Slashdot Mirror


Internet-By-Airship Scheduled For Trial Next Month

Reader ScrewTivo points to this Economist article on one of my favorite potential delivery means for high-speed Net access: stratosphere-dwelling airships. This version, from Sanswire Networks, is dubbed a "Stratellite," -- and one is scheduled to launch next month. As the submitter writes, "It's basically a blimp that thinks it's a geostationary satellite floating at 65K feet!"

257 comments

  1. Re:ANAL AVENGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to ask us to join the GNAA.

  2. Brings new meaning to connection is down by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    Brings new meaning to connection is down ;-)

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Brings new meaning to connection is down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what a virus will be like...

    2. Re:Brings new meaning to connection is down by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Grrrrrrrrrrr ;-P Beat me by mere SECONDS!

      My long lost BROTHER!

      --
    3. Re:Brings new meaning to connection is down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH, THE HUMANITY!!

    4. Re:Brings new meaning to connection is down by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Well, that went down like a Lead Stratellite...

    5. Re:Brings new meaning to connection is down by jim_v2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rather than "Oh, the humanity!", we'd have "Oh the connectivity!" as the stratelite crashes to the ground...

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    6. Re:Brings new meaning to connection is down by fade-in · · Score: 1

      What IF one of these things came down? I read the specs on the company's website, where they gave data about the length, volume, payload capacity, etc., but they didn't mention how massive the airship itself is. If for some reason it deflated, or was shot down by a really big shoulder fired rocket, what kind of damage are we looking forward to? Moreso because these will be floated above metro areas?

      --
      This sig is inappropriate in a post-9/11 world.
  3. Cost savings by Yoweigh116 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really hope this becomes a popular alternative for satellites as a provider of these services. This has got to cost significantly less, and hopefully these saving will be passed on to consumers.

    1. Re:Cost savings by dustinbarbour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure sure.. but what happens as commercial jetliners begin flying at those heights? I mean, recent developments are pushing towards that height. In fact, the idea is to get higher where drag is lower thus allowing for faster travel to far-flung destinations. Aer we gonna be forced to navigate around these things and begin crowding the skys?

    2. Re: Cost Savings by yourexhalekiss · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think this is AWESOME. I hope it works out; Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow will be Today.

    3. Re:Cost savings by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IANAP, but I think it's probably a lot easier to avoid hitting a blimp than it is to avoid hitting another plane.

      There are hundreds or thousands of planes in the sky at all times, many at the same altitude, in the same vicinity. How many mid-air crashes have you ever heard about?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    4. Re:Cost savings by chr1sb · · Score: 1

      If the blimps are above major metropolitan areas, then I would expect that most aircraft in the vicinity will be landing or taking off, and will need to be at much lower altitudes. These blimps have a very broad coverage, and so should be easily positioned outside of air corridors.

    5. Re:Cost savings by sahonen · · Score: 1

      We have a ton of air traffic controllers whose job it is to keep the planes 5 miles apart from each other at all times.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    6. Re:Cost savings by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Why can't we turn them into navigational buoys as well for the jetliners? Eventually as we move to populate the galaxy and our orbit (maybe with a space elevator platform) we're going to need waypoints to launch repair, and other operations from. I see no reason why these buoys can't help fill that role.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    7. Re:Cost savings by thogard · · Score: 1

      Most major cities have VORs at the main airport or nearby that define the airways. The result is a jet from St Louis to Denver will fly driectly over the VOR at Kansas City even though the best course would have been about 50 miles north. Keeping the jets on the jetways and not going free for all, allows controllers to concentrate on the jetway intersections and it also works well when problems happen since everything is planned in advance.

    8. Re:Cost savings by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      These would also be a cheaper way than satellites for big brother to watch.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    9. Re:Cost savings by jcr · · Score: 1

      Sure sure.. but what happens as commercial jetliners begin flying at those heights?

      They avoid them just like they avoid other jetliners. Air traffic control is a pretty well-developed practice these days.

      Aer we gonna be forced to navigate around these things and begin crowding the skys?

      I don't think you quite grasp the amount of room available once you get off the ground.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Cost savings by Rii · · Score: 0

      So long as He stays cheap. There were some comments on another story that Gelium reserves are low. It says 37,000 cubic metres of Helium, but at what T & P? How many moles?

    11. Re:Cost savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think it's probably a lot easier to avoid hitting a blimp than it is to avoid hitting another plane.

      Yes.

      We have a ton of air traffic controllers whose job it is to keep the planes 5 miles apart from each other at all times.

      Yes, but...

      Air Traffic Controllers don't tell ALL pilots where to go unless over controlled airspace. Once a pilot gets into a certain area they pretty much have full control over which direction they head. This is esspecially true of small private planes.

      The reason we don't hear so much about mid-air collisions is more or less a case of "Big Sky Little Plane" as one of my pilot buddies once told me. That means the highest risk of having a mid-air collision is in the areas where planes are most likely to be taking off or landing. Thus the need for air-traffic controllers.

      The rest of the space is pretty much just wide opened, and the odds of two planes colliding are pretty slim. That doesn't mean a collision couldn't happen, but when was the last time you heard about one?

    12. Re:Cost savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      65k should be enough for everybody.

    13. Re:Cost savings by Ahruman · · Score: 1

      There was one in the last year or so. A DHL plane and a Russian passenger plane over Switzerland, ISTR.

    14. Re:Cost savings by afidel · · Score: 1

      It's also nice because latency is a fraction of what is to even a LEO satelite so you could use it for things that are latency sensitive like gaming and VoIP.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    15. Re:Cost savings by sjames · · Score: 1

      Air Traffic Controllers don't tell ALL pilots where to go unless over controlled airspace. Once a pilot gets into a certain area they pretty much have full control over which direction they head. This is esspecially true of small private planes.

      There are several reasons this isn't a problem. For one, small private planes aren't likely to fly that high. A blimp is a huge visual and radar target. The blimps will be reletivly stationary, A pilot just has to make sure their course won't take them closer than a minumum safe distance. It's not like they'll be nose to tail across the sky.

    16. Re:Cost savings by mhteas · · Score: 1

      USA currently has over a dozen tethered blimps near various parts of the borders of the country. These are on a steel cable and are as high as 14000 feet above sea level. They exist to provide a stable radar platform for border patrol.

      A quick search of the NTSB database shows no accidents with these blimps or with their cables.

      This doesn't mean accidents won't occur, but the planes that fly at 65K feet would have more traffic conflict devices than those that fly lower. It's a big sky after all.

      --
      It can't be that hard, it's only ones and zeros: http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz
  4. am I just a naysayer? by justkarl · · Score: 0, Troll

    Pardon my insolence, stupidity, or lack of logic; but I'm not sure that this is the most fantastic idea for high-speed I've ever heard. First, DSL and Cable work GREAT. And for people in less, erm, metropolitan areas, satellite works great. Except when the weather goes. But how would a floating WAP work better than that?

    Far as I'm concerned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    1. Re:am I just a naysayer? by l810c · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Cable and DSL are a duopoly to some areas and a monopoly in others. I still think they are Way over priced due to this. Their coverage is still lacking in a lot of areas. There are still some fairly affluent areas 25 miles from Atlanta that are not covered.

      Satellite is even more expensive and you can forget gaming or uploading.

    2. Re:am I just a naysayer? by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

      You are going about it completely the wrong way. DSL and cable DO NOT work great. There is a limited capaticity on any line or wired network. The wires can only take in so much bandwidth. Therefore in populated areas you have to install Fiber Optic networks just to maintain highspeeds. The reality is we need better technology because populations are constantly increasing and cable networks are constantly becoming bigger. A lot of people see this in the fact that they have constant downtimes because of it. I for example lose internet at primetimes very often due to high connectivity. Wireless airships remove this. Then its just radio waves being sent back and forth and it is less costly then satellites which are already being used too much according to some. The world is going wireless is what I keep telling everyone. You should expect to see wired networks declining until they are gone because they are so limited. The question is what affect will all the radio traffic have on the world. That I do not know and it would be interesting to see if anyone finds or has found what happens with increased radio traffic in areas. We might be setting ourselves up for an interference nightmare in 20 years or so where nothing is usuable because there is so much clutter. Essentially filling our air full of radio waves until we make the air into a traffic nightmare equivalent to rush hour traffic in cities.

    3. Re:am I just a naysayer? by UnpopularOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I think maybe you are just a naysayer... DSL and cable work great... if you can get them. I'm not just talking about 'less metropolitan' areas, as you call them. There are plenty of places where you can't get DSL (e.g. pair-gain) or cable (houses just aren't wired). In Sydney, for example - just read one of the many despairing articles on www.whirlpool.net.au forums. Even wifi (for example www.unwired.com.au) leaves lots of black spots. This is a way of giving an entire city access in one shot. Let me also add that this kind of addition to the broadband arsenal gives more choice - and more choice is good, right? :) As for satellite, if you had RTFA then you would have seen that this idea is much less expensive and more reusable than satellites.

    4. Re:am I just a naysayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Much lower latencies. Internet access satellites are located in geostationary orbit, sharing the same machines basically as the TV satellites (that's why they're operated by the same companies). Geostationary is like hundreds of milliseconds round trip, which makes certain applications (read: games) completely useless. Low Earth orbit satellites are just a hundred or so miles up, and have much lower latencies, but are extremely expensive to launch and track (remember Teledesic? didn't think so).

      The nice thing about blimps is that (1) they're easy to recover for repairs (they don't burn up when you try and "deorbit" them), and (2) they have even lower latency than LEOs. The main disadvantage is having to deal with the weather and gas leakage, but putting them up in the stratosphere eliminates weather as a problem, and gas leakage is a lot cheaper at the low pressures in the upper atmosphere than anything involving orbital launches.

    5. Re:am I just a naysayer? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Satellite works great if you have $10 million to invest in one. Until then, blimps are cheaper.

      You'll notice satellite service is quite a bit more expensive and slower than DSL/cable.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    6. Re:am I just a naysayer? by Bi()hazard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Satellite works great? I take you you don't like to telecommute, play games, use voice over IP, or just about anything else that depends on latency. Satellites give you high ping times because light takes a long time to travel up and back down. These airships are high enough that the problem won't vanish entirely, but they are far lower than satellites, and the ping times should be reasonable enough to make applications like the ones I mentioned usable. This is an enormous improvement for users in rural areas.

      Aside from the fact that it IS broke, and no I won't pardon your insolence, stupidity, or lack of logic :P, fixing things that aren't broke is what the technology industry is all about.

      At the very least, if this fails you'll be able to get good quality airships for cheap at auction. Imagine what you could do with one of these, it's perfect for up and coming supervillains. These things are suitable for heavy lifting and transport duties, allowing you to carry enough supplies to life off for months and even deploy helicopters. The location gives you excellent sensor range even if you're positioned over international waters, as well as making this an ideal missile launching platform.

      It becomes even more compelling when you build a fleet of airships. With enough redundancy to withstand attacks and keep all the bases covered regarding supplies, fuel, deployable vehicles, and armaments, these airships would make a very suitable mobile base of operations. Perfect for those who can't be sequestered in a remote island lair.

