NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to that other guy saying there weren't enough alternate history threads, I'm making my own. The question today is:

What would've happened if the Hindenburg hadn't burned down?

In response to that other guy saying there weren't enough alternate history threads, I'm making my own. The question today is:

What would've happened if the Hindenburg hadn't burned down?

According to the Pendragon books, the Nazis would have got an atomic bomb and won WW2.

If you believe them.

Anyways, I imagine airships might be somewhat more popular today.

In response to that other guy saying there weren't enough alternate history threads, I'm making my own. The question today is:

What would've happened if the Hindenburg hadn't burned down?

Airships would have flown for another 5 years, until the airplane caught up with it. Well, maybe a bit more than 5 years, but not past the jet age.

Airships would have flown for another 5 years, until the airplane caught up with it. Well, maybe a bit more than 5 years, but not past the jet age.

Ahh, but you forget that much more funds would be put into the airship and not airplanes, therefore, in a sense, dooming airplanes and jet technology. Jet technology might be implied to airships, but that seems unlikely.

I think we should bring airships back in any case.

I think we should bring airships back in any case.

They're featured in Nsara a lot in The Years of Rice and Salt. I think it would be cool. It could be something like the Final Fantasy style airships. Travel would be severly lengthened, but who cares when you have a giant floating castle?

I bet floating houses would gain popularity...

I think we should bring airships back in any case.

would be nice, not everyone is in a hurry to get somewhere so it could be more like an air cruise ship. just take time going somewhere and enjoy the journey

We would all be in flying cars and exploring the galaxy.

What would airships be using for fuel? If the Hindenberg hadn't burned down (how it wouldn't, I dunno) then hydrogen fuel would've been much more popular.

Ahh, but you forget that much more funds would be put into the airship and not airplanes, therefore, in a sense, dooming airplanes and jet technology. Jet technology might be implied to airships, but that seems unlikely.

There was a lot of money being invested in airplanes before the Hindenburg. As engine technology advanced the airplane simply became more practical. WW2 was what put the airplane definitely ahead of the airship and that would have happened anyway.

Not to say that the airship can't make a comeback, maybe as fuel becomes more and more expensive.

What would airships be using for fuel? If the Hindenberg hadn't burned down (how it wouldn't, I dunno) then hydrogen fuel would've been much more popular.

Helium. It's what we use today.

There was a lot of money being invested in airplanes before the Hindenburg. As engine technology advanced the airplane simply became more practical. WW2 was what put the airplane definitely ahead of the airship and that would have happened anyway.

Not to say that the airship can't make a comeback, maybe as fuel becomes more and more expensive.

Yes, but much more money was being put into airships. They would've become dominant in the air, possibly leading them to become massive flying fortresses, with them being the dominant factor in wars.

The Nazis would have a huge Zeppelin squad, and airplanes would become a secondary mode of travel, like a small motorboat compared to a large ship.

The Empire State Building would be a very popular hub used by the Zepplins.

Yes, but much more money was being put into airships. They would've become dominant in the air, possibly leading them to become massive flying fortresses, with them being the dominant factor in wars.
Yes, that makes sense... huge fucking flying baloons would be dominant.
Les taht a fucking kid with a blowgun could take them out with ease, much less need a military to do it.
And lets not for get the size of the motherfuckers.
Look, airship... a huge one at that...
Enemy...
Get ur blowguns!

Yes, that makes sense... huge fucking flying baloons would be dominant.
Les taht a fucking kid with a blowgun could take them out with ease, much less need a military to do it.
And lets not for get the size of the motherfuckers.
Look, airship... a huge one at that...
Enemy...
Get ur blowguns!

Ever hear of something called "Armor Plating"? And before making ANY assumptions, read up on airships first. We had pretensious assholes who think they know everything on a subject when they really don't around here, you know.

Ever hear of something called "Armor Plating"? And before making ANY assumptions, read up on airships first. We had pretensious assholes who think they know everything on a subject when they really don't around here, you know.
Yes good idea... put armor plates on the baloons.
how would they fly?
Dunno...
'plates' of armor would certainly weigh alot.
And if you can get it where blowguns dont work...
A big ariship the size of a small city wouldn't be too hard to target with a missile....

Yes good idea... put armor plates on the baloons.
how would they fly?
Dunno...
'plates' of armor would certainly weigh alot.
And if you can get it where blowguns dont work...
A big ariship the size of a small city wouldn't be too hard to target with a missile....

