Slashdot Mirror


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?"

90 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by handslikesnakes · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's just like every alternate history novel I ever read!

    1. Re:Wow! by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's just like every alternate history novel I ever read!

      No kidding. Ever read Job: A Comedy of Justice, by Heinlein? Many alternate realities in there, including IIRC one with lots of dirigibles as WWI hadn't happened and the advances in aircraft had not taken place. (in Job the alternate realities are just the vehicle for the story, like many of Heinlein's works.)

      While this is all very interesting in that I like dirigibles (and would like to see them come back some day for transoceanic travel) all this security isn't making me feel any more secure.

      "MOM! The blimp is spying on me again!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Taking the place of Satellites? by ziondreams · · Score: 3, Interesting


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

    --
    01000001 01011001 01000010 01000001 01000010 01010100 01010101
    1. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From one of the articles
      According to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), 11 high-altitude airships would provide overlapping radar coverage of all maritime and southern border approaches to the continental U.S., and may be a significant asset in homeland defense efforts. The Stratospheric Platform System (SPS) dirigible operates just barely within the outer limits of the earth's atmosphere and is emerging as part of the military's 21st century transformational mindset.
      Satalites can't provide the radar coverage that these blimps can.

      Also Geo-syncronous satalites have to placed very high in orbit around the earth to stay in one spot with using a lot fuel. This causes a significant delay in transmission time to/from the satalites. The blimp would eliminate that.
      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    2. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by glen604 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by nilspace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by interiot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just so somebody else doesn't have to look this up, geosynchronous orbit is at 19,323 nautical miles, while the various radar and broadband blimps are proposed to be at around 12 miles up. So satellites have an inherent 100ms delay each way, the blimp version would only have a one-way delay of 0.06 ms.

    5. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by WheatWilton · · Score: 2, Informative
      Also Geo-syncronous satalites have to placed very high in orbit around the earth to stay in one spot with using a lot fuel. This causes a significant delay in transmission time to/from the satalites.

      Geostationary satellites operate at something like 23,000 miles, so the delay is only about 1/4 of a second... 23,000 miles is far away, but electromagnetic waves are pretty damn fast. Also, that 1/4 a second probably doesn't matter anyway - the communication to from these satellites is typically passive/non-interactive; it's just broadcasting information back to Earth (e.g. TV signals) with no need for communication in the other direction.

    6. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by adept256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --

      I ran a benchmark on my quantum computer, now I can't find it anywhere!
    7. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by Secrity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also a lot easier to replace a blimp than a satellite.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    9. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by raider_red · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    10. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, you won't have shrapnel occupying the former "orbit" of a blimp.

    11. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Informative

      SAMS developed by the former Soviet Union have been able to do that for years. And if a SAM is able to hit a highly maneuverable target moving at Mach 1, I don't think it's going to have a hard time hitting a target that's standing still.

    12. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    13. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      A shoulder launched SAM won't reach that high. If it did, terrorists wouldn't need to fire at planes near airfields. There just isn't a good way of packing enough propellent into that little missile without severely injuring the user.

      Now if you want to talk about SCUDs...

    14. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by multiplexo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Just so somebody else doesn't have to look this up, geosynchronous orbit is at 19,323 nautical miles


      See, I knew this as a child, a child! Why did I know this? Is it because I was a budding Isaac Newton who read Arthur C. Clarke's seminal 1945 paper on geostationary satellites? Well no, it was because I read Justice League of America and as any good comics fan knows the JLA used to have their headquarters in a satellite orbiting 22,300 miles above the Earth.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    15. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by clintp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    16. Re:Taking the place of Satellites? by MurphyZero · · Score: 3, Informative

      A few years ago, I was military, and in Space Command, but nowhere where I could make policy. But we discussed things like this since I was in space launch. I predicted that, if satellite makers were smart, that balloons/dirigibles/flying wings would replace many, but not all, satellites. And this includes military satellites as well, if the USAF gets smarter.

      Specifically, one of the things Air Force likes to talk about is operationalizing space, i.e., launching a satellite like it was a sortie of a fighter or bomber aircraft. That's not going to happen anytime soon, at least with the rocket types. But a squadron of high flyers with interchangeable electronics packages could easily be 'operational'.

