Slashdot Mirror
Weather Balloons & Wireless
mansa writes "Over at CNN they have an article about a company that wants to expand wireless coverge with weather balloons! I hope it's not just a bunch of hot air! "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
been posted a few months ago?
"I hope it's not just a bunch or hot air!"
Damn there goes my +5 funny.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
between wireless connectivity and UFO sightings.
At least the name 'Airtouch' would make sense now. What the hell is a Verizon?
- Peter
But Space Data says its plan to create America's first floating wireless network -- by putting disposable transmitters on government weather balloons.
Hick Farmer: "I just saw an UFO! It went over yonder trees!"
[Bright Flash]
Agent K: That was not a UFO you saw...it was a Government Weather Balloon designed to provide you with low cost, speedy, nationwide wireless access.
i heard recently about a ultra-high-altitude remote control solar plane that's essentially one big wing- one of the uses being broadband/wireless internet access- which sounds to me to be a more viable solution than baloons that drift with wind currents.
Is that really close enough to provide a decent signal? And more importantly (too me, anyway) is there anyway this could be rigged up to provide wireless internet access, 802.11b or otherwise?
The article also says that 70 balloons are released every two days. I have wonder if 70 balloons is really going to cover all of America like they hope it will.
Every time I read one of these pie in the sky (or balloon in this case) stories, I can't believe the reporter didn't ask what I'd think would be the basic question: What is all this junk going to end up?
We've had environmentalist complaints about PCs and all the toxic components they possess. Now some not-yet-defunct VC is pushing disposal cell sites and nobody's curious? What about when a 747 sucks one of these floating cell sites into an engine? And they complain about use of personal electronics on the plane...
Heck, in high school we were told we couldn't launch balloon projects anymore (you know, where you'd put a note on it and ask the finder to call you and let you know where it ended up at) because the environmentalists said some sea critters mistook the deflated balloons for fish, ate them and choked to death.
So where's the uproar from the ELF/ALF folks?
*scoove*
... because now when the Superbowl or World Series is in town, Telephone companies can put these things up to help maintain reasonable wireless service. Maybe these could have even helped avoid the cell phone blockouts in NYC on 9/11
I hope that some of the $300 accounts for a littering fine.
As opposed to all of those *wired* balloons floating around out there, entangling birds and electrocuting poor innocent workers during lightning storms.
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
-eption re-ly -n't that impor-t. -mean, who -ation. An- -o needs that so-t of pre-ure -nyway? -ad idea a- -e way.
My experience with one of these "Wheather Ballons" was that the balloon fell to the ground and aliens scaned my network via their wifi connection. They then probed some of my folders, often reaching a level of 12 folders deep. This was considered research, and they thanked me for my cooperation.
Of course, everyone I tell doesn't believe me.
"Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
Clearly using free-floating weather balloons has a number of limitations and disadvantages.
Now we know that NASA has great plans for its solar-powered airplane -- including acting as a semi-permanent flying repeater-station, but I wonder if smaller, cheaper options might not be available.
For example... what about a much smaller (say 20-30 foot span) autonomous craft designed to soar thermals during the day (while charging its batteries and gaining as much altitude as it can) -- then revert to battery power and/or gradually descend during the hours of darkness.
If the energy required to keep these craft airborn in the longer nights of winter was greater than that availble to be stored during the day then they could carry a fuel-load to power a high-efficiency internal combustion engine (probably a very small diesel engine). Every week or so the craft would have to land for refueling and maintenance -- but that's not a big deal.
Just like the US military's Predator RPV, they could be programmed to land on a runway set aside specially for the purpose.
The cost of a smaller craft, particularly one that wasn't totally reliant on solar-cells, would likely be much less than NASA's efforts -- thus allowing more of them to be built for a given budget.
By using more craft, they could cruise at a much lower altititude than either the weather balloon or the NASA craft.
Using modern composites, low cost GPS, and other "affordable" technologies, such a craft could likely be built for less than US$10K.
Assuming a 50% duty cycle, a fleet of 10 craft could cover a huge area at a much lower cost than towers, and with the ability to dynamically vary the coverage area if required -- simply by repositioning the craft.
The article states that the balloons were launched day in, day out. What about the poor weather days where the wind is gusty and fast? Does the cell coverage on those days get lost?
Over the summer (in the southern hemisphere), I worked to help launch ozone measuring balloons, (same idea, more equipment), and we launched them only in fairly calm conditions. A balloon full of hydrogen is a fairly scary prospect when it's getting blown around. Does this also mean a commercial company will be putting extra pressure on the NWS to launch in potentially unsafe conditions? Scary thought!
This is just great! I was wondering how I was going to get the equipment for my own wireless network!
i would love to rate the submission as 'funny' - maybe we should start rating submissions.
