Slashdot Mirror


250-Foot Hybrid Airship To Spy Over Afghanistan

Toe, The writes "Gizmodo details the Long Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) (based on the P-791), a spyship from US Army's Space and Missile Defense Command capable of hovering at 20,000 feet. Planned for deployment in Afghanistan, the ship can float for three weeks and carry well over a ton of payload, apparently surveillance equipment. The video on Gizmodo of the P-791 shows that these ships are a hybrid not only of both buoyancy and propulsive lift, but also of both awe and hilarity."

343 comments

  1. Protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read TFA and the wikipedia entry for the P-791 but I can't seem to find any actual details on the crafts construction. Specifically, what material the outer skin is made of. Seems like this kind of airship would be extremely vulnerable flying over hostile territory.

    1. Re:Protection? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seems like this kind of airship would be extremely vulnerable flying over hostile territory.

      Exactly. I'm not exactly sure what weaponry would be able to hit a target at 20,000 feet but it's a big, slow-moving target.

      On the other hand, I love the whole idea of gasbags as a means of transport, and would really like to see them come back for civilian use. I can see their time coming again as fuel bills rise or the carbon emissions of winged craft become too scary.

      Airships got a bad rap as a result of some messy crashes, but by of perspective, even with the Hindenburg crash 63% of the passengers survived. Whereas if you're in a plane when it crashes, you can usually guarantee that you're toast.

    2. Re:Protection? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) Are they really more efficient?

      They're certainly better than helicopters for hovering and slow patrolling, but for transporting lots of people or stuff to a definite destination I doubt it. Given the typical shapes used, I can imagine them spending lots of fuel just fighting the wind or air resistance. Not going to be easy to beat ships or trains, or even normal planes.

      Airships are fuel efficient if you don't mind going wherever the wind blows you.

      2) What gas to use though?

      I don't think there will be enough helium to go around:

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-02-Helium_N.htm

      So the options are hot air (which doesn't produce as much lift) or hydrogen (which has significant PR problems for airship usage).

      I suppose this would be a smaller problem. Could use hydrogen both for fuel and for lifting.

      --
    3. Re:Protection? by magarity · · Score: 1

      I can see their time coming again as fuel bills rise
       
      Something has to run the propellers on the thing - they don't spin for free. Airships are slow and inefficient compared to ocean liners or trains. They're like luxury cruise ships except in the air but not a substitute for basic (read: fast and cheap) distance transportation.

    4. Re:Protection? by Tuoqui · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect these are more for 'eye in the sky' operations over military installations where they have a high amount of security already. And if something is 20,000 feet up there is not a lot that will hit them that the insurgency would have access to. I do not believe grenade launchers or RPG's have that sort of range but then again I'm not an expert on military weaponry.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    5. Re:Protection? by jonadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real problem is speed, or rather the lack thereof. Air travel became as popular as it is because it's so much *faster*. People might book an airship flight once a decade for the novelty, kind of like a cruise ship trip, but they're not going to hop on the blimp whenever they need to get to the other side of the country. The trip would take too long. Jets are faster, so they win.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    6. Re:Protection? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are no hand held weapons that reach out that far. Those people talking about RPG's and sniper rifles are clueless. I'd be a little worried about stingers; Raytheon claims it can reach out that far, but not that high. I'd be more worried about medium sized howitzers - but most howitzers aren't configured for dual purpose like naval guns are. You'd have to park it on a hillside to get the elevation necessary, then it would probably fall of the hill when fired. More, we are talking about skills that "army" gunners don't have - they do not routinely track and target air/naval targets. The best bet seems to be an AA battery, but I've not seen any indication that anyone in the region has AA. Remember, when the Russians were there, the Afghans relied on our donations of stingers. I can't recall one report of AA emplacements such as Saddam Hussein had in Iraq.

      Finally - anything that has a reasonable chance of hitting the damned thing is going to have radar and/or laser targeting. Since they are trying to target a surveillance craft, chances are good that as soon as they light up the electronics, it has targeted THEM!!

      "Is that a train I hear? OH SHIT!! INCOMING!!"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese lead paint.

    8. Re:Protection? by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I don't know about Afghanistan specifically, it seems to me like trying to use it anywhere near a country that's not already been soundly thrashed and left defenseless, is asking for trouble.

      Yes, you're not going to hit it with an AK-47, but for example a SA-2 is going to hit you from 20 to 30 miles away (depending on the exact model), and up to 66,000 ft high. IIRC, if you're a large slow and non-maneuvering target, it can actually go quite a few more miles purely inertial at the end. (Pretty much like a dart with guiding fins.) Unless you're going to pack some equally oversized missile as counter-measures, no, you're not going to get much use out of targeting it before it targeted you. Though technically you will get such an early lock, because the targeting radar will lock on you at 40 miles or so, well before the actual missile actually launches, and the early warning radar from almost 200 miles.

      It's an old and cheap missile, and it's probably the most exported missile. It's all over Eastern Europe, ex-USSR, China and IIRC in a few arab countries too.

      Mind you, against a fast and low flying modern airplane, it's probably useless, and against helicopters even more so, since it has a 4 miles or so minimum range. But against a blimp? That thing was designed against the early cold war idea of big bombers flying high and not being able to maneuver much. A blimp is pretty much making its day again.

      And if we're talking artillery, why bother with a howitzer on a slope, when half the world got one or more of this or this or even more likely this from the Soviets. I know at least Iraq had a lot of the latter.

      Yeah, fat lot of good it did them against modern airplanes, but you show up in a blimp within 3-4 miles of one of those and you'll get a lot of holes fast.

      So basically, as I was saying, yeah, if you just have to patrol the skies of Afghanistan or some other county you've already thrashed and conquered, and you know you'll never face anything heavier than a RPG or AK-47, it's great. But then the old WW1 Zeppelins would be just as great. And it pretty much doesn't matter if it has its own anti-radar missiles or not, because nobody will shoot a missile that high. The missiles that go that high (like the SA-2) aren't exactly concealed-carry sized, if you get my drift.

      But that's about it. If this thing shows itself anywhere else, it doesn't matter how many anti-radiation missiles you pack on it. It's a big slow target, and just asking for it.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    9. Re:Protection? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree 100% that this airship would be worthless against a decently funded opponent with access to WW2 weapons and munitions.

      Regarding the targeting of ground based weapons - remember, this airship is to play the role of an AWACS. I don't expect that it is as effective as AWACS, but it doesn't sit up there unattended. It is meant to find targets for ground and/or air forces. Paint it with radar, it relays the info to a combat control center, and someone is given a strike mission. That could mean the enemy has several minutes to fire at the airship - or, it could mean they only have several seconds. A well trained gun crew only needs those seconds to kill a target, a poorly trained gun crew might never hit the target.

      So many variables.

      Personally, I wouldn't invest money in this airship, but it could very well prove worthwhile.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Protection? by infalliable · · Score: 1

      The Afghan "insurgents" don't have any of those weapons systems. They use mostly items that can be carried. They rely on speed and carting around a howitzer doesn't make you fast or stealthy. They may have some stingers from their war with the Soviets, but you don't hear about them downing helos with them. So it's not likely that they're many of them at all.

    11. Re:Protection? by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thankfully, as the article states, the military isn't planning on making this aircraft to open a speedy and luxurious cruise line over Afghanistan. The airships will be used for aerial surveillance, where staying in one place for long periods of time is the main goal. They are designed to remain aloft for a few weeks at a time, something that ordinary aircraft can't do.

    12. Re:Protection? by emilper · · Score: 1

      "Airships are slow and inefficient compared to ocean liners" ... show me an ocean liner or container train that can do 250km/h, and I'll bow to your argument. Airships have a lot of drawbacks, but being slow (compared with land or sea transportation) isn't one of them.

    13. Re:Protection? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      True but then again this thing will have a long slant range as well. At 20,000 ft it's sensors will have a very long line of site. Well outside of the range of those guns and probably the SA-2.
      In a limited theater type war if anybody was to light up one of these with radar I am sure that it would get catch a HARM very quickly.
      Think of this as a supplement for the E-3 and the P-3.
      The P-3 is big and slow and so far none of them have been shoot down over Afghanistan. And yes they are actually popular sensor platforms in that theater.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Protection? by Wansu · · Score: 1

        Exactly. I'm not exactly sure what weaponry would be able to hit a target at 20,000 feet but it's a big, slow-moving target.

      That would be a Led Zeppelin moment ...

      --
      Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    15. Re:Protection? by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV Built in the 70s. Not high tech. Average for a board, to leave is ~300kmh.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    16. Re:Protection? by emilper · · Score: 1

      hmm ... does it write they carry freight at 300km/hour ? ... and I heard they did not finish paying for the tracks, not to mention that day-to-day operation is subsidized by the state budget, because the full price would be a bit more expensive than a plane ticked for the same destination.

    17. Re:Protection? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real problem is speed, or rather the lack thereof. Air travel became as popular as it is because it's so much *faster*. People might book an airship flight once a decade for the novelty, kind of like a cruise ship trip, but they're not going to hop on the blimp whenever they need to get to the other side of the country. The trip would take too long. Jets are faster, so they win.

      People still use cars for cross-country travel. It appears that there's a serious misconception about airship speed here. Maybe we're used to seeing blimps lumbering around stadia (yeah, I typed stadia). These limp airships are only about 1/4th the size of classic rigid craft, and are intended to cruise around 30 knots. The Hindenburg made 85 mph on 4 diesel engines. The USS Akron could do 83 and the Macon 87. These were all built in the 1930s, and were designed to be much faster than surface vessels with much longer range than heavier-than-air ships. Assuming a modern passenger airship could do 100-200 mph, it could easily compete with high speed trains and cars -- even jets for trips under 500 miles or so. People use jet travel not for the speed advantage over airships, but rather for the all-weather availability. It would seem the military picked 20000 ft operational altitude to mostly avoid the problem of weather closer to the surface.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    18. Re:Protection? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Electronically spoofing an SA-2 is about as trivial of a task as modern ECM is presented with.

      Towed AAA would be a more likely threat, but moving 57mm or 100mm artillery in Afghanistan isn't easy. I'd guess they would be able to spot the guns (MMW radar, IIR) well outside their effective range.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    19. Re:Protection? by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      Yes it carries freight. Just not as much as ... oh you didn't specify how much.
      Just because it normally carries peopel and luggage, why can it not carry freight??
      TGV rail currently allows for the carrying of freight, but not currently at passenger speeds. This is only because it isn't really worth the energy to move freight that fast. It is NOT because it can't be done.
      There is a reason we already use ships to move freight. Even when it could be done via Airplane!

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    20. Re:Protection? by macxcool · · Score: 1

      The best bet seems to be an AA battery.

      Yes but, does anyone have a weapon that can fire an AA battery 20000 feet into the air. I'd pay to see that.

    21. Re:Protection? by Migity · · Score: 1

      1) Are they really more efficient?

      High bandwidth, high latency Think of all the BluRay Discs that thing can hold

    22. Re:Protection? by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      The real problem is speed, or rather the lack thereof. Air travel became as popular as it is because it's so much *faster*. People might book an airship flight once a decade for the novelty, kind of like a cruise ship trip, but they're not going to hop on the blimp whenever they need to get to the other side of the country. The trip would take too long. Jets are faster, so they win.

      Unless they use the blimp as a launchpad for low orbit travel, which is highly efficient and fast.

    23. Re:Protection? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      The real problem is speed, or rather the lack thereof. Air travel became as popular as it is because it's so much *faster*. People might book an airship flight once a decade for the novelty, kind of like a cruise ship trip, but they're not going to hop on the blimp whenever they need to get to the other side of the country.

      I think the idea is to have a cheaper alternative than a satellite so this thing won't be moving that much from place to place.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    24. Re:Protection? by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      Except LEO is 527,999+ feet, so yea I'm an idiot lol...

    25. Re:Protection? by Painted · · Score: 1

      Also, don't forget that a blimp floating would also have a very low radar cross-section, and a very low thermal output (no engines mightily fighting gravity every second). I would imagine most normal ground-to-air systems would have a surprisingly difficult time locking onto this thing form 20,000' below...

      --
      http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
    26. Re:Protection? by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      A low orbit recon blimp would be way cooler... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/ns/technology_and_science-space/

    27. Re:Protection? by mayko · · Score: 1

      You point out exactly why this will probably not be used in forward combat situations.

      It will certainly still be used for surveillance... but probably over our own country. So there is no need to worry about any "assault weapons," let alone anti-air capabilities.

      "Hey look, its the Goodyear Blimp... I wonder why its been hovering here for weeks...."

    28. Re:Protection? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      posted by Moraelin:

      And if we're talking artillery, why bother with a howitzer on a slope, when half the world got one or more of this [wikipedia.org] or this [wikipedia.org] or even more likely this [wikipedia.org] from the Soviets. I know at least Iraq had a lot of the latter.

      Disclaimer: I'm not an AA man. But, I'm pretty sure the two larger AA guns in his links can reach, and the smaller 57mm may very well reach. Let's remember that 20,000 feet is only about 3 3/4 miles.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    29. Re:Protection? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      "Airships are slow and inefficient compared to ocean liners" ... show me an ocean liner or container train that can do 250km/h, and I'll bow to your argument. Airships have a lot of drawbacks, but being slow (compared with land or sea transportation) isn't one of them.

      Airships are slow compared to airplanes, and carry a miniscule cargo compared to ocean going ships. Come to that, their cargo isn't impressive compared to an airplane.

      In other words, they don't have enough advantage over ship or plane to make them worth the bother except in very rare situations.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re:Protection? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      True, but this is designed for survailence of areas where the military already has control (at a military level). Nobody in the opposition has howitzers or anything like that.

      Plus, you could probably make them really cheap (minus the payload). A strategy would be to launch a bunch with minimal equipment and let them just float over enemy airspace. Anything that opens fire would betray its location.

      You mention HARMs, but there are lots of other bad things that can happen to people who launch attacks using serious hardware. When you fire a howitzer your shells are instantly picked up by radar, and your artillery is instantly located. The US military can bring down counterbattery fire within minutes, and you're not going to move something like that quickly enough to evade. Even if the blimp doesn't have a HARM, it can report the radar location before it is shot down, and now you'll end up on a target list. In an theater like Afganistan where US planes are all over the place unopposed you could have a suitably-equipped fighter bearing down on you in minutes.

