| [HN Gopher] Launch HN: HyLight (YC S23) - Hydrogen airships to i...
___________________________________________________________________
Launch HN: HyLight (YC S23) - Hydrogen airships to inspect energy
infrastructure
Hi HN, we're Thomas, Martin, Theo, and Josef, cofounders at HyLight
(https://www.hylight.aero). We build and operate autonomous
hydrogen airships to inspect energy infrastructure like pipelines
and power lines. Here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuW5ur8ER7A. Energy infrastructure
operators (utility companies) struggle with conducting precise
inspections of their assets. It is extremely important for them
because they need to make sure that the network is in good
condition to avoid outages and leaks. This infrastructure has big
impacts when it is malfunctioning. For instance, methane leaks from
oil and gas infrastructure represent 4% of global carbon emissions
every year (and approx. $7B worth of losses in Northern America and
Europe). Gas and power networks are physically so large (more than
47M miles globally) that millions of miles of inspections must be
done each year. Currently the most used solution is helicopters
(used on 90% of inspections). Helicopters are dangerous, have a
high carbon footprint and are costly to use. Plus, helicopter
service providers have to go as fast as they can to save their
margins. So the data quality is not optimal at all. Our airship
(the "HyLighter") does exactly what is needed to gather a lot of
precise information from the air. It flies slowly and can hover
almost indefinitely, it consumes little energy, allowing great
range for inspections. It can simultaneously mount all the sensors
that are required for the inspections (HQ cameras, LiDAR, infrared,
leak detection devices...). Plus, due to its size, we can write
stuff on it to tell nearby residents what we are doing. How does
it work? It is basically a drone airship. We use a lighter-than-air
gas in the envelope (helium or hydrogen) for buoyancy. We have a H2
tank and fuel cell transforming H2 into power for all the systems.
In terms of engines we built 2 gyros (gyroscopes engines) at the
rear and front of the airship. They allow us to have vectorial
thrust and therefore to be extremely maneuverable. The sensors are
fixed under the HyLighter on gimbals and can easily "follow" the
linear infrastructure that is inspected. When we began working on
H2 and drones, we quickly realized that there was a problem with
the weight of H2 tanks. The tanks have to be very strong to contain
enough H2 which is extremely low in density. Then, we realized that
we could use the "problem" inherent to H2 (very low density) to our
advantage. We simply needed to use H2 as a lifting gas and power
source. The envelope of the airship becomes the tank! The
HyLighter is more efficient than other current solutions. As
mentioned, helicopters are the most-used at present. Compared to
those, we use less energy, emit less GHG, have better data quality,
and less risks for human beings as the HyLighter is unmanned.
Compared to quad drones, we have longer flight time and more
payload, allowing for various simultaneous sensors collecting data
--we can simultaneously mount all the sensors that are required for
the inspections (HQ cameras, LiDAR, infrared, leak detection
devices). Compared to plane drones, our flight speed is lower so we
can collect better data and less ground risk. Compared to
satellites, we have a lot more precision (actually they can't even
be used for most of our operational use cases). The genesis of
HyLight is that Theo wanted to work on new uses of H2 and drones
when he was at school. He was joined by Martin who studied in the
same engineering school, then by Josef who's Martin's BFF and then
by me. I met Theo when we finished our studies in UC Berkeley last
year and we all launched HyLight together. As we kept working on
it, we gained more and more interest from pipeline and power line
operators and we realized that there was indeed a big problem.
HyLight is at the stage where we have our first POCs. Our first
paid flight is in the coming weeks. Our business model is
straightforward: inspection as a service. We charge a price per
kilometer depending on length, location and type of data collected.
I discovered HN not too long ago and I'm impressed with the
engagement in tech and innovation of this community! I'm very
interested to get your opinion on HyLight. Maybe some people work
in the energy industry and know a thing or two about energy infra
inspections that we could learn from? If so please tell us what you
think, be it red flags or positive stuff! Also, as individuals, how
would you feel seeing a big drone airship flying in the air near
your home? We look forward to any and all comments!
Author : ThomasLaporte
Score : 111 points
Date : 2023-08-28 15:00 UTC (7 hours ago)
| barelyauser wrote:
| What does "gyroscope engine" is supposed to mean?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| It's an engine that's mounted on a gyroscope. Which means that
| the propeller can turn in every direction.
| algas wrote:
| "Gimballed" might be a better term for it. The airship would
| work by thrust vector control:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
| dcrimp wrote:
| Very interesting concept team. I know a fair bit about
| inspections for energy infra from my time at various utilities in
| NZ/AU and the UK - and I think you're on the right track.
|
| Would be interested to learn about your approach with computer
| vision for detecting defects. I worked closely with a project
| some time ago where we flew overhead lines with a drone. We had
| some issues with background separation - given the conductor hung
| at varying heights and the drone flew at a constant height, the
| camera was always refocusing - it was hard to get consistent
| results. It ended up resulting in false positives more than
| anything.
|
| I'm also interested in how you discern defects. Some sort of
| anomaly detection? ML? If so, how did you source training data?
| Also would be interested in how you determine speciation for
| underclearance of lines.
|
| So many cool elements of this to nerd out about. Congrats on
| launch, will be following closely!