      Most important of all, just imagine how cool it would be! Put on some classical aviator outfits, go forth onto the bow, cast against the panorama of your harsh azure domain. Astride an entire world, master of all you survey, the piercing frigidity of the howling wind is surpassed only by your cold, unforgiving glare. No mere ant below can hope to contend with one to whom Olympus is but a speck, one who has usurped the very domain of Zeus himself. Count your days, hopeless mortals, for by this iron hand the sky is falling!

    7. Re:am I just a naysayer? by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      not better....but cheaper.

      --
      what?
    8. Re:am I just a naysayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to satellite, this has MUCH MUCH MUCH lower latency. 1/2 second compared to virtually none.

    9. Re:am I just a naysayer? by flacco · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      fixing things that aren't broke is what the technology industry is all about.

      except for microsoft, which is all about not fixing what is broke.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    10. Re:am I just a naysayer? by justkarl · · Score: 1

      Cable and DSL are a duopoly to some areas and a monopoly in others. I still think they are Way over priced due to this. Their coverage is still lacking in a lot of areas. There are still some fairly affluent areas 25 miles from Atlanta that are not covered.

      I totally agree that cable is overpriced(i pay something like $39 a month) but it is indeed a monopoly, and there's little we can do about it, even putting a big ambiguous blimp in the sky...I just don't see this costing less or having more benefits......

    11. Re:am I just a naysayer? by nyekulturniy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let us also remember that these 65,000 ft airships can also be used for surveillance. The U.S. military apparently has a black program using these as well.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    12. Re:am I just a naysayer? by c00kiemonster · · Score: 1

      it will be the developing world were this will come into its own , we already have cable / fiber in our major population centres , imagine pleaces like central africa were you could theorecticly provide service to the entire area, this is absolutly unreal in terms were this could take us

    13. Re:am I just a naysayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny??? This is insightful, well worthy of being the plan of I, Dr. Demontoes

    14. Re:am I just a naysayer? by alc6379 · · Score: 1

      Heck, just to put a finer point on it... I wanted to get DSL last year (it was cheaper than cable), and I live less than five miles from downtown Nashville, TN. However, due to my location, I was 200 feet too far away from the CO to get ADSL...

      --
      I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
    15. Re:am I just a naysayer? by jbridge21 · · Score: 1

      These airships are high enough that the problem won't vanish entirely

      Methinks the fiber running from your house in NY to the server in CA will add a slight bit more latency than a 13 mile vertical round trip.

    16. Re:am I just a naysayer? by famebait · · Score: 1

      These airships are high enough that the problem won't vanish entirely,

      Actually it effectively will. It may be a significant height compared to low-earth orbit, but compared to geostationary it's nothing.
      Or more immediately: think about the corresponding distance along landlines; not really very far.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    17. Re:am I just a naysayer? by edittard · · Score: 0
      imagine pleaces like central africa were you could theorecticly provide service to the entire area, this is absolutly unreal in terms were this could take us
      Greetings, I am the son of the recently deposed N'Bongian Misnister of WiFi Zeppelins...
      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    18. Re:am I just a naysayer? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I think the government has so many ways to snoop as it is that it really doesn't matter if they find one more way. Do you care if they're watching you with a satelite or an airship? At least an airship is easier to shoot down. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  5. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think "you fail it"

  6. Where? by l810c · · Score: 1
    The company is in Atlanta, but is that where this first launch is going to be?

    I'm in Atlanta, how do I become a beta tester :)

    1. Re:Where? by Tonimus · · Score: 1

      Beta tether?

  7. Tech Support by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Funny

    Support: This is Gas Bag Networks, how my I help you? Customer; Yeah, the Internet went down. Support: Can you describe the problem? Customer: The &!#!&#$ blimp crashed into my livingroom!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Tech Support by krbvroc1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Support: This is Gas Bag Networks, how my I help you? Customer; Yeah, the Internet went down. Support: Can you describe the problem? Customer: The &!#!&#$ blimp crashed into my livingroom!

      Support: Sir, the network appears to be fine. We have not received any reports of trouble from your area.
      Customer: I can see the blimp smoldering in my living room.
      Support: We require several people in your area to report a problem before we can open a ticket for you.
      Custumer: The blimp has crashed through my living room ceiling, I need help.
      Support: Sir, what operating system are you running?
      Customer: Why does that matter, the blimb is down. Please send someone.
      Support: Sir, are you using a router?
      Customer: Uh, yes.
      Support: Sir, could you please reset your router by unplugging it, waiting 30 seconds, and then powering it on. Please tell me when you have done this.
      Customer: What does my router have to do with the blimp crashing!!
      Support: Sir, lets try disconnecting your router completely and plugging your network directly into the BlimpoNIC.
      Customer: Listen here buddy, there is nothing wrong with my computer. Your blimp has crashed into my living room!
      Support: Sir, let me connect you to our public relations department. Before I do so, is there anything else I can help you with today?
      Customer: No!
      Support: I'm transferring you now sir.

      Click...DIALTONE

    2. Re:Tech Support by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously another satisfied AOL customer.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:Tech Support by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      Click...DIALTONE


      I see this all the time in movies. Is there a place where you get a dial tone a couple of seconds after the remote party disconnects?

      -Peter
  8. That's gotta hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Seinfeld reference:)

  9. Correction.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Dubbed a Stratellite(TM)
    Just try using that word outside casual conversation!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Correction.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ms Portman felt the full force of my Stratellite(TM) as she poured Hot Grits down my pants.

    2. Re:Correction.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Should be:
      Ms Portman(TM) felt The Force® of my Stratellite(TM) as she poured Hot Grits(TM) down my pants.

      What the hell are Hot Grits anyway??

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:Correction.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nice correction® t_allardyce(TM)

  10. But how does it affect streaming media? by nihilistcanada · · Score: 1

    With all that helium everybody is going to sound like the Chipmunks.

  11. Re:Ouch! by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Like I need you to rub it in, AC!

    --
  12. I couldn't help it... by slinky259 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new ISPs in the sky!

    ~stephen

    http://slinky259.blogspot.com

    1. Re:I couldn't help it... by Fareq · · Score: 1

      I bet you could if you tried...

      In Soviet Russia Blimp Crashes YOU!

      err... wait...

      (Apparently I can't resist either)

    2. Re:I couldn't help it... by fuyu-no-neko · · Score: 1

      Shoddy American workmanship. In Soviet Russia we make our blimps from CAST IRON!!!!

      --
      Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
  13. Hurricanes by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

    Imagine a hurricane sucking up a few of those. "I may not have power, but dammit I've got 98% signal strength!"

    1. Re:Hurricanes by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      Imagine a hurricane sucking up a few of those. "I may not have power, but dammit I've got 98% signal strength!"

      The craft will be operating at 65,000 ft, where there aren't any hurricanes.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    2. Re:Hurricanes by DoraLives · · Score: 1

      Disregarding the odds for a particularly severe thunderstorm actually reaching the altitude of the blimp (it happens), I'm curious about what happens when the blimp gets in the line of fire of one of these, or some of the other stuff that occasionally occurs way up yonder.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    3. Re:Hurricanes by nytes · · Score: 1

      There will be a mighty "thpppppppt" as the blimp deflates and zooms around the sky, finally fluttering limply to the ground a suffocating some poor shmoe who just happened to be walking in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  14. My company... by Zangief · · Score: 2, Funny

    has the technology to put geostationary satelites at just 0 mt. from the ground!!!

    1. Re:My company... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrapping a box in tin foil and sticking an umbrella on top doesn't make it a geostationary satellite ;)

      Its not rocket science, everyone knows you have to add a coat hanger antenna and flashing LEDs to pull it off.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:My company... by Zangief · · Score: 1

      Damn you! Our stock hit an all time low after your post!!

  15. How good will this really be? by koreaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really don't think this will be all that good. First of all, I don't know a whole lot about satellite transmission, but I know it's a lot slower than standard internet technology.

    Combine this lack of competitive speed with the fact that your network is relying on floating things 13 miles in the air for its reliability. Even if this is no less safe than a server sitting in a room (which I seriously doubt) someone will still have to have a physical presense sooner or later to fix something or install new hardware.

    Also, how much is this going to cost? Tons and tons of anything, including helium, isn't cheap. Also, as I mentioned before, maintenance will be a real pain. Not only will it be a real pain, but it will cost a great deal of money to perform. Even if your server only needs maintenance once every two years, that still adds up. This will equate to higher costs for end users.

    Furthermore, I think the reliability will be rather low. I don't know why, but I just have a bad feeling about tons of servers and equipment suspended in the air.

    Maybe my misgivings are unfounded, but I really don't think this will fly. (pun not intended.) I like the idea, but I think it will be more productive, cheap, and reliable to use lots of inexpensive 802.11 equipment.

    1. Re:How good will this really be? by rewt66 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, first of all, this can be a lot faster than setellite, because you only have 13 miles of time lag, instead of 24,000 miles. Second, maintenance is a lot easier than satellite. Once you have a satellite in geostationary orbit, even the shuttle can't service it - even when the shuttle is flying. And how expensive is it? Well, it's less expensive than launching into geostationary orbit... But is it enough cheaper than cable/DSL and enough faster than dialup to matter to people? I don't know.

    2. Re:How good will this really be? by Liket · · Score: 1

      I think it will rock.

      The main reason why satellite links are so slow is that geostationary orbit is 36000 kilometers up. Going up there and back twice translates to a long ping time. Even though you can achieve good transfer rates with protocols that take this into account (standard tcp/ip certainly doesn't), it still feels unresponsive.

      If the Stratellite(tm) is at 65000 feet, this may actually improve ping time compared to conventional connections, since the signal can now go in a straight line.

      ///Leif

    3. Re:How good will this really be? by kaiser423 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only reason that current satellite internet is slower (latency wise) than wiredi nternet, is that it physically takes the light a full half second to go up and back down, and then you have your tradition routing delays. This would cut that down by an order of magnitude, and therefore would be a viable alternative to the standard wires. Also, any cost is going to be an order of magnitude lower than what it would be for a satellite system, and those are still in business. I'm not saying that this is going to be a spectacular success, but it seems to be a good solution to many of the current problems.

    4. Re:How good will this really be? by NevermindPhreak · · Score: 2, Interesting
      cost: the article says something like a $20 million initial cost, then every 18 months you have to service it. so im guessing theyll have two, one up at all times and one down. considering they can cover an area the size of texas, thats a lot of users to share the cost.

      speed: satellite is so slow because its so extreamly far away, and because most people have to use a landline to upload. this is able to solve both of those problems, so i expect it to be about as fast as any broadband. all youre doing is sending a signal into the sky for a few hundred miles, at whatever speed they travel at. (speed of light? do radio transmissions travel slower?) expect your connection to go to hell on cloudy days though. :O

      reliability: im sure theyve worked out all the engineering numbers on this. its eally easy to suspend an air balloon at that high, because theres so little wind to deal with. its really just physics anyways: you have X tons of equipment, X mass of helium will raise that weight. people didnt trust boats made of metal at first either. :-P

      the way i see it, if they cant get the numbers to work, they they lose money, not me. if it comes out and its really nice, maybe ill sign up, maybe not. but if it sucks, i havent wasted any money on it.

    5. Re:How good will this really be? by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is why you would take the time to write out such a post without actually finding out anything about the topic of your post.

      This will be much faster than satellite, as it is many thousands of miles closer.

