Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Zeppelins on Patrol? 295

Posted by michael from the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction dept.
Our Man In Redmond writes "Everything old is new again: The Seattle Post-Inteligencer is reporting that NORAD is considering deploying zeppelins along the west coast and Canadian border to keep an eye out for terrorists. Larger than jumbo jets, easier to repair/upgrade than satellites, this may be an idea whose time has come. Again."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zeppelins on Patrol? More

Zeppelins on Patrol?

Comments Filter:
  • Holy heck.

    What will happen when one of THESE flies into a building? It's an accident just waiting to happen.

    • Boing, boing, boing. No sorry that a blimp. Zeppelins were solid, but in any case they don't move very fast, and don't carry lots of fuel.

      • They're not that solid. There's a skeleton, and the skin is fabric stretched over it, but it's not as though the entire thing is as rigid (or as fast, or as loaded with fuel) as a plane.

        It'd still do some damage though, just like that little prop plane did in Tampa.
      • ...and I don't intend this as a sick joke about the fate of the Hindenburg.

        I don't know why anyone hasn't considered covering the outer skin of one of these "new technology" Zeppelins in photovoltaic cells. Think about it. The engines don't need to put out much torque...they are used for steering, not lift. They could be high-efficiency electric or hybrid engines.

        On sunny days, the ship could fly completely on solar-generated electricity, and on less-than-sunny days it could be charged from the ground, or surplus energy generated during earlier flights on sunny days. Fuel cells could be a third source of energy if the other two fail.

        Maybe it's not 100% free energy...TANSTAAFL is still a fundamental law of nature...but it's a possibility that should be examined. At the very least it would be a "neat hack."

        (Why, oh why didn't they use a different phrase to describe the newness of their aircraft...my association with NT is with the Blue Screen Of Death and crashing. Zeppelin XP? ZeppeLinux?)
  • Gee Whiz.......

    Sure is gonna be tough to outrun a big balloon eh? &lt/Canadian Accent &gt
    Won't drug runners and terrorists just look up in the sky and decide to take another route?
    • 1. The Zeppelins are going to be *very* high up; you'd be pretty sharp to spot one; planes look tiny from the ground and these are gonna be twice as high up as planes.
      2. The idea is that there won't *be* another route; they will provide total coverage of the borders -- being high up, they can each cover a huge area, so you don't need too many to do that.
  • And they accuse Microsoft of never innovating: this is just a straight rip off of the Crimson Skies PC game!
  • Zeppelins
    Their airborne capabilities, extensive line of sight, and ability to spot underwater units (as with all flying units) make them an integral part of the defense network. -- wc
    we all know that without them a single turtle can wreak havoc to all Juggernaught's!

  • Fly (Score:5, Funny)

    by Konster ( 252488 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @05:25AM (#3541977)
    The result of one of these flying into a building would be similar to me bouncing a marshmallow off of your forehead.

    It might catch you off guard at first, then piss you off as the shock and abject fright wore off, but no real harm would come to your forehead. The fate of the marshmallow wouldn't be the same, however, and this is to be expected.

    • Re:Fly (Score:3, Funny)

      by WhaDaYaKnow ( 563683 )
      The result of one of these flying into a building would be similar to me bouncing a marshmallow off of your forehead.

      Uhm, not exactly. These things do have a structure, it's not a balloon.

      So it's maybe more like throwing, say, an egg at your forehead. (unboiled)

      The difference between a Jet hitting a building and a Dirigible hitting one is then more comparable to me throwing the egg versus using a high power canon to fire the egg at your forehead.

      Be warned though, I _can_ throw it hard enough to do some damage.

      • More like a nerf (Score:5, Funny)

        by wirefarm ( 18470 ) <jim&mmdc,net> on Saturday May 18, 2002 @11:07AM (#3542471) Homepage
        The article said that these things would only have a structure for supporting cargo, which, I'm guessing would be hanging about where a blimp's gondola is, so I guess the original assumption about the marshmallow might be true. (I have no idea why the author of he article kept referring to them as dirigibles...)

        I'm pretty sure that if you plowed any sort of non-rigid blimp into any sort of skyscraper, the blimp would do a minimum of damage before being punctured - though if it managed to break some windows first, the occupants of the building might be running around talking in squeaky voices from inhaling al that helium, which would make for some very confused 911 operators I'm sure...