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Wow thank you so much for the support.
|
| For now, we've focused a lot of our time on building the vector
| to gather the data. We did POC of code for real time power line
| following (so power line recognition and follow). We know that
| there are a lot of startups on this field of data analysis so
| we began scouting to see the level that is reached today. And
| decide if we should build our own model or use another one.
| cjalmeida wrote:
| A slow moving blimp could use good industrial cameras with
| liquid lens for fast focus, giving a very sharp image for post-
| processing.
| h1fra wrote:
| Very interesting. I wonder how many countries will allow
| automated air balloons like this, this can definitely be a hazard
| or at risk of vandalism.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| For now, our development is going well in France. We know that
| other companies are working in India, US, Finland.
| bootsmann wrote:
| Very cool, good luck!
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Thank you very much!
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| What do you charge per kilometer, and what does the competition
| charge?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Everything really depends on the payload, the sensors that are
| used. The more expensive the payload, the higher the price. For
| instance, helicopters: $30-$40 for visual inspection and
| pictures but it gets up to $70-$100 with regular LiDARs When we
| reach industrial scale deployment we aim to be at the same cost
| as competition, with no carbon footprint (which has value for
| our clients) and better data quality.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Can you get cheaper?
|
| On the surface this looks like a box ticking exercise, low
| cost wins. Is that not correct?
|
| What does better quality data actually do for the customer?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| No actually utilities have more and more needs concerning
| data quality and data type. Before the needed to make
| visual inspections only. Now they have to conduct
| multispectral inspections involving lidar, infrared, leak
| detection. All of this complexity data collection and they
| now need an efficient solution that can do all of these at
| once.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| To what end do they need lidar/infrared data? Like, what
| are they actually trying to do? Meet regulatory
| compliance?
|
| And what does "more efficient" mean in this context?
|
| I guess in some sense I'm saying that shouldn't the
| explanation for this be something like: "owners of gas
| pipelines need to meet regulations imposed by Federal
| Agency X. They are currently spending $y dollars on it.
| Using our product they can be compliant and only spend
| (y-large number)."
|
| or: "owners of gas piplines are at risk of multi-billion
| dollar fines and lawsuits. Right now they can't properly
| measure where they are leaking gas. Our solution lets
| them find the problem spots and only costs $y per year
| for them to mitigate their large risk"
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| You should name your flagship _the Hindenburg_.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Oh, the robotity!
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Ahah! Or Pheonix: the airship reborn from the ashes. For now,
| it's simply the HyLighter
| raptorraver wrote:
| Good luck! There's similar company based in Finland, Kelluu
| Airships, kelluu.com Been following them couple of years and have
| dreamt of working for them some day.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Yes! We know them, they are nice people!!
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| You are leaving on the table lots of fun due to it being
| unmanned. How do you resist the temptation of installing a one
| person gondola and hop in there?
|
| On the economics and moat: You said that it's cheaper than
| helicopters but would it be cheaper than manned auto-
| gyros/gyrocopters? What about military drones and even civilian
| drones which will benefit from the trillions of dollars being
| dumped into battery technology, that will make them capable of
| flying longer distances? Would blimps be competitive against
| those?
|
| Finally. I want to ask about forest fires, would your blimp have
| the economics to be used as surveillance tool against forest
| fires?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Ahaha a lot of people would love to hop in there (one day maybe
| ;) )
|
| We've studied a lot batteries and drones and we don't think
| that drones will reach the specs we can get through a lighter
| than air aircraft. Even for civilian helicopters, today, they
| have between 2h and 3h of flight time usually. Military
| equipment won't be used for that kind of topic.
| natch wrote:
| Airship-sized containers of the most easily leaked inflammable
| substance known to man, hovering near sparking power lines, what
| could possibly go wrong?
