| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ALBERTA-PRIVATE-COMP ANY-AND-cnw-3522688981.html?x=0 | ||
| Whisperstealth |
It's cool. But I hope "we" don't end up forking over billions for it. We probably will at some point though.... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Its a flying saucer ! Alien technology ! where is my tin foil hat?!? | ||
| Pwnzor |
 | ||
| Slaughter |
Looks like the Canadians are signed up to "float" the idea... eh? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
so is it for surveillence ?..... where, not Afghanistan, they have shoulder fired SAMs that will make that thing a pin cushion.... and we know how this administration is a bout 'patrolling' the southern border. Just where the hell do they hope to deploy the Stay Puff Marshmello Derrigible? | ||
| Slaughter |
Heavy lift could start to get interesting with a couple folks working the issue (Northrop's LEMV):  http://www.gizmag.com/hybrid-airship-us-army/15432 / (Message edited by slaughter on March 23, 2011) | ||
| Whatever |
WTF ??? Now all we need is graham crackers, chocolate and big campfire !!! | ||
| Pwnzor |
  BwahhhaahaahaahAHAHaaahahhahaha!!!! | ||
| 2008xb12scg |
It would work great (I think) for lifting heavy, really heavy things from point a to point b slow and steady. As far as recon not sure I get it. I understand it would be long distance recon, but why not send in one of the little flying cameras? the very opening of the video it looked like stay puffs butt | ||
| Sifo |
All the drawbacks of a dirigible without the flexibility of a helicopter or the speed of a fixed wing. The idea of using it for long term surveillance seems questionable. We have UMVs that already do that with little ground support. That thing would be grounded (or destroyed) when weather gets slightly unsettled. It would also require a huge hanger to house it from damaging winds. As a transport for heavy loads, you have the same weather issues. For anything that needs to get from A to B in a timely manner it looks like a loser. | ||
| Macbuell |
Reminded me of the Stay Puff Marshmellow Man. | ||
| Moxnix |
http://www.economist.com/node/17136331 The Aussies are in the mix for commercial heavy lifting. CargoLifter, a German venture, went banko and their dirigible hangar near Berlin is now an amusement park. For Lockheed-Martin, it's about having a stable platform at very high altitude for extended lengths of time. Cheaper than satellites. | ||
| Sifo |
For Lockheed-Martin, it's about having a stable platform at very high altitude for extended lengths of time. Cheaper than satellites. Loitering over hostile air space with this thing at 20,000 feet, you might just as well paint a bullseye on the bottom. At 20,000 feet you are very low to do much good loitering near hostile territory. You just aren't high enough to see deep beyond the border. It may be cheaper than a satellite, but it's not very versatile. Did they mention what the air speed is of this thing? I think that is going to be a very limiting factor. Winds at 20,000 feet can get pretty fierce. Over friendly civilian territory it might be more usable. I'm not sure I really care for that sort of use either though. Welcome to the big brother nation.  | ||
| Blake |
"Heavy lifting"? Really? Is this by virtue of tilt nacelles to direct thrust downwards? | ||
| Sifo |
I think it would be by virtue of lifting body design. | ||
| Froggy |
 | ||
| Slaughter |
Not sure where in the reading of the OP there is Surveillance or Reconnaissance in the discussion (except by Badweb). Moving a few hundred thousand pounds of cargo around the sky at 150 knots seems to be attractive. Conventional lighter than air machinery requires too much ground support and is speed-limited. Partially buoyant is kinda interesting (though not too new any longer) The lighter than air recon stuff is totally different - and already exists (tethered) and is already deployed on our borders and overseas. | ||
| Hootowl |
Don't cross the streams. | ||
| Hootowl |
Unrelated, but found this video after watching the hybrid AC video. I had no idea this existed. Rocket assisted takeoff, yes, but landing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q&feature =related | ||
| Greg_e |
Here is the big issue... We are running out of helium! The reserves are getting very low compared to many years ago so lighter than air ships like this are not a good idea for any kind of long term use. | ||
| Moxnix |
12 miles up. http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/arti cle/2004-02/defense-inflation | ||
| Blake |
We're running out of helium? What? | ||
| Hootowl |
I've heard that too...from someone who works in the industrial gas business...someone I tend to trust without reservation. | ||
| Hootowl |
Last I heard the majority of helium in the US comes from a storage facility someplace in Texas, and that store will be gone in 10 years unless production is increased. There's plenty of helium, it just isn't being extracted as fast as it is being used. | ||
| Tachout |
It looks like the michelin man got a hold of some red bull. I can fly!! | ||
| Sifo |
Not sure where in the reading of the OP there is Surveillance or Reconnaissance in the discussion (except by Badweb). Moving a few hundred thousand pounds of cargo around the sky at 150 knots seems to be attractive. Conventional lighter than air machinery requires too much ground support and is speed-limited. Partially buoyant is kinda interesting (though not too new any longer) The surveillance and reconnaissance was brought into the discussion in the link provided by... Slaughter.
I missed anything about the speed that it could reach though. Where did 150 knots come from. That thing has a huge frontal area and pretty small fans to move it. I would be surprised if it would hit 50 knots. I think 150 would take a huge amount of power. | ||
| Slaughter |
LEMV is Nortrhop's military hybrid. (google) while Lockheed's is a HOPED FOR commercial venture in a partnership with the above mentioned Alberta, CA venture capitalists. Also, don't give shoulder-launched missles credit for more altitude than they deserve. Those little motors don't run as long as people think. (all less than 20,000 feet). Higher you're talking multi-stage, crew-served, radar-guided SAMs. Wikipedia - MANPADS comparisons (Message edited by slaughter on March 23, 2011) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The S-2 of 1960 vintage has no problem reaching 20000 feet, and that thing was whored out and sold to anybody that wanted one. I think Gary Powers would 'Unlike' the operating characteristics of said SAM the S-2 is big dumb, old, and reliable.... and copied by the chinese, and still in use. Stay Puff aint getting away from it. It might be affective over the southern border where the drug cartels dont have SAM technology yet.... but that would mean the administration would have to have a 'critical' need for surveillence in that region - to date, they dont think they do; infact they are actively denying that there is a problem there. | ||
| Slaughter |
S-2 or do you mean SA-2 (of the Gary Powers and VEET-Nam fame) - crew served, trailer, radar, tractor - dual-sited. Not trivial - and besides, that is Northrop's problem if they're using it to fly supplies into or through a contested area. Yeah, an SA-2 can easily take down any airliner too. USAF Museum link - SA2 (Message edited by slaughter on March 23, 2011) |
