Why the Airship May Be the Future of Air Travel 

Helium for special blimps that support rescue missions and scientific endeavors are okay. Otherwise, I think this is a bad idea considering our limited helium supply. We need to think about our helium usage with at least a _next-200-years_ mindset. It's necessary for so many very important scientific applications like MRI, making fiber optics, computer chips, arc welding, deep sea diving, etc. Replacing even a quarter of air travel and maritime shipping with helium would require crazy amounts of helium. I'd imagine it would decimate our supply. Speaking very broadly, if we could double the best lithium ion battery energy density _(per liter),_ it would compete reasonably with gasoline. That should make it very doable for planes and maritime cargo ships.

Does you head looks like a blimp to homage the future of Air Travel?

There may indeed be specialized use cases for air ships, but in comparison to something like electric aircraft, I'm personally doubting their true likelihood as viable transport, in particular with regards to the helium consumption. When airships were first fielded in the US they accounted for virtually 100% of the worlds helium consumption (Edit: 2.1 MILLION ft³ or 59,000 m³ of the stuff). I find myself curious what optimizations might be made in thermal differential lift conveyances (hot air balloons, say, heated by solar or those unidirectional thermal convection polymers) or even the vacuum-filled neutral buoyancy theoretical vehicles (an ultra lightweight, rigid-structure, hollow sphere filled with, well, nothing - that is, as close to vacuum as is feasible - is lighter than air. Given a shell made of "unobtainium" - a substance yet to be provided by current material science - of sufficient diameter, one could float a city in midair. The trick is ensuring it doesn't collapse in on itself/implode. It's all about displacement of mass (the same way we can build 100,000 ton super carriers out of metal that still float on the ocean). I dunno. Maybe it's just me, but I feel revisiting a technology long-since supplanted by others, that consumes vast quantities of a non-renewable resource that could be better applied to other, trivial technologies like, oh, MRI's, when myriad other, novel technologies are competing for the same space strikes me as rather myopic.

@@grumblycurmudgeon I didn't know about precedent with regards to previous airships and helium supply. That confirms my assumptions about what a current move to airships would do our helium supply. I'm in agreement. I don't want to use helium for our travel excluding special situations.

The Lockheed tech is based on the Airlander tech - I can only assume they're still paying Airlander a royalty, ^oo^

There's a very good episode of the animation series "Archer" about that.

I saw this and thought "this again?". Yeah, not holding my breath for any airship departures.

The one thing that seems a little more possible this time, to me, is the possibility of unmanned hydrogen cargo airships. If it's efficient enough, cargo companies will adopt it, and unmanned vehicle technology is certainly more advanced now then ever before. But I'm not holding my breath.

I think it's because on the surface it seems like a fairly obvious solution to many problems we have with conventional jet aircraft. And even if you dig in, it still seems like it's only an issue of lack of development at the same pace as jets. Basic issues that could be tackled with some good old fashioned 'getting it into the field'. The problem is not much different than that of Tilt-rotor aircraft. It seemed like a win-win, but there were risks. People heavily criticized it for crashes and deaths, but it was still far less than when we first got helicopters working. Someone will just have to take the plunge and absorb the risks and costs to get them common enough and worked with enough to bring the costs down and address some of these other technical risks.

Ditto. Almost as bad as cancer cures.

After a lifetime of aviation - - - - - - - - - - - - - > *I'd strongly agree!*

Where were you building airships?

with better tech coming. do you think it could become a viable transport ?

So what's wrong with them? Why don't you agree with the numbers in this video?

@@eugeniustheodidactus8890 Tennessee, USA.

That makes sense in the case of hydrogen-filled blimps. I don't see why helium-blimps would be more dangerous than a plane or helicopter.

@@stanleywang7367 Simply by a million times less field experience I guess

YOu make a point. Jets are flying bombs. A hydrogen filled airship would be dangerous but less so. Obviously helium would be best if feasible in the long term.

Also, these companies planned it for unmanned cargo operations only. Which mean that, if it crashes, there's nobody onboard.

Like... Wind. Lol.

Not to mention the amount of He available is limited, and we will run out of it relatively soon. Hydrogen is not an option as it is practically an explosive where oxygen is present - like on Earth.

*caugh* Cargolifter *caugh*

@steelhound duncan, there's no way to manufacture He in a cost-effective way and because it's so light it escapes the atmosphere.

