Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Experimental Fuel-Cell Airplane Begins NASA Test

Posted by timothy on from the aloft-a-lot dept.

gilgsn writes "Planenews.com has a NASA press release from their Dryden Flight Research Center about the first large fuel-cell powered airplane to fly. The Helios prototype took-off Saturday at 8:43AM from the Hawaiian island of Kauai, using solar panels to power its 10 electric motors for takeoff and during daylight portions of its 20-hour shakedown flight. As sunlight diminishes, Helios switched to a fuel cell system to continue flight into the night. I wonder how long it will be before fuel cells are used on homebuilt experimentals."

40 comments

  1. great by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 0

    This is great. This might mean that when (not if, but when) we run out of oil, we might still have airplanes around. (Kerosine is airplane-fuel, which comes from oil.) Yes, I do belief that in ten to twenty years we have reached the hight of oilproduction.

    1. Re:great by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Informative

      We aren't going to run out of oil. We're only going to run out of petrochemicals. There's always going to be oil; you can run diesel engines on vegetable oil for example.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:great by The+Creator · · Score: 1
      This might mean that when (not if, but when) we run out of oil


      Actually, if that "fossile fules cause global warming"-theory is correct, then we have to stop using fossile fuels long before we run out, they are just not telling you that.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    3. Re:great by Marillion · · Score: 0
      And ... Diesel is close cousins to Jet-A. Both Diesel and turbine engines use compression ignition.

      There WILL be something down the line to replace it. The question in my mind is how much engine modification will need to occur and will imcumbent technology manufacturers lead or stiffle that progress.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    4. Re:great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's a good thing that the global warming theory isn't true, then.

  2. So what? by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not to be a wet blanket, but while Helios is really neat it's not terribly useful. Only 762 pounds of payload available, minus mandatory equipment. For the cost to build and operate the vehicle it clearly doesn't have any commercial potential. It might be cheaper than launching a satellite in some cases, if it can provide the same functionality, but that's about it.

    The biggest problem is that it's still more or less a solar powered craft -- and solar energy just doesn't have the density to do anything useful and still be mobile.

    Although... maybe something like this could make a reasonable alternative to those Broadband Broadcasting Balloons (say that three times fast!), since these craft can fly at higher altitudes and make roam to areas where they may be needed more.

    =Smidge=

    1. Re:So what? by barakn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It or something like it has the potential to do research in Mars's atmosphere.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    2. Re:So what? by Descartes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd think the atmosphere on mars is too thin for this kind of aircraft. I suppose if you take the lower gravity into account it might make a difference, but I doubt it.

    3. Re:So what? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not to be a wet blanket, but while Helios is really neat it's not terribly useful. Only 762 pounds of payload available, minus mandatory equipment. For the cost to build and operate the vehicle it clearly doesn't have any commercial potential. It might be cheaper than launching a satellite in some cases, if it can provide the same functionality, but that's about it.

      Yes, well, cost per kg of a satellite is atleast $4600/kg (~$10,000/lb, and that's to low earth orbit which is only over the horizon for a few minutes at a time- GEO sats are visible all the time but are 3x more expensive). But you usually don't get these satellites back again, and if anything goes wrong up there, you're screwed. With Helios you can bring it down, fix it and send it back up.

      The biggest problem is that it's still more or less a solar powered craft -- and solar energy just doesn't have the density to do anything useful and still be mobile.

      Well, it's 1.5kw/m^2. That's more power than a 1 bar electric fire. Ok, so solar panels at the moment are at most getting to around 40-60% efficient (for lab samples, small production/expensive ones are more like 20%, cheap ones are 10% or so), but that's still quite a bit of power.

      Although... maybe something like this could make a reasonable alternative to those Broadband Broadcasting Balloons (say that three times fast!), since these craft can fly at higher altitudes and make roam to areas where they may be needed more.

      Yes, very probably would work. That's the point of the fuel cell; they can keep it up there 24 hours a day; previously it was coming down at night. 762 pounds of radio equipment should be plenty; provided it doesn't suck too much juice. It might even be possible to build a passive system- just bounce the radio waves off the underside of the vehicle.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:So what? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      If you're going through the trouble of sending something all the way to mars to do high-altitude whatever, it'd be cheaper and easier to send something that orbits the planet instead of trying to land something like this (much larger, much more fragile and probably heavier) on the surface, then unpack it, then try to get it to take off. Last I checked there aren't any airports on Mars.

