Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Solar Plane Breaks Endurance Record

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the never-even-been-awake-that-long dept.

Power 134

calmond writes with this excellent snippet from CNET News: "QinetiQ Group PLC claimed Sunday that its propeller-driven aircraft called Zephyr flew for 83 hours and 37 minutes non stop, more than doubling the official world record set by Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk in 2001. The Zephyr is much different from the Global Hawk, which is about the size of a fighter and requires runway for taking off and landing. Zephyr, on the other hand, is an ultra-lightweight carbon-fiber aircraft that weighs less than 70lbs and is designed to launch by hand. The little aircraft flies on solar power generated by amorphous silicon arrays covering the aircraft's paper-thin wings. It is powered day and night by rechargeable lithium-sulfur batteries that are recharged during the day using solar power."

cancel ×

134 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIRST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24731321)

IS ME.
8====D

Re:FIRST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24731763)

Wow I wouldn't brag about the size of that, man.

QinetiQ (3, Informative)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731979)

QinetiQ CIA link [timesonline.co.uk]

QinetiQ, the British defence and security technology company that was spun out of the Ministry of Defenceâ(TM)s research laboratory, has appointed George Tenet, 53, former head of the CIA in America, a non-executive director. The company hopes to develop closer links with the US intelligence establishment.

Re:QinetiQ (1)

draco664 (960985) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732073)

The company hopes to develop closer links with the US intelligence establishment.

So that intelligence can be passed on to the CIA in a more cost effective manner, no doubt. Up until now, the spooks have had to do the fact-checking themselves...

Dickhead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24734623)

Is it because your username is Dickhead that you're replying to a thread about small penis size?

The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731345)

Manned aircraft still have that record beat. Humm several days in an airplane... What fun.

...and this isn't a new one... (3, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731543)

from the article:

the Zephyr's reported flight times didn't meet all criteria laid down by The World Air Sports Federation -- the governing body for air sports and aeronautical world records -- and will probably remain unofficial.

If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.

Re:...and this isn't a new one... (5, Interesting)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731609)

If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.

Maybe. That doesn't mean their record isn't legitimate, especially if the "rule" they disregarded was irrelevant, and especially since they have flown further than anybody else.

Re:...and this isn't a new one... (4, Informative)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731665)

The "rule" they didn't follow was to have the relevant organisation in on the action. From the BBC:

[The record] remains "unofficial" because QinetiQ did not involve the FAI (Federation Aeronautique Internationale), the world air sports federation, which sanctions all record attempts.

I think it's fair to say that regardless of who officiates it, they have broken the record.

Nope. (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731719)

as your own cite says: the FAI "sanctions all record attempts." It's not a record, especially since they apparently self-officiated.

Re:Nope. (4, Insightful)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731761)

I don't want to get into a big thing here, but if this unmanned aircraft flew for longer than any other unmanned aircraft, it has broken the record. The FAI may deem themselves the ultimate authority on these things, but in my books their lack of involvement doesn't automatically mean a record hasn't been broken.

I suppose you might question the authenticity of the tests, but given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.

Re:Nope. (0, Troll)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732493)

Wow, it's not every day you see a post like that one:

given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.

And then the sig:

Amnesty International [amnesty.org]

Re:Nope. (0, Flamebait)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732987)

Do you often take cheap, out-of-context, sensationalised shots like that?

This from a person who tries to summarise life with a while statement in his sig.

Re:Nope. (2, Interesting)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24735253)

Take a chill, dude. I just thought it was an interesting contrast. Obviously, Amnesty Int isn't doubt the military's trustworthiness about a flight record for which the military would suffer the consequences for being wrong. I didn't intend it as a criticism.

And it's a REDUNDANT statement in my sig, tyvm! :-P

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24733257)

but given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.

You are a funny guy..

Verification (4, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733731)

Don't confuse a "feat" with a "record". Feats are what people do. Records are feats that can be proven to have happened. If an achievement is not properly documented, there's no way to know for sure whether it was done.

So it's not whether or not the feat was surpassed, it's whether the feat was surpassed in a way that can be verified. I can say to you that I've got a cure for cancer, or tell you that I can run 30 MPH barefoot, but neither claim means anything there's some verification of the process - some official body (EG: the American Medical Association in the United States) has performed testing to some standard process to verify that the cancer cure I claim actually works at least most of the time. (In medicine, almost nothing works 100% of the time, not even aspirin [drugtext.org] )

You and I have no particular doubt that they flew the time they're claiming. But if it has not passed the most widely recognized process for validating this record, the RECORD still stands, and will stand until the proper process has been followed to record the fact that the old record has been broken.

