Slashdot Mirror


Airships Tested As Two-Way Telecom Beacons

sgups writes "The Toronto Star (no registration required:)) is reporting about this firm which will supply spherical airships that will be used as high-flying telecommunications platforms to supply two-way Internet access across the United States and into Mexico and Canada. The article explains little of the technology though."

176 comments

  1. Dynamic Zoning by Good+Sumerian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to see how they handle the dynamic zone changes as the beach balls drift around.

  2. Oh lord the humanity! by netnerd.caffinated · · Score: 4, Funny

    the airship explodes cause it was filled with hydrogen & millions of internet weenies are left stranded with no pr0n

    --


    You tried your best, & you failed miserably,
    The lesson is:
    Never Try
    1. Re:Oh lord the humanity! by Bob+Vila's+Hammer · · Score: 3, Funny

      But Hydrogen Blimp Whores on Fire? Man, the fetish worshipers will be signing up in droves.

      --


      --"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
    2. Re:Oh lord the humanity! by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the problem with the hydrogen airships WASN'T the hydrogen. It was the coating used on the skin that burned so well.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    3. Re:Oh lord the humanity! by i_m_sane · · Score: 1

      Actually, the problem with the hydrogen airships WASN'T the hydrogen. It was the coating used on the skin that burned so well. I'm sure that surrounding the flammable skin with a flammable gas didn't help... If the airship was filled with a inert gas (like Helium) the incident would of been less of a disaster.

      --
      Adam Sane sanity is a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
    4. Re:Oh lord the humanity! by 0spf · · Score: 1

      Umm..

      "The spherical airship is filled with non-flammable helium and has no external gondola for crew. Instead, the pilots sit in an igloo-like cabin inside the sphere."

    5. Re:Oh lord the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm sure they don't cover blimps with rocket fuel anymore.

  3. Cool! by Miroku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    High speed internet access for those of us who live out in the woods would be great, since sattelite is incredibly expensive...

    As long as they don't get shot down as UFO's....

    --
    ~The Incredible Xan~
    "Saying that men can't be lesbians is gender discrimination."
    1. Re:Cool! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      who says these will be cheap?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're not going to get one at the corner store, but a $100,000 balloon with a $10,000 per year maintenance cost with a life expectancy of (say) five years is *WAY* cheaper than anything you have to launch into orbit. So it's *relatively* cheap.

    3. Re:Cool! by Galvatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if it's not less expensive than satellite, no one would bother trying. So, while it may not be as cheap and quick as DSL, it should be better than the existing satellite options.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    4. Re:Cool! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I was refering to the connection cost forthe consumer.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    5. Re:Cool! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      cheap for the consumer, not the company.

      the cheaper it is for the company, the bigger thier profits are even when they undercut the competition by 5 dollors.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:Cool! by Galvatron · · Score: 2

      Well, I can't think of any reason why a dozen companies can't each send up their own blimps, so I'd imagine that if one company does it successfully, others will follow, driving down profit margins. Even if, for whatever reason, competition doesn't set in (a patent, maybe?), they'll still have to undercut satellite enough to convince people to switch (which may mean $1 a month, or it may mean $10 a month, but either way, it's still better than nothing).

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    7. Re:Cool! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ...*WAY* cheaper than anything you have to launch into orbit.

      Plus, it has half a chance of getting there in one piece, unlike anything sent on that froggy fizzlework Ariane.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. New UFO excuse #3462 by Asterax · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now the government can use the airships as excuses for what you "really" saw in the sky at night, not a UFO. Good bye weather balloon excuse.

  5. I thought.. by josh+crawley · · Score: 2, Informative

    I thought that the .Bomb went out in 2000 or so. Why's this shit being regurgitated when I saw the same stuff in a 1998 computer magazine.

    Hint: The company who had the original idea tanked.

    1. Re:I thought.. by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You thought right, but think wrong.

      The first ones usually tank. Than somebody finds the magic pill, and voila.

      The .bomb years had a ton of people trying to sell shit that will become common place in the future. They were just too early .. technology and markets both have to hit puberty before people stop snickering.

      Christ, I can't believe how many people sound like they switched their 1998 office chair for a 2002 rocking chair ... there are huge differences between today and 1998.

      Read the article and you'll note there is a sale in there. Hard to tank when your clients actually have the money to pay up these days (or youre not being paid in stock.) .. and the news is especially interesting given how tentative companies are to spend on this sort of thing today. Must have been a dam convincing test flight.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah they sent a guy up in a baloon 18,000 feet -- 3 times higher than any other airship had gone. and it was capable of a full 24 hour flight up there.
      And you're right. 4 years ago this idea couldn't have flown. The low-power computing technology hadn't emerged. you couldn't have flown enough solar panels up above the clouds in a lighter than air design to power the systems needed to run the airship and the telecomunications equipment 4 years ago.
      And keep in mind, these airships will fly up there for about a year at a time, before replacement equipment is flown up, and they'll provide 2-way wireless for a lot less than cellular, and since they're not nearly as high as a satelite the ground units don't need special super powered antennas, like the satelite phones needed. Since the baloons are flying at 19 KM high a directional 802.11b antenna could almost reach that high, and a semi-directial antenna technology with more penetration power (maybe on analog TV bands) could work for this network, not a problem.

    3. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I don't think you should involve the Lord Jesus Christ in your tirade.

    4. Re:I thought.. by 5alligator · · Score: 1

      henry kissinger was involved. i can't remember the name tho. i think they trying to impress the japanese at some point.

    5. Re:I thought.. by TeknoDragon · · Score: 2

      sanswire is going down the tubes too AFAIK... (I dropped their service like a bad habbit)

      you can witness them losing customers as we speak

  6. This won't work by mut3 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sure, you can put balloons up there, but there are factors such as weather, acts of God, and so on, that can ruin this whole thing.

    1. Re:This won't work by houseofmore · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sure, you can put balloons up there, but there are factors such as weather, acts of God...

      snipers.

    2. Re:This won't work by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTA: they are putting these up in the stratosphere which is above the part of the atmosphere where weather is a problem.

