Broadband from Airships

rustbear writes "The BBC reports that researchers looking to the skies to provide super-fast internet access via airships have proved it can successfully operate a data rate link of 11Mbps. Trials were conducted using a 12,000 cubic metre balloon, flying at an altitude of around 24 kilometres for nine hours. 'Proving the ability to operate a high data rate link from a moving stratospheric balloon is a critical step in moving towards the longer term aim of providing data rates of 120Mbps,' said Dr David Grace, the project's principal scientific officer. 'Balloons hovering in the stratosphere could become an attractive alternative as consumers demand ever higher bandwidth", said Alan Gobbi, the acting manager of the York Electronic Centre. With each airship being able to support an area of 60 kilometres, there would only need to be "a handful" to offer complete coverage in the UK, he added. Trials of the technology will continue in Japan next year.'"

Comments

need more info, just for curiosity's sake

[yagu]

Wonder what the public reception (pun intended) and reaction will be to the number of airships necessary to provide complete coverage.

Also, it's not clear since both the slashdot post (quoting accurately from the article) and the article mention coverage at "..., With each airship being able to support an area of 60 kilometres...". Ignoring the fact that kilometres is a measurement of distance not area, what does this mean? Since the article claims at that coverage they would only need a "handful" or airships to provide complete coverage I'm going to infer:

• by 60 km, they mean either a radius, or diameter, in which case the coverage of a single aircraft would be either 11,300 sq km, or 2800 sq km respectively. (BTW, they're going to have to come up with a coverage in the United States that can cover square miles!)
• exactly (or even approximately) how do they quantify a "handful"?

Regardless, I would still be curious if that many craft in the air would be an eyesore, or something we adapt to. There is anecdotal evidence resistance to these kinds of things can be quite strong even with benefits to the population (case in point -- wind farms). (And there is STILL resistance to and legal activity around where and how cell-towers can be erected.)

(I guess someone's going to have to fill me in on how large a 12,000 cubic meter balloon appears at 24 kilometers.... let's see, if it were a cube, that would be about 23 meters each side... which is about 65 ft. per side... okay, never mind... smaller than a jet liner at 78,000 ft... sigh)

Re:this is great but...

[SatanicPuppy]

Storms...At 24 kilometers in the air? Not going to happen. That's in the stratosphere, well above even commerical airline flightpaths.

The winds up there are more sedate, though they do exist, especially toward the tropics.

Area?

[Hatta]

With each airship being able to support an area of 60 kilometres, there would only need to be "a handful" to offer complete coverage in the UK, he added.

60 Kilometers is a distance, not an area. Maybe they meant 60km^2? or a 60km radius? There's a really big difference, watch your units guys.

Redundancy

[shis-ka-bob]

If I set up the electric grid so that everyone in town used the same transformer, a single terrorist with a TOW rocket could leave everyone without electricity. We cannot prevent all terrorists from ever getting a TOW rocket. How on Earth can we provide reliable electricity? We have redundancy in the grid.

I'll bet its easier/faster/cheaper to launch a backup balloon than it is to splice a fibre optic that was cut by a backhoe (the natural preditor of LANS.)

Re:this is great but...

[FooAtWFU]

The issue is when there's a stormcloud between you and the stratosphere. Water is very good at blocking wireless signals.