How do ships float in the ocean with armor plating? And remeber, missiles were the result of jet technology, which would probably have been abadoned with the development of blimps.

How do ships float in the ocean with armor plating? And remeber, missiles were the result of jet technology, which would probably have been abadoned with the development of blimps.

Yes... The chinese didnt invent missiles (which are projectiles moved and sustain flight by combustive propulsion)... jet technology did.
And they had airships WAY before the advent of gunpowder too!
And ships float because of bouyancy. There is air in the vessle and the density equals out to where it doesnt sink.
But if you can make steel and wooden ships less dense than the atmosphere and bear in mind that they weigh many thousands of tons... possibly millions.. and if you can get some sort of gas mixture to hold that up... more power to ya

It's actually quite an interesting point. If airship travel hadn't been shown to be as dangerous as it was through the Hindenburg, the technology would've advanced, and thusly making it safer. Airplane development would also have continued, but at a slower rate.
It is possible that modern air travel might well be a mix of the two, with air planes being the faster, cheaper, more used form but with airships operating more like luxury cruise liners do today. You pay more and have an almost silent way to travel with large luxurious rooms and casinos etc on board. Might be quite nice actually...

Yes... The chinese didnt invent missiles (which are projectiles moved and sustain flight by combustive propulsion)... jet technology did.
And they had airships WAY before the advent of gunpowder too!
And ships float because of bouyancy. There is air in the vessle and the density equals out to where it doesnt sink.
But if you can make steel and wooden ships less dense than the atmosphere and bear in mind that they weigh many thousands of tons... possibly millions.. and if you can get some sort of gas mixture to hold that up... more power to ya

It comes down to, as you pointed out, bouyancy. An airship is, inherently, heavier than the air around it through the materials of its construction. However the gas it is filled with is lighter than the air in which it travels. In order to increase bouyancy you increase the amount of gas it contains compared to the weight of the vessel.

It comes down to, as you pointed out, bouyancy. An airship is, inherently, heavier than the air around it through the materials of its construction. However the gas it is filled with is lighter than the air in which it travels. In order to increase bouyancy you increase the amount of gas it contains compared to the weight of the vessel.
Yea i know that. But its a horrible idea.
Gas leak = doom.
And you'd have to put it under a hell of a lot of pressure too.
So armor plated balloons capable of withstand missile barrages don't seem like they would make it too far off the ground, if at all

Yea i know that. But its a horrible idea.
Gas leak = doom.

Yes. Because you're going to put it all in once container, not seperate it in someway to prevent DOOM.

Yes. Because you're going to put it all in once container, not seperate it in someway to prevent DOOM.

DOOM! Oh the insanity!....
0o
No i just dont think it will ever happen.
And what happens if it does leak and multiple containers?
gosh, instability, thats what.

Look... a airfortess...
And its flying... crooked?

Yes, that makes sense... huge fucking flying baloons would be dominant.
Les taht a fucking kid with a blowgun could take them out with ease, much less need a military to do it.

A zeppelin is different from a balloon. The difference is that a zeppelin has a rigid metal skeleton. It is not pressurized, so it won't deflate if you shoot it with small arms. Holes in the underside also make not much of a problem, as it is filled with lighter-than-air gas.
Zeppelins are also divided into multiple compartments (more exactly cells), and their number can be very high, as their walls can be very thin, much thinner than a parachute, as they don't take noticeable pressure. It is similar to modern conventional ships, which have no armor, but are separated into watertight compartments by the bulkheads.

Their vulnerability mostly came from flammable hydrogen gas inside. Modern ones use helium, so it isn't a problem anymore. Given you hit in both cases, a zeppelin is more difficult to destroy than an aircraft with similar payload. Well, hitting planes is more of a problem, that's why they won.

A huge zeppelin would not make a good weapon in WWII and after by itself; nothing huge would, and even battleships became obsolete. On the other hand, an airship can be used in supplementary role, like a flying tanker. Their payload is good, fuel consumption very low. And as civilian cargo transport they are way better than planes.


The real thing that killed civilian airships was military aircraft design. Companies had to do no R&D work and build no new factories for civilian planes, as everything was already done with the military money; just remove that bomb bay and make some windows. Use of ready free technology for civilian planes and unification made design of airships unprofitable.