However, they have a plan, which entails aircraft like this flying for MONTHS ON END. So they probably don't much care about documenting the record, since their numbers are likely to improve dramatically over the next year or so. Why go through the effort of documenting what is, for them, a rather minor, incremental step, solely to prove a record?

Re:Verification (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736237)

Don't confuse a "feat" with a "record". Feats are what people do. Records are feats that can be proven to have happened. If an achievement is not properly documented, there's no way to know for sure whether it was done.

I thought this was more of a "proof of concept" rather than breaking any records. I think this team's main goal is get a working prototype the military can use for reconnaissance missions.

Arguing whether it broke an official record will be a moot point once they get a production model in the field which will most likley have better air times anyways.

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24731871)

I'll bet the FAI weren't consulted in many of the other longest flights either, eg B52 and B2 combat missions to the middle east from nases in the USA, and Global Hawk flights over that way too.

Of course if it was the FIA that was the overseeing body, they wouldn't be allowed autopilots, and the engines would have to last for 2 flights.

Re:...and this isn't a new one... (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731725)

NO FAI record claim can be lodged, and quite right too. Any FAI record claim must be overseen by a registered FAI official observer, who checks data loggers installation and seals. The loggers use an encryption system, and strong physical security to prevent cheating

No FAI logger/observer=no record.

There would be several official FAI observers at each gliding club just about everywhere, so they are easy enough to find if needed. If these guys really wanted an official record they should have followed the rules.

Re:...and this isn't a new one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24731811)

QinetQ has a real name. the real name is DERA for Defense Evaluation and Research Agency. This is a grey hat former TLA defense agency -- no way in hell they will let civilians in to see their airplane.
its a military aircraft for replacing satellites when doing long range covert surveillance. this is not a regular model aircraft.

Re:...and this isn't a new one... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731921)

If the FAI has a logger that would fit this critter.
Also I wonder if they could have gone for an AMA record. If I remember the AMA has it's own records for some categories.
I could be be mistaken since I have not looked into that stuff for a very long time.

Re:...and this isn't a new one... (2, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731939)

No FAI logger/observer=no record.

No, no FAI logger = no FAI record.

It may well still be a record, just not an FAI one.

It's a Slashdot record (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732039)

... until Anonymous Coward decides to break it.

And who gets to make the rules? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732013)

... especially the one that says the FAI is the authority?

Re:And who gets to make the rules? (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733375)

That would be the worlds sport aviation bodies, who mostly delegate matters involving records to the FAI.

Without an FAI logger (More correctly called an IGC logger, not an FAI logger, as they are mainly used for gliding, powered aircraft records are mostly pointless) there is no real world proof, other than the word of the manufacturers. The loggers are made by a few different manufaturers,
such as LX navigation, Volkslogger and EW.

No FAI/IGC logger = no CREDIBLE record. Does that make it easier to understand?

They were so concerned not to let anyone see the plane they published a photo on the Internet.....pleeease.

Proof is very inconvenient eh?

IGC = International Gliding Commission.

To the poster who mentioned would a logger fit, they are quite small, around the size of a packet of 20 cigarettes, and would easily fit into the machine shown.

The poster who mentioned the AMA is on the right track, that would be the proper organisation, but guess what, they are a FAI affiliate, so I am guessing the same rules apply.

AC, they were so concerned not to let anyone see the plane they published a photo and details on the Internet.....pleeease, get a grip!

Re:And who gets to make the rules? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#24735593)

When you are making a list, the guy with the pencil is pretty much always the ultimate authority.

Re:...and this isn't a new one... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24734095)

Just get the chinese government to forge some papers saying the observer was there and everyone will be happy.

The Olympics still piss me off. What about them faking the fireworks show. This is supposedly the master race for inventing and making fireworks, and they have to fake the Olympic fireworks show. Pathetic. Maybe we need to delve deeper in whether they really invented gunpowder. There's been some debate already.

Fuck the chinese government. A true disgrace to it's people.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (4, Informative)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731843)

The record for longest manned flight is 64 days.

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/long219.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/11/98/great_balloon_challenge/299568.stm

Cessna out of Nevada flew for 64 days, 22 hours, covering the equivalent of 6 circumferences of the earth. In flight refueling, and they dropped down to just above ground level to pick up supplies from a chase car.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (5, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733205)

The record for longest manned flight is 64 days.
[chop]
Cessna out of Nevada flew for 64 days, 22 hours, covering the equivalent of 6 circumferences of the earth. In flight refueling, and they dropped down to just above ground level to pick up supplies from a chase car.

Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.

Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American.
Consider:

Eilmer of Malmesbury, who flew 220 yards in a glider in the 11th century
Lagari Celebi, who flew an unspecified distance with a rocket in 1633 (well documented!)
Henri Giffard, who flew 16 miles in a powered airship in 1852
George Cayley, who flew a mile in a controlled glider in 1853
John Stringfellow, who flew several dozen feet in a powered monoplane in 1868
Clement Adler, who flew 60 yards in a powered monoplane in 1890, and 320 yards in 1987
Richard Pearse, who flew over 1000 yards, including a controlled turn, in May 1903
Orville Wright, who flew 120 yards in a powered but wind-aided biplane in December 1903
Wilbur Wright, who flew 190 yards in a powered but wind-aided biplane in December 1903

Who gets honoured with having made the first flight? The Americans, of course! The "rules" have been rewritten several times after the fact to include the Wrights and exclude others.

So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (1)

uhlume (597871) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733881)

I don't necessarily wish to disagree with your overall point, but your way of making it is asinine. Claiming that Valeri Polyakov "did a 437 day flight"? Disingenuous at best, assuming you're referring to Polyakov's 14 months [wikipedia.org] in orbit on a space station and not some hitherto undocumented atmospheric flight of his. Why are you comparing this to a manned flight record set in a Cessna?

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (3, Insightful)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733889)

The Wrights published their flights and marketed their airplanes. They developed them into a successful business.

Pearse worked in obscurity.

Flights of Adler's steam powered airplanes were not well-publicized and the French government kept results of the 1897 flight secret for a while.

Consequently, the momentum of publicity has kept the Wright's name in the forefront. I do not intend to diminish the accomplishments of Adler and Pearse.

_ It's only reasonable to exclude "flights" outside the atmosphere, otherwise we'll have to make special rules to exclude the moon and man-made satellites from consideration. If you aren't continuously using the atmosphere for aerodynamic lift, you're not flying.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (4, Interesting)

uhlume (597871) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733901)

>

So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.

"Orbital flight" would be a misnomer at best. An object in orbit isn't "flying", it's falling.

And no, I don't think that's nitpicking. Once you're in orbit, it's not much of a feat to remain there, supply logistics notwithstanding.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (1)

Aram Fingal (576822) | more than 5 years ago | (#24735981)

"Orbital flight" would be a misnomer at best. An object in orbit isn't "flying", it's falling.

So you're saying that they do not so much fly as plummet.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24733905)

Clement Adler, who flew 60 yards in a powered monoplane in 1890, and 320 yards in 1987

Forgive me for not being impressed by this flight...

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (1)

gplus (985592) | more than 5 years ago | (#24734599)

It's actually quite impressive. You see, after the first flight Clement worked on the plane in the hangar. And only 97 years later it was ready for the second attempt. Clement, now 146 years old, flew more than 5 times longer the second time.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24733909)

Who gets honoured with having made the first flight?

And don't even get me started on who made the first supersonic filight. (Hans Guido Mutke)

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24734401)

For the same reasons then the longest unmanned flight would be that of some sattelite for some years so I figure the difference between the records is large enough to be seperate.

That apart, said solar plane was built in England making it a binational effort. There's a little left in the old empire and not just her children.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24734591)

So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.

I guess it's more that the MIR is not an aircraft, and thus does not quality for the maned aircraft flight record.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (4, Interesting)

antirelic (1030688) | more than 5 years ago | (#24734613)

Is this informative because of its "anti-american" bend or because it has information? If its because of the provided "information" than the Moderators should actually check out these "factiods" before modding the post. For example:

"Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.

Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American."

Yeah... 437 day SPACE FLIGHT....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriy_Polyakov [wikipedia.org]

No one was talking about "manned space flight"... because in that case, no shit sherlock, 60 odd days isnt shit.

The Americans didnt "change the rules". The reason the above mentioned individuals werent given credit for the "discovery" of flight is because their inventions simply did not translate into successful reproducible air travel. I mean, those guys dont have anything on... BIRDS... that were flying long before man. Why were BIRDS given credit for the discovery of flight...

"So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola."

Yes sparky... RTFA... This is about UNMANNED SUB ORBITAL flight... because if you werent then you would have to talk about VOYAGER I and II... which are have been going for 30+ years and are unmanned and again... American. Oh snap...

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (1)

savuporo (658486) | more than 5 years ago | (#24734731)

Dude, Wrights efforts did not directly translate into successful air travel either. The 1903 december flight by Wrights was quite obscure at the time, and Wrights kept well out of public sight for quite long time after that. What Otto Lilienthal did had far more influence wordlwide, Bleirot and Curtis as well. The simple matter of fact is that no party single handedly invent flight or translated it into reproducible air travel, they all had their part to play.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (2, Insightful)

Saib0t (204692) | more than 5 years ago | (#24734903)

Is this informative because of its "anti-american" bend or because it has information? If its because of the provided "information" than the Moderators should actually check out these "factiods" before modding the post. For example: "Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth. Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American." Yeah... 437 day SPACE FLIGHT....