        Cheers,
        Jim in Tokyo

    • Re:Fly (Score:3, Funny)

      by delcielo ( 217760 )
      "Allah Akbar!"
      BOING!
      "Damn it."

      "Badal!"
      BOING!
      "DAMN IT!"

      etc...

  • Nothing to do with "Terror" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sane? ( 179855 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @05:27AM (#3541981)
    Come off it, just how is this supposed to fight terrorism ?

    High altitude balloons are hardly likely to trouble an Arab terrorist coming in on the American Airlines redeye service. Let alone the domestic terrorist who lives in Florida and mails you Anthrax.

    Nope, they are useful for three things: observation, communication relay and radar. Now either someone is trying to hop on the 'terrorism' funding bandwagon, or someone is attempting to hide a technology that effect civil liberties under the same cover.

    My personal guess is both. Someone has finally worked out that cruise missiles are easy to knock up and a threat to US cities - hence the need for good look down 24hour radar coverage. At the same time, an observation platform that could hover over a city, watching everyone, but not seen by anyone, has certain advantages.

    Neither really does much to prevent the average terrorist - but its a nice way to sell your system.

    • What's happened to all their automatic spy planes they're always so proud to tell us about?
    • Someone has finally worked out that cruise missiles are easy to knock up and a threat to US cities Actually they are fucking difficult to make. It's significantly easier to make a nuclear warhead or a biochemical weapon than it is to make an ICBM to deliver it. This is why the main threat for total war on America is a group simultaneously walking into LA, NYC etc with a briefcase full of anthrax/smallpox/whatever. As you suggest, this is some group jumping on the funding bandwagon.

      • Someone has finally worked out that cruise missiles are easy to knock up and a threat to US cities Actually they are fucking difficult to make. It's significantly easier to make a nuclear warhead or a biochemical weapon than it is to make an ICBM to deliver it

        Cruise missiles are not much more than big RC airplanes with a payload. The German "buzz bombs" were a good example - a simple gyro and altimeter, a bomb, and enough fuel to make it over to London.

        Think of this with commodity hardware.

        The nav system is not too difficult - something to take the input and correct the course and altitude. A GPS with a COM port and a Palm Pilot makes this really easy (though mine are too clunky to actually put into anything that does not float).

        Power plant - don't think jet, think rotax. Since you are not looking for FAA certification, you would be surprised what you can stuff on an airframe. VW bug engines are used in a number of homebuilt projects.

        Payload. No clue, but I'm sure someone could manage.

        Anyhow, it is probably a mute issue. Cruse missiles are intended to execute an attack from a "safe distance" to prevent retaliation and also obscure where you are attacking from. Way too much harpoon in college... If the terrorist keep up with there current track record, they will just have someone drive/fly the payload in person. Those cruise missiles often have another name - kamikaze.

    • Well, "terrorists" will have a field day shooting them down... All they need is a small missile with a burning (cuban?) cigar on the end...
      • The LZ129 (Luftschiffe Hindenburg) was originally designed to be inflated with helium. However, the americans would not sell helium to DELAG (Deutsheluftschiffegesellshaft) because it had strategic value (the WW-1 zeppelin raids over London were still fresh memories then), so they had to inflate it with helium.

        During a subsequent refit, after one or two seasons, staterooms were added since hydrogen provides more lift than helium.

        The movie "The Hindenburg" [imdb.com] does a very good job at recreating the luxurious interior (the grand piano was made out of aluminium; the lavish duralumin armchairs weighed something like 5 pounds each). The LZ-128 also appeared in the Indiana Jones "The last crusade" [imdb.com] movie, but don't expect much in terms of historical accuracy (the LZ-128 DID NOT have aircraft launch ramps!!!)

        But the LZ-128 was not the last passenger zeppelin built: the far more luxurious LZ-129 (Luftschiffe Graf Zeppelin II) was completed shortly before the fateful New Jersey crash, but never entered revenue service. It was instead used for nazi tract spreading, and was promptly broken-up for aluminium when the war broke out.

    • It has got to be cheaper to have small, unmanned robot planes flying around potrolling than putting a bunch of over-paid union clowns into a big, fat blimp.

