Unmanned surveillance blimp breaks tether, floats over Pennsylvania(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Unmanned surveillance blimp breaks tether, floats over Pennsylvania
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/28/the-army-lost-control-of-a-giant-unmanned-surveillance-blimp/
13 comments
The same blimp was just ominously featured in one of the weekly shorts published by the Intercept (the site Greenwald, Poitras, et al. are at and publishing Snowden's leaks). The short is called "The Above" [1], by Kirsten Johnson. It could pass as a great an intro to a dystopian sci-fi movie a la 'District 9'.
[1] https://theintercept.com/fieldofvision/the-above
[1] https://theintercept.com/fieldofvision/the-above
you mean like Æon Flux (2005)?
It is suspicious circumstances to say the least.
Every image of these JLENS blimps show them anchored with a great many anchor ties, not just one (or a few). However, every report says it just "came loose" or "escaped it's tethering".
Conspiracy theory would probably speculate on some new tech being demoed or tested over Baltimore. These things are supposed to be for detecting missiles and high altitude planes, which would beg the question what one was doing blown up and ready to fly in Baltimore.
Every image of these JLENS blimps show them anchored with a great many anchor ties, not just one (or a few). However, every report says it just "came loose" or "escaped it's tethering".
Conspiracy theory would probably speculate on some new tech being demoed or tested over Baltimore. These things are supposed to be for detecting missiles and high altitude planes, which would beg the question what one was doing blown up and ready to fly in Baltimore.
If it was meant as a covert demo then the finale where the blimp descended, hit a power line with its tether, then killed the power for 20,000 homes was probably a hell of a cover.
>Conspiracy theory would probably speculate on some new tech being demoed or tested over Baltimore.
It says it right in the article:
"It's currently on a three-year test run to see if it can help detect cruise missiles or enemy aircraft from 10,000 feet above ground."
It says it right in the article:
"It's currently on a three-year test run to see if it can help detect cruise missiles or enemy aircraft from 10,000 feet above ground."
> It says it right in the article
No, the article says the JLENS program is on a three-year test run to see if it can help detect cruise missiles or enemy aircraft from 10,000 feet above ground.
That three years is up this year (started program in 2012)... so perhaps they will be decommissioned, or re-purposed.
My statement was more along the conspiracy theory line of domestic surveillance tech being tested.
No, the article says the JLENS program is on a three-year test run to see if it can help detect cruise missiles or enemy aircraft from 10,000 feet above ground.
That three years is up this year (started program in 2012)... so perhaps they will be decommissioned, or re-purposed.
My statement was more along the conspiracy theory line of domestic surveillance tech being tested.
Strong winds broke the tether. When it is at altitude, there is ~1 tether.
Ah - the article didn't mention that. Seems like a design flaw really... the single tether.
Furthermore, why is it shaped like a blimp with an obvious front-side, when it's designed to be stationary (wouldn't a simple balloon work?)
Furthermore, why is it shaped like a blimp with an obvious front-side, when it's designed to be stationary (wouldn't a simple balloon work?)
Balloons are made to be carried away by wind. If you want to keep something stationary in the air, better find a aerodynamic shape. One that can keeps its orientation in the air is better yet.
Fixed orientation is beneficial for the sensors and signal processing too. Less readjustments to make.
Well, the weight of the tethering matters. So they probably can't just have 2 of the strength of the one that broke.
I believe it has a front side because then it can point into the wind, making it easer to stay stationary for the given volume (and hence lift capacity).
I believe it has a front side because then it can point into the wind, making it easer to stay stationary for the given volume (and hence lift capacity).
Stationary relative to the ground but not the air.
Link is here for the lazy: https://twitter.com/droosien/status/659439312317059074
Another metaphor for the fear of retribution:
Everything on that article is hyperlinked properly except for the tweet from Snowden. Although I do give WP some credit for their original stories on surveillance by NSA/other agencies.
Everything on that article is hyperlinked properly except for the tweet from Snowden. Although I do give WP some credit for their original stories on surveillance by NSA/other agencies.
To me it looks like the author of the post on the Washington Post just doesn't know how to embed a tweet, or they're used to a system that will properly identify a link to a tweet and embed it automagically.
Well, I have saw it too many times to believe in errors. Common targets are Snowden related URLs and First Look website.
Don't believe me, just remember that the next time you see it.
Don't believe me, just remember that the next time you see it.
> And the perfect mascot.
Almost. It needs the eye of Sauron on it as well.
Almost. It needs the eye of Sauron on it as well.