@@bztube888 they're going to use hydrogen for unmanned cargo flights, sure hydrogen is dangerous BUT only at certain ratios once its 100% hydrogen then it can't explode.. the Hindenburg didn't explode because of hydrogen but it went up in flames because of its coating (most if not all of the hydrogen was vented out before the Hindenburg went down in flames)

Hey mate, what’s the last thing you thought you’d see in the night sky? Well that’s a deep question, but- Nah nah cause there’s blimps…

...Correction... old British GREAT Grandpa...!

"bloody bastards!..."

Just running into the yard with a rusty Lee-Enfield that hasn't seen daylight since 1945, "We sent you back to Berlin once, we'll do it again!"

They aren't coming back and the last commercial airship I think was the Hindenburg in 1937. There was a sister airship, but it never operated with passengers. Airships from that time onward were restricted to experimental military use up until WWII and may be a little beyond. Any kid that would remember one other than an advertising one would have to be at least 75 now.

Me too i love airships

BLIMP-TRANSPORT/AIRSHIP-TRANSPORTATION/AIRSHIP-HELICOPTER-DRONE-CARRIERS/AIRSHIP-DRONE-CARRIER/RESOLVED-AIRSHIP-TRANSPORTATION-STABILITY-RESOLUTION/HEXAGON-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-BUOYANCY-PLACEMENT-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-UMBRELLA-SHAPED-WEIGHT-SUPPORT/HEXAGON-WEIGHT-DISPLACEMENT-MECHANISM/[HEXAGON-DOME-SHAPED-AIRSHIP/HEXAGON-FORMATION-WEIGHT-DISTRIBUTION-MECHANISMS/HEXAGON-AIRSHIP-CARRIER-AI-AUTOMATED-BUOYANCY-MECHANISM Conventional airship cargo-carriers experience instability issues when loading and offloading cargo. The instability in buoyancy (levels); created by the fluctuating mass of the cargo, as well as unstable air-currents (especially at higher altitude), makes conventional designs for airship cargo-carriers inefficient, unstable and potentially unsafe... when compared to alternative modes of cargo transportation vessels, e.g. conventional cargo-ships that travel via a body of water/sea. When all is said and done... I have come to realize that the technology should be paired with 'vertical', cargo-transport carries, i.e. [droned] helicopters. Helicopter technology should be incorporated with Ai; so that the drones will be outfitted with cargo (of specific weight/mass). With their proven prowess in vertical takeoff, they will be utilized to safely mount cargo on a giant airship (said cargo will [obviously] need to be spaced/tired-down and stationed relative to each other. Inspiration from the hexagon shape should aid the intended 'fair and even [weight] distribution' of mass, across the storage site within the airship). Like an orchestra, when coordinated, the swarms of vertical [helicopter] drones (coordinated & assisted Ai; will take the shape and form of a 'helicopter', for its vertical functionality... they will double and function as integral, and additional transportation-carriers) will 'double and function' as 'construction-pulleys'; in their purpose in safely and relatively steadily mounting cargo onto the large storage site (that will be situated on top of the airship. I envision a small, but functional runway built on the surface of the airship. It is in this additional, supportive function that the airship will resemble an "aircraft carrier, battle ship"). New and emerging technologies will facilitate this mode if cargo transportation. NOTE: When all is said and done... When we take a step back, and observe the construct in action, its coordinated functionalities and mechanisms will resemble the (relationship and transport mechanism) 'worker-bees and their beehive'. Through further research and development of the quantum mechanics; that is at play, and is responsible for buoyancy (its essence is [efficient] mass/weight-distribution within a [specified] medium volume)... It will be possible to reroute/engineer buoyancy (how lighter than air gas behave), i.e. how mass is distributed within a specified [enclosed] medium-volume/volume of a specified medium. REMEMBER: that buoyancy takes the path with the least resistance. Point is, if you can manipulate/[quantum] engineer how lighter-than-air gases behave, you will have an easier time using Ai to coordinate their behaviour (with greater efficiency and precision, e.g. making lighter-than-air gases even lighter; manipulating their mass at the quantum scale). Were such endeavours researched, developed and refined to an art, then what we will be left with are the components to anti-gravity technology and [quantum] know-how. NOTE: There was a successful scientific experiment; where Rubidium was used to give additional mass to the photon. This resulted in slowing down the photo. The experiment supported the feasibility of hard-light technology. The essence of the experiment was that the mass of subatomic particles could be altered/manipulated to bare desirable outcomes. That research should have been concocted with quantum mechanics in mind. Engineering at the quantum scale is exciting and bares monumental possibilities. /Close.

