Slashdot Mirror


Blimps To Help Protect Washington DC From Air Attack

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Reuters reports that a pair of bulbous, helium-filled 'aerostats', each 243 feet long, will be moored to the ground and fly as high as 10,000 feet, as part of a high-tech shield designed to protect the Washington D.C. area from an air attack like the one that took place on September 11, 2001. One of the aerostats carries a powerful long-range surveillance radar with a 360-degree look-around capability that can reach out to 340 miles. The other carries a radar used for targeting. Operating for up to 30 days at a time, JLENS is meant to give the military more time to detect and react to threats (PDF), including cruise missiles and manned and unmanned aircraft, compared with ground-based radar and is also designed to defend against tactical ballistic missiles, large caliber rockets and moving vehicles that could be used for attacks, including boats, cars and trucks. 'We're trying to determine how the surveillance radar information from the JLENS platforms can be integrated with existing systems in the National Capital Region,' says Michael Kucharek, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Washington is currently guarded by an air-defense system that includes Federal Aviation Administration radars and Department of Homeland Security helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft on alert at Reagan National Airport to intercept slow, low-flying aircraft."

270 comments

  1. Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, a giant ball of gas catching fire when fired upon and crashing into DC will sure help protect it.

    1. Re:Brilliant! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, a giant ball of gas catching fire when fired upon and crashing into DC will sure help protect it.

      You do realize that they tend to use Helium now-a-days, right? And helium is fire retardant.

      I'd list a bunch of "Archer" quotes from one of my favorite episodes, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

    2. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd need at least a red rider bb gun to take it down, so I wouldn't worry about it.

    3. Re:Brilliant! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Gentleman, we have politicians in Washington DC. Lots of them. A near endless supply of hot air. What more could you ask for?!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Brilliant! by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Informative

      But what are they going to fill it w/?

      Congress is still going forward w/ plans to close the Federal Helium Reserve:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443545504577567102314948314.html
      http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2012/12dec/helium1212.cfm

      and has intentionally been pricing helium low, so as to allow it to be used in party balloons instead of MRI units, &c.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    5. Re:Brilliant! by h4rr4r · · Score: 0, Redundant

      For how much longer will they be able to get enough helium for this use?

      The free marketeers, excuse me the "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" crowd is selling out nations helium reserves at rates that are nothing more than a giant give away to their industry buddies. The Helium we will need for this and other worth while causes is now being sold to kids in birthday balloons and being allowed to leave our atmosphere.

    6. Re:Brilliant! by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that they tend to use Helium now-a-days, right? And helium is fire retardant.

      I'd list a bunch of "Archer" quotes from one of my favorite episodes, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

      Welcome aboard the Excelsior!

    7. Re:Brilliant! by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes what a wonderful use for the limited amount of Helium on this planet. Let's put it in baloons to protect ourselves from imaginary threats.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Brilliant! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Helium is also in short supply and absolutely non-renewable, hydrogen would be a big improvement.

      But +1 for the hot air suggestion :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Brilliant! by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Would you say that living in DC could be considered... dangerous?
      Would you say it's kind of a zone, that has danger in it?

    10. Re:Brilliant! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      The free marketeers, excuse me the "privatize the profits, socialize the losses"

      Please educate me, how socializing losses is even possible at all in a free market? What you're bashing here is a government-controlled economy.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    11. Re:Brilliant! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If they were using hydrogen, which they're not, the giant ball of gas that's caught fire isn't going to "fall" on anything, until it turns into water - and I don't mean steam either, I mean liquid, heavier than air, water.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Brilliant! by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because those who call themselves that often advocate privatizing government resources.

      These folks are as interested in a real free market as much as the Chinese are in actual communism.

      A free market without government intervention is of course not possible, for reference I suggest Adam Smith. Monopolies and such are a real pain.

    13. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4 words: Too big to fail

    14. Re:Brilliant! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the fact that Helium is in short supply.

      But the article explicitly states they'd be using Helium, and the AC states that "OMG Fireball City LOL"

      It

    15. Re:Brilliant! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Would you say that living in DC could be considered... dangerous? Would you say it's kind of a zone, that has danger in it?

      I hear there's a highway to DC, too.

    16. Re:Brilliant! by rwyoder · · Score: 2

      Yes what a wonderful use for the limited amount of Helium on this planet. Let's put it in baloons to protect ourselves from imaginary threats.

      It is not to protect *us*; It is to protect politicians.

    17. Re:Brilliant! by Shoten · · Score: 5, Informative

      First of all, as stated by another...DUH, it's full of helium. Helium is a noble gas, and does not burn. But even if it were filled with hydrogen, AND you hit it with an incendiary round of some sort, I doubt very much that anything would be on fire by the time it landed, from that high up. If you look at the footage of the Hindenburg, you can see that it didn't take terribly long for the hydrogen to burn itself out...now imagine that airship starting its burn 2 miles up instead of less than 100 feet up, and guess how bad the flames would be by the time it landed?

      Second of all, fired upon by whom, exactly, and using what? The stats operate at 10,000 feet...that's close to 2 miles. That's further away than any but the very best snipers in the world can shoot, and even then they require exotic hardware like a .50 caliber rifle (of a few types) or the Chey-Tac Intervention system...and they're shooting horizontally, instead of straight up. There's no way to judge crosswinds...which will be of multiple speeds in the intervening distance. And if you shoot from an angle, instead of straight up (because let's face it, the anchor for the stat won't exactly be something you can walk up to...or anywhere near it, and keep in mind how people will come running once they hear the deafening report of a high-power rifle) then the range gets even worse. You're not going to sneak up on it with a plane, obviously, and if you fired at it with a MANPADS (if you can even find one with that range...most cannot hit something that far away) you will miss because it doesn't have a significant heat signature. And if you are a bad guy and have one of the better MANPADS available to you while you're walking around in Washington, DC...why are you shooting at a blimp?

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    18. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also hear that there's another airport in the region that's slightly further out of town,
      which might be a little safer for these big boogers than cramming them into Reagan
      or Andrews AFB. It's called Dulles Airport, and has a bit more real estate surrounding
      it, and might be harder to attack than the two strips on the banks of the Potomac
      just south of The Capitol.

    19. Re:Brilliant! by Vreejack · · Score: 2

      "Fire retardant" actually means, "burns too slowly to be a hazard under most conditions." Helium is completely inert with respect to everything, and will not even form a stable compound with itself. In a closed container helium will put the fire out. Not so much in an open system as it has a low heat capacity compared to something like water, and it fails to smother like CO2 because it tends to float away. It won't interfere with reactions like PKP because it remains unreactive. But inside a blimp? Nothing will burn.

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    20. Re:Brilliant! by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure its a byproduct of nuclear fission.

    21. Re:Brilliant! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      It isn't produced this way though, the helium from nuclear fission just escapes and floats out into space like any other helium that isn't stored (and that which is stored but passes through the solid walls of the container).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:Brilliant! by asm2750 · · Score: 1

      Read about the elements and stop being a moron. Everyone knows Helium gas is not flammable.

    23. Re:Brilliant! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yes, a giant ball of gas catching fire when fired upon and crashing into DC will sure help protect it.

      At that altitude it will burn up long before it reaches the ground.

      And there's no reason it would burst into flames anyway if it's properly grounded.

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re:Brilliant! by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It might not be *completely* inert. It is thought that it could be coerced into reacting with fluorine to produce some very unstable compounds.

    25. Re:Brilliant! by Jeng · · Score: 2

      Ok, so what is stopping some enterprising person or entity from purchasing huge reserves of helium at these rock bottom prices?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    26. Re:Brilliant! by RoboRay · · Score: 2

      Buy low, sell high!

    27. Re:Brilliant! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      How can a monopoly kill all competition in a fully free market? There are two ways: either they keep prices lower than anyone else can -- and in this case, there's no harm done, or raise them and try to buy out all competition. In which case you can earn money doing nothing but spawning more and more startups. A new startup will either profit selling stuff at inflated prices (same or just a notch below that of the monopoly), or get bought out -- in which case, its creators profit, and more and more folks start jumping at such an easy opportunity.

      So what do big companies do? They lobby for barriers for entry, via government interference, in the form of patents, permits or concessions. Or, for a more tricky scheme, a bailout that gets "repaid" -- which wipes out minor financial institutions, as investors get a strong message that their money is not safe with anyone not "too big to fail", while responsible handling of risk is simply not profitable enough to allow competing with the financial mafia.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    28. Re:Brilliant! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok, so what is stopping some enterprising person or entity from purchasing huge reserves of helium at these rock bottom prices?

      The fact that the "helium shortage" is nonsense made up by bloggers that are dumb enough to think they are smarter than the market, but aren't quite dumb enough to put their money where their mouth is. America's proven reserves of helium will meet current demand for centuries. Unproven, but extractable, reserves are probably an order of magnitude higher. We are not running out of helium, at least not in this millennium.

    29. Re:Brilliant! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Gentleman, we have politicians in Washington DC. Lots of them. A near endless supply of hot air. What more could you ask for?!

      Politicians full of hot hydrogen?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re:Brilliant! by MyNameIsJohn · · Score: 2

      There are infinite ways to create 'barriers to entry' that do not involve government as all they are are 'issues' created by an already established player to hinder existing and/or new players in the market. Type of product (network infrastructure, mining/resource harvesting), trade secrets (do patents and/or copyrights apply to 'free markets?), etc.. Free Market as an ideal is a goal that will never be fully realized as much as 'Total Control' cannot be realized. We have to live in the grey area between all extremes and as such we need to way the pro's and con's and be ever vigilant as a voting populace to the always evolving ways of certain groups of people to try to corrupt and control for their own benefits vs the people's benefits.

