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."
SEE! (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't it frustrating that the military never encourages the development of new technology?
I cannot think of a single civilian use for something like this, and definitely not a use for any of the derivative technologies. /sarcasm...because, well, nerdgasm
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. Indeed. Almost certainly significantly cheaper than your average satellite, while giving a flexibility not available in satellites.
Out of curiosity, is 60,000 feet high enough to avoid commercial airliner traffic? IE, would these things need to hook into Air Traffic Control?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SEE! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At 60,000ft it's just military traffic.
And damned little of that.
Currently in the US fleet only F15 F22 and F35 have announced service ceilings in excess of 60,000ft. (Some f15s can achieve 98,000ft (ballisticly).
The experimental Russian P-1, Sukhoi and Su 27, and perhaps a few others could operate up there.
But there is otherwise nothing up that high on a routine basis.
50,000 feet is easily within reach of missiles. So other than areas where there is already full air dominance, I would not expect to see these in combat situations. As a comm
Re:SEE! (Score:4, Informative)
Service celling of a 777 is 43,000, same for A-380 and 787.
My cousin is an airline pilot, CRJs and now A-320s and they generally fly at 41,000
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, is 60,000 feet high enough to avoid commercial airliner traffic? IE, would these things need to hook into Air Traffic Control?
Commercial jetliners are certified to around 45,000 ft and some of the business class jets can go a bit over 50,000 ft.
Either way, 60,000 feet is high enough that the only things you have to worry about are military aircraft and stray weather balloons, because 60,000 feet is where Class A airspace tops out.
Re: (Score:2)
Several answers and none is quite right.
Commercial and civilian jets all have certified ceilings that vary depending on the weight, balance, of the aircraft and length of the cruise, headwinds, weather, etc.
Most comercial jetliners can cruise at 36-40,000 feet. The Concorde cruised higher, at around 60-62,000 feet.
Additionally, commercial jets usually stick to well-known routes directed by ATC. Spacing for height and distance is variable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like Boeing to design a solar-powered car like this. Even if it only goes 25mph, being able to go to work without burning money... oops I mean gasoline would be great.
Re:SEE! (Score:5, Informative)
is 60,000 feet high enough to avoid commercial airliner traffic?
60k and above is what is called class E airspace and the rules are very simple for class E: It's up to you not to run into anyone else. Except for the occasional SR71 and U2, nothing regularly flies at this altitude (some fighter aircraft can go this high if they have to but they don't just cruise around for the heck of it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)#Class_E [wikipedia.org]
PS - most commercial airliners aren't rated for even 40K, nevermind 60. At 60, you can see the curvature of the earth out the window so it would be really cool to actually get to take a flight that could handle it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At 60, you can see the curvature of the earth out the window so it would be really cool to actually get to take a flight that could handle it.
I'm sure at 60 you can see the curvature much more dramatically, but you can see the curvature just fine at 40k too. The view from the cockpit (back when children and such were -gasp- invited to see the cockpit) it was particularly apparent. These days you'd probably need to be on a private jet to get more than a port-hole view though.
Cite: http://www.opticsinfobase.o [opticsinfobase.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Concorde could reach 60k.
An SR71 got diverted once because of this. The SR71 was flying somewhat faster, but Concorde's passengers were munching canapés and drinking Champagne, and her pilots were only a little less comfortable ;-)
Sadly, both are now grounded.
There's still a few English Electric Lightnings flying in South Africa, they can do 60k, and they're demilitarised.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it frustrating that the military never encourages the development of new technology?
Joke's on DARPA though..... Boeing is gonna spend that $89 mil on hookers & blow, since they know the world ends 2 years before they have to deliver it.
Re:SEE! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's already *here*.
That is absolutely fantastic news. Could you point me at a place where I could buy one?
The reality is that the derivative technologies are not always things like "we need to invent a solar panel", they're not even "we need to invent light composites", 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.".