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    3. Re:This won't work by thogard · · Score: 4, Informative

      thunderstorms in Oklahoma typicaly top out at 50,000ft however they have been known to go to 65,000 ft. 19km is 62kft. The jet stream is at the top of the stratosphere, right below the stratopause which tends to be at 150,000 ft. They have a long way to go to get out of the "weather".

    4. Re:This won't work by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      It's out of most weather though, which makes a difference. Not nearly as much stormy weather, as say, 1000 feet.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    5. Re:This won't work by jc42 · · Score: 2

      snipers

      If you dig up the various stories about the recent increases in the number of blimps in the world, you'll read that one of their minor problems is that people are always using them as targets. It's not actually all that big a problem, because even very large bullets leave only a slow leak. Part of the routine maintenance is plugging all the small holes in the fabric. Every few years they have to replace the fabric.

      It's more of a problem when the bullets miss the fabric and hit the gondola. Flight crew in one of those advertising blimps over a football game can be a risky job in some areas.

      But this wouldn't be that much of a problem for a blimp at 21 km altitude. It would take a rather high-powered rifle to hit something that far up, and your typical suburban redneck probably wouldn't have anything with that kind of power.

      They could be a target during military (and terrorist) operations. Even then, though, blimps are difficult to bring down. Your typical small missile, even if it hit and exploded inside the baloon, would just leave a lot of small holes, causing a slow descent. It would take a direct hit on the gondola to put it out of action quickly, and that's not an easy target.

      --

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    6. Re:This won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B'sides, there's not many SAM's out there that can actually reach 21 km altitude. It's WAAAAY up! (compare with regular jet liners, that cruise at ~10-12 km).

    7. Re:This won't work by Ceres54 · · Score: 1
      RTA yourself. The article states "Jim DeLaurier, professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Toronto...said the idea of an airship supplying an elevated communications platform is "very appealing" but cautions that in order to reach the stratosphere, the airship has to pass through the high winds in the jet stream, and even in the stratosphere itself there can be high wind".

      However, it does seem that the designer of the stratellite has taken this into account.

  7. My tin hat will protect me! by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2

    From the evil radiation of the flying tin balloins!

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  8. Yes, it's offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but what happened to number of responces?

    1. Re:Yes, it's offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean on the index?

      I think slashdot is a little busted right now.

      They were having problems this afternoon.

    2. Re:Yes, it's offtopic... by ericmc42 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, seriously... I thought I was going to get a first post on this thread and then BAM, there were a million fucking other responces... Sheeeesh. What a let down.

    3. Re:Yes, it's offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The editors are fuckin with you.

      They know you get a chubby when you see (Read More...).

  9. Very Cool, especially for rural areas. by Ashetos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about the same solution as an alternative to Cell Phone towers?

    1. Re:Very Cool, especially for rural areas. by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Informative
      A cell tower is the point where "wire" ends and "wireless" begins. As such, one end of it is tied to the cellular network, which in turn is tied to the land line network.

      With a blimp, the end going into the cellular network must also be wireless. What you've then introduced is a wireless repeater, which consumes twice the bandwidth compared to a land-based tower.

      The angles at which land-based towers transmit allows its beams to penetrate windows for indoor coverage. A blimp that flies higher would not be able to penetrate several floors (or even just ordinary roofing) to provide the same coverage, especially right underneath itself.

      If the blimp cannot be kept stationary enough for doppler sync purposes, then you'll need significantly more complex software to deal with the fact that both the blimp and the handset are moving.

      Not impossible, but there are significant obstacles.

  10. Technical Hurdle by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny
    They're going to need really huge Pringles(tm) cans to support wireless at that altitude.

    Of course, if they succeed, we'll have big potatoid wafers the size of dinner plates.

    Stefan

    1. Re:Technical Hurdle by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2
      They're going to need really huge Pringles(tm) cans to support wireless at that altitude.

      Hint: satellite dish

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:Technical Hurdle by c0dedude · · Score: 2

      actually, have you seen some of the tasteless stuff companies do to discise cell phone towers?
      Here's something about that...

      Perhaps that's not a blimp... it's a small moon!

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    3. Re:Technical Hurdle by abhinavnath · · Score: 2

      That's not potatoid... It's PEOPLE! Pringles(tm) is PEOPLE!!!!

      mmm... sour cream...

      --
      My other sig is also a .Porsche
  11. Great idea by Adam9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order to reach the same coverage area as the 10 Stratellites, the company would have to install wireless equipment in more than 14,000 cellular towers at a capital cost of $56 million plus annual tower lease cost of $67 million, Lively said.

    The new United States Homeland Security agency, created in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, wants telecommunications around major cities improved, and companies have been scrambling to find alternatives to cell towers and landlines, Colting said.


    Great, they want reliability in case of a disaster so they think combining 14,000 towers into 10 big balloons is going to be better. Might not be a single point of failure.. but I'd prefer 14,000 points of failure rather than 10.

    1. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have ZERO fucking understanding of redundancy. The more shit you add, the more likely it is that one of those things will fail.

    2. Re:Great idea by standards · · Score: 2

      10 airships is (hopefully, according to business plan) a shitload cheaper than 14,000 towers or 1 geosync satellite.

    3. Re:Great idea by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      come on, if you really want to cut (or significantly degrade) internet access for people you can just get a backhoe and start digging ;)

      more seriously: if somebody took out MAE-East and MAE-West, even if you had all your 14,000 towers up, it wouldn't really make much of a difference...

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    4. Re:Great idea by worthb · · Score: 1

      Yes, and how much cheaper than 280 geosync satellites. Teledesic

      --
      "the universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle" - Stapp's Law
    5. Re:Great idea by worthb · · Score: 1

      Oops, is that what the preview button is for. That should be 280 sub-geosync satellites.

      --
      "the universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle" - Stapp's Law
    6. Re:Great idea by standards · · Score: 1

      Ya, and sub-geosync satellites move!

  12. Short Attention Span by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 1

    They are just hoping that everyone who invested in the last company has forgotten by now. :)

    1. Re:Short Attention Span by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      So I wasn't hallucinating when I saw that similar "idea" in a 1998 computer mag. ;-)

      Oh well. The Venture Capitalists'll never learn (well, they might)...

