Google's Co-Founder Is Building a Gargantuan $150 Million Blimp (futurism.com) 152
We first learned that Google co-founder Sergey Brin was secretly building a "massive airship" inside of Hangar 2 at the NASA Ames Research Center back in 2017, but few details on the project have emerged since. Now, according to a report from the Telegraph, progress on the project appears to be picking up as Brin is currently soliciting aerospace engineers to work on his blimp from a hangar in Mountain View, California. From a report: At 656 feet in length, the massive craft is expected to be the largest of its kind in the world upon completion, and it's reportedly costing Brin upwards of $150 million to construct. Some of that money will presumably go toward paying the $28 per hour salary and pension benefits Brin is offering entry level engineers to work on the project, according to the Telegraph piece, which notes that the job listing also requires that applicants be "comfortable working outdoors."
As for why Brin wants to build this massive blimp, sources with knowledge of the project told The Guardian in 2017 that the Google billionaire plans to use craft as an intercontinental "air yacht," ferrying his friends and family around the globe in style. The blimp will also find use on the other end of the privilege spectrum, according to those sources, who told the newspaper that Brin envisions using it to deliver supplies and food to remote locations on humanitarian missions.
As for why Brin wants to build this massive blimp, sources with knowledge of the project told The Guardian in 2017 that the Google billionaire plans to use craft as an intercontinental "air yacht," ferrying his friends and family around the globe in style. The blimp will also find use on the other end of the privilege spectrum, according to those sources, who told the newspaper that Brin envisions using it to deliver supplies and food to remote locations on humanitarian missions.
Re: Will it carry biplanes? (Score:1)
? Nothing is said about pirates. This is non-sequitor.
Re:Will it carry biplanes? (Score:5, Informative)
Only 656 feet, but maybe.
The USS Akron was 785ft and carried 5 aircraft.
It's an air yacht, so it probably has a helicopter bay instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The USS Akron was 785ft and carried 5 aircraft.
And crashed with loss of life, like most airships. I think that armchair adventure Brin is going to learn some uncomfortable new facts about mother nature.
And wasting all the helium is just disgusting. Maybe he should start wearing furs too?
Re: (Score:2)
The "humanitarian" angle is a lie, too.
Between pickup and landing that thing will take weeks to arrive anywhere and can probably only carry a couple of C130s worth of stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, some crises occur over longer periods than a couple of weeks. I'm sure there are plenty of places he could deliver food and supplies that would be welcome at any time.
Re:Will it carry biplanes? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a $150 million dollar luxury blimp. The image of it drifting slowly over an impoverished region, dropping a meager load of supplies (because it won't be able to carry much more than that) before slowly drifting off while the people on-board sip champagne, content in having fulfilled their social obligations, is highly amusing, but also highly unlikely to help anyone in any meaningful way. It's the kind of thing you'd see in some Hollywood movie set in a dystopian future meant to establish how out-of-touch the wealthy have become. The idea that Sergey is actually seriously proposing it should illustrate that, as intelligent as some Silicon Valley people may be, they have a very poor understanding of the way the world actually works. I have no problem with him building a luxury blimp, it's his money: spending it is a good thing, overall. But the idea it is going to help the poor or impoverished somehow is a complete and obvious load of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha, that's exactly the mental image I had.
A steampunk Brin and entourage sipping champagne and tossing doughnuts out the window to the starving masses beneath.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably use a modified T-shirt launcher donuts, and have disco lights.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ready to watch the movie.
Terrorists take over the ship and Steven Seagal kills them all and crashes the airship into their training camp, boom. Before the crash Seagal and Brin jump out in a life raft, and land in a river.
Weeks? Maybe. (Score:2)
Depends on the distance to be traveled, airship speed, and the prep time needed. Remember, some zeppelins cruised between 70 and 80 mph.
Maybe he stages gear in Florida at the beginning of the hurricane season. Then maybe (hah!) some Caribbean island gets hit by a bad storm (I'm looking at you, Haiti).
Maybe three days to get to Florida from somewhere in CONUS*, one day to load gear, one day travel time and BOOM, you have humanitarian supplies on site in less than a week. Depending on what gear he has insi
Re:Blimps are flying ducks (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually they're surprisingly robust. They're practically immune to normal bullets (which pass right through leaving only a tiny hole through the skin), and even incendiary rounds won't have that much effect if the skin isn't flammable. Not even if it's filled with hydrogen.
The key is that the gas inside is at the same pressure as the surrounding air, it's just a lot less dense. That means:
The balloon can't pop, because it's not under pressure.
You can't ignite the hydrogen inside the balloon, because there's no oxygen there for it to burn with.
You won't even get jets of flame, because without a pressure difference there's only a trickle of hydrogen and oxygen flowing through that hole by diffusion. You might get a sustained small flame right in the bullet hole, at the interface between the two gasses, but so long as the skin is designed to survive that heat, the fire can't spread.
The Hindenburg disaster was practically designed to be a nightmare scenario: a helium airship with a highly flammable skin and none of the fire safety systems that made hydrogen airships more expensive, filled with hydrogen. It was doomed from the moment they decided to use the wrong lift gas, it was only ever a question of when.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with blimps vs dirigibles is, they are slow. At some speed, turbulence causes the skin to vibrate and they can deform structurally. Got to go slow in a blimp, which can be problematic if the wind picks up.
But both blimps and dirigibles are just a stupid, irresponsible waste of scarce helium. I suppose that entitled brat Brin isn't ever going to hear the end of it.
"Quack" said the duck about helium... (Score:2)
But both blimps and dirigibles are just a stupid, irresponsible waste of scarce helium. I suppose that entitled brat Brin isn't ever going to hear the end of it.
As readers of slashdot are aware, the market and pricing for helium has shifted dramatically since the United States government decided to close out the Federal Helium Reserve [wikipedia.org] in the 90's, I think fewer know it was given a life extension in 2013 [blm.gov].
There seems to be an underlying notion that helium is no longer extracted or recovered, but helium is actually produced these days. [wikipedia.org]
My point is that Helium, while difficult to collect and store, is still produced and has a somewhat normal market. As prices rise
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is that waste is not waste, got it.
Re: "Quack" said the duck about helium... (Score:2)
You're not smart enough to make that ruling for everyone and every possible use.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, what?
Re: "Quack" said the duck about helium... (Score:2)
You're not smart enough to determine whether or not every potential use of helium is wasteful or not. If you can't interpret one sentence based on context, how could you ever hope to make sound decisions for all regarding the helium market?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm smart enough to know that you are a blowhard. Just fuck off.
irresponsible waste (Score:2)
No. Blimps and dirigibles are USES of helium, a limited natural resource.
PARTY BALLOONS are an irresponsible waste of helium.
Re: (Score:2)
Party balloons and party blimps are an irresponsible waste of helium.
Re: (Score:2)
The whataboutism is strong in this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Dirigibles crash more because less resistant to structural strain of turbulence. By crash more, I mean crash a lot. Nearly all of the crashed, usually with loss of life.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the parent's comment is... what? Is it supposed
Re:Blimps are flying ducks (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually they're surprisingly robust. They're practically immune to normal bullets (which pass right through leaving only a tiny hole through the skin), and even incendiary rounds won't have that much effect if the skin isn't flammable. Not even if it's filled with hydrogen.
The key is that the gas inside is at the same pressure as the surrounding air, it's just a lot less dense. That means:
The balloon can't pop, because it's not under pressure.
You can't ignite the hydrogen inside the balloon, because there's no oxygen there for it to burn with.
You won't even get jets of flame, because without a pressure difference there's only a trickle of hydrogen and oxygen flowing through that hole by diffusion. You might get a sustained small flame right in the bullet hole, at the interface between the two gasses, but so long as the skin is designed to survive that heat, the fire can't spread.
The Hindenburg disaster was practically designed to be a nightmare scenario: a helium airship with a highly flammable skin and none of the fire safety systems that made hydrogen airships more expensive, filled with hydrogen. It was doomed from the moment they decided to use the wrong lift gas, it was only ever a question of when.
And that is actually the key flaw of blimps and balloons.
The Hindenburg wasn't the worst airship disaster, that killed 36. The worst was the USS Akron which killed 73, the worst civilian airship crash was the R101 which killed 44. Both the R101 and Akron were destroyed by bad weather which airships, being lighter than air, are particularly vulnerable.
Fixed wing aircraft can fly around, over or even through storms quite easily. It's a rare thing when a storm takes down a modern plane (so rare that the events get lodged in modern consciousness, see: AF447) but the majority of airship incidents weren't to do with hydrogen being flammable, but with airships being lost in bad weather.
Bad weather is why we stopped using airships.
Bad weather and military mindsets (Score:2)
R101 and the Shenandoah were both driven into storms with bad outcomes.
The Macon crash was almost identical to the Akron crash, but almost everybody survived. What was the difference? After everyone died on the Akron they put life preservers aboard. That's it. Akron crashed into the sea and had no life preservers ("It's an aircraft, not a boat!"). Macon crashed into the sea and had life preservers.
Re: (Score:2)
The skin caught fire, which released the hydrogen to mix with the surrounding air. As I said - it's not possible for the hydrogen to burn *inside* the balloon, fire needs oxygen. Once it gets outside though all bets are off. Which is why hydrogen airships go to great lengths to make it as difficult as possible to damage large swaths of balloon skin. For instance, not making it out of flammable materials.
And if you haven't heard of modern hydrogen airships... I can only assume you're not a big airship
Captain Nemo (Score:3)
For some reason, this feels like the air-version of the Nautilus with Brin as Nemo.
There's an uncharted patch of sky over the Pacific where I'm told there are motes of land that float thousands of feet over the water. They are perhaps inhabited by an indiginous tribe of people and a variety of wildlife most people wouldn't believe. Come along Wilke! Prepare the moorings!
$28 hour??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Christ. In Mountain View?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That was my reaction. Good luck staying afloat.
Afloat (Score:2)
I see what you did there...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For $28 per hour the pilots might also be bottom-rate. But as it is very unlikely I'll ever fly on that thing, I don't care...
Re: (Score:3)
Hold on... wait a second. (Score:3)
Could someone please remind me why a wealth tax on people with over $50M is a bad thing? Clearly, this $150M dollar private airship has pushed that fact outside of my head.
Re:Hold on... wait a second. (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep in mind that the proposed wealth taxes are currently eclipsed by Google's rising share price - it's a 2% tax, not a wealth cap. So, his sweet airship will cost him 3MM to pay the taxes on... which isn't that unreasonable. I mean, a house also requires annual payments (usually at more than 2% of the purchase price)
Re: (Score:1)
Keep in mind that the proposed wealth taxes are currently eclipsed by Google's rising share price - it's a 2% tax, not a wealth cap. So, his sweet airship will cost him 3MM to pay the taxes on... which isn't that unreasonable. I mean, a house also requires annual payments (usually at more than 2% of the purchase price)
A house requires police and fire protection, schools, roads, libraries, parks, and a bunch of other things that require money from property taxes. An airship only needs fire protection. A 2% property tax on an airship isn't justified by the amount of services it needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes aren't a fee for service. They're a way of paying for government services for all. I mean, a billionaire doesn't use the library, the public schools, and even fire and police protections are probably covered by private contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the government's responsibilities are to help protect the assets and property of its citizens; as a billionaire has more assets than other people, they get more benefit from the government in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the ultra-rich have the money to easily relocate to another country if they feel they're being treated unfairly. What's better:
1) Tax them, have them leave the country, and get nothing at all.
2) Encourage them to remain in the country where they will create economic activity by doing stuff like building blimps.
This $150 million isn't just disappearing; it's paying employees' wages, it's creating business for suppliers, and it's generating tax revenue. It has consistently been shown that high rates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
England had an industrial revolution because it was a low tax economy, while France had no industrial revolution because the high-rate of tax made it unviable to do business profitably.
What research are you basing this from? France did participate in the Industrial Revolution, though it was hampered by 3 main factors: the lack of coal and iron deposits, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. The French Revolution probably had the greatest impact, when a large number of the nobles lost their heads it had two major effects that affected industrialization: the people with the capital and organization to implement large industrial projects were no longer around to do so and the disp
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, the rich idiots building blimps aren't the problem. They're busy taxing themselves. The problem are the smart rich, who hide their trillions overseas.
It has been repeatedly estimated, and demonstrated, that the tax rates in most countries, certainly in the US, are well below the optimum revenue generating level. You can argue that lower tax rates increase economic activity (the might) but they don't do so enough to produce greater government revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, a wealth tax would be greatly preferable to an income tax. It would help to keep money in circulation, and it would help to ensure that people are contributing members of society instead of living off of their ancestor's lucky break. This last thing is what the estate tax is supposed to help address... I'm going to ramble for a min
Come here and say that (Score:1)
Just to be clear, *you are an evil monster* because your stupidity enables genuine sociopaths to do their will.
