Like this, for example. After the camera starts falling from 80,000 feet, around 2:29, it sure looks like the edge of space to me as a tourist.
True for giant airships of the past, but no currently existing airship can handle a payload as large as current helicopters.
Increases in fuel cost will almost certainly affect all forms of motorized transport.
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.
I dunno. If I had my choice of making an emergency/crash landing on the ocean or in rugged terrain in something that flys, a blimp would be my first choice. Cause most likely it aint going to be a high speed landing or you falling outa the sky like a brick.
I think Cecil did a column once, and it could be/was argued that they were the safest things flying.
TriPolar, you didn’t express yourself well, and it seems as if your objections are to just about any sort of lighter-than-air craft. (By the way, I don’t think you’re using "dirigible: correctly. The term means “directable”, and applies to any propelled lighter-than air craft, not only rigid or semirigid craft).
In any event, there have been developments – modern processor-assisted controls and algorithms give immediate feedback on attitude and control. Before we had them, flying wings and other innovative designs weren’t practical because of instabilities . Now control of such shapes is matter-of-course. Also a greater range odf construction materials and much greater design experience (not only in computer simulation but also in wind tunnels. I knew a guy who did such design work on semi-rigid craft in wind tunnels, building models and trying them out) goes a long way in improving the safety of such craft. Certainly plenty of people feel that way – there are societies pushing for lighter-than-air travel. And, as my link above notes, there are modern zeppelins flying i California and in Europe. It’s a novelty thing, not a real transportation alternative, but that may change.
Doing a quick BOTE estimate and calculation, I get 8% improvement for Hydrogen over Helium, so call it 5% to 10% to account for my rounding things off. Helium, however, leaks out faster, so you can probably squeeze another few percent just from using lighter gas-bag material to achieve the same leakage rate.
Fortunately, it’s a subject that has seen significant military funding of late, and as such some interesting new developments. The LEMV programme that the US army is funding is really rather cool:
These currently are only intended to 2500 lbs of cargo, but that’s on the basis that they will not land for 21 days. I can’t see any reason why this couldn’t lead to bigger vessels, suitable for an airgoing cruiseliner.
And you can add me to the list of people who’d be happy to spend decent money for such an experience. I reckon it’d be beautiful.
I agree. Since there are several cells of gas you would need several holes to bring it “crashing” down. Plus if you were coming down into the ocean, with such a big balloon to gondola ratio I think it would float pretty well even with only one cell full. You just advertize that select trips may have underwater tours too. 
I couldn’t find that column (variously searching for the words “blimp,” “Hindenburg” and “dirigible”), but I did find this: My buddies and I want to be blimp pilots. What do we do? - The Straight Dope
Thats the column I was thinking about, but obviously nothing about safety there. My recollection must be of something else.
But back to safety, unless the whole thing catches fire, they are going to be pretty darn safe. Your chances of being in an accident are likely higher due to weather, but IMO, if you do have one, all its likely to do scare you and cost the company their airship or a big repair bill.
What things were marked as “imflammable”, and by whom? It’s not a word recorded by any dictionary I’ve checked (and I even did a a full-text search of the OED).
I see where we run into disagreement here. I’ve been using the traditional definition of dirigible to mean a rigid airship. Now looking at several references the term is being defined as you say. Maybe the recent rise of semi-rigid airships has made the term more flexible, because rigid and non-rigid aren’t the only choices. Semi-rigids are like blimps, with no rigid super-structure, but use rigid stiffening members to maintain the shape of the envelope, allowing them to be larger or less pressurized than blimps. And lightweight materials have certainly made that more feasible and practical. Yes, all lighter than air craft have these problems, but semi-rigid and non-rigid craft cost much less. This lower cost reduces the problems of financing a large ship that can only be flown under limited conditions. And these ships come in under the size where a rigid ship is required, also reducing the cost of hangaring them. As non-rigid ships get larger, the envelope has to be pressurized more to hold shape, requiring a heavier bag, and increasing the density of the gas and reducing lift. The semi-rigid compromise allows a larger non-rigid craft without a complete super-structure. The zeppelins flying today are all semi-rigid craft, and much smaller than the old rigid dirigibles. And through the use of light-weight materials, can carry a heavier payload for a given volume of gas. This one, is a particularly interesting semi-rigid, and a hot-air (thermal) airship to boot. It uses umbrella type ribs to hold the shape, and a lightweight engine mounted on the tail which can be swiveled for directional control.
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.
Looking around the web I see varied usage of the word dirigible that would imply rigid craft, but the official definitions make it synomous with airship, or a directable craft as you said. I’ve been an aircraft nut since I was around 5 years old and wanted to know what made a helicopter fly, and there was a time that airships were just called blimps or dirigibles (with zeppelins defined as a dirigible). Using the term dirigible for blimp would get the same kind of response as calling a whale a fish. I’ll stop that now though. And I’m thinking of changing my user name to NotExpressingMyselfVeryWell. It always seems to be a hit or miss kind of thing with me. Ever since reading your brain out of body article I’ve wanted to ask you how you do it so well.
But seriously, you didn’t pick up ‘inflammable’ :smack: 
That hit me right in the eye when I reread my original post.
It wasn’t relevant to the point of discussion, and your meanings were clear.
My personal feeling is that "inflammable’ should go away, in the interests of safety, and we should only use “flammable”. Safety is more important than satisfying the nitpicking consistency sense of grammar mavens.
That would be a good idea. 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.
The US Navy had five dirigibles, they are in order: Shenandoah, Los Angeles, Akron, Macon and a fifth that was never named. The first four crashed and burned, and lives were lost. The fifth burned in the hangar before it ever got off the ground, and that’s when the Navy abandoned the dirigble concept.
However, you might have a good idea if it were just for pleasure sailing … say a two hour cruise over Manhattan. That could be a profitable business. You will need a rather large parcel of land to build a hangar and dock, etc.
Look up in the cites – there already are such ventures with 45 minute-2 hour dirigible flights operating out of the San Francisco area and in Europe.
Well … no, actually.
The first American ship was the US-built Shenandoah, ZR-1, which broke up when caught in a line squall over Ohio. The second was the British-built R-38, which was to have become the ZR-2. That was the one that never even got named, and it broke up during a test flight over the Humber estuary. The ZR-3, the Los Angeles, was built by the Zeppelin Co. for the U.S. in 1923-24 and flew uneventfully (except for the ‘nosestand incident’) for over eight years before being decommissioned in 1932. It was maintained “in mothballs” until 1939, when it was dismantled.
The LZ-4 “Akron” wrecked when flown out to sea into a storm front which drove its tail down into the ocean, which ripped off the lower fin and caused structural failure. The Macon, ZR-5, was stupidly flown int another storm with part of its frame damaged (from dealing with a storm while traversing a high pass in the Rockies), resulting in loss of its upper tailfin and damage to a few gas cells. Operator error resulted in the dropping of ballast and taking the ship above its maximum safe height.
Thanks for doing all that research…my facts were indeed mixed up.
That’s pretty much what the idea of the Cargo Lifter company in Germany was. They were developing a semi-rigid airship as a heavy-lift transport, especially for regions with minimal infrastructure. It was financed to a large part by small investors and Zeppelin enthusiasts. They got as far as building a huge hangar and some smaller LTA crafts, before they went bankrupt rather spectacularly.
Now the hangar is used for an artificial tropical islands holiday resort.