Hindenburg

Palomar · 2004-01-23 15:08:20

*I'm bringing dicktice's comments over from the "Solar Powered Ion Propulsion" thread in the Human Missions folder:

"Cindy: We need nostalgia like yours. The Hindenburg was a beaut as well. But, while cutting-edge then--with cattle guts for making the hydrogen gas bags, nitrate-doped cotton covering, non-vectoring or feathering propellers, no reversing tail prop for docking, vented lift-gas to sink, released water-ballast to rise. . . . Its time had come and gone--just like the Saturn-5 launching rocket-stack..."

*Hi dicktice.

I've seen some video clips and information about the Hindenburg, years ago. Very difficult to watch. I didn't know they used cattle guts for the hydrogen bags. Hmmmm.

Why wasn't the Hindenburg considered more of a very real danger, with all that hydrogen "on board"? It reminds me of the Apollo 1 fire and how the hatch could only open inwardly, being held closed by latches which had to be operated by ratchets (!). Seems like disasters in the making...scientists and engineers should know better!

[http://www.vidicom-tv.com/tohiburg.htm]"Titanic of the Sky"

Do you remember the Hindenburg disaster?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-23 16:38:04

Actually, the danger posed by the hydrogen has been vastly over-rated. Hydrogen requires Oxygen to explode, the gas "cells" of Zeppelins were sealed and filled only with Hydrogen, thus there was no real danger. The major problem with Hindenburg was not the Hydrogen but the aluminum-impregnated coating on its surface. This caused the brillaint flames that witnesses reported, Hydrogen would not have. The Hydrogen didn't ignite until well after the initial fire started.

Check out the footage sometime, it's clear if you know what to look for. First off, the Hindenburg continued to float even as the gas keeping it aloft had supposededly exploded. When it finally hits the ground it bounced? The skeletal framework would not have been able to withstand the impact let alone bounce if the gas cells were not intact. Finally, the cells melted and released the Hydrogen, which ignited as it mixed with Oxygen on its way up.

For comparison, during WW1 germany used Zeppelin bombers. Interceptor aircraft firing incendiary rounds into their gas bags had little effect, unless they first perforated the airship and allowed air to mix with the hydrogen, taking several minutes. Only then would they catch fire and crash after a strafing run.

clark · 2004-01-23 16:59:43

Information comes from the weirdest places.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-24 01:46:38

So hydrogen should be perfectly safe for dirigibles on Mars? Or did somebody suggest hydrogen might burn in CO2? (I never thought this likely, but ... )
???

dicktice · 2004-01-24 11:05:08

Cindy: The material is called "goldbeaters skin" and was (is?) used to make gold leaf. None of our present plastic materials capable of containing hydorgen or helium were known, and the U.S. had the world's supply of helium (I remember it said) so Germany had to use hydrogen for the lift-gas in the Hindenburg, as usual (the Graf Zeppelin did very well on hydrogen throughout its impressive lifetime, being broken up only after Hindenburg was no more). The Zeppelin Company is doing very impressive work on their newest line of airships, by the way, using a whole new approach to the internal rigid structure, modern materials of course, vectoring and feathering propellers (two on the tail!), Y-tailfins, non-venting helium . . . everything they would have done, if the various technologies available now, had been back in the 1920's. I say: ditto--for the next generation rocket launching system to take the place of the Saturn-5. All you have to do, is let the engineers (those paragons of the human race!) get on with it!

Palomar · 2004-01-26 17:14:07

Actually, the danger posed by the hydrogen has been vastly over-rated. Hydrogen requires Oxygen to explode, the gas "cells" of Zeppelins were sealed and filled only with Hydrogen, thus there was no real danger. The major problem with Hindenburg was not the Hydrogen but the aluminum-impregnated coating on its surface. This caused the brillaint flames that witnesses reported, Hydrogen would not have. The Hydrogen didn't ignite until well after the initial fire started.
Check out the footage sometime, it's clear if you know what to look for. First off, the Hindenburg continued to float even as the gas keeping it aloft had supposededly exploded. When it finally hits the ground it bounced? The skeletal framework would not have been able to withstand the impact let alone bounce if the gas cells were not intact. Finally, the cells melted and released the Hydrogen, which ignited as it mixed with Oxygen on its way up.

*Hmmmmm. Yes, now that you mention it, I do seem to recall what you're referring to, Cobra Commander. I haven't seen the footage for years now, but have at least twice (I kind of freaked out the first time, when I thought it was just stationary [tethered] and UNmanned when it somehow caught fire. Then I was told there were people inside...egad; yep, I'm super-squeamish about stuff like that ::shiver::).

Maybe it was the fury of the fire itself which kept the Hindenburg afloat? Since it was lightweight, perhaps like a hot air balloon (yeah, I know...hot air balloons which might catch fire don't keep floating).

Very tragic thing, horrible.

Dicktice wrote: The Zeppelin Company is doing very impressive work on their newest line of airships, by the way, using a whole new approach to the internal rigid structure, modern materials of course, vectoring and feathering propellers (two on the tail!), Y-tailfins, non-venting helium . . . everything they would have done, if the various technologies available now, had been back in the 1920's. I say: ditto--for the next generation rocket launching system to take the place of the Saturn-5. All you have to do, is let the engineers (those paragons of the human race!) get on with it!

*Yes, agreed. I'm not sure engineers *are* the paragons of the human race, however...I hear them getting cursed a lot. :laugh: (just kidding)

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-01-26 18:16:20

Watch it, doll. Us injineers've got feelin's, an' long memories--know what I mean?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-05-02 16:25:00

an old Air-ship, Balloon topic worth looking at again?

Helium discovery is the supply breakthrough science, medicine, and industry needed...This may be the largest helium reservoir in US history.
https://www.freethink.com/opinion/helium-discovery
Arecent discovery in Minnesota has unveiled a helium reservoir with astonishingly high concentrations of the gas, surpassing initial estimations and potentially opening doors for commercial extraction. Pulsar Helium, an exploration company, revealed the discovery of helium reserves in late February 2024, following drilling activities near Babbitt, northern Minnesota, reaching depths of 2,200 feet (670 meters).

Calliban · 2024-05-03 10:58:15

Helium is a rare and non-renewable resource on Earth. I don't think there would be enough of it to make airships anything more than a niche curiosity. The Hindenburg was huge. Its gas cells had a volume of 140,000m3. It also vented hydrogen as it flew and fuel consumption reduced its mass. That wouldn't be economically possible with helium. Helium also generates less lift than hydrogen.

I think the question with airships is whether hydrogen can be used more safely with modern materials? We won't be making gas cells out of cotton lined with cow guts anymore. We have advanced polymers, carbon fibre and super-strong maraging steels. We also have gas turbine engines that are lighter and more powerful than the diesels on the Hindenburg. How much difference would all of that make if we built a Hindenburg sized rigid airship today? Probably quite a lot.

But safety was only one of the problems with rigid airships. Who woukd want to cross the Atlantic at 60-70mph, when there are jets that can get you there 8-9x more quickly, probably at a lower cost?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-23 15:08:20

Re: Hindenburg

#2 2004-01-23 16:38:04

Re: Hindenburg

#3 2004-01-23 16:59:43

Re: Hindenburg

#4 2004-01-24 01:46:38

Re: Hindenburg

#5 2004-01-24 11:05:08

Re: Hindenburg

#6 2004-01-26 17:14:07

Re: Hindenburg

#7 2004-01-26 18:16:20

Re: Hindenburg

#8 2024-05-02 16:25:00

Re: Hindenburg

#9 2024-05-03 10:58:15

Re: Hindenburg

Board footer