I've always been fascinated by how that works. Hindenberg pretty much killed the Zeppelin industry, yet airliners crash all the time and no-one's afraid to fly. The Titanic didn't herald the end of sea travel either. What's the difference?
I'd imagine that it is at least a few factors. For one, there is a dramatically longer history of sailing and boating such that the occasional accident, even one on a massive scale, doesn't shake confidence so readily.
With respect to airplanes, I think it is again a proven volume/historical problem. Zeppelins (and blimps) have very low maximum speeds and limited capacity. As for airplane accidents, I don't think they are very frequent so much as it is just that they are generally so heavily broadcast (for good reason).
Watching the Hindenburg burn is just frightening. I think airplane crashes are far less scary because they are so fast. Financial disasters don't really seem to prevent the next bubble, but video of Chernobyl burning and an abandoned city have real impact.
The difference is that there is enough demand for airplanes/ships to overcome these events. That kind of demand doesn't seem to exist for Zeppelins, probably because they are so slow.
True. I think the event just brought about the inevitable death to an industry that wouldn't have been able to keep up as the cost effectiveness, carrying capacity and maximum distance of airplanes grew so rapidly.
For shifting medium cargo medium distances over inhospitable terrain, I wouldn't be surprised if Zeppelins were more cost-effective than helicopters. Also it might be quite a nice holiday, spending a week or two Zeppelining along some scenic coastline, like a small cruise ship 100ft up. I don't think we've seen the last of that technology.