I like how you attack the single one item that is definately debatable in the GP's list (note that he mentionned it was space flight too...)

How about focusing on the 7 prominent relevant others? Nothing to say on that?

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24735405)

Oooh, I can't let this statement go unchallenged!!!

I also believe the early reports of flying achievements are greatly skewed by American supporters of the Wright brothers, but I do believe that one should be accurate in attacking this. This list has several inaccuracies which need correcting!

There is no indication that Cayley's flights were controlled. Stringfellow flew models, not man-carrying machines. Richard Pearse's amazing achievements were never, unfortunately, properly documented, so the assertion above is a guess (though likely).

You have not mentioned Sir Hiram Maxim (1894), or Santos-Dumont. Nor Whitehead or Langley.

You have also missed out the critical point which this whole thread is about - that a particular record or achievement is invariably hedged round by the conditions it occurs under, and that it is qualified by. The Wrights claim for the 'first flight', depends on your accepting their qualifications. At the time they were arguing for legal patent control of flight, and so made some very precise distinctions. Their claim was that they were the first 'documented, heavier-than-air, man-carrying, controlled, powered flight, which had assistance leaving the ground, but landed safely.', which seems justifiable. But note that this does NOT mean 'the first flight'.

The American press has always trumpeted this as a breakthrough, but really it was part of an unbroken succession of human endeavor. My take on the critical steps are:

1783 - Montgolfier Bros/ Jacques Charles - first documented balloon flights
1790-1850 - Sir George Cayley - first aeronautical engineer, designed first stable heavier-than air glider, made first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air glider.
1850-1860 - John Stringfellow - first documented heavier-than-air powered aircraft (model)
1890 - Clement Ader - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered hop
1891 - Otto Lilienthal - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air, controllable flight
1894 - Sir Hiram Maxim - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered flight
1901 Gustave Whitehead - first undocumented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered flight
1903 William Pearce - first undocumented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered controlled flight
1903 Wright Brothers - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered controlled flight (with take-off assistance)
1906 Santos-Dumont - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered controlled flight with no assistance

And that's just a few high points - there were many others in between!

The importance of the Wright Brothers (apart from their being American) was that they developed the first workable 3-axis mechanical control system. This was essential for the further development of aviation - body-weight shifting would not scale. Unfortunately, neither would the wing-warping which the Wrights developed. Mechanical flap controls of the kind used in Europe (and also by Pearce) were the way ahead. The Wrights tried to patent ALL methods of control, and successfully closed down American aviation development until the First World War.

For my money the most impressive pioneer was Cayley. He would certainly have had a full aircraft if the technology of the time had allowed it - as it was he predicted what was required with startling accuracy. His papers are still well worth reading for all engineers...

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (1)

meyekul (1204876) | more than 5 years ago | (#24735557)

Clement Adler, who flew 60 yards in a powered monoplane in 1890, and 320 yards in 1987

I find this hard to believe, unless old Clement flew on their day of birth and then again when they were 97 years old..? One error like this, typo or not, kind of throws off your whole point.

Fly forever! (0)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731385)

If they could make one of these solar powered things fly fast enough to be in daylight at all times, it could fly forever! Well, at least until something goes wrong. :-(

Re:Fly forever! (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731443)

If it was that easy, they could just go to one of the poles where the sun never sets for half a year. Though I suppose the ambient temperature and low angle might be a letdown. On an equally unrealistic note, to travel with the sun at equator it'd have to do 40000km in 24 hours = 1667km/hour. Yes, we can make planes that fast OR planes that lightly glide using solar power but I'm pretty sure we won't get both at once.

Re:Fly forever! (2, Insightful)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731557)

Seems that the path is not that simple. If I start at daylight and travel to the pole it will be 1/4 circumference and it would be morning again on the other side. So more like 400kph?

Re:Fly forever! (2, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732377)

As explained in the BBC article, flying over one of the poles is not necessary to fly forever. This team is now working on a defense project codenamed Vulture to extend their design to be able to fly non-stop for 5 years on any spot on the Earth's surface. Although they don't mention why Zephyr couldn't fly more than 84 hours, presumably it was either because it wasn't able to recharge its batteries fast enough during daytime, or they voluntarily stopped the experiment after 84 hours. In any case it looks like their design is not far from being able to "fly forever".