      Nobody is going to send in blimps on the first wave of an attack. You bring those in the same time that you bring in all the other peacekeeping logistics - long after any real military resistance is gone. A resistance force can't support heavy weaponry like the kind you describe.

    31. Re:Protection? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't. You still have the engines, cab, sensors, and so on. I doubt they are going to use a lot RAM on this thing plus you can always use optical tracking. In day light it will be pretty big. However I don't see man portable systems being a real threat anytime soon.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    32. Re:Protection? by shock1970 · · Score: 1

      I doubt Afghani militants would have access to one... but I'd imagine a strong laser of some sort would be able to burn a hole through the hull.

      --
      Silly Rabbit, Trix are for prostitutes.

    33. Re:Protection? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If you build a dirigible, with some structural solidity, there's no reason you can't stick jets on it and drive it very considerably faster than a blimp. You can design it very nearly aerodynamically perfect, after all: no wings, less commercial constraints to build a long cylinder. Instead it can be a teardrop 5x as long as wide, and have something very close to ideal, so you're just fighting (very considerable) skin friction, but don't have any induced drag or nearly any interference drag.

      I'm not saying it's economically feasible, but I think it's technically feasible.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    34. Re:Protection? by emilper · · Score: 1

      Of course it can be done, just not for very long. You're right, it carries freight, but at 100km/h, max 120km/h, otherwise the railway bed will need to be rebuilt every second week when ridden by 12 metric tons of weight per axle at the speed of 300km/h. You also might be right about the price, but I don't think you factored in that price the cost of keeping the line closed with a train at 100km/h, when you could have two or three at 300km/h.

      Passengers and luggage are a lot lighter than ... let's say, milk, in the same volume occupied in a railway wagon.

      I'm not arguing for airships being better at lugging freight from place to place, just that the speed of an airship is not a problem: a rigid frame airship can go to about 300km/h before friction with the air makes fuel consumption a problem.

      The airships have a host of other issues: very bulky for the amount of useful weight they can carry, trouble with fuel consumption decreasing the weight in time (so in a rigid airframe airship that would require for a way to reduce the volume of air displaced, which wasn't yet solved), the price of helium (it's a lot less expensive than it was during the '30s, but still high), trouble with precision landing in turbulence and staying in one place once landed etc.

    35. Re:Protection? by emilper · · Score: 1

      did not say they were useful for carrying freight, just that the issue ain't the speed.

    36. Re:Protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the airship is probably a very cold target. Not much infrared based locking for the shoulder launched AA-robots perhaps. Covering the airship with some microwave dispersing structures might also make it a lesser target for a radar.

    37. Re:Protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those people talking about RPG's and sniper rifles are clueless.

      But they told me that the terrorists could easily shoot down a 747 at 30,000 feet with a 50 cal sniper rifle and we need to ban them because that's the only reason to own one - are you suggesting politicians and the media are wrong?

    38. Re:Protection? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      All the AA guns I've mentioned can be aimed optically, without any radar. They're really WW2 technology which has been retrofitted to be guidable by radar too, but if that's not an option (for whatever reason), the crew can still look through a scope and madly crank to turn it, like you see in WW2 movies.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    39. Re:Protection? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the SA-2 wasn't the best example. It was picked mostly for the sole merit of being old and cheap and available to everyone who ever wanted to buy one. There are some countries out there barely above third-world level that have a few of them.

      Still, pick another missile of your choice, then.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    40. Re:Protection? by sponga · · Score: 1

      There was just a huge discussion about these type of wars and how Nuclear weapons have allowed us to avoid massive casualties and WW3, how we now have these never ending mini wars with the Middle East.

      Obviously the designers know this is designed for a warzone like Afghanistan in mind, this is the best bang for buck surveillance tool to use in Afghanistan and certain areas of Iraq. The JLENS can already detect cruise missiles from 340 miles away, I think these guys know what they are doing and are smart enought to deploy it in areas where they are not threatened. So this has long been though out, probably since WW2.

      They are actually already deployed in FOB in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004, what is it 2009 now and I think these things have proven their point.

      Direct link to video in the article, not a crapware site.
      250-Foot Long Hybrid Airship Will Spy Over Afghanistan Battlefields in 2011
      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=63a_1253757652

      The U.S Army's Space and Missile Defense command plans to have an unmanned spy-ship capable of loitering at 20,000-feet (for up to three weeks) ready to deploy by mid-2011.

      Dubbed the Long Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV), the craft will be based on Lockheed Martin's P-791 experimental hybrid airship, which you can see in the video below. The smaller P-791 was 125-foot long, but flew six tests in 2006. It's known as a hybrid because only 80% of its lift comes from buoyancy; the other 20% comes from three downward thrusters on each side.

      _______________
      Another cools one is the JLENS which is tethered to the ground.
      Raytheon JLENS cruise-missile defense aerostat
      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=079_1251344203

      "The US Army this week showed off its latest high-tech blimp laden with powerful radar systems capable of detecting incoming threats 340 miles away."

    41. Re:Protection? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      a bicycle is probably the most efficient in terms of energy for transporting a person, with walking perhaps in second place. But that's slow and doesn't work well over rough terrain.

      A glider doesn't take any fuel at all, so it's the most efficient. Except that there are enough disadvantages to gliders that they are not universally practical. I suspect an airship is more efficient than a plane or helicopter because it only has to combat wind resistance instead of also needing to use fuel to produce lift. And a train needs tracks, so that's impractical. And you need to disembark a ship to go inland, so that's also impractical.

      for spying over an area for days at a time, I suspect an airship is quite practical and efficient.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    42. Re:Protection? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      For people, yes, but for goods? I dunno about that. If it makes economic sense, it may happen.

      It would all depend on the cost of the goods being transported, how long it would take them to get from one trading partner to another, relative to the cost of doing things the "normal way". Sounds pretty unlikely, but it's actually an interesting idea.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    43. Re:Protection? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I love the whole idea of gasbags as a means of transport,

      Indeed. Far superior to our present use as a means of government.

      Did anyone else think they ought to paint the thing pink and brown so it looked like a giant flying hot-dog-in-a-bun?

    44. Re:Protection? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Any missile that is "old and cheap" will be well within the US's capability to thwart if they just make the effort to do so. The problems have already been solved.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    45. Re:Protection? by Dravik · · Score: 1

      Good luck trying to move any of those gun unobserved through Afghanistan. Someone who wants to shoot a blimp first has to get within range of the blimp, set-up, load, aim, and then fire. People tend to notice an AA piece getting towed down the road.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    46. Re:Protection? by demonbug · · Score: 1

      3 3/4 miles straight up (actually less in a place like Afghanistan, where large areas are over 5,000 feet elevation), but that isn't the point. You aren't going to be parking these directly over the enemy in most situations. Per the article, at 20,000 feet it has a line of sight of 173 miles (presumably over flat land at 0 elevation, but still). Park it 20 or 30 miles away horizontally, and even with relatively advanced AA nothing is going to be touching it, while it should still be able to provide good overhead imagery. Just wait until they mount frickin' laser beams on it.

    47. Re:Protection? by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 1

      Yes. Protection. [puts on movie announcer voice] It came (slowly) from the runways of Death. Rising above humanity like a white cloud of Doom. Rising above the enemy in plain sight ... taunting them menacingly. It was - THE MACY'S DAY PARADE BALLOON OF DEATH! [end movie announcer voice]. Coming to a war zone near you.

      --
      L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
    48. Re:Protection? by omega_dk · · Score: 1

      The world isn't running out of helium, the US government's reserves are running out of helium. It may seem like a minor distinction (after all, America is the world, so it follows that the US government's strategic reserves are the entire supply of the entire world), but in reality, there is plenty of Helium available... if we have enough of a need to start separating it again. This also explains why, as prices of helium have gone up, so have the number of factories producing it.

      --
      Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
    49. Re:Protection? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Hey - take a look at these pages, and make your own conversions:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_range_of_Japanese_Anti-aircraft_guns_-_world_war_II.png
      In world war 2, the Japanese were reaching up as high as 20 kilometers with AA guns. They could reach elevations being discussed above at horizontal ranges of ~14 kilometers Pretty awesome - I didn't even realize they could reach that far!! The charts imply that those were "effective" ranges, not theoretical.

      http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AA_GUNS2.htm
      This pre-WW2 Bofors was reaching as high as 5 kilometers

      Found some other cool pages with newer weapons that are pretty remarkable - but it's HIGHLY unlikely that any of those will be found in Afghanistan. Iran, maybe - they have money. Afghanistan? No way.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    50. Re:Protection? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      When you figure the side of this thing is going to be a giant phased array antenna, being able to spot this will not be difficult.

    51. Re:Protection? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Specifically, what material the outer skin is made of. Seems like this kind of airship
      > would be extremely vulnerable flying over hostile territory

      After digging through a chain of Wiki articles, it appears the Skyship 600, a predecessor, was tested with hundreds of bullets and even some RPGs launched through it. It stayed aloft for hours, plenty of time to complete a mission and return.

      Apparently modern design only has a positive pressure of 1-2 PSI, which does not lead to either catastrophic failure of the bag(s) nor sufficient leakage to cause it to lose lift very fast.

      Yes, the gondola would be susceptible to bullets or a missile, but the bag would not be, barring what would probably need to be a special missile capable of blowing up on impact with the inconsequential bag material.

      And all that presumes they'll get anywhere near the ground anywhere near some place other than home base.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    52. Re:Protection? by eples · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hydrogen is fine as long as you don't paint the outside of the airship with silver ROCKET FUEL based paint (perchlorate).

      --
      I'm a 2000 man.
    53. Re:Protection? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The realities of Julian Simon's theories, being proven as having tremendous predictive power again and again through the decades, don't make for good disasterbation, nor a good rallying cry if you're a politician seeking power.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    54. Re:Protection? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And they'd have to hit the gondola, or blow up the bag(s), not just puncture them (hundreds of bullets and even several RPG-sized punctures don't mean squat), neither of which is likely.

      And anything turning on a radar is just asking to have a radar-sniffing bomb to land on it. Remember the "six GPS scramblers" Baghdad had that would give the US such troubles with all its GPS smartbombs? Died almost immediately since, go figure, broadcasting a signal makes it easy to target you.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    55. Re:Protection? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Every third post seems to be worrying about bullets or shoulder-mounted rockets. Not a problem, barring a rocket exploding when it hit the bag, making a huge, shredded hole, which is not very likely to happen as it's hardly a "hard" target to impact.

      +1-2 PSI neither "bursts" the bag when punctured, nor causes loss of lift so rapid the vehicle cannot complete a several-hour mission. Even hundreds of bullet holes and several RPG-sized holes cannot cause catastrophic failure nor rapid descent.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    56. Re:Protection? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      AA explosions are intended to burst shrapnel that punctures, not impact and blow up as per a bomb.

      As such, it would hardly be different from rifle bullet holes or small RPG holes. The material doesn't tear catastrophically because of design and that there's only +1-2PSI inside the bag. This has been tested with hundreds of bullet holes and several RPG-sized holes, all of which the ship can keep up with and complete and return to base on a several hour mission.

      So barring a lucky AA explosive impact directly on the bag itself, people are worrying about a non-issue. It's not a balloon to pop when a dog bites it.

      The gondola and its occupants is another issue, but the big fear, of being "popped out of the sky" is a non-issue as far as today's technology goes.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    57. Re:Protection? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      See, it's like a rifle hole and....

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    58. Re:Protection? by omega_dk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't go so far as to say that materials that actually do get destroyed in their use haven't the ability to become scarce, but Helium by it's very nature is non-reactive, meaning that when we 'lose' helium, we're merely displacing it, meaning it can be recovered. Once we start fusing it, I will admit it may become a scarce resource, but the world as of right now has (through human usage) exactly as many (or at least, humans have used a statistically immeasurable amount of) Helium atoms as it ever has, which cannot be said for, say, molecules of oil, which have been transformed from a long hydrocarbon chain into several other forms, notably carbon mon- and dioxide, water, and various forms economically useful (I'm looking at you, plastic!).

      Anyways, I haven't read Julian Simon's theories in their entirety, but I can tell you right now he's a moron. Energy is certainly not infinite - there is an upper limit of the amount of energy that could be absorbed by a 100% efficient solar cell with the exact cross section of the earth over 5 billion years in this orbit. Infinity is factually greater than that amount.

      --
      Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
    59. Re:Protection? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      You know what happens when you shoot an airship? You get an airship with a small hole in it. Yes, it's a huge, slow-moving target, but it's also an incredibly resiliant target. Look at the Zeppelins in World War I: even an airship that's been hit by thousands of rounds of antiaircraft fire could usually make it back to German-held territory before being forced to land.

      For a more recent example, look at the Goodyear blimps. They get shot on a regular basis, and the only indication is that the ground crew is adding more helium than normal.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    60. Re:Protection? by jhfry · · Score: 1

      They're certainly better than helicopters for hovering and slow patrolling, but for transporting lots of people or stuff to a definite destination I doubt it. Given the typical shapes used, I can imagine them spending lots of fuel just fighting the wind or air resistance. Not going to be easy to beat ships or trains, or even normal planes.

      You didn't think before you posted this did you?

      Much, if not most, of the fuel expended in a traditional plane is used to LIFT the plane. Sure there is a cost to going fast in a plane too, but if you were to put the plane on (very straight zero friction) tracks and run it at the same speed, it would use considerably less fuel because it wouldn't need to overcome gravity.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    61. Re:Protection? by shirotakaaki · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the heads up on the speed of the airships. Something else I was thinking about that would technically increase their average voyage speed is that they can travel (mostly) as the crow flies. Cars are bound by the surface roads and trains are locked to their tracks.

    62. Re:Protection? by caramuru · · Score: 2, Funny

      The best bet seems to be an AA battery, but I've not seen any indication that anyone in the region has AA.

      You can find AA batteries in any drugstore. Why shouldn't you be able to find them in Afghanistan?

    63. Re:Protection? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Just because they grow drugs, doesn't mean they have drugstores. They are for sale to us idiot rich Americans, not to morally upright Moslems.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    64. Re:Protection? by phliar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not exactly sure what weaponry would be able to hit a target at 20,000 feet but it's a big, slow-moving target.

      An honest-to-god SAM can probably hit one, but they don't have a lot of those in Afghanistan. Shoulder-mounted missiles won't go that high.

