Floating Cruise Ship

[Mr. Anderson]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/02/16/aeroscraft/index.html

Looks really cool and I think I'd go on one - but I'd always wonder about what they'd use for "life boats" :D

D

[Blue Velvet]

...but I'd always wonder about what they'd use for "life boats" :D



Women and children first... :eek:


http://www.sanfranciscoskydiving.com/images/pic13_large.jpg

[cslewis]

That doesn't look too safe to me. I think i'll pass.

Besides, wouldn't it probably be awfully expensive to book a room? Helium doesn't come cheap, and even the super cruise ships of today don't have '1-acre cabins'.

[PlaceofDis]

it'll be awhile before something like thats trickles down to the masses, but looks like it has poetential.

[jsw]

it'll be awhile before something like thats trickles down to the masses.
It shouldn't take more than a few minutes once it explodes.... ;)

Seriously, though? Way cool. Cooler than I thought when I saw the "Floating Cruise Ship" title... I thought "don't they all?"
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.
I think membership in the Mile High Club would grow significantly.

[Applespider]

Seriously, though? Way cool. Cooler than I thought when I saw the "Floating Cruise Ship" title... I thought "don't they all?"

:p Me too!

I guess it would be parachutes rather than lifeboats. I think it's an interesting idea but I'm assuming that it's going to stop off places en route like a cruise ship would do - since those who just want to go somewhere else will still use a plane.

[jsw]

...since those who just want to go somewhere else will still use a plane.
If this idea ever made it off the ground, as it were, I'd think that the ability to stroll through an acre-sized cabin would outweigh the extra time.

I could see this being a big hit with people with children, should the prices ever come down.

[andiwm2003]

Women and children first... :eek:


http://www.sanfranciscoskydiving.com/images/pic13_large.jpg

uh, are you supposed to jump off the ship head first? or was that taken in Australia an I have to rotate it?:p

but for the cruise ship:
i can see a huge application in business. you can have a extended comfortable business meeting on the way from london to san francisco. when you arrive in SF you're there to sign the contracts. normally you would lose the time and arrive dead tired.

imagine international conferences on the way from peking to new york with a stop over in paris.

there will certainly be gambling casinos and similar services available.

of course it will be a high end luxury thing for the next time being.

[Mr. Anderson]

Found a better image

http://http://www.federalpost.ru/issue.img/21249_Untitled1.jpg

It does look quite cool - the main thing, though, will be price - but imagine going over the Grand Canyon at 8000 ft? Talk about a view :D

D

[jsw]

Found a better image

http://http://www.federalpost.ru/issue.img/21249_Untitled1.jpgNot loading for me....

[Thanatoast]

Actually, I think I read that it's supposed to be cheaper than flying by jet. Remember, they're comparing it to a cruise ship. $200 for a 3-hour flight vs. $600 for a 3-day cruise.

I would gladly take this over a regular jet flight. LA to NY in 18 hours? Why not if I can walk around, get lunch and dinner, spend some time at the casino or in the bar? I'm not seeing much of a downside.

[IJ Reilly]

It does look quite cool - the main thing, though, will be price - but imagine going over the Grand Canyon at 8000 ft? Talk about a view :D

Especially since the elevation of the north rim of the canyon is 7,000 - 8,000 feet... actually, the minimum altitude for flying over the Grand Canyon is 10,500 feet in limited corridors and 14,500 feet over most of it.

I presume they're talking about an 8,000 foot cruising altitude for this craft because that's about the maximum for flying without either pressurizing the cabin or providing oxygen for passengers. And how do you cross the Rocky Mountains at 8,000 feet? Basically, you don't. But I'm sure they've thought about all of that...

[Blue Velvet]

I guess it would be parachutes rather than lifeboats.

Or hordes of these guys coming to everyone's rescue.

http://www.coolcinematrash.com/images/movies/FlashGordon/29.JPG



Gordon's alive?! :D

[cslewis]

Like I said, helium doesn't come cheap.

