NASA's Flying Wing Breaks 2 Records

ELBnet writes "CNN reports in this story that NASA's Helios flying wing broke the altitude records for both a propeller and jet aircraft with an altitude of 85,100 feet... and they were still climbing shooting for 100,000."

Comments

But it doesn't scale

[inio]

Sure, it makes sense that if you built a huge one of these you could ride it up into space ... or not.

The problem is that while lift scales with the square of size (make something twice as big and it gets four times as much lift), its WEIGHT scales with the cube (it gets eight times as heavy). This means that you couldn't use one of these to say, lift a rocket into near-orbit and launch it from there. In the end this doesn't get us any closer to space - it just gets the telcos a cheaper short term satellite.

Imperial/Metric and NASA

[Dr_Cheeks]

Thats all well and good. But these measurements mean nothing to me since they are in imperial. Most of the world uses metric, most science projects use metric. Why not this?

Um, I think most of us remember what happens when NASA try to convert between metres and feet.

It has been done.

[DiveX]

Joe Kittinger made the highest intentional skydive in history when in 1960 he jumped out of a balloon at 103,000 ft., and is the only person to have broken the sound barrier with his body alone.

Re: This bit seems odd

[Caid Raspa]

" ..experiments for pharmaceutical companies ..."

has NASA's PR department just gotten too used to blurting that out

People are not interested in seeing tax money used in science unless they feel they could benefit from it. So, saying something like this to people who don't have a clue on science is

Why would you want to conduct experiments at 100,000 ft at 20 MPH?

A few things come to mind.

Chemical analysis of rocket exhausts might be possible, if you put this in the right position. The solid-fuel stages might leave some dust particles that give hints to what kind of fuels are used. This would help in estimating the ICBM payload capacity.

Low-orbit satellites have orbital velocities of several miles per second, so if you want to have a better look at that Chinese ICBM base, Helios could be a choice.

Atmospheric research would benefit from this. You could send up a whole armada of weather stations in the upper atmosphere instead of a single weather satellite.

Studies of the Earth's magnetic field and it's connection to the solar wind could use measurements right under the auroral oval, where solar wind hits the upper atmosphere. Combining these with radar-scattering experiments would be extremely interesting to geophysicists.

As this thing runs on solar, and is well above clouds, it only need to stay on the sunny side of Earth to run forever. Perhaps a medium-sized battery and some smart remote pilot could keep this up during nighttime, goin only halfway down and climbing back up every morning?

Port to Lego

[Dr_Cheeks]

Sooo, all I need to do now is figure out how to incorporate this research in my Lego Mindstorms robot, to help me get up to the ISS. Fantastic!

Better name?

[Hobart]

Perhaps a better name for the project would be Icarus ?

(On second thought, best not to jinx it ;)

Some more info

[Caid Raspa]

can be found on the Helios website

Re:How does it maintain position?

[coreman]

The 20mph was at much lower levels while taking off. At the maximum levels it was flying much faster in order to have enough air moving over the wings to produce lift (you need lift enough to offset the weight) The peak speed listed is 170mph for this flight. It couldn't do that at sealevel, even in a straight dive due to the drag.

Mandatory NASA Joke

[JBowz15]

NASA breaking an altitude record?
I suppose it's better than breaking a Mars probe.

Re:And this is even more stupid.

[Greyfox]

Research is never stupid. Even if you don't end up sending it to mars, there are practical applications here for an aircraft that can stay in the air more or less indefinitely. At a cost of two orders of magnititude less than what it costs to just launch a communications satellite, you could use the craft in the same role, assuming it pulls in enough power to run the kit you'd have to load on it.

"David's Sling"

[Bob_Robertson]

Did anyone else read Marc Steigler's book, "Davids Sling", in which just such systems are used for dropping bombs on completely unsuspecting targets?

Lets face it, even with a small payload, like 600 lbs, that's two reasonably effective gravity bombs from an aircraft that is not even made of metal, so practically invisible to radar.

