Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Saic is alligned with Skybus airship
Nirlemerlin,
Saic partnered with Telford Aviation to promote the Skybus 30k. Not saying that they could not jump to a more persistent model if it develops, but they are already laying down the groundwork with their own system/platform.
Thus, it's highly unlikely they would seek to mix & match payload with someone else's craft. It's cuts into the margins a bit much.
Had previously looked into SAIC, but under a RFID scanning program. They would fly a blimp with a device to scan for RFID tags on soldiers and equipment.
Brother pointed this out to me: SAIC backwards = CIA's
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/23/droid_airship_peeper_purchase/
Is US Army ordering robot spy blimp?
Track this topic Print story Inflatable airborne Peeping Tom flotillas forecast
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Physics, 23rd August 2007 13:12 GMT
Webcast: Delivering The Application Platform
The US Army seems to be moving to acquire a robotic spy blimp, able to float high in the sky for lengthy periods and monitor activities on the ground below.
According to a routine Pentagon summary dated yesterday, Telford Aviation of Dothan, Alabama was awarded an $11,195,164 contract for "operational support for Medium Airborne Reconnaissance Surveillance Systems." The contract was awarded by the US Army's Communications-Electronics Command.
Unmanned Spy Blimp. Credit: Telford Aviation.
Telford Aviation is a company which provides leased aircraft, maintenance and parts to the civilian market. It's central operations are based in Maine: but it also has a "Government Programs" arm based in Dothan, Alabama.
The Telford Government Programs office webpage has a section titled "Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)," under which it says:
"Today Telford Aviation provides all operational support for a 30,000 cubic foot airship and is part of a research and development team developing a 80,000 cubic foot airship designed for counter terrorism, port security and border patrol. Telford Aviation expects to build and operate this system within the near future."
The 30,000-cubic-foot ship is presumably the unmanned Skybus 30K, whose consortium of producers is headed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), the well-connected behemoth government tech provider. The Skybus 30K is described as a "testing and demonstration platform for a series of large airships," and was developed by SAIC and Telford at the Loring UAS Test Centre in Maine under a Navy contract. It was given an experimental FAA airworthiness certificate last month.
SAIC says that the Skybus "can loiter for 30 to 40 hours, can travel up to 35 knots, and has faint visual, radar, infrared, and acoustic signatures."
The Loring Development Activity, the business park operating on the old Loring airforce base, says that the Skybus "has the potential to support military surveillance operations."
Putting all this together, it seems clear that the US Army's "Medium Airborne Reconnaissance Surveillance Systems" - not a term it normally uses - will be robot spy airships intended for ground surveillance. The US Army already operates tethered aerostat balloons for this purpose, and has previously trialled manned blimps. But now it appears to be moving forward with self-propelled robot aircraft.
One might hope that the Army's interest is in spying on Iraqi insurgents and Taliban gunmen, using cheap-to-run airships which can lurk in the sky for days on end above the range of handheld anti-aircraft missiles. The manned airship in the 2004 trials was said to be able to comfortably exceed 10,000 feet if required, which would keep it safe from shoulder-launched missiles even if they could lock on to its feeble signatures.
"The airship platform can provide a clear and detailed view of the activity on the streets below and yet stay out of the range of many weapon systems," according to a contractor involved in that trial.
"The military could fly a controlled, quiet orbit over an area like Fallujah, day or night, and be able to locate insurgents placing explosive devices or setting up ambushes," added another.
But other US government customers could fly a nice quiet orbit over other areas closer to home, too. SAIC thinks its baby would be good for "a variety of security and intelligence operations including border patrol, port security, survivor search, wildlife management and sports event monitoring."
Of course, a blimp isn't all that different from police helicopters or - if you're very important to the Yanks - spy satellites, that we're all quite used to being watched by. If we live in Southwest Asia, we're also quite accustomed to a variety of robot planes too. But it costs like crazy to monitor people from above with most of those - especiually for any sustained period - and in many cases a target will know that the spy platform is there. (Even secret spy satellites are often tracked by enthusiastic amateurs.)
Robo-blimps, by contrast, should be cheap, persistent and quiet, very hard to notice at night, and thus could bring with them an explosion in aerial spying activity. Analysts have been predicting their advent for some time.
It appears that the day may be here
Ellington & Teeroy.....
Ellington, yeah you and me both on reading financials. Going to look into that though....lol, (always say that).
Best at dechipering is E.P. Unum, hands down, hope he's still around....
Teeroy, well, saw that Yahoo is showing 121 million as float but could not find a reference to that either from first quarter 10Q or 2007 10K. Do believe though that if the company had bought shares back, that such a move would not only lower float but also drop outstanding shares. That did not happen, as outstanding did not change.
If officers buy, that lowers the float, and outstanding stays the same, but can't find anything showing that is the case....Going to look it to that though...lol.
See what i mean.
nite.
Tbonaces80...earns out yesterday
Yes, was going to post them 11/19, but had a couple of buys in that had not filled and was hoping to sneak them in. Got filled today, so here is the belated filing.
http://pinksheets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=18466
T. Thanks for the comments.....
Yes, costs (ammo) alone justify VR. systems, with the military. From a peostri article:
"Dean Lockwood, a weapons systems analyst with ForecastInternational, told MT2 that the greatest contribution made bysimulations could be the amount of money the services havesaved on ammunition costs. "Probably the most importantimpact that [simulations] is having is, by using simulations,the services are not using ammunition," Lockwood said. "Youfigure over the last four years now, supplying enough ammuni-tion has been a real issue."For example, the U.S. Army's demand for small caliberammunition increased from 426 million rounds in 2001 to 1.5billion rounds in 2006, according to the Joint Munitions Com-mand at the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois. As far as expendi-tures, the U.S. government spent $688 million on ammunitionlast year, up from $242 million in 2001."
Believe that Obama, just like the military get's the idea that assymetrical warfare can't be trained for simply on a firing line.
Thanks for keeping the board alive, Terroy.
pete
Bob, about what you've posted....
Am assuming what you posted regarding Doppstein, efficiency, delays, and Elbit was directed at post 109024. A response:
Doppstein
Responding as such, first, fuel cell efficiency (as you were attemtping to point out with Doppstein work) is exactly the problem plaguing Tao in their quest to cycle energy day & night in the Strat. It's just that Doppstein's work and in particular his "93% efficiency" are based solely on the Electrolyzer end of a simple hydrogen producing fuel cell, the gas to be used as car fuel. The title of Doppstein's paper is a tip-off "Hydrogen Generation Via Water Electrolysis Using Highly Efficient Nanometal Electrodes."
From Wikipedia [electrolysis]:
The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is total thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted minus the latent heat of vaporisation of the water.
This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%...[Obviously Doppstein is hitting the upper end of this, but understand this is not refering to round trip electrical eff. Two different beasts entirely....pete]
But this is not the reversible or round trip fuel cell Tao will be using, nor the same kind of "efficiency" we would reference. This kind of fuel cell, takes in electricity, cracks h2o, the stored gases then are later recombined within the fuel cell to produce electricity.
These kinds of discontinuous cells are very inefficient, recovering only 35-45% (these percentage are from another source then wiki below) of the electricity that originally entered the system.
From wikipedia (fuel cell):
"Fuel cells cannot store energy like a battery, but in some applications, such as stand-alone power plants based on discontinuous sources such as solar or wind power, they are combined with electrolyzers and storage systems to form an energy storage system. The overall efficiency (electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity) of such plants (known as round-trip efficiency) is between 30 and 50%, depending on conditions.[18] While a much cheaper lead-acid battery might return about 90%, the electrolyzer/fuel cell system can store indefinite quantities of hydrogen, and is therefore better suited for long-term storage.
Solid-oxide fuel cells produce exothermic heat from the recombination of the oxygen and hydrogen. The ceramic can run as hot as 800 degrees Celsius. This heat can be captured and used to heat water in a micro combined heat and power (m-CHP) application. When the heat is captured, total efficiency can reach 80-90%. CHP units are being developed today for the European home market."
Included this last part on Solid-oxide fuel cells because they are one fuel cell that approaches the efficiency numbers you are quoting, but unfortunately are totally unuseable for the Stratellite.
----------------------------------------------------------
conclusion:
So where does this put Tao at now? Probably at the lowest end of the efficiency scale (am guessing) siding with very conservative #'s, or just below 35% efficiency in their discontinuous day/night cycle. So, overall if you need to cycle out 3 MW of juice through your fuel cells at night, then 6 MW are lost imputing 9 MW of solar array juice during daylight. This is a problem. Perhaps ultracapacitors thrown into the mix?
Don't know for sure.
Yes, do believe nano-tech will eventually ride to the rescue but not as quickly as we would hope. Cost savings seems to be the nearterm benefit, not so much greater eff.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=7993.php
As far as delays in testing....weather and daylight are my two biggest concerns, not missing components. Thus, we are looking at the otherside of Winter 2009 to resume, that was stated in the earlier post and is my guess, for what it's worth.