Good points. However time and tourism are directly linked. In the 1930s and1940s the only way for regular people to go from the US to Europe was by boat. Now, no one would prefer to take a boat to Europe unless it were a cruise ship but, then again, a cruise is about experiencing the boat ride with lots of side amusements, so you are already on vacation when you leave the dock. There is also somethig very vsiceral about being outdoors looking down at the water on a cruise ship. There would be no real "outdoor time" on anairship.

NO IT WASN'T. IT WAS A CATASTROPHE... A DISASTER. WE REMEMBER THE HINDENBERG!!

Terrible analogy

@@4rumani what analogy? There was no analogy. A analogy is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. The dude only talked about airships… never once did he make an analogy.

I'm interested in airships because given modern materials and construction methods, helium instead of hydrogen, solar assist and silent electric propulsion, a helluva amazing airship is possible. Nature flights over the Amazon ?

How did they never miss a departure? Weren't they somewhat weather sensitive?

Hydrogen is safer than most fuels

@@cedriceric9730 Lifting gas is a very different application than as fuel

There is no reason why hydrogen could not be as safe as jet fuel. We never consider when flying that we are sitting in a metal tube filled with an explosive liquid.

The truth is the Hindenburg was a very unlikely event that happened to have been televised. Even back then you are far more likely to survive a hydrogen blimp crash then an airplane crash. Most people on the Hindenburg survived completely unscaved.

Another alternative is to simply pump the air out of the 'tanks'. No special gas necessary.

"Screw the rules, I have money"

Helium

They said the same thing about electric cars ... there's always another delay but it seems eventually ...

Welll shiiiiit you try making them!

Well do you want them to rush things? And pump out some trash that dies if a fingernail touches it?

Well I disagree with the idea blimps are necessarily the future but I have to say 20 years is nothing. People always assume things will stay the same which is funny considering how much the world has changed even in just the past decade.

What did you think about the hemorroid pillow comment?

👏 👏 👏

It's unfortunate that this video did not mention that the defining characteristic of these "hybrid airship" designs is that they are almost always heavier than air, unlike the always lighter than air rigid airships of the past. The gases are just used to offset some of the weight of the air frame and cargo. They don't fly without power, just like a plane. It's the only reason remote landing can even be considered as historically airships would require significant ground crews to immediately tie them down and add weight. Apparently that design shown with the air cushion pads can reverse them and suction itself to an airstrip if needed.

@@GarthMitchell modern airships can use submarine inspired technology to control lift and land without a ground crew by compressing their lifting gas, thus increasing their density above that of the surrounding air. Dragon Dream used that design before their prototype was crushed by its hangar collapsing, sending the company to oblivion.

smaller crafts are more unstable; once they are larger than the typical turbulence cell size, they will just ride over the pothole.

Why does the frame have to be larger? why can't it be a series of smaller frames connected together. (a shitty example, instead of using 1 empty drum, instead lash or weld together a bunch of drums together. kinda like if you were to make a raft, where you would use more bottles or drums for more buoyancy.) I do understand the more frames used, the heavier it would be. I also know carbon-fibers are really expensive to print out, but why not use carbon-fibers as the frames? (They have them on cars, it's true they can't stand up to crashes too well, but the frames would be lighter!)

What I think would be a very promising hybrid is if an airplane is designed with a (hydrogen?) jet engine where the hot air is fed into a balloon for lift. That way it is easy to throttle it down to land. I think this kind of plane could be extremely promising. Perhaps the balloon could even be collapsible or detachable in freak weather or emergency. Imagine to lift capacity and speed provided by wings aided by hot air balloons fed by the hot exhaust of the jet engines that now largely goes to waste. It could also provide significant safety benefits.

Yey for more tropical theme parks in the hangars for these proposed megaprojects...

It’s exceedingly difficult to shoulder the R&D costs while also breaking into such a highly regulated and technical industry, while also competing against other aircraft that have an uninterrupted century of amortized research and infrastructure supporting them.

If the right people won world war 2 zeppelin airships would definitely be one of the most common forms of mass international transport.

@@zteaxon7787 uhmm... No. By the Time ww2 was ongoing, all nations were working hard on jet engine driven aircraft, including the Germans (ME 262), the japanese (kikka), the british (Meteor), and probably many more.

@@zteaxon7787 Not at all. The Axis powers used a grand total of 1 airship during the War, and the Allies used over a hundred of them. The USA was the side with blimps in that conflict!

