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.
I have seen these proposals (Airship Association), and the concept does have merit. I question the feasiblity of going to stratospheric altitude since the vehicle will have to be IMMENSE to lift even a few tons.
Like Vern implies - smart people have already run the tradeoff analysis, and any high(er) altitude LTA devlopment will certainly get the government's attention.
Generally speaking (IMO) DoD wants airship capability, but it challenges many of DoD aviation core competencies and contradicts fixed/rotary wing aviator culture, and therefore it meets tremendous resistance every time it is mentioned. IMO it will take a commercial success to make the govt do more than stick their toe in the water. Let's hope it is the SANS II demo.
I use this method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-ball
Interesting assessment, JF. I wonder if (hope) SEC will be equally objective.
Thanks for the feedback, Sam. I'm investigating as well since I have family overseas.
Sky
I can't tell you what the complete process is, but I believe it shouldn't be a big deal since conventional cell phone towers broadcast into commercial airspace, too. The concern for air traffic is valid, and assessed by Federal spectrum agencies before apportioning to commercial vendors. I'm assuming that strat developers have already resolved this kind of long-lead requirement/issue (within the US), however, Europe and Rest-of-World may be a different story (and could become a sovereignty issue more than air safety issue). The US military is routinely prohibited from operating certain types of radios and other EW gear due to spectrum management policy in other countries. Success of global strat employment may ultimately be tied to regional spectrum compliance.
80 kts doesn't get you down the road very far when the wind is blowing 150! Vern - I too am a military pilot and avid airship proponent - I would only ask that you be careful stating what an untested strat is capable of. It raises false hopes.
I disagree theat 30-40kft is ideal based on the fact that the winds are often way too high. The primary reason for stratospheric operation is to get above the jetstream where the winds die down to <30kts.
Yes, 30-40kft may be desired, but an airship can't reliably operate there - that's fixed wing domain. The Air Force knows this.
There seems to be a growing expectation that the SansII will go to the stratosphere -- I don't think it is big enough lift a useful load that high. I thought it was to be an intermediate altitude (~20kft) demonstrator...which, if successful, would give investors the confidence to finance a full scale prototype.
OBTW - a few years ago, the Japanese reached 20kft with a conventional, but unmanned blimp.
Please fill me in on expectations for SANSII.
Good questions. The capability is there - check out JLENS.
But it is prob not affordable for local applications in underdeveloped countries.
SW is shooting for a bigger audience - therefore higher alititude.
Comprehensive near-space Air Force article from July 2005. Speaks well to "effects-based thinking" -- necessary for strats to have a fair chance to compete.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705near.asp
Understood. Not trying to put words in your mouth - pls accept my apology. I think what Vern and I are pointing out is the the milestone appears overstated (and causes readers of this board to challenge the technical advances of LM and/or Sanswire).
Those announcing success deployed their ships as balloons (not meant pejoratively) - but it is rather simplistic. A propulsion system was operated - but how effective was it at controlling the vessel and maintaining position? Specifics as to controllability and stationkeeping at altitude were not provided. A ship at sea can run it's engines/props and still drift backward with the current if unable to produce meaningful power.
The term airship implies controllability, and in the context of stratellite, very good station keeping for very long periods of time. You should be concerned about station keeping because it matters as much as anything else to the success of HAA.
Are they really any further down the road than anyone else? They could get a taste of the blowback Sanswire experienced if their prototypes fail to meet expectations. I give them credit for what they have done - the approach is novel and may ulitmately prove viable (I doubt it, though, due to scalability issues). That's my last post for the day...all feedback welcomed. Sky
The equation = altitude x payload x endurance x stationkeeping.
We have already put huge payloads into the stratosphere for months - with drifting balloons.
As I read it, the STRATXX demo was a balloon test. We've been doing these kind of experiments for 50 years (with video/telemetry). In fact, there was a show on TV the other night about relaying telescope imagery back from strat balloons.