Bob-

Re:"David's Sling"

[Caid Raspa]

Lets face it, even with a small payload, like 600 lbs,

The thing itself weighs about 1600 lbs, so 600 lbs is lots, but with something like 60 lbs could also have quite nasty effects.

that's two reasonably effective gravity bombs

Why gravity bombs? Both Russian and US armies have 'tactical nukes' with a few kt power, that can be fired with a cannon. A small container of something (Anthrax? Smallpox? Nerve Gas?) would also be quite effecive.

from an aircraft that is not even made of metal, so practically invisible to radar.

So, you wouldn't even know who did it. As this is very public research, has the US army something better or have they not realized the potential of it?

I hope it is the latter.

Helios footage

[roguerez]

On the Nasa site there are some movies of the Helios.

For the paranoid:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/Helios/inde x.html

The latest

[quintessent]

As of 4:11 in Hawaii, helios was up to 96,500 feet!

Re:This thing can fly in such thin air

[JabberWokky]

Also, that article from yesterday regarding the spy satellites, I remember someone stating that the satellites could have it's course changed. So, I'm wondering, what do they use for propulsion?

Gas jets, and yes, they only last for a short amount of time (on the order of a few years) versus well over a decade for normal satellites, which generally break down. They are also in lower orbits, which translates to drag that means they have to use fuel just to stay stable.

I remember hearing somewhere (CNN maybe?) that NASA plans to use such craft to fly into space. One thing that confuses me is, wouldn't it need to be in a gaseous environment to be able to propel itself?

All the plans I've seen based off of similar concepts involve using such a aircraft as a launching platform. Similar to the launch concept (that is probably primarily used to knock out enemy satellites, despite what the PR says) of using a modified F-15 (or was it F-14?) to climb up to the very limit of its flight ceiling at its highest velocity, and launch a rocket from the jet to enter orbit, or at the very least, the area of space that objects in orbit tend to be (since entering orbit requires particular speeds, but knocking out something in orbit just requires being near what you're trying to destroy).

--
Evan

Say goodbye to $$$geosync$$$ satellites

[standards]

The real usefulness of such a craft, as the article briefly mentions, is to be a communications platform.

Ever call a friend in a far-away land? Or use the internet via one of the satellite providers? Communications to a geosync satellite, some 25000 miles away in geosync orbit, causes almost 2 seconds of delay. Plus, once a satellite is up there, it can't be brought back. (for those of you who don't know, no, the shuttle only goes some 150 miles up and costs a $zillion per flight).

Such a solar-powered, high-alititude plane can be flown high above the weather, stay aloft indefiniately, and can be used as a handy communications platform for a city. It's a lot cheaper than sending a satellite into geosync, AND it can be brought back down for upgrades of maintenence. Plus there is added protection from solar radition. Yahoo! Add a fuel cell for night time, and you've got a great, cheap alternative to a communications satellite.

So although it seems like a silly idea, or only Mars-centric, it is getting a lot of interest from communication providers like BT and AT&T.

Say goodbye to geosync satellites? Perhaps!

Re:This thing can fly in such thin air

[Wyatt Earp]

The F-15 in the early and mid 80s tested an Anti-satellite missile.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/ove rv iew.htm

"The Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV) was the primary American ASAT effort in the early 1980s. This weapon, launched from an F-15 fighter by a small two stage rocket, carries a heat-seeking Miniature Homing Vehicle (MHV) which would destroy its target by direct impact at high speed. The F-15 can bring ALMV under the ground track of its target, as opposed to a ground-based system, which must wait for a target satellite to overfly its launch site."

Back in the 50s and 60s the USAF and Army tested both air launched and ground based systems as well.

How does it maintain position?

[Goonie]

I've no idea what average wind speeds at 100,000 feet are, but I know wind speeds at airliner altitudes are typically *much* faster than 20 mph. Assuming that's the case at these higher altitudes, sounds like you'd have about as much control over where these planes went as a high-altitude balloon (ie not very much).

If that's so, what's the advantage of the plane, nifty though the technology is?