Cue Weird Al Yankovich with the tune "Blimps just wanna have fun." :-)
I've wondered about the failure mode of aerostats like this one. I found the threat to power lines particularly interesting. If one floated across southern Nevada it could easily catch the lines from Hoover dam to LA. One wonders if the blimp should drop its tether if its GPS detects it has moved more than a mile off station. Or better yet fire up the helium compressor and bring itself down to earth. Both options seem like they could be supported by an modest on board battery (I presume these things are powered through their tether normally).
I've wondered about the failure mode of aerostats like this one. I found the threat to power lines particularly interesting. If one floated across southern Nevada it could easily catch the lines from Hoover dam to LA. One wonders if the blimp should drop its tether if its GPS detects it has moved more than a mile off station. Or better yet fire up the helium compressor and bring itself down to earth. Both options seem like they could be supported by an modest on board battery (I presume these things are powered through their tether normally).
This one has knocked out power. Its cable hit some power lines.
https://twitter.com/iduncan/status/659451147955150848
https://twitter.com/iduncan/status/659451147955150848
it was mentioned in the article as well. My thinking was this; these aerostats have been proposed as part of the southern border program, the powerlines between Hoover Dam and LA typically are carrying 1,100 MW of power. Shorting them out is one of the events which can bring down the western US grid (so a pretty big deal). The distance between the Arizona/Mexico border to Lake Mead is further of course (230 miles, Mexicali => Las Vegas, 80 miles from Aberdeen to Cook County). So probably not a huge threat directly but one of those wierd things I think about.
Baltimorean here. Most days these blimps can be seen aloft. They appear less distant than I know they must be (given they are tethered at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds). They are very,,, present. It is unsettling. I lived in NYC for five years where I'm certain I was often under "surveillance" (cameras and what not in public spaces). And during the Baltimore Uprising, we now know there was a FBI/DoJ surveillance plane in the sky. It's just different, in a very bad way, to be able too look up, at any time, and see billion dollar military blimps. Kinda sad.
An aerostat is literally two things, a balloon and a rope. If they can't keep a rope tied, they should use two ropes.
It's trailing 6,700 feet of cable. That's some rope.
This thing is stationary, always. Why not use a couple of ropes for the "just-in-case" scenario (aka. "Just plain good engineering"). Imagine this happened during a deployment in an unfriendly country.
Over unfriendly territory I would expect the rope to be the least of this device's problems. While it seems that normal operating altitude would be out of reach of most rifles [0], every time the aerostat was lowered for maintenance it would be completely destroyed by potshots. b^)
[0] http://www.closefocusresearch.com/maximum-altitude-bullets-f...
[0] http://www.closefocusresearch.com/maximum-altitude-bullets-f...
It can 'see' up to 340 miles away - these could be deployed dozens to hundreds of miles away from a target area, which would make it a lot harder to take 'potshots' at it. Plus, a bullet doesn't exactly make a big hole (relatively speaking) in something that's 75 meters long - the thing probably leaks more from it's seams than a handful of .30 holes...
> every time the aerostat was lowered for maintenance it would be completely destroyed by potshots
Which has got to mean this device isn't such a great idea in it's current form. These things were designed to be overseas in combat areas guarding against inbound missile strikes on FOB's and the like.
Which has got to mean this device isn't such a great idea in it's current form. These things were designed to be overseas in combat areas guarding against inbound missile strikes on FOB's and the like.
Thought experiment: private individual exercises negligence and permits a 75-metre-long aerostat to break free and drift through controlled airspace.
How long before the FAA would have him / her in court?
This sort of dual-class system is why the drone registration initiative annoys me. Truly one law for us and another for Them.
How long before the FAA would have him / her in court?
This sort of dual-class system is why the drone registration initiative annoys me. Truly one law for us and another for Them.
Not only did it drift through airspace but it crash landed and caused 35,000 people to lose power and classes to be cancelled at the local university.
If it were a private citizen I can imagine they'd be taken to jail.
If it were a private citizen I can imagine they'd be taken to jail.
If a private citizen, company, or institution were properly permitted and licensed to have such a blimp aloft and it got loose, there's no way they'd be thrown in jail - that's overly dramatic.
There would be civil liability to deal with, which would be handled through lawsuits and insurance companies, but there's no reason for jail.
As far as the government having different 'rules' than private citizens - yeah, that happens. Sometimes it's stupid, and sometimes it makes perfect sense. For example, suing the federal government for punitive damages for negligence is generally unproductive. Any damages awarded would only be punitive to the tax paying populace as the source of said money.
There would be civil liability to deal with, which would be handled through lawsuits and insurance companies, but there's no reason for jail.