    2. Re:Short Attention Span by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      Beats the grand idea of mount cell tower equipment on the bottom of 737's and flying 3 over Chicago 24x7. ;)

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
  13. I know not what course others may take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But give me free internet or give me death!

    1. Re:I know not what course others may take by ericmc42 · · Score: 0

      Yeah....... You must not value your life too much.

  14. Sad day by unterderbrucke · · Score: 4, Funny

    "spherical airships"

    The Hindenburg and Goodyear blimps ruined the good name of blimp forever. Now were are reduced to puzzling out such obtuse synonyms as "spherical airships".

    1. Re:Sad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blimps aren't spherical...

      And besides, they were a dead end technology. Anything that required a football field to store and could only take 40 people wasn't destined to become the travel technology of the future.

    2. Re:Sad day by geekoid · · Score: 2

      goodyear has a blimp, the Hindenburg was a dirigable.
      like the difference between boat and ship.

      Look, its the goodrich blimp...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Sad day by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      If these things have circling lights around them, they will cause hundreds of UFO sightings. That would be cool!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    4. Re:Sad day by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If these things have circling lights around them, would that make them LED Zeppelins?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Sad day by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Actually the Hindenburg was a Zepplin. A blimp uses pressure to maintain it's shape. The problem is the faster you go the more presure you have to have to keep it from squishing.
      A Zepplin uses a framework to keep it's shape. You can make them much bigger and faster than a blimp.

      When nukes where considered a good thing back in the 60s I think they where talking about atomic airships. How about that as a plot for a disaster movie?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  15. Huh? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The Toronto Star (no registration required:)) "

    What? Registration not required? What am I supposed to bitch about now?

    Well, hell, guess I have to read the article now.

    *SIGH*

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:Huh? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1, Troll

      You can complain about them adding ", eh?" and ", ya hoser" to the end of each sentence.

      I thought that was pretty annoying.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not very common in Toronto. However, they're all uptalkers there.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When in doubt, bash Canada. Hey, it works for the rest of Americans.

    4. Re:Huh? by Spunk · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. What are you talking aboot?

  16. Communication methods. by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can find more information on the spherical communication technology of airships at this site.

    Oh, wait, that was communication technology of spherical airships. That information is found here.

  17. Excellent idea by wiggys · · Score: 1

    But you need a really long cable.

    --

    Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.

  18. What kind of internet outage shall we have today? by Quaoar · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Denial of service
    2. Fried router
    3. Blimp attack

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
  19. Re:What kind of internet outage shall we have toda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these blimps are susceptible to missle attacks, the terrorists have already one.

  20. Positioning? by CyNRG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about power requirements? Staying in the same position requires some power. There are also other power issues I', Sure.

    Cy

    1. Re:Positioning? by standards · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I understand it, solar, with fuel cells for power storage for night. Just like satellites.

      Of course, there would need to be an electric fan to keep it in position... perhaps much like electric fans used on ultra-high-flying experimental aircraft.

      Also, note the high altitude - above cloud cover... so light is plentiful (good!)... but winds are high too (bad!).

      This is, hopefully, much cheaper than geosync satellites. PLUS you can bring them down for maintenence (unlike geosync). So therefore, the machines can be less redundant (read "expensive") than satellite technology.

      Sounds like a great solution if they can successfully keep them in place. If cheap enough, this technology could replace the need for ALL large radio towers. (Those towers ain't cheap either, you know)

    2. Re:Positioning? by standards · · Score: 2

      Oh, and one more thing - these things are 1000s of times closer to you than a geosync satellite... And therefore the latency is greatly reduced.

      That's great for voice and data communications.

    3. Re:Positioning? by CharlieO · · Score: 2

      As I understand it, solar, with fuel cells for power storage for night. Just like satellites

      Fuel cells work by combining, usually, oxygen and hydrogen, releasing electricity and water. They are common on manned space flight because they provide drinking water and power, plus also a reliable energy dense form of electrical power. This ability to fullfill many roles and having no waste products makes them a good engineering solution, and they are highly robust.

      However all fuel cells need as supply of gas to continue working. Conceiveably you can capture the waste water, electrolyse it and recompress the oxygen and hydrogen produced back to thier liquid forms for storage - but that is a highly complex bit of engineering.

      As such satellites, to my knowledge, use batteries of various chemical regimes. I would expect the airships too as well - weight is not a huge problem on an airship as the envelope lifts pretty much what you want for 'free' unlike an aircraft where you have to expend energy to keep aloft, so normal chemical cell technology is a simpler engineering solution.

      If cheap enough, this technology could replace the need for ALL large radio towers

      As mentioned elsewhere these will not replace towers. Any tower that has one side connected to a landline (broadcast towers) will still have to be there. Any tower that boosts and retransmits (relay towers) could be replaced by this sort of idea, but some of those relay towers transmit at very high wattages - I question whether the solar collectors would be able to collect enough power to do the same. Especially, when accounting for daylight and losses in charging/regualtion systems on the battery bank, you probably need to achieve 3 times the rate of your energy consuption on your collection system. But certainly scenarios where you need a geographically wide coverage area at not a great power output, this idea could work very well.

  21. Nasa has a better idea by UrGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/Pathfinder/

    or search for "Nasa solar-powered Pathfinder" in your favorite search engine.

    This is a solar-powered drone that eventually will fly 24 hours (carrying batteries for night).

    1. Re:Nasa has a better idea by tekunokurato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That NASA thing can carry 50lbs. Better? The balloon can carry 400 times as much telecom equipment, and maybe more if they build bigger ones. What advantages does the drone have that make it better?

    2. Re:Nasa has a better idea by Hast · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think the point with the Nasa project is that it's quite mobile. So while you can make it circle a specific area you can also make it fly around and cover a larger area.

      Note that it's primary mission doesn't seem to be telecommunication but scientific. (Though the grand-parent poster did this mistake and not the one I'm replying to.)

