Sergey Brin Is Reportedly Building 'Massive Airship' In NASA Research Center (bloomberg.com) 119
Google co-founder Sergey Brin is secretly building a "massive airship" inside of Hangar 2 at the NASA Ames Research Center, according to a report from Bloomberg. "It's unclear whether the craft, which looks like a zeppelin, is a hobby or something Brin hopes to turn into a business," reports Bloomberg. When asked about further details, Brin wrote in an email: "Sorry, I don't have anything to say about this topic right now." From the report: The people familiar with the project said Brin has long been fascinated by airships. His interest in the crafts started when Brin would visit Ames, which is located next to Google parent Alphabet Inc.'s headquarters in Mountain View, California. In the 1930s, Ames was home to the USS Macon, a huge airship built by the U.S. Navy. About three years ago, Brin decided to build one of his own after ogling old photos of the Macon. In 2015, Google unit Planetary Ventures took over the large hangars at Ames from NASA and turned them into laboratories for the company. Brin's airship, which isn't an Alphabet project, is already taking shape inside one. Engineers have constructed a metal skeleton of the craft, and it fills up much of the enormous hangar. Alan Weston, the former director of programs at NASA Ames, is leading Brin's airship project, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing the secretive plans. Weston didn't respond to requests for comment.
Re:Going Howard Hughes... (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally find it very exciting. I knew that Alphabet had rented the Moffett Field hangars from NASA and were rennovating them. But their official stated purpose for doing so was to store a number of company planes. This is the exciting part:
So first off:
1) It's a rigid airship. Which used to be common but is now rare. Zeppelin NT is a semirigid, with a trilobate truss inside, but there's not many other examples. Rigids are favored when you're building something very large, as they reduce the stress on the skin.
2) It's huge. Hangar 2 is 52,1 meters high, 90,5 and 327,7m long.
I hope it's a lifting body! If I'm not mistaken it'd be the world's first rigid lifting body airship (correct me if I'm wrong!). Either way it's yet another sign that we're - at least temporarily - entering a new lighter-than-air renaissance. Who knows whether it will last, but it's great to see so many companies giving it another shot, making use of modern technology and design. Because there have been some huge improvements since the old Akron / Macon days. Also wonder about the fuel. Something like Blau gas, so it's buoyancy-neutral as it burns?
Of course, not everything in the article is exciting or new...
Um... yes, that's how lift cells work.... you either use them or you use ballonets, your choice... there's a couple other possibilities, like high overpressure superpressure balloons, or compressors + gas tanks, but the former doesn't scale, and the latter generally comes with too much mass and cost penalties with too poor responsiveness.
BTW, for those not familiar with the Macon and the Akron, I definitely recommend reading about them. They were literal flying aircraft carriers. You know how a landing jet on an aircraft carrier catches a cable with a hook? They did that too, but in the other direction - they caught a "trapeze" on their topside. They were then raised into the hangar, which was designed for five airplanes.
They unfortunately weren't long in service. Both of their losses could have been prevented with any combination of better weather prediction, computer controls, and better lift control. The Macon's loss was also stupid in that they were flying with unrepaired structural damage, out doing fleet maneuvers.
Re: (Score:3)
This could be used to carry large ungainly freight, like lifting a factory-built house onto a mountainside.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A common usecase for large airships is remote mining operations. They need big, heavy pieces of equipment brought into places without roads. Currently, the first step is to build a road - which is expensive and environmentally destructive. An airship needs only a clearing - and the "skycrane" variants don't even need that.
Another advantage is that it's much easier to design them to carry "bulky" cargoes than airplanes. Again, especially "skycrane" designs where the cargo hangs beneath.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be used to carry large ungainly freight, like lifting a factory-built house onto a mountainside.
And that would buy what over using a helicopter to lift materials, except risk and costs?
Human psyche being what it is, the world's biggest blimp will always primarily be a target. For ridicule and bullets.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Airships are not party balloons; they don't "pop" when you make a hole in them. They have low overpressure and a huge volume to surface area, so a "bullethole" is just a slow leak; it's not even a reason to land. A helicopter is far more vulnerable to small arms fire than a helium airship.