      It will be approximately the same size in the sky as an airliner at cruising altitude. If there were no contrail and no sound, would you be able to see a 747 crusing above you? Paint it the colour of the sky as seen from the ground -- would you even know this thing was a few miles above you?

      It may be slow-moving, but that also means no heat signature for an IR-seeker to lock on to. It's a large plastic bag, so it wouldn't be too hard to give the ship a very small radar cross-section. Best of all, it can be unmanned, so even if by some lucky chance the bad guys manage to shoot one down, big deal.

      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    65. Re:Protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but if you make the envelope an airfoil in its own right, you could reduce the frontal area to reduce drag and use the propulsion to provide some percentage of the lift. And even if the buoyancy provides all the lift, an airoil envelope could still add to forward propulsion by gliding when going upwards as well as downwards. So until a certain speed is reached you wouldn't need the motors to move forward, provided the design allows for it.

      I wonder if it's possible to even make a hybrid dirigible. Where it's possible to collapse or expand the envelope on demand, so it can fly either like an airship or a fixed wing aircraft. Might make for some interesting applications for heavy-lift VTOL, if the engineering could be worked out.

      I wouldn't be too surprised if some of those supposed flying triangles are a black budget application of this concept. They seem to fit the profile.

    66. Re:Protection? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You have a ship that blends in with the background and flies at 20,000 feet. That is somewhere around 7 miles. Being mostly fabric of some sort, it's radar signature is probably nearly non-existent. It's infra-red signature would be absorbed into the background noise. It is silent to those on the ground. It is colored to blend in the background (and will be 7 miles away from the the closest observer). It can be un-manned.

      Considering the alternatives, I would think it makes sense to put several of these up and not worry to much about what sort of artillery Al Queda might have. If they used artillery wiht that sort of range against this low value (in a monetary sense) target, then they just gave away the position of something that we should really be targetting.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    67. Re:Protection? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're interested in weight-reduced (helium-filled) lifting bodies, you should read about the Aereon 26, as chronicled in John McPhee's excellent book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed. A fair amount of research and money has gone into this general area of design, with mixed results. And, as you say, a lot of people who research UFO's say it's possible that these are what the US Government is using for very high altitude, long-time-on-station rec. I've heard people claim that these are being used at 100,000 feet or thereabouts on US borders, although I'm marking these stories as only slightly more reliable than alien contact stories.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    68. Re:Protection? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      What gas to use though?

      Make the airships large enough and paint them black; the daytime thermal loading should heat the interior enough to add significantly to the bouyancy. Might be enough to make hot air a viable alternative. Yes, you can run it on hydrogen, but burn the stuff to heat the air and spin the props. Wouldn't use as much H2 that way, I think - and making the H2 would be energy intensive.

      Scheduling could be a problem, but if you think about it, the inability to keep to strict timetables wasn't a show-stopper in the 19th century (unless you ran out of drinking water or limes, anyhow).

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    69. Re:Protection? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they have point defense systems for shooting down incoming missiles, or perhaps they're simply classified as expendable.

    70. Re:Protection? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't mounting one of these on the blimp defeat and incoming missiles?

    71. Re:Protection? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      You can design it very nearly aerodynamically perfect, after all: no wings, less commercial constraints to build a long cylinder. Instead it can be a teardrop 5x as long as wide...

      I vote we name the first one of these the "Dauntless".

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    72. Re:Protection? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Hmm... giant inflatable flying wings. Perhaps they could be made semi-rigid, using a segmented construction method. With an intricate series of cables you could make the wings flap. Just the thing to protect your fleet of giant radio robots.

      Good idea. Run it past Dexter, would ya?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    73. Re:Protection? by magarity · · Score: 1

      show me an ocean liner or container train that can do 250km/h
       
      Please, I have to know what airship travels at 250km/h. I think the British WWII era R100 went about 100km/h and it was the fastest ever. And that was a completely rigid style. The modern ones aren't even rigid airships; they are 'semirigid' which limits their speed quite a bit.
       
      Also note the word efficient in my original. There's no way to make an airship that can carry a decent fraction of the number of people who can ride on a train or ocean liner. So really, while it would be cool to have a cruise ship type airship to ride, my original prediction still stands IMO: it would never replace basic (cheap and fast) long distance travel.

    74. Re:Protection? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Stingers or Sniper rifles aren't able to reach that high but old fashioned AA cannons can. An old Soviet 23 mm would be able to do it at a stretch, aiming would be a bitch though but there are plenty of these cannons around. I should imagine that a sufficiently inventive insurgent should be able to re-purpose an artillery piece (say 80-120 mm) into a rudimentary flak cannon that could reach 20,000 ft (like the old German 88mm). Insurgents are anything if not inventive, they kind of have to be.

      The problem they will then have is aiming. 20,000 ft is pretty much beyond that of manual (visual) aiming for a single piece but any basic RADAR will do as this thing will be large enough to be easily detectable.

      But in all probability all they need to do is smuggle in an old Soviet SA7 with an improvised launcher. A reprisal against a launching site that has already been used seems a bit empty as the time between a radar lock and a missile launch will not be long enough to for any weapon delivery system to be effective.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    75. Re:Protection? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Untrapped helium floats to the top of our atmosphere and a fair bit of it will leave the earth - because it can attain escape velocities at that point.

      http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3.htm

      Recovering the helium that's floating up there will be very expensive.

      --
    76. Re:Protection? by emilper · · Score: 1

      Hindenburg had the cruise speed at 125km/h, R100 reached 131km/h in testing, and that was limited by the engines they could mount at that time. Aeros claims heir airship will get to 280km/h, and the project had a round of tests this year, so it's not vaporware ... when Hindenburg was built even heavier-than-air planes weren't much faster, and were even less efficient at moving stuff around.

      From what I understand the speed of airships won't go much about 300km/h because the friction will cause much greater fuel consumption, not because an rigid frame airship won't be able to go faster.

      I don't remember ever saying airships are better/more efficient at hauling freight. I only said speed is not the issue. There are lots of other issues which won't be solved very soon, if at all.

    77. Re:Protection? by emilper · · Score: 1

      "There's no way to make an airship that can carry a decent fraction of the number of people who can ride on a train or ocean liner." ... you mean the kind of train that needs very expensive rails, personnel to inspect those rails every day, expensive communication lines along the rails to coordinate traffic, clumsy stations that normal road traffic has to go around or above, state subsidies in every country on earth etc. ? ... or the kind of ocean lines that have people dragging the estuaries to let them dock, require expensive and maintenance-hungry docking facilities plus a horde of maintenance personnel to boot ?

      Airships were the victim of their own hype ... they were supposed to do away with all the messy work with roads and hangars etc., plus being a sure victim to antiaircraft guns or fighter airplanes ... and aircraft design and development was and still led by the needs of the military.

      Yeah, I root for the airships, if only because to get a decent road infrastructure where I live we'll have to move so much earth that if it would be piled in Holland it would turn it into another Switzerland.

    78. Re:Protection? by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious on the use of a ~100mph airship for international cargo usage - much faster than boat, potentially much cheaper than plane. (Does it even have to be manned?) Also interesting that weight rather than bulk is the main issue. The ship in the article mentioned a ton of cargo - that is not very much.

    79. Re:Protection? by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      I may have misunderstood the post, but commercial airliners go 400-600mph.
      The main selling point will be fuel... especially as prices rise. TFA, however, is about a sitting duck. Since we are all terrorists to our government, expect to see these in domestic cities as well.

      --
      Something witty.
    80. Re:Protection? by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      That's somewhere around 4 miles... 20,000ft / 5,280ft per mile ~= 3.788 miles

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    81. Re:Protection? by ivucica · · Score: 1
    82. Re:Protection? by ReyHinckley · · Score: 1

      flying near 20,000 feet the craft could probably change altitudes to find the the best prevailing winds. There also may be enough electronics on board to allow the air ship to be refueled by flying tankers. Afghanistan probably has aircraft that can fly to 20,000 feet to fire something large enough to pop the ship, or at least hit it with a heavy metal projectile.

    83. Re:Protection? by Geminii · · Score: 1
      I'm not exactly sure what weaponry would be able to hit a target at 20,000 feet

      Weather balloon with a stick of dynamite attached?

  2. Airships are meant to be elegant. by wjh31 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Much romance surrounds travel by blimps/airships as they float gracefully through the air. But on watching that video, i have to say it it seems to be one of the least elegant take-offs (and landing) around.

    1. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by NoYob · · Score: 1

      Yes. I was expecting vertical take off and landing not that roll down a runway; although, it was a rather short roll.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    2. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not as if they had a large pool of people with multi-year experience ever since the bottom dropped out of the Zepplin market in the 30s and it went the way of buggy whips ;^)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    3. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by NoOnesMessiah · · Score: 1

      Elegant. Right. -- Two words: Blueberry Muffin. Seriously, that's what I see when I watch this thing. Bluuuueberry Muffin, my favourite. My favourite!

    4. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The spire of the Empire State Building in NYC originally contained an airship docking port on the 102nd floor.

      Although this idea sounds awesome in theory, it was incredibly dangerous in practice, and no airships ever managed to safely dock with the building due to severe winds and updrafts.

      The idea was eventually scrapped, and the spire was converted for use as a transmission aerial, which is still in operation today. The building still retains several peculiarities relating to the unused airship terminal.

      Coincidentally, a few years later the building would later survive a direct hit from a B-25 relatively unscathed. The idea of a rooftop air terminal was later resurrected with the construction of a helipad on top of the nearby Pan-Am building, which also proved to be extremely dangerous, and was permanently closed after an accident in the 1970s.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by taniwha · · Score: 3, Informative

      well normal (neutral buoyancy) airships don't like to be too close to the ground - wind can blow them into it and damage them - that's why they dock at masts - and why you don't see them take off (they're already off) - this thing is a hybrid - heavier than air but not by much - it needs to be able to do this so it can land and be refueled in the field without building the towers and honking big hangers that blimps need

    6. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Eudial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That video was pretty ridiculous. The music doesn't make any sense. It's like out of a montage in an action movie (Under Siege? It has that Steven Segal quality...), and the contrast to that thing wobbling around makes it all the more laughable.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    7. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      For some reason, when I look at that thing, all I see are the air monsters that'll randomly pop up.

      I'm also wondering if they can find enough dudes named Cid to take care of them if the military makes a bunch of them.

    8. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Much romance surrounds travel by blimps/airships as they float gracefully through the air."

      Yeah, nothing says "Let's fuck!" like a ride on a blimp...

    9. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      No more less graceful then an ordinary airplane on a windy day. It just looks more wobbly because of its bulk. That and I am sure because it is a brand new aircraft it is not flown by pilots who have decades of experience flying such an aircraft or something simular.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Much romance surrounds travel by blimps/airships as they float gracefully through the air. But on watching that video, i have to say it it seems to be one of the least elegant take-offs (and landing) around.

      Which is why I prefer the Yakety Sax remix of the video linked in TFA.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    11. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Funny

      They totally need to paint this thing pink and give it ears and a tail like a pig. That would be the most awesome military aircraft ever.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    12. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that it has the unfortunate front and rear profiles of a butt with two butt-cracks. Definitely designed for function rather than form.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    13. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      They totally need to paint this thing pink and give it ears and a tail like a pig. That would be the most awesome military aircraft ever.

      And then hang some rock concert speakers below it, and crank up "Animals."

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    14. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, a few years later the building would later survive a direct hit from a B-25 relatively unscathed.

      Which is sort of to be expected. A hard shell building, with a relatively small aircraft (F-15 size, F-16 weight), not a lot of fuel, and low speed.

    15. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by jcochran · · Score: 1

      Actually, they stopped using the high mast for mooring after the incident in 1927 with the Los Angeles and went to low towers. Their approach was to keep the airship at positive buoyancy and tether it to the ground to make the system as a whole negative buoyancy (e.g. The attachment at the nose keeps that from going up and a trailer at the tail keeps that in place. The airship as a whole is allowed to pivot in a circle around the low tower).

      The incident in 1927 with the Los Angeles was a remarkable fluke where a gust of wind almost exactly 180 degrees from the current wind lifted the tail of the airship up to almost vertical, it then pivoted on its nose and went back to horizontal. Minimal damage was done, but that pretty much spelled the end for the high mast for mooring.

    16. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by smaddox · · Score: 1

      That might have had something to do with the ridiculous suspense music in the background. I couldn't help but laugh.

    17. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a tour guide at the Empire State Building, or what? :)

    18. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Fishbulb · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking! "When are we going to see one of these in the next Die Hard movie?!"

    19. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the soundtrack from Battlefield: 2142. The ships do sort of look like the Titan airships from that game.

    20. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much romance surrounds travel by blimps/airships as they float gracefully through the air. But on watching that video, i have to say it it seems to be one of the least elegant take-offs (and landing) around.

      Fortunately, since it can fly for 3 weeks at a stretch, it won't give you too many opportunities to mock its landing grace. It's not meant to delivery troops and swiftly take off; it's meant to float around in the air.

    21. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by spitzak · · Score: 1

      New version with better music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SkvM_Q5oQM

    22. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I was thinking Conan the Barbarian myself.

      I hope the folks that made the video planned it that way...

    23. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Music is not Lockheed-Martin's strong suit. They make a pretty good flying Oscar Mayer Weiner mobile though.

    24. Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. by Eil · · Score: 1

      The idea of a rooftop air terminal was later resurrected with the construction of a helipad on top of the nearby Pan-Am building, which also proved to be extremely dangerous,

      I thought helipads on corporate skyscraper rooftops were quite common? Or do I watch too many movies? (Disclaimer: I live in the Midwest.)

  3. hahahaha by Tomfrh · · Score: 5, Funny

    With this new Imperial Probe Droid those rebels don't stand a chance!!!!

    1. Re:hahahaha by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell wouldn't like to be probed by that droid.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  4. Afghanistan in....what? by IBBoard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nice headline! "250-Foot Hybrid Airship To Spy Over Afghanistan In" - in what? In November? In 2010? In next ten years? In mission to provide big target in sky? In huge ball of flames? In super-secret mission that no-one knows about?

    1. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the Gizmodo article's title ("250-Foot Long Hybrid Airship Will Spy Over Afghanistan Battlefields in 2011") is any indication, it should be "...in 2011".

