Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High-Altitude 'Security Blimps' Coming Soon

Posted by michael on from the sky-is-the-limit dept.

quackking writes "The AP is reporting (in New York Newsday) that the Georgia Tech spinoff company TechSphere has sold their concept of immense (300 foot diameter), high altitude spherical surveillance blimps to the honchos at Fort Benning, GA, and production is beginning now! (more here.) These things are as big as a 30-story building. Meanwhile Lockheed-Martin is working on gigantic 500-foot long robot blimps, (and more here.) This would be 25 times the size of the well-known Goodyear blimp. Says Mayor Don Plusquellic, 'For Akron, it's a very emotional thing.'"

26 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. wee! More cash for armament. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    "Our Proud & Patriotic Security Blimps will roam the country in Freedom Flotillas keeping evildoers at bay."

    - John Ashcroft

  2. Bounce wireless off big brother... by KodaK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey, fine. As long as we get to put an antenna on it and use it for wireless access.

    --
    --J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
    1. Re:Bounce wireless off big brother... by bplipschitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hey, fine. As long as we get to put an antenna on it and use it for wireless access.

      Hey, if it has an aluminized skin [or mylar or similar], you won't *need* an aerial to bounce signals off of it. Use your Pringles Can aerial, aim at blimp, and they bounce right off.

    2. Re:Bounce wireless off big brother... by The_Mystic_For_Real · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the article it says that they will be used by the telecommunications industry. It does not specify what they will be used for but it states that the key ability involved is the ability to remain over one spot. I would imagine they could use it as a temporary transmiter in areas that have lost wireless communications services.

      --

      _____

      Thank you.

  3. Techology has gone full circle by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Weren't surveillance blimps all the rage during WW-I ? . . . Nearly a century later and we've gone full circle . . .

    1. Re:Techology has gone full circle by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They were Zeppelins/Dirigibles. To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why they're trying to build giant balloons instead of rigid airships. Rigid airships are easier to engineer, have better compartmentalizing/redundancy, and can be easily built to massive proportions. Instead we'd rather have a single inflatable bag the size of the Empire State Building.

      Am I the only one who's a little surprised by their choice?

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    2. Re:Techology has gone full circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      And IIRC Japan used fire-balloons against Hawaii?

      No, not just against Hawaii. They sent hundreds (or thousands?) of hydrogen balloons, to which they had attached simple fire bomb(s) towards mainland US. Intention was to try to start forest firest and other damages, and in general create terror in civilian population (ie. demoralize enemy). There was a very interesting documentary about that campaign; campaign itself was VERY top secret during WWII (esp. on US side). For once censorship did succeed; it (lack of news related to balloons) convinced japanese that plan wasn't working. Too bad there were actual casualties -- in couple of cases kids died when they went to look into funny balloons drifting in places like Montana and Wyoming. :-/

      Wish I had link; I think you should find link to it from some PBS web site. There was also a map that had locations of every known instance of such a balloon found... and there were quite a few pins on it.

    3. Re:Techology has gone full circle by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 5, Informative
      One Japanese balloon landed in Oregon, killing 2 people. The only casualties by Japan in the continental US during WWII.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    4. Re:Techology has gone full circle by jasoncart · · Score: 5, Informative

      6 people according to this source.

    5. Re:Techology has gone full circle by Slack3r78 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I live in Columbus, GA, which is basically the city Ft. Benning is located directly next to. Benning kids go to Columbus schools, I have many friends that live on post, etc.

      A little background - Ft. Benning is the largest permanent military installation anywhere in the world, taking up a full Georgia county. It's the home of the Infantry, and if you know anyone who's gone through jump training, regardless of branch of the military, they probably came through Benning. The place is huge, and is covered with trees, the majority of the land being undeveloped and used for firing ranges, survival training, etc.

      I can see why they'd be interested in something like this; Benning is literally just too big to be fenced in like most military bases in this country. Depending on how much this costs to operate, it could be a very efficient way to keep the base at least a little bit more secure, which I see as a good thing.

      Just thought I'd chip in with a local perspective. :)

    6. Re:Techology has gone full circle by dbrower · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, you are the only one surprised by use of a blimp instead of a rigid airship.

      Rigid airships are a lot more complicated to build structurally, since they are carrying a bunch of rigid structure that does nothing to generate lift and can bend and break under stress. Blimps are not just one big ballon, but can and are compartmentalized for disaster containment. Blimps were built in large numbers during WWII as patrol craft, and operated in the US Navy in that role up to sometime in the 1960s. The USN gave up on rigid airships in the 30s, essentially after the Shenandoah went down in a storm.

      Balloons are not blimps because they don't have maneuvering engines. A spherical blimp would have engines that move it, making it more than a balloon.

      (An untethered Kite or parachute with an engine is called an ultralight, or an airplane)

      One of the big issues with these proposals has been power generation and storage. The solar generators that are light enough and flexible to go on a blimp body have tended to be low efficiency compared to heavier crystal cells, according to this, though there are claims here that new products can do nearly as well.

      Batteries are notoriously heavy, so it's a tradeoff that hasn't been economically possible yet. Things need to be efficient, light, reliable, and cheap enough. The proposed HAA is still using old lead-acid batteries! I guess this works if there is enough helium, and low enough power demand (related to low wind speed to fight).

      here is an article that describes this in more detail.