As for what it buys over a helicopter, show me a helicopter that can move 50-500 tonnes payload at a per-kilogram rate cheaper than a freight truck while flying halfway around the world without refueling. Because that's wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. The Goodyear Blimps often pick up bullet holes, whose only impact is a slow leak. Part of the preflight inspection is to look up through a window in the top of the cab, for little points of light.
Re: (Score:2)
On a recent hike in the U.K. I saw trail construction in the Lake District. A helicopter was being used to haul slabs o gray slate to a boggy mountaintop at the rate of one tonne per load, or about two slabs This was a job that could have been done in many fewer trips, hence lower cost, with an airship.
Market demand? (Score:2)
This could be used to carry large ungainly freight, like lifting a factory-built house onto a mountainside.
I'm rather dubious that there is sufficient market demand for remote heavy lifting to make it economically viable. I could be wrong of course and I'm certainly no expert but is getting heavy equipment into rural locations a really big unsolved problem? We don't seem unable to get heavy equipment into pretty remote locations today. Superficially it sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
Then of course there is the seemingly needless use of (probably) helium on what stands a strong chance of being a
Re: (Score:2)
As Rei said: it is a solved problem, you build a road. This is a cheaper solution. That's what technology is after all, the ability to do things more efficiently.
Plus: who gets to decide what's "frivolous"? Certainly not you. Whatever people will pay the most for is the least frivolous, as there's no better objective measure of value.
Make a business case (Score:2)
This is a cheaper solution.
That has yet to be established. Building a small number of very large airships is an extremely expensive endeavor. It's not even remotely clear that there is enough business for them to recoup their cost much less be a cheaper solution. If you have actual data to support it being a cheaper solution and for the value of the business to be had by all means share with the rest of the class. This is not remotely the first time this has been discussed on slashdot and those who think it is a good idea (and it
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you come up with a technological solution it does not automatically follow that it is more economically efficient than the alternatives.
What I was saying was: the useful definition of technology is "that which makes it more efficient to produce good or services".
Re: (Score:2)
North Slope of Alaska. Siberia. Anyplace in the enormous expanse of the boreal forest / not-so-permafrost and targa regions that encircles the planet.
Roads are becoming a big issue with global warming (which, of course isn't happening except in the arctic and nearby regions). Even a month less of ice road makes a number of projects economically infeasible because helicopters and bulldozers don't get along all that well.
Of course, we are talking about things that are on the edge of possible, much less not
Assumed demand != actual demand (Score:1)
North Slope of Alaska. Siberia. Anyplace in the enormous expanse of the boreal forest / not-so-permafrost and targa regions that encircles the planet.
You're talking about places, not the amount of actual stuff that needs to get there that could be economically transported by airship. It would have to have such a huge cost advantage to overcome the need for in place roads and other infrastructure.
Roads are becoming a big issue with global warming (which, of course isn't happening except in the arctic and nearby regions). Even a month less of ice road makes a number of projects economically infeasible because helicopters and bulldozers don't get along all that well.
If the ice is melting on the north shore then you don't need an airship. You need an ocean going ship which will be MUCH cheaper and more reliable than any airship. It's not like you are going to send an airship during a winter storm anyway...
Of course, we are talking about things that are on the edge of possible, much less not actually existing at present. But the market is probably there if you can deliver.
You're just doing
Re: (Score:2)
Consider a tropical rainforest in which some of the trees are valuable hardwoods used for luxury furniture and veneers. It would be possible to sustainably harvest widely scattered high-value trees if it were not for the network of logging roads that destroys the first understory. So to generate sufficient value to the local economy, the forest ends up being mowed down and replaced by something like a coffee plantation.
But what if an airship were available to lift large logs out of the forest without use
Re: (Score:2)
There was ince a german company, Cargo Lifter.
They gave thousands of show cases for such heavy lifting.
Unfortunately, one of the founders destroyed the companie with fraudulant fincancial actions.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but its first use would not be to move factory-built houses, but pieces of windmills.