Why don't they just use hydrogen?

http://www.nlhs.com/images/hindenburg/big_hindenburg_explodes_over_lakehurst.jpg

That way they can run their fuel cells too. :D

Look at that rocket propulsion!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Seriously, though? Way cool. Cooler than I thought when I saw the "Floating Cruise Ship" title... I thought "don't they all?"

This was my first thoughts too.

All in all I like the concept.

But this is not the first time the idea was "floated" (sorry had to say it :D ). I remember a proposal for something similar, but using DC-9's to ferry passengers to the airship.

[watcher2001]

Seriously, though? Way cool. Cooler than I thought when I saw the "Floating Cruise Ship" title... I thought "don't they all?"

My first thought was "As opposed to 'Sinking' ones???"

[Macaddicttt]

I had the idea for this a long time ago. I mean, I didn't have it all fleshed out like this, but I always said that Zeppelins (or probably more properly, rigid airships) could make a comeback. I guess I should have got started on it awhile ago...:rolleyes:

[Abstract]

Wow, what an easy terrorist target. May as well put a target right on the helium filled "balloon".

Better yet, get a company like Target to sponsor the trip and put their big logo on it.

[andiwm2003]

I had the idea for this a long time ago. I mean, I didn't have it all fleshed out like this, but I always said that Zeppelins (or probably more properly, rigid airships) could make a comeback. I guess I should have got started on it awhile ago...:rolleyes:


there was a german company called cargolifter. they wanted to build Zeppelins for e.g. for heavy lifting in construction. They built a huge manufactoring building to make the Zeppelins. Due to low interest in Zeppelins they went broke right away (after burning a few hundred million EUROs).

They huge building was converted into a tropical fun park. That went almost broke and is under new management now.

So it seems the idea of bringing back large Zeppelins is quite old. Nobody could make it profitable yet. And with the banrupty of a company trying this it will be hard to get investors on board in the future.

[whocares]

Hmmmmmmm... 18 hours in a comfy hotel or 3 hours in an uncomfortable plane?


Think I'll go for quick and uncomfortable, I spend the extra 15hours doing something interesting. ;)


Cool concept though.

[MentalFabric]

though i doubt i'll ever get on one of these things if the idea even takes off, i love wacky flying machines like this. keep 'em coming :D

[angelneo]

Why do I keep on envisioning this craft travelling in space? Looks way too cool.

[watcher2001]

Hmmmmmmm... 18 hours in a comfy hotel or 3 hours in an uncomfortable plane?


Think I'll go for quick and uncomfortable, I spend the extra 15hours doing something interesting. ;)


Cool concept though.

That is the whole problem with the world today.. Everyone is in such a hurry. I travel quite a bit for work and I am used to cramped uncomfortable cross country flights. For vacation one year we took a train from Illinois to California. It took two days but it added a whole new meaning to the phrase "Getting there is half the fun"

[cslewis]

I think these have the potential to be really cool. Imagine, you'll be able to sleep in a full-size bed, walk around, and eat at a regular table! I wouldn't mind paying a lot more for that kind of luxury.

[thejadedmonkey]

That is the whole problem with the world today.. Everyone is in such a hurry. I travel quite a bit for work and I am used to cramped uncomfortable cross country flights. For vacation one year we took a train from Illinois to California. It took two days but it added a whole new meaning to the phrase "Getting there is half the fun"
[We [my family and myself] used to go to florida every year. We were there for a week, and frankly it was boring since we were with my grandparents the whole time. The we took a train there...and 2 days each way in a train was so much fun...if this blimp ever happens, SIGN ME UP!

[Xtremehkr]

This would be cool, in a relaxing kind of way. If it were a cheaper alternative to conventional flying, I would take it.

[whocares]

That is the whole problem with the world today.. Everyone is in such a hurry. I travel quite a bit for work and I am used to cramped uncomfortable cross country flights. For vacation one year we took a train from Illinois to California. It took two days but it added a whole new meaning to the phrase "Getting there is half the fun"

I get your point and (partly) agree:
* if it's for business, you want to get it over ASAP;
* are you travelling for the travel or the destination? I personnaly hate travelling, but enjoy the destination much more (being in a "boat" with fellow travellers from my country does not appeal to me one bit - but that's just me)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Keep in mind the 18 hour trip coast to coast. I can see this departing DC at 7PM. Settle in for dinner at 8PM or 9PM. Do a show or some gambling till mid-night. Wake up after a good eight hours sleep. By the time you shower and pack, you have only four hours till you land in SF at 10AM their time. Ready to start your day.