As for Elbit/UAV and us, to me partners/contracts are all a function of Tao's performance. Am focusing on performance, the other stuff flows from that.
Bob, left me know your thoughts on this stuff, please. Don't have an electrical background and admit to struggling with understanding. Do appreciate your opinions.
Thanks,
pete
Montana, interesting theory on finance etc.
"I am convinced that IR Rob is much more than IR and I believe he is "the person" behind the current relationship and funding drive." Montanar
Well, that's something had never considered. Like your thinking, and it could be right.
Personally am trying not to delve too deeply into our relationships/finance sources presently because they're so nebulous. Guess am simply looking at the tech. and supposing that relationships & finance are a natural function of Kroplin's abilities to launch/position/land a High Altitude Airship prototype.
As Far as the Delays.....
It could be argued that the stratospheric delays in testing we so commonly experience, serve a benefit to the company in that they act as an emotional cushion to the natural inclination of an investor to hit the "sell" button during long stretches of perceived company inactivity. This then extends shareholder interest along a timeline that eventually brings us to a point where critical technology is available.
The Science is There, but the Stratellite is over here.....
Here's an example: We're told that it's a 'science project' to put into the stratosphere an airship, cruise around w/power for a few hours, and then land. I would agree with this.
But while it would be an incredible milestone to have that same airship remain on-station overnight, do you believe such an event marks the commercial crossover, where Sanswir/Tao starts selling Strats rather than just experimenting?
How bout two days aloft? Would GlobalStar start buying then? [As a UAV, could see the military move on that but not our first potential customer.]
There is a specific tech hurdle that has yet been passed in the lab (though in time should), that presents Sanswire/Tao with that exact scenario above. It's not thin film solar, but related to the PEM fuel cells the Stratellite would be using.
[Have not seen the specifics (as to why) discussed on this board nor directly mentioned in the posted dissertation on Stuttgart's Stratellite simulation.]
So where does that put us as investors, if accurate?
*Patient or gone as always. From personal perspective, IMO,
Stuttgart/or R&D center like SWRI & their HiSentinel
will be the first to market because of their particular designs, deeply experienced operations groups, & gov't backing.
*Look for Stratospheric Testing after Winter 2009 to gain more daylight.
*As higher efficiency thin film solar cells become available, major advantages are gained for HAA's.
*Specific improvements in PEM fuel cells, while further off than solar collection advancements, will spell the difference between 'experiment' and 'commericial' for HAP's.
Investors should pay particular attention to lab/corp. improvement announcements in this area.
*Perhaps a wild card gets thrown by Kroplin. Electo-active
materials would be an incredible boon for us. He is surrounded by experts (himself included) in this up-and-coming tech. Rwehapi2003 let's keep our fingers crossed on this one!
Anyway, that's one take.
Best to you Montana,
pete
.
TEEROY, thanks for posting all the info
Thanks for the heads-up on the US research lab & new distributor in Europe.
Also, appreciate the notice on the change in STOC II announcement date, but am wondering if given the current economic/political environment, this delay is simply a way to better position this program for change/elimination.
What are you thoughts on future funding of the STOC II awards, or even if such awarding will be made....like maybe one more final delay for Pres. Obama to consider such VR commitment with a 17$ Billion dollar price tag.
Personal view is that their is a strong argument for retooling our military training for asymmetrical warfare and coming warfighter upgrades, but not sure if that is strong enough to overcome the reluctance to spend precious dollars to, "make it happen."
Thanks T.
pete
it's still only a "promise" for the future
Robin, you have now restated this same theme more times than anyone would care to go back and count. There is no news here. We on this board ALL know your position on this company and Tao Technology, and have known this even before you created this thread by mislabeling myself as the 700'+ Strat believer.
Your LONG STATED POSITION position:
Sanswire is poop.
Further, Tao T. by itself has nothing, because if Kroplin did have the next best thing to sliced bread, he would have already partnered with a big gov't defense contractor (like a Boeing among others as you stated) and been nutured along with fairy dust towards a happy predetermined future as the new reining king over the evil satellite industry. Because, you see, the Big Players, don't make mistakes, they have a perfect vision of the future, right?
-----------------------------------------
An alternate take:
Sanswire rides on Tao's coat tails into a gritty, fuzzy, quirky world of theoritical High Altitude Airship technology, where NOBODY KNOWS THE OUTCOME. Lawerence Livermore lab might state it's doable with the right tech., but still, today, no such craft exists.
Tao Technology has patented & produced several sub-stratos pheric prototypes of a very unique design. But, as all other long endurance statospheric attemptors, Tao waits on certain critical components to further mature to a point where HAA can be commericalized and capitalize on inefficiencies in the satellite industry. Two such components would probably be thin film solar and fuel cells.
Without these elements, Tao is a science experiment, which early into this state, chose to become a strategic partner with Sanswire because Sanswire really liked Tao's tech. and was willing to roll the dice with them as a product rep. and share partner.
So, what are the big military contract players doing in HAA, at this point? The Lockheeds and Boeings, who are heavily invested in the satellite industry are not about to rock the boat on their existing gov't gravy train.
Status Quo is the winning hand for them.
Thus, neither company makes any serious attempt at HAA, with Lockheed even taking gov't monies (at one point funded to 140m)
to produce.....NOTHING. No surprise since they are a leader in the satellite industry. Partnering options w/HAA seedling company? lol. would be the furthest from their minds.
Why rush to produce a product offering lower altitudes at around 1/100 the current cost to siphon off satellite launches?
Stay the course and line extensions all the way, becomes their motto. They are tied to legacy, and that is not about to change.
------------------------------
Robin, i know you position, you know mine. This threads too long. Have your parting say -it's over.
lol..Robin, looks like a nerve was touched
Dear, you're a little late again. I fully embrace my blundering and successes as we all should, right?
It's called life. Laugh at it....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30292233
Robin..do you read what you write?
Cole Thorton confusion:
"PS Any luck on that link to the two football field Skyworm?"
It's ok to mix-up posters Robin, you just need to acknowledge it, instead of burying yourself deeper with convoluted logic like this:
"I just asked for proof to prove you didn't have any!"
Huh? lol.
If you are going to reply with anymore of these kinds of nonsensical answers, who will respond to your questions?
As far as this query. No attempt has been made to avoid answering. Simply put, you ask a tremendous amount of questions, and then allow little time to reply. You're so clever....
Now, try to recall back to yesterday a post explaining that not all of us live on this board as you. It will come to you, am sure. Am just hoping there won't be another convoluted response from you....
As for answering this:
Why a company that had a promising new technology would partner with GlobeTel/Sanswire instead of one of many other companies that would have so much more to offer them.
-------------------------------------------------
(opinion)
The problem with this statment is that TIME is removed from the context. In 2005, Tao T. technology (airchain) was not new. In 1999 Kroplin won his kudos for it in Europe. It was lauded, for it's design, but it's functionality (in the marketplace) was nonexistent due to key technological hurdles yet to surmounted.
TIME, would need to pass, allowing the tech (like thin film solar and PEM fuel cell) to catch up to the design itself.
Think of it as a car that was waiting for the invention of gasoline.
Question for you Robin? How much value would you place on a non-running car in 2005? Well, it would be dependent on when the gas would arrive, yes? At that TIME most tech pundits believed the tech for HAPS would arrive anywhere from 2010 to 2015.
And even if that 'gas' arrived, was there any certainty that some other technology (or another airship maker) would not come along in the interval to competitively outdo the HAP as a satellite replacement? No.
What is the present value of uncertain future 'promising' technology, Robin?
Most big companies are too busy filling out there current REAL & TANGIBLE customer orders, then to haggle over a ephemeral nonstarter.
And sometimes, the big boys simply rip off the idea, and let the courts figure it out years down the road. If then.Right?
Now a small player, willing to take a big chance just might move in for the price of a song......yes?
But, then we ask, (as time has gone by as tech progress has been made) why haven't we seen any other big bucks partners step up...if Kroplin has the goods?
Truth is, still, not all the tech is complete. Fuel cells aren't, we know that. And practical thin film in the 20% eff. is not quite here yet either. So, perhaps they wait.
Or maybe, we see this Satellite company move in. We shall see.
Nobody is denying that the odds aren't long here. It's just that we like the Kroplin take on HAPS and are willing to wait it out -Something the big boys might not be willing to do.
Am tired now. nite.
Robin.....Proof? What are you writing about?
When you posted this:
"But since you and no one else could show any proof that TAO has even built the largest ship much less flew it to the stratosphere, it looks like TAO still doesn't have anything significant and they are merely floundering like they and GTEM/SNSR have for years."
Robin, Did you believe that i had stated that a 700'+ airship had been built? Incredible...
Read slowly my post to Warp below, answering his call for a document that mentioned a 700ft airship be posted on the board:
[Warp] "... This was described in a document I downloaded from the Stuttgart site a few months ago....I'll try and dig up that document and post a link, unless someone beats me to it." [Warp]
Response:
[swami]
"There are ten versions of the Air Chain/Sky Dragon.
