Welcome back to the show, everyone. I am Corn, and I am sitting here in our living room in Jerusalem with my brother, the one and only Herman Poppleberry.
Hello, hello. It is great to be here. I have been looking forward to this one because it touches on one of my favorite niche areas of engineering and history. It is a topic that feels like it was left behind by the twentieth century, but it is making a massive, quiet comeback in the twenty-first.
Today’s prompt comes from Daniel, and it is about a topic that feels like it belongs in a steampunk novel or a Studio Ghibli film, but it might actually be the future of sustainable travel. We are talking about blimps and airships. Daniel mentioned that he found a flight from London to New York might take two to three days, and he is wondering about the feasibility of bringing this back for passengers today.
It is such a romantic idea, right? Instead of being crammed into a pressurized metal tube at thirty-five thousand feet, eating lukewarm pasta out of a plastic tray, you are basically in a floating hotel, drifting across the Atlantic. It is a completely different philosophy of travel. It is the difference between a commute and a voyage.
Exactly. It is the slow travel movement taken to the skies. But before we get into the dreams of luxury cruises in the clouds, we should probably clarify some terms for the listeners. Herman, people often use the words blimp and airship interchangeably. Is there a technical difference we should know about before we dive deep?
That is a great starting point, and it is a distinction that matters for the engineering. Technically, an airship is the broad category. It refers to any power-driven aircraft that is kept buoyant by a gas that is lighter than air. Now, within that, you have three main types. First, you have the blimps, which are non-rigid. They have no internal structure or skeleton. If the gas leaks out, the whole thing just collapses like a giant, empty balloon. The shape is maintained entirely by the internal pressure of the gas.
So like those Goodyear blimps we see over stadiums?
Exactly. Those are classic blimps. Then you have semi-rigid airships, which have some internal framing, usually a solid keel along the bottom to support the engine and the passenger gondola. And finally, you have the rigid airships, like the famous Zeppelins of the early twentieth century. Those have a full internal skeleton, usually made of lightweight metal or, in modern versions, carbon fiber. Inside that skeleton are multiple individual gas cells.
So when Daniel talks about a two to three day trip across the Atlantic, he is likely talking about those larger, rigid airships. A blimp would probably struggle with that kind of distance and payload, right?
Oh, definitely. A blimp is great for hovering over a football stadium with a camera or an advertisement because it is relatively cheap and easy to move around. But for long-distance, transoceanic travel, you need the structural integrity of a rigid airship or at least a very advanced hybrid airship. You need something that can hold its shape against the winds of the North Atlantic and carry enough amenities to keep people happy for seventy-two hours.
Let us talk about the sustainability aspect first, because that was the core of our previous discussion on aviation. Why is an airship so much better for the environment than a jet? We know jets burn an incredible amount of kerosene just to stay up.
It comes down to basic physics and the difference between aerodynamic lift and static lift. A traditional airplane is heavier than air. To stay in the sky, it has to move forward very fast to generate lift over its wings. That requires a massive amount of energy just to fight gravity every single second. If the engines stop, the plane eventually comes down. An airship, on the other hand, is buoyant. It wants to be in the sky. It uses static lift, based on Archimedes' principle.
So it is like a boat on water, but the water is the atmosphere.
Precisely. Because the airship is lighter than the air it displaces, it floats effortlessly. You only need engines for propulsion—to move it forward and steer it—not to keep it in the air. Because of that, you can use much smaller engines, which means much less fuel. Some of the modern designs we are seeing in twenty twenty-six are aiming for a ninety percent reduction in carbon emissions compared to traditional jets. Even with current fuel technology, the efficiency per ton of cargo or per passenger is significantly better because you aren't fighting a constant battle against gravity.
And if those engines are electric or hydrogen-powered, you are looking at nearly zero emissions.
Exactly. And because airships have such huge surface areas, some designers are even looking at covering the top of the hull with thin-film solar cells. On a long flight across the ocean, you could be generating a significant portion of your propulsion energy directly from the sun. It is the ultimate green machine.
Okay, but let us get to the feasibility and the elephant in the room. Daniel asked about modern safety and aviation requirements. The shadow of the Hindenburg is still very long, isn't it? When people think of airships, they don't think of luxury; they think of giant fireballs and that famous radio broadcast.
