Slashdot Mirror
Zeppelins on Patrol?
Our Man In Redmond writes "Everything old is new again: The Seattle Post-Inteligencer is reporting that NORAD is considering deploying zeppelins along the west coast and Canadian border to keep an eye out for terrorists. Larger than jumbo jets, easier to repair/upgrade than satellites, this may be an idea whose time has come. Again."
What will happen when one of THESE flies into a building? It's an accident just waiting to happen.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
Of course, it makes me wander why NORAD fears those Far-Right and Left Canadians... I mean, you got to watch out for those enraged Maple Leaf fans. They came to my city once, and the crime rate doubled for the weekend...
Yeah, that's why...
Gee Whiz.......
Sure is gonna be tough to outrun a big balloon eh? </Canadian Accent >
Won't drug runners and terrorists just look up in the sky and decide to take another route?
And they accuse Microsoft of never innovating: this is just a straight rip off of the Crimson Skies PC game!
What is it with all these high-tech weapons? We just need about 10 h-bombs and some collective spine.
Something cool and intreseting coming from the war of terrorism! Yepee!
Zeppelins
Their airborne capabilities, extensive line of sight, and ability to spot underwater units (as with all flying units) make them an integral part of the defense network. -- wc
we all know that without them a single turtle can wreak havoc to all Juggernaught's!
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
The result of one of these flying into a building would be similar to me bouncing a marshmallow off of your forehead.
It might catch you off guard at first, then piss you off as the shock and abject fright wore off, but no real harm would come to your forehead. The fate of the marshmallow wouldn't be the same, however, and this is to be expected.
You gotta hand it to them for trying out new (old?) ideas.
High altitude balloons are hardly likely to trouble an Arab terrorist coming in on the American Airlines redeye service. Let alone the domestic terrorist who lives in Florida and mails you Anthrax.
Nope, they are useful for three things: observation, communication relay and radar. Now either someone is trying to hop on the 'terrorism' funding bandwagon, or someone is attempting to hide a technology that effect civil liberties under the same cover.
My personal guess is both. Someone has finally worked out that cruise missiles are easy to knock up and a threat to US cities - hence the need for good look down 24hour radar coverage. At the same time, an observation platform that could hover over a city, watching everyone, but not seen by anyone, has certain advantages.
Neither really does much to prevent the average terrorist - but its a nice way to sell your system.
taken out with a single shoulder-mounted missile launcher
... brought to you by Goodyear.
Are there any existing WWII era derigible hangars still around on the West coast? I know of some at Moffat air field, which is controlled by NASA, but to my knowledge, that's about it. Where the heck are we going to garage/maintain these monsters?
Actually, a better question is, who makes derigibles in volume anymore? I don't exactly see Boeing, McDonald Douglas, or Newport News fitting into the bidding process too well - to my knowledge none of their units do any work relating to lighter-than-air patrol craft. How will the public react to our getting military hardware from Graf Zepplin (yes, they still make zepplins.)
Lastly, who would control and staff these craft? The Air Force? The Navy (which controlled the derigible fleets prior to and during WWII), or the Coast Guard (who are undermanned and underfunded - WAY undermanned and WAY underfunded)?
Ok, imagine a system where you have infinate surveillance... Via cameras networked to a computer.
You want to launch an artillery shell to point X,Y... You have one gun, you just shoot it, and target destroyed.
Now imagine you want to shootdown jets... You can't be guaranteed a hit because the pilot can dodge... With balloons, you could have a shell closer to the intended target, and then the pilot has less chance to dodge...
So you have survellance and a kill system all in one. I'm sure they're not deploying a kill system with this, but its easy to understand.
God spoke to me
It's such an obvious idea to use these things for surveillance, I have to wonder why were they ever phased out? Especially for civilian use? One of those thigs would be really great for ATC uses or maritime surveillance, no?
