Piloto Posted June 16, 2013 Report Posted June 16, 2013 If you though that ADS-B was the greatest thing for GA check on this: http://www.google.com/loon/how/ Unlike ADS-B/UAT that only attends those that can not afford the XM\WX subscription. The loon concept attends to the billions that have no internet access in the world. But because the signal is generated from balloons at 70,000 feet it can easily be received from those on the ground to those at 50,000 feet. This would allow internet access to GA planes at any altitude anywhere in the world with just a smart phone. Having internet access while in-flight opens to an infinite number of capabilities not available with ADS-B/UAT without the taxpayer penalty. José 1 Quote
aviatoreb Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 Almost looks like an April 1st hoax, but on further reading, it is quite real. Very interesting Jose'. I read nothing that suggests when/if it would be widely available in North America. Quote
Piloto Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Posted June 17, 2013 The concept is not new. It has been around for decades. What makes it practical is the miniaturization of the elecronics. Unlike low earth orbit (LEO) satellites at 10,000 miles the balloons are at 11 miles up. This makes possible the use of low power transmitters like those in smartphones. Several cell phone service providers are also looking into this as a way of reducing or eliminating the ground cell towers. It is conceivable that 50 balloons will be able to replace the tens of thousands of cell phone towers in the US. Many of these towers are on leased land that add to the infrastructure cost. Unlike cell towers balloons cells are not as sensitive to signal shadowing from mountains or buildings. And not subject to ground weather events such as tornadoes or hurricanes. Even in the US there is a cost advantage for using 100 balloons vs over 10,000 cell towers on leased land. Some of the ongoing projects http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2006-08-20-wireless-blimp_x.htm http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-vehicles/haa.html http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/german-american-sperm-dirigible-set-maiden-flight José Quote
Seth Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 I saw that on the news this morning. I need to look into it more, but I'm curious if the balloons will have a transponder attached for ATC purposes. I know 60,000 feet sees little traffic, but miliary or other vehicles at those altitudes will need to know where the balloons are located; especially at the speeds aircraft in those altitudes usually travel. -Seth Quote
FlyDave Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 I saw that on the news this morning. I need to look into it more, but I'm curious if the balloons will have a transponder attached for ATC purposes. I know 60,000 feet sees little traffic, but miliary or other vehicles at those altitudes will need to know where the balloons are located; especially at the speeds aircraft in those altitudes usually travel. -Seth Also for the climb and descent. It sounds like there may be a lot of these things going up and coming down so they either need to be in a restricted area or transponder equipped. Quote
yvesg Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 I would be really surprised if they could pack enough electronics in there to provide high level of service. There are multiple challenges they face, one of them is channel re-use. The cellular network has the advantage to be able to limit (to a certain extend) the coverage they provide. When a cell reaches its technical limit, it is splitted into smaller cells. Having those things high up in the air provides more coverage thus more potential hits by subscribers which will in turn lower the speed each users can use... this is a pilot program still... however Google has very deep pockets. Slow speed Internet is definitely better than no service at all. Yves Quote
Piloto Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Posted June 17, 2013 I would be really surprised if they could pack enough electronics in there to provide high level of service. There are multiple challenges they face, one of them is channel re-use. The cellular network has the advantage to be able to limit (to a certain extend) the coverage they provide. When a cell reaches its technical limit, it is splitted into smaller cells. Having those things high up in the air provides more coverage thus more potential hits by subscribers which will in turn lower the speed each users can use... this is a pilot program still... however Google has very deep pockets. Slow speed Internet is definitely better than no service at all. Yves These are very valid concerns specially for voice communications. But for data transmission there is more flexibility since it is transmitted in bursts rather than voice, thus allowing multiple users on the same channel like ADS-B UAT on a single 978 MHz channel. Higher data rates also helps since less time is occupied by a user on a channel to exchange data. My concern would be on battery power capability and weight for night time operation. But at 70,000 feet night time is shorter than on the ground and most users will use the system during day time. José Quote
1964-M20E Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 Well ballons at 70000 feet the SR71 is not flying anymore at least officially and the space shuttle is out of service. I'm not sure what the ceiling is for the F-22 or the F35.<br />Neat idea.<br /><br /> Quote