I think hydrogen will make a comeback for cargo airships. Hydrogen is so cheap in comparison. Once they prove their safety, due to modern materials, passenger airships will follow. Hydrogen balloons are commonly used by airborne forces to practice parachute jumps, so they are used today already.

@@parajacks4 unfortunately hydrogen suffers from many of the same issues. Currently it's mostly made from natural gas, and making it is extremely energy intensive and emit a lot of carbon. There are alternate ways (hydrolysis), but they are also extremely energy intensive, so until we have more green energy, they too can be problematic.

@@bill_and_amanda Using excess green energy to make hydrogen is a hot topic at the moment, when a region produces too much wind or solar powered electricity it is either sent long distance through the grid, which is wasteful, or wind turbines are turned so they stop producing. In the near future there will be more options for excess electricity including grid scale batteries and hydrogen production. The tech is there, open to some improvements and refinements, no doubt, but tech is not so complicated for hydrogen production, it’s just an anode a cathode and water, not much more. Storing the hydrogen is the difficult bit, as it’s so small hydrogen has a habit of slowly escaping through any container, faster when under pressure.

@@parajacks4 How about magnetic confinement, since we can get ions of hydrogen from catalysed electrolysis? I realized it's not the the same order of energy as plasma in fusion, but it should still be magnetic-confinable. We can then reduce loss-to-percolation-through-container a lot. Unsure of how much of that loss would have to be prevented to make the magnetic field worthwhile to keep Edit: this is stupid, we want to decrease density, not increase it.

@@parajacks4 in theory using excess green energy to produce hydrogen through electrolysis is a great idea.

This is by far the most brilliant use case

So what you're saying is there may be a need for future pilots too? I would like to learn

Wow that’s a really good use case

And for typical transport of civilians and freight, and everything else that is done by vehicles, and then some. That's their proper potential and that's what I want to see, no compromises.

This can work really well but would need light gases like helium to do it or hot air too, companies are building hydrogen fuel planes that use fuel made by H2O by separating the H2 and O and is a good fuel to use and when burn together it turns back to water

Only 20 years? I've seen this story 2 or 3 times a year since I was ten. I'm 74 now. Glad I didn't hold my breath. So disappointing....

@@davidkermes393 Why you watching RU-vid? Stay off it, it's really depressing sometimes with all this new crazy stuff😅. A lot of it is garbage

Goodyear purchased three of them from Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH situated at Lake Constance in Germany.

Don't wait for others to complete your wish, if you really want it then go for it. There's no other more trustable person than yourself.

@@davidkermes393 Soon you will be able to take your flying car from your driveway to the Zeppelin Port.

would be a lot cooler if they did though

@@LyadinDima well yeah, but we try to be realistic ahah :) One application could be connections to islands. Trains are definitely off the table, airplanes pollute a lot and boats are super slow (and also pollute). Airship could be a better solution (which fall in the "reaching isolated places", I guess)

Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!

Speed and rich people amusement are not the focus. They can be used for heavy lift loads for delivery to difficult locations to access. Large scale supply and equipment dumps after natural disasters, supply remote research locations in jungles and mountainous terrain, cheap to operate for routine work in poor counties. You think to small. These blimps can be made much larger.

@@MrBonners I swear people do not read before commenting. I said " As pointed out airship have niche applications like reaching isolated places for goods and passengers" So never said that airship donvt have uses. But alternative to planes? Not even close.

The hemorrhoids one was painful and unexpected. Which makes it more accurate.

Weave them together for spun puns

@@tomellis4750 FoLHF and acronyms!

Low-hanging fruits? So we're still talking about buttocks?

@@lonestarr1490 Depends how your mind works. Peach of a reply.

Kirov Reporting

Helium optimal

Yes we'll be living the dream

That was awesome... :]]

That brings up a question though, how many people have died in modern airliners and other aircraft? Are the airships REALLY less safe? (Especially if using helium rather than hydrogen)

@@captin3149 Most people don't think about the broad scope of innovation and development. They just see an apparatus or vehicle, whatever, that works of fails, and simplistically go from there with judgements and opinions.. When SpaceX rockets fire up, fall over and explode, Musk's monitor probably lights up with elated excited (maybe even joyful) messages saying stuff like "I got it. We'll send you the simulation. And brewskies are on me." The SpaceX team don't see horrendously defective technological impediments. They only see answers to their specific problems, and opportunities for tweaking things until arriving at desired performance. So, unfortunately, we don't have any AirshipX companies around with bottomless deep pockets and no-end-in-sight perseverance, like we see with Musk and team SpaceX. But for a modestly funded airship development program, we do have the option of testing/operating such craft remotely and unmanned, drone-like, allowing for crashes without the worry of on-board crew loss etc.. Each crash and vehicle loss brings developers closer and closer to ideal safe operation, suitable for commercial production.. But since there's such a huge safety concern with the use of airships, a good way to begin, might be in using them exclusively for air freight rather than passenger transport, giving the new tech sufficient time in operation to demonstrate safety/reliability etc...