    2. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Submitter needs to learn to english!

    3. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by KClaisse · · Score: 5, Informative

      It seems that there is a limit on slashdot article title length. Many submission in the firehose section also have missing endings in their titles.

    4. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nice headline! "250-Foot Hybrid Airship To Spy Over Afghanistan In" - in what? In November? In 2010? In next ten years? In mission to provide big target in sky? In huge ball of flames? In super-secret mission that no-one knows about?

      In the Baghdad Comedy Club, for two nights only.

    5. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's grammatically correct, just a little awkward. To rephrase, "250-foot hybrid airship in which to spy over Afghanistan".

    6. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I thought it was just poor grammar.

    7. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Nux'd · · Score: 1

      If the mission were to provide a big target in the sky, they wouldn't have it 20,000 feet in the air.

    8. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nice headline! "250-Foot Hybrid Airship To Spy Over Afghanistan In" - in what? In November? In 2010? In next ten years? In mission to provide big target in sky? In huge ball of flames? In super-secret mission that no-one knows about?

      Hey, blimpin' ain't easy.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      "... In Illegal Immigrant Job Stealing Swine Flu Related Terrorist Plot" says the Daily Mail.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by IBBoard · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's a shame /. has a lot of Americans - they must miss the accuracy of the humour :D

    11. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In FL we have the goodyear floating around all the time

      It uses non-flammable helium
      The gas envelope is low pressure, so leaks are slow
      It is also compartmentalized
      It has a cool billboard they run on it at night, I imagine this would be cool to have over there on the military version as well :-)

    12. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is:

      "In other news, giant elephant's ass is hovering YOU!"

    13. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, if only Slashdot had access to some high end programmers who could figure out a way to limit the length of the submission field. Such a thing would likely be revolutionary and could lead to multiple patents.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    14. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Nice headline! "250-Foot Hybrid Airship To Spy Over Afghanistan In" - in what? In November? In 2010? In next ten years? In mission to provide big target in sky? In huge ball of flames? In super-secret mission that no-one knows about?

      Hey, blimpin' ain't easy.

      "Dontcha know that its hard out there for a Blimp?"

      (didn't that win an Academy Award for Best Song one year? :) )

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    15. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Surely that'd be "250-foot hybrid airship in which to spy on Afghanistan" or "250-foot hybrid over Afghanistan in which to spy from"?

    16. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by mmustapic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems there is no intention to ever leave Afghanistan if they plan to deploy this airship in two years.

    17. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You owe me;
      1. cup of coffee.
      2. keyboard.

    18. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much trouble to RTFA...

    19. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      That's just the 'Spoiler Alert' protection kicking in.

    20. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      In mission to provide big target in sky?

      Hitting a moving target in the sky at 20,000 feet from the ground is no simple matter and is even more difficult for an enemy whose resources are limited to tribal guerrillas equipped mostly with small arms and other light weapons and with limited ability to acquire more advanced anti-air capabilities. In the case of this airship their problems are compounded by the following facts:

      • The airship probably makes use of Yehudi Lights designed to limit it's optical visibility from the ground against the background of the sky (forget about hearing it from the ground, it probably uses solar powered electric motors).
      • The airship probably incorporates radar absorbing materials and other stealthy features which make it difficult to spot on radar (i.e. small, rounded shape, mostly non-metalic structure, etc...). This is assuming that a force of irregular guerrillas, like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, actually have the knowledge, expertise, and logistics to acquire and operate a radar network in a place where their adversaries have absolute air supremacy (not likely).

      So let's review: the airship is extremely difficult to spot visually or on radar from the ground (which makes shooting at it accurately extremely difficult assuming that guns which can reach 20,000 feet, never mind accurately, are even available to the aforementioned guerrillas). The US and its allies have absolute air supremacy over all operational areas (which means that the Iranians and others cannot intervene with fighters or other attack aircraft, which would probably be shot down by US or NATO allied fighter patrols anyway, without everyone knowing that they intervened directly on behalf of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda). Finally, it probably has an extremely low or zero heat-signature (which means the sorts of MANPADs which might be supplied by a sympathetic Iran would be almost completely useless). Given all of these facts, I would have to say that an intelligence air ship for the Afghanistan theater of operations makes very good sense.

    21. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by c0ck_l0rge · · Score: 1

      Nice headline! "250-Foot Hybrid Airship To Spy Over Afghanistan In" - in what? In November? In 2010? In next ten years? In mission to provide big target in sky? In huge ball of flames? In super-secret mission that no-one knows about?

      Hey, blimpin' ain't easy.

      but it's necessary..

      --
      nothin' sounds quite like an 808
    22. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by bughunter · · Score: 1

      "...from which to spy."

      I think that's the prepositional phrase you're looking for."

      /techwriter

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    23. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      If the mission were to provide a big target in the sky, they wouldn't have it 20,000 feet in the air.

      I think you credit the overlords with too much brainpower.

    24. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems there is no intention to ever leave Afghanistan if they plan to deploy this airship in two years.

      More like "there is no intention to leave Afghanistan in the next few years". Why is this a surprise to you? Obama campagined on getting out of Iraq ASAP, not Afghanistan. Also in case you haven't been following developments over there, the Taliban (you know the guys who actually aided and abetted the terroists who claimed responsibiilty for multiple attacks on the USA) weren't totally destroyed and never surrendered. In fact, they started to attack parts of Pakistan not too long ago.

    25. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baghdad = Capital of Iraq. Afghanistan's Capital = Kabul.

      Did you mean Kabul Comedy club ? Or do they only serve geographically challenged war tourists?

    26. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Comedy is funnier when it's making fun of a neighboring country.

    27. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It seems there is no intention to ever leave Afghanistan if they plan to deploy this airship in two years.

      If the current situation in Afghanistan can be stabilised there will not be much "leaving Afghanistan" for decades. Assuming the Taliban insurgency is defeated in a meaningful way small scale insurgency and more importantly infighting amongst local warlords will continue to be a threat for decades to come. You cant expect the Afghan people to be able to build a functional governmental system overnight. Allied forces will be their for decades provided the current leadership doesn't screw it up. Granted they wont be doing much in the way of fighting for the vast majority of this time but will need to remain in that nation as a stabilising force and to help (re)build (remember that most Iraqi highways were built by the US in the 50's). It is similar to Germany and Japan after WWII but with less surrendering involved, a lot of time spent sitting around on airbases.

      The biggest mistake the US made in Afghanistan was going to Iraq, unlike Iraq the Afghan war was not doomed to failure from the beginning. Please see Sun Tzu's 5th key to victory for an explanation, the Afghan people were actively fighting the Taliban before most people in the US even knew Afghanistan existed. By going to Iraq the US undid all of it's good work by supporting the Northern Alliance.

      Now withdrawing from Iraq is the best thing the US can do for Afghanistan, not only does it free up resources for the struggle in Afghanistan but it sends a message that the US recognises that it doest rule the world and this one will hurt US pride but harden up, it needs to happen if the US ever hopes to win the war in Afghanistan and restore the image (of power) in it's military.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    28. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Troll? I was pointing out that, being a predominantly American site, the people around here don't know about the Daily Mail and how close that is to one of its actual headlines. Pah, you're a negative bunch :P

    29. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Al-Queda was right about the America after all. How nice. The Taliban might have adapted to a some kind of power sharing pack in the Nigerian style. How likely that might be if the US constructs a "permanent" base and states the intententions of staying in Afghanistan for decades?
      The situations of Japan and Germany were different from that of Afganistan as both feared a new war with their neighbouring "powers" as the cold war progressed.

    30. Re:Afghanistan in....what? by Eil · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the new war, same as the old one.

      What was that book where the government switches its ever-lasting war to different far off countries and the population never seems to care or even notice?

  5. Flashbacks.... by JackpotMonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

    My first thought when i saw this article was Hindenburg......

    --
    ______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
    1. Re:Flashbacks.... by JackpotMonkey · · Score: 1

      Or possibly Titanic, except its not the ship thats sinking its our natational debt.

      --
      ______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
    2. Re:Flashbacks.... by fluch · · Score: 1

      First your national debts will sink and then soon after the airship will be shot down from the sky over Afghanistan...

      Seriously, how do they expect this huge but slow flying airship to stay in the air for up to 3 weeks without getting shot down? Even if it is 6km above the ground there should be some way of getting it down with the right weapons.

    3. Re:Flashbacks.... by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      Mine was Kirov...
      "Kirov reporting!"
      "Aw... look, is that your house?"

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    4. Re:Flashbacks.... by jonatha · · Score: 1

      dunno how high they were, but the Taliban couldn't reach B52s.

      --
      The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
    5. Re:Flashbacks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which only happened because germany was lacking the Helium to fuel all of their airships, and so had to settle for Hydrogen for some of them.

    6. Re:Flashbacks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dunno how high they were, but the Taliban couldn't reach B52s.

      The difference in air speed between this and the B52s should be more than negligible ...

    7. Re:Flashbacks.... by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mine wasn't, but then I understand the difference between hydrogen and helium.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Flashbacks.... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      What is it going to be shot down with? Scroll up to read my reply to Tuoqui. Someone, somewhere, can indeed shoot the damned thing down. But, do some googling, and you'll quickly learn that not every Tom, Dick, and Mohammed has the capability.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Flashbacks.... by Kumiorava · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Hindenburg was designed to be filled with hydrogen and wouldn't have flown effectively using helium. Graf Zeppelin II was the one that was designed to be filled with helium and start operation after Hindenburg, but it never got off the ground because of US trade restrictions on helium. Change from hydrogen to helium wasn't easy, lots of design changes had to be done and passenger capacity reduced. Hydrogen has significantly more lift and since it's cheap airships could vent it out easily to reduce buoyancy.

    10. Re:Flashbacks.... by RabidRabbit23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is not true and is a common misconception. The lift is generated from the buoyancy which depends on the difference between the density of air and the density of the gas. Since hydrogen and helium are both very less dense than air, the lift differences are small. For example, a 20,000 liter balloon will generate about 500 lbf if it is hydrogen and 460 lbf if it is helium [http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/lift.html]. Also, of interesting note is that the Wikipedia article on on the Hindenburg argues that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by the frame being too flammable, not the Hydrogen.

    11. Re:Flashbacks.... by m50d · · Score: 1

      I doubt that would make so much difference, if you painted one of these in thermite it would go up just as badly.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Flashbacks.... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      If you painted it in thermite it would barely get off the ground. Thermite is to heavy of a mix.

      Now a days they don't use that kind of dope mix to make fabrics air tight. Of course anyone who actually pays attention to the world would know that too.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:Flashbacks.... by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      This comes quite late, but of course I know the difference is approximately 8%. The reason why I call this significant is that with Hindenburg's over 200 tons of lift the difference was 16 tons. Each ton can carry close to 10 passengers, when including cabins and other supplies for these passengers difference is still tens of passengers compared to helium filled airship. There is no such thing as abundant lift in an airship, once the dead weight and mandatory operational items (fuel, water ballast, crew) has been covered the added 8% can save you.

      Also on operational side hydrogen could be vented out to counter fuel consumption where helium couldn't. This caused extra weight and loss of power to engines because they needed to be fitted with water collectors to cover fuel loss. That alone caused many tons of dead weight compared to hydrogen ships.

      I was wrong about Hindenburg though, originally it was thought to be helium filled, but then switched (and redesigned) to hydrogen because of the trade issues. Also Graf Zeppelin II did fly, but only inside Germany and then later some military missions.

  6. Yeah great ... by gerddie · · Score: 1, Troll

    Lucky there's a war going on, so we can test our new equipment. </sarcasm>

    1. Re:Yeah great ... by dangets · · Score: 1

      That is what I was thinking as well... and if the sibling post/thread is correct that this is due in 2011, I guess we don't have to worry about ending the war anytime next year.

  7. Darpa Project Vulture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "DARPA's goals for Vulture are not trivial: 5 years on station with a 450kg/ 1,000lb payload, 5kW of onboard power, and sufficient loiter speed to stay on station for 99% of the time against winds encountered at 60,000-90,000 feet."

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/DARPAs-Vulture-What-Goes-Up-Neednt-Come-Down-04852/

    1. Re:Darpa Project Vulture by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Trading other types of performance for loiter time has paid off very nicely in the UAV world.
      Cost-per-hour and crew fatigue are other important factors.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  8. Sitting duck by MacroRodent · · Score: 1

    Any kind of airship is slow and large, providing an easy target for the bad guys. Even the common shoulder-fired Stinger missile reaches up to 15 700 feet (says Wikipedia), so the ship would be vulnerable to it for a long time during its ascent and descent. Other rockets (maybe improvised) could reach it at the cruising altitude.

    1. Re:Sitting duck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does its engines reach temperatures anywhere near those of jets? It seems to me that whilst it's certainly vulnerable to AA guns at lower altitudes, it's such a different target at high altitudes that the "bad guys" over there might not have any suitable SAMs around, if conventional ones don't work.

    2. Re:Sitting duck by mike2R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well given the summary says it is meant to stay airborne for the best part of a month, I doubt ascent and descent are major worries.

      I have no personal knowledge, but my impression is that our troops are getting slaughtered by roadside bombs; mainly because they don't have the manpower or surveillance assets to control even heavily travelled routes. Anything that can help that must surely be a benefit.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    3. Re:Sitting duck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Anything that can help that must surely be a benefit.

      So how long does it take to plant a roadside bomb? 15 minutes? Suppose you see some truck stop by the side of the road, some guys get out and they're doing something that might, or might not, be digging a hole. It just so happens that you've got a predator drone in the air so you blow them up five minutes later.

      But then it turns out that they were some poor Afghan farmers who had stopped by the side of the road to collect some edible plants. So the word on the street in the villages is that the USA is rich enough and powerful enough to float these big fancy air balloons but not only does the USA not help people in the villages with day to day living but it actively blows them up.

      Maybe the balloons will help and maybe they won't but if the USA is going to succeed in Afghanistan it's going to have to get a lot closer to the locals than 20,000 feet.

    4. Re:Sitting duck by mike2R · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So how long does it take to plant a roadside bomb? 15 minutes? Suppose you see some truck stop by the side of the road, some guys get out and they're doing something that might, or might not, be digging a hole. It just so happens that you've got a predator drone in the air so you blow them up five minutes later.