One can find the info here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=k9ifqUt5CvIC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=airworm+airship&source=web&ots=O6MCSCwUE8&sig=OIEYm24hP0h-eXX5l9Kv3RusjmE#PPA54,M1
Posted back in Feb, here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=26879246
As stated, the largest version is 230 meters, or 754. 6 feet in length"
[swami].
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn,
This info is accurate. This is the document that listed 10 design versions, with one over 700'.
When you asked for clarification about what was built or not, you were instructed to enlarge page 55 so that you could read and get your answer.
Not once did i ever state a 700ft craft was built. Remember, i read pg. 55 long before you did my dear! I know what it contained.
Further,
I do not have proof such a craft actually exists beyond the design version, so i refrain from discussing it.
Read a bit more carefully next time.
Hey Montana......
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Yeah, had a hunch back in 2005 that Tao and Sanswire were, in some form or another, already commited to future M/A through the strategic agreement pr'ed one month prior to exhibiting Dr. Kroplin's Air Chain to the US gov't at Plant 42. Too quick
This commitment signed long before the SEC investigation, failed divisions, depressed stock, etc...etc...etc. is why
(in my opinion) Sanswire even survives to this day.
And again, it is reasonable to wonder why Tao Tech. would even partner with us, if-if we did not take into consideration the time frame & possible implications (am saying possible because we as investors can only guess at an outline) of this contractual arrangement.
Sanswire would have been foolish indeed, if while peddling Tao T. wares (2005) to the military, they did not have a strong vested -future- interest in such a commodity.
Anyway, that's the hunch.
Thanks for the chat.
Tight lines.
royal wulff
Robin, as you've asked.......
[Note: Robin, am corresponding as quickly as possible with you, but due to housework & general tiredness from work am somewhat delayed. As you can tell i cannot spend as much time, or am as motivated to spend as much time, on this board as yourself. Please forgive me, that this is my last post tonight. You are free to continue of course....]
-------------------------------------------------------
Am glad i could answer your previous question on
build status of airships by Dr. Kroplin. Am sure in your heart you appreciate such efforts. You are welcome.
As for your lastest Q: summarized here as, "Do i really believe Tao would partner with Sanswire, given that company's history?"
Yes i do.
I've posted a personal take of this twice. Am sure you just missed it:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30308083
Tao & Sanswire a Rewind
(typo on this page should read Fall Nov. 2005 25 VIPS....)
And here on Dec. 2005.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=8924960
Like this post much because it was done almost three years ago, and targeted the relationship of TAO/Sanswire as something that should very much be solidified..
Exerpt:
2005
"Purely speculation here but based on the rapid rise and advancement of the Doc & Tao Tech. within the Globetel operation, coupled with the built-in design benefits to manufacturing (assuming GTE can secure commitments), am looking at Globetel to attempt to soon tighten it's hold on Tao Technologies (if they have not already) by developing closer "exclusive" contractual ties to the Doc's propreitary technologies.
Specifically, am looking for a PR to redefine such a relationship prior to any announcements of contracts (we should be so lucky!). This appears to be GTE's habit.
Good fortune to all and please remember this is all just personal opinion based on observed events...thanks."
nite.
Robin....refer to page 55.
You will probably need to enlarge that page from the study so as to read the comments made by Kroplin for each craft. The built ships are listed and dated, as well as those that were in various stages of completion.
Bear in mind that this paper was submitted in 2005. Much time has past.
Warp, the same here with accumulation.......
This document changed my personal view of our combined efforts (Sanswire Stratellite + Stuttgart's Airchain) from one of tinkerer to first-mover in the field of High Altitude Airships.
Still clearly recall the picutres posted of Vern laying down the "keel" of the original S-1. It looked like PVC pipe splayed out on concrete.
Am constantly comparing those images to the one from the Dr. Kroplin paper we just reviewed, where the Airchains are stacked like cordwood in a large storage shed.
Seeing all those models, the realization hits you, that it will take just such an effort, with such a team as Dr. K possesses, and in such an airship friendly nation as Germany, to bear us fruit.
Years ago a magazine interviewed Dr. Kroplin. In it, Bernd stated that his LTA efforts were movitiated by an intense desire to return Germany to it's former glory days as a world leader in aviation.
We are witnessing not just an attempt to re-establish (reinvent) the absolute need of airships by leveraging LTA advantages with new technologies to create such a craft for global use.
But man's effort to restore a national point of pride in flight. Good fortune to them and us.
nite.
Only this time, it will not drift away.
nite.
And Two, to
Number of the Beast....
There are ten versions of the Air Chain/Sky Dragon.
One can find the info here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=k9ifqUt5CvIC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=airworm+airship&source=web&ots=O6MCSCwUE8&sig=OIEYm24hP0h-eXX5l9Kv3RusjmE#PPA54,M1
Posted back in Feb, here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=26879246
As stated, the largest version is 230 meters, or 754. 6 feet in length.
Sami/ on why so much.......
There is tremendous energy loss (not talking e-drain like propulsion) taking place at a key point in the electrical loop. Can not find any reference to this in the dissertation Bagdad Bob posted, but it exists and will grow as we move toward a commercial vehicle.
This is one reason our collection amounts are so high. Yes, payload is another.
runandadd....Oct......
Runandadd
Yes you are correct about the stratospheric testing. It was posted (as Oct. not Sept.) and yes it was an 'official' (whatever that means?) statement by the company on a web page, but since amended to read "....in 2008." -instead of October.
Below is the cut and paste from that timeframe. You can also visit the site to read for yourself the current claim for stratospheric trials.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30205745
Testing at various altitudes is ongoing per Sanswire release, but specifically stratospheric is another matter.
Personally believe that, as Mide has mentioned before, the Air Chain-Stratellite version has been there and returned.
Getting there though is no biggie; staying on station for duration and live to tell the tale....now that's the rub.
Hope this helps.
Bob, they used silicon panels.
ultralight monocrystalline solar cells (silicon panels), are the old school wafers, that's why Stuttgart's weight was so high for solar (600kg).
The electrical efficiency rate that you came up, could that be based on an average collection rate (daylight) that was used to generate the output number? I don't know that stuff. So, am guessing.
This reflects both optimal 12 noon, and not so optimal....earlier/late in the day. Am pretty sure that under ideal lighting the type cells they used were converting 20% of sunlight into electricity.
At a little less than 1/2 pound per square meter (add adhesive) for this solar kit, one can only imagine the weight diffential if thin film with mylar-style backing was laminated to the hull instead. The weight of extra batteries,
would seem a nice use of that surplus capacity,,,,,
And Bob, here's the kicker. Under less than ideal light, thin film solar does a better job of collecting the ambient than silicon wafer. Indirect light conditions favor thin film vs. silicon. So, maybe some mix of thinfilm (upper sides) and silicon (top strip) could be used to save weight till 20% thin film comes in.... don't know.
But this for sure is some very, very cool info you have.
Great find Bob, and about that solar...
This is a nice piece of research. Know you didn't miss the solar tidbits. Over 1300 pounds of solar panels on this craft.
So, they ran with the premium silicon wafers offering
<20%+ efficiency>, maybe because 3000 sq. meters of thin film solar couldn't be had in those kinds of quanitites, or maybe that 10% efficiency was pointless. So, they paid the premium in weight. Just as the HiSentinel people did.
Interesting. Wonder how long it will take to bring the lab produced 19.9% thin film to commercialization?
That brings parity, and guess depending on the substrate used to deposit the photo-active material, a very substantial savings in weight.
Craft has way longer up time, bigger payload, and costs drop (thin film way cheaper than silicon wafers used here).
9 days now is great. 30 days is.....$$$$.
2010. makes sense to me.
Hey Sami.......
Am appreciative of all your efforts also, and all other posters here that honestly try to bring about a clearer expression of this company we invest in. It's not all about "good news", but objectivity.
Really we're all swami's.... or teachers (as the name implies), sharing stuff.
Lol, and for the record, i'm not Hindu or close. Just using a poorly constructed palidrome to say, "here's what's known on this end. take it if you can use it..."
take care,
pete
Hey Montanar...yep, you got everything!
Man, couldn't agree more with the points (and there were a
lot...lol) raised. You definitely have been away too long!
And truly, the tech of our two main competitors (both of whom go up vertically flacid and come down in a heap) has some major drawbacks...basically due to the particulars of this design choice -as you've mentioned.
Like high pressure gas containment or single (as in the case of the Hisentinel/double w Stratxx) prop propulsion. Never can tell when a pesky guide wire (at takeoff) will get caught up in that rear prop....
One thing have learned recently through Kroplin's work and now this recent crash of the HiSentinel50 mentioned here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32481354
...is that the HiSentinel people don't seem (or are unable) to be taking full advantage of their aerodynamic shape.
