Don't Worry, That Blimp Isn't Watching You Much

According to the Baltimore Sun, and despite claims by its maker Raytheon that the system is "performing well right now," the expensive tethered-blimp observatory called JLENS (for "Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System") seems to be mostly a boondoggle. The report focuses on the JLENS installation that was launched in Maryland last year. The Sun makes much of the flight taken by disaffected postal worker Douglas Hughes last April to the White House lawn, directly in the JLENS observation area -- the success of which (to be charitable) casts doubt on the effectiveness of the flying observatory system. Beyond its evidently low utility in doing its job, JLENS seems to be a brittle system, amplying its potential costs as well as its military vulnerability with grand, expensive failures as well as everyday difficulties: in 2010, "a civilian balloon broke loose from its mooring, destroying a grounded JLENS blimp that had cost about $182 million." The article lays out some political shenanigans, too: politicians in a wide range of states have supported the project, which has a nationwide footprint of contractors and possible deployment locations. From the article: Within the Pentagon, Marine Corps Gen. James E. "Hoss" Cartwright, then vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came to JLENS' defense, arguing that it held promise for enhancing the nation's air defenses. At Cartwright's urging, money was found in 2011 for a trial run of the technology in the skies above Washington. Cartwright retired the same year — and joined Raytheon's board of directors five months later. By the end of 2014, Raytheon had paid him more than $828,000 in cash and stock for serving as a director, Securities and Exchange Commission records show.

Comments

Re:it's the weather, stupid

[Sarten-X]

At the altitudes where such balloons normally reside, the weather is pretty stable. With no pesky land features to complicate things, the weather is mostly just influenced by whatever's already happening upwind. As for the aerostats themselves, they are surprisingly maneuverable at their normal altitudes, usually having just a few horsepower of motors turning a few small propellers. With so little air resistance, the craft can avoid inclement weather easily.

Even if a lighter-than-air vehicle is caught in poor weather, the majority of the effects are mitigated. It's a balloon. It moves with the wind, doesn't make a good conductor, and is usually unmanned. Unlike an airplane, it's not trying to fight against the wind, so the forces on the structure are greatly reduced. In turbulence, the outer bag flexes and accommodates any stress. It might get a little shaky for the instruments, but not unreasonably so.

Source: I used to work with some folks that now design aerostats.