      Is it really that hard to send TV signals from an unmanned robot plane to a control room in some low cost of living area?
  • Are there any existing WWII era derigible hangars still around on the West coast? I know of some at Moffat air field, which is controlled by NASA, but to my knowledge, that's about it. Where the heck are we going to garage/maintain these monsters?

    Actually, a better question is, who makes derigibles in volume anymore? I don't exactly see Boeing, McDonald Douglas, or Newport News fitting into the bidding process too well - to my knowledge none of their units do any work relating to lighter-than-air patrol craft. How will the public react to our getting military hardware from Graf Zepplin (yes, they still make zepplins.)

    Lastly, who would control and staff these craft? The Air Force? The Navy (which controlled the derigible fleets prior to and during WWII), or the Coast Guard (who are undermanned and underfunded - WAY undermanned and WAY underfunded)?
    • I don't exactly see Boeing, McDonald Douglas, or Newport News fitting into the bidding process too well

      Oh, it'll be one of them. The beauty of government contracts is that you don't need to have the product or service that you're selling when you bid. You just push back the timetable, include the startup costs in the bid, then go hire some of Zeppelin's senior people and go to work. Remember: A strong domestic airship industry is vital to our national security. The added startup costs simply give the government the chance to demonstrate how committed they are to supporting it. And no, it's not about fighting terrorism; it's about fighting personal freedoms.

    • According to the article:

      Lockheed already owns veteran blimp maker Goodyear Aerospace Corp. of Akron, Ohio, and has been making airships since 1929. Lockheed now produces "Aerostats," small, remote-controlled, tethered blimps that float 15,000 feet high and are used to monitor the U.S.-Mexican border.

      and

      Boeing's Unmanned Systems Group and its innovative PhantomWorks research group are working on the concept

      So: Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.

  • What the fuck?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by T.Hobbes ( 101603 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @05:48AM (#3542019)
    This will be of no use against any terrorist. Even if terrorists did attempt to cross the border outside of official channels (rather than use fake IDs, sailing a boat into a harbour, or simply live in the states themselves, they would be less than .1% of the total number of people trying to skip across the US-Canadian border or any other border. The rest would be boardertown locals, drug smugglers (we all know how effective the war on drugs has been, right?), and immigrants. Already, they try to and fail at stopping two of these groups from crossing the boarder, and in Mexico they even get flashy night-vision kit and a wall. It dosen't work. This won't either - more information just means you know more of what's going on. It dosen't mean you can be everywhere at once. The Zepplins will stand out of TV, however.

  • Gotham City (Score:4, Funny)

    by DarkZero ( 516460 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @05:54AM (#3542027)
    All you need now is a few supervillains and a well-meaning, but deeply troubled borderline psychopath in a batsuit and all of the West Coast's cities will officially be entered in the Gotham City look-alike contest.

    (Yeah, so only about five people will get this joke, but all five of them are going to get a good laugh out of it.)
    • (Yeah, so only about five people will get this joke, but all five of them are going to get a good laugh out of it.)
      Looks like they had moderator points, too!!!
  • One of the primary advantages of Lighter Than Air Vehicles is that the surveillance packages and load outs can be changed almost on a whim. Try doing that with a satellite.

    Although such vehicles are not very fast, they can be deployed very rapidly with electronics and crew that are mission specific, and can be very beneficial as remote command and information gathering/relay centers that can stay aloft for long periods of time. Not only that, but such vehicles could remain over an area for an indefinite amount of time conducting surveillance and intelligence gathering activities that satellites may not be able to do without interruption.

    No one can guess what will happen next, but floating an extra set of eyes, ears and mouths up into the sky can be a very good thing.
  • How about not funding terrorism in Norther Ireland? That would be a good start. Cheap to implement, too...

    How about not pissing off the Arabs? How about not bombing your allies? Perhaps you could stop arresting foreign nationals for doing things perfectly legally in their own countries?

    Or, alternatively, stick up a great big wall around your country, to keep the "terrorists" out. Yeah, that's a great idea. Or, if you prefer, a "curtain", since you could say it hangs from these dirigibles... A curtain as strong as iron, that would be a great way to describe it... Yep, an "Iron Curtain" around the US. Sounds good to me.
    • sigh..i guess it's no surprise that idiotic crap like this on slashdot gets modded up to 5.