In response to that other guy saying there weren't enough alternate history threads, I'm making my own. The question today is:

What would've happened if the Hindenburg hadn't burned down?

according to the 'thursday next' series, aeroplanes wouldn't have progressed much passed their 1950's level of technology and international travel would have been conducted through deep-core gravitubes between london, new york, tokyo and somewhere else with smaller crustal tubetrain networks connecting other major centres, presumably operated through some electromagnetic propulsion technique, or maybe mad lazer shit.

Airships would have evolved further, obviously. They would most likely fly quite high in the air, out of the range of most AA guns on the ground. However, aircraft and high power AA guns/SAMs would still hit, so by WW2, airships would probably take roles in two ways: Transport/Carrier Ships and bombardier ships. The bombadiers would most likely have rockets and somewhat high calibre guns(37mm's, 3 inchers, maybe recoilless 5 inchers). There still were numerous fortresses in WW2, and an airship like that would have worked very well to heavily bombard places like Monte Casio, Rome, the maginot line, stalingrad... etc etc. These planes would likely be protected by other aircraft, and have AA guns of its own(37mm's, 20mm's) for protection; Running in, unleashing most of its expendable ammo on the enemy, and then going back to reload.

Transport ships would transport. They could transport goods long distances, they could carry ground troops, could carry paratroopers, etc. Carriers are fairly obvious. The actual balloon part of the airship, for lack of a better term, would have a fairly light overstructure, the top being where the planes would land(the sides would have covers, so less wind being a problem). Elevators would bring the planes below the balloon part, and be stored there.

The advent of heavily used SAMs would bring about countermeasures in higher numbers, as well as longer standoff weapons with airships. ICBM's probably wouldn't be that prevalent, with bombadier airships being able to carry fairly long range ramjet cruise missiles with nuclear weapons. Eventually, airships would probably be used as platforms for missiles, with cargo planes having the ability to drop off supplies(extra missiles) on top of the airships, giving them nearly non-ending bombardment on enemy positions.

Ohh, and satellites might not even be around. Less advances in propulsion technology and aviation technology, leading to later incursions into space, plus the ability for airships to stay in position, for reconnaisance, communications, etc.

Yes... The chinese didnt invent missiles (which are projectiles moved and sustain flight by combustive propulsion)... jet technology did.
And they had airships WAY before the advent of gunpowder too!
And ships float because of bouyancy. There is air in the vessle and the density equals out to where it doesnt sink.
But if you can make steel and wooden ships less dense than the atmosphere and bear in mind that they weigh many thousands of tons... possibly millions.. and if you can get some sort of gas mixture to hold that up... more power to ya

Of course the Chinese did, but were thier missles able to take down steel-plated objects?

And what the fuck is with your second sentence? I don't understand that at all. I understand it's sarcastic, but I don't see the point.

I knew that. It was a rhetorical question.

My point is is that with helium taking up 95% of the airship, even if it was steel plated with five layers each a few hundred pounds each, it would be able to float. Remeber, my fine man, helium is lighter than air, just as air is lighter than water.

Yea i know that. But its a horrible idea.
Gas leak = doom.
And you'd have to put it under a hell of a lot of pressure too.
So armor plated balloons capable of withstand missile barrages don't seem like they would make it too far off the ground, if at all

That's why we have "compartments". If one area is penetrated, oh well. And I don't understand your second sentence, again.

DOOM! Oh the insanity!....
0o
No i just dont think it will ever happen.
And what happens if it does leak and multiple containers?
gosh, instability, thats what.

Look... a airfortess...
And its flying... crooked?

It's "Oh the humanity!" not "Oh the insanity!".

And that's what the steel plating is there for.

DOOM! Oh the insanity!....
0o
No i just dont think it will ever happen.
And what happens if it does leak and multiple containers?
gosh, instability, thats what.

Look... a airfortess...
And its flying... crooked?

Wow, you've got to be one of the dumber people I've seen post.

What happens to a boat when it springs multiple leaks? The technology is no more or less inherently safe in water or in the air. It's all based on a pretty simple scientific principle that you seemed to grasp at ever so briefly in a previous post.

Wow, you've got to be one of the dumber people I've seen post.

What happens to a boat when it springs multiple leaks? The technology is no more or less inherently safe in water or in the air. It's all based on a pretty simple scientific principle that you seemed to grasp at ever so briefly in a previous post.
Actually mr balls, you have never SEEN me post... not once ever.
And insist of multiple compartments... like
One in the front and in the back.
If the front leaks.. it will lean forward... just as a boat does.
Yes... boats DO fucking lean when they leak...
dumarss

In response to that other guy saying there weren't enough alternate history threads, I'm making my own. The question today is:

What would've happened if the Hindenburg hadn't burned down?