It is the first thing everyone mentions. The Hindenburg disaster happened in nineteen thirty-seven, and it effectively killed the industry for nearly a century. But we have to look at the context. The Hindenburg used hydrogen because the United States had a monopoly on helium and refused to export it to Nazi Germany. Hydrogen is the lightest element, but it is incredibly flammable. Modern airships use helium. Helium is an inert gas. It literally cannot burn. You could hold a blowtorch to a bag of helium and nothing would happen. It is one of the most stable substances in the universe.
So the fire risk is essentially gone. But what about other safety issues? I mean, these things are massive. They are basically giant sails. How do they handle a storm over the North Atlantic? I imagine a strong wind could just blow you off course or even tear the structure apart.
That is the real engineering challenge today. It is not about the gas catching fire; it is about weather management and structural loads. Because airships move relatively slowly—usually between sixty and ninety miles per hour—they can't always just power through a storm like a jet can. They have to navigate around them. However, our modern meteorology is light years ahead of what they had in the nineteen thirties. We have satellite tracking, real-time weather modeling, and sophisticated flight control systems that can predict wind patterns with incredible accuracy.
I imagine the structural materials have improved quite a bit too. We aren't using wood and canvas anymore.
Oh, immensely. Back then, they were using duralumin—an early aluminum alloy—and doped fabric that was actually quite flammable itself. Today, we are talking about high-strength carbon fiber frames and multi-layer synthetic envelopes made of materials like Tedlar, Mylar, or Kevlar. These materials are incredibly tough, UV resistant, and have very low gas permeability. They can handle stresses and pressures that would have torn an old Zeppelin apart. In fact, some modern envelopes are so strong they can withstand small arms fire without a catastrophic failure.
You mentioned flight control. How do these things actually fly? Daniel asked about altitudes. Do they stay low, or do they go up where the jets are to find the jet stream?
They generally stay much lower. Most commercial airship designs are looking at altitudes between five thousand and ten thousand feet. For comparison, a commercial jet usually cruises at thirty-five thousand feet.
That is a huge difference. Why stay so low? Wouldn't you want to be higher to avoid the weather?
There are a few reasons. First, the higher you go, the thinner the air is. Since your lift comes from displacing air, thinner air means you need more volume or more pressure to stay buoyant. Second, if you are carrying passengers, staying below ten thousand feet means you don't necessarily need a pressurized cabin. That saves a massive amount of weight and complexity in the design. And third, the whole point of the experience is the view. At five thousand feet, you can actually see the world. You see the waves on the ocean, the whales breaching, the terrain of the land. It is an observation deck that travels.
That sounds incredible, but I have to wonder about the business model. Two to three days to get to New York. In a world where we are used to seven-hour flights and instant gratification, who is actually going to buy a ticket for that? Is there a market for a three-day commute?
This is where we have to look at the market segments. It is not going to replace the business traveler who needs to be in London for a morning meeting. It is competing with cruise ships and luxury trains. If you think about it, a cruise ship takes about six or seven days to cross the Atlantic. An airship does it in half that time, with better views and a much smaller environmental footprint. It is for the traveler who views the journey as the destination.
So it is a luxury niche. But Daniel also asked if they have ever been used for cargo or commercial traffic over long periods. Was there ever a time when this was a normal way to get around?
They actually have a much more successful history than people realize. Before the Hindenburg, the Graf Zeppelin was a massive success. It operated for nine years, from nineteen twenty-eight to nineteen thirty-seven. It made almost six hundred flights, including a famous round-the-world trip and regular scheduled service between Germany and South America. It carried over thirteen thousand passengers and thousands of pounds of mail and freight without a single injury to a passenger. It was the first real transoceanic airline.
Wow, I didn't realize it was that extensive. I thought it was just a few experimental flights. So why did it take so long for the idea to receive serious consideration again? If the Graf Zeppelin was that safe and successful, why did we just stop for eighty years?
A few things happened at once. First, the Hindenburg was caught on film. It was one of the first globally shared media disasters, and the trauma of those images was hard to overcome. Second, World War Two happened. The war pushed jet engine technology and fixed-wing aircraft development forward at an incredible pace. By nineteen forty-five, we had fast, reliable planes and a global network of runways built for the military. Airships require massive hangars and specialized ground crews, and that infrastructure just didn't exist anymore. We chose the path of speed over the path of efficiency.
