At 07:23 am 04/01/2006 -0800, you wrote: >From Stephen A. Lawrence > >... > >> Hydrogen has more lift, it's cheaper, and it's easier to contain >> (molecule's roughly twice as big, doesn't slip through the pores so >> quickly). Helium's a very poor second choice, except for the >> flammability issue. >> >> OTOH hydrogen is explosive in certain circumstances, so you might be >> suspected of terrorist activities if it got around that you were making >> large amounts of it. >> > > I cast my lot with those who tend to think the > main reason helium is being chosen in this > intriguing design is due to an overly skewed > perception of the dangers that hydrogen pose. > The Hindenburg disaster still haunts our minds, > and the irony is that hydrogen's flammability > issue was the least of the problems that actually > caused so much death and destruction when the > airship finally crashed to the ground...
The thing that's always amazed me about the Hindenburg disaster is how relatively little there was of "death and destruction when the airship finally crashed to the ground." Of the 97 people on board only 35 were killed and 22 of those were crew who are paid to put their lives on the line. An 83% passenger survivability figure bear excellent comparison with statistics for modern airline crashes or the Titanic Frank
