Lockheed's High Altitude Airship

swordboy writes "Lockheed Martin has just awarded a contract to UniSolar Ovonic regarding development and delivery of flexible, lightweight solar cells for the U.S. government's High Altitude Airship security project. The proposed 500-foot-long dirigible is to fly at a stratospheric 70,000 foot altitude - above both jet stream and severe weather. The thin-film solar technology, although low in peak conversion efficiency, can potentially deliver a whopping 2500 watts/kilogram. This is the same technology as the previously discussed GE organic LED project - just with the physics in reverse. Broadband communication blimp, anyone?"

Comments

Taking the place of Satellites?

[ziondreams]

I'm in no way educated about such a topic, but is this some sort of less expensive approach to satellite-type communication?

Re:Taking the place of Satellites?

[glen604]

According to the article it's for surveilance- put cameras on it, watch people, etc.
Wouldn't this make it easier to shoot down if you were an unfriendly nation? A big geostationary blimp has to be easier to hit than a satellite in space

Re:Taking the place of Satellites?

[nilspace]

Well, for shooting down, you're talking about a vehicle about 60-70,000 feet altitude. This would be incredibly difficult to hit based on size.

Re:Taking the place of Satellites?

[adept256]

Maybe not so good for military purposes. I bet it's alot easier to take out a blimp than a satellite.

Re:Taking the place of Satellites?

[Secrity]

In many ways it would. Besides cost there would be other benefits, such as negligible latency, easier station keeping, faster deployment, less regulatory hassles (probably), far fewer politics involved, less crowding (for now). There would also be less power required due to the far closer distance, which means better engineering trade-offs. Geosynchronous satellites are a genuine pain in the ass, these would help the situation greatly. Currently, geosynchronous satellites are operated in a very limited number of bands, these aircraft could broadcast TV and radio in standard broadcast bands. These aircraft could not only replace some satellite applications, they could also replace some terrestrial radio applicaitons. There are potential applications that couldn't be done with terrestrial or satellite radio.

Re:Taking the place of Satellites?

[raider_red]

There's also a huge difference in the energy budget. With a geosat, you'd have to transmit a RADAR signal several thousand miles, whereas you're sending one around 100 miles with a Derigible. That means that you can get a much stronger RADAR return for a given energy output.

In addition, with a derigible, you have the ability to loft a much larger amount of mass than you could with a rocket booster, at a fraction of the cost. This would allow you to put in a lot more power generation capability, more powerful transmitters, and greater computing power and communications equipment than you could ever fit on a satellite.

Re:Taking the place of Satellites?

[AKAImBatman]

Shoot down? with what? There is a short list of nations with firepower that can make it that high in the atmosphere.

The list is longer than you think. Most air-to-air missiles can reach that height, and the supersonic flight ceiling of modern jet planes (including MiGs) is classified information. A blimp like this would probably need some air cover to operate inside a war zone. (Not that air cover is a problem when you've got over a dozen carriers with the capability of delivering planes anywhere in the world.)

I remember a documentary on the Discovery channel where they were discussing how a pilot accidently shot down a LEO satellite with a missile. The realization that missiles could reach that height lead to the creation of the Pegasus launch solution.

Re:Taking the place of Satellites?

[clintp]

A SAM hitting an airplane does a lot of damage from hitting a rigid, delicate structure with a lot of mass moving at a high velocity (both it and the target).

The velocity and mass simply isn't there in a lighter-than-air craft of this size. (Well, the mass is but it's spread over a huge area.) This is like shooting a .50 caliber weapon at the Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man. Proper fireproofing, flexible partitions between segments, shrapnel-puncture resistant panels between major sections would resist most single-strikes of any weapon capable of reaching 70K feet.

So long as the electronics were hidden, shielded, or replicated throughout the volume the craft would be difficult to take down or fatally damage.

Poor man's space telescope?

[Pi_0's don't shower]

There are many astronomy/aerospace missions that need to get above the bulk of the atmosphere. For science, having a controlled station at an altitude of 70,000 feet would be wonderful.

Now, in addition to all the cool cosmic ray stuff that could be done up there, putting a near-space telescope up there would be a wonderful (and relatively cheap) idea... any thought of other scientific (rather than solely comm satellite) uses for this?

Too Bad Commercial Airship Development Has Stalled

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago a German firm was going to resurrect the Zeppelin for commercial flight. Though it never received the financial backing to bring it to market, which is a shame since it is a much more efficient, safer and cleaner form of air travel.

Maybe this military use will someday translate to some sort of commercial use.

Big Black Triangles?

[WormholeFiend]

I knew this story seemed familiar...

check this out (illustrations and sidebars at space.com):

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technolo gy /black_triangle_020805.html

Investigation Casts Light on the Mysterious Flying Black Triangle
By Leonard David
posted: 07:00 am ET
05 August 2002

They are big, black, and triangular. In UFO folklore they are proof-positive that planet Earth is a rest stop for joyriding, but road-weary, extraterrestrials.