There is, in my opinion, distinct media bias in regards to airships. The SpaceX company is contemplating using its big rockets, which are mostly comprised of extremely explosive booster fuel tanks to engage in commercial passenger service. The media is mum on the idea of such a rocket failing and all the loss of lives. But bring up an airship topic, and that' becomes a major focus of concern... Oh the humanity.. -The mainstream media plays the public mind like a fiddle..

Airships definitely have a public perception of being dangerous and unsafe, largely due to the hindenburg being in the cultural zeitgeist even still.

I was looking for such a comment! KIROV REPORTING!

those things move so slow that i would forget about them until i lost my freaking construction yard.

You see droves of them along with Russian... C-130s(??) near New York... du du du dun dun

maybe it would be limited to over land and not the ocean

Countermeasures for lightning are not that complicated

Finally, a final fantasy reference 🙂

Cid makes a comeback!

Nope, the hydrogen once mixed with air (oxygen) is very flammable. Germany used to bomb England in WW1. The ships were shot down and typically would burst into flames in a spectacular fashion. What I find fascinating is that in one account, a British pilot firing incendiary bullets staffed a ship to no effect. Meaning the bullets pasted through the pure hydrogen and didn't ignite. The solution of course was firing at one point.

@@tomlewis2880 Hydrogen will only ignite when in the presence of oxygen. If the bullet just plunged right into the middle of the pure hydrogen, its flame would be extinguished immediately.

maybe we can build vacuum airships in the future, they would float even better. Just need a very strong hull that is also light (carbon nanotubes for example)

@@tomlewis2880 it proved surprisingly difficult to bring down a hydrogen lifted zeppelins it took a few good attempts and a sustained attack using specialised bullets to bring the first one down and that may well be down to igniting the outer covering which then spread to the escaping gas.

Hydrogen is really the only way to go. People seem fine sitting on giant tanks of jet-fuel so I'm not sure why hanging under a big bag of hydrogen would be any worse. Like anything, it is an engineering problem.

Nope, Zeppelin managed just fine for almost 30 years and that was a century ago !

@GH0STST4RSCR34M Where did you get the idea of a city? He wrote "a small group of people."

The Graf Zeppelin did an "around the world" flight in 1930. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_127_Graf_Zeppelin

@GH0STST4RSCR34M You know that you're responding to somebody's comment, right? And you said that "it" wouldn't happen because physics. So I'm not sure why you are confused.

@GH0STST4RSCR34M you're arguing literally no one while @ and guy who said nothing weird

@GH0STST4RSCR34M physics wouldn't allow us but Mathematics will allow us. It takes time to develop an airship in the strict meaning.

The hydrogen didn't matter, it was the fact the thing was literally covered in thermite.

@@SgtNomadZero wait seriously?

@@jericho1733 yes. The "silver" paint they used on it was actually the correct mixture of aluminum and iron to create thermite.

@@SgtNomadZero L O L

@@SgtNomadZero In completely separate layers and the wrong concentrations needed to create thermite. It was the hydrogen. This has been tested over and over again, including on shows like Mythbusters. Seriously, why do people like you believe this bullshit without even considering the possibility that engineers aren't complete idiots? No, you're not smarter than everyone else in the world. Neither are the people you're getting your information from. So stop pretending that every accident is caused by ignorance and stupidity. Most are caused by a wilful disregard for safety, not by stupidity or ignorance.

They can also work as flying aircraft carriers!!

A hybrid of plane and blimp, recessed turbines, delta wing,

and yet people persist with these things !

Another thing people seem to forget is emergency situations. What happens when a giant blimp full of 200 people has an emergency? Planes have wings, even if all engines fail you can still glide to a clear enough area to make a crash landing. A blimp like these ones could just fall like a brick in the middle of a city? Would just have to stay put until another blimp drags it to the landing zone? Nobody would want to be the guy who pushed for blimps then.

@@maximipe too slow for anything long haul with that number of people. One thing they could be used for (and has already been put forward) is as low level satellites/transmitters ...