    31. Re:Brilliant! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the story go that we aren't extracting the helium from natural gas anymore because there is no financial incentive while the government is selling off the strategic helium reserve?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    32. Re:Brilliant! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I hope you're at least not arguing that removing barriers to entry as much as possible, getting rid of patents, disallowing lobbying, stopping all bailouts, etc, wouldn't be a good idea.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    33. Re:Brilliant! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Just having the lowest price is not the best thing for the market. There are other values to consider.

      Buying out competition is one way, and it can actually be effective in a market with high startup costs. They would of course not buy up your startups until you had sunk all that cost into them.

      The real world does not work like your fantasy land, in the fantasy land communism would work just as well. In reality things are a lot more complicated.

    34. Re:Brilliant! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Doesn't the story go that we aren't extracting the helium from natural gas anymore because there is no financial incentive while the government is selling off the strategic helium reserve?

      ... and as soon as the price goes up, the "financial incentive" will return, and we will resume extracting it.

      The fact that helium is too cheap and plentiful to even bother collecting is hardly evidence that we are "running out".

      If you disagree, and you really think you are smarter than the market, then go invest in helium futures.

    35. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Boehner is full of highly-flammable ethanol (he averages 90% BAC most of the time). That's almost as good.

    36. Re:Brilliant! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't disagree, just nice covering the bases when talking about conspiracies.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    37. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appears none of you faggots know the difference between further and farther. What a bunch of losers.

    38. Re:Brilliant! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Selling helium high is like selling orcs to Mordor.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    39. Re:Brilliant! by Shoten · · Score: 2

      Appears none of you faggots know the difference between further and farther. What a bunch of losers.

      Better than not knowing how to act like a decent human being. I can fix that one thing in five minutes...tomorrow, you'll still be an asshole :)

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    40. Re:Brilliant! by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I think pilots may object to having blimps tethered to their landing strips...

    41. Re:Brilliant! by guises · · Score: 1

      Great, you want to throw away all our helium on the basis of some shitty article from Forbes? Forbes, which routinely publishes climate-denier rhetoric and any other bullshit PR that someone can use to make a little more money?

      Most people are smarter than the market, the market is dumb as shit. What the market does well is maximizing short-term gains, and there are a lot of gains to be had in the short-term if we blind ourselves to long term environmental costs, including blowing through our natural resources like helium.

      There are far more qualified people making a far more compelling case about the need to conserve helium.

    42. Re:Brilliant! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Since those startups can just refuse being bought out and proceed to sell the goods at inflated prices (still cheaper than the monopoly's), sunk costs are not their problem. Obviously, they would refuse the buyout if it's not going to be profitable. Or if they do something for a principle, for that matter.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    43. Re:Brilliant! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, they cannot not.

      The monopoly will let them sink in billions, then drop the price to the point that no one makes money. At that point they buy the company for less than the investment cost. Netting the monopoly discount hardware.

      Reality conflicts with this utopian free market crap in much the same way it does with communism or other things that work only in theory.

    44. Re:Brilliant! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      The monopoly would have to drop the price for an extended time, which effectively makes them non-abusive one. If they'd sell below costs, they would need to get money for dumping from somewhere -- if we're talking about a multi-billion company, the smaller one has means of exporting to that place.

      So there are two cases: either a small company that can easily spring up and dissolve, or a large (but smaller) competitor. Beating the former requires the monopoly to forfeit all profits for a noticeable period of time, the latter can diversify (either geographically or to different products), and thus can't be easily smashed. In the second case, there's no monopoly anymore.

      If you have multiple billions, you can be a significant player in any market that has no artificial barriers.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    45. Re:Brilliant! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Only long enough to bankrupt the little guy.

      Think about markets with high natural barriers like telcos. You can't cheaply make a new one and if the monopoly wants they can undercut you in only your own markets. They fund that by charging more elsewhere. Not all profits, just the ones in markets you compete in.

  2. Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, we need to conserve helium. If these things are unmanned, could we not use hydrogen?

    1. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      If hydrogen is mixed with oxygen in the right proportions, it becomes an incredibly dangerous substance.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Water?

    3. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Funny

      You aren't talking about Dihydrogen Monoxide are you? That's some scary stuff.

    4. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by kontos · · Score: 1

      The 'helium shortage' is more a problem with economics than it is with the abundance of the element.

      --
      SM MBL-VIR looking 4 SIG 4 LTR. must be DDF, no 420, SD ok.
    5. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      If hydrogen is mixed with oxygen in the right proportions, it becomes an incredibly dangerous substance.

      Water?
      I agree, water can be dangerous, but only in significantly large quantities (relative to the specific use)

    6. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      If hydrogen is mixed with oxygen in the right proportions, it becomes an incredibly dangerous substance.

      Absolutely! And if it mixed in the right proportions and allowed to combine correctly the product can be really dangerous, for instance, it can cause fatal hyper-hydration.

      --
      Nate
    7. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Onymous+Hero · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      You could say that about any element we might face a shortage of.

      Given unlimited funds you can always make your own elements. Since that is not true your statement is pretty nonsensical.

    10. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you'll drown in minutes!

    11. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If an ignition source is then added.

      Keeping the proportions away from the danger zone is not hard, blimps don't catch fire so easily when they aren't painted with rocket fuel, and if they do and nobody's around...so what?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Wow forbes, truly they have no agenda.

      What the fine article fails to mention is how little helium is captured at wells. There is no point in figuring how much is in fraking wells since none of them capture any of it.

    13. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      True, you can drown in hydrogen mixed with oxygen in the right proportions. And a massive wave of it can destroy beachfront property.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Things tend to fall out of the sky when exploding... and raining flaming metal down over Washington DC is a bad thing....

      We should come up with some kind of blimp system to prevent that.

    15. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Generally the economics are, indeed, linked to the abundance (and availability) of something.

      That said, I'd like to see them use hydrogen anyway, like the AC. It's cheap, it's not nearly as dangerous as its reputation, and doing something about the image of hydrogen as a very dangerous thing to put in balloons or other lighter than air craft would help spur development of the latter.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Helium is renewable over a geological timeframe so we need not worry about venting it into the atmosphere. Meanwhile scientists and engineers who live in non-geological time actually need this stuff *now* while you advocate flushing a significant portion of their research budgets down the drain in order to subsidize your kid's party favors.

    17. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by kontos · · Score: 1

      What the fine article fails to mention is how little helium is captured at wells. There is no point in figuring how much is in fraking wells since none of them capture any of it.

      Which is why I called it an economic problem. You can damn well be sure that fracking wells would figure out a way to capture the helium if Joe Consumer's floating balloon budget started to approach his natural gas heat and appliances budget.

      --
      SM MBL-VIR looking 4 SIG 4 LTR. must be DDF, no 420, SD ok.
    18. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      These things are almost entirely made of cloth, probably with a couple hundred pounds of metal on board, packaged tightly together. Fly one over an open field and it will be fine.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, because that kind of demand is very elastic.
      Joe Consumer would just stop buying it and there will be little incentive to capture it.

      All shortages are economic, if you had unlimited money/other resources you could make all your own elements. So that is a nonsense statement.

    20. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, water... as a residue from combustion. Water ashes, if you will.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    21. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen Peroxide

    22. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by kontos · · Score: 1

      gahh. a shortage in the market doesn't necessarily mean that there is a shortage of the substance to be tapped. My point was that the current shortage of helium in the market is due to the lack of suppliers that are able and willing to pull it out of the natural gas wells. It is not because we have reached 'peak helium' where we want helium, but can't find any to pull out of the ground.

      --
      SM MBL-VIR looking 4 SIG 4 LTR. must be DDF, no 420, SD ok.
    23. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      WikiLeaks confirms that the government are planning to put in the water supply.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    24. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and raining flaming metal down over Washington DC is a bad thing.... .

      I live in DC. The place wouldn't necessarily be worse off with some flaming metal raining down. Parts of the city look like that has already been happening for some time.

      Just sayin'.

    25. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You & Me:"Why can't we use hydrogren on unmanned blimps?"
      Morons:"OMFG, THINK OF THE PASSENGER's/PILOT's SAFETY! OH THE HUMANITY!! BICENTENNIAL MAN DOWN! BICENTENNIAL MAN DOWN!!"
      Mouth breather in the back: "What about the fireball landing on the ground?"
      Me: "A lighter than air fireball with water for exhaust? Vs. an aluminum projectile filled with kerosene flying through the air at 500km/h?"
      Idiots: "Yeah, but like: What about the hindenburg? lol."

    26. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it catastrophically fails at the end of a 10,000 foot tether, depending on wind speed and direction, it could fall anywhere over an almost four-mile radius instead of on the field where it is tethered.

    27. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which is all academic considering the cost of tapping it vs the people will to pay that true cost.

      Most helium is bought buy folks unwilling to the pay costs you are talking about. They will simply go without helium balloons for Tiimy's party. Then the only folks left buying it will be MRI users and the like who have no other options thus driving the price through the roof.

    28. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure the damage it causes to all of the infrastructure at 10,000 feet in the air will be catastrophic.

      What's that, it's going to crash and burn? Well obviously. It also obviously (according to the summary) has 340 mile range. Park the base of it way out in the middle of nowhere... say, 10,100 feet away from anything important... and call it a day.