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Have you ever seen sparking power lines outside of movies?
| Power lines don't normally spark, unless there is something
| seriously wrong with them.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I've seen them spark, but only in wind conditions which would
| themselves already be impossible for an airship to fly in.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Yes exactly, we are doing a preventive maintenance
| solution. So we fly whenever possible to assess the
| condition of the power line.
| TylerE wrote:
| Lines?
|
| No.
|
| Relays and transformers?
|
| Yes.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Our envelope is antistatic so it reduces greatly the risks you
| are referring to. We can't wait to conduct a real life test of
| our hylighter crashing in a power line (there are places to
| conduct such tests in France).
| natch wrote:
| Are you convinced that your antistatic envelope is the only
| potential source of sparks, arcs, flames or other catalysts
| of ignition? Are you aware of squirrels, chipmunks, birds,
| spiders, insects, wires, and branches?
|
| You do say that you will stay a suitable distance away
| though, so that is good.
| vilkkala wrote:
| There's a Finnish startup working on something similar:
| https://kelluu.com/
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Yeah they are very cool! We exchanged a bit and we meet on a
| regular basis!
| itissid wrote:
| Noob Question: What happens when the area you are inspecting has
| a wildfire risk or develops a wildfire risk while HyLighter is in
| the air?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand your question, what do you mean "what
| happens" ?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| How well does it tolerate lateral winds?
|
| My impression of the power lines in my area is that the top wire
| is just structural. I could imagine something (lighter than air
| or not) crawling along it rather than floating free. Of course
| you'd need to only do that if you knew that the additional drag
| wouldn't subsequently damage the thing you're inspecting, but
| since you're an inspection company, that kind of assessment
| shouldn't be too hard.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Concerning wind effects, we aim to operate with winds up to
| 10m/s (we did 8,5m/s last week so it's going well!). If the
| winds are higher we will wait it out (exactly like other
| aircrafts do ie drones and helicopter in certain cases).
|
| There are actually some startups working on robots that would
| hang/crawl from the lines. But, I feel like our clients like
| the "remote sensing" capacities and are not very much
| interested with (or even are afraid of) things touching their
| assets.
| hedora wrote:
| You could probably run a robot along the high voltage lines
| (birds sit on them all the time), but I imagine the main
| problem is jumping from segment to segment when you reach a
| pole (partially because you might accidentally ground the
| robot, but mostly because acrobatics are hard, especially if
| you're tangled up in tree limbs, etc).
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Yeah going from one pylone's side to another will be hard.
| Especially because the components are quite fragile (like
| insulators).
| Sanzig wrote:
| Are there any regulatory concerns with using hydrogen as the
| lifting gas, and if so, how do you plan to address them? A few
| years ago I was involved with an R&D contract bid looking at
| unmanned airships for communication, and one of the takeaways we
| found was that hydrogen is actually prohibited as a lifting gas
| here in Canada [1]. Presumably, the regulations were written
| before remotely operated or autonomous airships were envisioned,
| but even so we opted to baseline helium to avoid the risk of a
| waiver being denied. I assume other countries have similar
| airworthiness rules.
|
| [1] https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/acts-
| regulations/...
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Actually, it was exactly the same in France where we operate.
| It is written that H2 is forbidden but we asked the civil
| aviation authority and they told us that we just need to ask
| for the autorization to use this gas when we organize our
| flight approval. We asked the same question to the EU aviation
| authority and they told us that were not seeing any problem
| with using H2 as a lifting gas because of the great record of
| the Gordon Bennett Cup: https://balloonfiesta.com/Gordon-
| Bennett-2023. Which had no incident in many years.
| krisoft wrote:
| The FAA's 1995 Airship Design Criteria report says: "The
| lifting gas must be non-flammable."
|
| Page 44:
| https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/air_cert/de...
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| I'm not sure but I think that this applies to manned
| airships.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| You may want to be sure about the regulatory environment
| you're selling into.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Exactly you are right, for now we are selling in Europe
| and the regulatory requirements are good.
| natch wrote:
| You might consider whether there was perhaps an
| underlying issue behind the regulations and the logic
| around that issue could apply regardless of manmade
| border lines.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Loosely related, but I'm confused you use feets/miles. I know
| this forum is mostly frequented by bay's residents but they are
| also engineers and scientists and will understand very well if
| you use metric. Also your current target is Europe. Finally,
| you're French, honour your ancestors that created the SI! :)
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| You are entirely right sir ;)
|
| We always use metric, it's just that we wanted to adapt to the
| mostly American community.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > We simply needed to use H2 as a lifting gas and power source.
| The envelope of the airship becomes the tank!
|
| How does that work in terms of density? A 'full' tank of H2 is
| still substantially heavier than air and an airship hull is a lot
| weaker (usually...) than a pressure vessel. Can you please
| explain this because it seems like I am missing something.
|
| Also, how well does the airship deal with wind?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| The envelope is indeed weaker when compared to a hard carbon
| fiber tank. But, there is more than enough H2 in a the envelope
| for an entire day of flight. The airship is the most energy
| efficient aircraft and it's amazing how little energy it needs
| to fly at our cruise speed.