A major limitation and expense on wind farms is the need to transport oversize blades to the sites, which requires some serious road building, considering that many of the best sites are in rugged terrain, and maneuvering a truck with a 36m payload means you need to build a route without any sharp turns. If the airship can also function as a sky crane, then erecting the windmill's mast and attaching the blades is a lo
It's the station wagon (Score:2)
"never underestimate the bandwidth of a zepplin filled with zipdisks". He'll be able to transmit ten times the annual internet data of the US from one google data center to another in a week.
Re: (Score:2)
people pay good money for the Orient Express experience and i for one would love to do a trans ocean flight experience ala 20's with luxury in mind. Michelin rated chefs and such.
Re: (Score:2)
> BTW, for those not familiar with the Macon and the Akron, I definitely recommend reading about them. They were literal flying aircraft carriers. You know how a landing jet on an aircraft carrier catches a cable with a hook? They did that too, but in the other direction - they caught a "trapeze" on their topside. They were then raised into the hangar, which was designed for five airplanes.
So basically Crimson Skies in real life:
https://youtu.be/WE20UlBFJbc?t=193
That would be so cool to do with choppers
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not mistaken it'd be the world's first rigid lifting body airship
Not really. All airships would create lift when the hull was inclined; up to 20% of their mass. With their low density there was enough area to create a substantial amount of lift, even with a body of rotation for a hull (which is much lighter to build than an aerofoil-shaped lifting body, by the way).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, great. Yeah, thanks. Now I have to go and try to get Crimson Skies working in wine again...
Re:Money to burn I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt this is intended to be a money making project. At most maybe an advertising expense/ tax deduction.
I'd rather see a guy spending his money on something like this, which employs a bunch of people and will be pretty cool when it gets off the ground, than on political manipulation like buying the Washington Post and turning it into a political blog or funding groups like Tea Party, MoveOn, or Occupy Wall Street.
Re:Money to burn I guess (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, Jeff Bezos is also funding Blue Origin, which is building rockets. I suppose if you have enough money, you can do all kinds of things.
My personal favorite of "I have so much money..." examples is Larry Ellison, who essentially bought the America's Cup by plowing so much money into winning, largely so that he could totally remake it into a high-speed, trimarans of death, competition circuit. Oh, and he bought a Hawaiian Island to be his personal fiefdom.
Re: (Score:2)
You fokin' wut m8?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet he has never paid for a polo shirt, wearing only those given away as trade show swag.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say I need to go to more trade shows, but that would probably be more expensive than a lifetime supply of polo shirts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because heaven forbid a mere citizen dares to make his viewpoint known
Yes, it's legal and many people do it; that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's easier to hate on?
I'm wondering what the "innovation" is. Because I'm sure that he's not doing this without some angle, something unusual that he's doing with this one vs. other airships. Some sort of wow factor.
Sergei, blow me away with something totally crazy. Like make its skin transparent, fill it with heliox and have people live inside the envelope farming, like an Earth prototype of a Venus colony ;)
But honestly, my expectations are that it's a generic freight carrier, and that the twist would
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Except in scale, how does this differ from some average Joe Sixpack building a boat in his basement?
Well, what TFA doesn't mention is the free environmental benefit. NASA was planning to tear the hangar down, but discovered just how monumentally expensive it would have been to remove several decades worth of lead paint from the structural members. This plan is awesome in its win/win mentality. In putting the facility to real use, Brin first had to mitigate that environmental hazard. Bonus for us (US).
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you have too much money. You just throw money at projects and hope they turn out to be useful.
Making a folly is a time honored tradition among the wealthy.
Even in the realm of aircraft. I see a Spruce Goose here.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really see how this qualifies as a 'secretive' project.
It's due to the glands in the blimp skin.
[STR]
Wonder how it compares to Airlander (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering the same thing. It's a bit of a non-story without any technical information whatsoever. The NASA prototype airship described by Alan Weston in TFA, which may be along the same lines as what he is developing with Brin, sounds more like Aeros' COSH [popularmechanics.com] "Control of Static Heaviness" system; pumping Helium from the main envelope into smaller bags at a higher pressure or vice versa in order to control buoyancy, which is a different approach to the Airlander combination of aerodynamic and buoyant lift
Re: (Score:2)
I was just thinking if you wanted to go really high tech with a lighter than air ship, you could go really fancy with electro-magnetic field and low temperature plasma, ionised gases. It is no how small gas atoms are, it is down to how space they take up and how much atmosphere they can displace whilst keeping fabric containing them, inflated.