    29. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it catastrophically fails at the end of a 10,000 foot tether, depending on wind speed and direction, it could fall anywhere over an almost four-mile radius instead of on the field where it is tethered.

      s/radius/diameter/

    30. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Sort of, but most of the elements are heavy enough that they don't float away.

    31. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, how did a two word comment that is just plain incorrect get modded up? It should be -1, overrated.Where helium is found

    32. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I believe the technical term for this would be "rain".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    33. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      There is very little of it in my water supply. Mostly chlorine, salt, arsenic and various other chemicals you see in the rocky mountains.

    34. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      10,000 feet is less than 2 miles. I don't know about you, but I've never seen wind push solid metal at greater than a 45 degree angle.

    35. Re:Why not use hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you are having an entire conversation with yourself again... you really should talk to your doctor about that.

  3. WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't we used to call these barrage balloons?

    1. Re:WWII by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too, but these operate in a completly different way. Barrage ballons were themselves the anti-air defence, carrying strong cables to ensnare low-flying attackers. These blimps are just radar platforms. Their advantage is just price: It's cheaper to keep a blimp inflated than to keep a radar-helicopter in the air.

  4. Scary Blimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The designers should give the blimps a dark steampunk look so that visitors to DC can pretend like they are in a euro-WWII-alternate-timeline story.

    1. Re:Scary Blimps by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Haha thought the same thing. But is the white and shiny word of Mirror's Edge that much less bad because it doesn't look evil?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Scary Blimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or from Paranoia, its a means to adjust you to accepting being in a visul state of alert and all that enables.

    3. Re:Scary Blimps by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Well, need to do something about those looming defense budget cuts.

      What's better and cheaper than 30 or so blimps visible from anywhere across Washington to remind all: be afraid, be very afraid, this is serious? Yep, dark steampunk look may be a good suggestion: after all it's not the tourists in Washington that approve the budgets.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:Scary Blimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking along the same lines except more in the direction of the Metropolis anime movie/ or the silent movie whichever. haha.

  5. The REAL solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just put a big dome over the whole place, and don't let anyone out. They can all pretend they're running the world, and the rest of us can finally be left alone to run out lives.

    1. Re:The REAL solution by vlm · · Score: 1

      You've gotta give it a PR angle... tell em its to protect them from west nile virus mosquitoes (DC is pretty much a swamp in the summer, so they'll love this idea)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:The REAL solution by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've gotta give it a PR angle...

      The Freedome.

      That'll be $100,000.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  6. well the bad news is by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1984 appears to be rocketing right along as movie-turned-reality. instead of addressing foreign policy mistakes we've taken to bubblewrapping and tripwiring the nation until americans stop worrying about it and learn to love the terror

    the good news i guess is DC is going to start looking a lot more like bladerunner, and if we're lucky it will mean eventually, just maybe, i can order chinese from a blimp chop suey shop like corbin dallas.
    although im not entirely looking forward to the Judge Dredd approach to criminal justice, i am admittedly kind of excited to see the voice-activated guns and flying motorcycles :)

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:well the bad news is by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Nope, this is definitely a Dr Who plot, the mother-ship is a giant air ship in the shape of a Dylect(sic?), it will be arriving any day now.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:well the bad news is by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judge Dredd is a real thing, but he's a semi-autonomous flying robot and he has a lot less respect for due process than the fictional character...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:well the bad news is by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Blade Runner is the one with Harrison Ford, I think they use a blimp at one point for advertising living on other planets but beyond that the blimps aren't really a fixture. As blimps are, today (and before the movie came out), used for advertising, that's not really a prediction of the future.

      Corbin Dallas orders his meal from a blimp in The Fifth Element. While again blimps don't make other appearances (from memory) in that movie, the unusual (by 21st century standards) nature of the interaction, apparently considered usual in the Fifth Element universe, means that it's more likely to be what you're talking about.

      This has been Morning for Pedants. Coming up next: the hilarious new game show "Your using the wrong word!"

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:well the bad news is by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      First off, 1984 started off as a book, so it'd really be a book-turned-reality, but it's not even that.

      The scary part of 1984 isn't the surveillance. That's just the most visible aspect that everyone talks about. The villain of the story is the government that fears its people so much that it resorts to mind control as a means of keeping peace. Mind control is a tricky thing, though, so extreme scarcity and enforced conformity are used to rein in any dissent. Surveillance is just a tool the government uses to look for that dissent.

      The book hints at the possibility that the world is actually not at war, but the ongoing conflicts are actually staged to justify the artificial scarcity. Even Goldstein's underground rebellion may be a hoax perpetrated by the government to expose any rebellious tendencies. Those that are caught are tortured to break their minds, stripping away conscious thought and logic until assertions can be made without resistance. That's when the victim knows that there really is no viable escape, no higher purpose, and not even any nobility in life or death.

      Every title in 1984 is ironic. The Ministry of Plenty restricts supplies, the Ministry of Love tortures, the Ministry of Peace plans the wars, the Ministry of Truth distributes lies... and Big Brother is not a loving familial support, but rather an oppressive embodiment of an anti-social Socialist government.

      The fully-converted mindless drones of Ingsoc merely survive, not because they are being watched by Big Brother, but because there is no other choice. The constant surveillance is just a symbol of the government's constant presence. Whether that constant presence is a good or bad thing is a separate issue, which Orwell later recognized openly as peaceful post-WWII societal changes eased his wartime fears.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:well the bad news is by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Giant ominous blimps overseeing the population below, drones, the "See Something; Say Something" videos everywhere, including Walmart checkouts and the "See Something; Say Something" mantra being repeated at subways and train stations. TSA VIPR teams spreading out across the country to do traffic stops, inspect you in line at the train station and football events. Pre-emptive cyber-warfare. Nope, this isn't Orwellian at all. Nope.

    7. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you suggest this is the morning for people like me - I thought you'd like to know that it wasn't a blimp in The Fifth Element either - it was a junk with anti-gravity-style engines (like the taxis, police vehicles, etc.)

      Either way - now I'm hungry for Chinese food, with no possibility of a similar delivery (I don't live in the future, nor do I live in a high-rise)!

      Damn you all!

      (oh and the itch at the back of my neck is directing me to be a contestant on "YOU'RE using the wrong word!" too - ack!)

    8. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> movie-turned-reality

      That's it. Turn in your nerd card and report to the closest detention center for 80 hours of reality-tv based punishment.

    9. Re:well the bad news is by jovius · · Score: 1

      No need to wage a war anymore. Anybody who opposes the measures are enemies of the fatherland. The fear itself has become the enemy - the subconscious and the maintenance of the earthly bodies is controlled by mega corporations. It's a handy plan - everybody becomes a drone.

    10. Re:well the bad news is by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I believe, from memory, you may be right about the junk. In which case...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the "If the government does something to someone they probably deserved it, trust us".

      captcha: optimism

    12. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Big Brother is not a loving familial support, but rather an oppressive embodiment of an anti-social Socialist government.

      So unlike the ministries, Big Brother is aptly named?

      Look, my family was weird, man.

    13. Re:well the bad news is by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Coming up next: the hilarious new game show "Your using the wrong word!"

      Korben. Korben Dallas.

      Thank you for tuning into "You're using the wrong name!". Coming up next: Section two of "Morning for Pedants". Stay tuned!

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    14. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Every title in 1984 is ironic. The Ministry of Plenty restricts supplies, the Ministry of Love tortures, the Ministry of Peace plans the wars, the Ministry of Truth distributes lies... and Big Brother is not a loving familial support, but rather an oppressive embodiment of an anti-social Socialist government.

      I agree with everything except calling that a socialist government, it's fascist.

      Fascism (pron.: /fæzm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training. Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles. Fascism views direct action including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.

      Fascism recognizes the occurrence of class conflict, and advocates a resolution to end the division of classes within a nation and secure national solidarity. However fascism publicly favours proletarian culture due to its association of proletarian culture with economic production and claims that the proletariat as producers must have a dominant role in the nation.[9] It rejects standard bourgeois culture that it associates with unfit sedentary lifestyle, individualism, plutocracy, and the bourgeoisie's economic exploitation of the nation's proletariat, that fascism views as inconsistent with virile nationhood. Fascism claims that cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into a proletarian nation.

    15. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of which, it's always scared me how many people can't tell the difference between socialism and fascism.

    16. Re:well the bad news is by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I'm inclined to agree, but for the sake of literary analysis, I'll use the term the author used. Orwell classifies Ingsoc as socialism, because socialism (as he saw it) was something he feared. Bearing in mind that he wrote in the 1940s, socialism (of the fascist Nazi ("National Socialist") kind) was very different from any modern socialist government.

      The simplistic point of socialism is to support the population through well-managed programs. Orwell's perversion of the concept is a government whose well-managed programs intentionally oppress the people. The tactics used to accomplish the oppression were indeed fascist.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    17. Re:well the bad news is by johnjaydk · · Score: 1

      Great analysis. Welcome to my friends list.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    18. Re:well the bad news is by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I often do my best work while pissed at ignorance.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    19. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you know anything about Orwell's politics? During the Spanish Civil War (which he fought in as part of the Marxist POUM militia) he broke with the Communist Party and Stalin. He continued to be a socialist and sympathetic to anarchism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views

      By the logic that all titles in 1984 are ironic, IngSoc is not actually English Socialism, but rather the opposite of what it should be. Like many socialists, he was a critic of the USSR and Stalin.