The other thing I see talked about is to use zeppelins as cargo transport. Much, much faster than a ship but waaaay cheaper than a jet plane. Especially for heavy loads. One has to wonder how well a zeppelin loaded with a few hundred tonnes of cargo will turn anyways.
mod parent up. Very imformative
This will be of no use against any terrorist. Even if terrorists did attempt to cross the border outside of official channels (rather than use fake IDs, sailing a boat into a harbour, or simply live in the states themselves, they would be less than .1% of the total number of people trying to skip across the US-Canadian border or any other border. The rest would be boardertown locals, drug smugglers (we all know how effective the war on drugs has been, right?), and immigrants. Already, they try to and fail at stopping two of these groups from crossing the boarder, and in Mexico they even get flashy night-vision kit and a wall. It dosen't work. This won't either - more information just means you know more of what's going on. It dosen't mean you can be everywhere at once. The Zepplins will stand out of TV, however.
'easier to repair/upgrade than satellites'
Since when has this been an issue? Dubya's still obsessed with SDI, even though it's not going to stop any terrorists.
All you need now is a few supervillains and a well-meaning, but deeply troubled borderline psychopath in a batsuit and all of the West Coast's cities will officially be entered in the Gotham City look-alike contest.
(Yeah, so only about five people will get this joke, but all five of them are going to get a good laugh out of it.)
The article talks about these 'lighter than air' platforms as low-orbit satellites. Essentially they are taling about weather ballons with manual control and various sensors. Not a bad idea. I don't know about the whole 'terrorist' trip but for scientific and other obversational research these are long over due.
Why not have pseudo-permanent floating observatories with near zero fuel consumption and long term stability/low service capabilities?
These are not passenger transports, just platforms for sensors. They require much less fuel to keep them aloft compared to plane/aerofoil based solutions. Despite any expensive instruments onboard they are ultimately very expendable and cost effective. They seemingly can do the job of much more expensive satellites.
-that's it, I like.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
One of the primary advantages of Lighter Than Air Vehicles is that the surveillance packages and load outs can be changed almost on a whim. Try doing that with a satellite.
Although such vehicles are not very fast, they can be deployed very rapidly with electronics and crew that are mission specific, and can be very beneficial as remote command and information gathering/relay centers that can stay aloft for long periods of time. Not only that, but such vehicles could remain over an area for an indefinite amount of time conducting surveillance and intelligence gathering activities that satellites may not be able to do without interruption.
No one can guess what will happen next, but floating an extra set of eyes, ears and mouths up into the sky can be a very good thing.
How about not funding terrorism in Norther Ireland? That would be a good start. Cheap to implement, too...
How about not pissing off the Arabs? How about not bombing your allies? Perhaps you could stop arresting foreign nationals for doing things perfectly legally in their own countries?
Or, alternatively, stick up a great big wall around your country, to keep the "terrorists" out. Yeah, that's a great idea. Or, if you prefer, a "curtain", since you could say it hangs from these dirigibles... A curtain as strong as iron, that would be a great way to describe it... Yep, an "Iron Curtain" around the US. Sounds good to me.
-----
Cast a Cold Eye
On Life, on Death
Horseman, pass by
--W.B. Yeats' gravestone
errrr... in case you forgot this is slashdot, where all problems can and should be solved with computer / tech means.... and of course using linux and other oss technologies is a must. knowing history/current affairs is way off-topic.
truth hurts, so lets just not deal with it... now where are the lovely pix of JLo on a plane that just
you're just jealous that Canada is a better country then usa. :P
In Rotterdam (the place where I live) they used a remote controlled zeppelin to watch the crowd after a game of soccer. They where afraid for hooligans.
...probably because I'm not drugbaron or a hooligan.
It was said that the 'eye' in the zeppelin was able to record the color of an iris.
I don't it this is a bad idea to use this spy-zeppelins...
So now maybe the Rolling Stones zeppelin can watch for terrorists??
I'd be damn scared of those big ass lips too!
Question everything that you've accepted without thinking.
That's exactly what it is. I don't see how these things keep getting paid for by taxdollars. well asid from the obvious fact that people will believe anything they are told. atleast most that is. If i recall correctly popular mechanics had somthing on these things a couple years back.