A friend of mine who does some work for NASA was describing another wacky concept he heard about to expand wireless coverage. The idea is that enough commercial planes are in the air at any moment, and are spaced evenly enough, to provide coverage for much of the country. Certainly major cities would be well covered. And the nice thing is that busy travel times coincide with peak calling hours.
So, how did you get that antenna up there?
.... umm... a weeeth..er balloon, yeah, a weather baloon.
It's a
(Hey, it worked once before.)
Have you read my journal today?
...using free-floating weather balloons has a number of limitations and disadvantages.
Now we know that NASA has great plans for its solar-powered airplane -- including acting as a semi-permanent flying repeater-station, but I wonder if smaller, cheaper options might not be available.
For example... what about a much smaller (say 20-30 foot span) autonomous craft designed to soar thermals during the day (while charging its batteries and gaining as much altitude as it can) -- then revert to battery power and/or gradually descend during the hours of darkness.
If the energy required to keep these craft airborn in the longer nights of winter was greater than that availble to be stored during the day then they could carry a fuel-load to power a high-efficiency internal combustion engine (probably a very small diesel engine). Every week or so the craft would have to land for refueling and maintenance -- but that's not a big deal.
Just like the US military's Predator RPV, they could be programmed to land on a runway set aside specially for the purpose.
The cost of a smaller craft, particularly one that wasn't totally reliant on solar-cells, would likely be much less than NASA's efforts -- thus allowing more of them to be built for a given budget.
By using more craft, they could cruise at a much lower altititude than either the weather balloon or the NASA craft.
Using modern composites, low cost GPS, and other "affordable" technologies, such a craft could likely be built for less than US$10K.
Assuming a 50% duty cycle, a fleet of 10 craft could cover a huge area at a much lower cost than towers, and with the ability to dynamically vary the coverage area if required -- simply by repositioning the craft.
The concept of putting transmitters in the sky isn't new. Iridium has been doing worldwide telephone coverage by using satellites for years. The whole weather balloon receiver thing, while it's an interesting concept, sounds like it would be error prone (the coverage would be inconsistant due to weather balloons going up or down) and costly (To quote the article: "The company estimates its annual operating expenses at $35 million per year. About half of that would go toward equipment: $300 worth for each of the 50,000 or so balloons that would be launched over the course of a year.").
-Valen
You do not have a future as a comedian. Don't quit your day job.
Er, wait...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What is really cheaper?
Sending up weather balloons to cover large rural areas rather than putting up towers?
To answer this question, we have to look deeply into the psychie of the average rural-area yokel. Does he prefer shooting up towers with buckshot or shooting down balloons with a high-caliber rifle. Which is more economic for the redneck? Will ammunition sales at WalMart effect this decision.
Is it cheaper for the phone companies to patch holes in balloons or replate a tower.
I didn't see any mention of this in their story. One can only hope that they took this into account.
I hope it's not just a bunch of hot air!
:-)
Most weather balloons actually use Helium. The volume of He in the balloon expands with increased altitude which results in cooling of the gas... No "hot air" in this one as temperatures can drop to minus 125 degrees Celsius in polar mesospheric clouds that form over the summertime polar caps. However, most WX balloons don't get much higher than the stratosphere.
Yes, I realise it was pun... just thought I throw in some factoids.
Where's the photos of Britney Spears?
OH, THAT kind of balloons. Sorry, my mistake.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
...here on Slashdot.
;)
Note: I'm posting this comment again so that the user that moderated my previous comment as "Redundant" will be right in a time-reversed parallel universe.
100,000 feet / 186,000 ft/sec = 0.53 * 2 = 1.075 second round trip. Quake would definitely suck. It would be annoying to have an extra second built into every link you click on, but that would probably be livable.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
We are talking about just a few dozon baloons. It dosn't matter where they end up.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Actually not quite...
The balloon flights actually only last about two hours and then the balloons break. In fact the balloon flights in question are done world wide at 0000 and 1200 UCT (Used to be GMT). They record temperature, humidty, air pressure and by triangulating from the ground tracking antenna you can calculate upper level winds.
I'm actually being generous with the length of flight. The time of year has a lot to do with the length of flight. The calculated height of the flight is related very much to the air pressure and for a flight to be valid it generally must be below 100 millibars. (The higher the balloon the lower the millibar reading). A flight reaching 3 millibars is around 120,000 ft. Summer flights usually have balloon bursts below 15 millibars. In winter early bursts, above 100 millibars, can require a second release, provided it happens within a given time window. The weather instrument package is called a radiosonde. Two types of upper air balloon a generally used for launching off the surface. For calmer winds a soft cheap latex balloon called a Kaysam is used and for adverse wind conditions or launch from a ship at sea a severe weather balloon called a Totex is used. (Totex is more rugged and more expensive)
They say they plan to hitch a ride on the existing balloons. The short duration is going to be a problem. The balloons expand as they rise and then go BOOM
I worked as an Aerological Observer for Environment Canada at a variety of Arctic Weather stations for about six years sending these suckers up there! There are long duration high altitude balloons out there, but the upper air program the article refers to doesn't use them, and the balloon shown in the photograph is of the variety to quickly put a few "holes" in the flight duration claim!