The main benefit of this recurring "airships are the future" thing is that it allows people such as the narrator to signal their virtues on the topic of carbon footprints, thereby proving their lack of knowledge on the topic under discussion.

The hybrid airships are not lighter than air so solve the issue regarding ballast and staying put on the ground.

Brilliant! I enjoyed reading this;)

Lmfaoo nice. He definitely forgot to mention these things on the video xD

@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 Hi there. Airships probably have a place doing heavy lifting for construction companies, but obviously a perfectly still day would be needed to ease a 100-ton bridge truss in place from the air. The time delay waiting for that one day would halt all progress on the bridge. Helicopters also do heavy lifting and are more able to cope with light breezes while hovering, although they don't have the huge lifting capacity of an airship. More market research is needed to find the airship's niche. I apologize for pouring cold water on a very interesting concept that may still be useful, but scheduled passenger travel by airship is not a possibility. Good ideas still need "feet on the ground" critical analysis to avoid wasting investor's money. For a blow-by-blow account of British airship development in the 1930's I suggest reading about Barnes-Wallis and the development of the R100 airship, and its ill-fated companion, the R 101. A ripping good read, it makes you-tube videos look like kid's picture books. Thanks for an interesting video, and the comments. Cheers, P.R.

No, I lived near one of the Goodyear blimps. Not quite at all and it was a small blimp. You definite knew when it was flying over, especially if it was fighting any wind. This thing would be deafening.

Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!

for mainstream passenger transport it's almost impossible to beat trains, I'd bet even diesel trains emit far less co2 per passenger that these stupid airships. But this channel seems to mostly just eat the marketing nonsense without thinking about it too much. Except for niche situations trains beat zeppelins every time.

Where there s niche, there s a market!

@@bobjob3632 All it takes is a couple of crashes and it'll be shut down AGAIN.

@@grantkruse1812 Humans are too afraid of danger and failure, sadly....it will hold us back.

I suggest HUGE ANCHORS that they let fall at any time when the winds are too strong. Yes some cows and people will be lost but I think it would be a good solution

@@isychia4947 DEAD WEIGHT. Unless... -> This could be the batteries (for the all_electric engine versions). With dual cables for the anchoring & power transmission (to keep powering the engines of the main ship activelly fighting the wind), each one of this "anchors" would be self_propelled drones with cameras & A.I. cappable of choosing a good location "on the fly" (no pun intended). As an extra, with only one of this "anchor batteries" landing on a (very small footprint) pad with a high power connector, it could be posible to quickly recharge itself plus all other batteries on the main ship (via the power cable); without the whole ship having to land [something that in moderate/chaotic wind conditions could be unsafe, while keeping itself in place on the air would be relatively easy].

Wow, congratulations! I'm assuming this gives you more of a rush than a few citations?

Ha! Thanks so much, Julian.

@@TheHellogs4444 Definitely! This paper only got 7 citations. A video from Matt Ferrell counts as 1000 citations!

Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!

I feel like hydrogen-duterium fusion is better simply because there's more hydrogen out there. The moon is the main source of helium (specifically helium-3).

@@zoeysalazar7145 Dont you people ever name any airship *other* than the Hindenburg? Seriously. The R101 for christ's sake.

> imagine an Amazon delivery blimp that hovers around your city fetches rifle

@@ranjaxwolf9725 RAOFLMFAO!

Helium isn't expensive anymore. Rise of natural gas. Helium is one of the vent off gasses that comes off of getting natural gas and as prices on helium went up natural gas companies started capturing it to sell. We have more of it than we know what to do with. Natural gas companies let most of just out into the atmosphere and only capture enough to meet demand. Demand goes up, they capture more. Demand goes down they capture less. There's honestly nowhere to store it if we captured it all. It's just too much helium. So helium is kept at an artificial price high to meet a demand, when it's actually a dirt cheap byproduct.

@@halycon404 Well hell then, let's make fleets of huge cargo dirigibles!

now that is an interesting idea. manned helium ships acting as tug/main controller to a train of unmanned hydrogen ships. you could also have data lines on the linkage so that each one can have it's own propulsion to better manage the line

The safety problem of Hydrogen is not much of a problem anyways. The key problem of the Hindenburg was its very flammable outside material. That was somewhat necessary back then because very few reasonably light & reasonably cheap hydrogen-tight materials were known. But material science has come a long way in the last 84 years. Of course nothing discussed in this video is new, it has been attempted and failed 20 years ago in Germany (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter). One of the key problems in the end was that a huge Airship with a lot of lift capability starts to try and get away with a lot of force when you unload it. So the loading/unloading process ended up being either very lengthy and inefficient, or very dangerous. So the CargoLifter project was canceled, and the technology now is only used to fly tourists around over Lake Constance. All for the small price of ~400$/ 350€ for a 45-minute trip.

