OT – Hotel that never lands could fly up to 5,000 guests for ‘Sky Cruise’

Submitted by MGoGrendel on July 1st, 2022 at 9:13 AM

Last Friday we had a small AI powered “ship” crossing the Atlantic.  Today, we take flight in a hotel.

Note that at this stage, there isn’t a physical craft in production.  All we have is a concept video of flying hotel that boasts 20 nuclear-powered engines with the capacity to carry up to 5,000 passengers.   No pilots, just AI at the helm.

Al-Ghaili has billed the aircraft as the “future of transport” and explained that conventional airlines would fly passengers to and from Sky Cruise, which would never touch the ground and have all repairs carried out in-flight. Thanks to its electric engines being powered by nuclear energy, the aircraft would never run out of fuel—though it should also be noted that the clip explained the hotel could “remain suspended in the air for several years,” indicating that at some point, it would need to land.

https://screenshot-media.com/technology/innovation/flying-hotel-cruise/

 

Sounds interesting, but IMHO the view may not be worth the cost of admission (I fly a lot for work).   

In contrast, floating hotels (cruise ships) dock and allow passengers to take in the local views while providing a plethora of destination options.  

Also, I don’t see where/how a conventional airline could “dock” at this hotel and transfer passengers.  It’s all speculation at this point…

 

huntmich

July 1st, 2022 at 11:24 AM ^

This was just a dude making a cgi idea and building some lore behind it. It isn't a concept intended to work. I'm amazed that news outlets are running with it like it is anything more than a creative art project.

saveferris

July 1st, 2022 at 9:20 AM ^

It just flies over the ocean all the time, because there is no way any country could allow an airborne nuclear reactor to violate their airspace.

Brhino

July 1st, 2022 at 9:29 AM ^

Yes.  Flint's water has met EPA standards since 2016, although trust in government institutions among residents remains understandably low.

At this point anyone asking "what about Flint's water?" is uninformed or arguing in bad faith.  Sorry if you're the former, but it comes up A LOT on the internet.

St Joe Blues

July 1st, 2022 at 9:49 AM ^

OK, but what about Benton Harbor's lead pipes (and their wood pipes that are still in use from a century ago)? This is the summer for BH. I was trying to get the county drain commission to take care of some problems that have cropped up in the creek in my backyard, and they said they can't get any contractors to do any work because they're all working in BH. Apparently the state pays more than Royalton Twp.

Funny story: BH was losing about 40% of the water that went through their treatment plant before it got to people's meters. They doubled the price of water to everyone in the St Joe Twp who was using BH water to make up the difference. It didn't take much for St. Joe Twp to switch to using water from St. Joe city.

buddhafrog

July 1st, 2022 at 11:37 AM ^

I don't live in Michigan anymore and am ignorant about the current Flint pipes

But I still stand by my point 100%. I prefer not to live in a world where Flint's pipes killed people (pre-fix) while stuff like this gets attention and funding.

And yes, I know we can both fix pipes and innovate for a better and more interesting future. That's my hope. I'm all for it.

bleens ditch

July 1st, 2022 at 10:01 AM ^

The Flint water disaster, although now resolved, serves as a metaphor for the suboptimal outcomes of resource allocation patterns in general (even if in this case the right was done).  Capital mostly flows to opportunities that create more capital for the investors. And I am not against that.

Yet that's why we need government, ideally it flows capital to resolve social needs like Flints water system.  In practice though, government officials are also tempted to flow resources to opportunities that will enrich them rather than solve issues like Flints. The fact that Flint's issue has been resolved shows that occasionally the right thing gets done. 

So I am gonna stop thinking, smoke my cigar, relax, and start my 4th.

Perkis-Size Me

July 1st, 2022 at 10:01 AM ^

If you’re not allowing me to land at destinations and take in that surrounding area, hard pass. Just sitting around in the air, to me, seems incredibly boring. 

Even if you did, it’s got to be cost prohibitive. If the freaking Star Wars hotel costs $3,000/night, I can’t imagine what this will cost right out of the gate. 

ST3

July 1st, 2022 at 12:54 PM ^

Here’s my latest dumb idea: we eliminate Mondays. All of them. A week is now 6 days. Work 4, rest 2. Instead of working 260 days a year, we work 244. Everybody hates Mondays. Just get rid of them. You could argue that Tuesday will become the new Monday, but that’s mitigated by Saturday just being 4 days away instead of 5.

This is actually a much more minor change than when the work week went from 6 days with 1 day of rest, to 5. I see some folks advocating for 4 day work weeks with 3 days off. That’s only 208 work days a year. That’s a huge change. 

TruBluMich

July 1st, 2022 at 10:32 AM ^

There has to be a reason there are no nuclear-powered aircraft, but for the life of everyone on earth, I can't imagine why. Today is International Joke Day, which might explain this idea.