Bring back zeppelins!

[Cult of Reason]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/7041946.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7041946.stm)

Theoretically more energy efficient than aeroplanes, though slower, low altitude, breathing space, your own cabin... Bring back Zeppelins!

Post revolutionary travel. :D

You can also paint slogans on them... :ph34r:

[Dr Mindbender]

the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 10:42 pm
the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.
No more so than the challenger illustrates that space flight is a bad idea.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's just hype for the reformation of Led Zepp!

[Cult of Reason]

Not to mention the fact that they almost exclusively use helium these days, which is less flammable than water. Also, the Hindenburd is ONE accident. There have been quite a few plane accidents, but that does not stop their use. An aeroplane is much more flammable than a helium using zeppelin, as it has engines with combustible fuel next to other combustible objects, like seats etc, while Zeppelin engines tend to be separated from the passenger areas.

Saying that we should abandon Zeppelins because the hydrogen using Hindenburg burned (with 2/3 of the passengers surviving, BTW) is as bad or worse than saying that train travel should be abandoned due to the Hatfield crash!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by SovietPants+October 13, 2007 11:24 pm--> (SovietPants @ October 13, 2007 11:24 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 10:42 pm
the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.
No more so than the challenger illustrates that space flight is a bad idea. [/b]
thats not a fair analogy because spaceflight is still in its infancy. There would have been similar disasters in the early days of standard flight, but given another 50-100 years im sure that commercial spaceflight will be as routine as airline flight is today.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 13, 2007 11:40 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 13, 2007 11:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:24 pm

Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 10:42 pm
the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.
No more so than the challenger illustrates that space flight is a bad idea.
thats not a fair analogy because spaceflight is still in its infancy. There would have been similar disasters in the early days of standard flight, but given another 50-100 years im sure that commercial spaceflight will be as routine as airline flight is today. [/b]
I am pretty sure Zeppelin flight was still in its infancy when Hindenburg happened. (Although I may be wrong.)

Either way, Haraldur is right.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by SovietPants+October 13, 2007 11:54 pm--> (SovietPants @ October 13, 2007 11:54 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 11:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:24 pm

Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 10:42 pm
the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.
No more so than the challenger illustrates that space flight is a bad idea.
thats not a fair analogy because spaceflight is still in its infancy. There would have been similar disasters in the early days of standard flight, but given another 50-100 years im sure that commercial spaceflight will be as routine as airline flight is today.
I am pretty sure Zeppelin flight was still in its infancy when Hindenburg happened. (Although I may be wrong.)

Either way, Haraldur is right. [/b]
actually, hot-air ballooning has been around since the 1700's


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgolfier_brothers

[bezdomni]

It wasn't a hot air balloon though. Twas a Zeppelin.

[Cult of Reason]

Hot air balloon and Zeppelin are very different technologies.

Hot air baloon:

Direction of travel determined by wind currents. Bouyancy from heated air. Blimp-like non-rigid structure.

Zeppelin:

Direction of travel determined by on board engines, with wind sometimes used to increase speed/decrease fuel consumption. Bouyancy from ligher-than-air gases, most commonly helium, sometimes hydrogen, methane or ammonia. Rigid, aluminium built, skeletal structure.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 10:42 pm
the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.
They filled the bloody thing with hydrogen, which is highly flammable. Helium is not flammable. Also it didn't help that the skin of the hindenburg was made out out of some flammable material too.

The only problem I see is that non-flammable Helium is becoming increasingly rare, despite being one of the most common elements in the universe - it just isn't common on heavy, rocky worlds like the Earth.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:18 pm


The only problem I see is that non-flammable Helium is becoming increasingly rare, despite being one of the most common elements in the universe - it just isn't common on heavy, rocky worlds like the Earth.
sounds like you just pointed out more amunition for the pro-space exploration lobby!
Harvesting the atmosphere of Saturn could become a lucrative industry!

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 05:42 pm
the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.
More people survived the Hindenburg explosion than died in it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by FoB+October 14, 2007 06:15 pm--> (FoB @ October 14, 2007 06:15 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 05:42 pm
the hindenburg incident illustrates perfectly why they were a bad idea.
More people survived the Hindenburg explosion than died in it. [/b]
the standard conventional airliner is still statistically the safest and most effiicient mode of transport its just a question of replacing the engines with something that runs on a renewable fuel source. its bad enough having to spend 8 hours on a transatlantic flight, what if spending all day attached to a giant slow-moving condom!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 08:24 pm
the standard conventional airliner is still statistically the safest and most effiicient mode of transport its just a question of replacing the engines with something that runs on a renewable fuel source.
Which is a pretty damn big question. Bear in mind that jet engines are designed to work with a fuel that has certain physical characteristics, such as being liquid and flammable. You would have to invent a completely different type of engine to work with a renewable energy source, and I can't even begin to imagine what that energy source might be.