The aspect ratio is only 4.5, which is right for a traditional shape "pregnant minnow" style airship with an oversized middle for lift.
But for a craft whose design seems to closely match the uniform tube-shape of the Air Chain (aspect ratio 9), lift to drag is not maximized here. This obviously is very important especially as it relates to payload size. -again as you've mentioned.
Am guessing, but ship dimensions here are probably a result of launch constraints or purposely diminished to add stability (maybe just for testing). Just taking a stab at it....
Anyway, yes am anxious for the financials and was surprised to read this ditty on the Globetel.net site (now Sanswire)..
http://sanswire.com/globetel-today.htm
"Two years ago, the Company experienced a string of hardships which caused it to fall out of compliance with the rules of its former exchange and regulators. However, we have since restated annual results and are concluding the restatement process, along with becoming current on all regulatory filings."
Not sure if i missed it before but, it was nice to read now.
And am following Nirlemmerlin's predictions carefully also!
Be well.
pete
Hey Sami, forgot something....
Sorry, did not mean to diss the dispoable comments made in the article or, by yourself. Apologize for that, my mind races sometimes, and misses things i'd meant to express. So much is happening in this area (Stratospheric Airships) that
one has to keep reminding oneself what has been altered....
I meant to point out that Eric Schechter's comments regarding disposability as separating CHHAPP from HAA is based on hull material...which our CEO mentioned were getting lighter, and (not mentioned) stronger, through major tech
advances. Materials science is incredibly fluid at this point, and one area that Lockheed Martin itself wants to take advantage of to construct their HAA.
The point being, that what may have originated years ago as disposable, may in fact, already have evolved (or very soon) to reusable or redeployabe (patching), through changes in materials used.
[And what then, would Eric Schecter still not consider it a High Altitude airship?]
It's because of these material tech advances that STRATXX, a CHHAPP-HAA like HiSentinel, makes the claim of reuse/redeploy. It's also projected to be cheap.
Two quotes from the Stratxx pages:
-------------------------------------
"Environmentally friendly
HAPS are sustainable and environmentally friendly. They use redeployable components and modules. With their low energy exhaust-free propulsion systems, they can be deployed over urban areas. Perfect line-of-sight visibility minimizes electro-smog impact."
"...X-Stations can be recalled to the ground for either
replacement or reuse at any time when maintenance
or an upgrade is required".....
------------------------------------
Sami, i personally would love to see Sanswire/Tao's stratellite receive monies to partake in the gov't HAA program, and hope that what i've written is dead wrong.
Have bought my tickets to the show......
Et Tu Brutii? lol. Hey Sami & Montana
WORDPLAY
--------
Well, with so much time passing, was beginning to think nobody was interested. Always glad to get a nibble or two on a cast.
Where to start? Montana, Hello. Hope all is well.
To answer: a blimp is a specific type of airship, but still an airship. Yes, the HiSentinel is a blimp, but first and foremost it is an airship. There are both rigid or non-rigid versions of airships (those with powered and steerable flight vs. the common balloon), but blimps are strictly non-rigid.
Also, the HiSentinel people refer to their craft as an airship, so it works for me.
http://www.aerostar.com/aerospace.htm
Interestingly enough, Stuttgart's Stratellite seems a blimp, but they also prefer the generic term airship...no matter.
By coincidence, this all sets the stage nicely for us, Sami.
CHHAPP=Composite Hull High Altitude Powered Platform
-------------------------------------------
3 questions to you SAMI:
1. Does the method to which an airship attains the stratosphere or leaves determine if it's a High Altitude Airship?
Careful answering here Sami (tongue in check), my friend, you may upset the Stratxx (Stratxx.com) people, who seem to think their:
CHHAPP is a HAP and a HAA. Sorry, my Dr. Suess moment.
2 Did you know that HAA(tm), technically is no longer terminology but a trademark? Those damn marketing people ruin everything.....
3. Is the Stratellite an HAA(tm)? If not, then how in the world could the military be awarding Sanswire's Stratellite program 10 million through this act of Congress we read about, and that i posted to Mide & WarpCore61 to be careful of their intrepretation.....
The Answer to this is Simple:
--------------------------------
HiSentinel is:
1. an airship
2.It's also a platform
3.It's also a CHHAPP
4.It's Stratospheric
5.The stratosphere is high altitude
HiSentinel is as much a high altitude airship as our Stratellite and the Stratxx X-station, assuming we're using the term and not the trademark (HAAtm).
Disposability is not the determining factor as you write, nor is a CHHAPP delivery system when one discusses HAA.
It's a trademark first. Thus, all HAA's must be Lockheed Martin's. Unless of course, we divorce ourselves from marketing......
Guess, what am saying is like Montana's blimp. A blimp is an airship, but an airship may not be a blimp.
Without marketing terminology, a CHHAPP is a high altitude airship, but an HAA may not be a CHHAPP.
You know what i love, that CHHAPP contains the term high altitude....and they are called airships, seperately....lol.
So where does that leave us?
----------------------------
A warning that monies earmarked for the HAA program may not be for the Stratellite, as was possibly suggested in an earlier post.
Also, that 10 million funding could obviously be for Lockheed Martin, since they were the reason for the military HAA program firstly, just as HiSentinel was for their CHHAPP program.....
Quote from from isrjournal:
"High-altitude airships, defined by the ability to fly above 40,000 feet..."
One last thing. Why did i suspect the HAA (non-tm-ed in Budget) request for funds was pegged to the HiSentinel if it has it's own budget, CHHAPP?
Because the HiSentinel50 failed, as the article that was posted stated. And that technically, HiSentinel is a high altitude airship, and should qualify to exist under the HAA program also......hint hint.
So, which is easier to ask congress to reallot money for:
"We, the US Army, want funds moved into the CHHAPP program to redo the HiSentinel50 (50lb) Experiment, because the darn first one got away from us before we could evaluate it".....
or
"We want to place 10 million into a dormant program to conduct HAA experiments (50lbs) that are similar to our now temporarily suspended (crash) CHHAPP program, [which are both under the same roof and because hey, a HiSentinel is an HAA, too.lol]......"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, that's my take on it.
It probably does not help anyone, but the intentions were good, be assured.
Nite,
Montana & Sami...
p.s. anymore nibbles out there?
And does this help anyone or am i way out there..stratospherically speaking?
WarpCore61 & Mide..check here first:
Yes, it may well be that those funds by the DOD are earmarked towards Sanswire work in Stuttgart, based on strong DOD interest in this project and the timing of the change in funding request and Stuttgart event.
But, there is also very compelling evidence that this money, rather than going to fund a foreign project (Stratellite) already being executed WITHOUT US funds, is being used by the HiSentinnel program.
Refer here to the wording you provided Warp:
“Ongoing efforts have considered whether HAA can effectively and efficiently perform persistent 24/7 surveillance of U.S. East and Gulf coasts,” the notice continues. “The platform . . . would offer long-term persistent performance at a lower cost when compared with existing or projected systems. This funding demonstration would evaluate the HAA’s effectiveness at 60,000 feet; its ability to carry a 50-pound payload; and its endurance, reusability and speed.”
Now please refer to the article provided by Sami1327 (that referenced our CEO Leinwand) here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32312781
Quote from piece:
------------------
"A HiSentinel20 reached an altitude of 74,000 feet in November 2005. “In the history of airships, there have only been two high-altitude flights without propulsion, and the Hisentinel20 is the second one ever,” said Mike Lee, force enhancement branch chief in the Space Division, of the Space and Missile Defense Technical Center.
In June, the Army launched the HiSentinel50, the successor to the HiSentinel20, at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. This second solar-powered craft was larger (180 feet compared to 134 feet) and able to carry more weight (50 pounds compared to 20 pounds). The HiSentinel100, scheduled to fly in November 2009, will be larger still and carry a payload of 100 pounds."
-----------------------------
And further Warp, as for the timing of the DOD request, compare it to this event:
Stratospheric airship crashes here
By DWAIN LAIR
Times Staff ” dwainl@harrisondaily.com
08/06/2008
Updated 08/13/2008 02:06:04 AM CDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
Joel Hartlerode's eyes may have blinked in wonder about dusk Wednesday, June 4.
A giant balloon, like space vehicles imagined by science-fiction writer Jules Verne more than 100 years ago in "Master of the World," floated past the family's house near Compton.
He videoed a "huge, long floating balloon," according to his mother, Diane Hartlerode. His video recorded the time as 8:23 p.m. June 4 (2008).
The video shoes the balloon changing position, first horizontal, then vertical, with what appears to be an antenna pointing downward.
She said the family watched the balloon until it went over the slope and out of sight, descending in the direction of property owned by Ronnie Ramsey.
Sunday afternoon, July 20, Ronnie Ramsey rode a tractor on his farm near Hill Top, clipping grass and weeds on roads and fields. Easing down a steep slope, he spotted what looked like a long tarp. He thought it must have blown off a neighbor's round hay bales.
Closer investigation revealed the lines of a tall balloon, a carcass he estimated at 75 yards long.