      You would kill a lot of innocents with that policy, and ultimately lose any political support we may still have. But maybe if you know that area is suspicious, and you have a convoy going through that area you can warn them to be even more careful of that spot. More, if you had blanket coverage of large areas of Afghanistan, maybe commanders wanting to navigate a route could go back through the last days/weeks/months of surveillance and look for anything suspicious.

      I dunno, I'm no soldier, but I have been trying to keep informed on Afghanistan. I've seen talk about a massive increase in surveillance as a tool against roadside bombs. The only arguments I've seen against it have been along the lines of; can't do it, it would cost to much.

      Maybe it isn't practical for other reasons (I've certainly no knowledge that this blimp is actually intended for this role), but we are taking a terrible amount of casualties from bombs; both deaths and horrific injuries. I hope something can be done about it and as a (British) taxpayer I am certainly willing to pay for it.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    5. Re:Sitting duck by mrrudge · · Score: 1

      The quickest way to stop our terrible casualties is to go visit your mp and tell them that unless they put their full weight behind the idea of removing our troops from Afghanistan then you'll not vote for them next election.

      As a British tax payer I'd much rather that the money was spent on something constructive.

    6. Re:Sitting duck by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nothing will benefit you in this world and the Hereafter. The bottom line will be just another foot in your cowardly Kaafir ass.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:Sitting duck by mike2R · · Score: 1

      While you are probably right, how about in the interim we don't leave our troops to hang out to dry in a war zone?

      Very un-British I know, our glorious traditions indicate that we should not have the guts to make the decision to get out, while showing our dislike of the business by refusing to properly support the men and women doing the dying.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    8. Re:Sitting duck by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      I've seen talk about a massive increase in surveillance as a tool against roadside bombs. The only arguments I've seen against it have been along the lines of; can't do it, it would cost to much.

      Some guys built five model airplanes with gps autopilots and sent them across the Atlantic: one made it. Google "Tans Atlantic Model". These were not sophisticated air vehicles, they probably cost a few hundred dollars each.

      So, buy a few thousand models like that and send them cruising up and down the roads that NATO uses at about 500 feet. Put cameras on some of them and hire a bunch of unemployed college graduates to look at the video. I bet you could do all that for less than two million.

      The sound of the engines would be a deterrent on it's own, and who cares if you lose 25% of them a month. One would cost less than an artillery shell.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    9. Re:Sitting duck by mike2R · · Score: 1

      Look, we all have something to bring to this discussion. But I think from now on the thing you should bring is silence.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    10. Re:Sitting duck by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think

      No, you don't.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re:Sitting duck by CompMD · · Score: 1

      A modern Stinger might be able to get to that altitude. Four years ago I had an aircraft design contract and actually had to worry about this kind of stuff. The common knowledge was that any Stinger or other MANPADS available in Afghanistan had a very low probability of a kill in an engagement if the target was above 10,000 ft AGL. Also, once a launch has been detected, modern threat awareness systems are able to deploy countermeasures. Something to effectively engage an aircraft at 20,000 ft isn't going to be man portable.

      Its a lot harder to shoot down something at 20,000 ft than a lot of people here think. It is, in fact, rocket science, and the overwhelming majority of people here are not rocket scientists.

    12. Re:Sitting duck by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Much cheaper is getting your stinky British ass out of the country you do not belong to. As if your history of colonization did not teach you enough. Ah, I forgot, the problem is your cowardly sheep government licking the boots of your American masters, that would go to absurd length of self-destructive external policy to appease your patrons.

      Returning to "getting your ass out" solution. This will happen anyway and if you care about your imbecile soldiers who could not do better than waste their life is somebody else's desert, then you better be working on that solution, dimwit.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    13. Re:Sitting duck by mike2R · · Score: 1

      You sounded like you very nearly had a point that time, well done!

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  9. that's one ugly airship. it looks like some fatass sitting on a toilet, squeezing out a turd (cabin).

    1. Re:ew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I immediately thought of buttocks.

    2. Re:ew by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Yeah... the first thing that jumped into my mind was Cartman shouting "I'm not fat! I'm big-boned!"

    3. Re:ew by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      that's one ugly airship. it looks like some fatass sitting on a toilet, squeezing out a turd (cabin).

      So... would that be a log cabin?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  10. It's OK by Kupfernigk · · Score: 0, Troll

    By mid-2011, when it will deploy, the war will have been won and it will just be used to make tourist videos. I seem to have inherited Tower Bridge, it's a pain to keep painted, would you like to buy it?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  11. 250-Foot ... ?! by nitroyogi · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't it be "250-Feet" ?!

    1. Re:250-Foot ... ?! by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. I can't find anything discussing it, but I have a vague notion that the singular form is used when a distance is use as an adjective: "An 8 inch gap", "A 7 mile hike", "A 50 mile trip", and so on. O.k., so thinking about that enough to type it into a clear sentence led me to this, and the rule is that adjectives are not plural in English:

      http://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adjective.html

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:250-Foot ... ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, there are no feet involved. "Foot" is an, albeit archaic and ambiguous, unit of length. When used in the form "number-unit noun", the unit is always in singular form, for example: a 200-kilogram man, a 1000-lumen bulb, etc.

    3. Re:250-Foot ... ?! by jonadab · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. When used in the attributive position, the unit labels on such quantities are given in the singular form, whether it's a 250-foot airship, a seven-mile trip, a twenty-dollar entree, or a three-day conference.

      Now, if you put it in the predicate, then you use the plural form: the airship is 250 feet long, the trip is seven miles, the entree costs twenty dollars, or the conference lasts three days.

      If you have more questions like this about English grammar and usage, I'm available on Lang-8 (same username as here). HTH.HAND.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    4. Re:250-Foot ... ?! by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or you can just start using the metric system like everyone else.

      BTW, its a 76.2 metre airship.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:250-Foot ... ?! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      What the fuck does metric have to do with English grammar?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  12. invade with 100,000 of them by UncleWilly · · Score: 5, Funny

    After painting evil elephant faces on them, and adding mini-gun trunks.

    Oh, to be an (telecommuting) operator. Sitting at a bar in Georgetown, gunning down bad guys with your own killer-flying-elephant, half a world away.

    1. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by NoYob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah! And charge $10 for the "game". It'll have others do the dirty work and it will help pay for the war itself - brilliant!

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    2. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I'm thinking more of bright yellow with a big smiley face on it.

          Then again, the flying Stay Puft Marshmallow Man look really works for them. Well, it worked for Gozer. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's a game my kids could get in to, flying elephants with guns.
      Already 7, sick as you can get and high. What a world!

    4. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After painting evil elephant faces on them"

      It could be worse, they could use this one!... (I'm sure this one would be very popular over a Muslim country!) :)
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/20034293@N00/182195424/

    5. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! And charge $10 for the "game". It'll have others do the dirty work and it will help pay for the war itself - brilliant!

      Great idea until some tool starts to team kill and spawn camp

    6. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Like Ender (or the Last Starfighter for that matter), convince the populace the game is just a game.

      General: Send in the squadron 2 behind squadron 1 to close the gap. We don't want them getting surrounded.

      Lieutenant: I'm afraid squadron 2 is unavailable, sir.

      General: What?!

      Lt.: The date sir, you're forgetting the date.

      General: [inspects the calendar] Dammit. Halo 4 release day.

    7. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by phocutus · · Score: 0

      Fucking hilarious!

    8. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Oh, to be an (telecommuting) operator. Sitting at a bar in Georgetown, gunning down bad guys with your own killer-flying-elephant, half a world away.

      If the operators was like my group of friends, all the flying elephants would end up shooting each other, with the resultant exploding mess falling on a baby factory in downtown Kabul.

    9. Re:invade with 100,000 of them by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Sitting at a bar in Georgetown, gunning down bad guys with your own killer-flying-elephant, half a world away.

      I'd ask the Malaysians if their OK with this first. Also Penang is barely a quarter of the world away from Afghanistan, not half.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  13. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now you may well be right that the war is unwinnable, should never have been started and should be ended as soon as possible. Certainly that is a valid and reasonable point of view.

    My problem with you is that you seem to be advocating cutting support for the troops before they get pulled out. This is simply dishonest and a betrayal of the armed forces. Pull out, or fully support them. Doing neither is not (or at least should not) be an option.

  14. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    He takes his nick from a well known military genious who has repeatedly chosen a third option in such situations: fight until death, but don't count on backup

  15. Airship crew members announced by surferx0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The crew of the airship has been made available to the public, the Army has recruited a rag-tag group of unlikely heroes brought together under impossible circumstances from completely different backgrounds and cultures including:

    -Guy with tough exterior yet internally continues on a never ending journey of soul searching
    -Hot chick who uses her hotness to tame the tough exterior of soul searching boy
    -Underage girl with mysterious supernatural abilities
    -Relatively hot chick who doesn't know she's hot and hangs out with guys that have obvious emotional problems
    -Overly cool guy who is infatuated with himself to hook up with any of these girls on the ship
    -Random tough guy who is there to do man tasks like open jars and move furniture for all these emo boys and girls
    -Some non-human creature that nobody really knows why is even there in the first place
    -Pilot, named Cid, reportedly just completed rehab for alcoholism and a gambling addiction.

    1. Re:Airship crew members announced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'll be in my bunk.

      [Until I got to the 7th on your list, it sure sounded familiar]

    2. Re:Airship crew members announced by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Thats actually quite good, I hadn't realised the similarities until you pointed it out.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    3. Re:Airship crew members announced by xynopsis · · Score: 1

      FF7 / FFX? :)

    4. Re:Airship crew members announced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait...is this FFX?!

  16. It's the blimp, Frank ! by ciderVisor · · Score: 3, Funny

    Master, master
    This is recorded through a fly's ear
    And you have to have a fly's eye to see it

    It's the thing that's gonna make Captain Beefheart
    And his magic band fat

    Frank, it's the big hit ! It's the blimp !

    It's the blimp, Frank ! It's the blimp !

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:It's the blimp, Frank ! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      When I see you floating down the gutter I'll buy you a bottle of wine!

      (I can't believe someone else has been exposed to the good Captain. Did you tell those damned kids to get off your lawn?)

    2. Re:It's the blimp, Frank ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Master, master
      This is recorded through a fly's ear
      And you have to have a fly's eye to see it

      It's the thing that's gonna make Captain Beefheart
      And his magic band fat

      Frank, it's the big hit ! It's the blimp !

      It's the blimp, Frank ! It's the blimp !

      Daddy don't you dare!
      oh, Momma who cares!
      It's the Blimp!
      The mothership's the one!

  17. A really good idea, except for that one thing... by catmandi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This kind of airship will, once at operating altitude, be essentially be impossible to shoot down unless the enemy has a true SAM based defense (e.g. SA-11). SAM would have no problems locking on, as they tend to be driven by an active radar on the ground - I doubt you could hide something that big from radar in any useful way (although, I wonder if making it extra radar reflective might not actually work better since it would give the missile to large an area to aim for?). Stingers have a useful ceiling of around 15,000 feet, and they're driven by infra-red, which means you probably wouldn't get a lock on.* The only other thing that would work would be a proper flak gun at around 88mm. While there's a lot of those lying around Afghanistan, getting them in working order, manning them, and providing reliable ammo would all be very problematic. Remember that flak is only really useful if someone is manning it 24/7 - the ceiling might be enough, but the range is terrible. * Of course, the problem with all this is that given the MOUNTAINS in Afghanistan, I wonder if there isn't a shoulder fired active radar missile available. The ceiling wouldn't have to be 20,000 feet, but rather 20,000 feet - the height of the mountain the defender is standing on. Also, it looks gay.

    --
    I was promised flying cars...Why are there no flying cars?
  18. Being attacked by the Marshmellow Man! by PHPfanboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    As for the LEMV: a 40-foot long, 15-foot wide area behind the only sometimes-manned cockpit will carry intelligence systems, like radar and wide-area motion sensors, that will beam information back to commanders on the ground.

    sometimes-manned.

    "Guys, I had to parachute down to get some more water supplies and left the thing running at 20,000 feet. How do I get back up?"

    --
    29 mpg. YMMV.
    1. Re:Being attacked by the Marshmellow Man! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Sometimes manned.

      Probably depends if anyone is firing on a large slowly moving target.

    2. Re:Being attacked by the Marshmellow Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sometimes-manned.

      "Guys, I had to parachute down to get some more water supplies and left the thing running at 20,000 feet. How do I get back up?"

      1. Rope ladder. That's if you remembered to let it down before you jumped. Oh, you didn't? Then:

      2. Jet pack

      3. Pogo stick

      Be careful. The enemy may have pogo sticks too.

    3. Re:Being attacked by the Marshmellow Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You parachute from 40000 feet out of an F35. Good luck. ...
      You keep missing, you gona have to do it without a parachute for motivation!

    4. Re:Being attacked by the Marshmellow Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: "1. Rope ladder. That's if you remembered to let it down before you jumped. Oh, you didn't? Then: 2. Jet pack 3. Pogo stick Be careful. The enemy may have pogo sticks too."

      *See also: "LCWBDS - Lawn Chair mounted Weather Balloon Defense System" below. This could also be used to return to .. what are they calling it? The Buttmobile. Pilot vulnerable to attack by Al Quaeda on pogo sticks though.

  19. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kirov Reporting :)

  20. Yes but.. by Danzigism · · Score: 1

    Does it run Linux?

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  21. This video will explain everything: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sad trumpet* Wah wah waaaaahhhhhhh!

    LM = fail.

    1. Re:This video will explain everything: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SkvM_Q5oQM

      Damn, I fail to include the link...

    2. Re:This video will explain everything: by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          That was a much better sound track for the flying marshmallow. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  22. Take a photo, call it a UFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone is going to take a photo of this flying thing and call it a UFO!

  23. Re:Yeah right by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm not sure he's advocating cutting off the soldiers from support. He just seems to be saying that the war is really stupid, and any and all investment in such a war is folly to the extreme. The rest of his post is just trolling.

    But, that said, I am not sure if it would be betrayal. From my point of view, everyone who signed up to invade Afghanistan and Iraq betrayed me, betrayed the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and betrayed the citizens of his respective nation. When it comes to randomly invading countries, I am a pacifist to the extreme.

    --
    SSC
  24. Manned or unmanned? by WarpedMind · · Score: 1

    If manned, a ton of payload doesn't leave much for environmentals for a 2 man crew deployed even for a week at a time. The artist has windows which indicates manned flights.

