How long can a modern manned-dirigible of any variant stay aloft?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by cosmictotem, Aug 11, 2015.

  1. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    Including externally supplying it with more fuel or energy via regular in-flight supply runs to stay aloft?

    I was just thinking the global internet access problem may be easier to solve than we think.

    If we could create a floating dirigible apartment that can house a small willing work force and use every scrap of technology we have - scheduled in-flight refueling, solar heating to provide extra lift, drone delivery of fuel and supplies, etc - to keep it aloft, we could just use rotating manned dirigibles to provide internet access to large sections of a country.

    Why bother with space satellites?

    I would totally be willing to do that job. A small, rotating crew could live up there. We basically do this with cargo ships. You have a little apartment up there with free internet. When your shift is over you can enjoy the view and go online while another crew member is monitoring the airship. Supplies like food are delivered at regular intervals. Perhaps a craft of some kind - like a smaller dirigible or drone - could dock with the dirigible in flight and pick up and drop off crew.

    God. I would TOTALLY do that job. Plus the technology is proven and relatively safer now than in the 30's, right?

    So what's the latest ideas for extending loft times of manned dirigibles?

    I couldn't really find anything over a few weeks but those are examples of people primarily concerned with making it around the globe with what they already had on board, not staying up indefinitely. Certainly, if we wanted to use them to provide internet we wouldn't be bound by record requirements and could cheat all we wanted to keep a crew aloft.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It won't need nearly as much fuel if it's tethered.
    The employees are going to have to be rotated. Only a handful of people with the proper skills and training will be willing to live up there permanently.
    Longer range, no crew required.
    I don't know of any organization that's bothering to do that research--which suggests that I'm right about this not being a practical suggestion.

    Theoretically you could leave a dirigible tethered up there permanently, if it's not in a region where hurricanes and tornadoes occur. Another dirigible can provide supplies and cart away the waste.
    I still don't understand why you think that our current communication network isn't good enough.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    It's not necessarily the network. It's the isp's in charge of the network. A host of companies including Google, facebook, outernet, etc...are trying to, for various reasons, to create an alternative network. But I don't know of any that have considered manned dirigibles.

    And I'm not so sure about it not being practical or any less practical than other current networks or ideas.

    A dirigible, manned or otherwise, at the right altitude can replace what 100 cell phone towers can do. Also, we send people to sea for months at a time so the human endurance 'problem" is not really an issue either.

    Satellites don't require people but they are super expensive and already in place under the charge of the very companies these other projects are trying to oust for various reasons. Sats do have a range advantage but it's not like a series of dirigibles can't overcome that advantage easily and inexpensively. If one dirigible can do the job of 100 cell phone towers that's a lot of range from one dirigible. So we're looking at an infrastructure 100 times less than that required by the cellular network.

    Additionally, the logistics of dirigibles is already mastered. Providing internet through them would only require incorporating other also existing technology to make it work. Meanwhile, Google and facebook are playing around with unproven high-altitude drones and balloons.

    Plus, your unmanned tethered idea is brilliant...either as a full network or to supplement the spaces between the manned dirigibles.

    The great thing about the manned dirigibles is, in hurricane areas, they can retreat during serious weather warnings , preserving the network infrastructure, and then return once the storm is gone.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Sure, that would work. Would be way more expensive than other methods tho.
    -They can cover the entire planet
    -They are effectively permanent
    -They don't require crews or fuel or (usually) repairs
    Well, you'd have to be qualified, which would mean a fair amount of training. And that means you'd have to pay a salary commensurate with the other jobs commercial pilots can get.
     
  8. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    You have to remember very expensive space programs put satellites in orbit for a very expensive price. And again, the alternatives Google and Facebook are exploring are basically unproven and experimental. If satellites are the easiest way, why aren't these multi-billion dollar companies putting up their own satellites?

    Additionally, if it's so inexpensive compared to other alternatives, why did FaceBook scrap its plan because of expense?:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/face...developing-world-500-million-2015-6?r=UK&IR=T

    Not every crew member would have to be a pilot. Obviously, internet technicians will be needed to deal with the internet side.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2015
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    That makes the communications company a lot of very expensive money!
    There are. Iridium and Globalstar are two existing examples. OneWeb and the SpaceX networks are two others in the planning stages.
    It's not inexpensive. It's quite expensive. But the returns are huge.
    The personnel would be the largest component of the cost, so there would be an absolute minimum of people involved. (Probably three, for a rotating crew.) And of course autonomous vehicles would be a likely replacement.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Why a manned dirigible? Why not an unmanned one just carrying the equivalent of a comms satellite? The human element is an unnecessary aspect.
    Thales have been looking at such an approach (unmanned) for a while with their Stratobus, estimating that a 70-100 metre dirigible can carry a c.200kg payload 20km up in the stratosphere, operating autonomously for a year with a 5-year overall lifespan, and able to cope with 90 km/h winds.