      However, for communications satellite, especially regional broadband communications (think army operations in Iraq), such a 'satellite', deployed when necessary, could be highly useful. Operations over, comm needed in Korea, send it there. It breaks, bring it down, repair and send it back up. Out of fuel/power send up the spare or just send up two. How many satellites can that be done for? When they are done (Hubble) the expense is enormous

      Comm is not the only thing it could use a low-sat. Optics and Radar are prime candidates. Science, both looking up and looking down are possible. Even consider the GPS satellites. You do need your base system in space. However, if you needed increased accuracy in an area, put a high flying balloon/dirigible, flying wing, with the GPS innards and fly it in the general area. If done correctly, it could give receivers an additional satellite, improve the solution.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  3. Those "router crashes"... by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...would be a tad more dramatic then wouldn't they?

    Though the really great thing is that you could use the ol' tinfoil beany to actually reflect the "mind control waves" then.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Those "router crashes"... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      be a tad more dramatic

      Oh, the humanity.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    2. Re:Those "router crashes"... by MenTaLguY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...or paint it with rocket fuel, for that matter.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    3. Re:Those "router crashes"... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  4. Zeppelin Overlord jokes... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 3, Funny

    in 3, 2, 1....

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:Zeppelin Overlord jokes... by leifm · · Score: 3, Funny

      At 70,000 feet maybe they'll be able to see WMD in Iraq.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    2. Re:Zeppelin Overlord jokes... by Wun+Hung+Lo · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Death Balloon" just doesn't have the same ring as "Death Star". :(

    3. Re:Zeppelin Overlord jokes... by geoswan · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Death Balloon" just doesn't have the same ring as "Death Star".

      YET!

  5. It's part of mind control.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    first they put up a blimp at 70K feet then they tell us its for national security and they LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE!!!!! This "blimp" will be beaming MIND CONTROL BEAMS into the brain of every citizen of Planet EARTH!!! We will become pawns of the ILLUMINATI and sheep in their WORLD domination MACHINE!!!

    Already I feel the tin foil on my head being penetrated by THEIR MIND CONTROL RAYS!!!!!

    @!(#U@)#U@U#()@!U#()@#)(@!U AAAAAHHHHAAH

    1. Re:It's part of mind control.. by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Funny
      Already I feel the tin foil on my head being penetrated by THEIR MIND CONTROL RAYS!!!!!
      You still use tin foil? That's totaly obsolete. Get our new glow-in-the-dark plutonium foil hat.
      Guaranteed to protect permanently against any kind of mind control rays after only 5 minutes of use.

      (might cause mutations in pets)
      (Keep away from children and rogue nations)
      (Do not dispose of in open flame, in fact do not dispose of in anything but a lead container)
      (Do not store more than 14kg of plutonium hats in same space)
      (lifting Plutonium Foil Hats stylish lead package might cause permanent spine damage)
  6. Poor man's space telescope? by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  7. Re:Can I shoot at it? by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    If your shotgun can hit something at 70,000 feet I think you may be in for a visit by Mr. Ashcroft & Co.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  8. wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  9. Hah! by Dragonshed · · Score: 5, Funny

    just with the physics in reverse

    Colonel Sanders: Prepare to reverse physics!
    Peon: Preparing to reverse physics!
    Colonel Sanders: Reverse physics!
    Peon: Reversing physics, sir!
    ...
    President Skroob: Oh sh*t! Quick turn it off!
    Colonel Sanders: We can't, it's irreversable.
    Dark Helmet: .. like my rain coat.

  10. 500 ft LED billboard? by HDlife · · Score: 2, Funny
    This is the same technology as the previously discussed GE organic LED project

    Is it just me, or when I read this, I pictured giant Bladerunner-esque ad blimps advertising the off-world colonies!

    At 70,000 ft, they might be advertising car sales or casinos on earth to passing Martians, I guess.

  11. AFDB by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dude, you simply need a better Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.

    The above link has folding instructions and fashion advice. Just make sure your browser has cookies enabled. No real reason. Honest. Just, well, it'll enhace your AFDB experience.

    Trust me on this.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:AFDB by musikit · · Score: 2, Funny

      is it scarey that this got marked "informative" as opposed to "funny"?

    2. Re:AFDB by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mildly terrifying, at least.

      --

      "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    3. Re:AFDB by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Informative

      And you got modded Funny instead if insightful!!! Where will it end?! Slashdot is obviously compromised. Lets make our last stand at K5

  12. hmmm... sounds like SHIELD by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nick Fury anyone?