If the cost is even near traditional jet flight, meaning something like $1200 R/T (unrestricted fares), I think that it would be well worth the comfort.

[MacFan782040]

Keep in mind the 18 hour trip coast to coast. I can see this departing DC at 7PM. Settle in for dinner at 8PM or 9PM. Do a show or some gambling till mid-night. Wake up after a good eight hours sleep. By the time you shower and pack, you have only four hours till you land in SF at 10AM their time. Ready to start your day.

If the cost is even near traditional jet flight, meaning something like $1200 R/T (unrestricted fares), I think that it would be well worth the comfort.

Good point. I'd still be scared the first few years it flies though.

[Abstract]

The vehicle just gets me from Point A to Point B. The actual travelling part of my trip is NOT my trip. I don't fly to Thailand because I want to be on the airplane. That's not even 5% of the reason I travel, let alone 100% If I could get to Point B in a microsecond, I would. I'm interested in the destination, plain and simple, whether it's a vacation or a "business" related trip.

[WildCowboy]

The vehicle just gets me from Point A to Point B. The actual travelling part of my trip is NOT my trip. I don't fly to Thailand because I want to be on the airplane. That's not even 5% of the reason I travel, let alone 100% If I could get to Point B in a microsecond, I would. I'm interested in the destination, plain and simple, whether it's a vacation or a "business" related trip.

Right, but there's something to be said for the trade-off between comfort, speed and price. If all that matters to you is speed, you'd gladly travel in a coffin (with an oxygen tank, of course...or at least a couple of holes punched in the top) if you could get from LA to NY in three hours. I'd rather take the comfort upgrade and spend six hours on an airplane. Some people sacrifice a bit more on the price end to upgrade to business or first class and increase the comfort level. This "cruise ship" is an extension of that...people will sacrifice the speed in order to increase the comfort level even more. It still doesn't have to be the focus of the trip, but in most cases, given equal prices, I would take a luxurious 18-hour cruise-ship experience over a 6-hour cattle-car 747 experience.

It has nothing to do with being the "reason" for your trip (though for some people it may be)...it's about your quality of life getting to your destination.

[iBlue]

The vehicle just gets me from Point A to Point B. The actual travelling part of my trip is NOT my trip. I don't fly to Thailand because I want to be on the airplane. That's not even 5% of the reason I travel, let alone 100% If I could get to Point B in a microsecond, I would. I'm interested in the destination, plain and simple, whether it's a vacation or a "business" related trip.

oh come on... you know it's "not the destination, it's the journey" :D ...

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/1844/footbridge4yv.jpg


it's nice to be comfortable when en route but that bling-bling blimpy thing is a bit much. interesting idea though.

Blue Velvet's "women and children first" made me do a real "LOL"

[IJ Reilly]

Keep in mind the 18 hour trip coast to coast. I can see this departing DC at 7PM. Settle in for dinner at 8PM or 9PM. Do a show or some gambling till mid-night. Wake up after a good eight hours sleep. By the time you shower and pack, you have only four hours till you land in SF at 10AM their time. Ready to start your day.

If the cost is even near traditional jet flight, meaning something like $1200 R/T (unrestricted fares), I think that it would be well worth the comfort.

Don't expect to do any gambling within U.S. airspace. Hope that doesn't put too much of a crimp in your plans. ;)

I'd still like to see their plan for crossing the Rocky Mountains at 8,000 feet (without getting snagged on a mountain, that is).

[Les Kern]

In 1967 Popular Mechanics said I'd have a flying car in my garage.
I just looked....
Just a John Deere mower.

Where the HELL is my flying car?

[WildCowboy]

Just for fun, I did the math on cabin sizes comparing an Airbus A319 (which carries 124 passengers) to this floating cruise ship (which carries 120 passengers).