    Google are trying a different method with large balloons, letting them drift freely in the winds. But with enough of them they reckon to be able to encircle the globe and do the same job.

    The key is in establishing whether the development, build and running costs are more cost-effective than current tech - such as launching a satellite that will last 15+ years.

    But basically I don't think manned dirigibles is the way to go at all, as the manned element is simply not needed.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  11. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    To this I ask: What are they waiting for? You're right. Unmanned dirigibles would be less expensive and perhaps controlled remotely from the ground. Is there any reason they want to put them in the stratosphere other than increasing range? It seems regular dirigibles are more proven at lower altitudes. So instead of experimenting with high-altitude craft why not just deploy enough dirigibles to cover the areas they want to cover. No testing required, really.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I would think weather would be the main problem. High winds. The jet stream.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The answer to the question is in the self-contradictory title of the article: they want to provide cheap internet access to people in developing countries who can't afford the prices charged in developed countries. That means finding cheaper, but inferior ways of serving those people with internet access.

    Remember: an internet service provider has to make money by having people pay for internet access. It doesn't make sense for them to sell people access at rates that are unprofitable for them. But google and facebook make their money by selling information about their subscribers, so they don't have to be concerned about the subscribers paying for the access.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Any aircraft designed to fly long duration flights tend to be hideously expensive. Weather, UV, icing, fueling etc tend to cost a lot of money. The only way airlines can do it is sell enough seats to take in $50K+ per flight - and then fly the plane four times a day.
    Less weather, more solar available, less fuel required for a given wind speed for stationkeeping.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  15. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    So I guess it's a bigger dilemma to solve than I foresaw….other than by the traditional means such as satellites or building a land based network.
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    The ideal would be to have them operating autonomously - self-correcting based on GPS etc. Take the man-power out of the equation as much as possible.
    Other than possibly more predictable weather, unobscured sunlight during the day (to charge batteries etc), the issue would be one of coverage: the higher up the more area you can cover (imagine the coverage determined by a cone emanating from the dirigible toward the ground - the higher up, the larger the circle on the ground.
    Also there is the issue of trying not to operate within the altitudes of commercial and/or private aircraft - safety etc.
    More proven only because they have operated there, but the technology is not vastly different.
    I think the cost-benefit of 1 high-altitude vs a number of lower altitude dirigibles would favour the single higher-altitude. Lower altitude are more susceptible to weather, cover less area (meaning more infrastructure costs) and possibly are not that much cheaper to operate - as said, the tech is roughly the same.
    The main testing would probably be in the autonomous nature of the things, as well as power consumption / charging etc to be able to keep it aloft for long (c. a year or more) periods of time.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  17. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    Obviously, the major players think you're right and I wouldn't argue that you weren't.

    As far as power, I was also thinking if such balloons ever needed extra or emergency power, they could perhaps develop a system where drones carrying power packs could dock remotely under the balloons and feed them power. I suppose the lower the altitude of the ballon, the easier such a supply system would be to pull off. I don't imagine drones could be remotely flown into the stratosphere just yet.

    But I guess these companies have studied the problem more than I and know what they are doing.
     
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Nikola Tesla would have found a way to power engines using atmospheric electricity, and it might have resembled the floating airbase featured in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

    Designs for tethered wind turbines are beginning to resemble this paradigm as well. Too bad about the Hindenberg. We would be much further along in such technology were it not for people using tobacco products.
     
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The communication nexus will go off-line during a major emergency, when it's most needed???

    There was an article in the Smithsonian magazine about the pneumatic tubes that were used for sending letters and small objects from the late 19th century until WWII. The freight traveled at speeds that were remarkable for the era, as fast as 30mph.

    Actually there are still quite a few of these systems in operation but they are now entirely internal. The problem with maintaining such a system is that if one of the buildings being served is torn down and replaced with a new one, it's a long, slow job to rebuild the tube system.

    Nonetheless, several people are designing a scaled-up version of this technology for passenger service. They figure that they can transport people in comfortable tubes from San Francisco to Los Angeles (400 miles) in an hour or less, and charge them considerably less than $100 for the service.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    That just seems unnecessarily complicated when solar-panels would do the job for you? Certainly increases the infrastructure cost (drone, docking station, energy transfer etc). You might be better with very-low-altitude balloons in that case, that are simply tethered to the ground with cables that can supply the power. But then coverage is lower, meaning more balloons, more cost etc.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Well, yes, probably, but that's no reason that you shouldn't go through the same thought process that they have: we learn more from trying than we do by simply accepting things as true.
     

Share This Page