      The vehicle could be used for a variety of monitoring purposes. NASA is especially interested in the vehicle for its ability to study the upper atmosphere without disturbing it. [... It] could spend long periods of time over the ocean monitoring storm developments to provide more accurate predictions of hurricanes. The same capability could be used to monitor forests and other large remote expanses to provide early warning of crop damage or fires for example. Another use for this kind of capability is to serve as a surrogate satellite when coverage is not available.

      Since it's Nasa I wouldn't be surprised if they intend to use the technique for creating more durable machines for remote monitoring eg for other planets. (But other than Mars and the inner planets I don't think a solar powered flyer is going to be much use.)
  22. Now that's what I call: 'getting high' by Newer+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Spherical airships running on Volkswagen engines for the transmission of spam and pr0n. Hmmmmm...I've had ideas like this before. Usually after several bong hits....

  23. Liability by ad0gg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whats the liability if one these ships crashes? They are going to be over heavily popullated areas. Seems like a big disaster waiting to happen.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    1. Re:Liability by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yeah, right. Emotional trauma caused by being hit by an 18 meter beach ball moving at a few feet a minute- you'd get laughed out of court.

      "And then it popped see, and my voice went all squeaky. My friends looked at me and they all laughed. I was so ashamed. I'm asking for 90 billion dollars in damages."

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:Liability by Door-opening+Fascist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're worried about 18-meter 4-ton helium filled balloons over heavily-populated areas? We already have 80-meter 40-ton airplanes flying over heavily-populated areas, and they're filled with highly flammable jet fuel to boot.

  24. OK, I can see this. by MsWillow · · Score: 2, Informative

    It'd be rather like a large helium-filled balloon, tethered, with a 5-watt 2M rig and a TNC, possibly powered by a battery/solar cell combination. Put a bunch of these up, and you've got it (albeit slow as heck).

    Now, make it a dual-band unit, and run it much faster than a normal TNC. Have the up and downlinks to the subscribers on one channel, and the "between units" link on another one. That should help the speed, and allow for greater coverage as well.

    I think it'd be fun :) Just like Field Day, all year long.

    --

    Lemon curry?
  25. In other news... by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    GNU terrorists have hijacked the WiFi blimp and have already bounced into Microsoft's headquarters five times.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  26. visibility by tekunokurato · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm curious: will people on the ground be able to see these, or are they too high and small to be noticeable? Obviously they won't eclipse out the sun, but will they make a noticable blotch on it?

    1. Re:visibility by maggard · · Score: 4, Informative
      You wont be able to see them. Even the giant airships of the '3os were invisible when flying at altitude.

      As to casting a shadow the brightness of the sky (much less the sun) quickly fades out any shadow; the same as high-flying planes don't cast visible shadows (unlike low-altitude ones near airports.)

      Any environmental effects of these would be very minimal, far less then those of a conventional plane or helicopter.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    2. Re:visibility by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      You wont be able to see them. Even the giant airships of the '3os were invisible when flying at altitude.

      Huh? These things were several times longer than a 747 and had a cruising altitude of only about 1000 feet. The Hindenburg flying right over you would not only be visible, but it would blot out much of the sky.

      Even the high-altitude Zeppelin bombers of WWI were unpressurized and maxed out around 17000 feet; they were certainly not invisible.

  27. How is geosync accomplished? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >>The Stratellite, which will be about 80 metres in diameter, is similar to a satellite, but it is stationed in the stratosphere at 19,000 metres rather than in orbit.

    Maybe this sounds like a dumb question, but how do they plan on keeping one of these things in place? With an 18,000 foot cable? With some type of gyroscope mechanism?

    Wouldn't the wind(and changes in air pressure) move the thing around like a, uh, baloon?

    Forgive me, but I don't know that much about high altitude baloons. But I know that if the wind down here on the surface can rock my 2 ton truck around like a lego toy, it would probably do a number on a baloon in the upper atmosphere.

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:How is geosync accomplished? by Hast · · Score: 1

      They quote the maker saying that They are highly maneuverable and capable of extended-duration flights". Probably they just move them around like they usually move zeppelines. (With propellers or something that is.)

      Too bad the article didn't have a figure or picture.

    2. Re:How is geosync accomplished? by kesuki · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be what the solar powered motors would be there for. These are also flying above the jetstream. It's not perfectly calm up there, but at that height you can get blown a few miles off course and noone should suffer an interupt in services, just as long as you can fly back to the center of your zone. they're also designed to stay up there for only a year at a time, before coming down for servicing. most of the equiplent can be recycled, but for saftey reasons they would want to replace the parts that take the most wear and tear. Oh, and being round helps too -- remember the payload rides Inside the sphere. being a near-perfect sphere they have the least possible wind drag from any direction in a lighter-than-airship. remember wind is unpredictable, which is why a cigar shaped airship has such a hard time in wind -- it can only handle winds head or tail on. any other direction and it's causing more turbulence than can be handled for precise handling.
      Yes these will work, and they're a great idea.
      the millitary is also interested in these for deploying the benefits of a satelite over the battlefield without the cost, and with 365 times the flight duration of strotospheric planes.

    3. Re:How is geosync accomplished? by thogard · · Score: 1

      The jetstream stops at about 150k ft. This is about 1/2 that. Its going to get blown far away unless its attached to a cable. The "above the weather" is a joke. It may be above the rain but theres plenty of other weather like 200 mph winds to push things around.

    4. Re:How is geosync accomplished? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely wrong.

      "Jet Stream

      Relatively fast uniform winds concentrated within the upper atmosphere in a narrow band. A number of jet streams have been identified in the atmosphere. The polar jet stream exists in the mid-latitudes at an altitude of approximately 10 kilometers. This jet stream flows from west to east at average speeds, depending on the time of year, between 110 to 185 kilometers per hour. Another strong jet stream occurs above the sub-tropical highs at an altitude of 13 kilometers. This jet stream is commonly called the subtropical jet stream. The subtropical jet stream's winds are not as strong as the polar jet stream."

      http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/j .h tml#anchor54726

      Regardless, there are winds in the stratosphere but are equivolent in speed as what one might experiance on the ground and would thusly be mitigated by onboard propulsion i.e. propellers

  28. More Balloons and AUVs by dailywireless · · Score: 4, Informative
    Daily Wireless has more on Sky High Wi-Fi including Skytower which uses a solar-powered airplane. It has been used for 802.11b-enabled aerial photography. Skytower is designed to circle overhead, unmanned, for as long as six months, drawing power from the sun by day and from fuel cells by night.

