# Would passenger dirigibles be feasible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 16, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939 "2011-03-16T17:48:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/61 "2011-03-17T21:11:12Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > If they had a smoking lounge, for me and my cigars, and a bar, I’d pay _thousands_ to fly to the west coast and back. Ironically that’s the once feature that real, hydrogen filled, passenger airships had that’s least likely to appear on a modern helium filled one. Both the Hindenburg and the Graf Zepplin II had one, and IIRC both the R100 and the R101 had plans for them. I don’t think Goodyear put any designated smoking lounges in any of the passenger ship plans they came up with, but that’s probally because any American vessel would’ve used helium thus allowing passengers to smoke everywhere (as was the custom at the time). > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Just came in to say that the FX spy-comedy series _Archer_ did a funny show, “Skytanic,” on a modern passenger dirigible. You can see it on Hulu, I think. I’ve gotta hand it to the writers of that episode. They addressed everything about how a modern rigid airship would operate and the economic challenges (“Who the hell want’s a two-day blimp ride to London, which is our only route?”). I loved the contrast between the luxury suite (which was an actual hotel suite) and the standard cabins (basically a windowless train sleeping compartment, but still better than anything on an airliner). ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/62 "2011-03-18T00:23:22Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > … the standard cabins (basically a windowless train sleeping compartment, but still better than anything on an airliner). It would, of course, be easy to have such a thing on an airliner if the economics of it made any sense. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/63 "2011-03-18T00:31:22Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Do you recall iMflammable used sometimes in the old days? Someone asked about that. We had an old can of turpentine in our basement marked that way when I was a kid, and something else I can’t remember. It flustered my mother to explain both forms and the inconsistent use of in- as a prefix. She was the type who considered the world governed by inviolate rules. I just looked it up, and only found reference to excerpts of text where it could have just been typos. Now that you’ve said this, I can definitely recall encountering “imflammable” being said to have this meaning. I can’t remember if I’ve actually seen the word in the wild, though! 🙂 Assuming that you’re not “MSL”, here’s a third person (scroll down to “Posting 6”): [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F42005?thread=98575](http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F42005?thread=98575) My guess is that from time to time the odd person with more logic than sense has tried to introduce “imflammable” as an unambiguous replacement for “inflammable”. I don’t think we need ponder too deeply as to why it’s never caught on! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/64 "2011-03-18T00:41:46Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > True for giant airships of the past, but no currently existing airship can handle a payload as large as current helicopters. > > … > > The density of air and its drag on large objects is much the same today as in 1936. Without some as yet undreamed-of advance, airships are going to burn a lot of fuel to travel even at normal train speeds. As I understand it, the larger the dirigible/blimp is the more efficient it is, at least in lifting power. And a larger surface area makes solar power (and thermal heating of the bag) more efficient, as well. This sounds like a job for graphene sheets… assuming we’ll eventually get the technology to mass produce them cheaply. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/65 "2011-03-18T00:46:01Z")
Still curious if there’s any reason why a dirigible couldn’t fly above the cloud cover and thus avoid bad weather. Assuming a pressurized cabin, of course. Seems to me if you could get your dirigible up high enough and catch the jet stream, you could go reasonably fast. ETA: In fact, if it were solar powered, it might be able to stay up there for very long periods and not even need to come down except for repairs. I’m picturing a super-sized dirigible made of future tech materials floating up there indefinitely, perhaps with smaller dirigibles going up and down as a shuttle service. It seems like a great science fiction idea, at least – has it ever been explored? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/66 "2011-03-18T02:48:43Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > It would, of course, be easy to have such a thing on an airliner if the economics of it made any sense. True, and some of the First Class suites some airlines have put on the Airbus A380 are starting to resemble this (well, except for being all single occupancy). And of course the richest of the rich can just charter a private jet. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/67 "2011-03-18T03:24:06Z")
Here are some images of the _Hindenburg_’s smoking room. IIRC, passengers were forbidden to have matches or lighters; only the smoking room steward had them: [http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1019&bih=754&q=hindenburg+smoking+room&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=](http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1019&bih=754&q=hindenburg+smoking+room&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=) Some other pics that may be of interest: [http://obviousmag.org/en/archives/2009/10/time-travel\_aboard\_the\_hindenburg.html](http://obviousmag.org/en/archives/2009/10/time-travel_aboard_the_hindenburg.html) ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/68 "2011-03-18T14:12:05Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Still curious if there’s any reason why a dirigible couldn’t fly above the cloud cover and thus avoid bad weather. Assuming a pressurized cabin, of course.? You gotta get pretty darn high to avoid the weather. And up high the pressure/density of the atmosphere is much lower than near sea level. Which means much less lift from your hydrogen/helium. Which means if you want to go very high, your airship needs to be way oversized for working down low. Or you carry lots of ballast and or you dump a a bunch of gas when you are up high to come back down again. Either way cuts significantly into you efficiency/operating costs. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/69 "2011-03-18T14:44:11Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > You gotta get pretty darn high to avoid the weather. And up high the pressure/density of the atmosphere is much lower than near sea level. Which means much less lift from your hydrogen/helium. Which means if you want to go very high, your airship needs to be way oversized for working down low. Or you carry lots of ballast and or you dump a a bunch of gas when you are up high to come back down again. Either way cuts significantly into you efficiency/operating costs. From my research on the Macon disaster: There is a maximum height at which a helium-filled LTA craft may fly under its own buoyancy, because of the extremely tiny size of the monatomic helium ‘molecule’. For the technology of the time, this was around 3600 feet (~1100 meters). Above this, pressure in the cells must be reduced or helium will begin escaping into the thinner atmosphere. (Modern materials may improve helium retention and make for a higher ceiling.) It is possible to take an airship above this height by reducing ‘static’ lift (buoyancy) and flying the ship at cruising speed, which gives it a slight airfoil property, or by running the risk of rupturing cells. Hydrogen, being a diatomic molecule, does not have this stringent limitation, though I’d be inclined to think there is a somewhat higher ceiling on hydrogen lift. And, of course, hydrogen valved into the air is flammable (hydrogen not in contact with oxygen is of course not). ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/70 "2011-03-18T14:55:59Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > From my research on the Macon disaster: There is a maximum height at which a helim-filled LTA craft may fly under its own buoyancy, because of the extremely tiny size of the monatomic helium ‘molecule’. For the technology of the time, this was around 3600 feet (~1100 meters). Above this, pressure in the cells must be reduced or helium will begin escaping into the thinner atmosphere. It is possible to take an airship above this height by reducing ‘static’ lift (buoyancy) and flying the ship at cruising speed, which gives it a slight airfoil property, or by running the risk of rupturing cells. Hydrogen, being a diatomic molecule, does not have this stingent limitation, though I’d be inclined to think there is a somewhat higher ceiling on hydrogen lift. And, of course, hydrogen valved into the air is flammable (hydrogen not in contact with oxygen is of course not). I’m not sure what this has to do with helium being monatomic. Of course a balloon (or an airship gas cell) tries to expand as it goes up, and the outside air pressure goes down. High-altitude research balloons are only partially filled on the ground, so it has plenty of room to expand as it goes up. A rigid airship has gas cells inside the frame, so the same can be done (i.e. gas cells are partially inflated on the ground, and allowed to expand during ascent). Blimps need to be fully inflated to hold their shape, but they are equipped with [ballonets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonet); by removing air from the ballonet, you allow the helium to expand. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/71 "2011-03-18T15:40:25Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > True enough. But the selling point has to be the experience and the view. Flying low and slow over somewhere pretty while you sit in a comfortable chair enjoying the view and having some decent drinks and food served to you would be an interesting and pleasant experience. > > Days at a time where its the stuff INSIDE the ship thats supposed to entertain you? Yeah probably not. > > Day trips or two days with a night would probably be what would fly demand/price wise. And at best it would probably be a very small niche market. That is what I would be willing to pay for. I always thought a good niche for dirigibles would be floating restaurants. A short 4 hour cruise over Lake Michigan or Puget Sound while being served four course gourmet meal with views better than the John Hancock or the Space Needle. It would be a seasonal business which is where I have the hardest time making the numbers work though. Plus the Hindenburg is stuck in the public consciousness even though the Goodyear Blimp has operated safely for a long time, and hot air balloon rides are still popular (no worse than sky diving and other ‘air tourism’.) Someday. I also want to see someone build a true steampunk airship like in _[Stardust](http://daily-steampunk.com/steampunk-blog/2010/06/10/stardust-a-movie-to-make-a-happy-day/)._ (Though the balloon to ship ratio would have to be larger.) Bonus points if the captain is a closet cross-dresser. If I ever win the lottery, I am calling some engineers and make it happen myself. (This world has a severe shortage of the truly eccentric rich - I could tolerate them a bit more if they showed some more whimsy. I miss Fossett. :() ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/72 "2011-03-18T15:53:22Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Of course a balloon (or an airship gas cell) tries to expand as it goes up, and the outside air pressure goes down. High-altitude research balloons are only partially filled on the ground, so it has plenty of room to expand as it goes up. A rigid airship has gas cells inside the frame, so the same can be done (i.e. gas cells are partially inflated on the ground, and allowed to expand during ascent). Blimps need to be fully inflated to hold their shape, but they are equipped with [ballonets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonet); by removing air from the ballonet, you allow the helium to expand. Yes, but take an airship that is designed to go between 0 and say 5000 feet high. Now take one that tries to get “above the weather”, something like 25 to 40 thousand feet depending on your definition. The second one is going to going to be significant bigger, or have significantly less performance, or be more costly to operate, and possibly all three at once. Probably something like a factor of 2 to 4 is my WAG. Given that even ground huggers aren’t and probably never will be particularly cheap, thats a real penalty right there. Oh yeah, if make a high flyer you gotta have the compartment pressurized for the passengers, which means a much smaller compartment (now its more like a cramped airliner) and that comparment will likely be heavier, reducing your allowable passenger payload (raising the cost even more). ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/73 "2011-03-18T16:36:42Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Still curious if there’s any reason why a dirigible couldn’t fly above the cloud cover and thus avoid bad weather. Assuming a pressurized cabin, of course. > > Seems to me if you could get your dirigible up high enough and catch the jet stream, you could go reasonably fast. > > ETA: In fact, if it were solar powered, it might be able to stay up there for very long periods and not even need to come down except for repairs. I’m picturing a super-sized dirigible made of future tech materials floating up there indefinitely, perhaps with smaller dirigibles going up and down as a shuttle service. It seems like a great science fiction idea, at least – has it ever been explored? Sounds like an _aerostat_, see Orion Shall Rise by Poul anderson, great read. ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/74 "2011-03-18T17:39:46Z")
> [@Agnostic\_Pagan](#): > > That is what I would be willing to pay for. I always thought a good niche for dirigibles would be floating restaurants. A short 4 hour cruise over Lake Michigan or Puget Sound while being served four course gourmet meal with views better than the John Hancock or the Space Needle. Maybe (when I win the lottery and can be one of your eccentric rich) I’ll start here. There are other places where you wouldn’t have to just be seasonal. You could also expanded to be like Hard Rock Cafe where you have them only in the most touristy places. Soft Air Cafe? ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/75 "2011-03-18T19:24:47Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > Sounds like an _aerostat_, see Orion Shall Rise by Poul anderson, great read. Dean Ing’s also played around with the concept; see “[The Big Lifters](http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lifters-Dean-Ing/dp/0812516141),” and some of his essays on future air vehicles. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/76 "2011-03-19T00:12:32Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > Maybe (when I win the lottery and can be one of your eccentric rich) I’ll start here. There are other places where you wouldn’t have to just be seasonal. You could also expanded to be like Hard Rock Cafe where you have them only in the most touristy places. Soft Air Cafe? That is true, I just like Seattle and Chicago, but it could be mostly year round in the south, or the Caribbean or the Med. Day trips among the Greek isles would be very cool. Here’s to hoping one of us gets a winning ticket soon! Question: how does insurance work for hot-air balloon rides? Or airlines? Are they required to sign a waiver or is the operator liable? Or could I sell those airplane policies that used to be common? Part of the business model is to get every safety certification possible, but I wonder about the insurance aspects. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/77 "2011-03-19T02:00:23Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > I’m not sure what this has to do with helium being monatomic. Helium’s inertness is important for two reasons: its non-combustibility, of course, but also the fact that it reacts with nothing whatsoever. (Except, of course, for getting caught in clathrates.) The helium ‘molecule’ is the helium atom, which is the nucleus and the innermost, K shell of electrons. It is miniscule compared to almost anything else at the molecular level. Over a certain pressure differential, it begins treating even the best natural elastomers like they were chicken wire. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/78 "2011-03-20T04:15:27Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > As I understand it, the larger the dirigible/blimp is the more efficient it is, at least in lifting power. Definitely true. But your giant airship is going to need a giant & expensive hangar, and be vulnerable to bad weather when outside it. It will not be able to carry even a significant fraction of the payload of a small train, and will be seriously energy-hungry at much above normal train speeds. For lift capacity at very low speeds, it could be worthwhile. For transport, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/79 "2011-03-20T07:04:37Z")
I think that airships are in much the same category as flying boats- everyone agrees they’re Very Cool, but the people who would most likely want to take trips on them (like me) also couldn’t afford to pay whatever outrageous sum the fare would invariably cost due to the economics of it all. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/80 "2011-03-20T12:03:52Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I think that airships are in much the same category as flying boats- everyone agrees they’re Very Cool, but the people who would most likely want to take trips on them (like me) also couldn’t afford to pay whatever outrageous sum the fare would invariably cost due to the economics of it all. I think this says it fairly well. I also believe there’s a common misconception that airships should have an efficiency advantage since they do not have to expend energy to generate lift. Sounds good, but this falls foul of two facts: 1. Airships are necessarily huge, and thus always have lots of non-lift-related drag. 2. At cruising speeds, normal aircraft expend very little energy to produce lift (because drag due to lift is proportional to the inverse square of the airspeed). The result is an inescapable efficiency disadvantage for airships. In a time of rising fuel costs, this is more or less fatal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939.md?page=5)