Watch the investor's money go BOOM!
Hemos didn't make the joke. The person who submitted the artical did.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Using 3x10^8 m/s for speed of light, I make it 0.1 ms = 100 usec one-way to the balloon, i.e. 0.2 ms for ground-to-ground via the balloon. So the wireless part will be fine as far as Quake is concerned - it's just the other parts of the trip that may add latency.
In practice, latency may be much worse than this - look at GPRS, where latencies are many hundreds of milliseconds (often half a second) even though the wireless distances are much shorter. Wireless links use a lot of extra error correction and in the case of GSM/GPRS, packets are sometimes split into much smaller frames that are then interleaved with other frames - this is because GSM is voice-centric and this works well for voice. Not sure if GPRS has a better coding that avoids this, but if this balloon system is designed for data it should avoid some of the overhead.
Didn't the NSA, et. al. consider this prior to launching satellites for Sigint?
There are several reasons they nixed it.
Anyway, I'm sick of wireless. Maybe I can get my friend John to get some fiber splicing equipment again and run fiber to my house.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
In November, the company won the rights to use a designated frequency of 1.4 MHz in a Federal Communications Commission auction.
I HOPE that's a typo, because if it isn't, that's smack-dab in the middle of the AM Broadcast Band (1400kHz), and I would be furious if the FCC was auctioning off spots on a precious resource like that to a bunch of nuts with weather balloons...
The weather baloons are all sent up at the same times. At least 4 times a day ( at 00,06,12 and 18 UTC ) but how do you get a continuous coverage out of that ?
In November, the company won the rights to use a designated frequency of 1.4 MHz in a Federal Communications Commission auction.
Correct me if I'm wrong (if so, it's waaaay past my bedtime -- that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!), but isn't 1.4 MHz right smack dab in the middle of the existing terrestrial AM radio band of 530 kHz (0.53 MHz) to 1.72 MHz?
If so, wouldn't a terrestrial AM tower blasting out its carrier at that frequency (1.39 or 1.41 MHz) totally blot out the signal from such a balloon?
...if you were at the eye of a tornado that had sucked in a few hundred of these :-)
100k feet = 18 miles. Currently, the cell sites that I'm responsible for are at maximum 20 miles apart. A site 18 miles distant is going to provide zero coverage to anyone inside a building.
In addition, 2 balloon sites, is going to have jack sh!t for capacity. Assuming these weather balloons are even capable of lifting our smallest GSM equipment (which is far more than the 6 pount limit mentioned in the article), each ballon would be have a maximum of 29 voice channels. That's enough to cover a busy city block, or a tiny town.
Well duh. Are there going to be more than 30 people using their phone in that 100k square miles? You betcha.This is a moumentally stupid idea.
Weather balloons don't use hot air. They use helium. Hot air wouldn't stay hot for very long at the altitudes weather balloons reach.
but something similar would be very useful, and cheap.
Heck, even the army is doing something like this.
Why on earth don't these idiots approach all of the major airlines and mount the boxes to all airplanes. The airlines could charge for the usage and boost their profits. Think of how many airplanes are in the air over the usa at any given moment. Now the trick part is to design a cheap phased array antenna for the client side radio.
Got Code?
Not for the data that the baloons give you. The key information that the baloon gives you is the wind, temperature, and humidity at different altitudes. Unfortunately, satellites are not currently capable of providing this for different altitudes. The data is important for weather forecasters, and particularly important for aviation weather forecasts.
The balloons themselves are made of latex, a natural substance derived from plants. They decay in ultraviolet light and break down quite naturally. An airplane hitting one of the balloons probably wouldn't notice. An airplane hitting one of the payloads might suffer some damage, but the construction of those radiosondes is for lightness, not durability. How much punishment do you need to take, riding up into the sky under a balloon?
Of course, all the balloons come down by themselves within a rather short time. Sheer UV and ozone embrittlement of the balloon envelope will do it if nothing else does. They burst and come down in rather small pieces (if you want to see what happens you can buy a balloon from one of the scientific surplus houses which sell them, and inflate it with your shop vac until it explodes).
What gets me is the claim that the payloads are unrecoverable. How hard could it be to equip each one with a mylar Rogallo kite and have it aim toward its ground station once the balloon bursts and lets it start gliding down? A 5:1 lift/drag ratio means a range of about 100 miles starting from 100,000 feet. What do you need to guide it, one model-airplane servo? This isn't rocket science.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist