[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_Airlander_...
Frustrating FUD that's held back Hydrogen lift airships for almost a century, because clickbait scaremongering sells newspapers. What about [1] and [2], Spectrum.IEEE reporting on Hydrogen fuel-cell electric aircraft, or [3] them reporting on a hydrogen fuel cell rescue truck, without mentioning explosions or the Hindenburg.
You know how many people died in the Hindenburg disaster?
36.
And how many survivors?
62.
Yes that's too many. FOURTY TWO THOUSAND people killed by cars EVERY YEAR in the USA[7] held back car development or sales? When was the last time an aeroplane crash killed that many people? It was August 9th - only a month ago - a crash in Brazil killed 66 people[4]. Before that? January 2023 a crash in Nepal killed 72 people. In fact, look how many plane crashes there are[5] - that doesn't leave newspapers scaremongering about airplane travel and regulators banning it. OK, it does, "Horrific Oregon plane crash shows moment aircraft flies into home and EXPLODES as residents evacuate area" a week ago in the Daily Mail[8].
Jet fuel is explosive, explosions are how engines work! A Boeing 737 carries ~20,000 litres or ~5300 gallons of jet fuel, and nobody writes articles about how planes are bad because jet fuel burns.
With today's technology, and all the improvements in airline safety generally - checklists, regulations, mandatory inspections and maintenance, why wouldn't Hydrogen lift airships be similarly safe to airplanes? Look at "List of airship accidents"[6] and ask yourself how many could be made unlikely with today's technology, weather forecasting, and careful design and maintenance procedures? The first 30 years are mostly:
- crashed
- fell apart
- burnt
- strong winds broke moorings / crashed it / tore it apart
- exploded
And if you think the fire risk is not safely manageable, have a think about Hydrogen refuelling pumps at every gas station on every town and city street, used by ordinary people not paying much attention, refuelled and maintained by the lowest bidder, into old, maybe poorly maintained, cars and trucks.[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-powered-planes-fuel-cells
[2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/stealthy-startup-promises-cheap-ca...
[3] https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-truck-emergency-rescue
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voepass_Linhas_A%C3%A9reas_Fli...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
[8] I'm not linking to the Daily Mail. If you're desperate to read it, you'll have to find it.
Suppose a company discovered warp drive and started offering trips to the Andromeda galaxy. Their warp starships can carry 100 passengers. Establishing the warp field is dangerous, and 99% of the time the result is an explosion that destroys the ship (and everyone aboard). If the warp field is successfully established actually traversing the warp field is safe enough that the chances of anything going wrong in transit are negligible.
Those warp starships that kill 99% of their passengers would have a fatality rate per passenger mile 5 orders of magnitude lower than that of commercial airlines, and 8 orders of magnitude lower than that of automobiles but I doubt many people think is is safer.
To get deaths per mile down needs a long tail of safe mass use, and that comes after the rough early days of little use and lots of accidents. Cars got a lot less deathy after banning drunk driving, adding white lines on the roads, banning jaywalking - things outside Car technology - as well as seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, better headlights, power assisted brakes, antilock brakes.
Zeppelins used Hydrogen and several deadly accidents were while emptying or refilling. Now there are better materials, equipment, OSHA rules, industries which deal with natural gas and gasoline and other dangerous gases and chemicals routinely which is outside Zeppelin technology but would help make them safer.
One Zeppelin crash was the gas release valves sealed shut to save money. We have better regulation around airline safety to catch that kind of “safety device isn’t functioning” and expect failovers at the design stage, also outside them being Zeppelins and just general bad practice.
One Zeppelin crash was a last minute extension to the design launched before it could be tested properly for political reasons, that’s an avoidable problem with regulatory bodies overseeing designs and builds - also general bass practice.
Aircraft got safer once the copilot started flying and the pilot advised. Because of social power imbalances, it’s much easier for the pilot to correct the assistant, than for yer assistant to correct the pilot. Maybe that could benefit Zeppelins?
Ocean travel got safer as ships learned to avoid the worst routes and weather, and with the Panama and Suez canals; by the time of the Titanic when lifeboat regulations were being discussed it was an argument that ships don’t crash enough anymore to benefit from lifeboats. Lots of Zeppelin problems with storms should be improved with todays weather prediction/reporting as well as storm-proof materials.
Zeppelins stopped before all those kinds of changes/developments. Left in the era of men standing in a field holding onto them by ropes, altitude by sonar echo and stopwatch, radio by dangling a wire to use as an antenna, controlling speed by telling a man sitting by each engine to turn them up or down, then saying “high deaths per mile they must be inherently unsafe” is more scaremongering dismissal than genuine interested carefully reasoned position.
The hydrogen gas could also fuel the engines.
I concur that the risk of hydrogen in a Zeppelin is overstated. We know why the Hindenburg burned, and that is easily fixed. (Static electricity discharge, and the skin coated with rocket fuel.)