yvesg Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 Well ballons at 70000 feet the SR71 is not flying anymore at least officially and the space shuttle is out of service. I'm not sure what the ceiling is for the F-22 or the F35.<br />Neat idea.<br /><br /> The TR-1 (U2) is flying around those heights I think. Yves Quote
yvesg Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 These are very valid concerns specially for voice communications. But for data transmission there is more flexibility since it is transmitted in bursts rather than voice, thus allowing multiple users on the same channel like ADS-B UAT on a single 978 MHz channel. Higher data rates also helps since less time is occupied by a user on a channel to exchange data. My concern would be on battery power capability and weight for night time operation. But at 70,000 feet night time is shorter than on the ground and most users will use the system during day time. José I agree with your comments. But using single channel (packet switching) has limits that would easily be reached by such systems. At home, I have Internet via a private Wifi provider and when the traffic increases (between 8PM and 10PM), when all the neibourhood teenagers, their parents and so on get on the waves, the throughput drops dramatically. It slows down enough that I have to do something else. Check my posts times and you'll see that I rarely manage to post anything at that time. Internet via radio waves has several challenges that do not appear on fiber links... we'll see. Yves Quote
Lood Posted June 18, 2013 Report Posted June 18, 2013 Not sure about the US, but here in SA, cellular coverage and thus internet availability in flight is very limited, if possible at all. Whenever you fly either a bit high or away from the main roads, along which the majority of towers are situated, coverage is very poor or non-existent. I've also found that the newer generation cell phones, like my previous Blackberry and current iPhone, a rather strong and constant signal is required. If the signal strength is only one, or even two bars while in flight, even sending a simple text message is not possible. Quote
yvesg Posted June 18, 2013 Report Posted June 18, 2013 Not sure about the US, but here in SA, cellular coverage and thus internet availability in flight is very limited, if possible at all. Whenever you fly either a bit high or away from the main roads, along which the majority of towers are situated, coverage is very poor or non-existent. I've also found that the newer generation cell phones, like my previous Blackberry and current iPhone, a rather strong and constant signal is required. If the signal strength is only one, or even two bars while in flight, even sending a simple text message is not possible. It has to do with radiation pattern of the antennas they use. They don't want to waste energy up in the air because most of their customers have their feet on the ground... Something else that may matter is by being so high, you probably hit several cells simultaneously. Depending on the channel re-use plan that they have, it is possible that this prevents proper connection. Yves Quote
1964-M20E Posted June 19, 2013 Report Posted June 19, 2013 yvesg, on 17 Jun 2013 - 2:58 PM, said: The TR-1 (U2) is flying around those heights I think. Yves I did some research and the F-22 and F-35 have reported ceilings at 60k feet. If that is what being reported I'm sure they have more. Yes I believe the U2 is still flying and I thought NASA had one SR-71 for "research". By the ways I have never been able to use my cell in the air not signal. Only once was i able to test somone as I was arriving about 10 miles out and arund 3000 feet. Quote
yvesg Posted June 19, 2013 Report Posted June 19, 2013 I did some research and the F-22 and F-35 have reported ceilings at 60k feet. If that is what being reported I'm sure they have more. Yes I believe the U2 is still flying and I thought NASA had one SR-71 for "research". I don't think that the SR-71 is still flying. By all means if someone is aware of any SR-71 taking off from somewhere let me know... I will take a week off work and go see this thing get off. I am a huge fan of the skunk works stories, do worship Kelly Johnson. I did not learn about those fantastic airplanes until after they were grounded...never saw one fly except on TV. If the F-22 and F-35 report 60K ceiling... I would be surprised if they could sustain 70K in cruise... the type of mission they are design for needs very good efficiency at low level. I do not think you can have both... it is one or the other... Yves Quote
1964-M20E Posted June 19, 2013 Report Posted June 19, 2013 Yves many years ago an SR71 landed at the local Naval Air base because of mechanical issues. I found out about it after it had left and I did not get a chance to see it leave. :-(( Quote
carusoam Posted June 20, 2013 Report Posted June 20, 2013 http://search.yahoo.com/tablet/s?p=sr71+manhattan&fr=ipad Somebody lose this one? It can be visited in Manhattan... Best regards, -a- Quote
yvesg Posted June 20, 2013 Report Posted June 20, 2013 http://search.yahoo.com/tablet/s?p=sr71+manhattan&fr=ipad Somebody lose this one? It can be visited in Manhattan... Best regards, -a- I saw that one from close about three years ago. It is actually an A-12... I paid a visit to the Blackbird airpark CA a couple of years ago. I also saw the A-12 at the California Science center...I guess this is all I can feed my thirst with. http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/locations.php Yves Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.