      If we have to slap a modern label on his politics, they would be "libertarian socialist" or "anti-authoritarian socialist."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views

    20. Re:well the bad news is by smugfunt · · Score: 3, Informative

      because socialism (as he saw it) was something he feared

      Orwell was a socialist:

      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." -- George Orwell

    21. Re:well the bad news is by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mod Parent up. The man writing under the pen name of George Orwell was a socialist. He was also a freedom kind of guy and today would be classified among europe's mainstream parties that believe in social democracy.

      The book Animal Farm is a analogy to what he experienced working with Stalin's agents in the Spanish Revolution. He was cautioning that Stalin's brand of communism wasn't socialism, it was totalitarianism dressed of as socialism. His experience in Spain convinced him that Stalin and his form of communism was pure evil and he wrote two very famous books (under the pen name George Orwell) to warn the world about what Stalin was and where he would lead us. He also spent quite a bit of time trying to implement social democracy in England under his real name.

    22. Re:well the bad news is by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "1984 appears to be rocketing right along as movie-turned-reality. instead of addressing foreign policy mistakes we've taken to bubblewrapping and tripwiring the nation until americans stop worrying about it and learn to love the terror"

      Haha, I was going to write something similar. Along the lines of: it would be simpler and cheaper for the politicians to just stop pissing people off.

    23. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bearing in mind that he wrote in the 1940s, socialism (of the fascist Nazi ("National Socialist") kind) was very different from any modern socialist government.

      Your right it is different from socialism because it isn't "socialism". You hit it right the first time facism. Facism is what Orwell feared and what we have today in the US. Look up the meaning of facism and it clearly defines what type of goverment we REALLY have. One controled by the corporations and the miltary.

      Native American tribal goverment was socialist in nature and NEVER had this type of perversion in thier govermental system. Every adult had the right to choose in any decison in their life and everyone worked together for the good of the tribe. A person with excessive wealth was seen as some type of sick person.

      Welcome to Nazi Amerika.
      We are watching you!

    24. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dalek. For pete's sake, you couldn't manage a 30-second stint of google searching to figure out how to spell Dalek?

    25. Re:well the bad news is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1984 appears to be rocketing right along as movie-turned-reality. instead of addressing foreign policy mistakes we've taken to bubblewrapping and tripwiring the nation until americans stop worrying about it and learn to love the terror

      the good news i guess is DC is going to start looking a lot more like bladerunner, and if we're lucky it will mean eventually, just maybe, i can order chinese from a blimp chop suey shop like corbin dallas.
      although im not entirely looking forward to the Judge Dredd approach to criminal justice, i am admittedly kind of excited to see the voice-activated guns and flying motorcycles :)

      We already have a perpetual war with a foreign enemy, technology can already be used to spy on people. I'm starting to think Orwell wrote the world of 1984 the way he did not because it was how he thought things would actually end up, but it was how he thought his audience might actually 'get it'. We don't have to have Ministry of Love to have a Ministry of Love.

  7. Systems integration by scotts13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They state as fact the blimps will be deployed, but they're still "trying to determine" how they can be integrated into the air defense system? Isn't that kinda backwards?

    1. Re:Systems integration by rioki · · Score: 2

      Not if you think about government spending. First spend the money, then see if you can do something useful with it.

    2. Re:Systems integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work in government. Don't spend money you've been allocated and not only will your budget be cut even harder next year, but you'll also be criticized for "sitting on" the money. It's totally fucked up. Once your budget is set (playing a game of "I want a pony" to receive a small dog) it's better to overspend than to save. My department was almost set on a plan to blow cash on some very expensive software packages that we knew would be lightly used to "bleed off" some budget, but then we got the order to go into survival mode and save everywhere - which works fine for me since that package was almost used in place of some FLOSS that could do the job just fine, what a waste that would have been.

    3. Re:Systems integration by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      Not if you think about government spending. First spend the money, then see if you can do something useful with it.

      Why is this "troll?" Anyone else just read about rape-i-scan machines?

    4. Re:Systems integration by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It's call panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon, basically turning American cities into open air prison monitored 24/7/365 as the rich and greedy wind the screws on the rest of the population. Air defence is a laughable excuse, unless Canada and Mexico have become real threats and all of a sudden the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have become undefendable. Of course air defence is the easy excuse and, national security to hide what is actually installed and then of course the excuses to start using what is already up there.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Systems integration by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      They state as fact the blimps will be deployed, but they're still "trying to determine" how they can be integrated into the air defense system? Isn't that kinda backwards?

      No, it's not backwards at all. "Trying to determine" can also mean "it works on paper and in simulations, time for the next iteration". Sometimes you can only go so far on paper, and it's time to send the hardware out in the real world and actually work with it.

      I'm reminded of a (still classified AFAIK) piece of kit they installed on my boat* back in the 1980's. It worked on paper, it worked in simulations, it worked in testing pierside... It was an abysmal failure (mumble) feet under the North Atlantic. There were unexpected interference problems, unexpected interface problems, and unacceptable impacts on certain evolutions and operations. Two weeks out (and contrary to orders) my CO had it shut off and tagged out. (FWIW, ultimately it ended up being cancelled for other reasons.)

      Hardware isn't software. You can't run it and tweak it in a sandbox, sometimes you have to take it out in the real world.

      *We used to swear that whenever SUBLANT had a weird job for a boomer, the first words out of his mouth were "What's the Henry L's schedule?"... It was kind of an honor to be the 'go to' boat, but it was also an awful pain in the ass sometimes.

    6. Re:Systems integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://video.pbs.org/video/2325492143

      TL; DW:

      Argus, a drone surveillance system that can watch 15sq miles at mega-mega-pixel resolution and pick out individual people walking around.

    7. Re:Systems integration by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, end of the fiscal year was when we were told to go on "shopping runs" to BestBuy, Staples and OfficeMax in order to buy new printers, copiers, toner cartridges and paper for the operations department on the ship.

      The funny thing was, we always bought the best, most reliable, most durable devices. So next year, we didn't need to buy replacements, and had to think of something else to buy.

      It didn't help that the more frugal among us did a lot of "shopping" at the DRMO, so most of anything we needed was free.

      --
      [End Of Line]
  8. Threats.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If you weren't such douchebags to so many people of the planet... You wouldn't need to worry so hard about 'threats'...

    Not being an ass is even free.

    1. Re:Threats.... by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      If you weren't such douchebags to so many people of the planet... You wouldn't need to worry so hard about 'threats'...

      Not being an ass is even free.

      So how much money have you spent?

    2. Re:Threats.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Switzerland needs to worry about military defense as well as the need to protect their leaders.

      To just say "Oh if you were just more kind then all those people YOU FEED wouldn't want to come and KILL YOU."

      Oh whats that? Yes, we provide the majority of aid around the world, but yes we are dicks, so watch your cornhole.

  9. Balloons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    moored to the ground

    They might look similar to blimps from a distance, but it sounds like they're just balloons carrying radar, not actually capable of moving around.

    1. Re:Balloons? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Meh it's playing with words. An aerostat is still a blimp, and a blimp is still a balloon, just as a Cessna and a kite are both aircraft.

      If it had a rigid frame it could even be a zeppelin and an aerostat at the same time.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Balloons? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      *Cessna and a kite are both fixed wing aircraft. Balloons are aircraft too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Balloons? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      If it had a rigid frame it could even be a zeppelin and an aerostat at the same time.

      I'm sorry but, no.

      Because nobody would ever buy a record album by a band named:

      "Led Zeppelostat"

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  10. You're joking, right? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, because the 9/11 attacks were all about not having radar visibility of the aircraft, uh huh. Sure.

    They were perfectly visible by radar.

    So this is a hidden agenda (technology that will not be mentioned by them) or a complete BS example of making Americans feel comfortable, like nothing will ever happen again because they're being watched out for.

    1. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's preventing these from being downed by a high output laser mounted on a rooftop?

    2. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Stop thinking about conspiracies, the answer is looking you in the face.

      This is a way to spend money on defense and defense contractors. That is really it. No conspiracy or secret motive, just another move to hand our tax dollars to someone's buddies.

    3. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't a hunting rifle be much cheaper and more practical?

      I can hit a clay pigeon on a pole at 300 yards with one, I am sure a better marksmen could hit such a huge target from much further away.

    4. Re:You're joking, right? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a hunting rifle be much cheaper and more practical?

      I can hit a clay pigeon on a pole at 300 yards with one, I am sure a better marksmen could hit such a huge target from much further away.

      I'll future-quote:

      "Uh, that was planned for. We were uh, using, uh, the blimps to, you know, ummm, find the evil people that were trying to take them down to prevent them from spotting their allies. Yeah! That's what happened and the DoD documents will, I mean, DO say so!"

    5. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop thinking about conspiracies, the answer is looking you in the face.

      This is a way to spend money on defense and defense contractors. That is really it. No conspiracy or secret motive, just another move to hand our tax dollars to someone's buddies.

      Uh... but that is a conspiracy. Someone and his buddies are conspiring together to acquire the nation's tax dollars for their own benefit.

    6. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This aerostat says its altitude is 10,000 feet, but no caliber rifle right now will be able to shoot vertically more than 1,500 ft. The ballistics on a horizontal shot for a .750 gr Hornady are 2500 yds at a 108 MOA, which is basically pointing your gun at a damn-near 45 degree angle.

    7. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      .750 grains? That seems very light.
      I think you mean .50 BMG which is 750 grains.