Re:Fly forever! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24734955)

With that kind of range, the non-military applications are quite exciting. A solar powered aircraft can be used as a relay, just like a communications satellite, but with much lower latency. Rather than building towers on the ground, we can start popping them in the air, where they have line of sight to a much larger area. This would be a huge boost for telecommunications in third-world countries, where a few thousand of them could be deployed in a mesh network covering an entire area and only needing a small number of exit points to get to the rest of the Internet. Unlike fixed towers, they can dynamically rearrange their configurations so that large collections of devices are covered by more base stations.

Re:Fly forever! (2, Informative)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731699)

Actually, it doesn't need to be daytime for it to operate, hence how it was able to stay airborne for 83 hours. It uses high capacity batteries to get through the night. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Fly forever! (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731805)

But it did come down, which means, some resource got drained... Which one? The batteries, which may have been only partially recharging during the day, is one possible explanation....

Re:Fly forever! (4, Informative)

Thagg (9904) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732191)

But it did come down, which means, some resource got drained... Which one? The batteries, which may have been only partially recharging during the day, is one possible explanation....

The first people to fly a solar-powered plane through the night, Tom Gage and his team at AC Propulsion, flew for 48 hours...and could have probably flown forever -- the resource that was drained was the on-ground pilots.

The plane was flown to use thermals as much as possible during the day, but it was tiring work.

Anyway, after two days, and with a battery charge higher than what they started at, they figured that they had made their point.

Re:Fly forever! (3, Interesting)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732797)

The plane was flown to use thermals as much as possible during the day, but it was tiring work.

Perhaps for military use it's desirable to fly that low, but another way to get a solar plane flying forever is to get it light enough and get the sink rate low enough (1 foot/second) that it can glide all night (100000 feet -> 40000 feet) and still be in the lower stratosphere by sunrise. That way you don't need batteries, and you'll always be above the clouds and weather.

A plane designed for this will be flimsy and fly extremely slowly near ground (slower than walking speed), so it'd have to be launched and retrieved during calm weather, but once up, there would be very little to go wrong - at most latitudes it could circle in one spot indefinitely.

Yeah, but ... (1, Redundant)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731387)

... the leg room in first class sucks.

What is its purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24731391)

What is the point of this device? Surveillance right?

Re:What is its purpose? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24731653)

Nope. The whole thing was built only to be mentioned on Slashdot.

Interesting feat (1, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731395)

Very interesting might I add. But the suggested applications of such a plane / technology seem to be far fetched. From TFA:

Zephyr's impressive fight time opens up a lot of potential for the aircraft the fields of earth observation and communications relay.

Telecom or science equipment tend to be bulky and heavy. Even with the size reductions of the equipment we witness today, it's still big... too big for the payload of such an ultra-light aircraft.

Furthermore, theseà systems require power; power you either need to carry with you (fuel cells, batteries, etc.) or produce with solar cells. As most of the power from the cells is probably used for flight systems, not much would be left for payload powering, cooling, heating, etc.

The idea is nice, but for me, at this stage, it's nothing more than a toy to get credits for breaking records. Not a serious attempt to develop a usable platform. The potential isn't that great.

Re:Interesting feat (4, Insightful)

Inominate (412637) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731531)

Yea Goddard's liquid rocket was a waste of time. It only flew 40 feet and couldn't even carry a payload! The idea was nice, but it was nothing more than a child's toy.

Seriously though, it's a step towards making long term solar powered flight work. Creating aircraft able to keep flying indefinitely on solar power is not trivial. Once we can make it work though, then it's time to start scaling it up and sticking payloads on it.

A solar powered aircraft able to stay in the air for months or years at a time would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a satellite while being able to perform many of the same jobs.

Re:Interesting feat (2, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732009)

I do agree with the fact that it's a step forward, and a very nice step. But the article present this as flight time that opens a lot of potential. My point was that, for a practical application, it is not all about flight time. A platform with infinite flight time, but zero payload capability is of no use.

So, as much as this a good step forward, TFA is a bit over enthusiastic regarding the "opened up" potential.

Re:Interesting feat (2, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733049)

A platform with infinite flight time, but zero payload capability is of no use..

You're probably too young to remember seeing them, but the Echo series of communications satellites were simply 100 foot diameter mylar balloons. They were passive -- they had no payload at all -- but NASA was able to bounce radio signals off of them.

A stationary "mirror in the sky" might make for a good way to bounce radio signals into and out of a hostile area without the power requirements needed for satellite communications.

Just because there is no apparent practical application doesn't mean there will never be one. I am frequently amazed at what people can do with the simplest things.