The A319 cabin is 78 x 13 feet (I know the width isn't constant, but this is the max, so let's estimate), or 1014 square feet, or just over 8 square feet per passenger.

The Aeroscraft cabin is 125 x 82 feet, or 10,250 square feet, or about 85 square feet per passenger.

So you get about ten times the space you're used to getting on an airplane. I know it's a very rough estimate, but it's something to think about...

[jsw]

In 1967 Popular Mechanics said I'd have a flying car in my garage.
I just looked....
Just a John Deere mower.

Where the HELL is my flying car?
You moved into the wrong place.

Try John Travolta's house (http://www.sptimes.net/2002/07/22/State/Landing_the_jet_set.shtml). ;)

[Zeke]

People keep mentioning the price of Helium...they're not going to vent it each time they land. That Helium is designed to stay in the ship for its entire lifetime. It's designed to require propulsion to fly so landing will just require lowering speed. Helium is considerably cheaper than the aluminum(or whatever it is they've constructed this out of).

[whocares]

I'd rather take the comfort upgrade and spend six hours on an airplane. Some people sacrifice a bit more on the price end to upgrade to business or first class and increase the comfort level.

They're trading comfort for money, not time. ;)

[Applespider]

They're trading comfort for money, not time. ;)

Until someone figures out that they can fit far more seats in there just like the new Airbus and 747s of the past where the idea was to give passengers more room until economics kicked in.

[WildCowboy]

They're trading comfort for money, not time. ;)
Of course. But it's a balance of all three factors. Different factors will carry different weights for different people. All I'm saying is that a lot of people really hate to fly in the cattle car they call coach on an airplane...the comfort level is too low for them. There are two ways out of that: One way is to give some on the price end to upgrade to business or first class. The second is to give some on the speed end in return for a more comfortable trip. Currently, trains and ocean liners are options here, but the amount of speed you have to sacrifice is often too much. This new floating airship greatly reduces the amount of speed you have to sacrifice while maintaining much of the comfort increase.

My argument was simply that there are multiple factors...speed is not the only one. As Abstract said, if he could get to Thailand in a microsecond, he would. And I would agree with that. But how much would you give up on the price and comfort ends to get that quick travel time (if it were possible)? You can only give so much on the price end...cash is not infinite. So if you don't have enough cash (or do, but don't want to spend it) then you start giving on the comfort end. Would I travel in a coffin if I could get to Thailand in a microsecond? Of course...the speed is so high that I wouldn't notice the discomfort. But what if traveling in a coffin only saved you half the time? Nine hours in a coffin for me...I don't think so. Eighteen hours in coach class on an airplane...that I could deal with, but it's not fun. Fifty-four hours on an airship...if I wasn't constrained by time, it would certainly be an enticing option.

Okay, I've certainly said too much now. Back to your regularly-scheduled programming.

[WildCowboy]

Until someone figures out that they can fit far more seats in there just like the new Airbus and 747s of the past where the idea was to give passengers more room until economics kicked in.

Fortunately, the load capacity is only 28,000 lbs., so you can't really pack in any more people, or it won't float.

[whocares]

Of course. But it's a balance of all three factors. Different factors will carry different weights for different people. All I'm saying is that a lot of people really hate to fly in the cattle car they call coach on an airplane...the comfort level is too low for them. There are two ways out of that: One way is to give some on the price end to upgrade to business or first class. The second is to give some on the speed end in return for a more comfortable trip. Currently, trains and ocean liners are options here, but the amount of speed you have to sacrifice is often too much. This new floating airship greatly reduces the amount of speed you have to sacrifice while maintaining much of the comfort increase.


I get your point. I hate cattle-class and wish I were wealthy enough to afford a business-class upgrade. But I'd still settle for cattle-class if it takes ½-⅓ of the time...

I mostly travel by train in Europe. It betters air-planes in comfort and time. Low cost companies can be cheaper, but you just can beat London Waterloo-Paris Gare du Nord in 2.5 hours flat. The Eurostar and TGV *rule*. :D :D