They have more than enough satellites up in the sky already. All these laws they pass are just more ways to keep tabs/supress the general public.
Before it is said too many times, the Hindenburg did not explode because of hydrogen. The doping material used to seal the canvas had a chemical composition close to rocket fuel. Doesn't anyone watch Nova?
Flying slow-moving objects with narcs over a field of heavily armed cop-hating drug smugglers? You've got to be kidding me.
These things will fly at 70,000 feet.
That's well out of range of shoulder-launched SAMs, 22's, BB-guns, and everything else people on this board are suggesting.
Seriously, if the government is willing to build CHEAP aircraft to serve as really high watchtowers (since Zeppelins are not exactly combat aircraft) it is a good idea. However, knowing the government, spending just the minimum amount of money may not be much of a thought. We may be seeing multi-million dollar blimps out there. Are we going to ever have a system where the government uses money wisely or efficiently?
Twice as big as a jumbo jet and soaring twice as high, they may soon be deployed to guard Canada and the United States, scanning for intruders on the Pacific Northwest's long coastline and international border.
To guard against attacks? How is this going to prevent a determined person from putting a truck bomb in front of a federal building, or preventing someone from flying another plane into a building after coming up with yet another ingenious way of taking control of the plane.
When was the last time the US had a missile coming from across the oceans to strike them? NORAD detects just about everything airborne, so they'll know if they're under attack. However this will do nothing to stop someone sitting at the end of a busy airport with a shoulder launched SAM and take out a couple planes.
This is just another ridiculous idea to give the American people a false sense of security. Now don't get me wrong. There may be some merit in these ideas, but I just don't see them. Can someone please enlighten me?
Although NORAD wants the new high-altitude airships for radar surveillance, they could eventually hold other systems, said Thomas, the NORAD spokesman.
I guess this could be good for wireless communications... but I'm pondering the fact that they could use these zeppelins for other things, like eavesdropping, etc..
[Connection closed by foreign host]
According to the article:
Lockheed already owns veteran blimp maker Goodyear Aerospace Corp. of Akron, Ohio, and has been making airships since 1929. Lockheed now produces "Aerostats," small, remote-controlled, tethered blimps that float 15,000 feet high and are used to monitor the U.S.-Mexican border.
and
Boeing's Unmanned Systems Group and its innovative PhantomWorks research group are working on the concept
So: Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.
the gas is non flammable, and the structures pretty light. its the mass and speed that does the damage not the size. plus the secondary effect of the fuel burning is non applicable.
that's true. The paint used for the Hindenburg contained aluminium and iron oxide. The aluminium made it very shiny, which they thought looked cool, and it kept the structure cool because it absorbed very little sunlight. I'm just not sure what the iron oxide was for. Anyways, when ignited (which requires a temperature > 1000 degrees celsius, IIRC) the aluminium reduces the iron oxide to iron, and the aluminium reacts with the oxide from that reaction to aluminium oxide, releasing _huge_ amounts of heat in the process.
This is just another example of government gas-bagging.
(I need all the rotten tomatoes I can get)
....and it wasn't just that the H-filled ones had a habit of exploding. These things were horribly prone to accidents because they are all but impossible to control in high winds. Today we have wonderful doppler radar to inform us about severe storms, but there are still dangers from ordinary gusts of wind. Does anyone else remember seeing the footage of those poor fellows dangling from the mooring lines when a dirigible was swept upward by a gust when trying to land? As billboards, these do fine -- but military hardware undergoing constant use in unpredictable conditions has to be a bit more reliable. What's wrong with nice slow prop-driven aircraft and 'copters?
Make cheese not war 8:)
There is one in use by the Border Patrol on the Arizona/Mexico border. It's tied to the ground to keep it from moving but the Border Patrol officers go in the little blimp in the beginning of the day and stay up there watching for intruders, then call the California Border Patrol for assistance if needed. I'd imagine it's over 1000' in the air...