      108 inches seems small compared to the size of a blimp.

      I did not think about the altitude though. Still another ballon towing some sort of explosive then seems cheaper and easier than a laser.

    8. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree that commercial airliners are easy to see on radar, especially when they have FAA transponders. But this program is meant to deal with missiles and drones, which are much smaller and do not sport transponders. And I think even the conspiracy crowd can agree that the total cost of these two balloons is minuscule compared to a successful terrorist attack on DC.

    9. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, a conspiracy has to be something hidden, this is being done in public with everyone in full knowledge of the money being spent.

    10. Re:You're joking, right? by mcd7756 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not going to pop like a party balloon:

      "Because the aerostats are not highly pressurized, bullets won’t burst them; they can actually remain buoyant for hours after suffering multiple punctures." (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-raid-program-small-aerostats-big-surveillance-time-02779/)

      If you google harder than I did, you'll find more information about aerostats.

      However, if you'd like to be a worrier consider the following:

      • Aircraft landing at Washington Nation, Dulles and Andrews (home of Air Force One).
      • Ubiquitous surveillance of civilians
      --
      Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? --Abraham Lincoln
    11. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is not what the cost has to be compared against.

      It must be compared against the cost of the attack and the likelihood of such an attack. The last one kills your little idea.

    12. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... there isn't a .750 gr Hornady anything. That would be lead dust. A plain old .177 calibre BB is still roughly 5 grain. The smallest calibre cartridge I know of is .17 HMR. It fires 20 grain bullets. It also isn't a 2000 yard shot cartridge.

      MOA is minute of arc. Which is 1/60th of 1 degree. So.. 108 would still be less than 2 degrees. Which is kind of far off from a 45 degree angle.

    13. Re:You're joking, right? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This aerostat says its altitude is 10,000 feet, but no caliber rifle right now will be able to shoot vertically more than 1,500 ft.

      Limiting yourself to only shoulder-fired rifles, you're pretty much right.

      However, when you take into consideration some of the larger caliber, mounted rifles, the picture changes - the Bofors 40mm rifle, for example, has an effective range of 40-60,000 feet, well beyond the flight ceiling of the target, er, balloon in question.

      And yes, civilians can own a Bofors, provided they pass the same rigors as are required for other fully automatic weapons.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:You're joking, right? by Vreejack · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a DC resident, this talks of defensive blimps is actually making me very uncomfortable. But if the threat is real then so be it.

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    15. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why does that change anything?
      So they take a little longer to fall, not a problem for a nuisance maker. Even an advantage as it may allow him more time to leave undetected.

    16. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You could get/build a non-automatic and just pay the tax for a destructive device.

    17. Re:You're joking, right? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      You could get/build a non-automatic and just pay the tax for a destructive device.

      This is true, I had a friend in high school that machined a .50 rifle from scratch with his dad, and if I recall correctly, they did have to register it as a destructive device.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:You're joking, right? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This aerostat says its altitude is 10,000 feet, but no caliber rifle right now will be able to shoot vertically more than 1,500 ft.

      Really? That seems awfully short.

      Fullbore target shooting is done over horizontal ranges of up to 1000 yards (3000 feet), implying that the bullet has a nontrivial velocity after 300 feet of travel through air. Without air resistance, rifle bullets would travel to probably around 50,000 feet, implying a nontrivial velocity after 3000 feet vertivally.

      IOW, the bullet would go well over 1,500 feet vertically.

      Some googling around indicated calculations show maybe 3000m (10k feet) for a .30-06 fired vertically.

      Not saying you'd be able to hit a target at that height, but 10k ft vertically is just about within range of fairly ordinary rifles.

      The accuracy would suck.

      And yes, civilians can own a Bofors

      That would be pretty cool.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:You're joking, right? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Um....no. The low pressure differential, combined with the extremely large volume, means that the 'little longer to fall' has a time-span of weeks to months.
      I spoke to someone who worked on the Goodyear blimp, who in turn worked with WW II blimp operators. They _regularly_ patch holes in the blimps from people that shoot at them, often in rural areas where a hunter decides they want to see the big balloon pop. Goodyear blimps are patched from the outside, but the WW II ones were sometimes patched by a guy who walked around inside the blimp breathing oxygen from a tank. The WW II ones also had an air filled tunnel going from the main cabin to the top where they did lookouts. The rule was that you had to sing as you climbed up or down to listen for a voice change, indicating that you were breathing helium (and had to quickly slide down before passing out).

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    20. Re:You're joking, right? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      This aerostat says its altitude is 10,000 feet, but no caliber rifle right now will be able to shoot vertically more than 1,500 ft.

      Really? That seems awfully short.

      Fullbore target shooting is done over horizontal ranges of up to 1000 yards (3000 feet), implying that the bullet has a nontrivial velocity after 300 feet of travel through air. Without air resistance, rifle bullets would travel to probably around 50,000 feet, implying a nontrivial velocity after 3000 feet vertivally.

      IOW, the bullet would go well over 1,500 feet vertically.

      Some googling around indicated calculations show maybe 3000m (10k feet) for a .30-06 fired vertically.

      Not saying you'd be able to hit a target at that height, but 10k ft vertically is just about within range of fairly ordinary rifles.

      The accuracy would suck.

      Hence my use of the qualifier, "pretty much right." Yes, there are a few calibers that can theoretically reach a 10,000 ft range, but not easily or accurately.

      And yes, civilians can own a Bofors

      That would be pretty cool.

      It is indeed.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So how big a hole do you need then?

      Is there a simple way to figure this out?

      It might well not be practical, but it would be neat to think about.

    22. Re:You're joking, right? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      A hole that size would take a long time to bring down a blimp. And I'm pretty sure that people shoot at the Goodyear Blimp from time to time. Presumably people hit it. It's just that a hole that size makes little or no difference when dealing with a volume of gas that large.

    23. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh - old news

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58995-2004Sep29.html

      when these showed up fully visible approx over 16th&U I was most surprised that noone seemed
      to pay them any attention on their way to dupont circle metro.

      besides, as a DC resident you should be used to the constant helicopter flyovers by now

    24. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farther, you fucking idiot. Derp. But I bet you could care less.

    25. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Only a few?
      Then how do AA guns work?

    26. Re:You're joking, right? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Only a few?

      "Few" is a subjective term.

      Then how do AA guns work?

      Not even going to dignify this with an LMGTFY link...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:You're joking, right? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Only a few?

      "Few" is a subjective term.

      Replace "subjective" with "relative."

      Long day already.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    28. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      My point was .50 BMG and similar where used in AA guns, and since it is the upper end of rifle rounds I thought it might meet that need.

    29. Re:You're joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

      Even if the acts are public, if the reasons aren't it's a conspiracy.

    30. Re:You're joking, right? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      My point was .50 BMG and similar where used in AA guns,

      Really? which ones?

      Here's a list of AA guns from Wikipedia, only one of which (the M45 quadmount) being a .50 cal (12.7mm)

      since it is the upper end of rifle rounds

      Incorrect; for example, the Bofors AA gun I mentioned earlier is a rifle with a 40mm round.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    31. Re:You're joking, right? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sorry I meant rifles that are considered rifles by the ATF and not destructive devices like that 40mm would be.

    32. Re:You're joking, right? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sorry I meant rifles that are considered rifles by the ATF and not destructive devices like that 40mm would be.

      Ah.

      Yes, that does make a bit of a difference...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    33. Re:You're joking, right? by jafac · · Score: 1

      I think that the idea of aerostats was to address the issue of "if we had a persistent CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over the USA on 9/11 - it wouldn't have happened" BUT "a CAP is extremely expensive, so the next best thing is . . . well, let's ask Lockheed Martin"?

      In other words: Security Theater.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    34. Re:You're joking, right? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Well - look up the history of airships in warfare. They aren't the most resilient or reliable craft.

      The idea here, is that by going to a much higher altitude, they can overcome some of that vulnerability.

      But personally, I don't think that's going to work.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    35. Re:You're joking, right? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      I think that the idea of aerostats was to address the issue of "if we had a persistent CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over the USA on 9/11 - it wouldn't have happened" BUT "a CAP is extremely expensive, so the next best thing is . . . well, let's ask Lockheed Martin"?

      In other words: Security Theater.

      Security Theater because Security Bank doesn't sound right to the public? ;)

  11. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their new fancy defence idea is...Barrage balloons.

    The 1940's called, London wants their stuff back.

  12. Debt ceiling is what? by kurt555gs · · Score: 0

    More waste. More welfare for political cronies. Useless as a kick stand on a bass boat.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  13. So rather than... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    So rather than do the sane thing to reduce attacks (which saves money both in the short and long run!) which is to fix our foreign policy to one of free trade and friendship rather than secret assassinations, embargoes, invasions and occupation that we currently have. We instead decide to spend even more money on useless counter-measures.

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:So rather than... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, you're misunderstanding: The spending tons of money on useless counter-measures is big profits to the politically-connected seller who's just happened to provide appropriate amounts of graft to the government folks.

      The goal isn't (and generally has never been) to fix the problem, the goal is to maximize profits.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:So rather than... by snemiro · · Score: 1

      I would like to see a day when politicians are accountable (financially) for their job. If the debt goes down, they receive a proportional pension...if the debt goes up, they don't receive any perks but they are financially in debt with the Govt to cover the difference.

    3. Re:So rather than... by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      So rather than do the sane thing to reduce attacks (which saves money both in the short and long run!) which is to fix our foreign policy to one of free trade and friendship rather than secret assassinations, embargoes, invasions and occupation that we currently have.

