• carrylex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

    Apart from the 80% of the entries that are basically “Crashed during bad weather” - my personal highlights:

    … breaks loose from its mooring during a storm and is blown over the English Channel; after sightings in Wales and Ireland and a brief touchdown in Belfast, the airship was blown out over the Atlantic Ocean and is never seen again.

    Zeppelin LZ 8 Deutschland II (brand new) is caught by a wind gust while being walked out of its hangar and damaged beyond repair after it smashes on the roof of the hangar.

    … the airship, weighed down with gold and burgundy paint, reached 600 feet altitude before beginning an unplanned right descending turn, making a “controlled descent” into a garbage dump, impaling the blimp on a pine tree, coming down just a quarter-mile from the site of the Hindenburg’s 1937 demise.

    … suffers an intentional mid-air collision with a radio-controlled airplane.

  • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Let’s put a billion birthday balloons worth of MRI gas in a terminally slow aircraft and inexplicably fly it over sports stadiums.

  • unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    they were abandoned because commercial airliners were faster, safer, more durable, and could carry more people.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      …and they don’t fuck up our limited helium reserves en masse.

      EDIT: they might fuck up other things, but it would be some serious waste, because there are much more important applications to our limited helium.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Hard to say that theyre really safer, when the primary safety incident everyone thinks of, occurred during the 1930s, a time whose airplanes certainly wouldnt have been as safe as modern ones either

      • unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        planes are safer because they are less prone to failure and can take more damage (and more significant damage) before falling out of the sky, as well as being able to maneuver on the way down instead of just actually falling.

  • Headofthebored @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Well, the Nazis were stupid and used hydrogen instead of helium. The Hindenburg, pride of Nazi Germany, was full of rich people when it blew up in New Jersey, so who really cares anyway?

    • Redredme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The Nazis had to use hydrogen because that other gas was hoarded as a strategic reserve by another nation.

      But still Nazis. So…

      Anyway big flying things are cool. Still would be.

      its just that planes are faster, cheaper to build, less of a hassle to land and take off…

      • rmuk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yeah, but how were they to know the central reservation on the autobahns would need a barrier as well as earthworks?

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      It’s also worth noting that it wasn’t the hydrogen that caused the fire. The Hindenburg had an aluminium skin. It began having degradation issues, so they painted it. The paint was iron oxide based. Aluminium and iron oxide are the 2 main ingredients in thermite.

      Analysis of the video shows that it was the skin burning off. It would have gone up almost as badly, even if filled with helium.

      • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Thermite is known for being freaking hard to ignite, even torching it is not enough sometimes. So I doubt that had anything to do with the fire.

      • joel_feila@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Not according to myth busters. Although some thermite reactions likely accured the blimp would have gone up without it

    • ninjakttty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Well they weren’t totally stupid, they couldn’t get helium because the US restricted them from getting it as the largest supplier. The plan was originally to use helium, but they went with the second best option.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Helium is very finite and very leaky. If you want flying ships you need something else.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Hydrogen is awesome, for it is cheap. Just make it more expensive is not a good strategy.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Helium has problems of its own, sadly. Besides being a little bit less effective at actually lifting, it’s relatively scarce on Earth and it leaks even faster than hydrogen

        • PartyAt15thAndSummit@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I mean, we could be using the heavier neon, which is also a noble gas and lighter than air. But it’s almost as rare as helium, and you’d need significantly more of it to produce the same lift.

        • Chozo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I believe we’re also already getting dangerously close to depleting our supply of helium, as well.

          • Skua@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            As I understand it - with the disclaimer that I have no particular expertise or experience in the matter - it’s not quite as dire as that. Historically the USA accounted for basically the entire world’s production, and American reserves that are known and economical to access are getting within something like 50 years of running out. However, other countries have begun to produce much more substantially in recent years, and we probably do have enough to last a good while once the rest of world reserves are accounted for

            However it is still functionally non-renewable and meaningfully finite, so we shouldn’t waste it

          • Artyom@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            19 hours ago

            That’s actually not a big deal for blimps. Blimps don’t lose a lot of helium, they only need to be serviced for if like once a year. When people say we have a helium crisis, they’re talking about high-purity helium for advanced medical work and advanced science.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        It’s a Noble gas that we can’t synthesize chemically and is light enough it just floats away forever when released. And it provides less lift than hydrogen.

        Helium’s sole advantage is also why it’s about the least-renewable thing out there.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        The Empire State Building was designed as a zeppelin docking station. Boarding/de-boarding and flight times are barely competitive with the modern subway. It was fun and novel, but quite impractical.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          To be fair have many people still been trying to improve on the technology or are we still using some ancient blueprint.

          Avation science has come a long way.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        honestly, I bet we could probably make a hydrogen one reasonably safe, if we really wanted to. Sure, its flammable and all, but so is jet fuel, and we can throw giant tanks of that stuff into the air safely with enough engineering put into it.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Sure, its flammable and all, but so is jet fuel, and we can throw giant tanks of that stuff into the air safely with enough engineering put into it.

          As long as we don’t paint the airship skin with it.

          • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            21 hours ago

            I do find it somewhat interesting that there is a sense with some that a hydrogen airship could never be safe enough to carry crew, or even exist unmanned, but at the same time, we can make rockets containing massive tanks of liquid hydrogen, right next to huge tanks of liquid oxygen, propelled by a massive continuous explosion, safe enough to put people in. Obviously the accepted risk for rockets is a bit higher, but still, its not like we dont know how hydrogen works, and what conditions it does and doesnt explode under.

  • lettruthout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I don’t understand this meme. Everyone knows that modern airships use helium instead of hydrogen, right?