    The new homeland security department will require a massive global network. But transoceanic fiber is easily cut and the $800 million TDRS replenishment program with three satellites doesn't have the bandwidth. Intercepted SIGINT data is reportedly transmitted to Earth on a 24 GHz downlink using narrow-beam antennas. But the frequency swaths allocated for links are less than consumers can get on cable television. More bandwidth is needed.

    One might speculate that a secret optical/IR satellite network downlinked in Hawaii might be developed. The European Space Agency, not to be outdone, says they're thinking of building miniaturised optical systems that fit onto a microchip. These optical networks might use optical CDMA which encodes each pulse,across a segment of wavelengths.

  29. Silly question... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "will supply spherical airships"

    If they're spherical, are they still airships?

    1. Re:Silly question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not after they crash in a fireball, they're not.

    2. Re:Silly question... by Enry · · Score: 2

      Airships refer to any lighter-than-air vehicle.

      Given it's spherical, it may not have an internal structure (think weather baloon), but it would have to be under its own power. IIRC, that would make it a dirigible. Blimps have internal cells of gas along with an internal structure (think hindenberg and goodyear).

      Thank you R. Lee Ermey.

    3. Re:Silly question... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Not after they crash in a fireball, they're not."

      Only the Nazis were crazy enough to call solid rocket fuel "paint."

    4. Re:Silly question... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Airships refer to any lighter-than-air vehicle."

      I was under the impression that an airship is a controlled (controllable?) lighter-than-air craft. And since spherical balloons are a real PITA to steer, they're simply referred to as "balloons."

      BTW, derigible=blimp=structureless Airships with structures are zeppelins.

    5. Re:Silly question... by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty much everybody in this thread has these definitions screwed up.

      Aircraft are divided into airplanes, rotorcraft, gliders, airships and balloons.

      An airship is sustained by a lighter-than-air gas and has mechanical propulsion; a balloon is sustained by a lighter-than-air gas and has no propulsion of its own.

      Airships are divided into dirigibles (synonymous with zeppelins) and blimps. Dirigibles have internal frames for rigidity; blimps have only the internal gas pressure for rigidity.

      There has never been a spherical airship before, and I'm somewhat at a loss as to why anyone would build such a thing; controlling it would be a bitch. So if these things do come to pass, they will be sui generis.

      The word "dirigible" causes some confusion, because it does indeed mean steerable in Latin, and blimps are certainly steerable; however, the aviation community decided to use "dirigible" as a synonym for "zeppelin" back when World War I had made German names unpopular. The Hindenburg was a dirigible/zeppelin; Goodyear has blimps.

      rj

  30. This may be offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget about vanishing features of the 2.6 kernel, what about vanishing comment counts from /.'s front page?!

  31. Cool Picture by WeekendKruzr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although I hesitate due to the high liklihood of it being Slashdotted, the company's homepage has a pretty cool picture of the device in question. While the most of the comm gear is hidden within, you can see some antennae's and solar panels on the side. The rest of the site has lots of other interesting pics, but like the article is unfortunately very short of any tech detail. :-/

    1. Re:Cool Picture by Jester99 · · Score: 2

      That design is so 1970s. ;)

    2. Re:Cool Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "antennae's"?

  32. Well... by Miroku · · Score: 1
    It's wishful thinking. I'm an idealist. I can dream, can't I?

    Or if this isn't cheap, maybe it will make sattelite access cheaper in response. ^_~

    --
    ~The Incredible Xan~
    "Saying that men can't be lesbians is gender discrimination."
  33. Re:In Soviet Russia.... by slipped · · Score: 0

    in Soviet Russia Soviet Russia jokes are funny

  34. Intercontinental Dirgible Ride by Digitalia · · Score: 1

    It's good that airships are beginning to come back into favor. With the large selection of materials that have been developed in the years since we last seriously pursued dirgibles as a viable transportation option, producing a super-strong, super-light, fireproof dirgible should be no problem. I still await the day when I can purchase quarters on an airship, and tour the world in relaxed comfort. I'd like a large wardroom, but I'm realistic. So long as there are comfortable open spaces, I'd settle for a berth.

    --
    Pax Digitalia
  35. Re: Stratosphere by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny
    > > factors such as weather, acts of God

    OK, there's no weather in stratosphere, but you're closer to God ... :-/

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  36. interesting tangent by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    --I've seen several slashdot threads now on starting your own business, moaning about the company you are in, etc. The two recent were the tech trends thread and the hilarious wobbly headed CEO doll "bonus". Anyway, I found the most fascinating thing in the article was that, to the owner, balloons were just fun! That's how he got into it, doing what he thought was fun and cool! Fun can translate into enthusiasm which leads to making some radical but maybe cool decisions. More power to the guy, and hope he figures out how to keep them in place! And is this a new job title, certified stratonaut network administrator*? CSNA* What a job!

    *copylefted, have fun!

  37. Disappointment by finkployd · · Score: 2

    As a long time Final Fantasy fan, I am severely disappointed with what passes for an airship these days.

    Finkployd

    1. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheer up. With this technology, you'll be able to download your Terra/Celes lesbian hentai pics anywhere.

  38. What technology. by Brigadier · · Score: 2



    It really doesn't sound that profound. It's a repeater with an embeded power supply possible solor attached to a helium weather type balloon. I have been hearing different versions of this story for a while now, High flying planes circling cities, baloons high rise buildings. but I am yet to see a working implimentation. My main concerns are no one address the inherant problems, like weather

  39. competition by anonymous+loser · · Score: 5, Informative
    There is already another project called SkyStation that has a significant business advantage IMHO. It's already been in development for several years, and is backed by some rather large corporations such as Lockheed Martin (where some of the development is taking place).

    However, given the current state of the telecom industry, I find it hard to believe that *any* of these projects will get off the ground (no pun intended) in the near future.