      The My Little Pony world you live in bears very little resemblance to the real one - because as deplorable as parts of our current foreign policies are, you're a fool if you believe you can never offend anyone and that being friendly will fix all problems. The real world is a rather more dangerous place that the kindergarten you seem to think it is, even doing the right thing (like unseating a murderous dictator or being friends with people that other folks don't like) can piss people off.

    4. Re:So rather than... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Interventionist policies DO NOT work. Why do you think 9/11 happened? Do you honestly think that terrorists flew a plane into three buildings because they "hated us for our freedoms"? No, they hated us because we bombed them! They hated us because we pushed for a trade embargo with Iraq that lead to the impoverishment of the Iraqi people. Believe it or not, people don't like being bombed, or being starved. How many new terrorists do you think are created because of US drone strikes in Pakistan? What do you think the sentiment of Americans would be if Italy flew a drone over California and fired a missile to kill an alleged murderer and ended up killing 3 innocent civilians?

      Is it any surprise that the areas of the greatest instability are those where the US/NATO (or Russia) has interfered?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:So rather than... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      *yawn* When you've got something other than the same tired rhetoric and actually want to address the points I raised, get back to me.

      Until then, you're just another blithering idiot with delusions of possessing a clue.

    6. Re:So rather than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The goal isn't (and generally has never been) to fix the problem, the goal is to maximize profits."

            Which is why most of the treasonous bastards in DC should be butchered.

  14. Blimps to Help Protect DC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Nice of Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnel to pitch in.

    1. Re:Blimps to Help Protect DC? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't forget Rush Limbaugh's contributions too.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Blimps to Help Protect DC? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

      Too much hot air, he's stuck in the lower mesosphere

    3. Re:Blimps to Help Protect DC? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Conan O'Brien just called me to say the governor of some State south of New York would pitch in too, but as I've heard the same f---ing joke now, from Conan, about a gagillion times now I slammed the phone down.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  15. Having worked for the company who wrote the SW.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I can tell you sincerely that we are all fucked if we have to depend on this system.

  16. Training simulations already exist by mwn3d · · Score: 0

    The Internet is already ready: http://armorgames.com/play/924/balloon-invasion

  17. Typical political operation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks good.
    Use non-renewable resource.
    Expensive in operation.

    Doesn't work though.

    Yep. looks like a typical government operation.

  18. camera on hot tubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would not put in a huge down looking camera would they? They could track where every car has gone and zoom in on those hot tub parties.
    Current satellites can see very well. This could hold a bigger camera a LOT closer.
    I would like this tech in Afganistan to watch roads for IEDs. Not in the U.S. to follow suspects around.

    1. Re:camera on hot tubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would not put in a huge down looking camera would they?

      Sure they would, isn't that the point of this? Pretty sure NORAD already had their radar needs covered.

  19. Blimps, manned and unmanned by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 4, Informative
    I remember reading about an unmanned blimp crashing:
    .
    San Diego Union Tribune article about an unmanned Army blimp brought down in Pa. woods A remote-controlled, unmanned reconnaissance blimp launched from Ohio by defense contractor Lockheed Martin was brought down Wednesday in a controlled descent in the woods of southwestern Pennsylvania after it was unable to climb to the desired altitude. The HALE-D blimp was designed to float above the jet stream at 60,000 feet and can be used for reconnaissance, intelligence and other purposes often accomplished by satellites, but at lower cost. The blimp was being tested as a communications relay device as part of a contract Lockheed Martin has with the Army

    And another one, found by searching for military and blimps, also found in gizmag and wired, is a dedicated blimp site article about the army preparing and training for using a huge/mammoth spy blimp, an LEMV = US Army's massive Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle:

    The Air Force's highly computerized (and potentially missile-armed) Blue Devil 2 airship recently ran into integration problems, forcing the flying branch to cancel a planned test run in Afghanistan. (Although the service had never been too hot on airships in the first place.) The Navy meanwhile grounded its much smaller MZ-3A research blimp for a lack of work until the Army paid to take it over. The LEMV seemed to be losing air, too, as Northrop and the Army repeatedly delayed its first flight and planned combat deployment originally slated for the end of 2011.

    also http://www.gizmag.com/lemv-first-flight/22675/
    and http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/massive-spy-blimp : Army Readies Its Mammoth Spy Blimp for First Flight ...
    There wass also an auxilliary naval air field north of La Jolla in Del Mar that also was used for blimps: http://www.militarymuseum.org/NAAFDelMar.html

    1. Re:Blimps, manned and unmanned by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, which has bumpy terrain and bad weather, have always wanted "eyes in the sky" that would give them a heads up on enemy attacks. The bad terrain stops the soldiers from seeing too far away because the bad guys hide in the hills. The bad weather is alternately freezing or too hot, so fixed wing aircraft such as the Predator crash and can't stay overhead constantly. A blimp could just sit there with their sensors spying away, and if you can make the tether long enough, the blimp would be outside the range of enemy fire.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    2. Re:Blimps, manned and unmanned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'Bad guys'? In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US are the bad guys, destroying a infrastructure and randomly murdering people.

    3. Re:Blimps, manned and unmanned by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
      re A blimp could just sit there with their sensors spying away,

      unless, of course, there is more wind than the drive motors can overcome...

      re and if you can make the tether long enough,

      These are actually untethered, flying with drive motors to keep them in place also. And the large Army one I linked to is a manned and pilot controlled blimp.

    4. Re:Blimps, manned and unmanned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tether itself then becomes an easy target. Just send on what the "Outlaw Josie Wales" called a "missoura boat ride".

    5. Re:Blimps, manned and unmanned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a soldier in Afghanistan right now. We have these at all the major FOBs. They can see people with rifles and have the Reapers blow them up. Anyone trying to shoot at on of these will be vaporized. Of course not in the US, cuz US citizens can not be targeted with UAVs. Oh wait..

  20. The rest of you by vinayg18 · · Score: 0

    DIE!

  21. Time for our elected officials to "man up." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sick and tired of elected officials thinking of themselves as a valuable commodity. They're just citizens. No better, no worse than the rest of us. They need to send a message to the "terrorists." This message should be something to the effect, "You can hurt me, kill me, do whatever you want, but know that there are plenty of other people in line to take my place."

    I really do believe that the current breed of politician would make the founders of the U.S.A. sick.

    1. Re:Time for our elected officials to "man up." by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Lots of things made the founders of the U.S.A. sick. They lived before the advent of any serious medical treatment for illnesses. Believe it or not, we've come a long way since 1776, and rapid high speed air strikes are one of the many new things since that era. I don't endorse wasting money on defense measures that are almost certainly never to be used, but to pretend there's no motive for keeping the representatives our democracy has elected in place is a little unreasonable too(except those I personally disagree with, they can always die).

    2. Re:Time for our elected officials to "man up." by hedwards · · Score: 1

      For better or for worse most of the US government is concentrated in that part of the US. But that's not going to change until somebody does something about the ego problem running up and down the East Coast. Seriously, the East Coast bias is very real. The thing is that we on the West Coast don't really want our news over there, we just want to stop being bombarded with nothing stories that happened to happen on the East Coast.

  22. missing from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all the downward-looking cameras and radio scanners.

  23. But what about the aliens? by robinsonne · · Score: 1

    What about the aliens?!?!? Are these blimps going to save our government from the aliens' attack that could come any moment?!?! Everyone knows Independence Day was a documentary sent back from the future to warn us!

    /sarcasm

    I think that their imagined threat of terrorist airplane attacks is about as likely to happen.

  24. Over the horizon radar by vlm · · Score: 1

    fly as high as 10,000 feet

    powerful long-range surveillance radar with a 360-degree look-around capability that can reach out to 340 miles.

    There's a simple aviation rule of thumb (aka its probably less than 10% inaccurate) that 10Kft = 100nm to the horizon.

    So they're admitting its a OTH radar. That seems odd, why make a shitty lightweight OTH when you could make a really good one on the ground. In the air would be a good spot for a stereotypical skin painting surveillance radar, however.

    I'm suspecting there's some specsmanship going on here were an infinite number of imperial to metric re-conversions and PR rounding up 20 times has somehow lead to the "real" range of "around a hundred miles" getting boosted to the somewhat ridiculous 340 miles.

    Or they're confusing individual range with total system coverage. You only need about 3 blimps IN A SYSTEM each with 100 mile range to cover about 350 miles along the widest part of the entire system. I have to think about circle packing, maybe 3 perfectly aligned circles 100 nm apart could cover an absolute minimum diameter of 340 miles as a system. Hmm you'd be looking at the intersection point of two circles vs the farthest point of the 3rd circle or some BS, I think?

    And or the journalists failed geometry and are confusing range aka radius with diameter or more like circumference. So they F'd up thinking radius is the same as circumference. Yes, literally, a 100 nm diameter radar (aka 50 mile range) can cover a ground footprint aka "radar fence" that would be a circle on the ground that would be 314 point something miles to walk around (not across).