      Yes, I guess we were asking for what happened to us on 9/11 because we pissed off the arabs, right? Nothing like advancing your cause by mass murdering civilians. Oh wait, their only cause is to kill as many civilians as possible. There's nothing that will stop them until the USA is vanquished off the world.

      Perhaps most of the blame lies with their own govnernments which breed and support this type of hatred. But no, it's the USA's fault!!

    • Re:War against Terrorism? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by awol ( 98751 )

      How about not funding terrorism in Norther Ireland?

      I think it is very important to draw the distinction between what the state funds and what free citizens do. Funding terrorist organisations in Ireland is illegal in the US. So is soliciting funds for them. That citizens choose to flaunt the law is not the same thing as the state funding terorism in Ireland (northern or republic of). Further to draw the corollary between funding dirigibles out of govenrment expenditure and the flow of funds from citizens in the US to organisations in Irelend is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous.

      How about not pissing off the Arabs?

      Whilst it is somewhat flippant of me, I think that pissing of the Arabs as you put it is sufficiently easy (ie for some of them not being muslim is sufficient for some whilst the simple existence of Israel is enough for other's [others are completely tolerant mind you]) that it is impossible not to piss someone off.

      Regardless, I think that if one is willing to argue that _any_ policy warrants the kind of action that has lead to these kind of ideas being floated (excuse the pun) then rational discourse is harldy the vehicle through which you can be persuaded of the folly of your position.

      The irony is that there _are_ sufficient steps that the americans need to take to demonstrate their commitment to avoiding the hypocracy that causes their credibility so many problems. The extent to which they make those steps will determine the extent to whihc they are deserving of coninued support (for example the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation).

    • How about not funding terrorism in Norther Ireland? That would be a good start. Cheap to implement, too...

      Why don't the British-descent imperialists in Northern Ireland go home to "great" Britain and leave the Irish at peace?

      A cheap solution to the problem in Northern Ireland, don't you think?
      If you must point fingers, try pointing them sowhere besides the U.S., and you might find yourself more correct.
      • Well, that's pretty much what we've done. Curiously enough, it seems to have worked. The only problem we have now is Irish Loyalists attacking Republicans, because they want the British forces *back*.

        It seems you just can't win...

  • This is utterly ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by swaic ( 541592 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @07:18AM (#3542135)

    Twice as big as a jumbo jet and soaring twice as high, they may soon be deployed to guard Canada and the United States, scanning for intruders on the Pacific Northwest's long coastline and international border.

    To guard against attacks? How is this going to prevent a determined person from putting a truck bomb in front of a federal building, or preventing someone from flying another plane into a building after coming up with yet another ingenious way of taking control of the plane.

    When was the last time the US had a missile coming from across the oceans to strike them? NORAD detects just about everything airborne, so they'll know if they're under attack. However this will do nothing to stop someone sitting at the end of a busy airport with a shoulder launched SAM and take out a couple planes.

    This is just another ridiculous idea to give the American people a false sense of security. Now don't get me wrong. There may be some merit in these ideas, but I just don't see them. Can someone please enlighten me?

    • Re:This is utterly ridiculous. (Score:5, Informative)

      by joshki ( 152061 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @10:04AM (#3542350)
      These are supposed to replace the NATO planes that have been flying AWACS missions over the US since september 11th. They are obviously not going to stop a truck bomb -- but they do give us "eyes and ears" in the sky to look for those jetliners that are off course and heading towards a tall building. Fighters can't see very far -- they need an "eye in the sky" to direct them, and that's what these things would be doing. My guess is that they're a whole lot cheaper to operate than the NATO AWACS aircraft that have been up since September 11th -- also they're much more sustainable -- they can stay up a lot longer without refueling...

    • Re:This is utterly ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by inKubus ( 199753 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @10:16AM (#3542371) Homepage Journal
      False sense of security? Sorry, that was for the first 6 months. Now it's captialization on the IGNORANCE of the American people. It's amazing that most people are really dumb enough to accept this as being "anti-terrorism".

      In reality, this is just stupid. Then again, the American people will never get a chance to decide because we don't really decide anyway.

      Television decides for us, tells us what to think about the matter, and then we just shrug and go to work.

      I think there needs to be a citizen's veto system:

      Basically, it would be a website ("secure") with a database/list of EVERY U.S. government program. You can run a search, you can browse by category. Next to each program is a check box.. If you, the citizen, feel as though a program is a useless shill and waste of money, you simply click the check box, and submit your veto.

      Seriously, if we do not allow our "democratic" system (which is over 226 years old) to evolve up to our current communication capabilities, we are all going to be lost.

      Of course, even though something like this would be EASY to implement, congress would never give Americans that much power.

      Why? Because they like their jobs, which pretty much consist of accepting money from big business to make laws favorable to said big business. As if they are working for US. This is all mental masturbation. We work for them. We go to our shitty jobs day in and day out, hoping that maybe tomorrow will be better. And we want to do something to change the world but we CAN'T because we are POWERLESS. I thought this was a democracy, but it isn't. It's a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, and the representatives don't represent the average joe; they are rich fucks with fathers and grand-uncles who "served" in congress years before them.

      We are the ones who build this great nation, yet they just fuck around with it and spy on us to make sure we aren't trying to "take away their power" or are "terrorists." Guess what guys, nobody cares.

      Anyway, got off on a rant there, but I was just thinking about an idea I've had for quite sometime, actually since the rise of the WWW in the early 90's: Why not CHANGE the system and make democracy a little more DIRECT?

      Certainly it is within our abilities with our current communcations infrastructure to implement a simple CITIZEN's VETO system, which would allow we, the people, to institute checks and balances on the mainly corrupt government.

      And after that, we could change the entire system over to direct democracy. Personally, I have plenty of time on my hands; I could vote on each new bill in 5 minutes each night (after reading it and doing a little research). That would put the power back towards the people, and stop the idiots in Congress and the Sennate from making decisions about stuff which (as we see a lot) they really have no clue about.

      Let's face it, they are a bunch of old fuckers. Like your grandparents, they cannot use a PC worth a shit and they can hardly program a VCR. Sure, they can clean a gun, but frankly, these old fucks are on the way out.

      The next generation in congress will be the boomers, as all these 70-90 year olds die off, and we need to have a system in place so we, their kids, can keep them in check.

      It's a new world, folks. But it can be two ways: Their world, or OUR world.

      Why the FUCK are we still living in the 1700's when we have had 2 industrial revolutions and a space age?!

      More later.
      • Welcome to America -- this is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. If you don't know the difference, learn it before you start ranting about it.
      • > Television decides for us, tells us what to think about the matter,
        > and then we just shrug and go to work.

        Television is not artificially intelligent. Someone is deciding what message gets delivered via television. You are deciding whether to receive the message.

        Some of "us" use a few brain cycles to understand this as we choose, watch, and interpret. Others of "us" use a switch on the box. Still others of "us" use our choice of whether to have the box at all.

        > I think there needs to be a citizen's veto system....
        > If you, the citizen, feel as though a program is a useless shill and waste of money,
        > you simply click the check box, and submit your veto.

        That would be a sword with two edges. Don't you think that, for any proposal, however meritorious, someone will object? If you'd like online privacy, more honest government, or even more honest television, I think you would find that there are plenty of people who would use your "online veto" to quash your vision's chances of realization.

        Alternatively, you could count up all the vetos and anti-vetos. But wait...someone already invented that system two or three centuries ago. It's called "democracy."

        The trouble is, someone is always dissatisfied with the outcome. The best you can do is try to satisfy more people than you dissatisfy, and bring about a balance where people can live and work together without killing each other very often. That's an even older invention called "civilization."

        (Don't forget that it's up to you to remember to turn off your TV when you leave for work; have you noticed that it only tells you to that you should stay tuned?)
      • The reason why we have representational government is because the common man cannot present his opinion on every topic the government debates. Sounds elitist? More like practical.

        The government has the advantage of expert testimony, review processes, studies, etc. to determine the viability of any expenditure. Joe sixpack does not (yet).

        If you did let society devolve to referenda on each expenditure, we would wind up with subsidzed pro wrestling pay-per-views and a two day work week.

        We've got at least a century to go before the common man can be expected to make rational informed decisions on arbitrary matters.

      • "Television decides for us, tells us what to think about the matter, and then we just shrug and go to work.

        I think there needs to be a citizen's veto system:"

        Those are two contradicting ideas. Yes, television does tell us what to think, and I don't think anyone should ever underestimate the power and influence that the media has. You mention the ignorance of the American people and how its amazing that people are so dumb. Bingo. Which is EXACTLY why the average citizen should have no part in running the country.

        Joe Shmuck who gets his news from the National Inquirer and Jerry Springer should not have any say in running the country. What a truly frightening notion. Even the intelligent among us shouldn't have that power. The reason simply is that we all have our own jobs to do and our own lives to run. We can't possibly have the knowledge to be able to make sound decisions about something like national defence. What the hell does the average person know about defending a nation from military attacks? Shit, what does the average citizen know about YOUR job, whatever it may be? Better yet, what does your manager even know about your job? Not only are people clueless but they're too clueless to know they're clueless and feel they have to have an opinion about everything. That's why there's a government that hires people to run the country. Specialists who know the subject matter at hand, and decision makers who know all the different sides to a decision, because its their job to investigate it. There's always more to a subject than what meets the eye, and the average person can't possibly have the knowledge required to make good decisions, so we get people who do to make the decisions.

        Granted, its certainly not a flawless system. Politicians run their own agendas, they pull the wool over our eyes, and in some cases they're making decisions with no more knowledge than you or I have. But its still, IMHO, better than letting everyone and their dog try and have their say.

        Worse yet would be such an easy system for launching a vote. Anything that's that easy (and this should be obvious to anyone who's used the internet and seen the human stupidity on it) would not produce well thought out decisions. They would be snap decisions based on whatever little knowledge the person has and however they tend to feel at that moment before hitting the submit button. At least now voicing your opinion requires writing to your congressman or whomever. This is somewhat difficult and time consuming, which means that only those who feel strongly will bother, and those who do will have some time to think the issue through. Otherwise, you'd have everyone voting on every issue, regardless of what they know about it, like it were a Slashdot poll, clicking through on whatever looks good without even thinking about it.

  • CargoLifter is agerman company building Zeppelins. The intent is to carry cargo (single pieces of hughe size) to points you can not run them by a truck to. The biggest currently build is a CL 160, and can carry 160 tons, hence its name, of cargo.

    CargoLifter and Boing signed a LOI to investigate into using CargoLifters as radar and flight control stations for so called home territory security of the US.

    No, I have no link on the web, but I got a letter from CargoLifter some days ago with the info(I'm a shareholder).

    CargoLifters are helium driven and have a cruise speed of 100kmh, no idea about the hight as the currently planned lifters should not fly that high. In principle a CL can of course go much higher than a plane.

    Regards,
    angel'o'phere

  • Dave's top 5 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Easy2RememberNick ( 179395 )
    It won't work everyone will think there's a football game going on under it and run to it. Oi!

    Won't the terrorists notice the big shadow on the ground? Ba da bing!

    How can you take a soldier seriously when he sounds like Mickey Mouse(the helium). Doh!

    Some kid(ie. American) with a gun will shoot it down. *pop* fzzzzz..... Johnny's Mother: "Johnny stop shooting down those nice soldiers in the balloons they don't like that!" Hary har har!

    How can it be taken seriously when everyone make jokes about it? ouch!

    *tap tap* Is this thing on?

  • Germany´s two approaches: Zeppelin vs. Cargolifter (Score:3, Informative)

    by HeinzHarry ( 264080 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @09:34AM (#3542298)
    Here in Germany, we have two companies building Airships - both for different purposes. One of them is about to file for bankrupcy - just within the next couple of days. While Zeppelin seems to be doing quite well offering flights to the public and building highgly priced Zeppelin Z1, Cargolifter stopped developing their product, the C160 Airship - which was supposed to carry 160 tons of payload - just yesterday. If there is a need for a hangar in the US... there is one spare in Germany pretty soon i guess.