      If you want high-altitude air samples, you can make little lander things that will sample the air and send back the results after hitting the surface... assuming you can't get the info you need from satellite (And they can tease out a lot of crazy info with satellites!)
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:So what? by The+Creator · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yes, well, cost per kg of a satellite is atleast $4600/kg


      Too easy. :)


      $4600/kg or ~$10,000/lb


      See, we keep telling you the metric system has benefits. :)

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    6. Re:So what? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Oh, ok, my bad $4600 (Russian Proton) / 2.2 = ~$2000/lb.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    7. Re:So what? by Bob+Bitchen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to be a wet blanket, but while Helios is really neat it's not terribly useful.

      You're not a wet blanket, just wrong. They have already completed HDTV trials, lots of other applications to follow. Cell towers will be replaced by these. Cell towers have been unpopular in most areas. No one wants to live next to one. These can be easily launched and can be made cheaply.

      It might be cheaper than launching a satellite in some cases,

      It's definitely cheaper than launching a satellite

      For the cost to build and operate the vehicle it clearly doesn't have any commercial potential

      Oh really, can you provide some facts to support that claim? You simply just don't know what you are talking about. Have a look at Skytower Global and look at Aerovironment too.

      --
      http://tinyurl.com/3t236
    8. Re:So what? by pinkfalcon · · Score: 0

      The flight simulator x-plane allows to try various different atmospheres and gravities including mars and piloting the space shuttle in orbit around earth.
      flying around mars is actually fairly easy - if you learn to take your turns a little slower - the problem is landing. No air pressure means air brakes, parachutes etc don't work. and low gravity means no traction for tires (no weight but lots of mass). 4 mile long runways may be the norm in the future, but most people nowadays would get bored taxiing for half an hour or so to slow down, so all the airports that have been 'built' on mars all have arresting cables.

      --
      Real SUV's don't have cupholders
      It's 5:42 A.M., do you know where your stack pointer is?
    9. Re:So what? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Your forgetting the most important factor: Obnoxious citizens.

      You know these people... they move into a house right next to a rural airport and immediately start bitching about the sound...

      Celltower: I don't want that ugly thing near my beautiful house. It's going to ruin the view.

      Helios: I don't want that ugly thing circling over my house. What if it crashed in the school yard, think of the children you bad person!!!

      You see the pattern.... also know as BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) or NIMBY (Not In My BackYard!)

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    10. Re:So what? by jdray · · Score: 1
      I'm pretty sure that the solar density at Mars is too weak to be useful for this application. Mars solar density is 589.2 W/m^2, versus Earth's 1367.6 W/m^2, a ratio of .431 (source).

      Solar cells would have to get a lot more efficient to put this contraption on Mars.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
  3. most humans' favorite dream, that's what by js7a · · Score: 1
    These are almost flying cars, with no fuel bills.

    Now if we could only reduce the wingspan, buy bottled hydrogen (double thermos tanks with internal revacumation pumps are expensive) at the hardware store, and agree on a common transponder format, then we would be halfway there.

  4. convert to wind power by js7a · · Score: 3, Informative
    Correct: we have a 400 year supply of coal, and it needs to last us 400,000 years. We are already halfway through our oil and converting coal to synthetics is much more expensive than using hydrogen from wind power.

    If the entire planet converted to wind power in 30 years, it would take another 300 years to remove the extra heat from the last 300 years of fossil fuel use. Until we get control of it, we won't be able to pick an optimal CO2 concentration value for the planet.

    1. Re:convert to wind power by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm personally not so very worried about it. The earth has been a lot hotter before than it's ever going to be when we've run out of oil. The biggest problem is that people will get very upset when their patch of ground gets local problems from any global warming.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  5. more NASA Dryden links by js7a · · Score: 3, Informative
    Helios prototype home page

    May 29 Press Release

    June 7 Press Release

    If you click on that Kauai picture from the Dryden home page, look at the window title: the payload is denoted as "amphitech radar" -- which I surmise means something that weighs about the same as what they think they would need for a sufficiently suitable unmaned AWACS drop-in replacement.