|
| Concerning winds, we've made research and we aim to resist to
| 10 to 11m/s of wind speed. This would allow us to fly in 80% of
| regions of Europe, 80% of the time!
| aziaziazi wrote:
| How would your drone react to an unexpected bad weather/gusts
| (the 20% winds you want to avoid)? I guess you can't just
| land anywhere ?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| We have strong termination flight procedures and redundancy
| at this level!
| tristanb wrote:
| If you dump hydrogen, you land.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| But where ? On the power pole ? Within neighbor property
| ? For what I know you're the first one to plan long
| distance drones (beside military), am I wrong ?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Exactly
| jacquesm wrote:
| Interesting concept! Much good luck with this. Incidentally:
| helicopters do a lot more than just monitor, they also do
| repair jobs, transfer personnel and clear brush all of which
| might be avenues to look into.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Yeah! Helicopters make a lot of sense for now when it comes
| to transport heavy cargo (like for pruning trees near the
| lines).
| markhahn wrote:
| as a very different use case, I've been wondering about drones
| for de-mining.
|
| being able to hover efficiently would be a major win, and it
| seems like detecting mines isn't so much of a technical problem
| as a practical one...
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| That's a very good idea, we've heard about a ukrainian student
| who created a demining drone but for now we're on inspecting
| energy infra!
| roschdal wrote:
| This is a great project!
|
| Hydrogen is highly flammable and can be explosive when it comes
| into contact with an ignition source in the presence of oxygen.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Thank you!
|
| You are right. That's why we make sure that there is no mix of
| H2 and O2 inside the envelope.
| wipfli wrote:
| That's a very cool project! I am a hot-air balloon pilot and I
| love everything that flies with the lighter-than-air principle.
|
| One limitation I could see for your business model is that
| airships can only be flown in a controlled direction at rather
| slow wind speeds. That is because they just have such a huge
| attack surface and the motors have limited thrust.
|
| Did you do an estimate how many days per year you could fly your
| vehicle in a given economic area of interest? I fly balloons in
| Switzerland and I think you can get at most 100 days of good
| flight conditions a year. But yeah, with some climate data and
| your operational limitations you can probably estimate how many
| days you get in a given area...
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Thank you very much for your support!
|
| We've made research and we aim to resist to 10 to 11m/s of wind
| speed. This would allow us to fly in 80% of regions of Europe,
| 80% of the time!
| japanuspus wrote:
| Also: for inspecting wind turbines (which I imagine would be
| a use-case), the operators usually want to work on low-wind
| days anyway.
|
| I used to work at a large offshore wind operator, and the
| approach we used there for leading-edge inspection of blades
| was a telephoto lens from a neighboring turbine. As anything
| involving technicians off-shore, this was very expensive.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| thank you for the insight that's so interesting
| ToDougie wrote:
| That sounds like a very enjoyable endeavor! I was wondering,
| what are the benefits and drawbacks to flying a lighter-than-
| air ship under 1,000 feet? Or even closer to the ground/tops of
| buildings? <500 feet? Are there simply too many regulatory
| issues?
|
| I have a dream that some day there will be airships floating
| around cities, ferrying passengers and freight, and they will
| float only 30-100 meters above the tallest buildings.
| rtkwe wrote:
| The issue is they're quite slow and not exactly nimble craft
| so flying low you need to be very sure you're well clear of
| the surrounding hazards.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| What tolerances can helicopters operate at, for comparison? I
| can imagine you don't want what looks like an inherently
| unstable aircraft to be close to power lines at higher winds.
| minitoar wrote:
| More has to do with gusts for helicopters, partly because
| they can point into the wind which is no different from
| forward flight if it's steady.
| peepeepoopoo32 wrote:
| > hydrogen airships to inspect power lines
|
| Is this a joke? Isn't there a bit of a, uh, fire hazard? Aren't
| airships generally less controllable when affected by wind?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| There is a fire hazard indeed! Exactly like with helicopters
| and their fuel. We need to respect strong process to deal with
| H2 in safe way.
|
| Concerning wind effects, we aim to operate with winds up to
| 10m/s (we did 8,5m/s last week so it's going well!). If the
| winds are higher we will wait it out (exactly like other
| aircrafts do ie drones and helicopter in certain cases).
| mikercampbell wrote:
| This was the question I wanted answered first haha
| solarkraft wrote:
| > We have a H2 tank and fuel cell transforming H2 into power for
| all the systems
|
| This made me chuckle. All-in on hydrogen, huh?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| I'm sorry I did not understand. Airships are a very relevant
| use case for H2.