    Unmanned and I would be VERY concerned about losing control and it drifting into Pakistan or Russia. Airspace violation, technology theft, the list goes on and on.

    Of course even manned flights might suffer the same fate. At least with an unmanned system, you can shoot it down if it floats too close to enemy hands. If it is manned, you will need to consider scuttle options.

  25. Laugh, Funny Boy by DynaSoar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Somebody named Toe, The pulls a PKB and says: "both awe and hilarity".

    Go on and laugh. The Army captain from 117 Space BN will be sitting in Huntsville laughing when you don't notice the laser with which he's painting you. And the Air Force lieutenant sitting in base ops in Pueblo driving the Predator will be laughing when she drops the Hellfire to home in on the reflected laser. And you three can laugh and laugh and laugh until suddenly there's two of them laughing and laughing and a cloud of well done meat flakes settling to the ground that never realized what happened when it when it was visited by silent death from above. Paint it brown and call it The Flying Turd to add to the entertainment if you like, it'll still be an awesome piece of weapons delivery systems.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Laugh, Funny Boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'cuz killing people is really fucking hilarious.

    2. Re:Laugh, Funny Boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What better motivation can you think of for the Taliban developing/stealing a missile that can reach 20,000 feet ? It not as though the target isn't going to be around for a while.

  26. Re:Yeah right by Adolf+Hitroll · · Score: 0

    If you just abandon them, then there's no need pissing off the taxpayer forcing them to finance their return, therapies, and so on... so the public will be happy having heroes in their families without having to pass them the pissing pot or feed them some puree with a spoon.

    Of course, some rednecks will whine about what you call a betrayal, but I'll give them a long-knives night and they'll have so much fun lynching Bernanke, Cheney and all the assholes that put them in that mess that they'll eventually be thankful and choke on my huge turgid -but clean- penis.

    I might not be as exotic as the idiot in charge of the us presidency but at least I have practical solutions to end the crisis.

    --
    Smile, don't click...
  27. pneumatic = no radar detection by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    "I doubt you could hide something that big from radar in any useful way"
    IMHO, a plastic balloon hasjust zero radar signature. Of course the undelying structure needed to attach propellers and cabin may be detectable, but for sure would I be resp. for developing this thing I definitely would propose as an option to our dear military clients something purely plastic/fiberglass or so...

    --
    Herve S.
    1. Re:pneumatic = no radar detection by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I've gone around on a similar subject with some folks. Ya, the plastic skin (assuming it is) would be mostly invisible, but there are always pesky bits like the motors, fuel tanks, etc, etc. But, they're considering it for war against a country with no military other than our own. Radar visibility isn't a big deal. They don't even have to worry about other aircraft. It's biggest threat is ... well ... someone building their own solid/liquid fueled rockets (like an Estes model rocket on steroids). If you look around a bit, 40k feet isn't impossible for a model rocket, it just makes aiming rather difficult unless your target is a giant slow flying marshmallow. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:pneumatic = no radar detection by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      it just makes aiming rather difficult unless

      If we are talking realatively low tech, how about a laser pointer and a basic light following nose cone.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    3. Re:pneumatic = no radar detection by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Unless "yeah he'll with a huge cannon when that should I cheer force or hit back, it."

      I hope it's not against Slashdot ethic to quote another blog's commentary, but -- damn. I salute Hilo over on Gizmodo for his better-than-Great-Justice comment. Or Racter; it could have been Racter. Go see it folks - sometimes you need a better source of pure noise than you get here.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    4. Re:pneumatic = no radar detection by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I don't know about you, but I could build a single use liquid fueled rocket engine, but building in a system to track a laser on a target at tens of thousands of feet away is a bit beyond me.

          Well, that, and the typical laser pointer will diverge to so little visibility that it will effectively disappear at that range. The more effective method, at least for me, would be triangulation. Two points of a known distance apart, measure elevation and relative angle, and then provide the resulting 3d coordinates via a radio signal to the rocket. It wouldn't actually track the target, but travel to a known coordinate and detonate on impact.

          But hey, the gov't doesn't want me working for the, so I'm not building any cool toys like that. Well, I guess until they start deploying stuff to shoot at me, then all bets are off. I think we can maintain a good agreement there, since I'm not a very interesting target. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  28. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    He takes his nick from a well known military genious who has repeatedly chosen a third option in such situations: fight until death, but don't count on backup

    My cat ?

  29. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    250-foot airship? Isn't it 250-wing airship?

  30. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have several options in regards to the shoulder-fired active radar missiles:
    TOW (of course, it's a ground strike missile, but I'm sure it can easilly hit a blimp).
    ERYX (you can carry the launcher, allthough the surveilance officers looking at the video-feed would laugh their asses off when you run with that thing. Trust me, if you've been in the armed forces, you know what charade the ERYX is...)
    And if I am not mistaken, you do have the portable (i.e. carryable by 3 men) ground-based AGM-65 Hellfire launcher. The effective range on that will also place the blimp well withing strike distance.

    Seriously, this blimp may have it's sentimental and humor value, but realistically it's an epic failure.

  31. Re:Yeah right by Chrisje · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like your thinking to the point where the mere thought of having mod points sends little rivers of anticipation running down my inseam.

  32. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I completely and utterly disagree with this, and it depresses me that so many people think as you do.

    Your armed forces have not betrayed you. They are doing their duty, as they have sworn to, and obeying the orders given by their political masters. Who were elected by democratic vote. Blaming the soldiers is simply a cop-out. You cannot muster the political support to pull out as you want, so you advocate cutting off resources since it is a battle you may be able to win.

    This is a betrayal, and it will cost the lives and limbs of those who are willing to die to protect you. It isn't the military's fault that the politicians sent them into Afghanistan and still have them there 8 years later. They are dying and being maimed for these decisions, while you are simply troubled by your conscience.

    You disagree with Afghanistan, fine, possibly I agree with you. What you need to do then is get your forces out of Afghanistan, and if you don't have the support to do so then try to bring people around to your views until you do. But keep your hands off the purse strings.

  33. #2 by stox · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thunderbirds are go!

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  34. Grammar by MadLad · · Score: 1

    250-Foot Hybrid Airship In Which To Spy Over Afghanistan

    if you please

    1. Re:Grammar by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      250-Foot Hybrid Airship In Which To Spy Over Afghanistan

      No. And your point is not about grammar, it's about semantics.

      ... Space and Missile Defense command plans to have an unmanned spy-ship ...

  35. Can be taken down by genik76 · · Score: 1

    Lots of posts describe how difficult it would be to take down this monstrosity. However, if students manage to get something that high with 150 $, so can surely some ingenious combatants as well. The bigger problem would be to get the payload, but surely not impossible, even with homebrewn methods.

    1. Re:Can be taken down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The students managed this 3 pound package for 150 USD in a system where items are more easily available and they didn't even have to hit a target.

      This is going to be a much more difficult task. I'm not saying they can't do it but if your idea involves a hand grenade tied to a balloon you haven't even begun to think of the logistics yet.

    2. Re:Can be taken down by Alcari · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That makes no sense... Getting up there isn't all that hard, but as it happens, there's a lot of sky that doesn't contain airships. Getting up there with a payload and a guidance system that will actually lock on to the blimp is the hard part. An AIM-92 Stinger missile has only a range of 8km, (which I assume means distance, not height) against stationary targets. That's about the best you can do for shoulder launched weapons. If you want to hit that blimp, you're going to need a really big missile. Think several meters long, a thousand kilograms, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, specialized launchers, etc. etc. Nothing to hard to get for a real army, but not something your average goatherd with a rifle is likely to have.

    3. Re:Can be taken down by sarlos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem isn't necessarily reaching an altitude of 20,000 feet. A commercial airliner routinely flies over 30,000 feet high. If this is in their airspace and they can detect/find it, you can be sure they'll find a way to get to the altitude. The problem comes in when you actually try to hit it. As others have pointed out, this thing most likely has a very tiny radar signature, meaning you need good resolution radar to detect and lock onto it. Once you've overcome the challenge of finding and locking onto it, you have to overcome any countermeasure systems this is sure to be loaded with. Then you actually have to hit it. A fire-and-forget method, such as the boys did with their space camera, would have virtually no chance of hitting something at 20,000 feet. It's a very, very big sky and an airship like this isn't simply sitting stationary, it'll be flying a station keeping pattern which will probably be varied to prevent its route from being too predictable.

      --
      Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
    4. Re:Can be taken down by shiftless · · Score: 1

      If someone can see it, they can take it down. I'd use a hot air balloon with a basket full of explosives and some kind of rudimentary maneuvering system, maybe some small rockets or something. Mohammed guides the balloon to its target using a good pair of binoculars and a radio remote, perhaps with the aid of a second spotter. Use the wind to get the balloon within a certain distance, use the maneuvering system to get it beside the blimp, then trigger the explosives. Perhaps harder to do than it is to describe, but it could be done, and on a reasonable budget too.

      The hard part, of course, will be finding the blimp to begin with. That problem can be solved by using your network of informants and spotters to follow it from take-off until it reaches its destination, or at least until it reaches a point where it can be intercepted en-route.

    5. Re:Can be taken down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a moron. you think a balloon and a couple of rockets are going to take down an independent airship? you have no idea that problems involved. thanks for proving it.

  36. Relevant Monty Pythonism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And now an airship with three buttocks.

  37. what's that dangling from the airship? by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Funny

    From down here it looks like a participle!

  38. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're right, the soldiers did, with full free will, agree to obey fickle and unpredictable political masters who have a long history of ordering the invasion of countries all across the globe, including (for the US) such powerhouses as Grenada. Going back as far as the Mexican-American war, where the US conquered half of Mexico, the soldiers should be able to see that their political masters are absolutely insane. The Spanish American war ended in the US conquest of the Philippines, where it brutally suppressed rebellion. We won't even get into all of the numerous little wars and interventions that US got involved with in the 20th century.

  39. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "From my point of view, everyone who signed up to invade Afghanistan and Iraq betrayed me, betrayed the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and betrayed the citizens of his respective nation" Really... Betrayal you say? Did ANYONE in Congress say upon campaigning "I will not vote to invade another country"? Did any of them say "I will not vote to invade another country....except this once..."? No, they did not. It was pretty cut and dried - they either were for it or against, not a lot of fence straddling on Afghanistan. What "duty" to the Afghanistan and Iraq citizens did the USA have prior to invading that they supposedly betrayed? None, that's the correct answer. "When it comes to randomly invading countries" What random invasions are you referring to? Cause whether I agreed with the logic or not, there were some pretty clear statements as to why the USA invaded, and some clear reasons why we're still there, and some clear reasons why we cannot just up and leave. Please quit talking out of your ass.

  40. Reply from story submitter by Toe,+The · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, it should be "2011." In the /. submission form, there used to be a form-imposed length-limit on titles.

    Now the limit appears to have been removed, but it is still enforced after submission.

    So while I was preparing the story, the "2011" was in the Title field, but it got nixed on submission. My bad for not noticing the single missing word when I previewed the story.

    Of course there is no Edit command on submissions. But I figured if the article got approved, someone would fix the title before sending it to the front page.

  41. Next Stop: Helicarrier by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Call Nick Fury at SHIELD, find out how big he wants his.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
  42. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by east+coast · · Score: 1

    From what I've read quickly on Wiki it seems that there isn't a TOW with the range to hit something at 20000 feet.

    The ERYX has about as much of an effective range as most medium power rifles.

    Only the AGM-114 HellFire seems to have the range but given that the stat is tied to an air to surface missile I doubt it has that kind of range on a climb but may have the range when launched from an altitude to a ground based target by not using fuel as a lift but rather strictly for guidance.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  43. Re:Yeah right by emilper · · Score: 1

    Same military genius thought that reserves are for wimps, that bigger is better, that the way to solve food scarcity was to cull the extra population, and that making purchases from his allies with IOUs will make them love him more ... not to forget getting millions of his own people killed in the process ... and no, there is no connection between the V1 or V2 and the rockets that actually got to space except having pointy tops and fins ... during the war the Russians, UK and US of A already had rockets that could hit a target smaller than the city of London, which was the smallest target the Vs managed.

  44. Obligatory by turing_m · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the dawn of a new era!

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    1. Re:Obligatory by demonbug · · Score: 1

      So when do I get my mini-gun toting Agents?

    2. Re:Obligatory by turing_m · · Score: 1

      For that you will need a persuadatron. (hehehehe)

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  45. Tax dollars at work, not by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 0

    Not only is this thing a sitting duck, it does not even need any bad guys to fail.

    You see Afghanistan has *mountains*. Lots of them. That's where the no-goodniks hide.
    But on the first day of blimp school, they yell at you for several hours about avoiding loose women, bad weather, and particularly, approaching any kind of hill.
    Cue pictures of the R-100 disaster. Any questions?

    As to its staying up for weeks over a designated area, that's mighty problematical as the winds up there can hit 50 knots and those little thrusters can maybe do 15 knots tops.

      Maybe with a long rope and an anchor?

  46. Ocean-going ships are better... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Ocean-going ships are technically better for travel between continents (much more efficient, can carry lots of luggage, etc) but there's a reason they're not popular - time.

    --
    No sig today...
  47. They set us up the blimp by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Launch all Zig! For great justice!

  48. Re:What is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, were you speaking english?

    "they would need to use yes a satellite or a hell of a lot of cat 5 cable and I think 20,000 feet is well beyond the spec for cat 5."

    Let me be the first person to introduce you to this nifty invention:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio

  49. UFOs by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    That explains all of those UFO sightings... "It was just hovering there in mid-air!"

    1. Re:UFOs by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      In a way it does. Many sightings are of triangular shaped craft moving too slow to be an airplane (notably, the close encounter that made Art Bell believe). For years I've been arguing that this isn't evidence of alien life or advanced technology. You can make a triangular shaped dirigible. You can easily make it unmanned. What purpose could it possibly serve? It it would function perfectly as a surveillance craft. There it is.

  50. From TFA by xerxesVII · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Probably the most insightful thing I've read about this, courtesy of a little fellow named Hilo:

    There's like an adult back, it's someone has zero defends my sense an adult back, it's like and no air play, it just offense an adult hitting fundamentally unfair about should I cheer for rockets to him?

