I think they're cool and we should bring them back. Much more comfortable than a passenger jet.

I've used them in my Cities Skylines cities, mainly because I like the way they look floating across the city.
Also good for moving people over rough terrain or up into high hilly areas.

Nice for tourism in the real world, I would imagine, maybe even as a practical transit method above some heavily
congested city roads and highways. But can they be done efficiently and affordably?

Earth's Helium supply is limited, and the price is already going way up without airships.

Hydrogen is more efficient and can probably be used safely...but that whole Hindenburg thing gave hydrogen airships such a bad name.

Maybe we could use Cool Whip instead. It's lighter than air. Oh so I've heard.

How fast do they move?

I agree - if they're able to be done affordably and safely then these would be a brilliant thing to revive.

I think they might be useful for delivering Amazon orders. Fly over the town, drop the drones for delivery, retrieve the drones, and move on.

I was thinking about airships just a couple of days ago!

The number one problem with airships is that they don't strictly speaking fly. They float through the air, with engines and control surfaces to give them direction. That makes them extremely vulnerable to bad weather conditions. A modern aircraft can power through most bad weather. An airship will be knocked around, blown off course, and very possible torn to pieces. If you look at the history of long-range airships, most of them were destroyed by storms. Even the Hindenberg disaster seems to have been largely triggered by the weather conditions. American airships used helium, and yet most of them were destroyed in storms with heavy loss of life.

Modern blimps seem to be great for advertising and sightseeing. But there's a reason why they only fly when the weather conditions are just right.

Airships are a lot like jet packs. They're so incredibly cool (I've got fond memories of seeing a Goodyear Blimp up close when I lived in the big city). They ought to work. But in the real world they just haven't proven too practical.

I agree that the way they were constructed before made them vulnerable to wind and other weather conditions. But the technology may come that will fix those impediments and they can make a comeback.

Hydrogen, Helium, Hydrogen Cyanide, Hydrogen Fluoride, Methane, Ethylene, Diborane, Illuminating Gases, Carbon Monoxide, Acetylene, Neon, Nitrogen and Ammonia.

All lighter than air. I've never heard of anyone using any apart from hydrogen and helium for air ships, though. Too heavy anyway, too deadly, too costly? Carbon monoxide, huh. Lighter than carbon dioxide, but could it float your boat? You're air boat, that is.

The more complex gasses aren't light enough to offset the weight of the air frame. It's not enough for them to be lighter than air, they need to be a LOT lighter than air in order to still be lighter than air when you add in the weight of the ship itself. Although I do recommend the Mythbusters efforts to make a lead balloon.

I'd also be concerned about riding under enough poisonous gas to wipe out a small town if an air inversion (strong downward draft) were to crash the craft (tears would be easy). The static electricity charge issues probably leave any of the flammables out of consideration. And while Hydrogen fires are bad, some of the ones listed above are explosive.

the biggest issue is the speed though; there's no way someone would go through modern TSA requirements for something that doesn't go 100 mph. The whole breakfast in Paris lunch in New York thing is the biggest appeal of flight; the number one benefit is speed, and if you can't beat that, it's not gonna work. The train is better than flight, and in some countries faster, when you add in airport travel time and security clearance, for that comfort / speed trade off if you're not going to drive.

I get the romantic appeal, but ultimately, if there had been a way to make them viable, some enterprising capitalist would be booking tickets right now.

While the Hindenburg incident obviously gave them a bad reputation - that's one of the most famous pieces of film footage of the 20th Century - I personally like Airships a lot. The opulence of those interiors and the romance of them is appealing. They'd be a good alternative to rail journeys, I think.

Enough time has passed that, if you could prove their safety, people might be drawn to their nostalgic appeal of the Airship without the tragic events of the past being at the forefront of their minds.

The trick would be finding a lighter-than-air alternative to hydrogen and other flammables. There are some solid foams that are lighter than air...

SEAGel

I wonder if vacuum tanks could now be created?

Large, light-weight, structurally rigid tanks with a vacuum in them so they would be incredibly buoyant?

Indeed, those could be useful.

Such ships would not be for speed, of course, but like luxury liners - only from the air. I think traveling around the world in 80+ days and viewing it from a decent height, but not too high up, would be incredibly cool. I certainly would rather do that than take an ocean cruise.

The problem is the pressure involved is staggering. Light gasses can equalize the pressure on the vessel wall while also being lighter than air.

Of course, hence the strength requirements. Even partial vacuums in steel cans are crushed at one atmosphere of pressure.

That's one piss load of pascals.

I predict that Simon will approve of the term 'pissload of Pascals.'

Over 100,000.

That's OVER 9,000!

It's even over 10. Even over 11, too.