  40. Can I take my tin foil hat off now? by vmxeo · · Score: 1

    So the big spherical floating metallic objects in the sky really are trying to beam messages to me...

  41. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does that come with vent protection from rebel tie fighters?

    1. Re:so by nounderscores · · Score: 2

      It's rayshielded, but they might be able to hit it with proton torpedoes.

  42. And in other news about the news by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny
    The article explains little of the technology though

    Well, it is the Toronto Star.

    The Globe and Mail is read by the people who own the country. (It's Toronto's national newspaper, except for the National which is Toronto's other national newspaper.) The Toronto Star is read by the people who whine when they don't run the country. The Toronto Sun is read by the people who don't care who runs the country, so long as she has big tits on page 3. Weeklies like NOW offer insight into: politics or performance art? (With the establishment's hand up their sock-puppet bum.)
    -- Adapted from Yes, Prime Minister

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  43. picture by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A (small) picture of one of these ships can be found here.

    1. Re:picture by TeknoDragon · · Score: 2

      As a former Sanswire/Tsunami customer I have personal reservations as to their ability to pull it off.

      They're having enough trouble with the merger maintaining services (down for 3 weeks, won't be up until the new year) and making stupid decisions (like disabing outgoing SSH at a university!!!!!).

      Witness the carnage here: at their support forum

  44. More airships? by zephc · · Score: 2

    That just means more Bullet Bills and Cannons and Koopas to avoid!

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  45. Old Hat by A+non+moose+cow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oil field trash from Africa's equitorial west coast might remember this being done over 20 years ago (by Conoco? I can't remember). The company needed communications into the jungle, and the anchored dirgibles solved two problems...

    1. They didn't have to cut a path for wires
    2. They could avoid the natives stealing the wire.

    The problem came in the first monsoon season when , although very heavily anchored, the coastal one was blown hard enough to snap the dirgible from the cable. The cable bounded back like a rubber band, and completely demolished the base station. Tons of thick steel cable flying out of the sky. I wish I could have seen it.

    (My dad, now retired from Mobil, told me this story some years ago.)

    1. Re:Old Hat by Smid · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to their updates to their business plan shortly before next Hurricane hits...

      Fair weather net access?

    2. Re:Old Hat by nounderscores · · Score: 2

      Can you imagine if the anchor was in a populated area? It would be like the burning of the space elevator in kim stanley robinson's Mars series.

      Maybe the baloon might be reeled to the ground in a storm, or use propellors and no anchor this time.

    3. Re:Old Hat by jehreg · · Score: 2
      That wind problem has intrigued me for the longest time....

      It makes no sense to me why they would not have a wind sensor and winch the balloon down as the wind gets stronger. Have a concrete holding area with no top, and winch the balloon into it. It won't get damaged or lost this way. As soon as the wind has died down to a reasonable level, release it back into the air.

    4. Re:Old Hat by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Well, that's one heck of a cable to tie it into place at 19k. I suspect the cable itself may weight too much for the blimp to keep flying.

      That's ignoring, of course, the risk of having a virtually invisible cable dangling from 19k to the ground. I'm a private pilot and believe me that it's sometimes hard to spot entire airplanes that you KNOW are there. It would be impossible to see a cable dangling from 19k--so it would just be a matter of time until you had airplanes running into those cables.

  46. geosync is easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I might be wrong but once these airships get up to stratospheric heights (above weather), the windspeeds are equivolent to what you might experiance on the ground. The transition up to 60Kft could be dicey. However, with slight winds, keeping position with propellers or whatever wouldnt be that hard. Might even be able to do this autonomously with the airship keeping itself centered in some predetermined GPS window.

  47. Re:In Soviet Russia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Unless they are not. Who did you visit illegal comedy club with? We know who you are, where you live, talk now. Or..

    We list publicly your pr0n downloads. (Me wishes for KGB.)

  48. High on Helium by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 3, Funny

    The spherical airship is filled with non-flammable helium and has no external gondola for crew. Instead, the pilots sit in an igloo-like cabin inside the sphere.

    If it leaks, the pilot will get a rather squeeky voice. :)

  49. Got my vote! by JVert · · Score: 1

    This picture is incredible, Heinlein would be proud! God I hope this works i'd love to see these things ascend and come back.

  50. I had a similar idea... by pclminion · · Score: 2
    Several years ago I thought of using airplanes as a continuously moving, reconfigurable network.

    Glad to see I'm not a lunatic, after all.

  51. Hell of a lot smarter than using jets by serutan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember this story posted on /. about a year ago, about having using jets as flying antenna platforms for broadband? I remember reading that and thinking, "Jets? Jets??? What a dumb-ass idea. All you need is a blimp." Huzzah!!!

    Plus, the look is straight out of Star Wars. Cool!

  52. Look dad, I did good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My dad always said I was just full of hot air. If he were around I could respond that my hot air could help the internet reach millions. (I know, Helium, Hydrogen, not hot air.)

  53. Wait a minute . . . by kwik_mart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope they gave this guy some credit for the idea!

    (I discovered this site about a year ago, and even called him to comment on how "brilliant" all of his ideas are. Check out the rest of it here!

    1. Re:Wait a minute . . . by Hast · · Score: 2

      He he, yeah that was a pretty funny link. I like his hovership ideas the first one using firing guns the second a hoolahoop.

      I don't think the "ideas" are intended to be serious though. As the second I linked to there was written two years after he finished a postgrad in physics. And you only need a small helping of common sense to see that they wouldn't work.

      OTOH he might want to apply for a US patent. It'd probably get granted if he just wrote it up in legaleze and made it span a 100 pages or so. ;-)

  54. T-Star, sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think that the Toronto Star is wierd, try The Sun. (http://www.torontosun.com/)

    -Anonymous Canadian Bacon-

  55. Re:What kind of internet outage shall we have toda by theperplepigg · · Score: 1

    4. Profit!

    --
    -- Every time you kill a kitten, God masturbates.
  56. hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of that long-lost corporation that Bill Gates invested in, the one that wanted to provide virtually universal internet access with a globe-spanning constellation of small, very low earth orbit satellites. But maybe this would be feasible/profitable/worth the effort.