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
Your argument is an emotional grab (appeal to emotion fallacy). And is a fallacy of choice. Perhaps in some situations war is the only answer. But it is not the answer in the vast vast majority of
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But your condoms are made in the USA!
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently, not necessarily [slashdot.org].
But There is Mostly Dead (Score:2, Interesting)
INIGO: what's that?
MIRACLE MAX: search through his pockets for loose change
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, where's everybody going?
Trying to get her more pregnant.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try to outgeek me. There's no more geek.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I fully agree with parent.
Each of you is unique... just like everyone else. But then there's Einstein...
So "more unique" is a distinct concept expressed succinctly to cover the Einsteinian cases. It is not logical-- it is in fact an oxymoron-- but it is used in the English language, not PHP, Perl, or any of our other logical languages. Any processor capable of properly parsing spoken English would have less difficulty with 'more unique" than with "there, their, they're". It is good English. Good English
At least 60,000 feet up for five years? (Score:3, Funny)
Take $89 million...buy a Falcon 9 launch...pocket the difference.
Think of the Planet! (Score:2)
Take $89 million...buy a Falcon 9 launch...pocket the difference.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see these put into use for keeping communications operational, should the Kessler Syndrome come into play making LEO impassible (courtesy nations like China showing off their target practice skills and the resulting space debris).
Another use would be bandwidth for populated areas, so traffic wouldn't have to be bounced off a satellite just for region to region traffic.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Not really that easy. One advantage of being that high is that a surface-to-air missile will have expended much of its energy by the time it gets to you - it takes a smaller adjustment on your part to be outside the kill radius. If any of the modern approaches to stealth are incorporated it could be quite difficult to acquire and maintain track on a high altitude target.
batteries... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So they can keep working after the sun sets?
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
or, more accurately, when they are in the earth's shadow (not that common in high orbits, but regular for anything in LEO)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:batteries... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
LiFePo, can I have the money now?
Normally rated for 2,000+ cycles and 5 years sounds pretty reasonable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Quoting wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "Fuel cells are different from conventional electrochemical cell batteries in that they consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished - a thermodynamically open system. By contrast, batteries store electrical energy chemically and hence represent a thermodynamically closed system."
So AFAIK there is no way to "recharge" a fuel cell from solar cel
Combination ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Way too much (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Way too much (Score:4, Funny)
It is a "don't ask don't tell" thing. The airplane has to be straight for 5 years or the term of its enlistment.
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:2014? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no concept for solar powered jet engines. And I'm not selling it for 89 million either.
Re:2014? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious to hear more about your concept for a solar-powered jet engine.
I don't see why a solar or electric Brayton-cycle heat engine shouldn't be possible. I'm actually curious that no one has done this for solar farms instead of Stirling-cycle engines. While the theoretical efficiency of the Stirling-cycle engine is ideal, the practical problems are large due the the number of moving parts and issues with heat transfer.
Brayton-cycle turbine engines inject the heat into the working fluid away from the moving parts, and one can imagine the air flowing through a heated mesh to perform the transfer. Not a winner for this applciation, where direct electric-drive propellers have compelling efficiency and possibly weight advantages, but for solar farms it might very well be competitive with Stirling engines.
Re: (Score:2)
It already mentions that the plane runs on fuel cells, so I would imagine there is some sort of electrolysis going on so that it store it's energy as oxygen and hydrogen already.
Of course, it wouldn't be anything near the kind of efficiency.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Piston aircraft are *much* less reliable and have *much* lower time between overhauls than jets, because jets basically have a very small number of non-contact bearings, while pist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The maintenance issue is with internal combustion engines, these props will be spun by an electric motor.
Re: (Score:2)
i thought most prop planes these days were turbo props, basically a turbine engine hooked to a prop but i could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yeah, it's safe to ignore both time and money estimates from government contractors until it has blown both its time and budget constraints a few times. The first bid is always impossible and full of half-truths and omissions to win the contract. The politics are stupid, but at least sometimes it results in good research.
