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

this is great but...

[tehwebguy]

it doesn't seem like something you should always rely on, what about storms? i know in florida relying on something like this would be a disaster (i mean heck, my landline cable will likely be out after this 'cane hits this weekend!)

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.

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.

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)

I'm hoping...

[saskboy]

I'm hoping that they don't coat the balloons with a flamable doping, so that there's no chance of flaming zeplins of doom from falling out of the skies. It would bring a new meaning to the "Internet being down" though, wouldn't it?

Oh the Humanity! My wireless quit!

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.

A new first

[confused philosopher]

Is this the first time that "super-fast", "airships", and "successfully" have been used together in the same sentence?

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:Vulnerability

[topham]

And when the war was over they would have the infrastructure back up in a few weeks.

As a primary communications system for emergency services this isn't the way to go.

As a secondary source of internet access this would rock.

Hasn't this idea....

[philipmather]

Hasn't this idea... been floating around for a while?

SSID

[nm0n]

SSID = LedZeppelin

Why not use planes instead of blimps?

[Alwin Henseler]

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.)

You can be pretty sure that a mostly transparent balloon, flying at these altitudes, is as good as invisible to the naked eye. And a tiny dot in the sky is much less an eyesore than a large windfarm just off the coast. Not that I think that's an eyesore, BTW.

I wonder whether planes aren't more practical than ballons for this purpose. A balloon slowly leaks out gas, so how long it can stay up there is limited by that leakage.

How long a plane can stay up there, is limited by fuel. Now if you use a solar cell powered plane (NASA built one some time ago), the time it can stay up there is mostly limited by wear and tear of mechanical parts. That might be much longer than a leaking balloon.

I'm not sure how this balloon is kept in the same place, for a plane that would be easy. And you'll probably need some additional energy to power the communication equipment. A solar-powered plane would already have solar cells for that.

Looks nice either way. One of the problems with satellite communication is high latency (due to the sheer height of geo-stationary orbit). A 'satellite' in the stratosphere makes that problem go away.

Re:Vulnerability

[Michael Woodhams]

They're talking about an altitude of 24000 metres (79000 feet.) This would require a serious missile - something launched from a truck or aircraft, not from a shoulder. Wikipaedia says the Stinger can attack aircraft at altitudes between 180m and 3800m. If terrorists are able to drive a truck-based missile launcher into your country, your porn conduit probably isn't going to be high on their list of targets.*
    But yes, if there is a war on and enemy aircraft are overflying your country, you may loose broadband internet, significantly impacting your ability to download recent TV shows.

* But if the missile is labeled something like "National Committee for the Enforcement of Community Standards", perhaps you should start worrying.