      These things land every long while for maintenance and upgrades. This will be staggered so that connectivity isn't lost. Maintenance won't be as bad as you think.

      Your post is simple ignorance and fear of the unknown. This is not meant as a flame, but it's true. Just because you don't know anything about the subject, don't assume that the company making the Stratellites hasn't thought of these issues.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    6. Re:How good will this really be? by wronski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>I really don't think this will be all that good. First of all, I don't know a whole lot about
      >>satellite transmission, but I know it's a lot slower than standard internet technology.
      These things will be much closer (by a factor of 1000) than satelites, so they should be competitive speedwise, and use far less power to transmit. Theyll also cover a much smaller area each, and thus allow for more bandwidth

      >> someone will still have to have a physical presense sooner or later to fix something or
      >> install new hardware.
      Satellites dont need (or are able to receive) maintenence. nd in any case these things should be able to be floated down for repairs

      >>Also, how much is this going to cost?
      A lot, but far less than sattelites. My guess is that it will be comparable to a 3G mobile network.

      >>Furthermore, I think the reliability will be rather low. I don't know why, but I just have a
      >>bad feeling about tons of servers and equipment suspended in the air.
      Well, the stratosphere is a reasonably quiet place, with no changing weather. It is far above commercial planes. I thinks they can use ionic engines for station keeping. These are reliable (years of continuous use) and low consumption.

      >>I think it will be more productive, cheap, and reliable to use lots of inexpensive 802.11
      >>equipment.
      I think covering entire cities with wi-fi (with all ensuing basing concessions and line of sigth issues) would be more unpractical than having one or two stratospheric blimps floating above.

    7. Re:How good will this really be? by spagetti_code · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I disagree - I think its a great idea. First - lets tackle the technology:
      • Geosync orbit is 35786 km. Latency is at least 240ms one way for any packet (up and back) - higher if you are not directly under the satellite. Talk to any gamer and they would be unimpressed. With this, at 65000ft or about 20km, the latency due to distance is under 1ms.
      • Its cheap - as they say you can quickly drop one anywhere, anytime you need it. e.g. place one above a ballgame to deal with all the cellphone calls (and whose to say they can't lower it if the weathers ok!)
      As to the market... I live in Auckland, NZ, and we have a very slow uptake of broadband due to a single provider who owns all copper to the house (read: ugly monopoly and weak government regulator). Other wireless options exist if you live close to them (e.g. if you can see the skytower). Drop one of these above the city and bingo - broadband for the price of an aerial.

      I think that model is transportable - anywhere the infrastructure is too expensive or too difficult to provide broadband or telephones - simply drop in one of these. For example:

      • Monopoly copper to the house
      • Difficult terrain
      • Sparse neighborhoods
      And they are relatively cheap - its just a balloon. A nice one, sure, but still just a balloon. One that they can take down and service. Can't do that with a satellite.
    8. Re:How good will this really be? by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      All very very good points....however I would like to add to your comment:

      "think covering entire cities with wi-fi (with all ensuing basing concessions and line of sigth issues) would be more unpractical than having one or two stratospheric blimps floating above."

      While this is totally true I think it is worth mentioning that it is much less resiliant than the cities with wi-fi.

      --
      what?
    9. Re:How good will this really be? by spitefulcrow · · Score: 1

      Except that the signal still has to bounce up and down and then through whatever gateways and routers are along the path to the other end. My ping to my CMTS is in the neighborhood of 15ms.

      --
      Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
    10. Re:How good will this really be? by j14ast · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. This isn't going to replace fiber or copper, this is suposed to replace comm sats. Things which ride many tons worth of tnt into orbit , get hit by paintchips traveling well over 10,000kph, then go out with a big bang and BURN UP in the atmasphere(well mostly). With them there is no hope of repairing(well you can it just costs bilions of dollars. see hubble) balloons you can resonably bring down, do maintance, clean the solar panels, refuel and put it back up.

      --
      Damn the man!
    11. Re:How good will this really be? by koreaman · · Score: 1

      I have been sufficiently proven wrong.

      Therefore, please stop replying to my post.

    12. Re:How good will this really be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little lost...

      "First of all, I don't know a whole lot about satellite transmission, but I know it's a lot slower than standard internet technology."

      Yup. Part of the reason, as I understand it, is purely distance. The signal has to travel 22,000 miles up 22,000 miles back. So figure it takes a quarter of a second just to send a request. Since the reply takes the same route, it's another quarter of a second. So even an "instant" reply would take take half-a-second.

      Conversely, the airships are at about 12 miles up, making the signal travel time much smaller.

      "Even if this is no less safe than a server sitting in a room someone will still have to have a physical presense sooner or later to fix something or install new hardware."

      Right. So you build two blimps. When one gets persnickity, you launch the other one and land the first one. Fix it and keep it ready for when the second one goes persnickity.

      If you have a satellite, it's very expensive to bring it back down to repair it or to send someone up later to fix something or install new hardware.

      "Also, how much is this going to cost? Tons and tons of anything, including helium, isn't cheap."

      Well, let's see. The article says it takes 37,000 cubic meters of helium. I'll show my math, 'cause I may be wrong. That's 121,391 cubic feet of helium. In 1986, the cost of helium was $37.50 for 1000 cubic feet. So that's about $4550 to fill 'er up every 18 months.

      "I like the idea, but I think it will be more productive, cheap, and reliable to use lots of inexpensive 802.11 equipment."

      Again, according to the article, something like this could provide coverage for an area of 800,000 square kilometers, an area the size of Texas. You'd have to use lots and lots and lots and lots of inexpensive 802.11 equipment to get the same coverage. And one of these blimps costs $20 million. So for reliability, you have two of them at $40 million.

      I'm not sure how cheap 802.11 equipment is, but to cover every inch of Texas, they'd need to cost less than $50 per, assuming you could get one that would cover 1 square kilometer.

      Yes, I know. A calculator is a dangerous thing for those of us who don't know how to use it...

    13. Re:How good will this really be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent Summary:

      Parent considers Stratellite concept not "all that good" because

      1) Although he doesn't know about satellite transmission, he thinks it will be slow.
      2) Although he doesn't know about the price of helium, he thinks it will be expensive.
      3) Although he doesn't know about the reliability, he thinks it will be poor.
      4) Although he doesn't know about the validity of his concerns, he thinks that he is correct.

    14. Re:How good will this really be? by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      http://www.google.com.au/search?q=speed+of+light+i n+feet+per+second
      the speed of light = 983 571 056 feet per second

      $ bc
      bc 1.06
      Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
      This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
      For details type `warranty'.
      0.015*983571056
      14753565.840
      scale= 6
      65000/983571056 .000066

      That's 14 million feet in 15 milliseconds - or 66 microseconds propagation delay for 65K feet.

    15. Re:How good will this really be? by thogard · · Score: 1

      A nano-light second is a foot...
      65000 ft=65000ns or 65us.
      Easier?

    16. Re:How good will this really be? by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      A nano-light second is a foot...

      That's very good... despite seeing the number and being mathematically inclined, I didn't notice the simplification...

      I'll put it down to being a metric system kid, and leave it at that...

    17. Re:How good will this really be? by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      Was just about to make the above point myself :) Well, even if they aren't very servieable, replacements could be very cheap compared to satellites. Plus, if they could get this to work in a P2P fashion, it's going to be a really viable alternative ESPECIALLY for developing countries, plus you could upgrade each node very easily.
      The only thing is that you would need to make sure that aircraft are kept well away from these things. This would definitely help in reducing gaming lag. If this takes off, I can definitely see a lot of international gamers using this, which would lead to much more fun :)

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    18. Re:How good will this really be? by thogard · · Score: 1

      In that case a nano light second is 29.99 cm which is that mulitple that all your building materials come in.

    19. Re:How good will this really be? by jcr · · Score: 1

      . First of all, I don't know a whole lot about satellite transmission, but I know it's a lot slower than standard internet technology.

      This isn't a satellite. A blimp over a city is a *lot* closer. (42,000 Km versus about 18 Km) If you're further than 18 Kilometers from your ISP, then this approach is a win (compare speed of light, versus speed of electricity through a wire).

      Also, as I mentioned before, maintenance will be a real pain. Not only will it be a real pain, but it will cost a great deal of money to perform.

      Are you assuming that a human being will have to go up to the blimp, rather than bringing the blimp down for service?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    20. Re:How good will this really be? by Sajma · · Score: 1

      It's fun to think about how they'll do failover between the primary and the backup: move the backup into position directly over the primary, then move the primary out of the way, and presto -- the backup is in position (maybe 100M too high, but this should be close enough to provide some service until it can descend to the correct altitude). Meanwhile, the primary can land and get serviced.

    21. Re:How good will this really be? by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      13 miles in the air

      That's hella closer than a satellite, by over 20,000 miles. I think that would let it be a lot faster than what's currently available with sat.

    22. Re:How good will this really be? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would also make a cool hosting environment... cheap cooling for the servers, nearly double the hours of solar exposure compared to the ground (and no temperature issues). Lots of cool applications could come of it...

      And finally, weight would be a viable consideration for the Intel et al, justifying the higher density solutions...

    23. Re:How good will this really be? by kwilliamyoungatl · · Score: 1

      Well, their marketing is total BS, from a science perspective. Cred flash: BS, Math, UGA. From their FAQ:
      1. What about the wind at 65,000 feet? Will it affect the Stratellite? Answer: A 60 mph wind at 65,000 feet has 1/18 the amount of force that at 60 mph wind at sea level has. It is still moving at 60 mph, but there are 1/18 the molecules in motion. Insofar as force is concerned, it could be said that a 60 mph wind at 65,000 feet would have the same force against the Stratellite as a 3 mile per hour wind would have at sea level.
      Um, that's not how fluid dynamics work. Think about it: there are a far smaller number of molicules of motor oil, too. But the force is different. You can't just take the number of molicules. I remember something aobut working this type of problem in a complex variables class. I don't know what the equation was, but I strongly doubt the relationship is exactly linear. Moreover, it's colder, which also effects viscosity.

    24. Re:How good will this really be? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Methinks you don't understand. There don't need to be servers on the blimp. All the blimp needs to do is echo signals from the base station across the coverage area, and from the coverage area back to the base station. That's all. The equipment to do this can quite easily last for 20 years and be efficient enough after all of them. The routing etc. all takes place at the base station.

      --
      I am trolling
    25. Re:How good will this really be? by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      ...the fact that your network is relying on floating things 13 miles in the air for its reliability.

      This probably improves reliability. No water company to cut through your connection, no fire in the next building bringing the whole thing down (those are the causes of the two longest breaks in my cable connection over the past few years).

      Also, I think the environment is relatively stable up there. Cooling is going to be relatively cheap and easy for a start.

      Also, as I mentioned before, maintenance will be a real pain.

      Why?
      Any serious company will have redundant kit, and these guys will be no different. So, if you run N of these platforms you have N+10% (min N+1) of them on hand. When you need to fix/upgrade one, you launch a fixed/upgraded one, then when you are sure it is in place and working you switch the load, land the existing one and fix/upgrade it, and it becomes one of your spares. Apart from the time taken to physically get the things up and down this is no different from any normal update to a working system.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    26. Re:How good will this really be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At an altitude of just 13 miles the Shuttles would have to orbit too fast to stay near the Airship. So the the crew could do lots of mini repairs every orbit...