As far as the government having different 'rules' than private citizens - yeah, that happens. Sometimes it's stupid, and sometimes it makes perfect sense. For example, suing the federal government for punitive damages for negligence is generally unproductive. Any damages awarded would only be punitive to the tax paying populace as the source of said money.
If the taxpayers support a negligent government, they deserve to be punished as compensation to those who were wronged.
>>If a private citizen, company, or institution were properly permitted and licensed to have such a blimp aloft and it got loose, there's no way they'd be thrown in jail - that's overly dramatic.
Friendly reminder: we live in a country where a brown kid got arrested for bringing a clock to school. So yes, it is entirely possible for the hypothetical blimp pilot to face serious charges, up to and including terrorism, depending on his race and religion.
Friendly reminder: we live in a country where a brown kid got arrested for bringing a clock to school. So yes, it is entirely possible for the hypothetical blimp pilot to face serious charges, up to and including terrorism, depending on his race and religion.
This is a pointless strawman. This is like saying an F-15 on a training exercise crashed and that it's unfair the pilot/crew/USAF wouldn't be treated the same as some random who flew a drone with a gopro over an airport.
I don't think you know what a strawman is - parent was making a (perfectly legitimate, IMO) point about how misconduct/negligence/accidents on the part of the government result in few to no penalties (worst case: someone may lose their job), while same behavior on the part of citizens can result in life-ruining, throw-the-book-at-him consequences.
It's pretty hard to misrepresent an opponent's argument when there have been no opposing arguments made yet!
It's pretty hard to misrepresent an opponent's argument when there have been no opposing arguments made yet!
That's a terrible example, why can't it be some random crashing a F-15? In which case I don't see why some random and an USAF pilot should be treated differently. Assuming both had proper permits, of course.
How do you know it was negligence?
Plus your whole argument ignores that defending the airspace of the USA is the governments job. Of course we will have different rules because of that.
And you can sue the government for negligence.
Plus your whole argument ignores that defending the airspace of the USA is the governments job. Of course we will have different rules because of that.
And you can sue the government for negligence.
If it wasn't negligence, then they crashed into heavily used power lines on purpose, which is way worse.
How long before they are sued by multiple cities and businesses for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and lost revenue?
A drop in the bucket compared to the Billions (yes Billions with a B) they spent to build these blimps.
Radar blimps are useful. One gave the first warning of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It wasn't even in service yet; the contractor saw columns of tanks approaching on radar and called it in. It makes good sense to have a good aerial view of the Washington DC area.
It's possible that, instead of ordering a remote deflation or shooting it down, the operators decided to let it float until it reached an unpopulated area before bringing it down. It's bad that it dragged its steel tether across power lines, though.
It's possible that, instead of ordering a remote deflation or shooting it down, the operators decided to let it float until it reached an unpopulated area before bringing it down. It's bad that it dragged its steel tether across power lines, though.
It's supposedly a synthetic fiber, Vectran [pdf]:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/d...
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/d...
Otherwise known as the stuff in puncture resistant bicycle tires.
Blimp down, tore up in some trees :(
[deleted]
$2.7 billion blimp on the lose.
Of course it's JLENS...
https://twitter.com/bcrypt/status/659448608362663937
I find bcrypt's response and selection in hashtag (#BlimpinAintEasy) is the most appropriate.
I find bcrypt's response and selection in hashtag (#BlimpinAintEasy) is the most appropriate.
The Aerostat has a couple of choice memes as well: https://twitter.com/AberdeenBlimp https://twitter.com/search?f=images&vertical=news&q=%40Aberd...
Good piece in the Baltimore Sun from a few months ago about what a boondoggle this project has turned out to be: http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/federal-workplace/bs-md...
"But after 17 years of research and $2.7 billion spent by the Pentagon, the system known as JLENS doesn't work as envisioned. The 240-foot-long, milk-white blimps, visible for miles around, have been hobbled by defective software, vulnerability to bad weather and poor reliability."
"But after 17 years of research and $2.7 billion spent by the Pentagon, the system known as JLENS doesn't work as envisioned. The 240-foot-long, milk-white blimps, visible for miles around, have been hobbled by defective software, vulnerability to bad weather and poor reliability."
It's a test and a research project, as stated in that article. They found 10,000 ways that don't work. Edison would be proud.
Yes, but there are an infinite number of ways it could possibly not work. How long will they go on discovering them? Edison could say something like that because he actually was able to successfully build and market a lightbulb.
"Runaway surveillance blimp" is the perfect metaphor for the military/intelligence industrial complex. And the perfect mascot.