Comments on: Dirigibles, Zeppelins, and Blimps:The Differences Explained http://www.airships.net The Graf Zeppelin, Hindenburg, U.S. Navy Airships, and other Dirigibles Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:03:46 +0000 hourly 1 By: Josiah Wagener http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-40536 Josiah Wagener Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:25:52 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-40536 This isn't directly about airships but somewhat related. When I was in high school I had a chemistry teacher who had worked for Ball Aerospace during the Cold War. He had been developing a system to very rapidly inflate a large balloon mounted on a ballistic missile. The idea was that in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war when most communications systems had been knocked out there would be a few of these special missiles in silos here and there which could be launched. When the missile reached the top of its arc in the upper atmosphere it would deploy the balloon which had to be able to inflate in just a few seconds and carry a heavy payload of radio repeater equipment, ELF antenna, and long life batteries. The systems were supposed to provide a temporary communications link for remaining military command sheltered in their bunkers. I think that he said that they were using some sort of exotic lift gas, not helium, but I don't remember if he said what it was. I also don't know whether system was ever developed to a deployable point or if it remained only experimental. He said that that was still classified. This isn’t directly about airships but somewhat related. When I was in high school I had a chemistry teacher who had worked for Ball Aerospace during the Cold War. He had been developing a system to very rapidly inflate a large balloon mounted on a ballistic missile. The idea was that in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war when most communications systems had been knocked out there would be a few of these special missiles in silos here and there which could be launched. When the missile reached the top of its arc in the upper atmosphere it would deploy the balloon which had to be able to inflate in just a few seconds and carry a heavy payload of radio repeater equipment, ELF antenna, and long life batteries. The systems were supposed to provide a temporary communications link for remaining military command sheltered in their bunkers. I think that he said that they were using some sort of exotic lift gas, not helium, but I don’t remember if he said what it was. I also don’t know whether system was ever developed to a deployable point or if it remained only experimental. He said that that was still classified.

]]> By: Craig Simpson http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-38994 Craig Simpson Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:12:44 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-38994 Dan says, "Since the NT is built by the Zeppelin company, it would be hard to say that it’s NOT a zeppelin" and Hendrick seconds that. Well, I doubt that Zeppelin only makes zeppelins. Are you saying anything they make is a zeppelin? Kodak was synonymous with cameras. They now make printers. According to your logic, their printers are cameras? Additionally, to simplify the three statements Dan wrote: 1) a zeppelin is a rigid airship, 2) the NT is semi-rigid, 3) the NT is a zeppelin. There is a contradiction there. Hendrick also states zeppelins may be either rigid or semi-regid. So, Hendrick's implication is that Dan's first statement should be modified. Dan says, “Since the NT is built by the Zeppelin company, it would be hard to say that it’s NOT a zeppelin” and Hendrick seconds that. Well, I doubt that Zeppelin only makes zeppelins. Are you saying anything they make is a zeppelin?

Kodak was synonymous with cameras. They now make printers. According to your logic, their printers are cameras?

Additionally, to simplify the three statements Dan wrote: 1) a zeppelin is a rigid airship, 2) the NT is semi-rigid, 3) the NT is a zeppelin. There is a contradiction there.

Hendrick also states zeppelins may be either rigid or semi-regid. So, Hendrick’s implication is that Dan’s first statement should be modified.

]]> By: Hendrick Stoops http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-36024 Hendrick Stoops Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:35:29 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-36024 I'm not sure if the ZMC-2 was ever classified, but as you said, it was likely rigid. I’m not sure if the ZMC-2 was ever classified, but as you said, it was likely rigid.