CargoLifter is agerman company building Zeppelins. The intent is to carry cargo (single pieces of hughe size) to points you can not run them by a truck to. The biggest currently build is a CL 160, and can carry 160 tons, hence its name, of cargo.
CargoLifter and Boing signed a LOI to investigate into using CargoLifters as radar and flight control stations for so called home territory security of the US.
No, I have no link on the web, but I got a letter from CargoLifter some days ago with the info(I'm a shareholder).
CargoLifters are helium driven and have a cruise speed of 100kmh, no idea about the hight as the currently planned lifters should not fly that high. In principle a CL can of course go much higher than a plane.
Regards,
angel'o'phere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Was said to have been sabotage, though nobody will say for sure. I think that hydrogen got an unfair rap as a blimp-fuel-and-filler from that incident (I'm sorry it happened on film, for that reason). Pictures make emotions.
Yes, hydrogen's flammable stuff, but it's lighter than helium and it burns cleanly, so I think blimps should still use it. Yes, there will still be sabotage and terror and all that, but there's no reason not to use hydrogen in lighter-than-air craft, except emotion. IMO.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Take a close look the the "artist concept" picture that goes with the article. :-) There's more curvature of the Earth seen here than Astronauts see out the window of an orbiting space shuttle. High altitude indeed.
It won't work everyone will think there's a football game going on under it and run to it. Oi!
Won't the terrorists notice the big shadow on the ground? Ba da bing!
How can you take a soldier seriously when he sounds like Mickey Mouse(the helium). Doh!
Some kid(ie. American) with a gun will shoot it down. *pop* fzzzzz..... Johnny's Mother: "Johnny stop shooting down those nice soldiers in the balloons they don't like that!" Hary har har!
How can it be taken seriously when everyone make jokes about it? ouch!
*tap tap* Is this thing on?
Here in Germany, we have two companies building Airships - both for different purposes. One of them is about to file for bankrupcy - just within the next couple of days. While Zeppelin seems to be doing quite well offering flights to the public and building highgly priced Zeppelin Z1, Cargolifter stopped developing their product, the C160 Airship - which was supposed to carry 160 tons of payload - just yesterday. If there is a need for a hangar in the US... there is one spare in Germany pretty soon i guess.
Here are two links to these companies and to an article about cargolifter:
Zeppelin Germany
Cargolifter Germany
Yahoo on Cargolifter
Are they armed with Robert Plant's Ultrasonic Death Wail?
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
"Zeppelins shot down by al Qaeda terrorists"
Cruise missiles are not much more than big RC airplanes with a payload. The German "buzz bombs" were a good example - a simple gyro and altimeter, a bomb, and enough fuel to make it over to London.
Think of this with commodity hardware.
The nav system is not too difficult - something to take the input and correct the course and altitude. A GPS with a COM port and a Palm Pilot makes this really easy (though mine are too clunky to actually put into anything that does not float).
Power plant - don't think jet, think rotax. Since you are not looking for FAA certification, you would be surprised what you can stuff on an airframe. VW bug engines are used in a number of homebuilt projects.
Payload. No clue, but I'm sure someone could manage.
Anyhow, it is probably a mute issue. Cruse missiles are intended to execute an attack from a "safe distance" to prevent retaliation and also obscure where you are attacking from. Way too much harpoon in college... If the terrorist keep up with there current track record, they will just have someone drive/fly the payload in person. Those cruise missiles often have another name - kamikaze.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
It seems to be working for the Gotham City police department. Everytime I watch the old Batman Animated episodes, there are the GCPD blimps on patrol. If it's good enough for Commisioner Gordon, it's good enough for me.
"Goodness, how did you people live long enough to invent tools?" -Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher)
Quite simply, it would watch for people who are crossing the boarder at non-designated boarder crossings. The boarder between Canada and the US, from what I recall, is highly unguarded, and allows for basically anyone to pass over with no real effort. Furthermore, I believe any Canadian can waltz through legitimate checkpoints whenever they want, as long as they're not carring prohibited materials.