| grncdr wrote:
| I'm far from expert on anything to do with the industry you're
| targeting or the engineering challenges you might be facing, but
| the idea sounds so reasonable I'm surprised it's not already a
| thing.
|
| I'm curious though about the tradeoffs of using the envelope as
| the tank vs. some other source. I'd assume it introduces more
| opportunity for leaks, and you have to "oversize" the envelope to
| stay aloft even after you've used all the fuel necessary for a
| tour. Is there a situation in which it would make more sense to
| keep your fuel and H2 separate?
|
| Small feedback: the rotating text on your homepage transitions
| just a bit too quickly.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Actually, we're not the only one who thought about it. Since
| the 2000's some researchers or blimp enthusiasts launched
| research project like this. We're trying to apply it to a
| strong pain point in the energy industry.
|
| Concerning the tradeoffs. It does increase leak potential but
| the materials and glues are in constant improvements. And, we
| do not need to oversize the envelope this much because the
| airship is extremely energy efficient and consume very little
| energy (during all our flight test we are always amazed when we
| have 80% left of battery or H2 at the end of the flights). But
| yes, for now, we keep fuel and lighter than air gas separated
| and we will keep this possibility for a long time.
|
| Thank you for the feedback!
| JVillella wrote:
| Congratulations guys! I met Josef an airport in Paris a few weeks
| ago and learned about your project (the YC sticker on your laptop
| was the ice-breaker). Best of luck on building a thriving
| business. :)
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| That's awesome! Thank you for telling us! And hi from Paris ;)
| retrocryptid wrote:
| Hmm. Bags of hydrogen being blown into electrical distribution
| equipment. It sounds challenging.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| It is indeed challenging! But our envelope will be antistatic
| so it will reduce ignition risks. And we are working at a safe
| distance from the lines.
| dmn322 wrote:
| Probably a bad idea, but just a random thought: what if there
| were emergency pressurized canisters of something inert like
| no2 that could dilute the hydrogen in case of a failure so
| they could protect surrounding things from fire damage?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| I think it might be to heavy for our use case.
| markhahn wrote:
| well, you hope to stay at a safe distance, right? how
| difficult is it to deal with wind (or even precipitation)?
|
| having tight flight rules (eg to deal with wind) would be a
| problem in a lot of locations...
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| We can withstand winds up to 10-11m/s. If there is more
| winds or rain that is forecasted then we'll just wait it
| out.
| jppope wrote:
| NICE work!
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Thank you!!
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| Beside the elegance and historical significance of airships, I
| don't get the advantage compared to a quad drone. If multiple
| cameras are needed, why not launch multiple drones? Simply tell
| the drones to platoon with the leader.
| c54 wrote:
| I love airship ideas! In your message you don't comment on safety
| and fire risk, which is what I'd bet most people want to hear
| about given the public perception of H2 airships.
|
| How are you addressing safety with your design?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Safety is the most important thing when it comes to aerial
| industry. We are working with people who are manufacturing
| their own H2 gas balloons that litterally fly with people in
| it. Check it out: https://balloonfiesta.com/Gordon-Bennett-2023
|
| There are special materials and glue that ensure safety from
| electricity and fire hazards. The people building their
| balloons use that kind of materials and it works!
| wdrw wrote:
| Hindenburg jokes aside, how do you ensure safety? Even if you
| only inspect infrastructure away from human habitation, there's
| still the risk of forest fires and such if there is an accident.
| hedora wrote:
| Most people don't realize that the paint they used to seal the
| shell of the Hindenburg is a popular solid rocket fuel. The
| hydrogen was the least of their problems during that crash.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| Citation needed. I googled it and it appears to be a common
| myth.
|
| (Aluminum powder is used in propellant, it was used to coat
| the Hindenburg, therefore the Hindenburg was coated in rocket
| propellant.)
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Safety is the most important thing when it comes to aerial
| industry. We are working with people who are manufacturing
| their own H2 gas balloons that litterally fly with people in
| it. Check it out: https://balloonfiesta.com/Gordon-Bennett-2023
| There are special materials and glue that ensure safety from
| electricity and fire hazards (antistatic material). The people
| building their balloons use that kind of materials and it
| works!
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I've flown hydrogen balloons before (just because it was
| cheaper than helium--although you do need different fittings
| for the tank). I've also lit them on fire just to see what
| happend.
|
| I don't think they're as dangerous as people think. If they
| ignite they go up in a whoosh, not a bang. The only debris is
| your payload, now falling. So as as your payload is not _also_
| made out of flammable material (as was the case with the
| Hindenburg) then I don 't think it's any more of a fire threat
| than having power lines near trees is in the first place. _Up_
| is conveniently the right direction for a ball of flame.
|
| Of course all of this goes out the window if you let it become
| entangled in a tree...