It is the classic infrastructure lock-in. We built the world for planes, so now it is hard to build it for anything else.
Exactly. To run a commercial airship service today, you would need to build massive mooring masts and hangars at every major hub. That is a huge capital investment. Plus, the regulatory environment is very tough. The Federal Aviation Administration and other global bodies have incredibly strict rules for passenger aircraft. Certification for a brand-new type of airship can cost hundreds of millions of dollars because the regulators have to write the rules as they go.
Speaking of costs, what about the gas? I have heard there is a global helium shortage. If we start building a fleet of giant airships, aren't we going to run out of the very thing that makes them fly?
That is a very valid concern. Helium is a finite resource on Earth. We get it mostly as a byproduct of natural gas extraction. However, it is not so much that we are running out, but that the supply is volatile. For a large-scale industry, we would need better recycling systems. Most modern airships are designed to be closed systems where they don't vent helium to descend. They use ballonet systems—which are internal air bags that you inflate or deflate to change the weight of the ship—or engine power to manage altitude. We are getting much better at keeping the helium inside the ship.
Let us talk about cargo for a second. Daniel mentioned he found that they haven't been used much for cargo. Is that changing? Because I have seen some news about heavy-lift airships lately.
Historically, yes, cargo was a struggle because planes and ships were just more established. But there is a huge move toward cargo airships right now, and this is where the real "aha moment" is happening. There is a company called Flying Whales in France, and another called LTA Research, which is backed by Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google. They are looking at airships for heavy-lift cargo in remote areas.
Why remote areas specifically? Why not just use a truck or a train?
Because airships don't need a runway. You can hover over a forest, a mountain top, or a remote mine, and lower or raise cargo using a winch system. Imagine trying to get a massive wind turbine blade to the top of a remote ridge. You can't fit that on a truck, and a helicopter can't lift something that heavy. An airship is perfect for that. It can carry sixty tons of cargo and deliver it to a spot that has no roads, no rails, and no airport.
That makes a lot of sense. So we might see them as heavy-duty flying cranes before we see them as passenger liners.
Almost certainly. The cargo and logistics side is where the immediate economic value is. In fact, LTA Research has been testing their Pathfinder One airship recently. It is about one hundred and twenty meters long, and they are using it to prove that you can move massive loads with very little infrastructure. Once the technology is proven there and the infrastructure starts to build up, then the passenger side becomes more viable.
I am curious about the experience on board. If you are on an airship for three days, what is it actually like? Is it shaky? Does it feel like a boat? Do you get seasick in the sky?
It is actually much smoother than a plane. Because they are so massive and move relatively slowly, they have a lot of inertia. They don't get tossed around by turbulence the way a small jet does. It is often described as a very gentle, rhythmic swaying, if you feel anything at all. And because you aren't pressurized, you don't get that dry air and the constant ear-popping. You can even open a window in some designs! Imagine being at five thousand feet over the ocean and feeling the actual sea breeze.
That sounds like a dream. But let us look at the downsides. We talked about weather, but what about the speed? Two to three days is a long time if the weather turns against you. Could a strong headwind just bring you to a standstill?
It can. The cruising speed of a modern airship like the Airlander Ten is about eighty to ninety miles per hour. If you hit a sixty-mile-per-hour headwind, your ground speed drops to thirty miles per hour. You are basically moving at the speed of a car in city traffic. That is why the navigation systems are so important. You have to ride the winds, almost like a sailor. You find the altitudes where the wind is in your favor. It is a more harmonious way of flying, but it requires more patience and better planning.
Herman, I want to dig into the economic feasibility a bit more. If I am an investor, and you come to me with a plan for a London to New York airship route, what are the numbers? How many passengers can one of these things carry? Because a Boeing seven forty-seven can carry hundreds.
The current prototypes, like the Airlander, are looking at around twenty to fifty passengers in a luxury configuration. If you wanted to go for high density, you could maybe get to a hundred. But remember, the volume of an airship is mostly gas. The actual cabin space is a small fraction of the total size. To carry five hundred people like a jumbo jet, the airship would have to be absolutely gargantuan. We are talking several city blocks long. So it is never going to be a mass transit solution for billions of people in its current form.