]]> By: Hendrick Stoops http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-36023 Hendrick Stoops Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:33:06 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-36023 Actually, Dan is correct in his statement that the NT is a Zeppelin considering several facts: As said before, NT is built by the Zeppelin company thus it is a Zeppelin ( a Boeing rocket is still a Boeing even if they make planes). Also, the official designation of the craft in question is the Zeppelin NT-07. The confusion between blimps (pressure ships), rigid zeppelins, and semi-rigid zeppelins is because the name Zeppelin has become synonymous with rigid airships as well as the fact that Zeppelin never built non-full rigids before the NT. Also, ships like the R-100,R-101, and the Norge were not referred to as Zeppelins (or Zepps:) ). In case you're wondering, the ZR-1 (U.S.S. Shenandoah) ZRS-4 and ZRS-5 (U.S.S. Akron and U.S.S. Macon) had the Z (standing for Zeppelin) in their names because the Shenandoah was based heavily off a German war-era airship, And the Akron and Macon were built by Goodyear with a liaison to the Zeppelin Company (or to be proper, Luftschiff Zeppelin G.m.b.H.). The ZR-4 Los Angeles had the Z designation because it was built in Friedrichshafen by the Zeppelin Co. Actually, Dan is correct in his statement that the NT is a Zeppelin considering several facts: As said before, NT is built by the Zeppelin company thus it is a Zeppelin ( a Boeing rocket is still a Boeing even if they make planes). Also, the official designation of the craft in question is the Zeppelin NT-07. The confusion between blimps (pressure ships), rigid zeppelins, and semi-rigid zeppelins is because the name Zeppelin has become synonymous with rigid airships as well as the fact that Zeppelin never built non-full rigids before the NT. Also, ships like the R-100,R-101, and the Norge were not referred to as Zeppelins (or Zepps:) ). In case you’re wondering, the ZR-1 (U.S.S. Shenandoah) ZRS-4 and ZRS-5 (U.S.S. Akron and U.S.S. Macon) had the Z (standing for Zeppelin) in their names because the Shenandoah was based heavily off a German war-era airship, And the Akron and Macon were built by Goodyear with a liaison to the Zeppelin Company (or to be proper, Luftschiff Zeppelin G.m.b.H.). The ZR-4 Los Angeles had the Z designation because it was built in Friedrichshafen by the Zeppelin Co.

]]> By: Craig Simpson http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-34756 Craig Simpson Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:39:52 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-34756 The contradiction stands. The contradiction stands.

]]> By: Dan (Airships.net) http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-31830 Dan (Airships.net) Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:30:49 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-31830 Since the NT is built by the Zeppelin company, it would be hard to say that it's NOT a zeppelin. :-) Since the NT is built by the Zeppelin company, it would be hard to say that it’s NOT a zeppelin. :-)

]]> By: Rob Britt http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-31569 Rob Britt Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:29:36 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-31569 My father was at Lakehurst when the tragedy occurred. it is sad I didn't learn of this until after his death, so I never heard his first hand account. He was 18 at the time and I often wonder how that impacted his life decisions. He joined the Army Air Corp and later made the transition to the Air Force and retired after 30 plus years. Just from the pictures on their site, I would guess the Zeppelin company is now making semi-rigid airships rather than dirigibles? My father was at Lakehurst when the tragedy occurred. it is sad I didn’t learn of this until after his death, so I never heard his first hand account. He was 18 at the time and I often wonder how that impacted his life decisions. He joined the Army Air Corp and later made the transition to the Air Force and retired after 30 plus years.

Just from the pictures on their site, I would guess the Zeppelin company is now making semi-rigid airships rather than dirigibles?

]]> By: Craig Simpson http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-30026 Craig Simpson Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:26:57 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-30026 You write "a zeppelin is a rigid airship..." and "the modern Zeppelin (Farmers) NT ... is a semi-rigid airship" and, finally, "the so-called 'Farmers blimp' is ... a zeppelin". If a zeppelin is rigid and the Farmers ship is semi-rigid, then it's not a zeppelin according to your definition. Your third statement is, therefore, contradicts the two previous statements. You write “a zeppelin is a rigid airship…” and “the modern Zeppelin (Farmers) NT … is a semi-rigid airship” and, finally, “the so-called ‘Farmers blimp’ is … a zeppelin”.

If a zeppelin is rigid and the Farmers ship is semi-rigid, then it’s not a zeppelin according to your definition. Your third statement is, therefore, contradicts the two previous statements.

]]> By: George F. Hope http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-25029 George F. Hope Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:17:38 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-25029 Not all rigid airships need a framework. A rigid airship is an airship which can keep it's shape even if its deflated. ZMC-2 for example was rigid for its metal skin and not a frame Not all rigid airships need a framework. A rigid airship is an airship which can keep it’s shape even if its deflated. ZMC-2 for example was rigid for its metal skin and not a frame

]]> By: LuAnne http://www.airships.net/dirigible#comment-21381 LuAnne Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:39:33 +0000 http://www.airships.net/?page_id=2665#comment-21381 I'd have to agree with you. I live in point pleasant and we really only gets storms once in a while. Personally, I love the weather here. I’d have to agree with you. I live in point pleasant and we really only gets storms once in a while. Personally, I love the weather here.

]]>