He eventually located a part number and manufacturer on an electronic component connected to the balloon. The manufacturer said four identical electronic components had been sold since 2000 and all to Southwest Research Institute.
A phone call to the San Antonio, Texas-based company answered his questions, and the phone call ended Southwest Research Institute's hunt for the balloon.
According to William Perry and Steve Smith of Southwest Research Institute, the stratospheric airship failed about noon June 4 (2008), descended near Roswell, N.M., and was pierced by a barbed-wire fence. They said high winds tore the airship free from its 400 to 450-pound pod. Without guidance or GPS tracking equipment, the balloon ascended into the jet stream, where it traveled from near Roswell to Hill Top in about eight hours.
At 180 feet long and 40 feet in diameter, they said the HiSentinel50 that landed in Boone County isn't one of their larger airships. But the solar-powered, self-propelled airship is capable of cruising in the stratosphere at 65,000 feet.
It is being designed for use by the Department of Defense, Homeland Security and other agencies that need to carry payloads into the stratosphere, anything from spy satellites to disaster relief.
The craft is called a HiSentinel stratospheric airship, and the hull is sewn by Aerostar International. The exterior resembles a dirigible like the Hindenburg, but the interior isn't supported by a metal frame. Perry and Smith said the hull is partially inflated with helium at launch. Rising vertically like a tall, thin balloon, the helium expands. When the hull is completely filled, the craft has a rigid aerodynamic shape and stretches out horizontally.
In late 2005, Southwest Research Institute, in a project supported by Aerostar International and the Air Force Research Laboratory, reportedly launched a 146-foot-long airship with a 60-pound equipment pod from Roswell, and it attained an altitude of 74,000 feet.
Designed for launch from remote sites, these airships don't require large hangars or special facilities. "There are a number of stratospheric airship programs being promoted around the world, but this is the first of these programs to successfully fly a real airship in near-space," Perry said in 2005, speaking as assistant director of Space Systems.
Southwest designed the airship and provided the telemetry, flight control, power and propulsion systems. Aerostar International fabricated the hull and participated in the integration and test flight. Air Force Research Laboratory developed the launch system, provided facilities and supported the launch and recovery.
Perry and Smith recovered the solar panel Monday evening, and were joined by Aerostar International representatives Tuesday morning as they recovered the damaged airship. Treetops on Ramsey's property apparently had pulled the solar panel off the airship about 200 feet south of where the airship eventually landed. The fabric was threaded between trees, with the tail twisted and its attached fins wrapped around the top of a tree.
The HiSentinel50 that landed on Ramsey's farm is in a class of long-endurance autonomous solarelectric, stratospheric airships capable of lifting small to medium payloads to near-space altitudes for durations of longer than 30 days for communications, military and scientific applications.
--------------------------
Now, please, draw your own conclusions.......
nite. pete
Sami1327...cool article
Very nice find Sami, with some tidbits of info we have not seen before. Well done.
Particularly enjoyed this quote:
----------------
"..Lockheed Martin’s proposed High Altitude Airship. Lockheed will need another year or two to build a demonstration model. When the airship is complete, it will reach nearly 500 feet in length and carry 1 to 2 tons of intelligence and communications equipment to an altitude of 65,000 feet and not come down for a year.
“The motto we’re using is ‘Always there, always on,’” said Ron Browning, Lockheed Martin business development director responsible for the HAA."
----------------
What a hoot! Their motto can't even be applied to the demonstator model.....that doesn't exist.lol
Thanks again.
valuations...lol
If someone had come up to me a couple of months ago and said,
"Lehman Brothers (LEHMQ.PK) is going to be a nickel a share soon", I would have laughed in his face.
nite.
Nerd. Thanks for some background info on HH.
Skunkstox, sneaky thing about H is H2
Am no chemist, but believe the natural elemental state of Hydrogen in the atmosphere/gas is as a molecule....H2.
Called a diatomic molecule, these elements are kinda unstable lacking a full fill of electrons in the outer shell. So they want to bond with something to gain some stability.
A molecule of Hydrogen is actually larger than the stable/inert Helium atom and thus the lifting benefit is figured around 7-8% in Hydrogens favor. Anyway, that's kinda what am remembering.....
nite.
& Sami, thanks for posting that. Yes, just like the Air Force (or was it army) seeking to shift 12 million in 2008 funding to Airship experiments in the stratosphere. I apologize for not remembering (it's late) who posted that, but the request was made just a few weeks after the Stuttgart demo.....
nite.
The two problems
Hey Rwehapi,Sami & Sinful,
Don't mean to mislead anybody but, all the stuff you are reading is done by a regular guy. Am no scientist, engineer, or expert in the field of airships. A hack, with a background in sales/marketing is spitting out some words.
But is does not take the gifted to see the absolute incredible demand, and the oh-so-tantalizing gap in bringing a stratospheric product of this kind to market. And the ever expanding product line of lesser offerings (speaking here of the mid/low attitude LTA's every airship company seems to be touting) which no one seems to be qeueing-up to buy.
When a customer, so desirious for a product not yet available, goes out an attempts to make it themselves, you have a truly great-great market existing, but unserved.
Take Chile and their HAPS efforts (using the technology of American & European entiities....gosh, wonder who those guys are). With the backing of state run universities & gov't, the nation is "agressively" forging into stratospheric telecommunications et al.
And Ecuador, who recently announced their own historic HAPS
program, which will be developed in conjunction with.....none other then Chile.
Or Capannina(sp?) the early-mover in Western Europe, a non-starter at attempting to launch a commercial product into the stratosphere.
Or JAXA, the Japanese NASA equal, who Capannina tied up to when they (Capannina) came up short. The Jap program did not go far , either.
Now it's the Swiss, or South Africa, the list of national/customer efforts is incredible.
And what everyone is really clamoring for is -not spotty surveillance at 8,000 ft from a manned airship, with time windows and maintenance, and pilot/staffing issues.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/15/315912/us-navy-revives-airship-interest-after-50-year-gap.html
It's simple......the poor man's satellite.
Give them all a vehicle to park in the heavens (altitude is flexible) that is unoccupied,with good range, and a station-keeper, 24/7 uptime for months at a time, with a payload that befits a SATELLITE.
That's all.
It's a ruse that Lighter-than-air vehicles real competitor is the UAV (not saying here they don't compete, just that in the bigger picture is another). UAV's, they're not designed to linger for weeks/months.
It's the satellite industry, with it's never sleeping eye.
Airships can recon now (manned/unmanned), but not like a satellite should. Thus, no sales.
So, what has this got to do with questions about payload and hydrogen.....?
------------------------
Well, if Problem # 1 is as expressed above, an unserved customer (nosale...but customer ready to build it themselves).
Then Problem #2 is how to deliver what the customer needs.
----------------------------
This will take the most efficient airship design (which personally believe Kroplin possesses to date), coupled with a propulsion system suitable to the ship/payload/mission demands.
As of today, customer demands (payload) + mission demands are not being met, otherwise some company out there would be selling the bejesus out of this kind of system.
So, yes Rwehapi, the belief here is that, at the very least current propulsion -this includes energy collection/storage, is not enough to support the full customer package -in a test sized vehicle. Scaling up ship size is the goal, no doubt, and sure there are limits.
But, a more realistic customer wish list must be drawn up. It's only natural for them to ask for everything and the kitchen sink. It's also cheaper for them...fewer ships.
More units will have to be bought with smaller payloads is how it looks to me. This scenerio actually plays out well for the Airworm design because of it's obvious production advantages (small components making a whole unit=cheaper), as compared to a traditional airship
(one large component=expensive).
But if you are asking what is really retarding this whole process....am guessing it's energy collection.
Electric motors improvements are not happening at the rate thin film solar is flourishing. If energy was not the issue, payloads would not be an issue. The airship would simply use excess energy to manage the load even without enough bouyancy....a la heavy lifter.
Again, looking at payloads for other airship offerings in the low/mid altitude range coupled with their weaker performance stats(short range/duration) this also should confirm what we suspect.
And Sinful, Hydrogen works for me, but is stigmatized as we both know. Interestly enough, they are getting around this by discretely storing H in the airship as part of the fuel cell system. Like that.
Anyway, sorry for late reply. And the rabblings.
As always, hope it helps.
pete
Sami...Krolin's words and soon his deeds
Yes Sami, you're right. It seems the very same issues in this blog are directly/indirectly addressed in the Kroplin paper reprinted here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=k9ifqUt5CvIC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=airworm+airship&source=web&ots=O6MCSCwUE8&sig=OIEYm24hP0h-eXX5l9Kv3RusjmE#PPA55,M1
I know we have both reviewed this, but it's nice to reread the specifics on our professor's approach to High Altitude Pesistence.
pg. 52
"..It follows that the 'normal' blimp design used for High Altitude Platforms leads to an unfavourable scaling and an increasingly large part of dead mass. This can be compensated by using stronger materials and all the problems associated therewith, or it can be overcome by an improved design.