Re:Interesting feat (2, Informative)

g0dsp33d (849253) | more than 5 years ago | (#24735957)

There's also a lot less latency when you don't have to go the extra few miles between syn and ack packets.

Re:Interesting feat (2, Interesting)

Shihar (153932) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732275)

I think the quasi-satellite implications of this really can't be overlooked. Shooting things into space, especially into a geosynchronous orbit is really expensive. Shooting things simply into orbit is still extremely expensive AND you need to launch multiple satellites to get continuous coverage. If you could pop a few of these up at a fraction of the costs, you could get massive coverage, extremely cheaply.

For a place like the US that would be neat and useful, but where it would REALLY pay dividends would be in places like India where they have shitty infrastructure and a democratic government that can't blast peoples' houses easily to make way for new infrastructure (like they can in China). If you could toss a few of these up over India, you could cheaply (much cheaper than laying down land lines or towers) get some serious coverage even to remote places with bad roads.

Re:Interesting feat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24732901)

India needs more plagues, not more satellites

Re:Interesting feat (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733169)

Well that's not very nice.

Re:Interesting feat (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24735013)

The thing you forget to mention is latency. Geosynchronous orbit is 35,800Km above sea level. This works out as 0.119 seconds [google.com] each way, giving to an absolute minimum round trip time of a quarter of a second, assuming you have infinitely fast switching at both ends. The round trip time to something in the atmosphere from a point directly below it is under 160us[1]. For reference, the round trip time including protocol and switching overhead to a machine on my local wireless network is 1ms. This means that the latency between any pair of machines covered by the same atmospheric pseudosat would be almost indistinguishable from the local network.

Even without the cost difference , and the ease of deployment, these would have a huge advantage over satellites. I'm not sure if this is the right technology, however. I'd be more inclined to expect monomolecular carbon balloons filled with hydrogen and manoeuvred with solar powered engines to be the communications platform of the near future.

[1] That u should be a mu, but Slashdot mangles non-ASCII characters.

Re:Interesting feat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24732489)

Seriously though, it's a step towards making long term solar powered flight work. Creating aircraft able to keep flying indefinitely on solar power is not trivial.

Wouldn't a helium zeppelin achieve this goal?

Re:Interesting feat (3, Interesting)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731535)

These little planes might be useful in disaster situations, when ordinary comms are down. Wi-Fi capability has already been crammed into the SD card form factor. Seems likely that a very light weight Wi-Fi access point could be constructed as well. With that, how many of these planes would need to be launched to provide a communications network over an area wrecked by an earthquake or a flood?

Re:Interesting feat (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731749)

If your "communications" could be data instead of voice, then I have an example of exactly how small a network could be, with existing wireless sensor nodes [flickr.com] . That one is on a USB for a "base station", and is normally powered by 2 AAs, with the whole computer being the size of the back of the AA battery pack. The range on the radios there are about 100 meters.

If the AA batteries aren't needed, like if the plane is going to provide power, that is a very small and lightweight network.

Re:Interesting feat (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731701)

Even a payload on the order of 10kg would be very useful if the cost of the aircraft is practical. Remember, the launch costs are close to nil, so all you have to pay for is the craft itself and maybe come access to ground or satellite based monitoring and control. I can imagine many agencies, departments and private organisations would have a lot of use for something like this.

Re:Interesting feat (2, Informative)

Timbotronic (717458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731705)

According to the BBC article it carried a 2kg payload. That's enough for a decent observation and communications platform and this is only a prototype - they're talking about a much bigger version that could stay aloft for months.

Sion Power [sionpower.com] make the Lithium Sulfur batteries and they claim an energy density that's almost twice that of Lithium Ion. If that's true the power shouldn't be too much of a problem once the UAV's reached cruising altitude. It would be good to know some more about those batteries...

Re:Interesting feat (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 5 years ago | (#24734561)

Telecom or science equipment tend to be bulky and heavy. Even with the size reductions of the equipment we witness today, it's still big... too big for the payload of such an ultra-light aircraft.

Furthermore, theseà systems require power; power you either need to carry with you (fuel cells, batteries, etc.) or produce with solar cells. As most of the power from the cells is probably used for flight systems, not much would be left for payload powering, cooling, heating, etc.

On this test flight, the plane carried a 2kg payload, which was a fully working communications relay. The specs in the BBC article seem to suggest it could carry up to 3kg (i.e., there's a 3kg variability in the aircraft weight section). While the articles I've seen don't elaborate on why the flight was terminated, my suspicion was they only wanted to show that the plane would fly for as long as the relay's batteries would last: 80ish hours seems reasonable for a low-power (i.e. local area) radio relay with a small high-density battery pack.