Now, "Google Maps Live!" (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait until Google gets these. Google Maps could be updated in real time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Next X-Prize:
1 million dollar for the first practical, do-it-yourself, anti-air missile that can reach 60K altitude :)
400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields (Score:3, Informative)
Where the hell are you going to launch it from?
I mean seriously maybe they'll launch it from the US during the airwar and it'll finally get to the combat theater by time we've achieved air superiority.
I'd probably designed like a glider and to loiter for a long time by definition, would it just be easier to tow this thing like a glider to the theater of operations?
I really like the concept and all the Weather satellite type work, and cellular nodes or broadband that could use this kind of platform. Unlike the Solar powered plane that flew recently this thing will actually have a payload and energy budget that includes the cameras and comms gear.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where the hell are you going to launch it from?
Do you realize how many airstrips worldwide are operated by the US? I'm sure they would have no problem launching from Diego Garcia, that was a fine place from where to launch B-52s, KC-135s, and B-2s for their missions to Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Military hardware is not civilian hardware. Just to get a data link into a modern plane you would need to crack the encryption, crack the radio network to allow you in, and even then you'd still have to crack the actual systems on the plane itself. Now if you meant jamming, that is somewhat easier, but I can assure you that the military radios have ways to prevent that as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even assuming an absolute worst case scenario, a single usable takeoff point in the entire world, conflict on the other side of the planet, and a cruise speed of 50 mph it would take a whopping 10 days to reach it's destination. And if they can really stay up for 5 years straight, you could have a fleet of them spread around the world ready to be deployed to nearby conflict zones.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the hell are you going to launch it from?
I'm going to guess they'd launch it from one of the big strips in the Mojave desert and then set it over the US/Mexico or US/Canada border as very-long-term surveillance.
Plus if it runs for 5 years, why not just make 40 of them, launch them all, and leave them all over the world, like the GPS satellite network? If you've got 5 year misson plans, why bother hurrying when you can just have one local?
Helios, Pathfinder, Paul MacCready, etc... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I was in diapers drinking beer
You worked at NASA, huh?
Weather Balloon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet universities could do this cheaper (Score:2)
Give 20 of the best $1 million grants, and I bet you'd have a workable design faster and cheaper
why don't they... (Score:2)
just push it up a little higher and let it fly even longer...
And we'll call that flight path "orbit"
And instead of drone, we'll call it a satellite.
And we'll let it fly for 20 years!
I'll take my 89 mil in large bills thank you.
Opportunity Response (Score:2)
Opportunity sent a message to NASA saying, "Oh yeah, baby, that's the stuff. I want to meet this new bird. Talk me up to her, guys, OK? Tell her I've been doing the same thing, but on another planet. Don't mention the wheels. Say, by the way, you said 90 days, umm, can I come home now?"
oblig: http://xkcd.com/695/ [xkcd.com]
Five years straight? (Score:2)
How about 5 planes each flying 1 year straight?
Wouldn't that be easier, cheaper, more flexible and dynamic?
What, no successful test run? (Score:2)
If development is complete 4 years from now, how can they have finished even a single test flight where it worked as advertised?
2014 my Ass (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you
Spindly glider wings VS a 'flying wing' ?? (Score:2)
I know very little about aviation design, other than the vacuum effect of wings. I'm curious why these solar powered electric planes are glider design rather than flying wing design? It would seem you could get more useful cargo space for batteries and significantly more lift surface.
Re:5 Years? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say wifi access point in the sky?
Re: (Score:2)
"Ground control to Major Tom
Check ignition engines on"
- David Boeing
Although it sounds more like STOS -- "Our five year mission: to boldly go where no man has gone before."
Should have named it Kee-zos-en. (Score:2)
The solar eagle, whose wings open to create the day, and close to cause the night-time.
Re: (Score:2)
That does make me curious... what embedded OS would something like this run? A version of INTEGRITY RTOS is probably my guess.