I will wait for you at the airport if you want.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's defund everything because corrupt politicians and bureaucrats steal some of the money. Yeah, that's a smart fucking idea if I ever heard one..We can all live in feudal compounds when the world falls apart from lack of investment
That is exactly what *YOU* are doing, creating clepto-lords which take everything and trickle down a tiny bit OF YOUR OWN MONEY, and you say what can we do we need the state to something something.
Maybe if more people got actual un-weaponized news
Maybe if unicorns would fart gold like they are supposed to everything would be ok, like it's supposed to.
Re: (Score:1)
that's why the guy worth 50 billion dollars can only pay 28 bucks an hour.
Ha! (Score:2)
It's not hard to shoot down a blimp. Warlords and cartels would probably enjoy the target practice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A blimp with a pressurized compartment can fly at 35,000 feet - well out of the range of pretty much anything a warlord or cartel would have.
So it's going to drop the food and medicine from 35000 feet? Because otherwise it'll make quite a target on the way up and/or down.
Re: (Score:3)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (Score:2)
You do realize that was shot down by Russian backed rebels during the Battle of Shakhtarsk, right? It was Russian trained technicians using Russian supplied missiles during a Russian backed insurgency. Hardly a local warlord.
Like, archer already did it (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly in pre jet days, this was not unreasonable. Compared to days in a train, this was luxury. It is possible that the airship will provide plenty of space, possible tens of thousands of square feet for passengers, but you are still stuck for days. This is why cruise ships are for entertainment and not travel.
It might be cost effective for cargo. This has actually been researched extensively. Automatic airships transporting things cheaply. The problem is that we are in a world of highly engineered transportation, and time and accuracy is critical. That is why so much is transported by truck instead of train. But I think cargo is a good application, but no one has made it cost effective. Probably because of weight issues
That said, if this uses helium, it is a criminal waste of a severely depleted resource
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with airships is they are slow, like under a hundred miles per hour. This is a physical limitation of the rigid airship, not something that can be designed out. What this means is more than a day to cross the US, a few days to cross the Atlantic or Pacific, and even a day to get up the coast from LA.
Yeah, but you don't need a real airport to land at. No TSA.
Is that worth $150M? If you have over $151M, maybe. How much is your dignity worth? For a billionaire, $150M seems cheap to possess dignity while traveling. And he has the time, it isn't like he's in the trenches making their ad business go.
Re: (Score:3)
you don't need a real airport to land at. No TSA
A big airship needs an airfield. Needs things like mooring masts. Consider putting down in a field in Africa, then having a wind come up and blow it into the trees.
Aeroscraft (Score:4, Informative)
Consider some of Igor Pasternak's innovations in that regard:
http://aeroscraft.com/tactical... [aeroscraft.com]
http://aeroscraft.com/technolo... [aeroscraft.com]
He has put a lot of thought into this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
An airfield might actually be a fallow farmers field where you installed temporary mooring lines.
If you're not selling commercial passage, you're not going to have a TSA booth.
Re: (Score:2)
They can be quite difficult to handle at times. Saw this mooring accident with the USS Akron on TV many years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The USS Akron crashed in 1933.
That tells you nothing about if it would be hard to handle. Even if you built a copy of the USS Akron, but with modern electronic controls similar to a passenger car, maybe it would be easy to handle, instead of difficult?
Maybe it would still suck, but you're not going to get the answer by waving your hands at engineering from the 1930's. Maybe if they had had a few Arduinos running PID controllers it would have been easy?
Re: (Score:2)
JLENS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of "rapid transportation", think "very small cruise ship" or "flying yacht". The sort of trip you take when the journey is at least part of the destination, and your vehicle has room for a banquet hall and private rooms for enough people to fill it. And unlike a seagoing ship, where at best one side of the ship gets a view of the coastline in the distance, and the other gets a view of ocean to the horizon, an airship gets a close view on all sides (and through any glass floors) of whatever land yo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that RPG. It might be tricky to get it to damage the envelope, though you could no doubt blow a chunk off the gondola easy enough.