    Please no flames that an airborne radar can see an airplane at twice the horizon at the same altitude as the radar because they're both in the air... the specified security theater is to prevent another 9/11, and if the 9/11 planes were at 30Kft cruising along over NYC then 9/11 wouldn't have been much of a disaster (unless we start building 30001 foot tall skyscrapers in the future or something). The next attack will of course be highly successful because it will be different than the last attack. Generals always prepare to fight the last war. I bet the united states is perfectly prepared to defend against massed cavalry charges and musket fire.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Over the horizon radar by TheLink · · Score: 1

      So what if they could see the aircraft? The last time the air defence didn't work (whether or not it was on purpose), so how would these blimps help if the same things would still apply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Air_defense_stand_down_theory

      FWIW I'd have thought the US air bases would be able to scramble jets for interception within minutes, so to me it's quite suspicious that the air defence couldn't take down at least one of the airliners but what do I know.

      --
    2. Re:Over the horizon radar by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      The journalists probably forgot that the Earth is not flat. Nor is it a sphere and geometry on a lumpy oblate elipsoid is a pain in the butt.

  25. Blimps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are fat people going to protect the capital?

  26. No ARGUS there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm posting just to say they there's no chance they'll put something like ARGUS there just to keep a close eye on the locals. Nope. Not gonna happen.

  27. We need to contact. by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

    We need to get into contact with the guy in charge of the tanks and see if they can swap the Helium with the Hydrogen.

  28. I can't wait for the homies to shoot at it by gelfling · · Score: 0

    And then of course the 'black leadership' to claim it's spying on all the 'urban' people.

    1. Re:I can't wait for the homies to shoot at it by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      And then of course the 'black leadership' to claim it's spying on all the 'urban' people.

      I doubt Obama will admit that the government is spying on people.

  29. scarce element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is helium a scarce element (on this planet)? Why not use a different source of levitation to protect our national security? Now government can declare helium production a strategic national security interest? take it and run with it...

  30. Only two? by Coisiche · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that London had many more than just two during World War II.

    Although the intent of them was to provide obstructions to aircraft rather than trying to detect them.

  31. Re:Having worked for the company who wrote the SW. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Good thing no plane will ever be hijacked again. They'll either make it to the destination or explode before anyone knows there's a problem.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  32. The Threat of Red Baron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My God, the terrorists are going to employ von Richthofen! With his triplane, the blimps have no change.

  33. Zeppelin by marcroelofs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was just thinking lately, the only thing missing in the similarities between the US and 1935 Germany is a nice big Zeppelin.

  34. I wish you we were joking. by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    This is not at all about making Americans feel comfortable.
    It's about keeping their voting bloc in line.
    Now I wish I was joking.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  35. Probably a good idea by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Since China has a penchant for surfacing their apparently undetectable submarines right in the middle of our naval battle groups, we have no reason to believe that we can detect the presence of their missile subs, nor do we have any reason to believe they don't have one or more parked off the mid-Atlantic coast.

    Why our Nation's capital is still in such a vulnerable position is beyond me. A place like Omaha would be much better suited, since it's deep inland, and about the farthest you can get from the border of the continental US. It makes a sub-launched cruise missile or ICBM an untenable option for attacking the Nation's Capital.

    1. Re:Probably a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why our Nation's capital is still in such a vulnerable position is beyond me. A place like Omaha would be much better suited,

      It would have the added benefit of discouraging lobbyists and such, by virtue of Omaha being Omaha.

    2. Re:Probably a good idea by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I think that the very vulnerability you are trying to point out would be considered a large positive outcome of a war by some people.

  36. JLENS is an electro-optical/IR surveillance system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Former imagery analyst and UAV contractor here.

    While I'm not denying that these aerostats are capable of floating high resolution air-search radar, etc, their purpose over in the non-war combat zones of afghanistan and iraq where I lived for 2-3 years was to loft high resolution zoom optics with an EO/IR sensor payload in order to spot shooters and mortar teams within several miles of their ground stations. Essentially it was like having a full-time predator feed orbiting your base, which was really convenient for the aforementioned purposes.

    On smaller bases you would have a guyed lattice tower with a camera ball on top, on larger ones, you got an aerostat. The ground station equipment used to view and transport the video feeds was similar/identical to those used for smaller UAV systems.

    Again, it's possible these will be used for the stated purpose, but if they are, it'd be the first time I've seen it done. The most advanced surface to air missile systems do not use aerostats; take a look at the Russian S-300 (SA-10/20). It uses a ground-based air search radar and a ground-based target acquisition radar. Of course, this system is designed to be highly mobile, but the terrain around DC isnt so mountainous that a traditional early warning system wouldn't suffice. Even less so a target acquisition or illumination radar, as those two systems usually require LOS to the target. Unless terrorists have learned advanced terrain-following flight profiles and can manage to fly them in a fully fueled passenger aircraft (lol). The extreme precision radars that guide anti-mortar gun systems which can shoot a softball falling at terminal velocity out of the sky are still _ground based_

    Believe me, I have every confidence that Washington has managed to find a new lightweight high res radar system to waste money on.

    (hint) However, I also advise that it would eliminate a lot of the troublesome FAA and national-security related regulations barring UAV surveillance of the populace if this system is considered a ground-tethered conventional surveillance camera like the ones at wal-mart, rather than a high precision aerial sensor platform, y'know, like it actually is... (/hint)

  37. A powerful laser would be a killer idea! by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    And please, please, please make the blimp look like a giant shark.
    Maybe that's an acronym, something like the Sky High Anti Radar Killer?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  38. Solution for the wrong problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    designed to protect the Washington D.C. area from an air attack like the one that took place on September 11, 2001

    I have to wonder how blimps can prevent the collapse of a building that wasn't hit by a plane. Or protect it from thermite charges, residue of which was found at the WTC.

    1. Re:Solution for the wrong problem? by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder how blimps can prevent the collapse of a building that wasn't hit by a plane.

      Perhaps you missed it, but clearly that plane hit that building.

    2. Re:Solution for the wrong problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane.

  39. Reality Check by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    So how can I check whether I'm in an alternative reality when I can't depend on dirigibles in the sky any more?

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  40. 340 miles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats it tell the enemy your capabilities you fucking mental rejects.

  41. More idiocy from those who are ruining the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the US was not busily engaged in wars of aggression against
    countries which have never once attacked the US, then the US
    would not have to take all these precautions.

    I'm American, and I have seen all this shit before. I remember the Gulf of
    Tonkin resolution, and I know the so-called "war on terror" is a pack
    of lies generated to convince the sheep to go along with a government
    policy which screws the masses and benefits a tiny number of super-rich
    people, like the Bushes, Cheney, and all their swine associates.

    Not all of us are sheep, and some of us know the US government is engaged
    in wars which cannot be justified by any independent evaluation. But all who
    live in the US are along for the ride. What most of you don't realize is that the
    destination is the fall of the US as a world power. It happened to the UK,
    it happened to Rome, and it will happen to the US too.

    I regret voting for Obama because I thought he was not the same as the preceding
    swine. I was wrong and I ruefully admit it.

    1. Re:More idiocy from those who are ruining the US. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      If you would get Ron Paul's cock out of your mouth long enough to look at reality.. you'd see that we are not engaged in a war against any country, and have not been since the second Iraq conflict ended.

    2. Re:More idiocy from those who are ruining the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell it to those whose friends and families have been killed in drone strikes.

      And by the way, it's not smart to insult someone you don't know. Making claims
      such as you made reveals nothing so much as the shallowness of your intellect
      and your own ( latent or overt ) homosexuality.

      Nice try, but all you have done is prove you are an idiot.

    3. Re:More idiocy from those who are ruining the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one with a cock in your mouth.

      In this case the cock is the lies the US government puts out in the media
      and you are so excoriatingly idiotic that you just smile and swallow
      the whole thing, right down to the hairy balls.

      If the US is not at war, then why are Americans still coming home in
      body bags ? Huh, motherfucker ?

  42. Re:Having worked for the company who wrote the SW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for the company that is re-writing it. Not to worry. We're fixing your mistakes.

  43. Helium or hydrogen ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hydrogen evaporates MUCH faster trough the balloon walls and therefore, operation time is greatly reduced. I guess this is the reason for using helium. Otherwise, hydrogen is much cheaper and has higher lifting power, also the fire risk is negligible.

  44. Barrage balloons? Seriously? by Zooperman · · Score: 1

    What is this, 1940??

    --
    Zooperman
  45. Fringe by WillgasM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OMG! We're the other universe!

    1. Re:Fringe by revdrmr · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone said it!

    2. Re:Fringe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, I am too! I hope I'm not the first person who saw this, clicked the comments, and instantly did a text search for 'Fringe'

  46. Re:Having worked for the company who wrote the SW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A blimp warning you won't help if Cheney is in the bunker telling the fighters to stand down.

    See the Panetta testimony in the 9-11 commission report.

  47. Just another air traffic obstacle for DCA airport by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find this amusing because Reagan National Airport already has one of the most restrictive air traffic patterns in the country. I can see it now, take off to the North and then do a hard bank left to avoid the No Fly Zone and the Washington Monument, then a bank right to avoid the blimp. I can see commercial pilots now having to have simulator sessions to avoid tethered dirigible avoidance. Of course this means that airfare prices will increase by 50% to cover this training.

    What they're building are barrage balloons which have been used since before WWII. While mildly effective, I seriously doubt that a well heeled terrorist organization will have their own air force or cruise missiles. Maybe a rogue nation, such as the PRK perhaps but then again I'd think they'd know well in advance of that kind of attack. DC is less than 36 square miles and if all of our strategic national assets are there, then we're in deep S**T. There's lots of bureaucrats of course and Congress and their staff, but could we do without them for awhile? Yeah, I know that's wishful thinking. Does anybody in DC honestly think these Rube Goldberg devices will actually do anything or just be a giant, taxpayer funded, deficit increasing waste of money? Obviously not.