      Or if we got a really small shuttle it could orbit slower as there would be less mass to fling around.

      Or we could use a lift to get to them...

      Or a giant catapult...

      Or a Trojan Horse... (Ok Silly now!)

    27. Re:How good will this really be? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2
      if we got a really small shuttle it could orbit slower as there would be less mass to fling around.
      Or we could make the shuttle from feathers, because any fule kno that a ton of those is lighter than a ton of metal.

      Who started this stupid meme about mass of satellites affecting their speeds? I've seen it so many times recently.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:How good will this really be? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      A nano-light second is a foot...
      So how many of those would it take to do the Kessel run?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:How good will this really be? by Moderatbastard · · Score: 1

      Are you new here, by any chance?

      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    30. Re:How good will this really be? by DeepStream · · Score: 1

      Luckily, the atmosphere isn't composed of motor oil :)

      For low pressure gases like are involved here, the approximation that all that matters for fluid forces is the number of molecules and the mass of each one (fluid density) is pretty reasonable. Given that N2, and O2, the major components of the atmosphere, aren't too far off in mass (28 vs 32 g/mol), it's reasonable to neglect the mass term even if there are differences in relative composition, so the basic couting of molecules isn't a terrible argument, and is definitely a reasonable level of science for a marketing blurb.

    31. Re:How good will this really be? by wronski · · Score: 1

      "While this is totally true I think it is worth mentioning that it is much less resiliant than the cities with wi-fi."

      I agree, a network is intrinsically more robust than a single hub. But in practice the network must provide multiple pathways of communication between each two points, or a failure in one node may split the network in two. If the floaters can be made redundant (say, 3 per city, but being able to function with 2), it should be resilient enough for most purposes.

    32. Re:How good will this really be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the mental image of guys doing HALO jumps holding toolkits.

    33. Re:How good will this really be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, now I'm confused. I thought mass affected how much effort was required to change something's velocity. Thus, lower mass means less reactants. Or am I nuts? It's been too long... :)

  16. That's using your head. by Meetch · · Score: 1
    I hope these things stay up there and prove viable. Naturally, the closer to the ground the s(tr)atellite is, the better the response time. That's always been the problem with traditional geosync satellites - while they could usually handle high bandwidth by allowing large packet windows, there was always significant lag, which kinda interferes with the online gaming.

    Will we stratellites in place as an alternative for when backhoe incidents occur? And if so, when?

  17. Will you be able to see it from the ground? by catbutt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not that it matters. Just curious.

    1. Re:Will you be able to see it from the ground? by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      almost certainly. On clear nights you can see satellite blinking by so you could certainly see these guy's.

      --
      what?
    2. Re:Will you be able to see it from the ground? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      almost certainly. On clear nights you can see satellite blinking by so you could certainly see these guy's.

      AFAIK the only satellite you can see at night is the moon. Maybe you should look into that eyeglass prescription, I think someone might have added a couple extra zeros to it...

    3. Re:Will you be able to see it from the ground? by jimmyfergus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, but you can see satellites because they're out there in the sunlight when it's dark down here. (Blinking? I've seen them glide across the sky, but not blink.)

      That said, I'd have thought you'd see it.

      145ft wide at 65000 ft, thats equivalent to 1/4 inch at 10 feet (or 11mm at 5m). It might well be visible in the right lighting, particularly just after sunset. And it's longer than it's wide.

    4. Re:Will you be able to see it from the ground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. If you're gonna write "guy's", shouldn't you also write "night's"?

    5. Re:Will you be able to see it from the ground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're wrong, and it seems likely you're pretty stupid. You should at least get into the habit of posting AC.

      http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/

    6. Re:Will you be able to see it from the ground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      AFAIK the only satellite you can see at night is the moon. Maybe you should look into that eyeglass prescription, I think someone might have added a couple extra zeros to it...

      Uh, maybe you should stand outside on a clear night, look up and start counting the lil' "moving stars" you can see. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised...

    7. Re:Will you be able to see it from the ground? by thogard · · Score: 1

      There was a sat that would blink but it was because of its rotation. I last saw it in mid 1970s. You had to catch it was it was reflecting off the sun on the axis of rotation and it was a bit faster than a plane's strobe lights and it was moving very quickly.

      Or maybe it was little green men or a secret military plane. It was long ago...

  18. 65K Feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    As the submitter writes, "It's basically a blimp that thinks it's a geostationary satellite floating at 65K feet!"

    Is that 65,000 or 66,560 feet?

    1. Re:65K Feet? by sploo22 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you mean 65,536? Hand over your geek license, buddy.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    2. Re:65K Feet? by oojah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's hope the funny moderation was because he got it wrong, not because the moderator thought he was right...

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
    3. Re:65K Feet? by rewt66 · · Score: 4, Funny
      No, 65,536 is 64K. 65K is 65 * 1024 = ...

      (breaks out a calculator because he doesn't want to add 1024 to 65536 and make a mistake)

      ... 66,560.

      Hand over your geek license, buddy!

      (But I'll probably lose my geek license for admitting I used a calculator.)

    4. Re:65K Feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is that 65,000 or 66,560 feet?

      It depends on whether you're using African or European units.

    5. Re:65K Feet? by sploo22 · · Score: 1

      *smacks forehead*

      OK, I've sufficiently proven myself to be an idiot. /me shuffles away dejectedly...

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    6. Re:65K Feet? by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

      I think we can afford to award you all honorary geeks licenses...

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
  19. Rail gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does anyone know of plans to make a rail-gun that can shoot 65,000 ft. (No relation to this article, just asking)

    1. Re:Rail gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives a whole new meaning to "ping the gateway"

    2. Re:Rail gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me wish they would use hydrogen again. Oh, the hilarity!

    3. Re:Rail gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just make your own helium balloon with a big sharp needle on top of it and let it free under this ship and put some fans on your baloon to guide it (remote control using the wi-fi signal from the spaceship you are going to)

    4. Re:Rail gun by kilroy7 · · Score: 1

      Talk about a Denial of Service attack...

    5. Re:Rail gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such as the one mounted in a cargo blimp in Count Zero?

  20. mandatory reference by bill11082 · · Score: 2, Funny

    finally some competition for the free-range antennalope:-p

    --
    DANGER! 10,000 Ohms
  21. Oh, I get it now... by rewt66 · · Score: 2, Funny

    At first I thought it was one of those "IP over carrier pigeons" things that geeks do when they get really bored...

    1. Re:Oh, I get it now... by fireshipjohn · · Score: 1

      It is!

      You need a large loft and special high altitude pigeons though!

  22. vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vaporware... not one single picture

  23. Untill space elevators happen... by Lordplatypus · · Score: 1

    Until a extremely efficient means of launching satellites happens (Space Elevators), these will be ideal as it allows less expensive launches, the ability to repair and update equipment easily and the option of redistribution of resources. "Hey bill, were getting a lot of traffic on the east side." "Ok, we will send over another blimp." Just I hope that the control system doesn't piggyback on the network connection. I don't want hear about hackers cracking these things and taking them for joy rides.

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying, 'Nice doggie!' till you can find a rock.-- Wynn Catlin
    1. Re:Untill space elevators happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the space elevators are for the IT guys to go up in when the blimp needs rebooting :^)

    2. Re:Untill space elevators happen... by Cnoc+na+Gortini · · Score: 1

      "Ok, we will send over another blimp."

      Perhaps a future generation of them can have them move automatically to where they are most needed!

  24. A problem by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know if this would be an issue, but wouldn't a giant wifi network f*** over the smaller wifi networks around the city? Like those that use DHCP for client machines.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    1. Re:A problem by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      I haven't RTFA but I can't imagine they're using standard 2.4GHz 802.11 for this. It'd take one *heck* of a transmitter to get that to reach 65K feet :)

  25. Airships -- Next BIG thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have been following stratospheric airship technology for years, and discuss some of the interesting tidbits I've collected over the years at:

    http://thewired.blogs.com/teotwawki/

    Under the technology section.

    The military is considerably more technically advanced in terms of airship tech than what is currently being acknowledged. The big, generally slow, often triangular UFO sightings that have taken place over the past decade or more are sightings of next-gen airships. There is some indication that they may employ more exotic propulsion technologies than traditional blimps.

    See:

    DARPA's Project WALRUS

    DARPA's Project ISIS

    The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency's tests of using airships as platforms for mirrors used in ground-based laser weapon systems

    The timeframe discussed, as well as on-record comments from DARPA that electrostatic propulsion is something that is being investigated for the airships, seem to add weight to the argument that these are in fact considerably more advanced than what many folks may be thinking of.

    There is obviously a lot of commercial use for stratospheric airships. Here's to hoping that this is a tech that may finally be ready to emerge from the black world!

    1. Re:Airships -- Next BIG thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electrostatic Propulsion is indeed probably the next big thing in aerial transportation as it doesn't depend on using lift (it will not use wings) to support the craft and can fly through air, water, and even space with suitable preparations. By the by electrostatic propulsion is what Townsend Brown was working on for the US Govt back in the 50's and this technology is currently being utilized in the "Lifter" devices that were featured in Wired magazine last year.

  26. The real question is, by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

    how many birds are these going to kill. We sure don't want this to be like with the wind generators!!

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    1. Re:The real question is, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on. This is far higher than any birds fly. It's not even the same order of magnitude.

    2. Re:The real question is, by Fareq · · Score: 1

      More important is how many humans on airplanes will it kill?

    3. Re:The real question is, by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      That was kinda the point

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  27. This is just a prototype by kjfitz · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I've been seeing articles like this since I was ight years old and digging through my grandfather's ancient collection of Popular Science.

    Another article includes comments from the CEO that clearly implies that they don't yet even have a "commercial strategy for deployment."

    • Timothy Huff, CEO of GTEL, stated, "We are receiving increased interests in our Stratellite project on a daily basis. As we previously announced, we are having a summit on January 20 and 21, 2005 to create a commercial strategy for the deployment of the Stratellite.


    Don't hold your breath folks. This is just a, um, trial baloon to get interest before their summit (aka sales presntation.)

  28. Gratuitous Strong Bad by swordboy · · Score: 4, Funny
    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  29. Wow, that's a really good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Airships can stay up almost indefinitely, and you wouldn't have the latency issues that plague satellites...

  30. Latency... by dameron · · Score: 0

    I'd imagine the lag on these would still be pretty bad, maybe not the full 1000-1800ms of lag I've heard about satellite access, but having 40km added to your round trip time can't help.

    Anyone have any stats on latency with these kinds of networks?

    -dameron

    1. Re:Latency... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      so.. say the server's in boston and you're in miami,

      1500 mi*2 = 2,414 kilometer * 2 = 4,828 kilometers
      4,828 kilometers + 40 km = 4,868 km or a difference of 0.8%

      (40 kilometers) / the speed of light = 0.13 milliseconds

      so it probably won't be a significant amount of lag at all.
      --
      all figures calculated using google.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Latency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine the lag on these would still be pretty bad, maybe not the full 1000-1800ms of lag I've heard about satellite access, but having 40km added to your round trip time can't help.

      Anyone have any stats on latency with these kinds of networks?


      Come on, Slashdotter, you're a nerd, do the math.