Sounds like the experience clearly isn't for you, but different people enjoy different things. There are those who like to take multi-week journeys in passenger cabins on cargo ships, with little to see for most of the trip but open ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can take down an airship if you want to. But how many people really want to, knowing the reprisals they will almost certainly face for harming members of the modern aristocracy? And obviously you stay away from lawless areas where piracy and kidnapping are more likely to be a problem.
How many people spend a week or two on a cruise ship? They didn't used to all be the amusement parks they are trending toward today - just a nice resort hotel on the water, wandering from port to exotic port. An a
Re: (Score:2)
The niche for cargo is going to be pretty small. It's faster than ship but more expensive. So the gap is something that is faster than a ship, slower than a jet, and priced in the middle.
Infrastructure will be a major issue of course.
Niche for cargo (Score:2)
I agree that it is small, but high margin. I would restate your limits to:
Slower than a jet and more expensive than a ship but able to go over land where there are no roads, rails, or runways. Able to carry things much larger than jets can carry. Able to cross the water/land boundary with no cargo interchange facility.
Just shooting from the hip: transporting large wind farm rotor blades (bigger is better but size is currently limited by highway size restrictions), transporting/installing factory-built ho
Re: (Score:2)
What this means is more than a day to cross the US, a few days to cross the Atlantic or Pacific, and even a day to get up the coast from LA.
So better than by car, and still not normal hellish air travel. I'm still on board ...
Re: (Score:2)
Humanitarian (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It often takes months to get infrastructure built to start getting aid in. Maybe you get it to the nearest airport quickly, and then what? You might only be able to move a small amount over the roads after an earthquake or hurricane. When this gets there, then you can move things more easily.
Re:Humanitarian (Score:4, Interesting)
$28 an hour (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, with that salary the bay area you can easily take an Uber to IKEA and check out its dumpster where you can find a nice cardboard box in which to live.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what an entry level engineer makes in Oregon, and the cost of living is really low.
And this is partly working outside, usually that increases the pay.
Maybe these listings were really for entry level "engineering technicians" or something like that, and not "aerospace engineers."
I'd expect a welder on that sort of project to be making around $28/hr, since you need people who are really good.
When you just give all the money to the top (Score:2)
Is it made of spruce? (Score:1)
Please tell me this dirigible is made of spruce wood...
Then we can call it the Spruce Goose II, or maybe "Spruce on the Loose".
Very Annoying (Score:2)
The US Government basically just gave Google Moffett Field. Annoys the crap out of me. Crony capitalism at it's finest!
"Privilege spectrum" (Score:2)
What's that?
The Trump Tax Cut Puts the Masses to Work! (Score:1)
I bet Bezos is spitting mad because his billion dollar yacht has been upstaged and Brin can fly overhead while he moons the yacht. How will Bezos strike back? Look out for the Blue Origin Ultra Luxorious Private Space Station. Then Bezos can moon the world
Bad idea (Score:2)
This vanity blimp is an unconscionable and unecesary waste of scarce helium. Conspicuous consumption or what?
Re: (Score:2)
This vanity blimp is an unconscionable and unecesary waste of scarce helium.
For the last time, the world is not running out of helium. The spike in helium prices this year is a result of war, not any natural scarcity. Saudi Arabia is blockading Qatar, which was producing 30% of the world's helium. Of course there's a price spike.
The rise in prices over the last 30 years is primarily because prior to the 1990s, the US was producing all the world's helium at a loss. There was essentially no production outside the US because the US federal government had made it impossible to prod
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like lots of Googlers getting on here to defend their lord and master, whatever stupid tonedeaf ideas he might have. Yah, Helium is scarce (see "abundance of elements in the crust" and you are a loudmouthed idiot.
Is its name... (Score:1)
... Donald Trump?
Bad use for helium (Score:2)
Helium is a limited resource. Once it is extracted from the ground and released, it escapes Earth and will never be available for human use again.
Party City recently shut down 200 stores primarily due to the effect of helium shortages. It is a byproduct of natural gas and oil production which is higher than ever, but we don't seem to have regulations in place to make sure it is always separated out and kept. Sadly, most producers just let it go.
We should be collecting all helium and storing it for the use o
Hope he's not using helium (Score:1)
We're running out of helium and this is a stupid use for what we have left. One it's gone, it's gone. This is a great big boondoggle. He could easily go around the world on a 777 or buy an old 747. I think 747's are about a dime a dozen these days having been taken out of service. Plenty of parts too. He'd get there far faster and he could do it in style.