    --

    I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

  13. Too Bad Commercial Airship Development Has Stalled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. It's not an airship... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unless it's powered with a FLOATER

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  15. Sweet, but there are some stipulations by Zygote-IC- · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want one, but only if I can have a Moogle pilot and fly around the world looking for crystals.
    Otherwise I'll just stick to my Chocobo.

  16. Re:Can I shoot at it? by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If your shotgun can hit something at 70,000 feet, I think you may be in for a visit from every military and weapons contractor, each with drool covered checkbooks in one hand and unsigned exclusive use contracts in the other.

  17. Broadband Blimps! by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Now if they could just stick some broadband transceivers on the thing....

    Satellite service is my only option (until bb-over-power-lines succeeds), but the built-in latency of the roundtrip to geosynchronous orbit makes it useless for realtime, and the crippled upload speeds makes it useless for teleconferencing.

    Shouldn't be too hard to add a motor and SNR tracker to have a dish follow that thing around the sky....

    1. Re:Broadband Blimps! by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Funny

      "just imagine the length of fibre you'd need to get to 70,000 ft!!!"

      At least 70,000 ft, I'd say. :-)

  18. A more important application by DickBreath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A more important application than security would be...

    Making use of both the solar panel technology, and the OLED technology...

    Autonomous, solar powered, high altitude....

    Advertising billboards.



    There are probably other equally attractive applications as well, such as tracking every citizen's personal tracking device within a given area.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  19. Why not just use Hydrogen? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an unmanned dirigible flying at 70,000' Why not just fill it full of Hydrogen, and use the big balloon as a "gas tank" for a hydrogen fuel cell to power the dang thing. The solar cells could then be used to power devices to extract hydrogen from the atmosphere, and fill the baloon during the day. If it gets shot or blown up, who cares, they're out over the ocean, and sound pretty cheap..

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:Why not just use Hydrogen? by Roger+Keith+Barrett · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --

      Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
    2. Re:Why not just use Hydrogen? by CompressedAir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using your lighter-than-air tank for fuel means you are decreasing the buoyancy of your aircraft.

      The more you use, the more bits you have to drop off to stay up.

      It's not a terrible idea, but I think Lockheed is using a better one.

    3. Re:Why not just use Hydrogen? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Informative
      from the website you referenced:


      In many years of research, a NASA scientist at Cape Canaveral has found proof that neither the hydrogen in the hull nor a bomb was to blame, but the fabric of the Hindenburg's outer skin and a new protective coating. A single spark of static electricity was enough to make it burn like dry leaves.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    4. Re:Why not just use Hydrogen? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't extract hydrogen from the atmosphere. You'd have to extract it from stored water. This could still work, though. During the day you'd use power from the solar cells to crack water, storing energy in the form of hydrogen in the gas bags. This would increase your lift during the day when you need it. At night you would feed hydrogen from the gas bags to fuel cells to produce power, saving the by-product water. This would decrease your lift, but you need less lift at night.

      You _might_ be able to extract enough water from the air to supply makeup hydrogen. The air is pretty dry up there, though.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  20. Big Black Triangles? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Big Black Triangles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This story was on Slashdot here and generally considered to not be worthy of submission. The article had a bit too much of a fantastical side to be given serious consideration.

  21. Not a balloon by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Funny
    1st Voice Over: Meanwhile for Ferdinand von Zeppelin, the year 1908 was a year of triumph.

    (Cut to interior of a zeppelin. A party. Expensively dressed guests. Champagne. A palm court orchestra playing. Some guests looking out of the windows in wonderment.)

    Von Bulow: (approaching Zeppelin) Herr Zeppelin - it's wonderful! It's put ballooning right back on the map.

    (Zeppelin goes instantly berserk with anger.)

    Zeppelin: It's not a balloon! D'you hear?... It's not a balloon... It's an airship... an airship... d'you hear?

    (He hits him very hard on the top of the head with the underside of his fist.)

    Von Bulow: Well, it's very nice anyway.

    Tirpitz: (to Zeppelin) Tell me, what is the principle of these balloons?

    Zeppelin: It's not a balloon! You stupid little thick-headed Saxon git! It's not a balloon! Balloons is for kiddy-winkies. If you want to play with balloons, get outside.