    Balloons were sometimes more trouble than they were worth. In 1942 Canadian and American forces began joint operations to protect the sensitive locks and shipping channel at Sault Ste. Marie along their common border among the Great Lakes against possible air attack.[3] During severe storms in August and October 1942 some barrage balloons broke loose, and the trailing cables short-circuited power lines, causing serious disruption to mining and manufacturing. In particular, the metals production vital to the war effort was disrupted.

    I'm stocking up on Jiffy Pop now and waiting for the first set of severe thunderstorms to dislodge them and then have the F16s scramble to shoot them down. Some of the debris will be flammable and will land on the South East of DC, causing severe panic and riots. I just can't wait.

    As Patton said:

    “Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.”

    Even if they are fronted by balloons.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  48. Re:JLENS is an electro-optical/IR surveillance sys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No love for my thoughtful, insightful reply? :(

  49. Tested in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Utah, they were out in the west desert - we just figured they were monitoring us going to Nevada to support the local economy (you know gambling and buying liquor that might not have Utah tax stamps - for consumption in Nevada, honest). ;-)
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215819/Radar-blimp-often-seen-in-Utahs-west-desert-a-future-defense-against-stealth-threats.html?pg=all
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700024520/Missile-detection-airship-makes-maiden-flight-in-Utah-test-range.html?pg=all

  50. Blimps to Help Create Useless Jobs and Waste Money by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    ^^^ FTFY

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  51. still... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    still...chances are that this thing will crash to the ground and kill some innocents long before it is used to identify and thwart a foreign attack on D.C.

    really...what foreign power would even consider attacking the US homeland...let alone D.C? It would mean their annihilation. this money could be better spent on improving D.C. schools.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  52. I call by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    I see your radar blimps and raise you thousands of mylar kids ballons with foil streamers.

  53. Who bets a plane hits the tether within 24 hours? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Where are they going to put broadcasting things around Washington at 10K feet without interfering physically, electrically, and probably other ways? Especially as they wave around in the breeze? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to build a few extra stations around the Beltway or a wider perimeter - or, hey, put them in big trucks that drive around the Beltway all day so they're harder to find . . .

  54. Not new by Alioth · · Score: 2

    These balloons are nothing new - they have them on the Texas coast and down the Mexican border, and they've been using them for decades to spot illegal flights coming out of Mexico. Look at any aeronautical chart for these areas and you'll see a circle with the warning "Unmarked balloon on cable up to 15,000 feet" or something similar (sorry, I don't have a Houston sectional to hand to check).

  55. Yet another way to increase the probability... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...that they will accidentally shoot down an airliner.

    If you need to go to DC take the train.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  56. How exactly... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

    How, exactly, is Honey Boo Boo's mom going to stop an air attack?

    --


    "Lame" - Galaxar
  57. Re:Having worked for the company who wrote the SW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, that was Norman Mineta testamony...
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html

  58. Nothing new here by waibati · · Score: 1

    There's been an aerostat in the Florida Keys for, what, decades? A plane ran into the cable in 2007 and crashed. Somebody must not have read the NOTAMs.

    I'm just surprised it's taken so long to be added to D.C.'s layers of defense. Much better coverage than ground-based radar, and far less expensive than keeping an AWACS or E-2C in the air all the time.

    1. Re:Nothing new here by Matt_R · · Score: 1

      There's been an aerostat in the Florida Keys for, what, decades?

      Not for much longer. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/23/3196194/drug-tracking-fat-albert-blimp.html

      Maybe they're moving it to DC?

  59. Stupid by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    The airports in the area already have radar coverage. And there are tons of aircraft flying right past DC already on their way to the airport - not 300 miles out, they're more like 3 miles or 15-20 seconds from some targets. Then there's the nearly invisible cable dangling from the sky - wouldn't want to hit that. What is the real purpose of these blimps? Either pork or birds-eye surveillance of the area or both.

  60. it was only a matter of time by bitt3n · · Score: 1

    before the nation's capital got its own pair of truck nuts

  61. Countermeasure for a non-existent threat by boundary · · Score: 1

    At least it won't just be their own paranoia that's casting a shadow over their lives. And I bet these blimps will in no way have any cameras pointed downwards. No-sireeee-bob!

  62. Waste? by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

    Glad to know they are wasting our tax money on their extreme paranoia! 0_o

  63. protecting the government class by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

    As the US government sucks up tax dollars and gives them to wealthy PhD's in the beltway, it builds defense systems to protect itself and the government PhD's.

    And so the Marxists perpetuate the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

  64. Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    21st Century barrage balloons. Like London used during the Blitz, only with more tech. And also spy cameras. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to land and dock drones up there too.

  65. British Attache by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    In a show of international cooperation, the commanding officer is on loan from England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Blimp

  66. National Capital Region by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    'We're trying to determine how the surveillance radar information from the JLENS platforms can be integrated with existing systems in the National Capital Region'

    I assume they lifted that phrase from the Politburo or the Peoples' Central Committee. [shudder]

  67. Fracking by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The fact that the "helium shortage" [forbes.com] is nonsense made up by bloggers that are dumb enough to think they are smarter than the market, but aren't quite dumb enough to put their money where their mouth is. America's proven reserves of helium will meet current demand for centuries. Unproven, but extractable, reserves are probably an order of magnitude higher. We are not running out of helium, at least not in this millennium.

    Fracking *might* have the unintended consequence of liberating co-habitating helium that would otherwise be held. If they're generating millions of gallons of salt and chemical contaminated water, I don't think they'll give a care about wasting helium either.

  68. jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it might have meant Gov. Christie was getting a new job.

  69. Wasteful. Never pre-optimize strategy or code. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Washington can be blown away, we'll be fine; It's only a psychological thing, there's no reason to protect it any more so than New York, Los Angeles, or Houston. Hell, not that I'm advocating it, but it would probably be better for the hypothetical enemy to strike D.C. and utterly stir the hornet's nest rather than destroy a valuable military target or more populated area.

    For all the money spent in case something happens we could instead arm ourselves to react once a threat is perceived. If the Internet has taught us anything it's that a decentralized network is what you want -- The answer is not to protect your single points of failure, but to eliminate them before the enemy has a chance. The good news is that the population and the military are already decentralized. So too should D.C., and Wall Street be. You can't protect against script kiddies (terrorists) without wasting lots of time in a constant state of fear, making life hard for citizens on the off chance that something might happen where you expect it to.

    Seems more like a defense contract hand-out to me. if they were smart, they'd run Fast Food ads on the blimps, recoup some money via advertising and make us look as ridiculous as we are.

  70. Death Star! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they made them look like the Death Star it'd be cool as hell!

  71. History repeats itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back then it was Castles and moats and guards,

    Now it's Blimps, Jersey Walls, and guards.

    Haven't we've learned that it's not wise to concentrate all your gov't powers in one place?

  72. Statist bastards, or Idiots? by The+Shootist · · Score: 0

    Why don't you just make D.C. less important, perhaps then the barbarians will leave it alone?

  73. Re:Just another air traffic obstacle for DCA airpo by khallow · · Score: 1

    âoeFixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.â

    Well, what do you propose? A mobile capital that moves around the US? Certainly would be interesting.

  74. Possible cost savings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious that no one has mentioned the obvious cost savings this could be aimed at. This airspace is already heavily monitored by multiple air craft. If two aerostats can replace costly fuel consuming aircraft flying 24/7 this would quickly reduce the surveillance budget for this air space.

    Which cost more conventional fixed wing aircraft in the air days at a time or two aerostats full of helium?

  75. Re:JLENS is an electro-optical/IR surveillance sys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another ISR imaging system guy here who previously worked developing NASA technologies at Wal-Mart prices relatively successfully.

    I'll take it a step further and say persistent surveillance. Having real-time imagery covering square miles with sub-30cm GSD, real-time ortho-rectification, covers a targeted area in minutes including subsystems for specialized applications (target tracking, multispectral data sources, data dissemination to local, state, DHS and other authorities) are the buzzwords that get the attention of government folk with cash-in-hand. It has only recently been 'more' of a reality as the system engineering has gone through multiple development cycles. I've been out of the industry for sometime, however I keep an eye on the tech and I can say many Tier I/II contractors have these persistent surveillance systems at or near maturation.

    Back in 2006, the system I worked on was spec'ed out to cover a 9-mile radius, imaged completely every 15 minutes with 45cm GSD from 12,000ft with a real-time ortho-rectification ground station (and severs) disseminating to 30 to 50 end users. Mind you it was from traditional aircraft, but it was cutting edge blue-light special.

    It's not the blimp I'm worried about. It's the payload.

  76. Re:JLENS is an electro-optical/IR surveillance sys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't the DARPA Multipath Exploitation Radar be a user of such a blimp?..

  77. "blimp"is derogatory by badford · · Score: 1

    we prefer to be called "weight challenged service-people"

    --
    -badford
  78. Everybody panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people are already freaked that cellphones might be microwaving their brains. What are they going to think when told that "powerful" radars are bathing the entire city continually?

  79. The Funny Thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're going to test them at an "undisclosed location" in the Washington, DC area. How the hell are you going to put something the size of a football field 10000 feet in the air and not have someone in the heavily populated DC metro area see the damned thing?

  80. dicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dicks, seriously, dicks.

  81. Optical Surveillance? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I am wondering how many kinds of Optical Surveillance are also discritely attached to that thing to spy on americans in DC?