Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Flying Luxury Hotel - Aeroscraft Airship
Popular Science ^ | November 22, 2006 | Joshua Tompkins

Posted on 11/22/2006 5:32:16 PM PST by red flanker

This is not a Blimp. It's a sort of flying Queen Mary 2 that could change the way you think about air travel. It's the Aeroscraft, and when it's completed, it will ferry pampered passengers across continents and oceans as they stroll leisurely about the one-acre cabin or relax in their well-appointed staterooms. Unlike its dirigible ancestors, the Aeroscraft is not lighter than air. Its 14 million cubic feet of helium hoist only two thirds of the craft's weight. The rigid and surprisingly aerodynamic body—driven by huge rearward propellers—generates enough additional lift to keep the behemoth and its 400-ton payload aloft while cruising. During takeoff and landing, six turbofan jet engines push the ship up or ease its descent.

This two-football-fields-long concept airship is the brainchild of Igor Pasternak, whose privately-funded California firm, Worldwide Aeros Corporation, is in the early stages of developing a prototype and expects to have one completed by 2010. Pasternak says several cruise ship companies have expressed interest in the project, and for good reason: The craft would have a range of several thousand miles and, with an estimated top speed of 174 mph, could traverse the continental U.S. in about 18 hours. During the flight, passengers would peer at national landmarks just 8,000 feet below or, if they weren't captivated by the view, the cavernous interior would easily accommodate such amenities as luxury staterooms, restaurants, even a casino.

(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: aeroscraft; airship




I have seen the future and its name is Aerocraft Airships

1 posted on 11/22/2006 5:32:17 PM PST by red flanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: red flanker

A blimp by any other name.......


2 posted on 11/22/2006 5:33:46 PM PST by roaddog727 (BullS##t does not get bridges built)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

The humanity!


3 posted on 11/22/2006 5:34:41 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

Blimp!


4 posted on 11/22/2006 5:35:54 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

400 ton payload traveling at 175 mph--could there be military transport applications for this?


5 posted on 11/22/2006 5:36:28 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

It looks like something out of a cartoon...


6 posted on 11/22/2006 5:37:34 PM PST by LibFreeOrDie (L'Chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
Might be fun with a casino, although sporting clays are probably a non starter...

5.56mm

7 posted on 11/22/2006 5:38:12 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

8 posted on 11/22/2006 5:38:45 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

I would definitely save up for a trip on this. Really cool!

Provided, it's affordable to the average mutley.


9 posted on 11/22/2006 5:39:12 PM PST by mutley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
You knew someone had to post it...



Cheers,

knewshound

http://www.knewshound.blogspot.com/
10 posted on 11/22/2006 5:42:54 PM PST by knews_hound (Sarcastically blogging since 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

beat me too it !


11 posted on 11/22/2006 5:43:30 PM PST by knews_hound (Sarcastically blogging since 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

Won't everyone sound like Mickey Mouse when they talk? /sarc


12 posted on 11/22/2006 5:44:36 PM PST by Normal4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
400 ton payload traveling at 175 mph--could there be military transport applications for this?

Yep. Plus in situations where we have air supremacy, you could have one of those staying on station for extended time periods, dropping smart bombs on the heads of guerrillas below

13 posted on 11/22/2006 5:47:33 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: knews_hound

Ya gotta be quick around here! ;0)


14 posted on 11/22/2006 5:47:43 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
Nothing new here. The U.S. Navy did something like this back in the 1930s. (The project ended in disaster.)

USS Macon Flying Aircraft Carrier of the 1930s.

The USS Macon carried 50 of these Sparrow Hawk fighter bombers. The aircraft were swung out, dropped and were recovered by the same mechanism.

15 posted on 11/22/2006 5:58:24 PM PST by DJ Taylor (Once again our country is at war, and once again the Democrats have sided with our enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ Taylor

What? 50? Last I saw, it carried TWO.


16 posted on 11/22/2006 6:02:11 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: patton

Lemme check.


17 posted on 11/22/2006 6:03:08 PM PST by DJ Taylor (Once again our country is at war, and once again the Democrats have sided with our enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: patton
"The Macon carried its own protection - five sparrow hawk fighter planes stored in the aircraft's belly."

My bad. It was quite a few years ago that I read up on the Macon, and a zero crept into the figure somewhere along the line since then.

18 posted on 11/22/2006 6:10:13 PM PST by DJ Taylor (Once again our country is at war, and once again the Democrats have sided with our enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DJ Taylor
No prob - Five, I can believe.

Want do you want to bet this thing is a huge jet-set hit?

And that it allows smoking?

Oh, the hugh manatee!

19 posted on 11/22/2006 6:13:28 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
That's the ultimate MILE HIGH CLUB!!!
20 posted on 11/22/2006 6:16:31 PM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton
"Want do you want to bet this thing is a huge jet-set hit?"

I don't know how this thing can avoid the same problems that destroyed the Macon and its sister ships the Shenandoah, and the Akron. These huge airships are aerodynamically incapable of dealing with wind shear.

Can you imagine trying to land one of these things in Atlanta during a summer thunderstorm?

21 posted on 11/22/2006 6:27:54 PM PST by DJ Taylor (Once again our country is at war, and once again the Democrats have sided with our enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; rottndog
"Yep. Plus in situations where we have air supremacy, you could have one of those staying on station for extended time periods, dropping smart bombs on the heads of guerrillas below."

Sorry. Nope. Like every decade or so for the last 50 years "airships" come up as "new" ideas for military and civilian transports. The ideas never go anywhere.

Military wise they are large targets. Even with just helium as the flotation gas there are major problems with being in the largest target over, or near, a battle area.

Especially a large target that has a 0-100 time probably measured in 5 minute increments. So you are in a big, slow target in a battle zone. And they handle like slugs.. sort of like super tankers... but not as responsive.

Top that off with the fact that it will not do well in high wind areas, particularly during heavy storms. Additionally they are hard to maneuver on the ground, ever hear of the Akron and her sister ship the Macon?

The Akron and Macon had to be maneuvered on the ground with rail road locomotives. Both went down in storms (one off New Jersey, one off California) ending the Navy's idea of rigid frame airships. Several sailors died in the accidents. Several more who dropped to their deaths or were smashed around during landing/take off operations.

So you have a large target, that weighs several tons itself, is not very responsive on the controls, is hard to maneuver on the ground, and can't be put away even in a super dome... unless it is in pieces and then it takes several dozen trucks or rail cars to move it around.

So no, there is no hope for these in the military. Probably not in civilian applications either.
22 posted on 11/22/2006 6:30:21 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DJ Taylor
They avoid it by not being derigibles - no rigid structure. Bounces like a mylar baloon (which it is).

You can try to make a rigid structure, or you can decide to do without - which this thing does.

23 posted on 11/22/2006 6:32:11 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
I agree completely with your assessment of derigibles - I disagree, completely, with your assessment of lighter-than-air ships.

Technology changes.

24 posted on 11/22/2006 6:35:49 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JSteff; DJ Taylor

Actually, here is a thought - think of these things as RHIBs in the air.


25 posted on 11/22/2006 7:06:15 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

I notice one of the artist's conceptions has the (rebuilt?) Twin Towers.


26 posted on 11/22/2006 7:47:44 PM PST by JennysCool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
Huge, slow, clumsy, easy military target.

Huge, slow, clumsy, easy terrorist target - with plenty of "wow" factor.

27 posted on 11/22/2006 9:27:44 PM PST by WireAndWood (DNC: if it weren't for groupthink we'd have no think at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson