http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/17/business/fi-blimp17
(http://bigaction.blogs.com/big_action/images/pentagonblimp.jpg)
QuoteIt's the blimp industry's version of David and Goliath.
An obscure Tarzana firm run by Russian emigres is locked in competition with Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest defense contractor, to win a Pentagon contract to build 900-foot- long, blimp-like aircraft to move cargo and troops into combat zones.
Worldwide Aeros, which makes blimps used for flying billboards, generated plenty of buzz in aerospace circles last summer when it and Lockheed each landed $3-million contracts from the Pentagon to do preliminary design work.
The Pentagon's advanced research arm expects to pick the winning design in September and award a $100-million contract for a prototype airship. The winner then has a chance to bid on a blimp production contract potentially worth $11 billion over 30 years.
"In reality we don't feel Lockheed is our technical competitor," said Igor Pasternak, 41, Worldwide Aeros' founder. "There is only one solution, and we have that one solution," the Russian-trained scientist insisted.
Pasternak's company "wrote a proposal that seemed outstanding," said Norman J. Mayer, a veteran airship designer for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and the Navy, who helped the Pentagon evaluate the blimp proposals. "They were very serious about what they were trying to do. Time will tell how well they do it."
Winning will not be easy.
Lockheed farmed out the blimp job to its Skunkworks unit, the legendary aircraft design house in Palmdale that has developed many of the nation's most advanced aircraft, including the SR-71 and U-2 spy planes.
By contrast, Worldwide Aeros, with 40 employees, expects $10 million in revenue this year from selling blimps for advertising, including promoting MasterCard and Spalding sporting goods.
Pasternak has built about 30 blimps in the U.S. His blimps cost about $3 million each; components are made in Tarzana, then assembled in hangars in San Bernardino or Palmdale.
But Pasternak said he had faced bigger challenges than outwitting Lockheed, including persuading six of his employees and their families to flee Russia with him in 1993.
Pasternak grew up in Lviv, a Ukrainian city of 700,000 near the Polish border.
After getting a degree in civil engineering, he formed his own company in 1988 and began working on a Soviet project to develop mammoth airships to transport cargo to the remote Siberian oil fields. It was one of the first private aeronautics ventures permitted under Mikhail S. Gorbachev's perestroika reforms, Pasternak said.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Pasternak's investment capital dried up. With growing anti-Semitism in his country, Pasternak said, he and his colleagues fled Russia and emigrated to the U.S.
Eventually, he was able to persuade several investors to fund his aerospace company based on his experience making blimps in Russia.
The Pentagon hopes that these new airships can help move U.S. troops more quickly. Currently, personnel and equipment travel separately; heavy weapons, such as tanks, are transported by ship, which can take more than a month.
Ultimately, the Pentagon envisions buying 14 to 16 heavy-lift airships, each capable of carrying 500 tons of cargo and passengers.
The airships would travel up to 138 mph, with a range of more than 10,000 miles.
In addition to increased cargo capacity, the airships would give the U.S. military additional flexibility in moving troops closer to the battlefield because in theory the craft could bypass ports and runways. The airships would have only one requirement: an open landing field about two to three times their size.
"It can totally change how you conduct warfare," Pasternak said of the concept.
He envisions the aircraft as not a blimp or an airplane but as a hybrid of the two. The vehicle would rise into the air thanks to nonflammable helium, much as a blimp does, but the bottom of its hull would act like a wing to give it additional lift and control, he said. The craft would be powered by propellers.
Pasternak contends that this new design would be easier to handle and that it could land under a pilot's control, without ground handlers having to pull on tethers as with conventional blimps. But the concept still faces several hurdles, analysts said.
Although engineers have decades of knowledge in developing airships, none has been built to carry the tonnage the Pentagon envisions for its project.
Moreover, the airships would be vulnerable to antiaircraft fire, not only because of their size but also because they would be flying at relatively low altitude of about 10,000 feet, bringing them within range of shoulder-fired missiles.
The challenges for the prevailing bidder will be immense. But win or lose, Pasternak sees the project as a means to a different end: to build commercial versions for carrying business cargo or even paying passengers.
His "cruise ship in the sky" would have hotel-like rooms, vast lobbies with viewing areas, a restaurant and space for about 180 passengers. It would fly from Los Angeles to New York in about 18 hours.
"You can have dinner, go to sleep and wake up in the morning in New York," Pasternak said.
He said the craft would cost about $46 million to build -- about the same as the 150-seat Boeing Co. 737 passenger jet but half as expensive to operate.
Businessmen have talked up grand plans for passenger blimps for decades, and none has taken hold. Ever since the hydrogen-filled passenger dirigible Hindenburg burst into flames in 1937, lighter-than-air ships have been little more than a footnote in history.
Pasternak, who doesn't shrink from taking on a behemoth like Lockheed, brushes aside any qualms.
"It'll be a completely different approach to moving things," he said.
This is quite an interesting article. I like the idea having commuter blimps for travel but I have my reservations about using them for wartime transports.
I looked for but could not find a good image of the RAF "flying aircraft carrier" that Angelina Jolie's character commanded in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/17/business/fi-blimp17
Ultimately, the Pentagon envisions buying 14 to 16 heavy-lift airships, each capable of carrying 500 tons of cargo and passengers…………The airships would travel up to 138 mph, with a range of more than 10,000 miles.…………. The airships would have only one requirement: an open landing field about two to three times their size.........not a blimp or an airplane but as a hybrid of the two. The vehicle would rise .......... nonflammable helium, ...........but the bottom of its hull would act like a wing to give it additional lift and control............... to build commercial versions ..... It would fly from Los Angeles to New York in about 18 hours.
It would be interesting to see how they overcome the technical challenges. For example, 500 ton payload is 1,000,000 pounds the helium would have to lift plus the weight of the structure, engines, etc. A cruise altitude of 10,000 ft at 138 mph would make them a target for just about any propeller or jet aircraft. A trip from LA to NY is around 2800 miles. At a straight average that is 155 mph. I guess the jet stream would help them along. However whatever they gained on the east bound trip would be lost going west bound.
The mode for landing without mast and crew means they have to go from positive buoyancy to negative buoyancy. They are not going to get that much lift from the lifting body effect at a max speed of 138 mph, plus a hover landing.
Do you think the flying public will really want to fly across country in 18 hours when you can get there in six hours?
I dont think this will go forward, if you were fighting a country with ANY type of airpower they are big slower targets .
If it where my boys in there being transported to go fight, I would not allow them to be transported that way untill the speed picks up to atleast keep up greatly
Helos are better at danger aviodance. (small arms and rpgs and anti-aircraft measures)
I would still jump out of a blackhawk into a hotzone and feel safer then a military dirigible in a safer zone.
Now I will say this, the Dirigibles would probley be more usefull in a very safe area for a build up, but if there is a chance of enemy you would see me swiming or walking before getting into one of those, the survial rate would probley be higher lol
Quote from: Sportmotor on August 20, 2009, 04:55:19 PM
Now I will say this, the Dirigibles would probley be more usefull in a very safe area for a build up, but if there is a chance of enemy you would see me swiming or walking before getting into one of those, the survial rate would probley be higher lol
The hole in your theory is that your Helios probably traveled 3,000+ miles to the battlefield on board an assault ship. The "enemy" knows it can only cruise at 40 knots m/l, and it HAS to be in the Ocean. Any country with a "reach out and touch them military," is going to have subs and aircraft that can turn that ship into razor blades, and you into shark chum in a couple of seconds.
That being the case, there is no reason the "Sea of Air" around the earth couldn't provide an even bigger ocean, with even faster craft, that don't need a port, so nobody knows where they are going. A bit of stealth, some fighter cover, and the fact that these baby's will have hundreds of gas pods on board, makes it unlikely that a single hit will take it down. We might even see a "Yamato Effect," which happened in the battle of Leyte Gulf. The American jeep carriers were caught flat footed by the largest battleship ever built, the massive shells were striking and passing through the thin tin foil hulls. At a distance the Japanese thought they must be front line carriers with top of the line armour, and after being completely being duped by a few heroic DD's and DE's, they withdrew. Japan thus snatched certain defeat from the jaws of victory. (see the book Fading Victory)OCKLAWAHA
Iv trained and jumped from a helo, Id stick to that over a blimp thank you lol and most my friends would tend to agree. Im sticking to a mindset that most service people would look at you like your F-ing nuts and would stick helo happly then a blimp and if your goin to war its usally best to keep moral up even if it means a helo to keep em happy.
besides that would be alot of new training bases and money that would go into bringing blimpys back, and retraining and new tacktics
This reminds me of the M8 rifle. That didnt come into service becuase of cost efficancy although(and I have been a lucky few to shoot one) its a suprior weapon over the standard M4 used by our current service, but the Training, and cost to retrain and mass produce into a level that would make it worth was not in the budget and a bit of political bs as well.
I would put money that blimps will not be brough back. Its a nice thought, but Id put my savings that it wont come back.
Oh, their already back, even if not military...yet.
I had a hard time hearing what you were saying, huh? what? I got to use the M-14.
OCKLAWAHA
A dirigible or blimp would not be used in any "hotzone". It would be sent into secured areas with heavy airsupport for resupply and troop transport. In the "Desert storm" type scenario using heavy lift dirigibles to transport equipment to Saudi Arabia in preparation for the attack would have been much quicker than trans oceanic container ships. In a Korean war scenario they would be used to transport supplies from Japan or Okinawa to the southern Korean peninsula for traditional transport to the front.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 20, 2009, 11:38:40 PM
I got to use the M-14.[/color][/b]
OCKLAWAHA
Ok but I was talking about the M8 the rife they wanted to replace the M4 with, with an example
pretty sure it was designated that, I forget I know it was the XM8 or somethin of that nature. Very plasticy feel to it
Yes, and I was just poking at you for fun... The M-14 that I had could blow out the ear drums of an elephant at 21 miles!
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 22, 2009, 09:16:27 AM
Yes, and I was just poking at you for fun... The M-14 that I had could blow out the ear drums of an elephant at 21 miles!
OCKLAWAHA
I am decent with the M107. Thats a fun plunker
My favorite is my 44 mag. saddle rifle (Okie Roots!). One day sitting at Los Padres mine, on top of a mountain in California's high desert, my late father asked me if I could hit an old bleach bottle at the bottom of the mountain.
Took careful aim and squeezed off a shot. NAILED IT, the bottle sort of blew up (dry heat makes the plastic brittle), that shot had to be over a half mile (glad he didn't ask me twice!). I used to go up in the Angels National Forrest where they had a target shooting area in a deserted canyon, about 1/2 the time others would walk up and try my "cannon".
I used to joke that if one shot the goodyear blimp that it would go skittering across the sky like a child's balloon.
OCKLAWAHA
If we are talking about iron sighting Im scary good with the K98k had to sell that long time ago tho, was sad.
Be hard to beat for a "Look and See" platform.....logistical aspects are something that could be handled in present day and age....not really sure it would be the ideal platform for a "HOT" insertion! Maybe back from the front lines but the way that conflicts are being conducted nowdays....insurgency or guerrilla warfare , unless armed or armored not a safe method and both of those options would reduce payload, speed and range!
Quote from: CS Foltz on August 23, 2009, 08:31:21 AM
Be hard to beat for a "Look and See" platform.....logistical aspects are something that could be handled in present day and age....not really sure it would be the ideal platform for a "HOT" insertion! Maybe back from the front lines but the way that conflicts are being conducted nowdays....insurgency or guerrilla warfare , unless armed or armored not a safe method and both of those options would reduce payload, speed and range!
Nah not a real option, you can get an unmanned Globalhawk at 65000 feet dwelling for 30+ hours.
I think they are trying to use the phased array as the structural component. Still a lot of weight, but rrreeeaaallllyyy long range picture. It will be interesting to see if it works.
A great test application would be along the Mexico - U.S border to aid our border patrol... :)
Dirigibles are there now! National Guard units (at least until last year) were using a tethered balloon borne radar to detect vehicle sized targets along the rural portions of the border. I am told it was a fairly successful detection system, interdiction was another matter. I saw a few of them on a trip down that way, it is not very low profile but if they changed locations at night it would seem to be pretty useful.
Global Hawk I don't believe operates at that altitude......engine is prop driven even though that's turbine powered! Reaper or Predator might be able to operate that high since they both are jet powered and stop to think about the operators......they are on the ground at Arizona and use data links to control aircraft. Airborne platform might be best alternative if it had takeoff and landing capabilities for drones. But the concept has merit for sure and needs a prototype manufactured for proof of concept!
Those drons are also fitted with weapons as well as camies now, better to look and have the capablity to do a fast action kill then to look
and look
and keep looking, and not beable to do anything
OK stephendare I stand corrected.......I must have the forerunner of that type in mind. I still remember H13 Gunships and worked on same! Checked balance of data and stand on that.....control point is back in the US even for the Predator's with real time data links. Only experienced persons are controlling the gun runs!
Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2009, 01:43:27 PM
36 hours vs 4 weeks? I dunno, sounds like not much of a matchup.
It is when you consider the altitude, get a blimp to 65000 feet! Rather a bit out of harms way there.
CS think your thinking of the predator. GH is a strategic asset, not armed, basically a survelience aircraft, performs the same function as a U-2. Unmanned is a plus.
Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2009, 01:42:45 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Globalhawk.750pix.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk
The Northrop Grumman (formerly Ryan Aeronautical) RQ-4 Global Hawk (known as Tier II+ during development, and, informally/affectionately, as "Global Chicken") is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used by the United States Air Force as a surveillance aircraft.
In role and design, the Global Hawk is similar to the Lockheed U-2, the venerable 1950s spy plane. It is a theater commander's asset to both provide a broad overview and systematically target surveillance shortfalls. The Global Hawk air vehicle is able to provide high resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)—that can penetrate cloud-cover and sandstorms—and Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) imagery at long range with long loiter times over target areas. It can survey as much as 40,000 square miles (100,000 square kilometers) of terrain a day.
Potential missions for the Global Hawk cover the spectrum of intelligence collection capability to support forces in worldwide peace, crisis, and wartime operations. According to the Air Force, the capabilities of the aircraft will allow more precise targeting of weapons and better protection of forces through superior surveillance capabilities.
The "R" is the Department of Defense designation for reconnaissance; "Q" means unmanned aircraft system. The "4" refers to it being the fourth of a series of purpose-built unmanned aircraft systems.
The Global Hawk costs about $35 million USD [1] (actual per-aircraft costs; with development costs also included, the per-aircraft cost rises to $123.2 million USD each[2]).
Performance
* Cruise speed: 404 mph (650 km/h)
* Endurance: 36 hours
* Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
Also you will be seeing the Naval version of the GH flying around the area in the Future. East coast squadron will be based at NAS Jacksonville.
Back when I was in the business and read Aviation Week magazine regularly there was frequently an article about using lighter than air machines. That was a long time ago. Aside from the tether blimps with the radars looking at Cuba they didn't ever field one. I suspect this will remain theoretical. But you never know when some billionaire will push a dream forward.
Atmosphere is not a static fluid. Winds at 65,000 feet = 100mph +. Speed of airship = <80mph. Bye, Bye.
Quote from: Overstreet on August 24, 2009, 08:51:35 AM
Back when I was in the business and read Aviation Week magazine regularly there was frequently an article about using lighter than air machines. That was a long time ago. Aside from the tether blimps with the radars looking at Cuba they didn't ever field one. I suspect this will remain theoretical. But you never know when some billionaire will push a dream forward.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 24, 2009, 09:07:41 AM
Atmosphere is not a static fluid. Winds at 65,000 feet = 100mph +. Speed of airship = <80mph. Bye, Bye.
Sorry guys but Boeing has already got one up and flying over the Skunk Works, out to China Lake and 29 Palms, CA. Don't know all the details but have read that the winds won't effect it in any drastic way. ?? Interesting. OCKLAWAHA
(http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/000-0731064037-blimp.jpg)
Looks pretty real and beautiful to me Stephendare, frankly majestic in the air!
Love that historical "tell all" name too, USSLZ FREEDOM PHOENIX
OCKLAWAHA
I've lurked in this thread for a while now. I really don't have much to offer other than to say that lighter than air freight solutions as well as passenger fare has been long over due.
It's idea was well ahead of it's time. To provide stable, reasonably quick and reliable service at a fraction of the fuel costs seems like a no brainer.
IMO, it is the future platform for entry into space. What could be more logical than to float into space? Space Mining, here we come.
I would support any responsible initiatives to get Jax and area into the mix.
Buckethead, i don't follow your theory. As you got high and higher you would lose lift based on the atmosphere being less dense until you would have zero lift upon entering space itself. Are you saying for the zeppelins to be launch points for spacecraft or spacecraft themselves??
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7_gMFng3OpY/R_szGs4dLGI/AAAAAAAADX4/ysw4CfG8QrA/s400/gfx020_Akron_N2Y-1.jpg)
(http://clownaroundtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/akron_f6.jpg)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g410000/g416532.jpg)
(http://mike.whybark.com/archives/images/h80769.jpg)
All images of the USS LZ AKRON.
OCKLAWAHA
The Macon had this capability also...
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 24, 2009, 01:36:18 PM
Buckethead, i don't follow your theory. As you got high and higher you would lose lift based on the atmosphere being less dense until you would have zero lift upon entering space itself. Are you saying for the zeppelins to be launch points for spacecraft or spacecraft themselves??
No, but a hybrid blimp/rocket seems to solve many problems. They could be launch platforms as well, but stability would pose may challenges, one would think.
Does anyone know the operational ceiling for a blimp/zepplin/derigible/lighter that air craft?
So if testing on such has been done, I wonder why NASA isn't all over it.
Instead of 3B per launch (not sure if that's accurate) it could be a 30M launch.
Beam me up, Scotty.
World record for unmanned lighter than air is currently about 175,000 ft. Manned record is almost 70,000 ft. The problem is loss of lift in less dense atmosphere. Record setting craft had ultra thin (3.4 micrometers) skin. The density of the helium must lessen with the density of the atmosphere around it, creating a larger area of gas needed for lift. That is why the old photos you see have balloons that look almost empty on takeoff. The balloon or dirigible will not reach escape velocity by itself. I'm not sure what other ideas may be on the drawing board.
Quote from: NotNow on August 24, 2009, 07:48:02 PM
World record for unmanned lighter than air is currently about 175,000 ft. Manned record is almost 70,000 ft. The problem is loss of lift in less dense atmosphere. Record setting craft had ultra thin (3.4 micrometers) skin. The density of the helium must lessen with the density of the atmosphere around it, creating a larger area of gas needed for lift. That is why the old photos you see have balloons that look almost empty on takeoff. The balloon or dirigible will not reach escape velocity by itself. I'm not sure what other ideas may be on the drawing board.