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| That's awesome! In what situation did you had the opportunity
| to fly a H2 balloon?
|
| Do you have any video that you could share about the lighting
| on fire of the balloon?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| A bunch of friends and I wanted to get video of a balloon's
| flight as it approached outer space, popped, and descended.
| In violation of FAA rules, we used a cellphone which we had
| embedded in a styrofoam box with hand warmers in order to
| prevent the battery from freezing.
|
| We lost contact with the payload almost immediately and
| never recovered it, but lost enthusiasm to try a second
| time.
|
| We had bought two balloons just in case we needed a second.
| Waited for a rainy day and took the second one camping. I
| wish I had grabbed a video, but some among us were overly
| paranoid about creating evidence.
|
| It was just a big blue orb and a whooshing sound.
| Presumably there were some flaming bits of rubber involved
| but we weren't able to recover them (we made the tether too
| long, out of fear for it being more dramatic than it was,
| that it was hard to get a good idea of what specifically
| went on).
|
| Has there ever been a burning man effigy with a lighter-
| than-air component? That would be a good venue for
| exploring the dynamics of baloon fires (it could tethered
| such it wasn't above anybody when it went up).
| blitzo wrote:
| I'm a fan of HAPS in general. Questions, out of many use cases
| why chose specifically in gas leakages detection? Are there any
| planning in the your pipeline to venture out into HAPS for
| internet?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| No we don't planning to do HAPS because the engineering is much
| different actually.
| Ummdustry wrote:
| So, I for one think the flammability problem of hydrogen airships
| is overblown. But for the love of the above, if you're trying to
| inspire confidence in a hydrogen airship designed to inspect
| flammable fluid pipelines do not call it the "Lighter"
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Wow, never thought about it that way. English is not our native
| language but, for our defense, it's the first time that
| somebody made that remark.
| fidotron wrote:
| This is one of the best things I think I've seen on here.
|
| Out of curiosity what kind of altitude would an actively
| inspecting drone be at? And what kind of support vehicles do you
| need? Like would it be possible for one team to co-ordinate the
| deployment of multiple drones from a single vehicle or they just
| don't fit?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Thank you!! Around 50ft to 150ft is a good range! Also, in the
| medium term there won't be any team co-ordinating the HyLighter
| on site. It will be remote pilot dealing with the object and
| just a driver delivering it a take off point and another one
| retrieving it at landing point.
| cinntaile wrote:
| This is probably a dumb question but why not regular drones?
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| "There are no dumb questions" - Oogway
|
| Regular drones are awesome to make short missions (you need to
| check one electrical pylone or a small bridge - take a drone).
| But on bigger scale they don't have enough range to do this
| kind of operations. Also, they don't have enough payload. You
| can only fly with one camera, when the utilities need HQ
| camera, infrared, LiDAR etc. That's why they need to keep using
| helicopters.
| TylerE wrote:
| Why not more drones then?
|
| Sorta like how railroads figured out it was much simpler
| operationally to have fewer types of locomotives, and use
| multiples on larger trains, rather than create dinosaurs like
| the DDA40x (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_DDA40X) that
| were ONLY useful in narrow circumstances.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| There are approx 53 million miles of energy infrastructure
| on the planet (a new report was published today).
|
| Regular drones can't be used to inspect that much (too many
| drones required, too many pilots, too much aerial and
| ground risk - when regular drone fall they are lethal).
| TylerE wrote:
| Drones are a commodity product where economies of scale
| have brought prices way down while capabilities have gone
| way up.
|
| Airships won't scale like that. You don't have the
| benefit of tons of media companies buying airships to use
| as camera platforms.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Client should pay at least 3x times as much to get the
| same service from drones. Again, it's not scalable using
| drones that's why our clients keep using helicopter on
| 90% of their missions.
| TylerE wrote:
| And in ten years when drones are 5 times as capable and
| cost half?
| zellyn wrote:
| Driving around in more rural Georgia, it's not uncommon to see
| street signs riddled with gunshot holes. I wonder if these
| airships would attract the same kind of mischief? I imagine a lot
| of the inspections are over quite remote areas, though, so that
| should be less of a problem.
|
| Also, just out of curiosity, how far do your airships travel
| between refueling, given what you would consider normal
| conditions and a standard payload?
| tw04 wrote:
| > Driving around in more rural Georgia, it's not uncommon to
| see street signs riddled with gunshot holes.
|
| My first thought as well. You'd likely need to make it a
| federal felony to shoot one and have an ad campaign to make it
| well known or I can't see these lasting 6 months in a rural
| setting.
|
| That's not just a southern thing. I see the same all over the
| country.