A just released study by the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), based in Las Vegas, Nevada, sheds new light on the dark and mysterious craft. They offer a more down-to-earth hypothesis.

NIDS researchers contend that these type vehicles are lighter-than-air, blimp-style craft of the U.S. military's making. Likely powered by "electrokinetic" drive, the lifting body-shaped airships have been skirting the skies from perhaps the early to mid 1980s.

Illinois sighting

NIDS has followed up on their study of last year that correlated sightings of large triangular or delta-shaped objects with Air Force Materiel Command and Air Mobility Command bases throughout the United States. Matches were made suggesting flight paths in and out of certain base locations.

The new assessment focuses on what four police officers, and more than a dozen others observed on January 5, 2000: A large, silent, low-flying black triangular shaped object. It flew on a southwesterly direction between Highland, Illinois and Dupo, located less than 30 miles (48 kilometers) from St. Louis, Missouri.

Part of the flight path took the enormous object near the perimeter of Scott Air Force Base.

NIDS does not come up with definite conclusion regarding the origin of the object sighted in Illinois.

However, the reports jibe with over 150 separate reports of sightings of large triangular or deltoid shaped objects. Those eyewitness accounts, accumulated by NIDS, have mainly come from the United States. A small number of the sightings they have on file come from Canada and Europe.

Ballooning expectations

To bolster their case about military airships being taken for UFOs, analysts at NIDS make a historical note.

Lighter-than-air vehicles held all records for payload, distance, duration, and altitude within the first four decades of the 20th century - even with the advent of the airplane. In fact, save for rocket-powered research aircraft, like the X-15 and the space shuttle, all absolute altitude records are still held by high-altitude scientific balloons.

NIDS makes the case that Big Black Deltas, or BBDs, are U.S. Defense Department airships. They are so large they can carry massive payloads at low altitudes, cruising at speeds three to five times as fast as surface ships.

Among a range of NIDS observations, the group believes the BBDs are powered by electrokinetic/field drives, or airborne nuclear power units. These craft also fly at extreme altitudes, high above conventional aircraft and the pulsing of ground-based traffic control radar.

Elecrokinetic propulsion means that no propellers or jets are used. A hybrid lighter-than-air craft would rely on aerostatic, lift gas, like a balloon. No helicopter-like downwash would be produced. Except for a slight humming from high-voltage control equipment -- and in older BBD versions an occasional coronal discharge -- a Big Black Delta makes no noise.

Given a slew of BBD capabilities -- from silent running, diminished drag, elimination of sonic shockwaves, to operation from ground level to full vacuum -- NIDS calls for pushing this black world technology out into daylight for commercial benefit.

Wheat from the chaff

"What we're trying to do is transform unidentified flying objects, UFOs, into IFOs, or identified flying objects," said Colm Kelleher, deputy administrator for NIDS.

"We want to limit the number of cases that are unidentified in our data bas

It's unmanned, so why use Helium?

[kurt555gs]

Hydrogen is cheaper, and Weighs 1/2 as much, so the whole thing could be smaller.

It could also be 'canibalistic' is need be to power the fuel cells.

Hydrogen's only drawback is it explodes with fire, but this thing is unmanned, so ......

Just a thought

Re:Can I shoot at it?

[grub]

Gerald Bull, a Canadian big gun engineer, made large guns and was killed by Israel's Mossad for daring to talk to Iraq about building a "super gun"

Re:Too Bad Commercial Airship Development Has Stal

[nilspace]

Actually, the company, CargoLifter, got several million Euro in backing. They were *very* slick. However, the technical difficulties ended up taking too long and costing too much money. This is also in addition to the huge cost of construction of a hangar and air facility to support such operations.

There are many other commercial blimps, Lightship, Goodyear, etc. Not to mention several student groups working on similar topics (check out Univ. of Virginia Solar Airship, Surrey, and Univ of Japan)

The final closing of military use of airship, the Snowbird in the 60's I believe, was heavily influenced by more political factors that technical or monetary.

Re:Too Bad Commercial Airship Development Has Stal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's understandable that investors would be a little jittery at the thought of a German airship

Even in that fireball passengers managed to survive. Compare that to an airliner which often have 100% fatality rates.

floating geodesic domes

[intertwingled]

Richard Buckminster Fuller had a similar idea... if one could build large enough geodesic domes the pressure/temperature differential would cause them to float in the atmosphere... I'd have to do some googling to find a good url for that.

Re:floating geodesic domes

[lxs]

Fuller's idea was that the whole thing would act like a solar-powered hot air balloon.

Can't find a good link, but according to Fuller's calculations, a dome about a mile in diameter would get enough lift to be lighter than air and become a 'floating city' with a temerature difference of a couple of degrees between inside and outside.

I don't have exact figures, and the biggest problem in doing the math yourself, is finding out the weight of the dome (How thick would the (steel? titanium?) struts have to be, from which material do you make the dome itself?) Do we have a structural engineer in our midst?