Structurally seen, the most lightweight blimp should be a cluster of spheres made from the thinnest possible material arranged in a spherical cloud in order to minimize the Munk load [the bending force generated by an airship's natural desire to revolve and pitted against the countering empennage..pete] and the empennage mass [tail..pete].
But what about the drag? Drag results from the airship body itself and from the empennage. The lowest drag per volume for the single body is achieved with an aspect ratio [length to width..pete] of nearly six.
If the empennage (which can be relatively smaller for slender airships) is also taken into consideration this shifts to around eight. An aspect ratio within this range cannot be achieved with a conventional blimp design since it would lead to a very high differential pressure and Munk loads.
This contradiction cannot be solved by a conventional blimp design. A lightweight airship has to be made of a number of spheres, a low drag airship has to be elongated with an aspect ratio in the range of eight.
The Airworm concept solves the problem of slender versus low differential pressure and combines the advantages of both by creating a chain of spheres (or almost spheres) and stabilizing each one individually. This is the most lightweight airship structure possible."
pg.54
Conclusions
"...Achieving a reasonalbe overall mass to dead mass ratio seems to be impossible for conventional blimp concepts with merely improved high-tech-materials. Here new load-reducing concepts have to be developed, one of which is the Airworm idea, which can markedly reduce this ratio.
Should the realization of HAPS be feasible at all, the design must be based on an airship concept.
Material should thus concentrate more on durability, thermodynamic properties, impermeability, ease of production and processing and toughness than on high strength. Structural research should concentrate more on load reducing configurations than on optimization of load carrying."
[end of paper]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sami, let's now both take a step or two back, and look at Sanswire/Stuttgart's whole approach to the Stratospheric problems mentioned in the blog you were kind enough to post.
First, by alligning with Stuttgart, Sanswire closeted the traditional airship S2A, in favor of laying a business foundation on the airworm design.
The most efficient airship for the task = our best shot at success.
Second, by focusing much less on mass telecommunications and more on the peripheral markets (military surveillance, commericial monitoring, data relay etc.) payload weight drops, based on comparable operational areas/ or # end users.
A load reducing configuration (even a marketing one lol) is exactly what Kroplin wants.
Further here, public communications from 64,000 could be likened to the act of running. An infant project attempting stratospheric telecom services for the masses, as it's first offering, is a mistake. A tot must first crawl before attempting to walk, and with time the gait may turn to hesitant striding. Far simple is surveillance.
Third, by extending out the realistic time frame on commercial services (to me personally this does not include military which could be earlier) to 2010, improvements in electrical production (better solar collection) and storage
(smaller battery/fuel cell) can only add to airship performance characteristics.
Anyway, just one person's take on things.
Thanks again for the blog post.
pete
Rwehapi2003.....More to go on
A quick sidebar with you: Did you notice what appears to be a change or tweakying taking place to the business plan of STRATXX with the Aug. 28th article? Just curious. Okay, let's continue......
Yes, that June article contains some elements that got spliced into that recent post to Nirlemerlin. Namely, failed testing/setbacks for the Stratxx program.
The problem you may be experiencing with translating that article is that it comes from a PDF file, which, when cut and paste (say to a translator program) produces some very screwy characters that render words/short phrases untranslatable.
Try this version (personal copy), for the last (key) portion of your article. Please understand, this is blend of several translators , and not to be relied upon.
“Top or Flop”?
Temporarily, the company has secured rental space in a former Kägiswiler military building. “Here, we begin at the end of 2008 with production of two smaller airship types," Alavi says.
Starting from 2010, the large Airships are to be built in the new hangar, under the designation X-station, for placement into the stratosphere, 21 kilometers in elevation.
StratXX employs, in the current development and Test phase, 14 coworkers, says Alavi.
With the beginning of that Production in Obwalden, such development for the next three years brings 150 new jobs.
The Luzerner commercial economics advisor, Andre Marti, commentates on the company headquarters change in this way:
“On the one hand it is a loss of a large opportunity. On the other hand in addition, the loss is one of many existing risks.”
"Because the company StratXX has many hurdles to make. And, further still, with several announced test flights not taking place. Whether the financing and the design structure succeed, is unclear: “Top or flop, everything is possible for such projects.”
The head of the company Kamal Alavi differently, see things differently. Iranian aviation engineer is convinced that the different Airship types are an attractive Alternative to the innumerable ground antennas become and the wireless Telecommunications in the next Years world-wide revolutionize. HANS
Hope this helps,
pete
rwehapi2003/nirlemerlin....more
http://www.zisch.ch/navigation/top_main_nav/nachrichten/zentralschweiz/obwalden/detail.htm?client_request_className=NewsItem&client_request_contentOID=290167
Yes, it is their project, rwehapi. The article shows a date of Aug. 28th, 2008 so am assuming the event mentioned was close to that.
Another recent article stated that the company has had a series of missed test dates/setbacks. They are also planning to move their operations to another facility once commercial production is secured.
Note: The photo in the article would seem not to be the airship in question given that size, design, superstructure & personnel are not representative of what is discussed in this article.
Those civil workers shown are certainly not StraXX engineers. More than likely it's a stock photo that works with the piece or perhaps representative of much earlier efforts.
Lastly, consider design/development factors placed upon this operation, if you're taking a stab at reading into recent events.
The foundation, once build, commits everything to a specific direction and time frame.
Hope this helps.
pete
--------------------------------------------------------
Below is a slightly modified Google translation of the article. Please, don't rely on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Civil Protection Airship Burst - 1/2 Million Lost.
[Swiss Franc 1US=1.1SF/pete]
A Kägiswiler company markets its airships as a revolutionary tool for civil defence force and police. For now, however, the vision literally burst.
All are working hard: schoolchildren in the autumn hike, mountain bikers and especially the men of the civil protection organisations (ZSO) Obwalden train in the gorge Engelbergeraa on their work.
On the hull [of the airship..pete], the engineers of the company StratXX, assemble some cables and cameras.
The vehicle should be equal to about 11 metres long and when helium-filled, rise into the air to video record the area directly to the ZSO headquarters at Sachseln.
But their waiting on the pictures from Engelberg was in vain. Because after the airship had risen a good 50 meters in height, it burst with a loud bang and a half million francs were lost.
Helium Was Too Cold
Somewhat surprisingly, take note that this Kamal Alavi, head of the company StratXX, hardly expresses grief. "This is absolutely not a problem for us. We are building a new airship in Kägiswil and will test then.
The airship explosion was not due to a production error burst. "The helium was too cold, as it entered into the air ship," he says. The solar radiation had been climbing rapidly, warming the gas, and extended the silver airship to bursting.
Now we are a richer from the experience." And again: "Absolutely no problem."
A richer experience also for Degelo Ewald, head of the ZSO Obwalden. However, he makes more of the airship burst. "A bit of suffering because you're readying," he says one hour after the Fehlversuch, while Kamal Alavi's broken airship is almost forgotten
Ewald Degelo would be happy to visit on day of the pioneer-RS authorities and tell the guests in Sachseln directly just how innovative instruments of civil protection in future are.
The system and technology
------------------------
"Airships are captivating "enthuses Degelo. In a short test flight in Kägiswil the day before, I had seen with my own eyes how razor-sharp the images the airship supplies "almost unbelievable" it was.
nilremerlin/tough luck for EU Blimp Convention
Nil,
Very interesting that you should bring up that
100 year Celebration for Zeppelin-dash-Convention at
Friedrichshafen, Germany this October.
Even more so your suggestion of coordinating/incorporating stratellite testing into the program.
Reason: because that exact scenario was planned for by a major competitor of ours.
Yes, wireless telecom was to be beamed to the masses below, while an untethered, unmanned airship, automonously did it's thing. Stein in one hand, "handy" in the other, Fritz could access wi-fi provided internet.
Unfortunately for Zeppelin (who has partnered-up in the future commercial manufacturing of this airship), that
prototype just blew-up. Not kidding here.
That am aware of, only two models of the X-station
had existed, and were being stored in a hangar at..coincidentally enough, Friedrichshafen. Will they commit that last (and larger) copy to convention use? Doubtful if it's untethered.
With numerous missed testing dates, and now the loss of one of it's prototypes, Europe's collective attempt at HAA is definitely feeling what we as investors have been experiencing these number of years.
Obviousy, it's never easy accomplishing what has not been done before. So, even starting with 10's of millions of Euros and the backing of major european tech firms, is no quarantee for success.
Will this latest half a million dollar loss (not to mention the critical contruction time), prove to be the knock-out punch to their program? Doubtful.
But it does serve to underscore certain unique design/experience aspects faced by the X-Station people.
And should make us investors thankful for the
"depth-chart" Prof. Kroplin draws from, and of course his program's many years of dedicated efforts.
Nil, thanks.
