Hydrogen instead of helium is clearly the elephant in the room.
Helium is expensive, limited, and not easily produced, whereas hydrogen is readily available almost anywhere, has no quantitative limits, and provides far superior lift than helium. Of course, hydrogen is extremely flammable and explosive. If there was a way to minimize or completely mitigate this problem then airships would certainly become more viable than they currently are. The article mentions the use of fire-retardant materials as part of its covering. Perhaps this in combination with tens of thousands of isolated gas "sacs" and an outer helium buffer (To isolate the hydrogen from external heat sources, laser-based weapons, static electricity, etc.) could make hydrogen a viable choice?
Helium is expensive, limited, and not easily produced, whereas hydrogen is readily available almost anywhere, has no quantitative limits, and provides far superior lift than helium. Of course, hydrogen is extremely flammable and explosive. If there was a way to minimize or completely mitigate this problem then airships would certainly become more viable than they currently are. The article mentions the use of fire-retardant materials as part of its covering. Perhaps this in combination with tens of thousands of isolated gas "sacs" and an outer helium buffer (To isolate the hydrogen from external heat sources, laser-based weapons, static electricity, etc.) could make hydrogen a viable choice?