  57. Won't fly without FAA approval by PortWineBoy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Last I heard the FAA wasn't anywhere close to approving these things.

    --

    this sig deleted by another sig

  58. One word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hurricane.

  59. Blown Away...literally by matt_martin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Was down in Eloy, AZ last weekend checking out the 300 way skydiving world record and there was this large white sphere tied down in the desert. Thought it might be some kind of portable radar setup for the event 'till I get closer. It had two transparent "windows" near the bottom and two dinky propellers about 3/4 of the way up on opposite sides. The crew was loading stuff right into the spherical shape of it and were too busy to explain much other than to say that they were going to launch the thing soon. So, anyway, was later talking to somebody who had stuck around, he said they had in the air and were successfully maneuvering it.

    But here's where it gets interesting. Later, when they were finished and had the ship tied down when a sudden wind storm blew in. Wouldn't you know it, he said the last thing he saw was the thing BLOWING AWAY into the sky "going going gone...". Hopefully they had some crew on board, though there's no way those tiny props could've fought any serious wind. We were guessing 1/4 mil was GONE (and we didn't know then that there might be comm. equipment aboard). Tough work being a pioneer in your field...

    --
    Lurking in the desert
    1. Re:Blown Away...literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like the same spherical airship we're talking about!! How random.

    2. Re:Blown Away...literally by matt_martin · · Score: 1

      Gotta be... article said they were testing in Arizona. Also, one of the photos on their site has the unmistakable form of Picacho Peak (right near Eloy) in the background.

      --
      Lurking in the desert
  60. two way internet access by 0x12d3 · · Score: 0

    Oh great two way internet access, what will they think of next!!



    oh they mean like-- not like satellite, um... nevermind.

  61. What geek... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    worth his or her salt hasn't already thought of floating wireless tech above the skyline with balloons?

    Why not also consider solar powered gliders that circle above a city? Computer+GPS would control the position. Winds and solar would keep it aloft. Humans would land and take off via R/C.

  62. Should have been done a long time ago... by index72 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...before spending $3 Billion dollars on Iridium.

    1. Re:Should have been done a long time ago... by nounderscores · · Score: 2

      Don't knock iridium.

      Iridium was really useful in afghanistan.

      I don't know if these blimps are hot enough or low enough to eat a stinger missile, but they'd be sure easier to hit than a satellite.

  63. I thought I saw this before... by trveler · · Score: 1
    --
    ... is whot bwings os tugevza tsuzay.
  64. Two-Way Internet access! Wahoo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what exactly is one-way internet access? Ya fire up your boxen, and random pages are thrown at it?

    to supply two-way Internet access across the United States and into Mexico and Canada.

  65. Powering communication equipment by burbilog · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Communication blimp is not a problem, but powering it is. You need a lot of power for all transmitters. Solar power would not be enough -- you can't have many batteries on board because of their weight and i doubt that it's enough to power everything at the day. So... there are only two choices:
    • Every day or two dirigible flies towards comm blimp and refuels it. No big deal, but a lot of fuel. And the tanker has to be manned. And blimp engines must be exceptionally durable. And...
    • Nuclear plant. Greens? Osama?
  66. In the future this may be a real conversation by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

    "Honey, the internet crashed in the middle of my online shopping!"

    "Just click that re-connect icon I set up for you on the desktop."

    "No, I mean it CRASHED! An 18-meter spherical blimp just crash-landed in the backyard!"

  67. not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These airships will theoretically have a year long mission duration..check that with how long Nasa's Helios stays in the air. And why would you want something thats constantly circling ( and not in a small radius) rather than something thats more or less stationary?

    1. Re:not quite by Hast · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Helios stay in the air for weeks or months, they have different goals than the stratelites. (And would it have been too much bother for you to write that in the post instead of just commenting on it?)

      But a flyer should spend less energi in maintaining the current position than a balloon. At least that's the way it seems to me. Although there is very little preassure in the stratosphere it goes both ways. While the effect of the wind is less due to this it's also more work to move the balloon.

      That said, if you want a real "geosynched stratelite" then the balloon method is probably best. (I recon that's why there's at least two corporations which are researching it.) If you want something which can move around and scan an area then something like a Helio is a better bet.

      And both can to some extent be used interchangeably for the area in between.

  68. pictures by gCGBD · · Score: 1

    Here are some pictures of the airships.

    --

    O=='=++
  69. But airplanes are piloted by CharlieO · · Score: 2

    But the crucial thing is that the airplanes have pilots, who by and large are able to react to any unusual state of affairs very quickly and effectively.

    An autonomous system like the airships would need would not do that, even if there was some form of active monitoring by a ground based 'pilot' who could take over in the event of an emergency they are not physically there so may not be able to assess the emergency as well or as quickly as a pilot in an airplane. After all if there is a problem with the control surfaces on an airplane you have the chance of going into the cabin and actually seeing what is wrong rather than relying on instruments.

    Additionally air flight paths are by and large routed away from major centers of popluation for that very reason, unless there is no alternative. The airships would require to be over populated areas to achieve thier tasks. Of course this leads to some interesting thoughts on exactly how the FAA(US)/CAA(UK) would view piloted and autonomous aircraft sharing airspace - would air traffic control be able to override the autonomous aircraft directly in an emergency, or would a ground based operator need to do it?

    And my final thought is people are worried, probably rightly, by the safety of autonomous aircraft. We value life highly, so the level of safety engineering that goes into a piloted aircraft is much higher. If the aim is to provide cheap as possible autonomous systems, where all you lose is some money covered by insurance, then rightly we need to question if the safety engineering will be as high.

  70. Read the article: by Kludge · · Score: 1

    10 of 21st Century Airships' aircraft up to the stratosphere early in 2004, at a cost of about $36-million (U.S.).

    10 balloons with 2 way communication ability. This is WAY cheaper than even 1 satellite that has (for most people) only download.

  71. the last word in grammatical errors by sweet+reason · · Score: 2

    some antennae's and solar panels

    trying to turn an already plural word into a plural by making it possessive!

    that is true talent.