Also, an apology to Rwehapi2003 for an extremely late reply, in thanks, to a cool article. Gracias, senor!
pete
Teeroy, answer & reprint Law Officer Magazine
T, saw the trade on Tues as a single transaction on Etrade. Both E & Quotemedia currently recognize it as existing. Personally, it was the reason am back in for the third time (on Weds.). Thought it was too close to quarterly numbers and STOC II in Sept. to be ignored, so bit on it.
Also want to repost your find where Virtra was the JUNE cover article for Law Officer Magazine at post # 22895. The link is dead and the piece is too good to let it lie. So here it is again. Thanks for sharing that.
http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/lom/0406/virtual_training_for_real_survival.html;jsessionid=E60337C49ECCBFDF32CECC7665C1FC8E
Virtual Training for Real Survival
A trip through a Small-Arms Training Simulator
JP Molnar
Law Officer Volume 4 Issue 6
2008 Jun 1
During the first 10 minutes of my first day as a police officer, I almost had to shoot someone. It was around 0600 hrs, and my field training officer and I had just left the station. I was driving, and we noticed a dilapidated old van traveling right in front of us. Of course, just being out of the academy, my mind was racing with all the possibilities of what might be within the van’s metal walls, and I would soon find out.
As we came to a stop at a red light behind the van, the driver’s door opened. The driver got out and began briskly walking towards us with a big machete in his right hand. After seeing the weapon, I pressed hard on the brakes and jammed the transmission lever into park. My door flew open, and I drew down on the subject, ordering him to drop the machete. For a few seconds, he kept walking and then stopped, with a shocked look on his face. I ordered him to drop the machete again, and he did.
We soon learned the driver found the machete in the road, and he just wanted to turn it in to us. Little did he realize his attempt at a good deed could have gotten him seriously hurt or killed. The incident ended well, but I remember thinking a lot of things during those seconds when I was pointing my Sig downrange. Two thoughts were the loudest: “What have I got myself into?” and “They sure didn’t teach this at the academy.”
And of course an academy can’t teach everything that can happen in the field. The overriding fact of law enforcement is nothing’s static. Every situation is fluid and can flip from one direction to another in a split second. As officers, we know that a car we stop for expired tags can contain either an absentminded family man or a wanted felon. In fact, a former fellow officer of mine stopped a vehicle for that reason and ended up capturing a felon who had kidnapped a child in California and had the child with him as he drove towards Las Vegas.
So, how do we train police recruits for situations in which the use-of-force continuum can skip from simple presence to deadly force in a matter of seconds?
Simulators
One answer is to incorporate simulation technology into academy and in-service training. As an EVOC instructor and a veteran of numerous firearms courses, I know simulators are only valuable if the package delivers on realism. A simulator must duplicate the real world well so the officer feels his input is real, and the consequences of poor decisions are accurate, including in firearms simulations. A simulated environment has to be believable for students to elevate their critical-thinking, decision-making and shooting skills to a level consistent with real-world performance. The simulation has to make you feel as though you’re “right there.”
The problem: In the past, many firearms simulators didn’t make the officer feel “right there.” The field of vision was limited, the video was poor and the system operator had little influence over the situation to account for officer responses. In other words, if the officer had the potential to talk down an agitated subject, the simulation didn’t have the ability. There were shoot/don’t-shoot scenarios, but having a 60-degree worldview didn’t make an officer feel they were immersed in the situation.
Enter VirTra
With VirTra Systems IVR-300 and 360 Small Arms Training Simulations, all that has changed. Let’s face it: Technology developed for the entertainment and private industry advances at quantum leaps because the audience, sales figures and marketing campaigns demand it. Consumers expect the best, and clients are more than happy to spend what it takes to make it happen. VirTra Systems got its start by producing simulators for FORTUNE 100 clients and the entertainment industry.
Founded by Bob Ferris in 1993 under a different name, VirTra produced simulators ahead of its time, and its engineers have perfected the art of unparalleled realism in simulation design. Since then, VirTra has sold off its other divisions and now focuses only on law enforcement, military and private security markets. To learn more about the company, I visited with Ferris and his team of computer designers at the company’s operation center in Tempe, Ariz.
Walking into VirTra Systems’ training area makes you feel like you’ve walked onto the set of a sci-fi movie. It’s very dark, black curtains line the room and the company’s IVR-300 HD, a large platform surrounded by movie screens, sits squarely in the middle of the room. Projectors and laser tracking devices ring the platform, and an audio system hums in the background. One thing is clear: This is not a glorified video game.
The “300” in IVR-300 HD refers to the degree of vision offered by the simulator, and HD refers to high-definition video. The company also offers a 360-degree version, which makes both systems the most advanced, full-immersion firearms simulators in the world, as well as the most realistic I’ve ever seen.
I got to experience the IVR-300, which is the same model being used by the U.S. military, the U.S. Marshals Service, law enforcement academies, many regional law enforcement training centers, government services and private security entities. The company does offer single-screen units that can be expanded, but the IVR-300 HD is the company’s most popular model.
In the IVR-300
Ferris’ enthusiasm for the IVR-300 doesn’t go unnoticed, and he immediately handed me a Glock 22 and placed me in the center of the IVR-300. The Glock is the real deal, but the barrel internals have been replaced with a highly accurate laser. The company offers an array of laser-guided weapons to use with the system, including less-lethal options, such as OC canisters and Tasers.
According to Ferris, each screen has a tracking system that, at the press of a button, scans its area of responsibility and builds a tracking grid. This function allows the simulator to accurately find each and every shot, and extrapolate the data to the system server for interpretation. The feature allows tremendous flexibility in how the scenario screens are set up. Example: Although the six-screen IVR-300 HD was set up in a circular pattern to create an all-around view during my scenarios, the independent tracking system allows the screens to be set up side-by-side, creating a virtual shooting range anywhere there’s space for it. This flexibility allows the user to set up multiple configurations based on training needs without additional cost. As some of Ferris’ clients point out, a virtual shooting range is accessible 24 hours a day, there are no lead-exposure problems, officer transportation to a remote site isn’t required and ammo cost isn’t an issue.
Of course, a virtual shooting environment is only good if the guns shoot realistically. VirTra has created several weapon systems that replicate recoil through the integration of a pressurized load with every pull of the trigger. As for accuracy, my familiarization shots with the Glock were accurate and true to the front sight.
The most unique aspect of Virtra Systems IVR series is that it allows the student to address the threat in all directions, which is almost impossible to do in traditional firearms training. As officers, we know threats don’t always come from the front and distractions often emerge from any direction. In other simulators, and the firing range for that matter, all of the threats usually come from the front. In IVR-300 HD, you can turn in any direction to address a threat.
As Ferris puts it, “Our system lets you do things that would get you thrown out of the normal firing range.”
The Scenarios
The threats are actually highly scripted scenarios shot in high-definition using places, people and themes that are based on real experiences. This quality is accomplished through the use of a highly sophisticated six-camera apparatus that can film all directions at once. There are minimum distance requirements, so some scenarios use one or two screens to start the simulation and later expand onto more screens. Example: Filming down a narrow hallway doesn’t permit filming the sidewalls, but when the officer reaches a room, the simulation expands and uses all of the screens.
Ferris says VirTra works with clients to develop scenarios based on their needs, and the customization is included in the purchase. He says VirTra is nearing 100 scenarios “in the can,” and can design almost any simulation.
According to Ferris, the problem with systems that allow someone to use their cousin’s camcorder to film a scenario is that the video ends up looking like just that. Another problem: With only one camera, an amateur filmmaker can’t accurately replicate reality or situational awareness and doesn’t have the tools to create multiple-scenario outcomes that are possible with virtual reality.
VirTra has a staff of computer wizards who can insert almost anything a client wants into a scenario, including weather, noise and flashlight beams to simulate low-light conditions. The company’s rifle scenarios can adjust accuracy for distance, wind, humidity, bullet profile, elevation and other factors. Add real actors, real locations and HD video, and the case for a professionally produced and edited simulation makes sense. Why spend a lot of money on a simulation device only to play videos that look like someone’s vacation or birthday party?
Standing in the middle of the IVR-300 HD’s platform, there’s no doubt you’re in for one heck of a simulation. Your pulse will pound just standing there. When the scenario begins, you’re “there.”
Ferris enthusiastically put me through five scenarios. One was a graduated decision-making scenario with a crazy professor in a university as an active shooter. The second was a gang situation in which attackers come from all directions. The third was a biker bar gone bad. The fourth and fifth scenarios were both very common situations for field officers: a nuisance call at a residence and a suspicious-person call. In each case, the video quality was excellent, and the accompanying digital surround system made me feel as though I was actually there. The world outside of the platform disappeared. My heart pounded, my senses were on high alert and I was perspiring—the same things officers experience in the field.
Because VirTra films the scenarios, it can film as many outcomes as it wants. This means the instructor can alter the scenario at any time to reflect the desired outcome. What I found most amazing is that, for the first time, a student can be given an area of responsibility in the scenario, following the lines of the contact-and-cover principle. In such a scenario, distractions can be introduced to test the attention and focus of the cover officer while the other officers in the scenario address different issues. This feature is previously unheard of in the simulation market, and almost impossible on the firing range.