    (Drags Tirpitz over to the door, opens it and flings him out into the clouds.)

    Tirpitz: Aaaaaaaaaghhh!

  22. It's unmanned, so why use Helium? by kurt555gs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  23. Not OLED based at all, actually. by WOV · · Score: 5, Informative

    The organic LED based technologies (polymeric / organic /nanostructured / Titania / Gratzel / Graetzel) cells are not yet ready for prime time, though they have huge promise. Check out Konarka or Nanosolar. GE and HItachi are also fooling around with this. The idea is that you can make solar cells out of TiO2, which is almost infinitely cheap in industrial quantities (see here toothpaste or white paint.)

    Uni-Solar's product is in fact based on conventional silicon, just like 90%+ of the market today. The difference is that instead of slicing it out of crystals, they sputter it onto a backing, enabling them to make, e.g. peel-and-stick solar panels for commercial raised seam roofs, a conventional shingle for residential roofing, as well as, here, a flexible backing product for airships. Many are working in this area; it's sort of the next generation for solar cell cost decreases (which have come down by more than half in the last ten years; world production doubled between 2000 and 2003 - however, we're going to run out of tricks with conventional silicon within about 5 years at this pace.)

    I find everyone's obsession with conversion efficiencies touching; what sense does it make when your fuel source is infinite and free? Area - related costs are subtle, so focus on this: with solar, efficiency matters not at all - the be all and end all is cost per watt.

  24. Re:Can I shoot at it? by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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"

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  25. Re:Too Bad Commercial Airship Development Has Stal by nilspace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  26. Alternate uses: Cell towers and surveillance by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two logical uses I can see are as replacements for cell towers. One of these could potentially offer as much coverage as many cell towers at a small fraction of the cost. The immediate followup thought is that this would break down barriers to high speed broadband too. At 70,000 feet, it could be an effective 'last 13 mile' solution. (har har)

    Another use for the tinfoil hat & central government crowd is surveillance. Put high resolution cameras in place and you could have low cost monitoring of everything from:
    - Fires
    - Traffic jams
    - Speeders (digital VASCAR, anyone?)
    - Traffic patterns
    - Police tails of vehicles under investigation with no possible detection ...and more.

    1. Re:Alternate uses: Cell towers and surveillance by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      logical uses I can see are as replacements for cell towers

      Not a chance, go read up how cellphone networks operate and you will see why this will not work.

      cell towers need to be low, and lots of them in an area there are a very small number of frequencies and therefore you need to keep that number of calls in a cell area so that you can carry more calls in a geographical area...

      cellular requires many small low towers to cover a metro area. you see taller towers in rural areas as the chance of saturating that cell site are much smaller in hickville compared to manhattan.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  27. Just doesn't have the same ring to it... by MonkeyGone2Heaven · · Score: 2, Funny


    LOOK! It's the Lockheed Martin blimp!

  28. Moving relay mirrors -- Yikes! by mackman · · Score: 2, Funny

    >

    747 Captain: Commencing laser firing using floating relay mirror. Crap! Did anybody else hear a loud Pop?

  29. Re:If I understand the intended use correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    On the other hand, if it gets shot down, you can be fairly certain you just detected a hostile aircraft.

  30. floating geodesic domes by intertwingled · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
    1. Re:floating geodesic domes by lxs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

  31. Amateur Radio Payload by n1ywb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  32. They could... by bsd4me · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have read some feasibility studies for near-earth communications satellites, like high altitude blimps. The only real downside is the coverage area (since the blimp is much closer to the earth, the elevation angle is shallower). IIRC, they give pretty decent metropolitan area coverage, but not much beyond that. My antenna az/el calculator is at home. When I get back tonight I can post effective coverage areas if anyone is interested.

    --

    (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

  33. Sanswire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Sanswire is already doing this... They're beta testing their broadband balloons as we type.

    Check out http://www.sanswire.com/

    Global Tel (gtel) http://www.globaltel.com/ just bought Sanswire to use them for a broadband and voiceIP offering. The idea is that these things float above a city and service everything below it. They're thinking about not only offering this in major cities but also having them floating above flight routes of planes across the atlantic, etc, so you can have broadband/voiceIP while going transatlantic.

    Very cool stuff, imho.