      70000 km round trip to bounce a packet off a satellite ...

      ... versus 40 km for one of these things.

      You're talking less than a millisecond for the trip to an airship at 65000 feet.

    3. Re: Latency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy:

      Geosynch orbit: ~35,000km
      'strato' orbit: 20km

      Speed of electromagnetic radiation: 300,000km/s

      Ping route:
      up to the node,
      (processing time),
      back to the groundstation,
      (to teh intarweb and back),
      return data up to the node,
      (processing time),
      back to the user.

      So, 4 times the distance, plus some unavoidable processing times.

      Satellite: 35,000 / 300,000 ~= 100ms each time -> minimum 400ms plus processing.
      Blimp: 20 / 300,000 ~= .06ms each time -> minimum .26ms plus processing.

      As you can see, the transmission delay becomes unimportant.

      The circuitry in a blimp might be faster, too, because with (some) atmosphere above them still, they don't have to worry as much about solar flares, general space radiation problems, etc.

    4. Re:Latency... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      26,000 miles one way, makes for a round trip distance of 52,000 miles. Compare that to 26 miles round trip, and you have 1/2000th of whatever portion of the lag is due to sol. Figure that of 1000ms, 950 of that is sol, and 50ms is hardware switching on the ground, backbone access times, etc. So, this will be comparable to any other lower-end broadband... DSL, cable, etc.

      It oughtta be nice.

    5. Re:Latency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the latency would be much more than 20ms if there were good (carrier grade) equipment in place on these things.

      I have dealt extensively with wireless networks using WiLAN equipment. The particular devices we use have a maximum range of about 20 miles over land.

      Considering that you should have almost nothing in the way to significantly block signal, and that there should be high quality transmission equipment on the blimp, latency should be quite low, and throughput should be high.

      58Mbps (802.11g) equipment is not very expensive. Consider now that a T1 is 1.544 Mbps, and a T3 is 44.746Mbps. Translated into actual DATA (KB / MB etc.) They are 193KB/s and 5593.25KB/s respectively.

      802.11g (58Mbps) carrier grade equipment on a blimp net could potentially handle a MASSIVE amount of traffic, especially taking into consideration that high end equipment can run multiple links within close proximity with no interference. While many of these devices run in the 5.8ghz realm, they are all narrowband.

      I think the viability of this is huge, if they can get it off the ground.

    6. Re:Latency... by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1

      Sol needs to get its' head out of its' ass and stop creating so much f&CKing lag on my connection. Where does the sun get the balls to think it can go around lagging up internet cafe connections in remote parts of the world. Why doesn't it do something useful, like make some grass grow here in Kuwait

    7. Re:Latency... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      sol = speed of light... supposedly the limiting factor in a geosync qpsk satellite beam.

    8. Re:Latency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, I just thought it would be funny and I was a bit frustrated at the moment because the satellite connection here in Kuwait was shitting all over us

  31. Stratellite: Where do you want to float today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stratellite: Where do you want to float today?

  32. All other avenues have failed for broadband by zymano · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why don't we instead 'ORGANIZE' and fight the political system that is against us with their big corporate cronyism campaigns with traditional protests?

    We should be fighting for Fiber to the curb with municipal broadband and 100 megabit access to the net. We are being pushed around like 'slaves' . I am sick and damn tired of it.

    Doesn't anyone understand that whats going on with broadband is a microcosm of our 'EVIL' political-corporate system.

    When will one person in the media stand up against the cable monopolies and tell them that what they are doing by preventing municipal broadband is wrong.

  33. A minor quibble... by solarrhino · · Score: 1
    The submitter wrote, "It's basically a blimp that thinks it's a geostationary satellite floating at 65K feet!"

    Ummm, hate to break it to you, but blimps do float - that's not noteworthy. What I think you meant to say is, "It's basically a blimp that thinks it's a geostationary satellite orbiting at 65k feet!". Now that is noteworthy!

    ps: blimps don't think.

    --
    "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
    1. Re:A minor quibble... by TrnsltLife · · Score: 1

      I think a correct parse of the sentence would be: "It's basically a blimp (that thinks it's a geostationary satellite) floating at 65K feet!" Or: It's basically a blimp. The blimp is floating at 65K feet. The blimp thinks it's a geostationary satellite.

  34. Potential Error Message: by dteichman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sorry, not enough blimps overhead.
    Please try again later.
    We apologize for any inconvienience.

  35. Latency? by Sarev0k · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know if the latency of a "stratelite" internet connection would be any less than that of a satelite connection?

    1. Re:Latency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do the math: 65,000 feet (~12 miles) vs 25,000 miles.

  36. 65K Feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't trust it. Now if it were at 64K feet...

  37. These will be fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, until we run out of helium that is. People, you should be concerned about He usage. It's a limited resource and there's not much of it.

    1. Re:These will be fantastic by izomiac · · Score: 1

      well, until we run out of helium that is. People, you should be concerned about He usage. It's a limited resource and there's not much of it.

      Well, couldn't one just use hydrogen? It's not like there are any power lines up that high. Also, wouldn't the air density that high be low enough to hinder any combustion? The you'd just have to make sure that they were safe when they were launched (do it in a remote area).

  38. Science illiteracy! by gbell · · Score: 1

    I know its the "economist" and all, but must everyone in the media fail science 101!?

    "At such high altitude, above the jet stream, the reduced air density means that the wind will be about 20 times weaker than at ground level, enabling the airship's solar-powered electric motors to keep it stationary with very little effort. "

    Except that the reduced air density *also* gives the motors less to work with.

    "The craft's aerodynamic shape not only reduces drag but also generates lift when facing into the wind..."

    What good is lift when the craft doesn't need to exert any effort to keep itself aloft in the first place? Unless they're counting on wind and launching with less helium than would otherwise be req'd.

    1. Re:Science illiteracy! by Sleet01 · · Score: 1

      The main concept of LTA flight is, for the most part, similar to a ship: you rely on displacing a certain mass of air while weighing *less* than that mass. Because the atmosphere gets thinner the higher the altitude, the less buoyancy you get from straight displacement, and the more useful lift would be. At any rate, wind itself wouldn't be the operative factor - the Stratellite would just be carried along with the wind like a leaf in a stream - but would need to be coupled with station-keeping thrusters. And if you assume that the thrusters will be able to drive the Stratellite at tens - or hundreds - of miles per hour at sea level, it should also be capable of doing so against the lesser force of stratospheric winds, even *with* a comcommitant reduction in total thrust.

      Personally, I'm waiting for them to sell 20-person group HALO jump tickets from reconditioned Stratellites!

      --
      -- Let him who is without spelling error ignite the first flame --
  39. optical links by ndevice · · Score: 1

    At only 70k feet, optical links between blimp and ground and blimp and blimp may be possible. We already have optical links that span distances of around 5 miles IIRC. The upside is higher potential datarates, and the downside is more accurate pointing technology to make sure your beam hits where it's supposed to, although the article does mention that the wind forces expericed up there aren't that strong. And clouds might do a number on you too, but again, at 70k feet, blimp to blimp might be possible.

    1. Re:optical links by Arch_dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Optical is unreliable for stratellite-to-ground connections, due to weather. However, there is effectively no weather at 65K feet, so the stratellites can talk to each other using lasers. These guys are claiming a 500-mile line-of-sight visiblity to the ground, but if you read the fine print, the effective radius to the ground is really only 75 miles. Of coures, 75 Miles is truly impressive. The 500-mile number is still important, because it is a good approximation for the distance at which a stratellite can "see" another stratellite using a laser, above the highest clouds. Consider a grid of these beasties to cover a region of 3000mi x 2000 mi (i.e., the contenental US.) This will require 6x4= 24 Stratellites. Using lasers, this grid can carry all long-haul traffic. Local loop (WiFi, 75-mi radius) would require 3000x2000/(75x75) = (30x20x4/3x4/3)= 600x16/9)= (3200/3) = about 1000 Stratellites. However, the population density is massively skewed, so we can use expensive antennas in rural areas and cheap antennas in urban areas. Using a rural antenna, we can "see" a stratellite that is 500mi away, so we need 24 stratellites to handle rural antennas. we now add "urban' stratellites as needed. Conclusion: 24 Stratellites will cover the US, giving base coverage of (say) 20 Kbps/sq mi for non-urban areas. We then add additional stratellites based on population density at (say) 100Kbps/person. Worst-case we need 1000 stratellites, but we probably end up with about 100 stratellites to cover the population.

  40. Re: Back of the envelope... by 00Sovereign · · Score: 3, Informative

    Short answer : No Long answer: Using the dimensions of the airship (245 x 145 x 87 feet), the altitude (~65,000 ft), and some very basic trig., the airship would be 13 X 7.6 X 4.6 seconds of arc. if you were standing directly underneath it. Since the human eye has a resolution of roughly 2 mintes of arc, and this is far larger than the angular size of the airship, you wouldn't see it.

    --
    "Me fail English, that's unpossible." --Ralphie
  41. Stories from the neocon Economist now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yankdot blows harder everyday

  42. Good grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Light travels about 3x10^8 m/s. At that rate, 4x10^3 m is on the order of 0.01 ms, which is far below the noise threshold of the Internet.

    Here's a thought experiment for ya: imagine you're connecting to a typical, server a few hundred km away. Now imagine you're connecting to another server about 40 km farther away, without any additional routers. Do you really think you're going to notice the difference?

    I don't think people realize how far away satellites are. 40km is nothing.

  43. You think you're kidding by Fished · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had a cox cable connection that was strung too low over an alley, and periodically some sort of truck would pull the cable down. I would call the cable company, and go through the whole rigamarole you describe, before, finally, getting someone who could understand that the physical cable was lying in my back yard and no amount of fiddling would make it work. To get those dingbats to understand that the cable was PHYSICALLY DOWN and nothing they could do would fix it took hours.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:You think you're kidding by njfuzzy · · Score: 1
      This is why tech support should be based on expertise (or at least familiarity) and not a script.

      The support people you were talking to were probably told never to deviate from their script. Their job is to help the 90% of people who can't tell their ass from their elbow.

      When someone with a clue calls in, there is nothing they can do for you. You're already ahead of them.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    2. Re:You think you're kidding by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Yep. Having done my time in tech-support, this is mostly correct... except for the script thing. You wind up composing your own "script" of sorts, as you're conditioned over time by the user environment of "ass-elbow confusion".

      Now, the operative words to avoid this situation are:

      "Your manager, now. You did nothing wrong. I'll wait."

      or

      "Pass me up to the next support tier, please. Look at the call record. I'll wait."

    3. Re:You think you're kidding by njfuzzy · · Score: 1
      I actually work in tech support myself. The impression I have are that there are (at least) two world.

      One, people with an understanding of the product/subject working out solutions for people who need help.

      The other, people hired to be part of a call center and work from a script to cover the basic problems only.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    4. Re:You think you're kidding by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      "Your manager, now...."
      "Pass me up to the next support tier, please..."

      I remember reading some anecdotes where some help centers deliberately labeled everyone each other's "manager"/"supervisor" (but without any real authority), so if you ask for a manager, supervisor or want to "escalate the call", essentially you get passed to the next person in the room (whether or not they are qualified or have the authority to help you with your problem).

      I got the impression that call centers like that are mainly concerned with chasing annoying people away rather than actually solving any problems.

