hitman_001
Premium
join:2006-11-20
Laredo, TX
| Sounds pretty much impossible.
Unless im missing something.. It seems like it would cost considerably more to get that thing in the air and keep it in the air as opposed to just laying towers to do the same job.
A blimp on the other hand.. I can see the pheasibility of this. Border Patroll already uses these in the South Texas area for pictures/video/ to track migration of illegals. Was kina funny first time i saw one going wtf do they have this blimp tied up out in the middle of nowhere for?!
a blimp would certainly be easier to keep in the air than a plane.. Only reason i say this is because to me.. it seems the plane would need to be constantly controlled to keep it from crashing from gusts of wind, wind changes.. etc etc etc.
--
Hn7000s Small Office plan/.74m dish & 1Watt Trans on Satmex 5 Signal: 86/Win XP Pro SP2/P4 3gig, 2Gigs Ram, Radeon X1300 500meg video |
|
Jon
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Lisle, IL | What a stupid idea
 |
|
greendragon
Premium
join:2003-09-20
Stewartville, MN
| This might work for disaster relief
I can't see this working 100% 24hrs a day. The connection would be problematic and definitely frustrating for customers using the service.
Your connection would vary as the plane made constant circles in the air. Also, having enough planes to keep the service up all the time would be costly.
--
Folding for our future!! |
|
CMCGUY
Premium
join:2003-02-21
Grants Pass, OR | reply to hitman_001
Re: Sounds pretty much impossible.
When I worked at a satellite company (Hughes) in the 90's these schemes were floating around. They are technically possible, but most unlikely to happen, for economic reasons. |
|
raypsi1
join:2001-04-09
Redford, MI
 ·AT&T Midwest
| broadband by plane oh yeah!
Well LA had those R/C airplanes spying on everybody until the FAA put a stop to that.
As a amateur radio operator I see no reason. Not even cost. I mean looky DSL on a twisted pair going over 2 miles on that pair. People once said no way jose'.
Put that broadband on a 10GHZ spread spectrum signal on an aeroplane in my line of sight and I could pick it up with a NE2 neon bulb. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to greendragon
Re: This might work for disaster relief
good idea. too crazy for everyday use, but temporary, emergency use it has promise. |
|
bbandwatcher
@pcworld.com | Economically absurd
Unless these planes run on solar or nuclear energy, they'll just be burning fossil fuels, or some kind of exotic solid fuel, 24 hours a day. I don't see it. Check out where the price of oil is going. |
|
Thrudd
join:2004-06-21
Mississauga, ON
| Downside?
Those who harp on the high costs involved I bet have almost no clue to the costs involved in land-line systems. Those have a cost per point of use dependant on how much infrastructure you need to put in and the costs to maintain that whole mess.
The downsides I see on the spy-plane system are as follows.
Fuel - how will it be fed? If its ground based then you need a second one in the air to hand off the work load while the first goes in for refuelling and maintenance. The other option is in air refuelling, which is a darn sight more complicated but has the upside of no short interval downtime.
Maintenance - you will need enough spares to cover the maintenance downtime or those taken out by private planes and the military not noticing the birds in the air.
I can see the technical feasibility but the logistics of the regular dumb-as-cow-pats management, office and service monkeys found in the industry precludes innovations like this from happening. |
|
fivebyfive
join:2006-11-26
Morgan Hill, CA
·EarthLink
| Myasishchev M-55 only good for short durations
Although the Myasishchev M-55 can fly at over 65,000 ft, it has an endurance of only 5-6 hours aloft. That might be extended a bit if it could be rigged for remote control, saving the weight of the pilot, but it still isn't practical for round-the-clock coverage. A better solution may be a solar powered craft circling at 100,000 to 120,000 ft, recharging its batteries during the day to operate electric propulsion and transponders during the night. At that altitude, clear air is guaranteed every day, so there wouldn't be any problem using solar cells. Also, it would be over 20 miles up, too far to use 802.11x WiFi, so another scheme would have to be used for networking, such as WiMAX.
NASA was testing such an aircraft, called Pathfinder, around 2000-2001. See »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Pathfinder |
|
Jameson
10-8
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
clubs:
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
 ·Time Warner Cable
| reply to Jon
Re: What a stupid idea
said by Jon  : agreed |
|
meister_sd
Premium
join:2006-01-29
La Mesa, CA | reply to hitman_001
Re: Sounds pretty much impossible.
Don't you see? Funding would be by AT&T, who gets their money from ???? and the signals would be beamed through a certain "data center" before delivery.  |
|