Zeppelins are far more fuel efficient, though they're also much slower.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Edric O+October 14, 2007 07:36 pm--> (Edric O @ October 14, 2007 07:36 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 08:24 pm
the standard conventional airliner is still statistically the safest and most effiicient mode of transport its just a question of replacing the engines with something that runs on a renewable fuel source.
Which is a pretty damn big question. Bear in mind that jet engines are designed to work with a fuel that has certain physical characteristics, such as being liquid and flammable. You would have to invent a completely different type of engine to work with a renewable energy source, and I can't even begin to imagine what that energy source might be.
[/b]
i was thinking about electromagnetic repulsion, or the ion engine. This technology has already been pioneered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_engines

[Axel1917]

A zeppelin would be far too slow to be a good way of transportation. Even a helicopter is a very fast vehicle compared to a zeppelin. There is no good reason to bring them back.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ion engines provide only very low acceleration, though. They are really only suitable for spaceflight, because the lack of friction in space means that a small acceleration over a long period of time can add up to a very high speed. Inside an atmosphere, on the other hand, friction could easily overcome any thrust you get from an ion engine. An ion engine couldn't even lift a plane off the ground.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:07 pm
A zeppelin would be far too slow to be a good way of transportation. Even a helicopter is a very fast vehicle compared to a zeppelin. There is no good reason to bring them back.
They're good if you're not in a hurry. Place it's a fucking Zeppelin, how cool is that? Plus you don't have to cram everyone so close together on a Zeppelin and you can have lots of tastytreats in a big buffet.

[JazzRemington]

You can also beat up Nazi officers on board zeppelins.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:51 pm
You can also beat up Nazi officers on board zeppelins.
you've been watching too much indiana jones. :P

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 08:08 pm
Ion engines provide only very low acceleration, though. They are really only suitable for spaceflight, because the lack of friction in space means that a small acceleration over a long period of time can add up to a very high speed. Inside an atmosphere, on the other hand, friction could easily overcome any thrust you get from an ion engine. An ion engine couldn't even lift a plane off the ground.
the reason theyre slow accelerators is because in spaceflight only a small amount of propellant is used. In aviation this could be overcome by greatly increasing the amount of propellant used or increasing the flux density of the magnetic field therefore giving the propellant a greater exit velocity.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:51 pm
You can also beat up Nazi officers on board zeppelins.
I suggest it for this reason alone.


They're good if you're not in a hurry. Place it's a fucking Zeppelin, how cool is that? Plus you don't have to cram everyone so close together on a Zeppelin and you can have lots of tastytreats in a big buffet.

Yeah! Have those "zeppelin" sausages...

Seriously, though, I don't think they'll be around much anymore in capitalism except in the MetLife sense. I can't think of a way to make it more profitable than ordinary planes, which are faster - you don't have to serve any food, you can torture people with customer "service" staff, etc...

[bezdomni]

I propose to build all new zeppelins out of lead.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 14, 2007 08:39 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 14, 2007 08:39 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 08:07 pm
A zeppelin would be far too slow to be a good way of transportation. Even a helicopter is a very fast vehicle compared to a zeppelin. There is no good reason to bring them back.
They're good if you're not in a hurry. Place it's a fucking Zeppelin, how cool is that? Plus you don't have to cram everyone so close together on a Zeppelin and you can have lots of tastytreats in a big buffet. [/b]
The problem for most workers and myself is that after factoring out trivial things like eating, sleeping, etc., we truly spend more time at work than with anything else, so we would probably like to get to a vacation spot as soon as possible so we can spend more time enjoying things at the spot instead of having to pay for more meals, sitting around in a cabin, etc.

Either that or things like organizational congresses have specific deadlines to attend, so a zeppelin would require more days off (and we don't always get the days off we need. I had to rush back home not too long after a WIL congress last May, for instance, as I could not get a couple more days off that I wanted.).

It does not help that on the weekends (I don't work on weekends.) time really flies by. It is already after 10:00 pm (22:00) where I live at the time of this post. The workdays seem to creep by at a much slower pace. :(

Capitalism forces a lot of people into a hurry, unfortunately.

Yes, a Zeppelin seems interesting, but it is not very practical, unfortunately.


I propose to build all new zeppelins out of lead.

And use Mao Zedong thought to get that heavy metal to levitate? :D

[Marsella]

I believe that Zeppelins are already in use in Germany (for tourism and such)


It's just hype for the reformation of Led Zepp!

:lol:

[MarxSchmarx]

so we would probably like to get to a vacation spot as soon as possible so we can spend more time enjoying things at the spot instead of having to pay for more meals, sitting around in a cabin, etc.

Things like Cruise ships make it about the journey. I agree with you axel, and I don't understand their appeal among the non-retired population. Well, some people like to take long train trips. People talk about "dream cruises" and there seems to be a market of folks for this stuff.

If zeppelins could be outfitted with blackjack and hookers, they could have a viable business, like an "air cruise" of Canada or the Amazon or something where you spend a day or two at "ports" of call and the rest of the time lounge around in the air.