  34. Re:Too Bad Commercial Airship Development Has Stal by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  35. Re:Can I shoot at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What do you mean? An African or a European barrel?

  36. Mmm, Zeppelin have been around for a while by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are a heavy engineering company. But they do indeed have a new ship which is flying now, the Zeppelin-NT:

    http://www.zeppelinflug.de/pages/E/haupt.htm

    Cargolifter were going to create a f*cking *huge* ship which with a cargo capacity of 160 tonnes but ran out of money. When I say "f*cking huge", imagine an ocean liner floating in the air in front of you.

    http://www.cargolifter.com/

    It seems that military spending is needed for these kinds of projects to succeed.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:Mmm, Zeppelin have been around for a while by Inthewire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      160 tons is not fucking *huge*
      It's a lot, yeah, but I used to work on a towboat that pushed 25 barges capable of carrying 1,500 tons *each*
      That's 37,500 tons of cargo
      *That's* fucking huge

      Now, I understand that you mean the aircraft is huge, not the capacity, but 160 tons still works out to the approximate capacity of a Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  37. Launch platform by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Launch platform by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Launch platform by vivian · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's also newton's law to consider.
      Is this a troll?? Which law would you be talking about exactly?
      Seriously - the rocket doesn't "push" against the platform when it takes off - it's the mass of the exaust gas being flung out "real fast" from the rocket nozzle that is the "opposite reaction" that sends a rocket skywards. If a rocket is just hanging in the air by straps or something and launched, instead of sitting on a base plate then it would take off exactly the same as if it was sitting on a launch pad.
      In fact, a lot of the engineering done on NASA's launch pad was involved with how to redirect all that hot gas away from the pad via a huge duct so it doesn't turn the pad (and the rocket standing on it) into smouldering ash.

    3. Re:Launch platform by srn_test · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nice try, but no.

      If you were doing this in a sensible way you'd actually "fire" the space craft from the launch platform somehow (e.g. drop it).

      The craft then lights its rocket and off it goes. It doesn't have to push _against_ anything.

      Think about what happens in a vacuum...

  38. These Could Not Replace Satellites in Some Cases by iammrjvo · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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).

    --
    Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
  39. Re:permiability issues by victim · · Score: 3, Informative

    My initial thought was that hyrdogen being a smaller molecule would leak out more rapidly, though perhaps not at a significantly higher rate. A quick googling reveals this to be false. Helium actually sneaks through mylar faster than hydrogen. At very low temperatures it looks to be about 50% faster. Dupont data, see page 3 I don't know what film they are using, but the others I checked were similar.

    Given that the limiting factor for staying on station is gas leakage, hydrogen would seem to be a winner.

    > If it gets shot or blown up...

    I don't think gas type will be much of an issue. Either way the blimp will be a loss. The spectacular combustion of the hydrogen will happen well away from anything else that can burn.

    The safety issues of hydrogen are probably only an issue on the ground. You probably would not want to put an inflated hydrogen blimp in the hangar for maintanence, so if the life cycle of the blimp involves hangar work like leak detection and repair helium looks better.

    The final reason may be what Lockheed harps on a couple of times... Lockheed has the expertise in getting FAA certification for blimbs. The FAA is a variable that could effectivly kill the project, so project risk management probably dictates that they deviate as little as possible from the previous designs.

  40. skycat ... by madhippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    always have to post this link:

    http://www.worldskycat.com/

  41. An funny blend of technologies by Phat_Tony · · Score: 5, Funny

    so...
    It uses "the same technology as the previously discussed GE organic LED project"
    in a new dirigible?

    Making it...
    A LED Zepplin?

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  42. High Altitude Recon by JumboMessiah · · Score: 2, Informative

    If that's the intended use. Perhaps they could team up with NASA which already has a winged flying prototype.

  43. Help me with this by Xiaotou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...would operate above the jet stream and above severe weather in a geostationary position to serve as a telecommunications relay, a weather observer, or a peacekeeper from its over-the-horizon perch.


    Does "Peacekeeper" mean "Weapons Platform?"

    Or am I just being paranoid?