Add to that that escape velocity is 7 miles per second. Not highly likely a blimp or zeppelin will do that. Take a moment to float off into space with me: http://www.youtube.com/v/rL1oU6fH25w&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca
QuoteALBEDO 0.39
Maximum distance from the sun: 94 million 537 thousand miles
Minimum distance from the sun: 91 million 377 thousand miles
Mean distance from the sun: 92 million 957 thousand and 200 miles
Mean Orbital velocity: 66000 miles per hour
Orbital eccentricity: 0.017
Obliquity of the ecliptic: 23 degrees 27 minutes 8.26 seconds
Length of the tropical year: equinox to equinox 365.24 days
Lenght of the sidereal year: fixed star to fixed star 365.26 days
Length of the mean solar day: 24 hours and 3 minutes and 56.5555 seconds at mean solar time
Length of the mean sidereal day: 23 hours and 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds at mean sederial time
Mass: 6600 million million million tons
Equatorial diameter: 7927 miles
Polar diameter: 7900 miles
Oblateness: one 298th
Density: 5.41
Mean surface gravitational acceleration of the rotating earth: 32.174 feet per second per second
Escape velocity: 7 miles per second
Albedo: 0.39
OCKLAWAHA
Ock, I don't hope to compete with your ability to understand data and complex issues.
It does seem that the escape velocity you refer to of seven miles per secon is based on a ground launch.
If I could get to 200,000 feet using lighter that air technology, it seems that it would require less velocity to escape gravitational forces. I clealry am no engineer.
If an object was placed in a "stationary" position, relative to the earth and sun, outside of the atmosphere, would it fall to earth at the same rate as the same object would fall from 50,000 feet?
I guess what I'm asking is: At what point do the effects of gravity due to the mass of earth begin to decrease?
"If an object was placed in a "stationary" position, relative to the earth and sun, outside of the atmosphere, would it fall to earth at the same rate as the same object would fall from 50,000 feet?"
Can't be stationary to both and the "rate" of acceleration would be the same (Physics 101), but falling from four times the distance the "speed" would be much higher when it hit the ground. (Yes, ignoring the air resistance which is dependent on the shape of the object.)
Escape velocity is a standard. outside of atmospheric forces, any mass must have momentum to defeat gravity. The constant pull of gravity extends a lllloooooonnnnngggggg way.
Just as boats can't float above the water no matter how light they are, balloons cannot float out of the atmosphere either. And atmospheric density falls of geometrically, not arithmetically. Try breathing at the top of a 10,000 foot mountain and you lungs will tell you about the difference.
The astronauts on the space station are not floating around because they are "outside" earth's gravity field. They are still well within it, but they are not resisting it, they are actually falling with it around the earth. Their sideways velocity keeps them from falling into the earth. That's the 7 miles per second escape velocity. You get a little bit of the same effect when you go down in a fast elevator.
For the shuttle to get back to earth, they actually slow down by firing the rockets backwards so that they are pulled back to earth and stop falling around it.
Thanks for all the insightful responses.
I'm gald to actually have the opportunity to consider these plainly obvious facts.
As you were posting, Dog Walker, I was contemplating exactly what you were writing.
Astronauts are not "weightless". It is the same effect as the training they recieve in a 747 diving from high altitude.
If they did not have momentum, they would fall back to earth. I had not considered any of this before.
The Science channel has failed me! :'(
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 24, 2009, 02:11:21 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7_gMFng3OpY/R_szGs4dLGI/AAAAAAAADX4/ysw4CfG8QrA/s400/gfx020_Akron_N2Y-1.jpg)
(http://clownaroundtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/akron_f6.jpg)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g410000/g416532.jpg)
(http://mike.whybark.com/archives/images/h80769.jpg)
All images of the USS LZ AKRON.
OCKLAWAHA
Yah the Akron finished off dirigibles for the Navy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)
QuoteThey are still well within it, but they are not resisting it, they are actually falling with it around the earth.
Excellent description! I had it explained to me this way. Imagine a cannon firing a cannon ball. More velocity = more distance. More velocity and the cannonball will keep going farther... eventually circling the globe. More velocity and it will circle over and over(orbit). Eventually they all suucumb to gravity and fall back to earth unless more velocity is applied. Too much velocity and you can escape gravity but you are no longer in orbit and headed to the moon or Mars... :)