Thus, anyone who intentionally avoids those checkpoints may be assumed to be transporting prohibited materials or prohibited people from Canada into the US. Legitimate people who wished to visit the US would cross through the boarder crossing, the 'terrorists' would skip those checkpoints, and these blimps would be better suited to spot such activity from high above for long periods of time.
This operates under the assumption that Canadian customs processes aren't secure enough for the US, and thus we need to double check their work. For example, Canadians may freely come and go to Cuba, while members of the US may not. Thus, it stands to reason, that it'd be easier for a Cuban terrorist to enter Canada, and then sneak across the boarder to the US with his vile intentions.
Of course, this does very little to stop new terrorist attacks, however the US political mindset right now seems to be 'any minor improvement should be done.' Flying blimps across the boarder decreases the chance of terrorists by a fraction of a fraction of a percent? Do it. Running around declaring people you don't like an Axis of Evil and invading them might stop the family of a suicide bomber from getting some money, go for it. I guess they thing every minor amount will eventually add up.
They would make better wireless routers for internet access, someone was going to do this with planes but surely zeppelins would be cheaper. anyway, they would make a good platform for alsorts of things - traffic cameras, transmitters, phone-base-stations, wireless networks, laser-guided missile painters, radars, and spy-cameras for the american governments new plan to track everyone in the country. leave the canadians alone, if i was the canadian government i'd put up a big wall to stop americans getting in.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
We already have a version of these things up on the US/Mexican border. However, they are tethered to the ground...which is probably how they should stay.
Why this retardation was modded up?
The article said that these things would only have a structure for supporting cargo, which, I'm guessing would be hanging about where a blimp's gondola is, so I guess the original assumption about the marshmallow might be true. (I have no idea why the author of he article kept referring to them as dirigibles...)
I'm pretty sure that if you plowed any sort of non-rigid blimp into any sort of skyscraper, the blimp would do a minimum of damage before being punctured - though if it managed to break some windows first, the occupants of the building might be running around talking in squeaky voices from inhaling al that helium, which would make for some very confused 911 operators I'm sure...
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
I think you haven't been reading about the work that the Zeppelin company has done recently with the Zeppelin NT project.
By applying modern aerospace technology to airship designs, the Zeppelin NT requires far less ground crew handling, less work load for the pilot, and the airship itself has far stronger structure to better withstand higher velocity winds.
And any ol' spark will bring it down faster than the Hindenburger.
.
The Germans were hot and heavy on Hydrogen because the Americans had cornered the market on Helium.
> Television decides for us, tells us what to think about the matter,
> and then we just shrug and go to work.
Television is not artificially intelligent. Someone is deciding what message gets delivered via television. You are deciding whether to receive the message.
Some of "us" use a few brain cycles to understand this as we choose, watch, and interpret. Others of "us" use a switch on the box. Still others of "us" use our choice of whether to have the box at all.
> I think there needs to be a citizen's veto system....
> If you, the citizen, feel as though a program is a useless shill and waste of money,
> you simply click the check box, and submit your veto.
That would be a sword with two edges. Don't you think that, for any proposal, however meritorious, someone will object? If you'd like online privacy, more honest government, or even more honest television, I think you would find that there are plenty of people who would use your "online veto" to quash your vision's chances of realization.
Alternatively, you could count up all the vetos and anti-vetos. But wait...someone already invented that system two or three centuries ago. It's called "democracy."
The trouble is, someone is always dissatisfied with the outcome. The best you can do is try to satisfy more people than you dissatisfy, and bring about a balance where people can live and work together without killing each other very often. That's an even older invention called "civilization."
(Don't forget that it's up to you to remember to turn off your TV when you leave for work; have you noticed that it only tells you to that you should stay tuned?)
...and I don't intend this as a sick joke about the fate of the Hindenburg.
I don't know why anyone hasn't considered covering the outer skin of one of these "new technology" Zeppelins in photovoltaic cells. Think about it. The engines don't need to put out much torque...they are used for steering, not lift. They could be high-efficiency electric or hybrid engines.