  44. Mixed feelings with this... by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

    It is also perfectly able to hostage a whole metropolitan area when weaponsystems are installed.
    And specially for enlighted dictatorships we have a version called Stratelite-RFID.

    Before you call me a troll, I am just a messenger of the bad side of this potentially great application.

  45. Sanswire? by CyberDave · · Score: 1

    Sanswire networks? Oh, fuck.

    The same company that provides the craptastic Internet service in my university's dorms (where I spent an ungodly 4 years), where service was frequently unusable the first week or two of every quarter, where improved bandwidth was perpetually around the corner, where nobody knew what was going on, where the network administration and university housing routinely denied any problems, even when it was obvious to the students that something was wrong? (As a side note, the Internet access would occasionally go out on my floor in my wing of the dorm I was living in last year. To fix it, I went into the janitor's closet, which doubled as the wiring closet for network, telephone, and cable, and unplugged the router and plugged it back in (hard reset). Wait for equipment for reboot, and voila, service restored. Sad. The equipment was housed in a nice locked cabinet, but two power cords exited the cabinet and plugged into the sole outlet in the closet. Ugh.)

    The same company that provides the cable modem service for the town I live in (in partnership with the local cable company), complete with high prices, low service, intermittent outages, blocked ports, and other inane policies? (I ended up choosing DSL, even though it's a tad more expensive, it's a hell of a lot more reliable than the crap service all my cable modem-using friends get.)

    I expect this project to crash an burn (literally), especially if the local network admins are in charge...

    CyberDave

    (For those who care, I'm speaking of Eastern Washington University and Cheney, WA.)

  46. Heres a Quibble for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A single airship could, says Mr Molen, potentially provide coverage over an area of nearly 800,000 square kilometres, or about the size of Texas. It should thus be possible to create "hotzones" of coverage encapsulating entire cities and their surrounding countryside,

    How big are these Cities, because TExas is pretty huce last time I checked.

    WIlly G

  47. Another scheme to defraud investors by humbads · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is just another wireless pie in the sky idea to defraud unwitting investors. My parents once invested thousands of dollars in a company that was promising to run wireless from the rooftops of tall buildings in flat cities. The same promises were made, but the crooks running the outfit took the money and ran off. Then there's a laundry list of big name flops in this area, primarily Ricochet networks (wireless from lightpoles), Teledesic (wireless by LEO satellite) and Terabeam (wireless by laser). I cringe at the thought of all the gullible people who went out and bought their stock today on the hype alone.. .

    The FAQ on their website talks about no substantive issues. One critical factor is the amount of power available to the transponders, and this is not mentioned at all. Someone on /. must be able to estimate the amount they can generate from a football-field-sized solar panel array, and compare it to how much power is needed. My guess is that it will be meager at best.

    Another critical factor is latency. You are going to add 13 miles up and 13 miles down through clouds, rain, snow, sleet, and pollution. Wireless signals over 900 Mhz don't travel well through water, and can even be blocked by heavy tree foliage. So there goes 3G, unless you only want fair weather 3G. One thing is for sure, the latency is going to be worse than my cable modem, and it is going to have more periods of dead connection. Those who have had both satellite TV and cable TV will know what I'm talking about.

    Latency is intolerable for the kind of high-bandwidth applications they are promising. Wherever you can get a wired connection, it would be preferred even it if it is a little more expensive. That leaves the potential market for "Stratellites" service to only those fringe situations where wired is unavailable. This is a far smaller market than the promises they imply in their so called "market research" page that talks about millions of Internet subscribers.

    I see more pitfalls than possibilities.

    1. Re:Another scheme to defraud investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      26 miles at speed of light (186,000 miles/sec) = 0.14 milliseconds.

      Also note that your current cable modem has to travel some of those miles (unless you live in the same building as your ISP), that light travels slower in glass (about 140,000 miles/sec), and that cable in unlikely to be laid in a straight line.
      I agree with you that this technology is a crazy idea (if it were easy I'm sure atmospheric scientists would have done it already), but for some people it could actually reduce latency!

    2. Re:Another scheme to defraud investors by jcr · · Score: 1

      This is just another wireless pie in the sky idea to defraud unwitting investors. My parents once..

      Well, sucks to be them, I suppose, but it does not follow that because your parents lost money, that any other venture is a con game.

      Then there's a laundry list of big name flops in this area

      Nor does it follow that because Ricochet overbuilt like mad and went broke, that this particular plan will be a financial failure.

      Another critical factor is latency. You are going to add 13 miles up and 13 miles down

      C/23 miles comes to about 8 milliseconds. That's a decent hard disk seek latency, so I think it's a figure I could live with for a net connection.

      through clouds, rain, snow, sleet, and pollution.

      No effect on latency, although there could be an effect on bandwidth from signal attenuation. Depends on the spectrum they use.

      Latency is intolerable for the kind of high-bandwidth applications they are promising.

      Well, good thing they don't have much latency then, isn't it?

      In any event, there are all kind of applications for which latency just isn't an issue. I can watch a program from a TiVo that might have been time-shifted by weeks or even years, so the latency from the transmission is enormous, but I'm still getting all the bandwidth I need to enjoy the show.

      I see more pitfalls than possibilities.

      What a regrettable world-view you have.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Another scheme to defraud investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "magic" of fiber optic cable is Total Internal Reflection. This reduces the transmission rate over fiber to 0.5c (1.5x10^8 m/s or 93,000 miles/second). Electrical signal transmission down coaxial cable is about 0.77c IIRC.

      Also, you're off by a factor of one hundred. The latency over 26 miles is 0.14ms, not 14ms.

      A bridge, switch, or router is going to introduce latency. On a 10Mbps network, it takes about 0.5 ms to receive a 64-byte packet. So, even if an ISP provides full 10Mbps, the first time a packet hits a store-and-forward point would add at least one millisecond (store 0.5ms, forward 0.5 ms) to a packet's travel time. That's more than seven times the latency due to radio transmission over 26 miles.

      All that said, it still sounds like a scam. :-)

    4. Re:Another scheme to defraud investors by humbads · · Score: 1

      C/23 miles comes to about 8 milliseconds.

      Actually, (26 miles) / (186,000 miles/sec) = 0.14 milliseconds. Theoretical latency is not the issue, it is practical latency. Since wireless bandwidth is shared, you have to add latency for the medium access control (MAC) protocol. Just today, my roommate's 802.11b would not connect because there were seven other access points in the neighborhood on the same channel. It only worked when we changed the channel. Point is, wireless gets saturated fast and gets slower with more users. Then add latency for the weather, which is unpredictable. If power is limited on the rig, then it won't have fast processors to handle the signal processing, adding more latency. All of these are on top of latency over land lines where the traffic is eventually routed.

      Doesn't sound so good now does it. Maybe they can get high bandwidth to spots, but they will still have lots of latency. I predict generously in the 200-2000 ms range. Sure, with enough money, the barriers could be reduced, but then why not spend that money on fiber or other land line technologies? I think the niche market for this product (if it even works) will not be large enough to justify the development costs. I see red flags from this company and its parent company. It is selling for 13 cents a share. I would buy it for 1 cent per share and then divest its assets to a larger company with real products for 2 cents per share. But if they want to try it, more power to them and entertainment for us.

    5. Re:Another scheme to defraud investors by jcr · · Score: 1

      Just today, my roommate's 802.11b would not connect because there were seven other access points in the neighborhood on the same channel.

      I don't see what the performance of a $50 wireless router has to do with the discussion at hand. The comparison you should be drawing is to digital cell phone service, where the technology of handling thousands of simultaneous connections is very well developed.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  48. They're OK in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes the motors have "less to work with", but they don't require as much power to spin, so there's a net advantage. By dimensional analysis (power, density, wind velocity, characteristic length), power is inversely proportional to density, all other factors being equal. So a density 20 times smaller still means 20 times less power required for station keeping. On the other hand, all other things are *not* equal--wind moves a lot faster up there! So more analysis would be required. But at first blush, they're actually right.

    Lift could help reduce buoyancy requirements and/or be used for control.

  49. 65K feet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn.
    Just high enough to keep me from using a 16-bit processor to access it.

  50. This will work by Allnighterking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the 65K foot hieght they are talking about They are well above even the highest of storm clouds (50K feet is the top height I was able to find listed by the national weather service.) Also high enough to be above commercial and military flight paths. So weather is not a problem.

    The other thought I've seen expressed concerns lag time With only 65K feet to transgress the lag shouldn't be any greater than wired communications in any single band. Point being that 13 miles isn't that great a distance for radio wave propogation ( 3,00000 km per second in vacuum ) So unlike SatCom where You have to calculate in Phase delay etc there is none of that affecting something at such a low height. Granted in it's initial phase it may not be the ideal gaming platform for some really lag sensitive games for most situations it won't be a concern.

    What does have potential affects can be things like ground clutter (Extreme example turn on your microwave while using 802.11b in a small apartment.) Radio shadow. (tall buildings) etc. However these are things that affect a number of current radio communications systems and the 13M hieght will help. (Thats why the roof of the tallest building in a city is such valuable real estate)

    The other neat thing is that you have a much lower horizon affect (the horizon is farther away from the top of a mountain than at sea level.) etc. I wouldn't expect it to be reliable for symetric communications links (The power down will be easier to create than the power up from a small device like a handheld. So give the db loss over the distance you won't find yourself serving a slashdotable server off of the connection. But for e-mail, blackberry, web surfing or sending off a modified spread sheet to the boss I would expect it would equal normal home DSL without a problem.

    Strange too that no one ever talks about the lag in wired communications even though it is there. I remember as a child talking with my Aunt and Uncle living in Europe at the time on the phone. You really had a problem with knowing when the other person was speaking because of the lag.

    Some useful links
    http://www.cosmic.ucar.edu/related_papers/2002_wu_ cedar_sporadic_e.pdf

    http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/SSC/CSER/UOSAT/IJSSE/is sue1/seumahu/seumahu.html

    URL:http://www.vigyanprasar.com/ham/IONOS.htm

    --

    I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.

    1. Re:This will work by thogard · · Score: 1

      Storm tops on Oklahoma are usually about 50,000 ft but thats the visable could top. I think the top of the nasty weather is known to be above 90,000 on the big storms.

    2. Re:This will work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the math: Radio waves travel 26 miles in about 0.15ms. Any gamer trying to blame lag due to wireless over that distance is a crybaby soreloserboy and probably deserves the plateful of fragging he just had for dinner.

      Heck, it makes me want to cry--because it was only a game.

    3. Re:This will work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point about the power required for surface side data transmission is a very valid one.

      Rather than frying yourself with a 5 watt transeiver PDA with a 3 hour uptime between recharges I would think that it would make much more sense to continue to use existing 802.11x WiFi router technology for the last 50 meters or so.

      The PDA would connect to a normal 802.11x router, then the router would be wired to a 5 Watt 30cm parabolic dish transeiver that was pointed to the blimp.

      Since the blimp would be transmitting 20 km instead of 35,780 km, and would be transmitting to a parabolic dish receiver, it would require far less power than current geostationary satelites. The combination of low power requirements and large solar panel real eastate equate to an opportunity to operate several transceivers in parallel.

