• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    But also the technology to make rigid airships relatively safe has existed for decades and there’s no reason we can’t go back to them now except bad PR.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      And the fact that they’re only so so. Like, airplanes are just better. Once we had the ability to make cargo planes it was over

      • freebee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        Better in many regards but for sure not all. Airships could run a lot more quietly for example, that has some value. Until they explode ofcourse, that’s rather loud.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      They would still have to contain hydrogen though. Making them rigid doesn’t decrease fire risk.

      They have bad PR for a reason. It’s not prejudice it’s practicality.

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That hasn’t stopped billionaires from building spaceships or submarines. All I’m saying is that we would absolutely see some weird eccentric billionaires building and riding in zeppelins if it weren’t for the bad PR of the Hindenburg.