There's a helium shortage last I knew.

Or we could, you know, USE GODDAM ELECTRIC TRAINS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FLOAT THINGS ON THE AIR.

or you could even use an actual train to kite the airship from ground.... just for the fun of it!

blades are too heavy, too long for airships. A small wind would destabilize the airship most likely with that huge airfoil under it.

@@glennewdick They could be stowed in an underbelly structure.

@@gregspecht3706 adding even more weight in the process

@@glennewdick That is kind of the purpose of airships designed to hold things... ya know, to carry weight?

@@augmentedfourthssuperfan7297 problem is they can't carry much weight to be really useful other then a few specific reasons. size/weight to lift capability is not great.

Comparing the amount needed and fire safty of Hydrogen and Jet A1 is like comparing the size and power of a Cruise missile to a hand granade !!!

JP5 is no longer used. JP4 is used now which has a much higher flashpoint. Essentially the same as diesel.

@@MrBizteck And yet, the requirements for either to become unsafe are the exact same. If a handgrenade goes off in your lap or if a cruise missile goes off in your lap, you're just as dead. Properly designed and maintained, a hydrogen dirigible would be just as safe in daily operation as any aircraft.

@@johnpostelwait7306 That is completely false. JP5 is absolutely still in use. JP4 was phased out in the 90s due to safety concerns.

Ahh hello, that's a pipe DREAM , YES THE Hendinburg was a total loSs IT WILL AN ALWAYS BE THE FLAGSHIP WARNING TO ALL WHO RIDE OR WILLING TO WASTE MONEY IN LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORTATION AN USE FOR TRAVEL. REMEMBER LOOK IT UP KNOW THE DANGERS AND REMEMBER LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OR AIR FLIGHT COMMERCIAL AIRLINER'S DONT HAVE REAL SAFETY SUCH AS PARACHUTE FOR ANY OR ALL PASSENGERS BY THE WAY EVERYONE KNOWS JET FIGHTERS HAVE REAL SAFETY IN PARACHUTES AS THEY LAND SAFELY . AGAIN BY THE WAY COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN AIR TRAVEL HAVE SHORT CUTS NOT HAVE THE BEST SAFETY TO REALLY OFFER A PASSENGER AS IT WOULD RATHER SEE A PASSENGER FALL TO THEIR DEATH THEN PAY EXTRA TO GET EVERYONE A PERSONAL PARACHUTE. SO AS ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF LIGHTER THEN AIR TRAVEL REQUIRES EXTREME AMOUNT OF LIGHTER THEN AIR STORAGE SIZE TO THE WIEGHT COMPACITY LOOKING INFLATED AS THE PRICE TOO. JUST A GET YOUR MONEY SCHEME. ASKING WHERE DID IT ALL GO. SO NO KISS KISS NO BANG BANG. THE HENDINBURG REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR PIPE AN SMOKE THAT!

@@zoeysalazar7145 reads like bot copied random comment from someone else and put it here to gain interest... prove you ain't a bot by replying and i might read it.

@@Em.P14 He did copy & paste it, while spamming it as a response to many comments in this video. All caps & everything... People like that are just nutty.

@@corey2232 some appearently earn cash by doing so or they are attempting to do so at least, having one video on the channel and luring people to watch it with automated comments. This was only a mild one, the really annoying ones are the sexistical ones.

The unmanned vehicle will provide a platform for testing whether it will be safe for passengers.

I'm pretty sure we can make safe H2 airships nowadays, like with an outer Faraday cage, or oxygen buffers to keep a hydrogen leak from igniting near the ship

Reliability, is NOT a factor in this equation. My trackin # ain't wokin good nuf

It looks like they can fly around a mile high, maybe edging toward two miles. So not high enough to fly over storms like jets do.

It's not mentioned, because that's one of the main reasons why this technology is not viable.

@@moos5221 You _are_ aware that there are airships flying around right now though, right? The Goodyear Zeppelins, for example. And during World War 2, USA military blimps had the highest mission readiness (days out of the year where they were able to go out on missions) of any aircraft. Weather is an issue, as with any low-flying aircraft, but not an insurmountable one. Modern airships have to pass the same airworthiness certifications as any other aircraft.