So it is a premium experience. But maybe that is okay. Maybe we don't need everyone to fly at five hundred miles per hour.
Exactly. It could be a significant part of a multi-modal transport system. Maybe we use jets for the urgent stuff—organ transplants, business emergencies, family crises—and airships for the bulk cargo and leisure travel. It is about using the right tool for the job.
What about the crew? Do you need a lot of people to run one of these? I remember seeing old photos of hundreds of people holding ropes to pull a Zeppelin down to the ground.
On the ground, yes, that has traditionally been the big cost. Landing an old Zeppelin was a massive operation. But modern designs use vectored thrust. They have engines that can swivel and point down or sideways, allowing the pilot to land the craft almost like a drone. Some designs are even being built to land on water or flat ground without any specialized equipment. That reduces the ground crew requirements significantly and makes the whole operation much cheaper.
Let us talk about the "why" again. Daniel asked why it has taken so long for this to be considered seriously. Beyond the infrastructure and the Hindenburg, is there a technological "aha moment" that happened recently? Something that changed in the last decade?
I think there are two. One is the material science we mentioned. We can now build envelopes that are incredibly light and strong, which allows for much larger ships with better payloads. The second is the rise of electric propulsion and high-energy-density batteries. If you can power those maneuvering engines with solar panels on the top of the airship and batteries in the keel, you have a truly sustainable aircraft. That was never possible before. We finally have the tech to match the dream.
And the social "aha moment" is obviously the climate crisis. The pressure to decarbonize aviation is so intense right now that ideas that seemed crazy twenty years ago are now being funded by billionaires and governments.
Exactly. We are looking for anything that can move the needle. And when you look at the math, lighter-than-air is just fundamentally more efficient for certain tasks. It is the only way to move heavy things through the air without burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.
I want to go back to the cargo thing for a second. You mentioned Sergey Brin's LTA Research. What are they actually building? Is it just a hobby for a billionaire, or is there a real mission there?
Oh, it is a very serious mission. They are working on a massive rigid airship called the Pathfinder One. It is about one hundred and twenty meters long. They are using a carbon fiber frame and eighteen electric motors. The primary goal is humanitarian aid. Imagine a natural disaster like a hurricane or an earthquake where the roads are destroyed, the bridges are down, and the airport is flooded. A traditional cargo plane can't land. But an airship can fly in, hover, and drop off tons of food, water, and medical supplies without needing a single square foot of flat ground.
That is a powerful use case. That alone could justify the development costs, even if the passenger side takes longer to develop.
Absolutely. And once you have those "workhorse" airships in the sky, the transition to passenger versions becomes much easier. You have a proven safety record, a trained pilot pool, and the beginnings of that mooring infrastructure. It is a stepping-stone strategy.
So, if we look ahead ten or fifteen years, do you think we will actually see a commercial flight from London to New York? Will Daniel be able to book that ticket?
I think we will see the first experimental or ultra-luxury routes by the mid-twenty-thirties. It might start as a "land cruise" over the African savanna or the Arctic, where the scenery is the main event. The trans-Atlantic route is a bit harder because of the weather patterns, but it is definitely on the roadmap for companies like OceanSky Cruises. They are already taking reservations for North Pole expeditions.
Wait, really? People are already booking tickets for airship cruises?
Yes! They are positioning it as the ultimate sustainable luxury experience. You spend a few days in a flying five-star hotel, you land at the North Pole for a few hours—leaving no footprint because you are just floating—and you fly back. It is about as far from a budget airline experience as you can get. It is quiet, it is spacious, and it is environmentally conscious.
It is funny how we have come full circle. In the early twentieth century, airships were the height of luxury, then they were seen as dangerous relics, and now they are the height of luxury again.
It is the Lindy Effect in action. The longer something has survived in the collective consciousness, the more likely it is to come back. The idea of the airship is so compelling that we just can't let it go. It taps into a very human desire to soar without the violence of a jet engine.
Let us talk about some of the misconceptions. We already hit the fire thing. What is another one? People often think they are very fragile, right? Like one bird hit or a small puncture would make it fall out of the sky.