On sunny days, the ship could fly completely on solar-generated electricity, and on less-than-sunny days it could be charged from the ground, or surplus energy generated during earlier flights on sunny days. Fuel cells could be a third source of energy if the other two fail.
Maybe it's not 100% free energy...TANSTAAFL is still a fundamental law of nature...but it's a possibility that should be examined. At the very least it would be a "neat hack."
(Why, oh why didn't they use a different phrase to describe the newness of their aircraft...my association with NT is with the Blue Screen Of Death and crashing. Zeppelin XP? ZeppeLinux?)
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The Hindenberg was the only major zeppelin accident and it wasn't because of the hydrogen that it exploded, in fact it didn't even explode it burned and that was because the paint the skin was painted with was extremely flamable.
This is the same argument you hear all the time on a myraid of topics. "Just because it won't work in instance "X" means it's utterly useless". You'll hear the same argument about when it comes to hybrid cars, ballistic missile shields, etc.. It gets old.
As for NORAD, it is geared toward the detection of medium to high altitude threats, built primarily in response to tracking ICBMs and high altitude Soviet bombers. It is not an all-encompassing umbrella when it comes to lower altitude tracking. Zeppelin platforms can be an ideal solution for providing low cost, wide area radar survelliance at medium to low altitude, as well as coastal detection if equipped with the right hardware. Look into the Aerostat Survelliance balloons on the US Mexican boarder (I already post the link somewhere after this comment). They DO work in that capacity just fine.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
The government has the advantage of expert testimony, review processes, studies, etc. to determine the viability of any expenditure. Joe sixpack does not (yet).
If you did let society devolve to referenda on each expenditure, we would wind up with subsidzed pro wrestling pay-per-views and a two day work week.
We've got at least a century to go before the common man can be expected to make rational informed decisions on arbitrary matters.
It has got to be cheaper to have small, unmanned robot planes flying around potrolling than putting a bunch of over-paid union clowns into a big, fat blimp.
Is it really that hard to send TV signals from an unmanned robot plane to a control room in some low cost of living area?
Table-ized A.I.
there's a durigible hangar in sunnyvale, california. It's quite large, you can see it from the bay bridge, which is 15 - 20 miles away (that's a guess). It used to belong to the navy, but now it belongs to NASA.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
BORDER! BORDER! BORDER!
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Have you ever heard of that little spat called the REVOLUTIONARY WAR??
Saddly, since he's telling the truth and not agreeing with the US propaganda, he'll probably be modded down in a few minutes.
Anyone who knows anything about aviation will tell you that over any urbanized community with an airport an AWACS craft would be useless. You see, most of these airports have radar and almost all have transponder recievers (for the ADIZ).
While the radar at every small airport I know usually has a hard time tracking Cessnas and the like, a jumbo jet is another matter entirely.
As for the transponder recievers, the problem is that airplane transponders can be turned off. However, you would think that a continent-wide aircraft controller system would be in place to detect aircraft deviating from their flight plan or turning off their controller, but no....
Face it, AWACS craft were designed to be used in foreign, hostile territory where NATO doesn't have the extensive ground based radar coverage that NORAD provides over NORAD provides over North America. The only reason there are AWACS craft up there now is to reassure the public and provide a minimal amount of extra coverage over the ocean. Personally, I think that any OBL wannabes could think of a better way to attack us than building an $X billion jet fighter or cruise missile. For example, 10 guys with $10 boxcutters?
The only major zeppelin disaster was the Hindenburg, and it did not explode, it caught on fire during mooring due to static electricity (a known effect) combined with the solid rocket fuel they'd used as a paint (unknown to them).
Obviously the Hydrogen burned once it started leaking, but it was not the cause.
Furthermore, had it been helium, the bags still would have ruptured from the initial fire, and it still would have crashed, badly.
And a lot of people walked away from it anyway.
Anchored zeppelins (aerostats) are already in use in many places.