Amateur Radio Payload

[n1ywb]

It sounds like this airship technology is rapidly approaching existance. Have AMSAT or the ARRL or any ham radio groups approached the government or whoever about getting ham radio payloads included on-board? If not, well maybe we need to create a new organization to promote Amateur Radio aboard high-altitude blimps.

Re:Why not just use Hydrogen?

[Roger Keith Barrett]

Here is a good reason why NOT to use hydrogen.

Re:Too Bad Commercial Airship Development Has Stal

[kfg]

As it happens I submited the story about that Zeppelin to Slashdot a bit over a year ago when they first began commercial flights and we all had an evening of fun making Hindenberg jokes.

The company is alive, well, and making commercial passenger sightseeing flights. If you want to take a zeppelin ride all you have to do is go to Lake Constance with 190 euros to spare in your pocket.

We be rigid gasbags and shit

KFG

Launch platform

[Short Circuit]

Well, thinking about the nature of the X-Prize (straight up, then straight down), a bouyant launch platform sounds to me like an excellent idea.

Geosynchronisity without requiring a high orbit.

Of course, there are technical issues to work out regarding flame safetey, what to do if you lose pressure in your balloon, etc. But it's definately worth a look.

Re:Launch platform

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The way I see it, the final product is going to have a payload capacity in excess of 20,000 lbs. That's certainly enough to be the world's slowest "first stage" to orbit.

You avoid the most inefficient segment of a rocket's journey, pushing through the troposphere at sub-sonis speed.

You do have a problem to overcome, though. Despite the 70,000 foot head start you will be trying to obtain orbital velocity (17,000 mph) from a standstill. I'm too lazy to do the math at this point, but I'm not sure it would actually be that much of an advantage in the end.

Despite the innefficiencies of starting from the ground, the lion's share of the energy expended by a launch system is used to propel the craft to orbital speed. The magic equation is 1/2*m*v^2.

So lets say we max out the payload and have a launcher that has a mass of 1800Kg. (Metric is easier to work with.) We are trying to propel it to around 8750 meters/second. That's about 137e9 Joules of energy. 137,000 MegaJoules. Aviation fuel has an energy density of 47 MJ/Kg. You would need around 2910 kg of fuel (not including oxidizer.)

OTOH, gravity plays a lesser role at that altitude. I say lesser, gravity exists even in orbit, it's just that the orbiter is falling forward, which almost cancels the effect of gravity thanks to a loophole in physics with rotataional motion. Note the above calculation did not take into effect overcoming gravity.

Maybe you don't need to get the rocked all the way up to 17,000mph. Maybe you can find a fuel with a higher energy density. In either case, you are still at square one.

These Could Not Replace Satellites in Some Cases

[iammrjvo]

These would probably be a great inexpensive satellite replacement for communications, but they would not be able to replace spy satellites (which must be discreet), nor could they replace geostationary satellites that service other space vehicles (such as the GPS constellation).

skycat ...

[madhippy]

always have to post this link:

http://www.worldskycat.com/

Frankly? Politics.

[Moderation abuser]

You're not the 1st to suggest this. But...

There is no way on *earth* you're ever going to get another airship using hydrogen as the lifting gas. Even with a Halon mix to suppress the radicals required for burning. The movie of the Hindenberg burning is just too compelling, it's the first thing anybody mentions whenever the subject of airships are brought up. It set airship flight back 100+ years. Doesn't matter what actually caused the fire on the original ship, the fact that 2/3 of the passengers survived or the fact that you're actually using helium, they'll bring the Hindenberg up.

So, Hydrogen will *never* get approval.

Re:Those "router crashes"...

[fm6]

Interesting article. I guess I buy the argument that the fire would have happened even if they'd been using helium. But I doubt if people will stop blaming the accident on hydrogen any time soon.

As long as we're talking Zep myths, let's debunk the common belief that the Hindenburg crash was what did in airship travel. There had been similar mishaps in other modes of transportation (the most famous of which, 9/11, makes the Hindenburg look like a stubbed toe). They didn't do in the technology involved, just made people scared of it for a while.

Charles Lindbergh predicted the demise of the airship long before the Hindenburg disaster. He pointed out that airships were intermediate in speed between airplanes and surface vehicles. If you need to move something or somebody in a hurry, you use air travel. If not, you use surface vehicles. There just isn't any demand for anything in between.

Partial Vacuum Blimp?

[SlipJig]

IANAME, but I've always been curious about whether a dirigible could be built without resorting to light gases like hydrogen or helium. Instead, construct a light but strong structure, maybe out of composites, make it airtight, and then stick a solar-powered pump on it to remove most of the air inside. While on the ground, you could attach externally-powered pumps to get it off the ground quicker.

Possible downsides: cost; no real advantages over conventional designs; more complex and probably heavier structure due to higher strength needed to resist air pressure; vulnerability to punctures and leaks. I'm just curious if this has ever been attempted.