Talk:Aerostat

Mergefrom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that the article captive balloon be merged with this one. Their meanings are identical. Captive balloon is the less formal term. Aerostat the more formal one. Blimpguy 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• No one appears to be too interested in the issue, but I agree with the merge. Vicarious 09:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Aerostat and moored balloon should not be merged, as moored balloon excludes all free aerostats. I also think that both aerostat and aerodyne have a place in wikipedia. Other broad categories of aircraft configurations have pages, such as fixed wing air craft, rotorcraft, etc. The pages are extremely useful as part of the link net for someone researching aircraft configurations.24.21.101.33 (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meaning

I would argue the assumption that aerostat has two meanings. An aerostat is:

• an aircraft which is supported mainly by its buoyancy in air. Balloons and airships are aerostats (Webster)
• an aircraft, especially a balloon or dirigible, deriving its lift from the buoyancy of surrounding air rather than from aerodynamic motion. (Your Dictionnary)
• any lighter-than-air aircraft, as a balloon or dirigible (Dictionary.com Unabridged).

Hence, the "narrower, technical meaning" of moored balloon is erroneous, or at best a misguided usage of the word.

Moored ballons are, indeed , aerostats, but aerostats can by no means be reduced to moored balloons...

vonZep 16:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The narrow meaning is certainly not erroneous, just different from the more common usage. For example, see the products page of one of the premier LTA envelope manufacturers that clearly uses the narrower meaning. That said, I agree that the narrower/technical use of the term is probably more confusing than helpful and not thus appropriate for the general audience of Wikipedia. It probably makes more sense to have the one article named "moored balloon" (FAA terminology) or "captive balloon" (old fashioned terminology) or "tethered balloon" (yet another term) for the narrower meaning and have the "aerostat" article span the broader meaning. Blimpguy 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While Mr. Webster is a very smart guy his knowledge of Aerostats is probably a bit lacking because while all Aerostats are balloons and airships, not all airships are balloons.

The second is incorrect, there is no "buoyancy" in surrounding air, the buoyancy is from the lighter than air gas in the envelope as your first example states.

(unsigned) comment by Mcgyver2k untangled from previous ones.

All three of those bulleted definitions mean exactly the same thing, which has been the conventional meaning for well over a century. The second meaning referred to is the recent narrow use of the "stat" bit to indicate static mooring in contrast to a free-flying airship, e.g. as used by the US General Accounting Office, but it is very much a minority usage by those who are not technically knowledgeable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sci-fi

I find the claim that aerostats are commonly used in sci-fi unsubstantiated as there are NO links to ANY sci-fi movies or books where such use of aerostats has been shown or mentioned as described in this article! So, I would suggest adding at least 2-3 links to different sci-fi works to give an absolute minimum evidence of "common use" in sci-fi. I am not a sci-fi specialist, though quite fond of it, and I cannot instantly recall any aerostats being used in sci-fi, although I might be following a different kind of sci-fi...

What about the Tibanna Gas refineries in Star Wars? 76.126.215.52 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Try book 'Orion Shall Rise', entry in wiki. A great read and speaks somewhat to current culture. --24.63.212.66 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I am wondering whether there should be a WP article for either aerostat or aerodyne. Both can be covered by a Wiktionary entry. The specific types of each should have separate articles. Dhaluza 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of "blimp"

Please see the article on the blimp, which says that there never was a "balloon-limp" classification, but rather:

The term "blimp" is reportedly onomatopoeic, the sound the airship makes when one taps the envelope (balloon) with a finger. Although there is some disagreement among historians, credit for coining the term is usually given to Lt. A.D. Conningham of the British Royal Navy in 1915.

Turn into a disambiguation page

As with aerodyne the page should be turned into a disambiguation page. The content can be moved to the related articles lighter than air, lifting gas, airship, balloon etc. Inwind (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Super-high-altitiude aerostats

I recall reading a paper describing super-high-altitude (100k feet) semi-rigid airships. The key to the design was that there is very little wind above the troposphere, and at these altitudes a balloon can keep itself on station with ease. They proposed using these as very large recce platforms.

I recalled the name being "aerostat", but this seems wrong. They are a subclass of aerostat, that is true. However I suspect they had some more official name. Is this ringing any bells?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's a bit of a reach, since it isn't a semi-rigid airship but rather a free-floating balloon, but you may be remembering the name "Aerostar", the LTA division of Raven Industries. They manufactured the Super-Pressure Balloon, which rose to 111,000 feet over Antarctica earlier this year. It remains aloft as I type this. Ericthefred (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly along the same lines, but not the precise idea. I see that the SHARP article compares that platform with aerostats, but perhaps I am confusing what they were trying to do and the Raven-like platform is what they were referring to. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggest removing trivia item.

The comment "One of the most recent deployments of an aerostat was seen at the opening ceremony of the nineteenth 2010 Commonwealth Games, held in Delhi, India." is trivia, or at best a promotional reference. Certainly by now it is out of date, because more recent deployments of aerostats have been seen at many major sporting events since this event, every time an advertising blimp such as those operated by Goodyear overflew them. Ericthefred (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, veiled, unabashed attempt at promotion (possibly).Mcgyver2k (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree too! Few sections of this article lack references esp. the sub-section Helikites seems a bit biased. Addition of more and proper inline citations might even out the things. Also, the statement “The aerostat used in the ceremony was the largest in the world…” in the introduction paragraph as well lacks proper citation from a reliable source. Trixie05 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Is an aerostat a VTOL aircraft?

Hi, I have started a discussion at Talk:VTOL#Classification of VTOL aircraft. Please reply there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does "aerosat" redirect here?

It doesn't seem relevant. I think an aerosat (not -stat) is a kind of satellite. Equinox (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Because, Aerosat isn't actually a word. Unless of course you consider the "Collins English dictionary" a more reputable source than Websters. Aerosat IS however a brand name of a VSAT which is a satellite communications terminal, not a satellite.—  VoiceOfreasonVoiceOfreason   02:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs)

Well I'm not going to get into some "my dictionary is better than yours" argument. Do you think the redirect is appropriate, though? Equinox (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

An aerosat is an aeronautical satellite.[1] Flight first noted the term in 1968.[2] They are used for communications. AeroSat is/was a company who make/operate the kit involved, including both satellites and VSAT terminals; nowadays it is a subsidiary of Astronics Corp. As yet, none of these usages has an article on Wikipedia. So for now I have redirected Aerosat to Communications satellite. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that the term has long since been abandoned for the generic term "satellite" as the aeronautical portion would be kind of redundant. I would also suggest that the redirect was due to suspicion of a misspelling by the users and wanting to direct the person to the proper area. Using a source that's over 40 years old as a reason to redirect would seem fairly presumptuous in my humble opinion. To each their own though.—  VoiceOfreasonVoiceOfreason   20:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs)

Go do your own research then, you are clearly not going to believe me. Oh, and while you are googling around, do tell the guys at Astronics AeroSat that they have not been in business after all, these last 40 years and more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about whether I "believe" you or not, just that the current use of the term "Aerosat" is an ambiguous term and is actually a brand name, not an actual "thing". i.e. there is no such animal as an "Aeronautical Satellite" but there are Aeronautical Satellite communication systems. Additionally, the company "Aerosat" sells terminals that communicate with satellites, not satellites themselves. Just FYI.—  VoiceOfreasonVoiceOfreason   16:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs)

Buoyancy control

There should be a brief explanation of the methods of buoyancy control. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)