That is a huge misconception. In reality, the pressure inside the gas cells is very low, almost the same as the outside air. If you poked a hole in it, the helium would leak out very slowly. It wouldn't pop like a balloon; it would be more like a very slow leak in a bicycle tire. It would take hours or even days for the ship to lose its buoyancy. And because rigid airships have multiple independent gas cells, you could lose several of them and still stay in the air.
That is reassuring. So it is actually quite a resilient way to fly.
In many ways, it is safer than a plane. If the engines fail on a plane, you are a glider with a very limited range. If the engines fail on an airship, you don't fall. You just float. You might drift with the wind, but you have all the time in the world to fix the problem or call for a tow. You aren't in an immediate life-or-death struggle with gravity.
What about the cost for the passenger? If this is luxury, we are talking tens of thousands of dollars per ticket?
Initially, yes. It will be for the wealthy early adopters. But if you look at the history of any technology, it starts expensive. The first trans-Atlantic flights on planes were only for the incredibly wealthy. If we can scale the production of the airships and use cheaper green hydrogen for lift in unmanned cargo versions, the costs will come down.
Wait, did you say hydrogen for cargo? I thought we said hydrogen was too dangerous.
That is a big debate in the industry right now. For passengers, we will likely stick with helium for safety and public perception. But for unmanned cargo ships, some engineers argue that we should use hydrogen. It is much cheaper than helium, it has about ten percent more lift, and you can even use it as fuel for your fuel cells. If there is no one on board, the risk profile changes, and the economic benefits are massive.
That is an interesting trade-off. It would certainly help with the helium scarcity issue if the cargo fleet used hydrogen.
Exactly. It is all about finding the right niche for the right gas.
So, to summarize for Daniel, the feasibility is actually quite high from a technical standpoint. We have the materials, the weather tracking, and the propulsion systems to make this safe and efficient. The real hurdles are economic and regulatory. We need the infrastructure, and we need the "slow travel" market to grow enough to support the initial high costs.
Well said. And I would add that the sustainability factor is the real wind in their sails. As long as we are committed to reaching net zero, we have to look at every alternative to jet fuel. Airships aren't just a nostalgia trip; they are a legitimate piece of the green puzzle. They offer a way to move people and things across the planet without destroying the planet in the process.
I love the idea of a world where the sky is filled with these silent, graceful giants again. It feels much more civilized than the roar of jet engines.
It really does. Imagine looking up over Jerusalem and seeing a quiet, glowing airship drifting toward the coast at sunset. It would be beautiful. It would change the way we think about the sky.
I think we have covered a lot of ground today, or a lot of air, I should say. Before we wrap up, I want to make sure we give our listeners some practical takeaways. If you are interested in this, what should you look for?
Keep an eye on the companies we mentioned: Hybrid Air Vehicles in the United Kingdom, Flying Whales in France, and LTA Research in the United States. They are the ones doing the real heavy lifting right now. Also, look into the concept of "Hybrid Airships." These are designs that use a mix of buoyancy and aerodynamic lift—they are shaped like a wing but filled with gas. They are often more stable and easier to handle on the ground than traditional cigar-shaped airships.
And if you are ever near Bedford in the United Kingdom, you can actually see the Cardington Hangars where some of this work is happening. They are massive, historic structures that give you a sense of the scale we are talking about. They are some of the largest indoor spaces in the world.
Oh, those hangars are legendary. They were built for the R-one-hundred-and-one and R-one-hundred back in the nineteen twenties. The fact that they are being used again for modern airships like the Airlander is just perfect. It is a literal bridge between the past and the future.
It really is. Alright, I think that is a good place to stop. Herman, any final thoughts for Daniel?
Just that I hope he gets his wish. I would love to spend three days on an airship with a good book, a glass of something nice, and a view of the Atlantic from five thousand feet. It sounds like the ultimate way to decompress and actually appreciate the scale of our world.
I agree. It is time to bring back the voyage. And hey, if you have been enjoying our deep dives into these weird prompts, please do us a favor and leave a review on your podcast app or Spotify. It really helps the show reach more curious minds like yours.
It genuinely does. We love seeing the community grow and hearing your thoughts on these topics.
You can find us at myweirdprompts.com for the full archive of our six hundred and sixty-three episodes, and you can always reach us at show at myweirdprompts.com if you have a topic you want us to explore.
This has been My Weird Prompts. Thanks for joining us.
Until next time, keep looking up. Goodbye!
Goodbye!