      I would imagine that there would be two types of transceiver operating on the blimp; several lower bandwidth (say 10gbps) for 30 cm 5 watt dish ground customer to/from blimp interaction, and a single higher bandwidth (say 100gbps) base station internet bridge to/from blimp uplink interaction. Multiple 30 cm 5 watt dishes would share a single 10gbps blimp based transeiver.

      To see how economical this is:

      For the sake of argument say 1000 30 cm 5 watt customers @ 10mbps each share each 10gbps blimp based transiever. With a 100gbps blimp uplink that equates to 10,000 customers per blimp. Based on 60 USD per month usage charge that equates to 600,000 USD per month in blimp revenue, 7.2 million USD per year. I RTFM and it stated that the blimp was expected to cost 20 million USD per unit, so the blimp sould pay for itself within 3 years.

      Not too shabby.

    4. Re:This will work by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      Strange too that no one ever talks about the lag in wired communications even though it is there. I remember as a child talking with my Aunt and Uncle living in Europe at the time on the phone. You really had a problem with knowing when the other person was speaking because of the lag.

      Electrical/optical latency to Europe from the US is negligible on a conversational timescale. However, if the phone call was being bounced off a geostationary communications satellite, that would have easily added a quarter-second delay.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  51. Gotta say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and I, for one, welcome our new blimp-riding overlords...

  52. Re:ANAL AVENGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've still got another half hour left until I finish the movie. It's riveting, I can't wait.

  53. Cool! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    I've always found that the fastest way to get data from A to B was to copy it onto a big fat RAID, put the RAID on a truck, drive from A to B, unload and copy. But now we have blimps to do this I'll be able to deliver my data without being bogged down in traffic and to places where they don't have roads.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Cool! by russint · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of an article about Altavista (rip) in some swedish magazine a couple of years ago. They actually distributed content to their mirrors by airplane because they didn't have enough bandwith (this was in the nineties, when 56k was fast).

      --
      ^^
  54. Life is stranger than fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The president of the company fostering this Stratellite thing was at my dinner table about a month ago telling me about this, and how the launch is going to be attempted in January or so. He also said he'd give me a little VoIP box to test out, which he didn't... This Stratellite is a pipe dream.

  55. Some points by maggard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. Get a clue folks: The ping time on this will be from a route 2x~13 miles long. That's not at all comparable to 2x~24,000 miles like a geostationary sat. Heck, considering the cruft many DSL & cable plants foist on folks the extra ~26 miles are nothing, especially when you consider how far most of the other devices you interact with are and how they're routed.

    2. Satellites are expensive 'cause you've got one chance to launch the thing at high velocity, with extreme vibrations, to a location with extreme temperature variations & vacuum welding. By contrast an aerostat is in a relatively benign environment and short of catastrophic failure can be landed & launched at need for repairs & refurbishment.

    3. Furthermore at US$20 million a pop it won't be a big deal to have reserve aerostats constantly on standby, launched or unlaunched. Therefore the reliability costs go down, the insurance costs go down, and everything becomes that much more flexible & cheaper. Indeed it'll probably become SOP to deploy additional aerostats in anticipation of severe weather events, seasonal population gatherings, etc. to supply additional capacity.

    4. Yes, doubtless aerostats will have no-fly buffers placed around them. However the restricted volume is rather small and at their operational altitude there's precious little traffic or possible crowding, nor much likely for the next few decades. Figuring even several hundred over a continent there's still plenty of room at their heights.

    5. These are to be filled with Helium. Non-flammable inert stuff. Airships filled with He have split in half and still been able to land land (well, half did and half crashed.) Covering an airship in rocket fuel and fueling it with explosive hydrogen, that was the ill-fated and entirely dissimilar Hindenburg.

    6. Anything that disrupts the mono or dual-opoly high-speed telecom services most of us have available is a good thing. Indeed aerostats will be more then competitive by offering high speed like DSL/cable but without needing extensive & expensive on-the-ground infrastructure. Even considering redundancy & replacements this is competitive.
    --
    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.
    1. Re:Some points by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with using hydrogen for this purpose. The Hindenberg did not explode because of the hydrogen. The fabric was a cotton substrate with an aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate dopant.

      Since there are no passengers, and this thing will spend most of its time in the stratosphere, hydrogen is probably a better choice.

      But the astronomers are going to hate it.

    2. Re:Some points by jcr · · Score: 1

      hydrogen is probably a better choice. ..except that Helium is a bit easier to keep in the gas bag than hydrogen. You'd probably need to bring down a hydrogen blimp a bit more often than a helium blimp to replenish its buoyancy gas. Of course, hydrogen's cheaper, so it may be a win.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Some points by shimmin · · Score: 1

      At 60,000 feet, the flammability of hydrogren is a non-issue, because the pressure is too low to ignite hydrogen - air combustion, even with a spark. Plus, hydrogen gives you a nifty way to provide night-time power: during the night, you use some of your lift gas to run a fuel cell, producing water. During the day, your solar cell regenerates the hydrogen via electrolysis. If there's enough water vapor at that height to bother collecting and condensing it, this even gives you a way to become self-sufficient in terms of station-keeping. This is a great idea that's been around for a while. An aerostat with years-long station keeping abilities is a technically harder thing to engineer than an oribiting satellite, but once you figure out how, its infinitely cheaper to deploy.

    4. Re:Some points by maggard · · Score: 1
      At 60,000 feet, the flammability of hydrogen is a non-issue
      At 60,000 feet sure, but most problems occur when trying to launch and land this sort of aircraft.

      Insuring a ground crew to stand around under a huge bag of helium, even on a slightly windy day, is a lot easier then under a hydrogen one. The same goes for the neighbors: "You'll have to clear out the airport & surrounding area in case we lose control, hit a power line, etc. Oh, and if you come across a downed one of these, STAY AWAY!"

      That ain't gonna fly (so to speak).

      --
      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.
    5. Re:Some points by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Maybe the blimp could use solar cells, electrolysis & atmospheric water vapor to keep its hydrogen bag filled?

    6. Re:Some points by ghjm · · Score: 1

      Well, it does have to fly up to 60,000 feet, and then back down again, during which time it will be in thicker air. You're right in that any unexpected hydrogen combustion or explosion is much more likely to happen during critical maneuvering than during station-keeping, but that was already true.

      -Graham

  56. Possible Effects... by Maxite · · Score: 1

    I find the indea of this technology is wonder, but I must question some of the aspects of it. It is most certainly going to be a slight nightmare for people interested in astronomy, taking nightly photos and thinking that they've discovered a new asteroid only to find out that it's a blimp.
    I also believe that there might be a few times where winds or at least atmospheric "currents" might drag several blimps to cluster together and create visible specks in the sky, or maybe even eclipse the Sun.

    --
    Ah, you found me!
  57. Pfffffffffttt... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Sorry, don't want to deflate your ideas, but this has been floated half a century ago and is still just hot air...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  58. Me? by blimpey · · Score: 1

    Just when I thought I had enough to do!

  59. It's 'bout time... by Genda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Large scale Airships/platforms can, should, and must be a significant part of the evolving technology for providing;

    1. Global telecommunications
    Smaller airships placed well above normal air traffic, provide a tremendous opportunity for cost effective, high performance, communication services. Other robotic technolgies use most of their energy to keep the airship aloft. By making the vehicle lighter than air, you can use that solar energy collection for providing service, and thrust. That and, a lighter than air vehicle could collect solar energy from much larger surface area making is totally self sustaining, and providing an operational life competitive with a number of satellites at pennies on the dollar in investment cost.

    2. Cargo transport
    Designs for high performance cargo and freight air transport (vehicles capable of hypersonic speeds) has existed for some time now. The opportunities for all people, made possible by large jet powered airship transport, boggle the imagination. The cost savings alone, and the ability to make decisions that turn on a moment, would enable the creation of new industries, while transforming existing ones.

    3. Solar energy collection
    Larger craft placed along a broad equatorial belt could in theory collect tremendous amounts of solar energy. These devices would operate at incredible efficiency, above the weather, and unhampered by significant amounts of obscuring atmosphere, a fleet of several thousand would reduce the amount of sunlight striking the hottest part of the earth, and might also make a dent in global warming. By keeping the ships moving the impact of the vehicles on any one place would be negligible. By using significant amounts of solar power, we could begin to loosen the economic and political stranglehold imposed by fossil fuel consumption, and protect the more critical needs for oil in the long haul (advanced materials, drugs, and organic chemicals.) Finally such craft flying at the right altitude could use a small amount of their power to reseed the ozone layer... this would be a temperary solution until the use of ozone depleting chemicals ends.

    4. High altitude research facilities
    We've spent many billions of dollars for putting telescopes in space and at the tops of mountains. By building ultrahigh altitude research platforms, we should be able to get most of the benefit of space based research, at nearly terrestrial costs. This of course presumes a robust economy in building airships at a reasonable price, but once the process begins, it should become self sustaining within a very few years.

    5. And low cost space launch
    It's possible to lift a significant payload and launch vehicle over a 100,000 feet using a powered airship technology. By lifting payloads this high, we eliminate 90% of the atmospheric drag encountered in carrying hardware into space. By adding solar powered magrail acceleration technology to small and medium sized launch vehicles with scamjet technology, we get a fleet of reuseable spacecraft, that can put significant payloads into orbit, at costs orders of magnitude cheaper than currently encountered. This would open a neorenaissance in space exploration and commerce.

    Lighter than air craft are absolutely essential, in opening up the frontiers of space, and making possible the kinds of transformations in human industry critically needed if all the people of the world are to benefit from human discovery and technology. Rather than inventing better bombs, and promoting a superior theology, it's my contention, that the most powerful countries in the world must begin embracing a larger view of what's possible for humanity. That these countries must begin building an infrastructure for all people to gain benefit, and ultimately achieve the fruits of fulfilling on their potential. The future of people requires that we throw off our shackle, that includes the bondage of gravity, and the limits imposed by antiquated thinking.

    Genda Bendte

    "The meek shall inherit the Earth, the rest of us will go to the stars..." - Isaac Asimov

    1. Re:It's 'bout time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your style mate, all very interesting and inspirational.

  60. GPS is much better for navigation by billstewart · · Score: 1
    GPS works just fine for jetliners, and these blimps will probably blow around a bit (and will probably use GPS to keep themselves roughly in one place.)

    Also, to navigate, you need to see at least two of them if you can measure angles precisely, or three if you can't but you're at a known altitude, or four if you're not at a known altitude. You're typically only going to be able to see one of these at a time, because they're not satellites, they're near-ground.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:GPS is much better for navigation by crummynz · · Score: 1

      Navigational nodes that serve as internet nodes, too. Hrm... A good idea!

      --
      ~ Crummy
  61. Tom Swift by Trailwalker · · Score: 1

    and his marvelous Internet Zeppelin.

    "It works" said Tom, NetCraftily.

  62. Don't Worry by tunabomber · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure DirectTV and Comcast have some in the works.

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    1. Re:Don't Worry by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. Great :D I wish I had mod points.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  63. Helium is not a renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find this sort of thing fascinating, and hope it comes about. But helium is not a renewable resource, and once we use up what there is, there won't be any more. According to an article I read in New Scientist about a year ago, the price of helium is already rising dramatically, and is expected to go up much, much more in just a few years. That is because most of the world's helium comes from oil wells in Texas that are getting ready to dry up. When that happens, the world will go back to extracting it from mines, which is much more expensive.

