Sorry, Francisco de Lana beat you by exactly 300 years. As far as I know, no one has pulled it off yet, though. You still have your chance. 
Such materials are known in engineering by names like “unobtainium”.
Feel free to dream, though.
I heard second-hand about someone who was working on a design like this. Except instead of an exceptionally rigid material, it would be a charged material. The balloon would be held apart by electrostatic repulsion. I’m sure there are more than a few hurdles to this, but maybe it can be done.
I’ve seen the hangars at Lakehurst, NJ, and “really, really big” just begins to describe them.
In raw numbers, the Hindenburg crash wasn’t that bad. Most of the people on board survived.
But it was caught on film. Watching it burn, fall to the ground and collapse is visceral in a way that numbers aren’t. The images of the disaster had a tremendous impact and the airship industry was doomed. Whether it could come back now, I don’t know.
And there haven’t really been many similar cases of passenger airline crashes captured on video. I can only think of a couple in the last decade; they weren’t as clear and catastrophic as the Hindenburg footage, and passenger air travel was much more established and accepted than airships were in 1936.
What about the tourist market for short rides over a city or around a scenic area? Here their slow pace is an advantage plus they are more roomy than planes and quieter( I am guessing). Not to mention the novelty factor . Is there any reason why we don’t see airship rides over major tourist spots? Or do they exist and I just haven’t heard of them?
It would be perfect for the Grand Canyon, for example. I know they’ve been having noise problems from helicopter tours.
I live just within sight of the Goodyear Airdock and you’re not kidding about the size of those hangers. Every time I drive past it I feel like Han Solo seeing the Death Star “That’s no moon…”
Pity they don’t use it anymore 
Actually, I can quite easily think of two plane crashes which were caught on exceedingly clear video tape (for the most part). These crashes were shot from multiple angles and constantly replayed on TV. You might remember seeing them. It was 9/11/01.
After googling around a bit I discovered that airships are in fact being used in some tourist spots.
This company seems particularly enthusiastic about the future prospects of airships in tourism.
When I wrote that, I was thinking of accidents only, and not deliberate acts. But that case does illustrate the point, too. A catastrophe has a much greater impact on people if they can actually see it (including film and videotape).
I have wondered if the September 11[sup]th[/sup] hijackers chose the World Trade Center for that reason. The first impact would get every news camera in the city trained on the towers so we’d all see the second.
Yup. They knew that in a place like NYC, there’d be a lot of cameras around, already trained on the WTC (there is footage of the first plane crashing into the WTC captured by a tourist), and that once the first plane hit, there’d be more rapidly trained on the buildings.
The Hidenbrg crash came at a time when only a few people had ever experienced air travel. That’s why it so effectively killed travel by them. Had it occured some decades later when (assuming for the moment that they would be) zepplin flights were common and many people had flown on them, then it would, I think, have had the same effect as a typical plane crash or 9/11 has had on the airline industry. i.e. The number of passengers on flights immediately drops for a period of time, but then gradually climes back up to the level it was before.
Elsewhere on their site they talk about their blimp tour which, I’m assuming, consists of a blimp travelling around the country giving rides.
Your other link mentions the Company in Switzerland that gives rides. The Zeppelin Company in Germany is selling blimp rides as well.
The Anaheim Blimp Company is supposed to be starting operation in California, but their site says flights are “beginning June 2, 2003”?
You’re right, I understated it. It’s really, really really big! 
What is the practical ceiling for a rigid airship. As I recall, German zeppelins that were used to bomb England in WWI depended on their ability to fly very high for much of their safety, but I also seem to recall reading an account of the passage of one of the US Navy’s rigid airships from the east coast to the west in which the Continental Divide was a serious barrier. I believe that the airship’s route west went far south near El Paso in order to get through the lowest possible mountain passes.
It may be that the US navy airships were designed mainly for use over water and didn’t have the altitude capability built into them, but I suspect it also had something to do with the use of Helium as a lifting gas rather than Hydrogen, which provides more lift.
How high would a modern Zeppelin have to be able to fly in order to go to the places cruise passengers would want to go? Would it be necessary to install pressurized passenger accomodations for high altitudes? I’d guess that that sort of equipment would be pretty heavy.
So, can hydrogen’s reputation be rehabilitated enough to make it the first choice again? Its exoneration in the Hindenberg case would suggest that its advantages (greater lift, vastly greater availability) would win out eventually.
Blimps fly around here at low altitudes fairly often without causing car wrecks. We’ve gotten almost as used to them as jet airliners.
I would imagine that a couple of decades after hydrogen powered cars had replaced gas/diesel cars, you might be able to pull that off. Until, of course, someone figured out that the thing would make a pretty neat “bang!” if you shot it with a flare gun or something.
(I had friend’s in high school who’d built a homemade cannon and tried to take out the Goodyear blimp with it. This was before the internet. I’m sure that kids with a similar mindset today could find ample information on making a cannon which was more accurate and had long enough range.)
I recall recently seeing a story on a group of guys who have designed airships in with you travel in the balloon, not on a seperate compartment. They looked neat, the guys were walking around in them with only a thick layer of material between them and the ground.
“Airships To Make Comeback” is a standard feature story every few years, with minor variations. I’d love it if it were so - big fan here - but usuallly most attempts are just fodder for slow news days.
Given that The Germans ran their big airships on hydrogen for years (without an accident), what would be the objectoion to using hydrogen today? Hell, we use this gas to cool generators and tons of it are used daily by the semiconductor/chip industry. One question regarding Helium: I know the US Govt. maintains a helium separation plant in Amarillo, TX…what do we DO withall the helium we produce? I know it is used for low-temperature research and for high-cvacuum machines…but do we just throw a lot of it away? How much helium IS there anyway?
But we all saw the Hindenburg crash over and over on The Waltons. I bet if footage of the tragedy had never appeared on the show, a lot of us would know little or nothing abou it.
It’s completely dependent on design. Some people are developing unmanned airships to fly above 70,000 ft to use as telecommunications relays. An autonomous solar-powered airship at that altitude can do many of the tasks of satellites.