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."

66 of 343 comments (clear)

  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 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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?

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
  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 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
    2. 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

    3. 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!
    4. 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?
  3. hahahaha by Tomfrh · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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".

    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.

  5. 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/

  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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!
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. #2 by stox · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thunderbirds are go!

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  21. Relevant Monty Pythonism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And now an airship with three buttocks.

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

    From down here it looks like a participle!

  23. 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.

  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.
  27. 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

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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."

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

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

  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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