    Here are two links to these companies and to an article about cargolifter:

    Zeppelin Germany [zeppelin-nt.de]

    Cargolifter Germany [cargolifter.de]

    Yahoo on Cargolifter [yahoo.com]

  • What having boarder patrols would do... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thomas M Hughes ( 463951 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @10:00AM (#3542338)
    Quite simply, it would watch for people who are crossing the boarder at non-designated boarder crossings. The boarder between Canada and the US, from what I recall, is highly unguarded, and allows for basically anyone to pass over with no real effort. Furthermore, I believe any Canadian can waltz through legitimate checkpoints whenever they want, as long as they're not carring prohibited materials.

    Thus, anyone who intentionally avoids those checkpoints may be assumed to be transporting prohibited materials or prohibited people from Canada into the US. Legitimate people who wished to visit the US would cross through the boarder crossing, the 'terrorists' would skip those checkpoints, and these blimps would be better suited to spot such activity from high above for long periods of time.

    This operates under the assumption that Canadian customs processes aren't secure enough for the US, and thus we need to double check their work. For example, Canadians may freely come and go to Cuba, while members of the US may not. Thus, it stands to reason, that it'd be easier for a Cuban terrorist to enter Canada, and then sneak across the boarder to the US with his vile intentions.

    Of course, this does very little to stop new terrorist attacks, however the US political mindset right now seems to be 'any minor improvement should be done.' Flying blimps across the boarder decreases the chance of terrorists by a fraction of a fraction of a percent? Do it. Running around declaring people you don't like an Axis of Evil and invading them might stop the family of a suicide bomber from getting some money, go for it. I guess they thing every minor amount will eventually add up.
    • BORDER! BORDER! BORDER!

  • already being done? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by J.J. ( 27067 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @10:51AM (#3542437)
    This is already being done, in a sense. If you travel along the US/Mexico border, you can find "zepplins" flying. They're small, and fly at only 3500' - 5000' with a permament tether back to the ground station.

    They're there to provide full radar coverage of the border - owned and operated by the US Air Force, if you believe the signs.

    I know I was a a little surprised, when travelling through the wasteland they call South Texas, to have the base suddenly appear out of the bushes. It's not big, but out of place is an understatement.

    JJ
  • One a recent trip out to Yuma AZ, I got to see a blimp on a zip line about 50 miles north of the city. It's directly between Yuma and Quartzsite AZ.

    They apparently catch an average of 3 people per day with it, according to a sign at its base.

    You can see the blimp from nearly 80 miles away, even as far as Phoenix.

    According to my father, who migrates yearly to Quartzsite in his Motorhome, the Blimp has been there for at least 2 years and probably more.

    Anyone know anything about this blimp? I know the line it's connected to is on an interstate checkpoint between Yuma and Quartzsite .(Interstate 8, I think)

    C-3PO ruined Episode 2.
  • Aren't these things like sitting ducks? They look like a very inviting target. It seems to me they could be easily shot down, for sport, by all kinds of weirdos. A backpack rocket launcher bought on the black market, or even a rocket made from hobbyists' parts would make quick work of one of these things.

  • How do Zeppelins spot forged student visas? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Saturday May 18, 2002 @01:12PM (#3542919)
    Really, these people are entering the country using our own airlines or border corssings...they aren't coming over in an armada of hostile craft.

    The bottom line is that the only effective deterrent to the movement of threatening individuals is they type of close surveillance at the individual level (fingerprints, ID cards) that the /. crowd abhors.

  • C'mon, this is ridiculous. Why would anyone want to make Led Zeppelin keepers of the peace? Sure, they've had some hits over the years, but-

    Huh? What?

    Oh... nevermind.

  • Thet arleady use airships loaded with radar gear to watch for drug trafficking airplanes on the us-mexico border.

    No, airships are not inherently dangerous.
    No, hydrogen is not inherentl dangerous.
    No, the Hindenburg did NOT burn 'because of the hydrogen'.
    Hydrogen is less dangerous than jet fuel, for sure.

    Zeppelins can use Helium (and usually do)

    There were many, many, many airships before the Hindenburg disaster, it was a very popular form of flight. The Hindenburg disaster was more of a PR disaster than anything.

    Imagine how many people would have survived an airplane exploding in mid air? A lot more got off the airship alive and relatively unhurt you know.

Slashdot Top Deals

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Close