercial flight fatality slightly more than every 3 months.
only if you count general aviation, commercial airlines crash less than once a month. OP is clearly just an agent of Big Blimp trying to destroy the reputation of the honorable aviation industry
A lot less if you’re only counting advanced democracies. The last multi-casualty commercial plane crash in the US was in 2009, 15 years ago. I only make that multi-casualty caveat because otherwise you get weird one offs like a guy running into a landing strip and getting run over.
Even the one in 2009 was a fairly small propeller plane.
It’s amazing what proper regulations that are designed to prioritize safety over profit can accomplish, and how quickly stark examples of the dangers start happening when those regulations are sidestepped or dismantled…
zeppelins, specifically rigid air ships, most blimps are soft body airships.
Have a problem where when even the slightest of winds shows up. All hell breaks loose, because these ships are literally a metaphorical leaf in a tornado in comparison to like, idk, a plane.
The Hindenburg was 245m long, carried around 50 crew plus 60 or so passengers. It needs all that length to have enough volume to lift that many people. The laws of physics are a limitation here; even figuring out a vaccum rigid air ship would only slightly improve this (it’s a neat engineering problem, but not very practical for a variety of reasons). Maybe the crew size could shrink somewhat, but the fact is that you’ve got a giant thing for handling around 100 people.
An Airbus a380 is 72m long and carries over 500 passengers and crew.
The Hindenburg made the transatlantic journey in around 100 hours. You could consider it more like a cruise than a flight–you travel there in luxury and don’t care that it takes longer. You would expect it to be priced accordingly. In fact, given the smaller passenger size compared to the crew size, I’d expect it to be priced like a river cruise rather than an ocean cruise. Those tend to be more exclusive and priced even higher.
Being ground crew for blimps was a dangerous job. You’re holding onto a rope, and then the wind shifts and you get pulled with it. This could certainly be done more safely today with the right equipment. Don’t expect the industry to actually do that without stiff regulations stepping in.
Overall, they suck and would only be a luxury travel option. Continental cargo is better done by trains. Trans continental cargo is better done by boats. There isn’t much of a use case anywhere.
I’m already buying shares in BlimpX! He’s a visionary, first Hyperloop, now BlimpX! What’ll be the next thing from 80+ year old popular science mags for the real life Tony Stark will invent?
To be honest it’s pretty unfair to compare something built before humans sent anything into space, vs something after we’ve made it to Mars. There is over 60 years of innovation between the Hindenburg and the airbus.
Airships only make sense in a world in which the economy takes into account ecodestruction. Kind of like wind-powered ships. If we didn’t know what GHGs do environmentally, which offset any short-term efficiency gains provided by burning hydrocarons, nobody would ever dream of abandoning these miracle fuels. So you can only examine the efficiency of airships with hydrocarbons off the table entirely.
They do plenty of ecodestruction. If we had them now, they’d be fueled by hydrocarbons. That could hypothetically be batteries in the future, but batteries good enough for that could do equally well in airplanes.
The material used in making them rigid also has a carbon cost.
I think they’d be solar powered with some kind of thin film photovoltaic. You don’t need much battery in that case. While some carbon cost is inevitable, the point is they wouldn’t ever compete with something that burns kerosene.
It wouldn’t be light enough. Panels weight about 19kg each for a 1x1.7m panel. This can probably be slimmed down for the application, but probably not by enough. Perovskite promises a lighter weight panel, but they still have longevity issues that are being worked out in the lab.
Why not put those panels on a boat instead? Or in a field and power a train?
Your 1 panel at less than 2 sqm weighs as much as more than 6 square meters of thin film. The 40 or 50% better relative efficiency doesn’t make up for the increased square footage. What kind of wattage would we even need?
Hindenburg used 4x 735kW diesel engines which need to be powered constantly (almost 3MW overall). That is the output at the shaft, which means we need electric motors that match that. Fortunately, electric motors are pretty efficient.
Thin-film can do 80-120W per m^2. That’s the rating when the sun is shining directly on them. We’ll assume it’s flying above the cloud layer and don’t need to worry about that.
At the top end, it will take 24,500m^2 of panels. Hindenburg had a length of 245.3m and diameter of 41.2m. If it were a cylinder (because I don’t feel like doing the math on its actual shape), it would have a surface area of 35,000m^2, but that includes the underside. It’ll probably pick up some power being reflected off the clouds or the earth’s surface, but you’re probably only getting 60% of the full power averaged over the entire surface.
Which is closer than I thought it would be, but not quite enough to power the motors if they were 100% efficient, and dropping it to the real world 85-90% won’t help. Neither will accounting for its actual shape.
Hindenburg had a cruising speed of 131km/h, so solar electric would just be pegged to a lower top speed assuming we didn’t touch any other parts of the design.
I think efficiency gains in propeller tech, changes in crew and gear requirements, structural materials, and the rest of it would make it feasible.
Then we have to ask about alternatives. French TGV trains output about 10MW, and can carry over 600 passengers. Three of the solar arrays for these hypothetical green Hindenburgs would run one train, and you’re not stuck with shitty thin film panels. The trains will move twice as many people.
If we’re talking cargo trains, those max out around 3MW, so just one of these solar Hindenburgs. They will carry far, far more cargo.
Things like propeller efficiency also apply to airplanes.
So we’re still stuck where things were going when Hindenburg burned away. Other things were surpassing it, they also improved in the time since, and there isn’t much point beyond novelty.
It also had an aluminium skin, protected by an iron oxide paint. Those 2 are also the main ingredients in thermite. The skin burnt even faster and more impressively than the hydrogen.
Do we even have enough helium to be using it in zeppelins though? I thought it was in shortage which is bad because it’s needed for medical and scientific purposes. Like we shouldn’t even be using it in balloons bad.
Add comment