With two of these you could fly continuously with more than enough time to recharge batteries and perform routine maintenance between flights.

Lithium-Sulfur Batteries (5, Informative)

Gruff1002 (717818) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731619)

Sulfur is a relatively cheap material, so lithium-sulfur batteries have the potential to be less expensive than other battery types. With a lower starting cost to manufacturers, lithium-sulfur batteries could save consumers money. There is also a possible cost savings because lithium-sulfur batteries tend to provide much longer charges than lithium ion batteries. With double the lifetime or greater, you might be able to get by with a single lithium-sulfur battery for your laptop or rechargeable hand tool. Another reported advantage of lithium-sulfur batteries is their ability to work well in very cold weather. www.wisegeek.com

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries (2, Informative)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731935)

wrong. it's price has gone through the roof in the last few months.

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24732727)

Materials without a commercial application are usually cheap, until a commercial application is developed...Like, say, making batteries.

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries (1)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733153)

Apparently the higher energy-density Li-S batteries use a compound called Thionyl Chloride [wikipedia.org] , which is toxic, corrosive, and controlled as a chemical weapon. Not a comforting thought, having those flying around overhead, unmanned.

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries (1)

starshinecruzer (192162) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736949)

I've actually heard quite a bit about Lithium-Polymer batteries that sounds promising. I first saw one in my old Erisson T-28 cellphone, and it made the thing light as a feather.

More recently Apple is using them in the AirBook to cut down on weight. 2 big advantages of Li-P: during the construction phase you can literally pour the material into any shape you want. Also ounce for ounce it is (or was, before I heard about the Sulfur batts) the lightest battery out there.

There were some drawbacks, namely if a powerful current is accidentally sent through one the polymer explodes, not unlike juicing a capacitor. Also I heard some sketchy science about battery life, but my Ericsson battery never had to be replaced in 3 years of usage; I ended up replacing the phone first!

... and is designed to launch by hand.... (1)

bangenge (514660) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731659)

Like a paper airplane? But bigger?

Re:... and is designed to launch by hand.... (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731863)

See the RQ14 Dragon Eye. It's a Marine Corp UAV. You launch it with a bungee cord. I imagine if your arm was strong enough, you really could launch this one like a paper airplane too.

Re:... and is designed to launch by hand.... (2, Interesting)

narftrek (549077) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732111)

Exactly that [op-for.com] or off a small catapult [wikimedia.org] which they still consider "hand launched"

They already broke that record last year (1)

dave1g (680091) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731743)

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/10/1917254 [slashdot.org]

Solar Craft Flies Through Two Nights
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday September 10 2007, @03:43PM
from the nasa-awash-with-envy dept.
Power Technology
An anonymous reader writes "A solar-powered, unmanned craft has flown for 54 hours -- a record for both unmanned aerial vehicles and solar craft. None before has managed to store enough solar energy to fly through more than one night. There is also a video showing the 18m carbon fiber wing craft being launched."

Qinetic not very upset at all (4, Interesting)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731779)

If my hunch is correct, then QinetiQ isn't very upset by not being listed as a world-record-breaker with this flight. Qinetic is a military contractor. Unless I'm completely mistaken, this plane being constructed with so much carbon fiber, wouldn't it have a very small (perhaps non-existent) radar signature? I'm sure it could carry a small payload, like reconnaisance cameras, for instance? All that plus no need to refuel, and I'd say that the military would be very interested in contracting QinetiQ to build a fleet of these for them. I'd also imagine that you could include a satellite uplink to the payload, and never have to even have the thing land in order to download it's recorded recon data.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all (2, Interesting)

kievit (303920) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732005)

I looked at the checklist [fai.org] on the internation aeronautics federation web site, and it looks like QinetiQ could easily have complied with the rules, they just had to invite an official and agree on how to document the flight, which seems quite reasonable and obvious to me.

So I guess you're right: the folks at QinetiQ probably do not care about "official" world records. They just want publicity, and sell stuff.

Or maybe there are some unmentioned important details.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all (1)

Perf (14203) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732733)

Radar signature isn't very important if telemetry is being transmitted. Two things that would help is burst transmission and a narrow transmit beam.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732809)

*nodding* sure thing. If I were the Systems Engineer for the project, I'd have it only spit a stream of data at my satellite when I asked it to. In the meantime though it's not a very effective surveillance device if you can see it on radar easily and arrange a small "accident" for it..

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all (1)

MarsLander (742092) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733389)

Unless I'm completely mistaken, this plane being constructed with so much carbon fiber, wouldn't it have a very small (perhaps non-existent) radar signature?