| ygjb wrote:
| The implication is that it's not a federal felony to fire a
| weapon at a flying aircraft? I know that there are different
| laws in different countries, but I can't imagine that would
| be legal, even in the United States!
|
| Unfortunately it is also exceedingly likely that the folks
| who shoot at road signs as their particular outrage against
| government are most likely to think that surveillance drones
| are there to spy on them, and not inspect infrastructure. I
| don't think regulations or laws matter to those folks.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| You are right! As we are in Europe we fill like this will
| be less of an issue than in the US.
|
| Nevertheless, we will soon test what happened when we shout
| our flying HyLighters.
| tristor wrote:
| There are open questions around the limits of airspace
| below the FAA ceiling and property lines. There's been
| multiple cases in the US of people intentionally shooting
| down drones operating above their property, including in
| urban areas, and it has not yet been heard by the Supreme
| Court. Common Law held that property owners controlled
| their property from the Earth to the Heavens, which is
| inclusive of airspace. The current law in the US says that
| property owners control their airspace within their
| "reasonable control".
|
| I am not a lawyer, but is is a very open question if you're
| flying low enough someone can visually sight you and shoot
| you down over their property, whether or not that this is a
| violation of the law /for unmanned vehicles/. Drones in
| particular have become a serious nuisance and many property
| owners have taken actions against them in the US triggering
| court cases, most of which haven't yet reached their
| conclusion.
|
| EDIT to add that the rules here even vary by state in the
| US, in some states you own 83 feet over your property of
| airspace, in others it could be as much as 400 feet (above
| 400 feet is controlled airspace under the jurisdiction of
| the FAA). Generally speaking, shooting any aircraft,
| jamming any radio signal, or shining laser pointers on any
| aircraft is already federally illegal in the US and
| violates FAA/FCC regulations, but it's not clear that these
| regulations are actually constitutional and enforceable, or
| that it cannot be an act of self-defense to shoot down a
| low-flying aircraft intruding on your property.
| tw04 wrote:
| > Unfortunately it is also exceedingly likely that the
| folks who shoot at road signs as their particular outrage
| against government are most likely to think that
| surveillance drones are there to spy on them, and not
| inspect infrastructure.
|
| I think you're conflating issues. At least where I grew up,
| people didn't shoot road signs out of anger at the
| government. They did it out of boredom. Sometimes as a
| competition with friends, sometimes alone. I never partook
| myself.
| whalesalad wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Please stop posting regional flamebait and whatever else this
| is. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37298978
| also.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| whalesalad wrote:
| This example could quite literally be my nextdoor neighbor.
| He was ranting and raving to me the other night about the
| deep state, george soros, how hard he was going to "pray
| for me" after learning I got vaccinated, etc... If a big
| white balloon was flying around inspecting power lines I
| can guarantee he would say something like this and might
| shoot it. People all over the country would. I think it is
| inappropriate (and arguably dangerous) to try and pretend
| that this issue does not exist. Not flamebait. This form of
| mental illness is its' own pandemic at this point.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Double points if you hit it with something incendiary so that
| the hydrogen ignites.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| While I agree that yes, there will definitely be people who
| shoot at them, same as shoot at DJI drones, there is no
| reason to disparage an entire group of people into a
| caricature.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Why not? We're surrounded by this behavior it's not simply
| a caricature.
| zkl43tl43 wrote:
| [dead]
| tpmx wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| > _This seems like a uniquely american problem. Mitigation:
| They could focus on the rest of the world, instead._
|
| Please don't post nationalistic flamebait (regardless of
| nation). We've had to ask you this more than once before.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| tpmx wrote:
| Please don't overestimate the amplitude of said
| 'nationalistic flamebait'. I have felt this way about your
| 'feedback' before.
|
| Note: The rate limiting you have imposed on my user meant
| that I had to wait several hours to post this reply.
| dang wrote:
| Sorry, but that's like responding to "please don't drop a
| lit match in a dry forest" with "but it was just a little
| match".
|
| We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-
| quality comments and/or get involved in flamewars.
| Unfortunately your account has a history of doing that,
| so we've rate limited it. If you build up a track record
| of using HN as intended, you'd be welcome to email
| hn@ycombinator.com and we'll be happy to take a look and
| hopefully remove the rate limit.
| tpmx wrote:
| My point of view:
|
| This is bullshit.
|
| I spent a lot of time attempting to contribute quality
| content here. I feel like you didn't dig deep enough in
| what I've contributed earlier before deciding that a
| particular 'nationalistic' comment about the shootings in
| the US meant that I should be shut down.