    There's someone has zero defense or rockets to hitting someone from 2000 feet with a huge cannon when that someone from 20000 feet with a kid, yeah he'll with a kid, yeah he'll with a huge cannon when that should I cheer force or hit back, it

    --
    "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
  51. What? Slashdot titles have limits? No way, slashdo by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I wonder how that got past the submitter, let alone the editor.

  52. Yeah, elegent like Fantasia. by pavon · · Score: 1

    Sir, an enemy craft is approaching!
    What is it man?
    It appears to be ... an Air Hippo.
    My. God.

  53. FF? by kellyb9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow - no Final Fantasy references yet... and to think I was about to dust off my gunblade.

    1. Re:FF? by Tz-Auber · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably the lead project manager's name is Cid

    2. Re:FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're getting an airship, that means we should be about half-way through this war.

      How's that?

    3. Re:FF? by Nicoleslaw · · Score: 1

      I couldn't beleive there weren't any either! I wish my puppy Cid could see that (or care)!

  54. First thought - by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

    Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man from GhostBusters...

    --
    Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    1. Re:First thought - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just going to post the exact same thing.

    2. Re:First thought - by vonhammer · · Score: 1

      They so missed an opportunity. Imagine the Pig balloon from Pink Floyd's Animals.

  55. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, now. You're getting Iraq and Afghanistan mixed up.

  56. hey... by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    That's no moon...

  57. Re:Yeah right by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

    Your rocket history is sadly uninformed. I'd like to see your source for claiming that the UK and US already had missile technology. Our rocket program was the result of hijacking as many German scientists as we could at the end of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_paperclip

  58. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    TOW (of course, it's a ground strike missile, but I'm sure it can easilly hit a blimp).

    TOW is wire guided, not active radar guided and has a maximum range of about 2 miles under perfect conditions. It's not clear how the motor nozzle and control fins would function at 20,000', my guess is "poorly".

    And if I am not mistaken, you do have the portable (i.e. carryable by 3 men) ground-based AGM-65 Hellfire launcher.

    Firstly, there is no AGM-65 Hellfire. The Hellfire is the AGM-114. And no, there is no portable launcher. Tests were done firing off of Humvees and ITVs, but nothing was ever fielded.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  59. super mario? by tresstatus · · Score: 1

    i wonder if this "hybrid airship" will look anything like the ones in super mario. would be funny to see all of the angry bullet-bills.

    --
    stephen
  60. "This is going sink like a...." by EugeneProctor · · Score: 1

    The dull-grayish metallic color... A very dense appearance... Does anyone else have a sudden urge to sing "Stairway to Heaven"?

  61. Solar Thrust by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Airships that are covered in solar panels could be extraordinarily efficient. Get a biomass burning generator to power the electrical system when the sunlight isn't enough. The gas provides passive buoyancy, or just make a majority of the surface absorb heat to keep the air hot. The "free" energy from the sun provides the thrust.

    Never underestimate the power of a slow moving vehicle in travel for 24 hours straight. They had them at 60+ mph in the 1920s, so at 50mph average, you could go 1200 miles in 24 hours, which seems like the speed of slow rail travel without the required infrastructure.

    It's not going to capture the LA-NY trips, but for regional pleasure travel, it could be a real winner. I know I'd rather spend a day reading a book or cruising around the internet than driving.

    1. Re:Solar Thrust by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      Solar panels are heavy. This craft already only has a maximum payload of about a ton.

    2. Re:Solar Thrust by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > but for regional pleasure travel, it could be a real winner. I know
      > I'd rather spend a day reading a book or cruising around the internet than driving.

      Nerd: Cool! I wanna go on it!

      Not Nerd: Maybe you can join the Mile High Club, eh? Hehe

      Nerd: Sigh. Doubtful, I haven't joined the 24 inches club, yet.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Solar Thrust by jfdawes · · Score: 1

      Heavy? Tell that to the MIT team who built a solar powered car that does 90 miles an hour.

      Everything is packaged in a chrome-moly steel frame wrapped in carbon-fiber-and-Kevlar bodywork. The car weighs just under 500 pounds, and the top half of the body weighs just 40 pounds - with the solar cells

    4. Re:Solar Thrust by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Zepplins have a good deal more surface area than cars, and they need to float.

      That said, I don't doubt that it could be done with sufficently expensive^Wadvanced solar cells.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:Solar Thrust by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Let's see: 40 pounds for Solar Cells that produce 1200 watts and 71 pounds for the associated batteries.

      How many watts to move a sizeable airship at say 20 knots or 80 knots dash speed?

      Seems the payload of the Ares airship already requires 73 kilowatts. The solar cells just to produce 73 kilowatts will be 1100kg, add the batteries and you're looking at a total of 3000kg just to power the payload. Which is more than the max payload of the ares.

      OK let's ignore that payload and just say we carry a dead payload that doesn't require 73kW (or air conditioning, lighting etc) and ignore the battery weight - no batteries so 1100kg = 2400 pounds. 73kW is about 100hp. I haven't the time to look up how power the engines of a typical airship of that size need to be to move it at about that speed, but I doubt 100hp is going to be able to move an airship that can carry 2500 pounds at 20 knots (23mph, 37kph), in still air. That's a lot of air to push away.

      --
    6. Re:Solar Thrust by jfdawes · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they wouldn't just glue a whole bunch of solar car tops onto the Ares. The 40 pounds includes not only the solar panels but also the "carbon-fiber-and-Kevlar bodywork" and perhaps even a small section of "chrome-moly steel frame".

      The point is that a 540 pound car can hit 90 miles an hour with less than 40 pounds of solar cells. The cells are not a substantial portion of the weight of the car.

  62. Shades of the Deltoid Pumpkin Seed by aGuyNamedJoe · · Score: 1

    I've been watching for something like this since the New Yorker carried a series about hybrid airships when I was in grad school. Seems it was finally published as a book (1973): The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed

    I guess it says something about the time it takes for new technology to get off the ground, so to speak.

    Everyone thinks of the Hindenburg, but as the New Yorker article pointed out, there weren't many passenger aircraft in those days, and this was the first such crash caught on video, so it had a huge impact. These days, we have 10 times as many lost in a passenger jet crash and even if on video it has much less impact on the public at large.

  63. So presumably.... by russotto · · Score: 1

    It's a platform for use on countries with essentially zero anti-aircraft capability. Saddam at his weakest could have cobbled something together to knock this thing down. Personally I wouldn't bet on the Afghans figuring out how to do it either.

  64. From the front... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it reminds me of a clove of garlic...which reminds me of a garlic to fat chicks ass comparision email. Anyhow, off to stab whoever sent me that email.

  65. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it remind me of Eric Cartman?

  66. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the highest peak is "The Hindu Kush reaches a height of 7,485 m (24,557 ft) at Nowshak, Afghanistan's highest peak. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Afghanistan)

    so they can DROP rocks on this thing...

  67. South Park by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    Dude!

    This thing looks like Cartman coming in for a landing!

    No really! It does!

  68. Introducing the LCWBDS by shock1970 · · Score: 1

    The ultimate recipe for P-791 defense.... the Lawn Chair mounted Weather Balloon Defense System.

    2 Dozen helium filled weather balloons
    1 lawn chair
    1 car battery
    1 room fan converted to run on battery power (navigation)
    1 shotgun (descent control) (optional)
    1 RPG
    1 120 lb Afghani militant

    --
    "There is always an elegant solution. If you believe that, you will find it."

    1. Re:Introducing the LCWBDS by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Informative

      These aren't a balloon, and they don't "pop". They run at about +1 PSI and have been tested to take several hundred rifle rounds and even several RPGs through them, with neither catastrophic failure, nor rapid enough loss of lift to prevent finishing a mission and returning to home base.

      +1 PSI just doesn't gush enough gas out the hundreds of holes (which the material prevents from turning into a giant rip, and the low +PSI doesn't exacerbate rips either) that the gas tanks on board can't easily keep up with for hours.

      So, comedy aside, no, a guy with a shotgun won't even be close to enough. And good luck firing a shotgun or rifle sitting in a lawnchair balloon, Mr. Pendulum. :)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Introducing the LCWBDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the shotgun was for deflating your own balloons to descend afterwards.

      The RPG was for taking down the blimp, and would be adequately effective if you could hit the rigid structure rather than simply holing the envelope.

    3. Re:Introducing the LCWBDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a movie here somewhere.. Hot Shots 3?

  69. Re:Yeah right by emilper · · Score: 1

    Your rocket technology awareness is sadly not very developed, if you think the rockets designed in US or USSR during the '50s had anything to do with the Vs, except being ... you know, rocket-ish, being pointed and having fins. Remember I did not deny that von Braun had a hand in developing US rockets after the war, just that the technology used in the rockets that got to space in them was dissimilar enough from what was put inside the Vs.

    Missile technology is ancient ... arrows are missiles, you know, and rockets were used for quite a long time before WWII, and even during the WWII (for antitank weapons, for ex.) ... the bazooka was a lot more imporant, militarily speaking, than the duds that the Vs were, who only killed civilians and who took resources from the production of submarines ... I believe the Vs had a larger contribution to the defeat of the Nazis than some of the Allied nations ...

    if you're an Internet worshiper, here is a link, too ... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/america_and_rocket_technology.htm

  70. Re:Yeah right by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm not sure he's advocating cutting off the soldiers from support. He just seems to be saying that the war is really stupid, and any and all investment in such a war is folly to the extreme. The rest of his post is just trolling.

    But, that said, I am not sure if it would be betrayal. From my point of view, everyone who signed up to invade Afghanistan and Iraq betrayed me, betrayed the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and betrayed the citizens of his respective nation. When it comes to randomly invading countries, I am a pacifist to the extreme.

    You do realize that 9-11 was ordered by a guy living in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, right? You can say what you want about Iraq, but going to war in Afghanistan was IN RESPONSE to us being attacked. It was hardly random.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  71. Re:Yeah right by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    That would be the other Werner Von Braun, then?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  72. watch out or anti-P791 weapons by Locutus · · Score: 1

    thinking of a big one of these:
    http://www.amazing1.com/Graphics/T4181.gif

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  73. Re:Yeah right by emilper · · Score: 1

    no, just von Bazooka

  74. Well I for one would welcome them by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know, after my experiences with flying in an airplane, I think I'd actually pay good money for a blimp ride instead... assuming that I actually get _some_ leg space on a blimp, I could live with it taking an hour longer in flight. Quite happily.

    Plus, honestly, have you flown in the last 10 years or so? Between having to come an hour early just to make it through the byzantine controls and bureaucracy in time, and stuff like having to wait almost an hour on the runway because someone forgot to also load the luggage (for bonus points: it once happened in _both_ directions)... if an airship line can simplify that and maintain, say, a 200 km/h speed in a straight line, it might actually be faster on the whole. Well, for short to medium distance flights, anyway.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Well I for one would welcome them by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      And why would a blimp be immune to the delays you listed?

  75. Great idea, I love blimps ... but by ufoolme · · Score: 1

    WW1 called, they want there technology back.

  76. Re:Yeah right by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do realize that 9-11 was ordered by a guy living in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, right? You can say what you want about Iraq, but going to war in Afghanistan was IN RESPONSE to us being attacked. It was hardly random.

    Completely with you on this one. There's a reason we had most of the world's support (or at least understanding) for invading Afghanistan, and it wasn't just that our image was better at the time. There is no conceivable Commander in Chief -- Al Gore, even Ralph Nader -- who wouldn't have put our forces' boots on the ground in Afghanistan in response. Even freaking Canada thought it was a cause worth spilling blood over (that and they're in NATO).

    It's too bad the Iraq debacle distracted us so much from the justified war. Before it began, I was worried the Admin. would see Afghanistan through rose-colored glasses and assume it'd be a cakewalk. Turns out they took "The Graveyard of Empires" seriously, and took very pragmatic steps like befriending the Northern Alliance and all the warlords immediately. No, it was in Iraq that all my worst fears became reality, and even worse took vital attention and resources away from Afghanistan. I doubt we'd be out of Afghanistan today, but a lot of the reason the Taleban has kept resurging is because we didn't have the resources to hold the territory we kept taking from them. The very fact that I'm talking about a conflict where "taking territory" is even a relevant concept, but we wasted our army in an urban insurgency hellhole, just depresses me.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  77. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by superdana · · Score: 1

    Also, it looks gay.

    Well, they were going to add "Must not look gay" to the Request For Proposal, but their hands were tied by Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

    :)

  78. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What's happened is that Congress lost their balls. If they don't support the war, then they can refuse to approve spending for the war. This puts the President in the position of either keeping our troops in harm's way without the resources they need to continue the invasion, or bringing them home.

    If congress were to take such action on their own, they would be reviled by President and people alike. However, if American citizens opposed to the wars were to pressure their congressmen into taking such action, the congress would have no choice and neither would the President.

    When the executive power fails to be prudent and fails to listen to the citizenry, as has been and continues to be the case, the ability of Congress to defund the war effort is the only check against him.

    It's a shame that the rhetoric of "supporting the troops" has been perverted to the level of "keeping them in harm's way for no good goddamned reason."

  79. unmanned is the future by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Eventually we'll just make an unmanned version, and it will be so cheap that we can just send another up if someone blows it up.

    Also if it can carry a ton of payload then I assume it could one day carry some anti-missile technology aboard to distract the guidance or destroy it.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:unmanned is the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This version is already 'sometimes-manned' which means 'unmanned but able to hold people.' I doubt we're going to bother with 2 different models, and we've got room to spare because with blimps we don't really care about volume, just weight, and empty space is only marginally heavier than no space compared to the amount of equipment that needs to be carried, and the utility derived from that extra space (namely, the ability to easily swap equipment, etc.) is probably worth the extra weight.

  80. Retro phase in military R&D? by warncke · · Score: 1

    How is this a new technology... Nothing new here accept that this pos looks far less stable than the blimps they had sailing across the Atlantic almost a century ago. Perhaps a new bio-weapon involving trebuchets and diseased carcasses is on the horizon. That may take a few more years development though.

  81. Re:Yeah right by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The US also happens to have harbored terrorists inside its borders. Luis Posada Carilles bombed a Cuban airliner, and so far as I know, he still lives in the US, and he cannot be deported. Since we will not hand him over, Cuba has the right to invade our country and, in the process, kill thousands of innocents who have no connection to the government (intentional or not). Then, after the invasion, the Cuban government

    --
    SSC
  82. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your point is view is worthless. Luckily for you though, you have the right to hold it and your "betrayers" would defend that right if it came to it. Maybe you could do us all a favor and move somewhere that better suits your views.