I think you might be completely mistaken. ;)

"Dielectric composites are relatively transparent to radar, whereas electrically conductive materials such as metals and carbon fibers reflect electromagnetic energy incident on the material's surface."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology [wikipedia.org]

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736181)

Unless I'm completely mistaken, this plane being constructed with so much carbon fiber, wouldn't it have a very small (perhaps non-existent) radar signature?

It may be structurally carbon-fiber, but those solar panels covering the entire body, and all the batteries and motors certainly aren't.

But both are besides the point. Once you've scaled a plane down to smaller than common types of birds, it's effectively invisible anyhow, with the enemy recon plane being indistinguishable from wild-life.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24737275)

The radar cross section is indeed very small. Due to power and weight issues, they can probably also not carry a transponder. This makes it difficult to use the airplane in regular airspace (not a military issue, but it can hamper its civil use as satellite replacement) Normally, the plane flies high above regular air traffic, but take-off, landing and emergency situations can change that.

launch by hand? (3, Funny)

an00bis (667089) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731807)

an ultra-lightweight carbon-fiber aircraft that weighs less than 70lbs and is designed to launch by hand

i never want to meet the man who launches this aircraft by hand

Re:launch by hand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24735505)

"aircraft that weighs less than 70lbs and is designed to launch by hand "

"i never want to meet the man who launches this aircraft by hand"

That's nothing! Whan I was 8 years old, I was routinely launching aircraft that weighed less than 70lbs by hand. Mind you, they weighed a lot less than 70 lb. Usually 69lb, 12oz less .....

Re:launch by hand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24735757)

To Bill Braskey!!!

What about the Condor UAV? (4, Informative)

Goldenhawk (242867) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731853)

I think the claim to have beaten the Global Hawk by 2x is a bit misleading - it implies a doubling of existing capabilities. In fact, it only UNOFFICIALLY doubles an OFFICIAL record, which itself is not the longest flight recorded by any means. In 1989 a Boeing UAV named Condor flew over 58 hours, and had a design endurance of 80 hours. Okay, they never claimed it as an official record, but it was still a valid flight, just like this was.

Here's an interesting video:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/boeing-condor-uav/4285692709 [aol.com]

And some facts:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7988 [af.mil]

Granted, the Zephyr is theoretically limited only by the service life of its electrical components - it could stay up until something broke or wore out. But please, let's use real facts here.

Re:What about the Condor UAV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24734279)

The zephyr actually out-flew the Condor's theoretical limit.

Yankee nationalism again, you just don't want to be beaten by the Brits.

It was the same with the Boeing 787 that was going to be so much more successful and well-organised than the A380.

So what happened? (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#24731959)

I was of the hope that I would know how its flight ended. Sadly, the entire story does not mention this. Anyone in the know about how this magnificent plane's flight ended...or did it crash?

Or why didn't they just let it continue flying after all it had an endless supply of "juice."

Re:So what happened? (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732407)

UAVs still have pilots. Pilot fatigue may be the limiting factor... iirc, that's how their previous demo flight (54 hours) ended. Since it's an R&D article, my guess is that time was long enough to accomplish the flight goals, and they wanted it back in the hangar to keep working on it. There are probably other reasons, but I would guess those are both significant ones.

Why not during summer solstice? (1)

okmijnuhb (575581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732245)

I'm surprised it wasn't tried nearer the summer solstice, around the 3rd week of June, for the longest daylight.

Re:Why not during summer solstice? (1)

Born2bwire (977760) | more than 5 years ago | (#24736823)

If they are doing a proof of concept flight here then it would be a bit pointless to schedule around the summer solstice, securing the most ideal conditions possible. Customers and other interested parties are not interested in what the system can do under ideal conditions, but under realistic conditions. They could have taken it up to the arctic regions to ensure constant daylight but that would not give an accurate indication on how it would behave in a typical environment.

But... (1, Insightful)

GameGod0 (680382) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732625)

This would be cool if the end application wasn't to kill people more effectively.

Summary Error (2, Informative)

TCPhotography (1245814) | more than 5 years ago | (#24732799)

Anyone who writes that the Global Hawk is the size of a fighter has never seen one in person. The damn thing is HUGE. The wingspan is even greater than that of a U-2. It's an awesome plane with some serious potential.

not good for space travel (2, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733145)

Solar planes are going to reduce the need for satellite and satellite launches. That may lower the cost for some services, but it will also mean that there's less interest in commercial uses of space.

Steve (1)

sstair (538045) | more than 5 years ago | (#24733223)

Anyone else thinking "plane of the ecliptic" when you read the headline?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>