Simpler would be heated helium, getting it as hot as possible within an insulated envelope, using the motors that move if forward to provide the heat to improve it's
Re: (Score:2)
"Airlander 10 offers a new type of flight, with ground-breaking capabilities."
Not the best choice of words IMHO
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That accident sure was a black eye for them... but the design is now better because of it. Also, gotta love having an aircraft whose crashes are in slow motion ;) "Coming soon on World's Least Dramatic Air Crashes!"
I imagine for the pilot it was sort of like when you're driving down a slope on ice and you lose traction, and you end up skidding down the whole slope at a several kilometers per hour: First, alarm and futile attempts to regain control, followed by acceptance, then "Okay, you can stop any time
Re: (Score:2)
Slow motion is the best motion.
Re: (Score:3)
Given the fact that it's rigid, and given the size of Hangar Two and the fact that the frame is said to take up much of the hangar, it's probably much larger than Airlander 10.
Probably also doesn't look like a giant rear end ;) Even if it's a lifting body, the fact that it's a rigid airship (from the description) means that they can shape it however they want. So probably something like a flattened teardrop, if they go for the hybrid (lifting body) approach. Which generally seems pretty popular these days,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The little problem with your take on this adolescent fantasy is the that Appleton (a nom de plume if IRC) never envisioned that 'ol Tom would own the airship. And the bank. And the town. And most of the state.
Appleton was kinda funny that way.
Obligatory (Score:2)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j1o-... [blogspot.com]
Same Old Story (Naked Gun) (Score:2)
Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy,
Boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl,
Girl Dies in a tragic blimp accident [youtube.com] over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.
Sounds like... (Score:2)
CargoLifter (Score:2)
The only thing they ever achieved was to build an enourmous hangar in the middle of nowhere. After CargoLifter went bankrupt a Malayan investor changed it into a tropical theme park [wikipedia.org], which seems to be doing quite well now.
I sincerely hope that Sergey will achieve what he is trying to do. It would be sad to have a NASA hanger transformed into a tropical theme p
Re: (Score:2)
They did not 'fail misserably'.
They got destroyed from the inside by fraud. One of the founders tried to run away with the investors money. He spent most of it and failed to run far, so: he failed missserable.
The project itslef actually made good progress.
Re: (Score:3)
They also built a freaking massive hangar [wordpress.com], which is now a tropical theme park [wikimedia.org].
It's not just huge by building standards, it's huge even by hangar standards. By far the largest in the world.
This happened before, we should be worried! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll only start worrying if he changes his name to "Robur the Conqueror".
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, watching that movie few months ago and like "Inner Space" to see what Silicon Valley and SF was like back in the days even hyped by the movies.
But wait, this is not the first airship to be based at Moffett in the 21st century. There was a Zeppelin regular people can buy rides though expensive in order of $500. The "Eureka" was debuted at 75th anniversary of Moffett Field in 2008 and at the time it was the only airship you can buy tickets to ride in (others like Goodyear blimp you have to be a crew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a person of leiesure (sp?)
If you have so much free time, what's the problem with buying a dictionary or spending 5 seconds googling it?
Post-Apocalypse Shelter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rich folks like this guy have the funds to build nice post-apocalyptic shelters; Mr Brin appears to think having an aerial shelter would be best, and I think it's a clever way to get away from the zombie hordes, nuclear mutants, etc.
I'll only be worried if he also acquires a fluffy white cat.
Though the opening cinematic of Starcraft: Broodwar comes to mind...
Final Fantasy (Score:2)
Probably played too much of the old Final Fantasy games.
You know - this moment when you finally get the airship - and the whole world opens up to you :)
Well - in his case the "whole world" part is kinda already done. So why not just put the airship on top.
Overheard from the hangar (Score:1)
Helium shortage (Score:2)
here's an idea (Score:2)
No Matter How You Do it... (Score:2)
...it doesn't seem like a smart thing to build an aircraft that can be tossed around by the wind like a party balloon.
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly safe, as long as you don't fly it on windy days...