To my knowledge, no one has yet attained station keeping capability (maintained position over a fixed geographic point over the Earth) at stratespheric altitudes. Pls give me a vector to those claiming they have.
I agree - that the tether is pulling the ship out of trim. You'll sometimes see that on conventional blimps. Note that the ship does level out later in the video. Don't kow if they may also have some differential ballasting or fwd/aft bouyancy controls installed. No worries here in any case. I applaud the progress.
The words "strat" and "heavy duty cargo carrier" do not go together. Aside from both being associated with lifting gas, the technologies and purposes are poles apart. Anyone who associates the two really doesn't know what they're talking about.
I haven't read this entire string, but a constant volume scenario presents challenges, i.e. a rigid containment system (like metal) is required to withstand a vacuum.
I believe the strategy is/will be something like Techsphere - basically a balloon that expands and contracts within a rigid envelope.
I agree with your assessment. I believe there are other interested parties that may be directly/indirectly involved who will never be cited in any PR!
JLENS has been fielded for some time - results from Afganistan and Iraq have strengthened the program (to my knowledge)....not sure where a "connection" is being made. Please fill me in.
A little known fact about the program is that the Army has a provision in the JLENS ORD for a mobile vs tethered platform, aka airship - but not necessarily high altitude. I imagine they would be interested in the Sans2 integrated system demonstration - hoping they had a rep there.
Supposed to read - "is" really pretty good....
Cole, I can certainly understand your frustration with Sanswire progress, but like Crash is trying to tell you, it's the nature of the beast. It is typical for government programs to miss deadlines, esp ones involving cutting edge technology. You can also expect companies to withold progress details due to proprietary concerns. When you expect these things, then you can understand why Sanswire performance isn't really pretty good.
I would agree with most, however, that Sanswire should/could have been more conservative in earlier PR's - would have made setbacks much more palatable. That's hindsight. Let's look forward.
Yes. It appears that TechSphere is targeting DoD's 20kft comm requirement. I heard through the grapevine that they lost the ship due to a ground accident - did you see any press on it?
Thanks, Crash.
Great article. They obviously have a talented group of engineers on the team.
Another contender. Don't know their status, but here's the link:
http://www.techspheresystems.com/default.aspx
I encourage everyone to research stratospheric balloons. They have taken several tons of payload aloft to stratospheric altitudes for (up to) months at a time. I'm surprised to learn, however, that many of you thought this had already been accomplished with a blimp. Doing it first is what Sanswire, and the quest for stratospheric staion keeping in general, is all about. That's the prize everyone is after!
There have been studies that propose cheap, expendable, strat balloons with recoverable communication suites as an affordable method for continuous datalink coverage. We have experts the world over who know how and when to launch them to provide such service.
Material science has certainly posed a technical hurdle for strat airship envelope design since we expect them to last many years in extreme conditions (as opposed to disposable in the strat balloon case) - but I think we're close, if not already there. Other challenges such as regenerative power and ballast control remain.
"It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win." John Paul Jones
These agencies have expressed interest in the capability.
Concur. All good points. Thanks.
Yes - we need a short-term win. I think we should encourage Globetel leadership to engage/re-engage with Congress and DoD/DARPA to get some government money directed its way for demonstration purposes. There are other companies operating w/govt money (ACTD) on small-scale airship concepts that frankly pale in comparison to the work SansII has been doing on its own. I guess you can say they are smarter for risking someone else's money (the governments/taxpayers) - but they're certainly not as close in terms of real technical achievment (in my opinion). Does anyone know if GTEM/SANS has had any government investment, direct or indirect, to date?
Although they are also helium-based, the P791 and DARPA Walrus (now cancelled) are designed to be logistics craft and present a set of technical challenges much different from a stratellite. It is interesting that LM is experimenting with both.
I've researched patents in the past. There's a lot of conditions and clauses associated with patents - and I believe there's a stipulation that you have introduce to market within a certain time period....I'm not going to fret over it. I think it is safe to bet that Sanswire understands the patent landscape.