  44. Re:2500 watts times surface area... by applemasker · · Score: 2, Informative
    Possibly, according to globalsecurity.org's write-up of the ABL project:

    "The airborne laser will fire a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser, or COIL, which was invented at Phillips Lab in 1977. The laser's fuel consists of the same chemicals found in hair bleach and Drano - hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide - which are then combined with chlorine gas and water. The laser operates at an infrared wavelength of 1.315 microns, which is invisible to the eye. By recycling chemicals, building with plastics and using a unique cooling process, the COIL team was able to make the laser lighter and more efficient while - at the same time - increasing its power by 400 percent in five years. The flight-weighted ABL module will be similar in performance and power levels to the multi-hundred kilowatt class COIL Baseline Demonstration Laser (BDL-2) module demonstrated by TRW in August 1996. As its name implies, though, it will be lighter and more compact than the earlier version due to the integration of advanced aerospace materials into the design of critical hardware components. For the operational ABL system, several modules will be linked together in series to achieve ABL's required megawatt-class power level."

    --
    Bush Lies On the Record.
  45. I think Dubya wrote that globalsecurity.org piece! by genixia · · Score: 2, Funny
    This updated concept of a tried and proven technology takes lighter-than-air vehicles beyond the surface exclamations of: "Look, there's the Goodyear blimp." As a matter of fact, the Akron, Ohio, Lockheed Martin business unit supports the tire company's blimp fleet as the FAA certificated manufacturer and maintenance provider.

    Lockheed Martin's unique experience with certificating the GZ-22 airship with the FAA allows it to understand and address the concerns of flight through controlled airspace, especially with an unmanned airship. Safety of flight issues, operation of an unmanned vehicle, and operation over populated areas are all concerns that we have addressed during the design evolution. While most of the issues noted are not unique to special aircraft designers, it is the combination of these factors along with the long endurance that makes the design problem a difficult one.


  46. Frankly? Politics. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  47. Re:easier to take out ? by shokk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or more importantly, over border areas to give "over the horizon" view at ground targets for ground forces. At 12 miles up and 100 miles away, how many 3rd world ground forces are even going to spot it, much less shoot it down? Imagine all the advanced optics you can't put onto a Predator, and now only available on spy satellites, loaded onto this baby and you've got a nice spy platform.

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  48. Re:Density? Area? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
    I haven't RTFA yet, but this odd 2500W/kg metric sticks out to me as, well, odd.

    Aha. I RTFA and they're being paid to develop and deliver 2.5kW/kg solar panels. Their current designs put out 600W/kg, which sounds more reasonable. Hopefully they can come up with those 2500 things. That'd be pretty impressive.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  49. Partial Vacuum Blimp? by SlipJig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Read my keyboard review.
  50. Akron Airdock by Phartx2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out where they plan on building these things. It's the old Goodyear-Zepplin Airdock in Akron, OH (now owned by Lockheed Martin - see their article on the HAA.)

    A book I have (Published by Goodyear in 1923) lists this place as 1175ft x 200ft x 325ft. It even has a picture of it super-imposed over the American side of Niagara Falls (it's 75 longer). It's also mentions that it is so big that it often form clouds on the inside.

    More links are here and here

  51. 20,000? Try 4000 lbs. by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

    The way I see it, the final product is going to have a payload capacity in excess of 20,000 lbs.

    According to the linked articles the payload will be a mere 4000 lb, despite the dirigible's massive size. It makes sense, since an airship's bouyancy is created by the difference in density betwen the airship and the air around it. At sea level this large airship would have much greater lifting capability, but way up there the lifting gas won't be that much lighter than the thin atmosphere.

    By the way, some back of the envelope calculations show that this thing would have about 70% of the volume of the LZ-129 , the famous Hindenburg. The Hindenburg was considerably sleaker too, at 804 feet long vs 500. The Hindeburg carried 50 passengers and 50 crew, which alone without luggage or cargo would amount to something like 15,000 lb; in addition, the ship could carry 11 tons of cargo.

    So we're talkiing very neary 40,000 lb of payload capacity for the LZ-129 vs. 4000 for this beast. In part this is because of LZ-129's 40% greater volume (lifting gas only - overall it had 4x the volume), possibly the use of hydrogen gas (doesn't say whether the ship in question will use H or He). But mostly it is due to the fact the LZ-129's normal operating altitude was on the order of 200m.

    An airship to lift 20,000 lb to the altitude this one will would, all other things being equal, have to have five times the volume. Conservatively, we are talking about something on the order of 850 feet long; possibly a bit less because of increased volume to surface ration. Undoubtedly it would be the largest flying machine every built.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.