Given the design flaw, it would have happened sooner or later anyway. Planes were always going to come in first there.

Wow, you've got to be one of the dumber people I've seen post.

What happens to a boat when it springs multiple leaks? The technology is no more or less inherently safe in water or in the air. It's all based on a pretty simple scientific principle that you seemed to grasp at ever so briefly in a previous post.

When your dinghy springs a leak you don't drop 20,000 feet.

How much would it cost for me to build my own airship?

...

Seriously. How much?

By the way, a few words about satellites.

Technologies for airships have progressed greatly since Hindeburg. That days there were no kevlar, kapton and other polymers, which can be used for strong shell and micrometer range thick internal airbags (compartments). If airships were the priority, special polymers would progress even further.

First a link - yes, it's WP, but for general information there's no problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship
There's today some work in this area.

Simply speaking, a conventional airship can be built to rise from the bottom up to 30-40 km (100-120 thousand feet), but a special airship, inflated with low pressure helium and raised by a conventional one, can operate all the way up to low orbits. It's well known that satellites in low orbit, including the ISS are constantly falling because of atmospheric resistance and have to regularly correct their orbit. Atmosphere goes on for a few hundreds of km, and on low orbits density is sufficient to operate special airships. These special airships could also consider using cheap hydrogen.


So if we focused on airships, we would still actually have satellites, but these (or most of these) would be geostationary. Current geostationary orbit is 36,000 km, and raising satellites there is very expensive. Airship geostationary orbits would be below 500, which means they would cover same area as conventional LEO satellites, but price of delivery with airships would be two or three orders of magnitude lower than to geostationary today; also required signal power would be much lower. Airship satellites would also have lower costs, as they can be easily accessed for maintenance and can even be landed.

However, space exploration wouldn't be the same, because there still is almost normal gravity there. Flights to other planets would require conventional rockets. On the other hand, a nuclear rocket can be built today, but requires orbital launch to prevent irradiation - and launching it by airships would be way cheaper and easier than by huge rockets with orbital assembly.

So the today and the future would be quite viable if the technology went that way.

Actually mr balls, you have never SEEN me post... not once ever.
And insist of multiple compartments... like
One in the front and in the back.
If the front leaks.. it will lean forward... just as a boat does.
Yes... boats DO fucking lean when they leak...
dumarss


No, not like one in the front and one in the back. Like, a dozen or more compartments. Some in the front, some in the back, some on the sides, some on top, some on bottom, some suspended within others. All designed so that a leak in one does not mean instant catastrophe. What happens is when one springs a leak, the airship will start to descend downwards, much like a ship will list. The pilot, presumably competant, will level the airship and make preparations for an emergency landing. Much like a competant captain of an ocean going vessel will right the ship as best he/she can and evacuate the vessel. Competant design would prevent minor problem from equalling major disaster.

When your dinghy springs a leak you don't drop 20,000 feet.

When your dinghy springs a leak you don't immediately sink to the bottom of the lake, either. A leak in a competantly designed airship will not cause the dinghy to immediately dive 20,000 feet into the ground.

No, not like one in the front and one in the back. Like, a dozen or more compartments. Some in the front, some in the back, some on the sides, some on top, some on bottom, some suspended within others.
Actually zeppelins were a bit different - thay had not compartments, but separate hydrogen cells inside a rigid shell. Air cells walls can be as thin as possible, and today making cells cubic foot each in size would only take a few percents of the lifting capacity. An airship could have about a million of these cells inside if needed, with minimal efficiency loss. It would float pretty much like foam floats - it's heavier than water, but has many cells inside, and puncturing it doesn't change the big picture.

Also, leaks don't necessarily mean emergency landing. They only decrease buoyancy reserve, pretty much like for submarines which can submerge even with two compartments broken. With airships situation is better than with submarines, as the lower the airship, the higher the buoyancy (air is more dense), so an airship can sustain considerable damage without falling, and even then landing would be quite soft.

Nothing would be different.

Actually mr balls, you have never SEEN me post... not once ever.
And insist of multiple compartments... like
One in the front and in the back.
If the front leaks.. it will lean forward... just as a boat does.
Yes... boats DO fucking lean when they leak...
dumarss

Go. Away. Now.

absolutley nothing would've changed at all.