Bottom line -- $$ will flow to the first company to station-keep and commlink with a vehicle @ 65kft for a week or more.
RE Hands of the clock moving backward. I can understand frustration and disappointment with missed developmental milestones, but it happens all the time in aerospace programs (due to technical risk -- JSF a good example). Govt buys down technical risk with big R&D $$, and that doesn't always work effectively (Osprey). But sometimes that is the price you pay, in terms of price and time to introduce truly transformational technology.
I'm afraid many SansWire fans are hanging their hat on the strat without a full appreciation for the associated technical risks. Frankly, I'm impressed that they're as far down the road as they are. I agree, though, that Globetel could do a better job communicating the challenges they're dealing with -- so we can keep our chins up.
I have not seen anything overt that would indicate unethical behavior on behalf of Lockheed Martin toward Sanswire, and did not mean to imply that. The sense comes from the behavior of DoD program managers - what they say and believe regarding capability alternatives often appears puppet-like, and leaves one with the impression that "someone" is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
In addition to HAA, LM has recently test hybrid vehicle technology - an indicator that they sense potential DoD applications, and commercial too, perhaps. They would probably prefer extra time for a measured approach toward this new market since they are so heavily vested in JSF, F-22, and many other huge programs, but they certainly wouldn't risk their professional reputation with outright attacks against a small company.
There's nothing to keep their investors/lobbyists from doing so, however. With so much telcom market at still at stake in the I can understand why they might try to discredit GLOBETEL's aggressive plans - perhaps explaining why they would be so passionate about bashing a "failing" company...
I personally can accept the ups/downs we're seeing with GLOBETEL, because this (SANSII) is a high risk endeavor - it's to be expected. To me, Globetel is building a clock - not merely telling time.
If you really want to get your blood boiling, read up on the R&D delays on JSF and how much that costs in $Billions/year - who pays?? You, the taxpayers do.
That's my 3rd post for the day...until tomorrow.
There are many parallels with Apple Corp as well. These rides often accompany transformational/disruptive technology. Blazing a truly new path is a learn as you go process, and can often take a turn into unexpected, yet lucrative territory. Steve Jobs didn't expect his team to revolutionize the animated movie industry...so may the technologies, resources and intellectual property of GLOBETEL lead to uncovering new markets opportunities. Key enabler is vision by leadership and the ability to recognize opportunity.
I find it odd that a hangar can go 70 years without fire, and then suffer one in the age of automatic detection and sprinker systems (with precious contents). I hope it was something totally accident and unforseeable. In the mid 90's, Westinghouse Airship Industries lost a prototype surveillance airship in a hangar fire in Elizabeth City under suspicious circumstances. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for a controversial Navy program. Westinghouse collected the insurance and got out of the airship business.
I worked on a few airship based capability proposals at the Pentagon over the course of a couple of years (2003-2005). It was apparent to me that BIG AEROSPACE did not want stratellites or helium-based technologies to appear (yet) because they can still milk the service compeonents for conventional technologies and methodologies developed 60+ years ago. Airship persistance, sensor capability and efficiency are so extreme, and relevant to today's Global War on Terrorism, that any success to this end would embarrass the military. Simply put - it ain't sexy, and is relatively inexpensive compared to how we're doing business today. I admire Globetel/Sanswire because they recognize the potential and are risking their own money (a pittance by government standards) to do what the government will take a decade or more (or never) to develop. I conclud that it will take private industry to make stratellite technology work - and of all I've seen/reviewed, Sanswire has the most realistic vision, talent and aggressive timeline (relative to all other contenders) to make it reality. I think BIG AEROSPACE recognizes this and is working behind the scenes to damage SANSWIRE credibility. Lockheed Martin's HAA project was funded by MDA as a technology demonstrator. It appears they are falling well short of the goals originally touted. That's all I care to write for now - but it's important to understand that introducing new technology involves great risk...but if successful, can deliver huge rewards. If you can't accept the risk, you shouldn't be here - stick with savings bonds.