What's wrong is that a zeppelin can stay up for WEEKS on little fuel. it only needs fuel to menouver and for power, not to stay in the air. A plane needs service constantly, and a chopper even moreso.
n/t
Cuba is a peaceful carribean nation. The US is being completely hipocritical when they carry an embargo againts them but not against worst countries like China. Money rules, I guess. The only thing of interest Cuba has is cigars, whereas China offers lots of cheap labour to make your US flags.
Actually, i think it was a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder... which is the formula for Thermite..... from what the special (if it was the same one) theorized was that one of the panels became electrically separated from one of the adjacent ones and built up a large static potential form the stormy air..... same basic idea though...... a big hydrogen ballon wrapped in stuff that likes to burn REALLY hot...... and poor hydrogen got the bad rap...
-- D-23994, Muff#2613
Perosnally I like the concept, but it isn't going to make money for the shareholders anytime soon. However it can move serious loads, almost anywhere.
Yes they do. Remember all those poor LVs over Britain in World War I? Incendiary bullets = exploding zeppelins. This is one reason Germany eventually abandoned them for attacks on London. Remember, the Hindenburg was the biggie civilian disaster but there were plenty of military ones, particularly during active combat.
Make cheese not war 8:)
My comment was meant to be funny...
...and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'
What this means is anybody's guess. Personally I'd rather have an explosion than an implosion. Implosions suck.
Hanger 1 at Moffett Field, the former home of the Navy's airship Macon, is going to be turned into a museum in a few years.
The Navy had been using it as a hanger for P-3 Orion's, plus it has a few buildings inside it, including one that's around 3 stories high. At airshows they'd give hot air balloon rides inside the hanger. Lots of balloon pilots would volunteer to bring their balloons because it was the only place they could log time indoors.
One of the other two smaller former blimp hangers was used for a few weeks last week for heavy maintenance on an advertising blimp.
Yeah, I know that, and you know that... I'm trying to burn karma here, and noise up some of the zealots. It's harder than you'd think, this trolling lark. Maybe I should read up on it.
if you put a hole in a hydrogen filled bag with an internal combustion engine attached, you can bet it will deflate quickly: look at films of the deflation of the Hindenburg.
Since then, blimps by the 70's, it took about $1k of electricity . .
Anyway, before the Evil Empire ruined the fun by suddenly going out of business, the Navy was already looking at launching new ones for sub patrol. The P3 could stay on station 12 hours (16 if needed); it just followed a sub around once one was found. The blimp could be sent out for a week at a time (or more; the limit was really for the crew). But before they built these, the Soviet's forfeited . . .
Nonetheless, they'll use helium, not hydrogen.
One flaming arrow . . .
:)
hawk
This article explains all about the cause of the Hindenberg disaster.
If people realized that the hydrogen was not to blame, the airship industry would be much more economically viable today; hydrogen is a better lifting gas than helium.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I am really sick and tired of hearing people say "Hydrogen = Hindenberg = Bad!". If you dress yourself up in rocket fuel or thermite and then scuff around on shag carpet, which is basically what the Hindenberg was, you are just asking for it. Your blimp could be filled with cotton candy and you'd still go up in flames. Furthermore, it is really stupid of you to complain about the flamability of H2 while at the same time putting stuff that is by weight many times as energetic into your car. And may I point out that despite the spectacularity with which the Hindenberg blew up, nearly two thirds of the people on board survived. I would just love to see a landing airplane have its fuel vented right into open flames at 100 feet and crash into the ground and still boast that kind of survival rate.
One flaming arrow . . . .
Will what? Blow up an airship? Not likely! And these things will be running higher up than any private, commercial, and most military planes can reach. And why not 'one stick of dynamite planted on a railroad track'? Or 'one carbomb on a suspension bridge'? Or 'one heat-seeking missile outside an airport'? Name one activity that can't be made fatal by some trivial attack at just the right time and place. Get some perspective, people.
Dyolf Knip
Bush. Same difference.