@@Jjames763 you don't seem to understand. that zeppelins exist doesn't mean they are viable alternatives to aircraft or any other transportation. winds heavily affect airships and make them not a viable choice, because there are many weather scenarios where they just can't fly or where they just get destroyed or have to emergency land on open field. that's why you don't see zeppelins being used right now outside of experimental scenarios, because they are not viable.

No, the Hindenburg couldn't lift about 200 tons. The total weight respectively the gross lift of the gas filling was ~220 tons. 118 tons accounted for the dead weight of the airship. Up to 73 tons accounted for the diesel fuel. "Payload" was 11 tons of baggage and other cargo and up to 72 passengers (5-6 tons).

@@701983 I said he could lift about 200 tons. I didn't say 200 tons *of cargo*. That weight include the hull, fuel, engines and all. It's easy to assume that a modern airship of the same size, going lower distances (so less fuel) and unmanned could carry a bigger payload, but even fully optimized, there's just no beating 200 tons of cargo for an Hidenburg-sized airship. Even more so when you consider he ran on hydrogen and not helium (hydrogen being lighter, therefore a better gaz when it comes to lifting power). My point though, was that airships may be more cost-efficient to an extent, but there's just no point when an alternative is available: they are orders of magnitude away from being able to stand in for regular freight in terms of volume. And there is *nothing* you can do about it.

I love airships. But this will never be something practical. These projects only exist to absorb large amounts of money. They know it's never going to be a thing. However, why not just make it for the experience itself? Forget about cargo shipping and all the green, solar power bs etc. Just build something people can enjoy. Just like a cruise ship. It's an experience. I would book a flight if it's a somewhat reasonable price. But it has to be about the experience itself. It doesn't have to be efficient, just enjoyable. I would expect the same luxury and service i enjoy taking a first class cruise. Not something to replace the horrible experience of a plane flight and make the suffering last even longer.

@@benanders4412 I partially agree, but would rather suggest to bet on nostalgia. A replica of the Hindenburg, with similar "luxury". No TV, no internet connection (for the passengers), but a piano, a reading room, a smoking room,... Modern technology only in the background, to ensure a safe journey.

@@701983 A replica of the Hindenburg would be nice.

The simplest explanation for the Hindenburg explosion was the hydrogen gas being ignited. Most of the passengers died from burns, not from jumping from the ship. Relatively few jumped.

Kevin Olson There’s a detailed documentary on the event somewhere whose findings I quoted - yes burns - and death from them - would have occurred but that was taken in by the phrase ‘falling debris’ and the burns would be caused by the ignited aluminium doping material and not H2. H2 - as you probably know - is much lighter than air and when released rushes upwards. It is physically impossible for it to have been involved in the casualties from burns. Yes - a lot of people died from jumping - but again - as said - if you study the footage there is a gentle landing of the ‘carriage’ and people can be seen running from it to safety. Thanks for replying.

Interesting, was not aware of that. As a note about the H2 igniting, it needed oxygen for that. Maybe a residual amount of oxygen was still in the "balloon" after it got filled with H2? Or was that balloon leaking already when the ignition happened?

I read in some kid's journal that the Hindenburg went down to a rocket launched by some gangster with a grudge.

@@silversungaming9451 Great idea! What did he have against H2?! (I think the 200 or so airships of that era - all showed bullet holes fired from below into the ‘blimp’. I think the Hindenburg recorded several hundred in any year - fortunately no one fired an explosive bullet into them - but it is also the case that of some 250 airships I think only one finished its design life in the way intended for it. It would be a great history to learn the fate of all the others and how they were ‘got’.

Eh, there’s still the American market! Also, oceans…

I think there is a lot of research that can be done in the airship arena due to new materials, electric engines, solar panels, etc, however I've seen some vides with people of the new airship companies saying trains are better than airships and airships are better when there is no infrastructure, they are targeting logging companies so they can take the logs directly from the logging zone to wherever they need it. Also luxury air-yachts. maybe turistic traveling. I can imagine turistic industry in the caribean. the main problem of airships is they need good weather.

The train wins, easily. Because of a thing called capacity. Airships just can't do economics of scale...

I love that show i got hook on it 2 years augo im looking this up cause of the show time less

@@scobbydoo. It is an awesome show isn't it! I hope you've finished watching it, I hope I didn't give you spoilers for a season you're not up to yet :(