    Of course, there is always hydrogen, but it has sort of a bad reputation for airships.

    1. Re:Helium is not a renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why we should get fusion working as soon as possible. The product of fusion is heat and helium. Just think, if everyone used fusion power, we would soon have more helium than we know what to do with! (My off-the-top-of-my-head pulled-out-of-my-ass estimate is that world-wide full-scale fusion plants would produce several cubic feet of helium per year in total. That would supply enough helium for several party balloons.)

    2. Re:Helium is not a renewable resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My off-the-top-of-my-head pulled-out-of-my-ass estimate...
      Wait, I'm confused.... Is it the estimate, or your head, that you just pulled out of your butt? ;^)

    3. Re:Helium is not a renewable resource by sjames · · Score: 1

      But helium is not a renewable resource, and once we use up what there is, there won't be any more.

      The upside to nuclear fission energy is that it will produce He as a byproduct. He does renew on earth, we're just pulling it out faster than alpha decay is replacing it.

      The upside for hydrogen is that it provides more lift for the volume. Since the nodes would be unmanned, the risk isn't so bad except at launch and landing.

  64. Virgin Gallactic $1.5 billion in Preorders by Game_Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Virgin Galactic, Richard Branson's new space-tourism company, which has licensed Mr Rutan's technology, already has £800m ($1.5 billion)-worth of ticket reservations, though flights will not begin until 2007.

    Thats right, at about $400,000 a flight that means about 3750 people have already signed up. That comes out to be 1875 flights of the yet to be built space ship ones. I think this is very impressive because even with a flight of ten ships flying 25 times a year (quite unlikely, becuase they will mostlikely have to be overhauled sometime) it will take seven and half years to get everybody up.

    That is, if they stick with the 3 person spaceship. On the discovery channel special I saw Burt Rutan working on a 5 or 7 person ship too. This would make things much more reasonable.

  65. Re:Motors by thorpie · · Score: 1

    Yes, this is my first thought.

    Just what size propellers will they need. Else what other compressive (jet type) technology will they be using.

    Whatever it has to do it 20 times more than at ground level, altough the work and energy required will be the same as at ground level, I think.

    --
    The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink
  66. Re:All other avenues have failed for broadband by /dev/trash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah! Screw human rights and fair wages. We need FIBER to the curb!

  67. I already have one in my backyard by wondafucka · · Score: 1
    and it is here.

  68. Re:What the hell are Hot Grits anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hot Grits

    The hot grits down my pants theme and the Natalie Portman naked and petrified them seemed to arrive on /. at about the same time that the old comedy site segfault.org began it's accelerated decline by removing comments and poll write ins. There was a major increase in Trolls on /. at about that time. The moderation methodology on /. was overhaulled shortly there after, however, now and then even in this late day and age sombody will still occaisionally pour a bowl of hot grits down their pants.

  69. Forget net access- I want Zeppelins! by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to re-create the Graf Zeppelin. Those must have been an awesome sight. 850 feet of aircraft above you...

    Only this time, use a flame-resistant fabric on the outside and use helium instead of hydrogen. I bet with modern composites to lighten the airframe, we could build one 1,000 feet long.

    1. Re:Forget net access- I want Zeppelins! by witte · · Score: 1

      > I bet with modern composites to lighten the
      > airframe, we could build one 1,000 feet long.

      Yeah... until it runs into an stratospheric iceberg and breaks in half; killing Kate, Leonardo, and Celine in the crash.

      (Hmm. Maybe this zep-zilla is not such a bad idea after all.)

  70. Good, but some parts odd or incorrect? by ttroutma · · Score: 1

    Ehese two points sound like some kind of hocus pocus BS to me. "At such high altitude, above the jet stream, the reduced air density means that the wind will be about 20 times weaker than at ground level, enabling the airship's solar-powered electric motors to keep it stationary with very little effort." And would also be 20 times weaker thrust from the motors? How does this make sense? And in another part of the article it can produce lift in the wind? How? If it's being blown backwards it can't produce lift. I do like the idea very much and had hoped for the unpiloted plans from a few years back to make a go of it but haven't heard anything out of that project in a long time.

    1. Re:Good, but some parts odd or incorrect? by ttroutma · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the spelling errors my laptop keyboard is wearing out.

    2. Re:Good, but some parts odd or incorrect? by Genda · · Score: 1

      It's true that the motors would be less efficient, however, high performance electric turbines working against a lowered resistance should be more than able to fight the slight effect of the wind, and do so with a relatively small energy cost.

      This mean that the airship will easily be able to remain stationary over a given location, which also means that as the air passes over it's airframe, that slight wind we mentioned just a moment ago, a measureable lift with be generated...

      ergo... no BS.

      Genda

    3. Re:Good, but some parts odd or incorrect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just increase the cross-section of the rotors by a factor of ten. They'll move the same amount of air as smaller rotors in denser air, with the same requirement for the engines.

  71. Latancy? by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

    What kind of latancy are we looking at? I assume this will have to be a low power transmitter, and there will not be a lot of throughput, due to the entire ship ( comm gear and electric motors) being solar powered. Will this have the same drawbacks as satellite based internet?

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  72. Re: Back of the envelope... by AndyL · · Score: 1

    You might be able to see it right after sunset as it catches the sunlight against a dark sky.

    There are some satelites you can see this way. The space station is easily visible if it's overhead right after sunset.

    You probably wouldn't be able to tell it was an internet blimp though.

  73. Why do I find it ominous by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Why do I find it ominous that I can't find the bandwidth spec anywhere?

  74. Attempt to ruin my kite based ISP IPO? by watermodem · · Score: 1

    My kite will rule your blimp. Its a fighting kite and it has the 13 miles of nanothread tether. You will not be permitted to ruin my Kite Based IPO! DoS with sharp points begins now.

  75. Controlled by earth stations on the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From their website:
    "Controlled by earth stations on the ground"

    I always liked my earth stations to be under water.

  76. New meaning... by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

    to the term "bloatware" :)

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  77. Airships to orbit by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    It's possible to lift a significant payload and launch vehicle over a 100,000 feet using a powered airship technology.

    I'm not sure if you already know about them, but JP Aerospace is working on airships which go to orbit.

  78. Same idea, but with jets by serutan · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, there is (or maybe was) a company planning to do this with piloted jets flying around 60,000 feet, instead of higher-altitude unmanned airships. Angel Technologies site doesn't appear to have been updated lately, but says Scaled Composites was manufacturing special planes for them. A fleet of three jets per city would fly in shifts to provide 24-hr service. Can you imagine making a profit on this while fueling and maintaining 3 jets around the clock, in addition to paying the pilots?

  79. gliders by infonography · · Score: 1

    has anyone else here seen a book by maybe Dean Ing, that had a plot vehicle about using gliders as a cheap and effective means of retransmission. They would drift up on thermals during the day and drift down slowly at night. With a GPS and a low power computer they would stay in the same area at about 65K, well above air traffic. These could stay aloft for years.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  80. Triple dupe = tripe by edittard · · Score: 0
    It's certainly a popular alternative to a news, this has been on slashdot at least twice before.

    January (By the same editor, FFS).
    And here it is in July

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  81. They said test flight scheduled by ScrewTivo · · Score: 1

    for 1st qtr 2005 here in this article
    But I thought I read january somewhere in the past day or so.

  82. you forgot the best part by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

    they just plain look cool!

    maybe the steampunk era will get here after all.... about 150 years late.... but still

    --
    May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
  83. Safe landing for a VAX by Cnoc+na+Gortini · · Score: 1

    I remember a story of "our VAX is down" in which it had fallen through the floor (in an old building). The mains connections pulled out as it fell, and the drive heads had parked safely before it hit the floor below!

  84. Looks like a whale by BigCheese · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks that picture looks like a whale?

    --
    The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    1. Re:Looks like a whale by chawly · · Score: 1

      no you're not.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  85. Size of Texas? by funkymonkjay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Initially, I was impressed. But then I realized, how's my little-iddy-biddy laptop gonna get the power to transmitt WIFI signals to the airship that's potentially half way across Texas? I have hard enough time using my laptop in the back yard without losing signal, let alone half way across the state of Texas.

  86. Phone Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you say VOIP? Good, I knew you could.

    The phone companies are telling the FCC they need a monopoly so they can pay for fiber-to-the-home. This will be much cheaper. I suppose that means they pay congress to outlaw it.

  87. airships dull in comparison to the new pathfinder by mike+bike+kite · · Score: 1
    There's a lot of competition for this market already flying. Pathfinder is a large UAV (a sort of pilotless plane) that's powered by solar panels and can stay in the air for months.

    It's a weird looking bird - have a look at http://www.skytowerglobal.com/

    It has been flying for a few years now and has a few altitude records etc. They allways promised to put a web cam on one and never did (perhaps the transmission signal is poor ;)

    Mike

  88. What happens when... by chamcham · · Score: 0

    your access point gets caught in the jetstream?

    1. Re:What happens when... by chawly · · Score: 1

      You use your notebook and you run really fast.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  89. Govt. Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kinda makes you wonder what kind of technology the govt. is going to piggy back onto one of these things. You KNOW they are going to want there hands on this. Its a floating missile platform in zero g. So all their gonna have to do it help pay to get it up there.

  90. D.Ing by LandGator · · Score: 1

    WILD COUNTRY was the book.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  91. nano materials for blimps? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    This makes me wonder how realistic an idea it is to use nano to create blimps that are filled with absolutely nothing. If they could manage that it'd seem to cut their ongoing costs and downtime down a lot. They'd not have to use helium and they wouldn't need such big ships as a vacuum weighs less than helium and has more lift. Not having to refill the helium would mean less downtime and less maintence.

    This doesn't sound like extremely different nano to create as it's just creating a lightweight material that is stiff enough to hold it's shape even when internally it contains a near-total vacuum. It'd seem you could use a normal material and coat it with some sort of substance that'd give it the needed strength. No buckytube spray-on gunk yet? :)

    Okay, I admit it. I just want the price to come down so I can afford to live on an airship. That'd be pretty cool. Gradually floating all over the world.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  92. Testing by tmcmsail · · Score: 1

    Would this not be a strata tester?

    --

    What OS do you want to abuse today?

  93. otcbb:GTEL... says it all!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When i first read this, i was like "WOW" and "About time!" Imagine Data, VoIP, as well as IPTV!! I had to find out more!!!!!

    Went to thier web site and read the little info they had there. Intriuged, i sought out more info...

    Seems "rigid" airships can only operate to about 1500 feet or so...

    Seems the current altitude record for "non-rigid" airships is 20,452 ft....

    Seems several other compainies have annouced similar "plans" (usually coinciding with some sort of financial event)...

    Try this site http://www.21stcenturyairships.com/HighAlt/ for some sobering info on high altitude airships.

    GTEL is selling a plan to operating a rigid air ship at an altitude 40 times that of typical airships and 3x the altitude record of a small non-rigid airship. There going to do on a revenue basis that which has never been done in over a hundred years of airship operations AND do it for more than a year at a time?

    otcbb:GTEL? Sounds alot like otcbb:SCAM to me

    sorry to have to burst the bubble, err, ah, airship