Boeing Gets $89M To Build Drone That Can Fly For 5 Years Straight 271
coondoggie writes "One of the more unique unmanned aircraft concepts took a giant step toward reality this week when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency inked an agreement with Boeing to build the SolarEagle, a plane capable of remaining at heights above 60,000ft for over five years. Boeing says the first SolarEagle under the $89 million contract could fly as early as 2014."
more unique (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
"More unique"? You can't qualify "unique", it's like saying "more dead" or "more binary".
Hey, where's everybody going?
Satellite replacement? (Score:2, Insightful)
So could this function as a more temporary satellite? Just fly it high and keep it over a certain area and it could perform some of the functions I imagine. Be easier to service/replace too. It would also cut down on all the crap in our orbitals, which is a plus.
2014? (Score:3, Insightful)
Four years development. Is this an alternate universe Boeing? Perhaps it is a Boeing from the past, when they could actually build airplanes that might approach a reasonable construction time.
Further, the Solar Eagle is going to use propellers? I thought the big advantage of jet engines was less maintenance time. How is this going to fly with mechanical and exposed propellers for 5 years at a time?
Re:Satellite replacement? (Score:4, Insightful)
The downside is that a slow moving drone, even at very high altitude like that, is pretty easy to shoot down.
Re:Satellite replacement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Satellite replacement? (Score:2, Insightful)
The downside is that a slow moving drone, even at very high altitude like that, is pretty easy to shoot down.
Only if you are looking for it, and you have suitable instruments to detect its position, and something to shoot that can actually go that far up.
Re:batteries... (Score:3, Insightful)
So they can keep working after the sun sets?
Yep. Or the Earth gets in the way, however you prefer to think of it.
Re:SEE! (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it sad that new tech that might as easily be developed for peaceful uses only gets funded by idiots who think that killing people is the first, best solution to any problem instead of what it transparently is: the worst one?
I don't endorse needless wars, and you will find that your statement does not characterize the military. The fact of the matter is that history has shown that humans resort to violence and oppression. If you are too pusillanimous to face that fact you are doomed to a life of servitude. How do you think American independence was won? What would you have done against Hitler's rise? Written him a sternly-worded letter?
We live in a finite planet with very limited resources. When the time comes, how do you propose we secure our freedom (or the remnants of it) and our very survival?
Your sentiments are too idealistic and in the long run will result in your destruction. The world isn't run by pacifists like you. When push comes to shove, there will be war.
I'm not a warmonger, but I'm not so naive as to think that my security can be ensured through diatribe alone. Military might is but one facet of our defenses.
Re:SEE! (Score:3, Insightful)
they're "we need to figure out a way of quickly producing these exotic materials on a large enough skill to fill the demand that the military is going to have for these.".
And then the military contract is fulfilled and there's a high-tech, extremely niche product factory just sitting there waiting to be re-purposed. There's also the knowledge of how to set up a large scale manufacturing facility to create those materials. Basically, there's another tool in the company's toolbox and when the next problem pops up the new knowledge and abilities might just be able to solve it better than the old ones. That's how derivative technologies make it to the market.
Re:SEE! (Score:3, Insightful)
In ye olden days you got the loot, some land, some slaves, tributes...and that's about it. Today you get to run a full military-industrial complex for years. Besides the oil and other "loot" you might get, you also get a lot of political power, influence over other nation's economies, a boost to your own. You can even get some political and control advantage at home 'cause you get to have more leverage in passing unpopular laws (e.g. anti-terrorist laws, increased airport/seaport/land security laws, privacy-invading laws, etc).
I've even read a few articles/opinions that state that most of the US economy nowadays is partially direct and very much so indirectly dependent on wars. And it makes sense if you do a bit of research on the 50+ wars and conflicts the US has been in in the past century. Where do you think that humongous Defense budget goes? I find it very hard to believe that the DoD is stock-piling wads of cash. In war-time you get the huge advantage of being able to leverage people's fear into paying more war-related taxes or just getting general approval for increasing the DoD's budget. That money in turn gets spent on hundreds of thousands of soldiers, defense contractor's employees, etc. This in turn activates the economy because people have more money to spend, and so on.
I'm not sure about it, but I've even heard about how WW2 helped the US get out of the Great Depression among other factors.
So yes, I believe Wars are VERY profitable nowadays.
Re:SEE! (Score:5, Insightful)
War ended the systematic murder of Jews, Roma and Homosexuals in Europe.
Explain how the Nazi government was going to rationally treat the Slavs, Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, mentally ill and genetically defective people in Western and Central Europe.
By advocating isolation of Germany, Finland, Italy, etc, you'd condem millions of people to terrible fates just because.
The idea that "there are always ways that all parties can resolve their legitmate conflicts to the greater benefit of everyone," was thrown out the door and stomped on by Hitler following the partition of Czechoslovakia.
Would Blacks in the American south have been better served by decades more slavery?
Re:Summary Fail (Score:3, Insightful)