      -dB

      --
      "It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
  4. You are Number 6. by trix_e · · Score: 5, Funny

    admittedly I didn't look at the site... but thinking about giant security blimps reminded me of the "guards"...

    --
    No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
  5. The logical conclusion by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon, a stout steamer will carry all of our correspondence be-tween the United States and the British Empire, reducing communication time to a scant six weeks! Huzzah!

  6. Re:Bummer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Tired of our dreary, repressive society?
    Start an exciting new life on the outer planets!"

  7. So yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    References to "1984" have become so common and hackeneyed these days that it's become kind of like the second order version of Godwin's Law or something. I'll agree with this.

    But is this a reasonable time to start referencing 1984, now that they've started implementing actual plot devices from 1984 (the surveillance helicopters) in real life??

  8. Starcraft by nuclear305 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....Does anyone else hear some spooky voice saying 'Must Spawn More Overlords!'

    Maybe this is all just a mass coverup to crashing alien craft. The numbers of crashed alien vessels has increased to the point where we need to make sure we have enough high alt. blimps cruising around so that we can claim one crashed!

  9. It's emotional for Akron ... by s20451 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... perhaps because one of the original US military airships was the USS Akron?

    These blimps were actually aircraft carriers. Akron's sister ship, USS Macon, once "dive-bombed" a Navy ship carrying President Roosevelt, dropping a bundle of newspapers for his reading. The stunt was intended to prove the worth of aircraft against ship targets.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:It's emotional for Akron ... by john82 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a native of Akron, I can tell you that blimps are an emotional issue with residents of the region. We associate blimps with Goodyear and, by extension, the rubber companies. Prior to the late 1970s, Akron was the rubber capital of the world. There were scores of tire manufacturing plants. Likely as not, your father owed his job directly or indirectly to the rubber industry (either he worked in the plants, sold goods and services to the plants, or sold goods and services to people who worked in the plants). The rubber industry was the focal point of local pride.

      Then the rubber union went on strike one last time... *poof*

      NO more tires made in Akron. Tens of thousands of jobs eliminated. The whole local economy went in the sewer for the next 25 years.

      Akron is just starting to come back. But in the minds of the those of us from Akron, anyone's blimp makes us think of the real thing (a Goodyear blimp) and the good old days.

  10. Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    I've got them both beat... I'm working on a sport-utility blimp that's nearly the size of Australia!! The only problem I have so far is that it's a little hard to maneuver around smaller blimps.

  11. Security Cloud Cover? by pickapeppa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just think though, with enough robotic blimps spying on us, the satelites won't be able to see us. Will this mean I'll need to build a new kind of aluminum foil hat?

  12. Americans spying on Americans by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The next trend will be finding "coldspots" instead of "hotspots" - places you can go to live freely outside of the benevolent observation of the government.

  13. Homeland Security by maxdamage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Notice their plan for using the blimps for homeland security. Notice the lack of ballons to the north. Do we trust canadians now? (j/k) But seriously, what happends when somone flys over canadian air space and around the blimps?

  14. Finally, the strategic helium reserve gets a use! by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only were both rigid-body airships and blimps everywhere, helium was declared a strategic war material. A National Helium Reserve was established in 1925, and we've been sitting on stockpiles of the stuff ever since. Finally, it will get used for its intended purpose (hopefully...)

  15. Shooting down the blimp by Experiment+626 · · Score: 4, Informative

    There have been several posts to the effect of "what a big target, anyone with a gun could shoot these down". Consider the physics of this for a moment.

    A Magnum-powered hunting rifle has a muzzle velocity of around 2,000 mph (You could try using an AK or such, but these are going to be considerably lower velocity). With the high-altitude blimps flying at 65,000 feet per the article, your shot would hit it in about 22 seconds, were it not for two things:

    The first is gravity. 32.2 feet per second squared downward acceleration. Vith v^2/2*g = 131,400 feet maximum height, there is high enough initial velocity to hit the blimp.

    The second problem, however, is air resistance. The aforementioned bullet loses half its velocity within the first 1,800 feet or so even in level flight, and continues to slow down from there.

    Between these two considerations, there is no way for a bullet (except maybe from a huge cannon) to hit something that is 65,000 feet up in the air.

    Even if you did hit it, a blimp is not going to suddenly pop like a rubber balloon. You might get lucky and hit a motor or some other critical component, but just hitting the surface of the blimp (which is what makes it such a big target) is just going to put a 1/3" hole in something as big as a skyscraper, and make it leak at a negligible rate.

    1. Re:Shooting down the blimp by praksys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me guess, you think that blimps are filled with hydrogen just like the Hindenberg? These days they use helium. It doesn't burn. In fact it is so non-flamable that you could use it to put out fires.

      As the poster above said they would be above the range of guns. No significant heat signature so man-carried surface to air missles are out. And yes they do have to come down, but they launch straight up so, unlike fixed-wing aircraft, there is no long flight-path to guard.

      A high-altitude radar guided surface to air missile would probably do the trick. But really, if therrorists are setting up radar systems and SAM batteries in your back-yard then you have more to worry about than having an unmanned blimp shot down.

  16. Re:Bummer. by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 5, Funny

    If those lighted messages on these security blimps were done with light-emitting diodes, could you call one a Led Zeppelin?

    --
    That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!