Consequences
So what happens if you’re shot? One criticism of simulation technology is that there’s very little feedback on, or consequences for, poor decisions or no-win situations. Some simulation companies have devised projectiles that are propelled at students. Having used these types of simulators, I believe the situation really becomes a game of “don’t get beaned by the ball.”
Ferris and his team felt the same way, so they invented the Threat-Fire Belt. Threat-Fire uses a rechargeable battery pack and delivers a short electric charge each time the simulation or instructor wants the student to feel like they’ve been shot. The charge is approximately 30 milliseconds long and delivers approximately 100,000 volts. The desired amount of delivered charge is also adjustable.
During one scenario, I was shot at by a suspect with a shotgun and definitely felt the Threat-Fire delivering its bursts. But as would be expected in a high-stress event, my adrenaline and focus dismissed it until the scenario was over. Ferris says the belt is the most accurate way to ensure the student feels the threat.
The Cost
Pricing for the IVR-300 simulator starts at $99,950. According to Ferris, customers have actually told him the price is too low, even though the IVR-300 HD is competitively priced against other single- or tri-screen systems, none of which have the full-immersion capability. VirTra’s goal is to provide the highest-quality simulator at the lowest possible cost with exceptional customer service. He also adds that the ability for one system to deliver accurate training in marksmanship, combat, shoot-house, security and patrol strategies can save clients millions in infrastructure costs if they were to do it the conventional way. Ferris adds that there’s value to real-world training, but it’s costly, difficult to replicate and the opportunity for in-depth, post-training analysis is limited.
Bottom line: As a former officer and current instructional designer and instructor, what matters most is if the system delivers what it promises. My time with Ferris and the VirTra IVR-300 HD Small Arms Training Simulator provided the best firearms simulation experience I’ve ever had. I can see the system providing real value and saving lives and preventing injury to officers and the people they encounter in real-world situations.
Virtra exhibiting at IACP in Nov.
Virtra will be putting the IVR HD through it paces at the
115th International Association of Chiefs of Police annual convention this Nov. 8-12th in San Diego.
http://www.iacpconference.com/exhibitor_list.cfm
The International Association of Chiefs of Police has long had a reputation for providing top-notch education on the most pressing law enforcement topics. That is why more than 15,000 law enforcement professionals will be attending the 115th Annual IACP Conference and Exposition in San Diego, California, USA from November 8-12, 2008. With renowned keynote speakers, forums and technical workshops, and the largest exhibit hall of products and services fro the law enforcement community, this must attend event should be on your calendar.
Boeing Teaming w/patentor for Heavylifter Airship
quick note to rwehapi2003: The comments on sponges pertained to study by certain Stuttgart Aeronautics faculty/student into the ability of certain sponges to rapidly pulsate their bodies to acheive locomotion. Mimicry of such movement through adaptive materials appears to be the motive for an aeronautics department to focus on an otherwise purely biological subject.
http://www.deagel.com/news/Boeing-and-SkyHook-International-to-Build-JHL-40-Heavy-Lift-Rotorcraft_n000004518.aspx
(this link provides images not found in article below)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swap around some of the names and it almost could read like what we might have with SanswireTao/Raytheon/Ebit. It's nice to see new airship designs/uses being warmly embraced by the big boys of defense. Bodes well for LTA industry and maybe us. pete
Boeing and SkyHook International to Build JHL-40 Heavy-Lift Rotorcraft
News >> Civil Aviation >> Announcements
Released on Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Boeing Teams With Canadian Firm to Build Heavy-Lift Rotorcraft
ST. LOUIS, July 08, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and SkyHook International Inc. today announced a teaming agreement to develop the JHL-40 (Jess Heavy Lifter), a new commercial heavy-lift rotorcraft designed to address the limitations and expense of transporting equipment and materials in remote regions. Boeing has received the first increment of a multiyear contract from SkyHook to develop the new aircraft.
"SkyHook secured the patent for this neutrally buoyant aircraft and approached Boeing with the opportunity to develop and build the system," said Pat Donnelly, director of Advanced Rotorcraft Systems for Boeing. "We conducted a feasibility study and decided this opportunity is a perfect fit for Advanced Systems' technical capabilities."
The neutrally buoyant feature allows SkyHook to safely carry payloads unmatched by any rotorcraft in existence today. The helium-filled envelope is sized to support the weight of the vehicle and fuel without payload. With the empty weight of the aircraft supported by the envelope, the lift generated by four rotors is dedicated solely to lifting the payload, leaving the aircraft neutrally buoyant.
The SkyHook JHL-40 aircraft will be capable of lifting a 40-ton sling load and transporting it up to 200 miles without refueling in harsh environments such as the Canadian Arctic and Alaska. Currently, conventional land and water transportation methods in these undeveloped regions are inadequate, unreliable and costly. With its lifting capacity and range, the SkyHook JHL-40 aircraft changes that for a variety of industries around the world.
"There is a definite need for this technology. The list of customers waiting for SkyHook's services is extensive, and they enthusiastically support the development of the JHL-40," said Pete Jess, SkyHook president and chief operating officer. "Companies have suggested this new technology will enable them to modify their current operational strategy and begin working much sooner on projects that were thought to be 15 to 20 years away. This Boeing-SkyHook technology represents an environmentally acceptable solution for these companies' heavy-lift short-haul challenges, and it's the only way many projects will be able to progress economically."
The JHL-40 is environmentally acceptable because it mitigates the impact of building new roadways in remote areas, and Skyhook is expected to reduce the carbon footprint of the industrial projects it supports.
Boeing is designing and will fabricate two production prototypes of the JHL-40 at its Rotorcraft Systems facility in Ridley Park, Pa. Skyhook will own, maintain, operate and service all JHL-40 aircraft for customers worldwide.
[am reading lease here....pete]
The new aircraft will enter commercial service as soon as it is certified by Transport Canada and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.
more on the why's of parawing for HALE
From today's PR:
"* Presentation of the company's flight strategies, including ground
control, launch sequences and return strategy, utilizing a
proprietary autonomously controlled parachute payload
return
system to provide safe return of vehicle and payload under
normal and extreme conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
As we find out, it's a safety requirement for urban use.
----------------------------------------------------------------
First page of paper entitled:
The ISD Parawing Recovery System For High-Altitude
Platform Payloads
S. Bruckner , J. Hacker , R. Kornmann , B. Kroplin †
Universitat Stuttgart, Institut fur Statik und Dynamik der Luft- und Raumfahrtkonstruktionen
Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
D.-A. Wimmer ‡
TAO Technologies GmbH, Nobelstraße 15, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
C.2005
High-altitude long-endurance (HALE) platforms are designed for long-term operations above inhabited areas. For the case of a system failure an adequate rescue system which delivers the payload to a predefined save landing area is required. To ensure this safety feature, an autonomous parawing recovery system for high-altitude platform payloads is being developed at the Institute for Statics and Dynamics of Aerospace Structures (ISD) at Stuttgart University.
This ISD parawing system consists of a flexible Rogallo-style parawing and a control
container which is suspended between the canopy and the payload. The Rogallo-style
parawing has been chosen for its good scalability to high payloads and its good flight
performance. The scalability of the parawing system allows the design of a family of
canopys matching different sized payloads. Different sized parawing systems are used in
flight tests to identify the aerodynamic parameters.
The controller unit which is built into the control container uses a DGPS based waypoint
navigation system. Despite the controller hardware being designed for autonomous control,
currently the control software is implemented in Matlab/Simulink on a ground-based laptop
computer system and connected to the parawing system using high-performance radio
modems. This engineering-level architecture allows a time- and resource-efficient testing
of different control and navigation algorithms with in-flight tests.
Simulation models for the trajectory, accelerations, and forces have been developed
to study the effects of canopy size and reefing on the opening shock and the parawing
velocity. For guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) a simulation setup has been realized
in Matlab/Simulink to allow the off-line testing of the actual flight controller.
A pre-flight software module calculates the release point according to previously measured
local wind data, which are gathered by means of a small drop sonde. For in-flight
control different waypoint based navigation strategies are tested and evaluated in simulation
as well as in in-flight tests. The ISD parawing system has been tested in towed tests
as well as in helicopter drop tests.
This paper covers the current status of the ISD parawing system as well as future
enhancements to the system and lessons-learned from the extensive testing of the system.
Serious1 was that utube from 2006?
To the right of the vid, it shows
from:sh091
and
added: July, 3, 2006
------------------------------------------
So if this video was from that time frame, guess we can
thankfully scratch the S2A angle.
Am i reading this correctly? Don't frequent youtube
much.
thanks.
Rwe....stuttering hand post, sorry.lol
Yes, it kinda does look like the S2A with a freakish tail.
Glad the Airchain's design almost eliminates the appendage.
Thanks for the private.
pete
rwehapi2003 , yes.