• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    This is what happens when your view of history is essentially the historical equivalent of pop culture. You end up saying idiot things on an idiot website for idiots.

    Lots of people died in airships, the Hindenburg was the most exploding and dramatic, but it was not the first and only instance. In fact the Hindenburg was made up of parts from a previous airship that had also crashed.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      But also the technology to make rigid airships relatively safe has existed for decades and there’s no reason we can’t go back to them now except bad PR.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        And the fact that they’re only so so. Like, airplanes are just better. Once we had the ability to make cargo planes it was over

        • freebee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Better in many regards but for sure not all. Airships could run a lot more quietly for example, that has some value. Until they explode ofcourse, that’s rather loud.

      • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s just a very ineffective mode of transport compared to aeroplane or helicopter, not because the technology isn’t there.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Cruise ships are wildly impractical for getting from point A to B as well. There can be other reasons to do a thing besides efficiency

          • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Counterpoint: Cruise ship is the best way to get from point A to point B for long distance sea travel. Though cruise ship nowadays aren’t all about going to point A to point B, it’s been replaced by aeroplane, but it’s well and alive because it’s the one proven tech that’s been used for centuries, if not millennia.

            Airship however relies on two of the lifting gas: helium and hydrogen. Helium is expensive, scarce, and non-renewable, while hydrogen is the sole reason why airship is not a popular air travel. All that to just lift about 100 people or 10 tonnes of payload for something this big. Sure, you can ride it but it will be expensive.

            Also: cruise ship tend to have entertainment on board. Stuff like casino, pool, and mall is the attraction. If airship gonna be the cruise ship of the sky, it gonna bring something to the table than just big flying balloon. The novelty will run out fast for rich folks.

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Airships can have a casino and shopping. They just need to use lightweight materials for the fixtures. And if things cost a lot, the ticket price can be increased to match. Billionaires pay a lot of money just to say they’ve been to space, even if their capsule only just barely escaped earth’s atmosphere. I’m not claiming it’s practical or economical, but things being impractical and excessive hasn’t stopped people from making crazy bets on rich people shit before.

              • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’m not claiming it can’t be done either, i’m just saying unless someone discover or made something that defy the law of physics, airship will never catch up with aeroplane. That’s the reason it fall out of favour against other mode of air transport.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Cruise ships are based on practical technology though. If the only use for cruise ships was leisure then it wouldn’t be economic to develop them. Airship technology never really got anywhere and it’s certainly never became commercially used, so putting in the money to develop it for recreation just doesn’t make sense.

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              I see your point, but Cruise ships have significantly diverged technologically from any “practical” ships some time ago. Also, recreation for recreation’s sake is and always has been a driver of technological progress.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        They would still have to contain hydrogen though. Making them rigid doesn’t decrease fire risk.

        They have bad PR for a reason. It’s not prejudice it’s practicality.

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That hasn’t stopped billionaires from building spaceships or submarines. All I’m saying is that we would absolutely see some weird eccentric billionaires building and riding in zeppelins if it weren’t for the bad PR of the Hindenburg.