  83. Really? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    There are no hand held weapons that reach out that far. Those people talking about RPG's and sniper rifles are clueless. Max height of the airship is 20K feet (but cruise will likely be less for a better look). Max altitude of afghan is 24K feet. Assume that the terrorists are up higher, so they are around 10-13K feet. That means that a bullet has to travel 7-10K feet.

    So, here you go: In 1920 the U.S. Army Ordnance conducted a series of experiments to try and determine the velocity of falling bullets. The tests were performed from a platform in the middle of a lake near Miami, Florida. The platform was ten feet square and a thin sheet of armor plate was placed over the men firing the gun. The gun was held in a fixture that would allow the gun to be adjusted to bring the shots close to the platform. It was surmised that the sound of the falling bullets could be heard when they hit the water or the platform. They fired .30 caliber, 150 gr., Spitzer point bullets, at a velocity of 2,700 f.p.s. Using the bullet ballistic coefficient and elapsed time from firing until the bullet struck the water, they calculated that the bullet traveled 9,000 feet in 18 seconds and fell to earth in 31 seconds for a total time of 49 seconds.
    And that was 1920's tech.

    So, IS IT POSSIBLE? ABSOLUTELY.
    Is it probable? Not likely. THey will have to be in the right place at the right time. And anybody who shoots at one of these will likely not want to be standing in the same place in the next minute or two.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  84. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there isn't a shoulder fired active radar missile available. The ceiling wouldn't have to be 20,000 feet, but rather 20,000 feet - the height of the mountain the defender is standing on.

    Active radar homing generally requires a substantial power source and other equipment with total weight exceeding several hundred (or even several thousand) pounds. This generally precludes any man-portable active radar homing missiles as impractical because some sort of vehicle transport (motorized is preferable, but wagons and oxen with generators might possibly be made to work in a pinch) would be necessary. If vehicle transport is inevitable, then why limit the size of the missile to something that people can carry on their shoulders? Every man-portable surface-to-air missile system ever produced has used some combination of remote-control (used in the blowpipe missile, but now largely abandoned as ineffective and obsolete) with or without optical video feed OR infrared homing (used by all modern systems).

  85. Gas to use? by Well-Fed+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There actually is a third option: Steam From an article on that site: "As seen from the Table, this is about 60% of the lift of helium and more than twice the lift of hot air."

  86. Wups, missing link by Well-Fed+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Argh Link didn't post: http://www.flyingkettle.com/

  87. Delicious by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    That thing could be painted to look like a gigantic hot dog in a bun. Mmmmm...

    --
    /* No Comment */
  88. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

    As mentioned before, the bigger issue here is the slant range. At 20kft, it will see a long way over the horizon, meaning you can park this thing 50-100mi out and still get full coverage. AAA has no chance of hitting anything at that range, and neither do any short range missiles. There are only a handful of SAM systems capable of that range, and none of them are cheap. Those would would be taken out by something far less visible than a giant phased antenna in the first round of ordinance exchange anyway.

  89. Bladerunner meets 1984 by kraksmoka · · Score: 1

    Seriously - these types of drone reconnaissance would make the police state into a lock down state. It would be great if legislation was put in place now in Anticipation of the privacy invasion that devices like these can cause in the future . . . Imagine flying smaller versions into large vertical cities and having the capability to peer into windows . . . the state cops in Florida already use small aircraft to conduct speed traps occasionally but this could be a whole other ball of wax

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  90. Re:Yeah right by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    The US also happens to have harbored terrorists inside its borders. Luis Posada Carilles bombed a Cuban airliner, and so far as I know, he still lives in the US, and he cannot be deported. Since we will not hand him over, Cuba has the right to invade our country and, in the process, kill thousands of innocents who have no connection to the government (intentional or not). Then, after the invasion, the Cuban government

    First, I'd have to say to Cuba... good luck with that.

    Next, do not target "thousands of innocents who have no connection to the government", unlike what they have done to us.

    Then again, I'm starting to realize that you are big pussy who would be happy to see:
    (start music)
    Bush: "Hey Mr. Taliban, please hand over Osama."
    Taliban: "Daylight come and we put hide him in a hole"
    Bush: "Please Mr. Taliban, let us have Osama"
    Taliban: "Come and take him if you think you have the bolls"
    (end music)
    Bush: "Ok then, never mind. Sorry to bother you guys. If you need to kill another 3000 of us, please let us know ahead of time so we can put your guys in first class. It's closer to the cockpit."

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  91. Stinger on another balloon. by Zero+return · · Score: 1

    How about sending up a Stinger on another balloon with some remote control built in? Surely it wouldn't cost that much to stabilise and fit with video for capturing the target. Could you capture the target from the ground and send up the initial coordinates? Does this make any sense at all?

  92. A horrible legacy by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    The building still retains several peculiarities relating to the unused airship terminal.

    Such as all the airships waiting to dock, while their crews starve and cry in in anguish?

  93. 20000 feet? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Well, i guess that kills the idea of a RPG.

    Who wants to bet they will be in the domestic US in another year "for our protection"? And at 20k, its far enough that you will never know, but will still be close enough to read over your shoulder with ease.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  94. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fig-ya' could take one of these out with a homemade rocket using off the shelf electronics for 'bout $10k.

  95. Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The privately constructed R100 did not have a disaster, it was successful until scrapped on government orders due to the disaster to the government built R101.

    It is a very bad idea to have the inspection/approval done by the same people as the design/build, whether the project is private or public.

    1. Re:Fail by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      Sorry, off-by-one error. It was the R101 which dove into the ground in France, not the R100. Which reinforces my point-- the ship that went over the ocean did fine, the one that had the nerve to approach a hill went bye-bye.

  96. St; Louis/Phoenix UFO Connection? by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 1

    Remember the Phoenix lights and the St. Louis UFO reports? Observers in both cases stated an object large enough to blot out most of the sky floated slowly overhead. Maybe this is our UFO.

  97. Why not 6 weeks? by Idayen · · Score: 1

    Why didn't they plaster a few of these on the roof to run it on solar power during the day? above the clouds so great power generation. It probably doesn't make sense to only have enough to power everything and waste weight on batteries and extra power to store. Still this doesn't seem very futuristic to me. just a plausible example.. http://www.siliconsolar.com/flexible-solar-panels.html

  98. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by khallow · · Score: 1

    So what would you hit it with? I see a lot of talk about missiles, I don't see a lot of talk about missiles that would actually have a chance to hit this balloon.

    Here's my take. It's a lot harder problem than you'd think. A 250 foot balloon has almost no radar signature because most of it is air. There's no heat signature. The best bet IMHO would be to paint it with an infra-red laser and fire some missile that both can home on that signature and reach that high. The problem though is that the solution to destroying the balloon is probably about as expensive as the balloon (the balloon's electronics might be a lot more expensive, but you might be able to recover that). The US will win any war where the victor is determined by money and resources expended.

    Given that it is only 20,000 feet in the air (rather than a safer 100,000 feet which is feasible for balloons), then you can shoot it eventually. But putting a few holes in the balloon (perhaps for the cost of hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammunition) merely means that it deflates in a few hours or days. The enemy could put up a new balloon in that time and keep surveillance. Meanwhile every shot you make reveals where your guys are.

  99. Oh the hilarity ... by ezzthetic · · Score: 1

    I think the problem is that if you threw a dart into it, it would go spurting all over the sky.

    --
    You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
    1. Re:Oh the hilarity ... by hydrolyzer · · Score: 0, Troll

      not quite, blimps dont work like the traditional idea of a balloon, more like a li-ion battery really, you have your rectangular battery block that you can grab with your hands and jam into your laptop, and inside that block there is six/nine cells that contain all the funky battery stuff. blimps are made of little bloons inside a big case bloon, and the outside balloon doesnt have any helium in it, its just stretched over the frame, then there is a considerable gap between this outer layer and the lift balloons (enough for a man to walk through, for maintenance purposes) thing could probably survive a woodpecker, it just wouldnt look to graceful.

  100. $10/min = $5M/yr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it wouldnt pay for the ammo

  101. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by khallow · · Score: 1

    SAM would have no problems locking on, as they tend to be driven by an active radar on the ground - I doubt you could hide something that big from radar in any useful way (although, I wonder if making it extra radar reflective might not actually work better since it would give the missile to large an area to aim for?).

    There's be almost no radar signal because most of the balloon is air. Most of the rest would be a thin layer of some sort of polymer. As I've mentioned elsewhere, a possible solution is to paint the balloon with an infra-red laser and tag it with some heating seeking missile that has the range. I'm not sure how you'd program the missile to detect when it gets close enough to explode and cause damage. You might end up putting a $100,000 hole (actually two holes, in and out) in the balloon. And holing a high altitude balloon is not that significant. There's little to no pressure to "pop" the balloon. Even a relatively big hole from a missile would take some time to deflate the balloon. The other side would be able to launch a replacement while the original continued to work for a few minutes or longer.

  102. better music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  103. Efficiency, lifting body and steam airships by Savantissimo · · Score: 2, Informative

    >1) Are they really more efficient?
    >...2) What gas to use though?

    Airships can be very efficient, but only when they are gargantuan. The lift goes with the volume while the cost and drag goes with the surface area, so the $/ton efficiency goes up linearly with size. Given some internal structural rigidity, airships can be reasonably fast without giant engines (roughly 100-200 km/hr for on the order of 100W / kg payload.) The problem is that you have to have someplace big enough to land and store them and some way of dealing with them on the ground when the wind kicks up. A lifting-body partially buoyant airship relaxes the need for extreme size, allows easier ground handling, and makes flying easier by allowing altitude changes to be less dependent on managing buoyant lift.

    Helium is not an economical choice of lift gas - it is too expensive to vent yet will leak out slowly through any light-weight material, it is nonrenewable and far more useful for cryogenics than lifting. Hydrogen is dangerous if pure - it can safely soup-up a lift gas mixture, though. Hot air is low performance in every possible way. Ammonia is poisonous and some what flammable. Methane is flammable and does not perform as well as hydrogen.

    Steam is actually the best lift gas from many points of view, giving 60% of helium's lift and being non-toxic, cheaply produced from water ballast and engine waste heat and is easily ventable for buoyancy control, but steam airship design does require some envelope insulation and provision for condensation collection.

    In 2006 Slashdot had an article on a similar lifting-body airship design: "New Aircraft is Part Blimp and Part Airplane" where I commented:

    The lifting body and wings allow the craft to operate under a much wider envelope of loads and buoyant lifts. A huge problem with airships is maintaining desired buoyancy despite variations in temperature, altitude, barometric pressure, fuel expenditure, and condensation or icing loading - helium is too expensive to vent when the airship is light and cannot be generated in flight as can hydrogen, hot air or steam*. Being able to descend or ascend without losing ballast or lift gas and to operate without massive ground crews and facilities should significantly reduce the operating expense associated with helium airships. The Ohio Airships people have gotten an amazing amount done with very little money, and they seem to be selling their idea effectively to US government buyers, so it seems possible that this design will avoid the fate of all the other large airship projects of the past 60 years.

    The main innovation in the Ohio Airships design is in the novel rigid internal structure which uses a keel beam supported by stays (cables) from a tower in the manner of a suspension bridge. This should allow greater loads relative to the airframe mass, including positive or negative loads from the wings.

    *Steam is potentially the most economical lift gas since it gives 60% of helium lift or 200% of hot air lift, is essentially free if generated as a by-product of a steam engine, and the airship envelope acts as a condenser for the engine, reducing weight. This makes both the lift gas and propulsion much more efficiently produced than helium bags or IC engines See www.flyingkettle.com for more details.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  104. A really good post, except for that one thing... by novakreo · · Score: 1

    Your post was good right up until the homophobic troll at the end. Was that remark really necessary?

    --
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
  105. It's the Buttmobile by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

    Quick, to the Buttmobile!

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  106. Re:Yeah right by shentino · · Score: 1

    However, the administration knows that congress critters won't dare yank the purse strings away, so they have no incentive to pull out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)

    If congress yanks funding, they get the wrath of the public for crippling our troops.
    If the administration pulls them out, they lose shitloads of face.

    If both sides stay at status quo, our soldiers will die.

    "Very well, the existing appropriation will carry the navy halfway around the world and if Congress chooses to leave it on the other side, all right" -- Roosevelt.

  107. Re:Yeah right by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyone is advocating abondoning the troops to some sort of purgatory. It's interesting to note that the Vietnam war ended when congress cut off funding.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  108. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by Skizzo · · Score: 1

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but blimps don't have much density (or metal) to them and will be practically invisible to RADAR. They also lack a thermal profile due to electric motors so they are invisible in the IR band too. Winds on the way to altitude are typically high, but it all varies seasonally, by position on the globe, jet stream, etc. Mostly, though, things are reasonably calm above 60k. Power is solar, with batts for night. Control power is an issue, as there isn't enough data to really derive good thrust/control-power requirements. Time to get to/from op altitude is really long. 10-17 hours is probably a good time range. You have to give the gas inside the envelope time to adjust, keeping the deltaTemp between the lifting gas and outside (called Superheat) within limits. Otherwise, you can get into runaway conditions where the ship will rise too fast out of control and burst, or descent out of control too fast and crush. All that time spent between takeoff and op altitude could see the ship blown way off course, requiring a long time to maneuver into position.

  109. Re:A really good idea, except for that one thing.. by evilviper · · Score: 1

    This kind of airship will, once at operating altitude, be essentially be impossible to shoot down unless the enemy has a true SAM based defense (e.g. SA-11).

    ...or access to ANY jet aircraft ever made. ...or a few weeks in mom's basement with a model rocket kit.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  110. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds more like my wife... apart from the bit about backup, that should read 'and then blame the backup'.

  111. Re:Yeah right by fractoid · · Score: 1

    From my point of view, everyone who signed up to invade Afghanistan and Iraq betrayed me, betrayed the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and betrayed the citizens of his respective nation. When it comes to randomly invading countries, I am a pacifist to the extreme.

    Woah, that was a work of art! 11/10, will flame angrily even on third repost.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  112. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are the blonde Maine Coon with whom Mittens hangs around all the time ?