    1. Re:more NASA Dryden links by PPGMD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only real problem that I see with this is the fact that it's maximum altitude is 100,000 (subtract 10% to get the real world numbers), and the operational altitude would be 50,000 to 70,000 feet.

      The problem is that many thunderstorms can easily reach 60,000 ft, and this craft doesn't look like it would do too well in a storm.

    2. Re:more NASA Dryden links by js7a · · Score: 1
      this craft doesn't look like it would do too well in a storm.

      First, what makes you think it can take more than an AWACS? There is only one way to find out. It's uninhabited, so we can know for sure what it will take, instead of having to approximate the question.

      A gentleman from Dryden phoned me this morning to explain that the night flight didn't happen because there were two leaks, one on the fuel cell air compressor, and another on the cooling system for the air compressor. They were probably related. I recommended duct tape.

      Well, storms vary in intensity. Those that

    3. Re:more NASA Dryden links by PPGMD · · Score: 1

      AWACS, if you mean the Huricanne Hunters, first off those guys fly very sturdy C-130's that are given extensive inspections before they enter. And they know the risks of their jobs, they know that they might die.

      But normal military and civilian aircraft avoid thunderstorms when they can, the down drafts and up drafts of those storms can be more than even a fighter jet can handle.

      It remains to be seen how well this craft will do in a storm, but I highly doubt that NASA would risk it, because the wing flex in normal flight, is pretty high.

  6. flying internet transponders from Japan by js7a · · Score: 1
    The May press release is interesting:

    "After testing on this system is finished this summer, we will focus on development of a fully regenerative system that could fly up to six months or more,â he added. Del Frate said a production version of the Helios with the regenerative fuel cell system is of interest to NASA for environmental science, the military and AeroVironment for various roles, primarily as a stratospheric telecommunications relay platform.

    The latter role will be the focus of a flight demonstration planned for September at PMRF, in which the Helios Prototype will carry advanced broadband Internet connectivity and antenna systems developed by Japan's Communication Research Laboratory and the Telecommunications Advancement Organization of the Japanese Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Post and Telecommunications.

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of those.

  7. plane???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i dont get it

    for all the crafts that fuell cells can be used they pick something that has to fly?!?

    why not build a ship that works on fuell cels
    more space ect

  8. How long until? by spumoni_fettuccini · · Score: 1

    "I wonder how long it will be before fuel cells are used on homebuilt experimentals."--- Not long at all I think, considering you can buy a model car kit at Fry's for about $100 USD [I saw it back in January for $130 USD] Now that it's dropped a bit I'll probably pick it up and play around with it.

    --
    -- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
  9. Infrared radiation by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    The Earth is constantly radiating thermal engergy out into space in the form of infrared radiation. This is expesially true durring the night (dark side of the planet). That said, alot of the thermal energy is comming from the oceans via underwarter volcanism. This in turn heats up the atmosphere. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if global warming and the rate of Earthquakes go hand and hand with each other when graphed along side each other.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  10. It's going to be a while... by PPGMD · · Score: 1

    You can barely get us pilots away from our beloved 100LL, it's going to be a while before I can see anyone going for an electric airplace.

  11. 40-60% efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to see a link for that. Everything I've read says that the best panels (which are used on satellites) are 20% efficient tops. The stuff you can buy for your house is on the order of 12% to 15% efficient. There was a story on /. about panels that can go up 70% efficient but that's still in the lab and wont see a sales catalog for several years.

  12. wing flex in perspective by js7a · · Score: 1
    the wing flex in normal flight, is pretty high.

    Granted, the crescent wing flex is what gives it differential pitch control, which is another new technology it's pioneering.

    It can take a 600 lb. payload to 70,000 feet, so I'm sure that eventually fleets will be used for theater radars. Keeping them out of the storms should be easy, because it can exceed 150 mph at those altitudes.

    It's not so much a saftey issue as a cost issue. All the UAVs save the brass some very serious coin, and after combat proofs in Afganistan they know it now more than ever, and so they want more. AWACS are very cool but very expensive for the kind of tedious patrol where they serve the best purpose.