|
| Examples of pieces I'm proud of:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37275940
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37258787
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37247246
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37216687
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36170885
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35831689
| dang wrote:
| That's good, but following the rules most of the time
| doesn't make it ok to break them the rest of the time. We
| have to moderate based on the worst things people post,
| not the best things.
| tpmx wrote:
| You got a reply.
| [deleted]
| japanuspus wrote:
| It is surprisingly difficult to get pure hydrogen to burn. The
| DOE safety sheet [0] lists an upper flammability limit of 74%
| which matches my experience pretty well. In other words:
| gunshots would most likely just cause leakage.
|
| [0]
| https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_sa...
| kccqzy wrote:
| But what about after they leak? Wouldn't the hydrogen then
| mix with air and get below 74%?
| samtho wrote:
| If this is set up similar to other LTA airships
| (simplified, its bags of air contained by the outer skin
| with a structure supported by a very light airframe), then
| a wayward bullet might pierce one or two of these cells -
| which a certain number of these are allowed to deflate
| before problems begin. Also, most shot-sign mischief is
| carried out by shotgun and the max vertical distance it can
| travel is considerably less than 1000ft.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| thank you for the insight, that's very interesting
| TylerE wrote:
| Fuel, Oxygen, Spark.
|
| You need all three.
| zellyn wrote:
| Yeah, I wasn't thinking full Hindenberg, just damage would be
| expensive enough...
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Exactly our first inspections are in remote areas so it should
| be less of a problem. But, even with those small leaks it's not
| that much of a problem because the airship itself does not
| empty that fast!
|
| Concerning your question on range: We will easily fly an entire
| day without refueling (and more), basically an entire day means
| 200 miles.
| BWStearns wrote:
| Would a bullet not be hot enough to ignite the hydrogen? I
| know the Goodyear blimp takes fire regularly when moving
| between cities. Like you said the small leaks aren't a big
| deal but bullets are hot.
| nradov wrote:
| Regular rifle bullets are not nearly hot enough to ignite
| gaseous hydrogen. Only something like tracer or incendiary
| ammunition would be a concern for fire.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| I know a bunch of folks that will take that as a
| challenge...
| standingconcern wrote:
| A broken light bulb or a spark on the ceiling are enough
| to ignite Hydrogen; and that is why facilities that
| process it must have ventilation.
|
| "A covered Hydrogen filling station must have electricity
| for ventilation." Agree or disagree?
|
| And what about microwave energy beaming? Can microwave
| wireless energy transfer cause a hole in an airship? What
| about freak lightning storms while inspecting high energy
| power lines in a balloon filled with flammable and
| explosive gas?
|
| It looks like it may be possible to store Hydrogen in
| Sodium Bicarbonate.
|
| There are aerospace-grade hydrogen tanks that aren't
| supposed to explode in a crash landing, but what about
| midair collision and war?
|
| There are people working on drones that hover in midair
| (that do not add flight and ground risk) that efficiently
| use the air currents too.
|
| I'm afraid [this airship firm] hasn't done a sufficient
| level of testing to determine how easily the product can
| become a war liability, and I don't think FAA should
| clear Hydrogen airships for energy infrastructure
| inspection.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| They are in France so the FAA doesn't apply, but you
| think the FAA shouldn't approve hydrogen airships because
| in the event of war, attackers will not go for cities or
| nuclear power plants or military bases or national scale
| gas storage or highway bridges but will instead target
| hydrogen lifted blimps in remote areas?
|
| If a small drone explodes and takes down an electricity
| pylon in nowheresville in the middle of a war, I reckon
| most people would be very grateful that's all that
| happened and willing to fund drones just to draw fire
| from more important areas and nothing else.
| standingconcern wrote:
| Could an airship or similar (maybe over an ocean) capture
| atmospheric helium?
|
| There is a shortage of Helium (and 3He and 4He for
| fusion), which the sun makes out of Hydrogen with heat
| and radiation from fusion and fission.
| ThomasLaporte wrote:
| Actually to create a fire you need the 3 things: Fuel: in
| our case H2 Heat: in our case hot bullet Oxidizer: in our
| case there will be only H2 is the enveloppe (O2 won't have
| the time to enter the envelope along with the bullet). So a
| fire should not start.
|
| We are not at that stage yet, but we can't wait to test it!
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| I have witnessed man's desire to shoot anything that flies. It
| was at a shooting range in the military, my group (ie eight
| soldiers) each had a full clip and were supposed to do target
| practice. Suddenly two unsuspicious ducks passed, flying at 2
| meters from the ground, at a very low speed. Everybody without
| exception emptied their clip on these birds (all 100-ish
| bullets missed fortunately, so good for the Dutch army).
|
| Imagine the bonus is a ball of fire in the sky for the winning
| shot!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-28 23:00 UTC) |