The paper doesn't even seem to compare the costs of lifting gasses.

If the airships are completely autonomous and you don't care about a small percentage of them exploding (<0.0001%, away from population centers), then hydrogen is orders of magnitude cheaper than helium.

A fleet of these could replace truckers before autonomous trucking becomes safe enough to put on the road alongside human drivers.

If they're better than rail, you could convert freight trains to commuter or rip up the lines and reclaim the land.

Um, airplanes also burn now and then. An awful lot of airplane design is expended trying to keep them from catching fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zeDsSJmcpM&t=211s

One advantage to a hydrogen fire is it burns up and away. A kerosene fire drips and burns down onto whatever the airplane crashed on.

Yeah, a major issue is that there's a shortage of helium with the supplies being rationed so that enough of it can be conserved for medical and other essential needs. Is there going to be enough to supply these airships at a price that makes it viable?

> A fleet of these could replace truckers before autonomous trucking becomes safe enough to put on the road alongside human drivers.

They are already on the roads, especially in states with govs who are willing to be lax on regs in exchange for the jobs.

isn't one of the problems of handling airships on open fields that you need a significant ground infrastructure to moor it, tie it down/protect it in stormy/windy weather? unless the airship only operates from certain very large prepared bases and briefly drops off cargo at places, but doesn't have the capability to remain there for any longer period of time unmanned.

Mining, then.

Big machines, remote areas.