    --
    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
  72. Maths... by CharlieO · · Score: 2

    I was intrigued so googled for some info. Two good reports of the Hindenburg I found here: www.hindenburg.net(google cache)
    www.thirdreichforum.com(full accident report)

    Both these suggest the length of the Hindeburgh (apparently a development of the Zeppelin type) was 804 feet, and cruised at around 1000 feet - although it appears to be able to fly at a few thousand to avoid weather systems.

    Now using 2 * pi * r to calculate the circumfrence of a circle with the radius as the altitude, and then divide by the length of the airframe, we can deduce that the arc of the length on the airship is:

    2 * pi * 1000 = 6283
    (804 / 6283) * 360 = 46 degrees

    So turning that into a more accessable figure that would be the same as 72 metre long object at a range of 100 metres - definately visable!!
    [ sin 46 * 100 = 72 ]

    Even if the bombers fly at 17000 feet the figures still suggest it would be potentailly visable:
    2 * pi * 17000 = 106814
    (804 / 106814) * 360 = 2.7 degrees
    sin 2.7 * 100 = 4.7

    So same as a 5 metre object at a range of 100m. That would still be visable to careful observation, although use of a disruption colour scheme would help it evade detection. Certainly not invisible.

    For these Statolites, the figures would be:
    18 metres is approx 60 feet
    2 * pi * 18000 = 113097
    (60 / 113097) * 360 = 5.3e-4 degrees
    sin 5.3e-4 * 100 = 9.25e-4

    Thats equivalent to an object of 1mm length at 100m - invisible to all intents and purposes.

  73. Economic reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Current telecom resources = 99% overcapacity.

    What a one-hander of an idea! Better to learn to grow vegetables.

  74. really great idea by eadint · · Score: 1

    ( that seventies show smoky cicle ) hey guys i got this really great idea. lets get a bunch of balloons and use them for two way communications. we can launch them and start our own telecommunications corp ( room gets smokyer) ( cheech) naa man you can do that what happens when planes fly over and hit the ballons, no wait im a plane fliying over. wooooa ( wierd foreign guy ) no yo guys we gan make all the information travel though light using the rail road system as rit of waaay ( hot red head girl ) whay are you talking about you cant use light to communicate ( cheech or is it chong) hey when i was a roadie we used lighters to communicate to the band.

  75. anyone looked at the pictures of these things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come on, on the count of three y'all yell out what you think they look like. 1....2.....3: Deathstar!

  76. Diesel Engine for Power. Where's the oxygen? by mikecoon · · Score: 1

    The article says they are going to power the comm gear with a Volkswagon Diesel engine and supplemental Solar Cells. Where are they planning to get the oxygen to support running an internal combustion engine at 60,000 feet? I would think that even with compound turbocharging you would be hard pressed to make the power you need, a supercharger would be its own power drainer.

    --
    Ideas are easy - Implementation...
  77. Re:Diesel Engine for Power. Where's the oxygen? by mennochio · · Score: 1

    That's the least of their problems! Come on, the air is thin to be sure, but it's hardly vacuum. About one seventh or so sea level density, compressing that is not a problem. It costs something but not a whole lot. The temperature of the compressed air would be 170 Fahrenheit or so.

    The thinness of the air reduces the strength of a given wind too. Divide whatever speed you are looking at 20 kilometers up by 2.7 or so to get a sea level speed of equivalent strength. That's how they can seriously propose to keep station in normal stratospheric winds. As for jet streams--obviously they have to dodge them. Fortunately jet streams are relatively thin , maybe a hundred miles across at most--that's why they are called "streams" and not sheets or just winds. Unfortunately they move around--but only within a typical range. A "geosynchronous" station outside that range should be feasible. Having the thing weave and dodge and circle around in the winds would not be geosynchronous but it might work all right for service delivery over windiier areas--like Canada.

    The article is ambiguous which craft is supposed to stay up a month without refueling; I guess the 40-meter one which is the next one on the drawing board. Obviously if it is going to keep station even a week, the diesel engine is for initial positioning and it supplements the solar/stored power after that, not the other way around.

    You shouldn't underestimate the endurance of an airship though. The US Navy operated blimps in the 1950's (manned) that operated for days without refueling; during Operation Whole Gale one stayed on station 90 hours during the worst storms of a record winter, off shore of New England. Because they keep such modest airspeeds, even with the mediocre streamlining of a plain sphere the power requirements are much much lower than an airplane.

    What has been throwing a lot of people who really are into lighter-than-air aviation is the claim Sanswire has been making, that the hull of these ships are (or are going to be?) made of Kevlar. Kevlar is hard to fashion into a lifting-gas fabric, and when Sanswire claims in such an offhanded way to be doing it already it sounds like a scam to them-or at best completely irresponisible extrapolation.

  78. Re:Maths... minor correction by KlausB · · Score: 1

    Thanks for actually figuring this out.

    However, I think in the last paragraph, there is a little error, you have probably forgotten to multiply by 360.

    An 18m diameter object at a roughly 18.000m distance is equivalent in apparent diameter to an object of 1m diameter at 1000m or 100mm at 100m.

    This is the equivalent of a fist over the length of a soccer field, which should be visible.

    Another comparison is the thickness of a pencil (mine measures app. 7mm = 0.3inch) across a room (7m = 20feet).

    But I imagine this Balloon would be hard to find in the day, because it would probably be highly reflective.

    Since most of the athmosphere (app. 9/10th?) would be below it, most of the light would be scattered by the part of the atmosphere below it, so I would think that it would have just a few percent of contrast aginst the background and would therefore be virtually invisible to the naked eye.

  79. Re:Maths... minor correction by CharlieO · · Score: 2

    Err yeah - you got me on that one.

    Can you guess at what point I ran out of coffee :)

    And yes there will be a fair amount of scattering in the atmosphere, perhaps most significantly by water vapor.

    The difficulty with the atmosphere is defining where it ends, the density just thins out. There is still enough drag at 200km to need occasional orbit corrections on polar orbiting satellites.

  80. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Unix gives you just enough rope to hang yourself -- and then a couple
    of more feet, just to be sure.
    -- Eric Allman ... We make rope.
    -- Rob Gingell on Sun Microsystem's new virtual memory.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...