Slashdot Mirror
Solar Powered Helios Plane Destroyed in Test Flight
deglr6328 writes "NASA's solar powered Helios airplane has crashed into the Pacific off the coast of Kauai today during its first test using a regenerative fuel cell power supply. Helios held the record for highest prop propelled plane altitude at 96,863 (set 2 years ago) and was making preparations for a 96 hour continuous flight using its 62,000 solar cells during the day while electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen for use in its fuel cells at night. With the capability to carry 200 lb. to near 100,000 ft. for months on end, Helios was eyed with great anticipation by scientists and RF telecommunications buisnesses alike."
Appropriate name too.
Anyhoo, it's sad to see such a technological marvel crash into the pacific ocean like it did. Maybe NASA will scoop up the wreckage, figure out what went wrong, and then build another one. It would be great to see what we can learn from Helios in general, and not just on an aviation or RF use either. I mean in the field of solar electric generation, and how even in the Aerospace industry it has it's benefits and drawbacks. I personally would love to be using solar electricity instead of having to pay the electric company, but alas, we can't always get what we want...
KevX45
"Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
The ISS isn't dead...we're not the only country in space, and there are others in the game working towards space. And its not like we aren't going back, as theres a tenative launch scheduled for December of this year. I really don't think that anyone could ever stop Americans from spending billions to put men & women in space! The problem with cooling wings like that would be that the temp change would be way to drastic. at hundreds of MPH the machine is burning hot, and you release coolant in there, the particles themselves are drawn together tighter and the stuff becomes brittle.
:)
Just some thoughts...
The material used on the space shuttle is almost like a foam, minus its ability to withstand a blowtorch at 2000C. It doesn't take much to break it...the idea is that it just holds together. It worked for well over a decade - I think it worked just fine
It is not suprising that Congress would cut funding for the space program, but it's against the will of the people. I think we can all understand that space is dangerous and people will die. Millions of dollars of equipment can be lost, but we must push forward, for the sake of our species.
As for your point about using a cool liquid to make reentry safer, we don't have to use a cryogenic liquid, water works just fine. Spraying it as a fine mist on the exterior of the craft would cause it to boil, making a neat, little shell. This has been proven to work, and I believe it was going to be used on the Roton concept. Ordinarily, the shuttle returns to earth with as much if not more water than when it left because it is produced in the fuel cells on board.
This is why I went into software instead of Engineering. When my program fails, I reboot / recompile / restore the drive ... whatever.
I bet a lot of mechanical engineers wish they had a restart button.
Putting aside the fubar'd aerodynamics of having a hole in the wing (which I think would be significant), I don't think the nitrogen could offset the friction.
liquid n2 is a couple of hundred degrees below zero, but the plasma that it would have to fight is several thousand degrees. I doubt that the shuttle could carry enough n2 to do the job.
Not to mention that you'd have to have a massive amount of pipes, etc... note really feasible.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Two thoughts. First, this is unfortunate, but it is what happens when you push the boundaries. It isn't safe on the cutting edge.
Second, if we want more funding for an agency then a strong case for it must be made. We shouldn't fund NASA just because it is NASA. NASA has done a poor job of creating a vision for what can and should do. It isn't clear to me why they should continue at current budget levels. I wonder if part of the reason is that it has become a government agency that is more focused on sustaining itself then offering a service to the people it serves.
I think this is a great proof of concept. I know it was going to fly for 96 hours, but wouldn't it have been neat to just fly it around the world instead? Just start it up at the crack of dawn ... and crusie around the globe and pass over big cities so people can see it for themselves and watch as a "space craft" is above them.
I dunno I think this thing looks cool and I want one :-)
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
That's a narrow view. I suppose then in ancient times we should have disregarded astronomy, mathematics, and the exploration of science because we had crops to harvest. I suppose now that because we have famine in parts of the world that we should concentrate solely on using existing production methods to feed everyone, and to hell with any future advances that may come as the result of any failure, or chance concept exploration. A number of some of the most useful concepts and inventions have come as mistakes or are borne out of the failure of other experiments. Maybe the solution to world famine, energy problems, some medication or cure for a disease, or even something as everyday useful as post-it notes will come of these billions of dollars of spending you claim to be so useless.
I can't believe i even have to make this argument, as it's appeared more times in slashdot message boards than than i can possibly remember.
Disasters as you call them are probably the most beneficial tool we have to further our knowledge. It is only when you refuse to learn from these failures that you have really failed.
As the plane's flown before, I'd reckon it's more likely that it's the part that was the problem.
Considering it's been up to >96,000ft already, I'd say that was a pretty good example of "working model", not "prototype". The fuel cells were prototype, not the UAV itself.
I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
Apparently it's going to beat that ~96000 record the Helios set, but won't be officially eligable because it's not going to take off under it's own power.
The balloon that launches it is fairly impressive too:
"As tall as the Empire State Building, their manned envelope will be the biggest ever flown."
Famous AirCrafts in history:
1. Apollo1 - blew up on the launchpad
2. Challenger - blew up in the air
3. Concorde: blew up during takeoff
4. Columbia - blew up landing
5. Helios - "broke apart" (aren't we glad we have next generation renewable energy that doen't blow up/cost lives ? )
-n
During the presentation, someone asked about what the commercial applications were for such technology. Apparently, blimp companies are VERY interested in fuel cell technology. Blimps, as they burn off fuel for the steering engines, get lighter. In order to get back down to the ground, they sometimes have to blow out helium which is VERY expensive. But with a fuel cell, the blimp actually gets heavier as flight goes one because they can hang onto the "exhaust" (water) and keep the blimp in equilibrium through the entire flight.
The military is of course interested too because fuel cell powered planes are VERY quiet (electric motor) and the technolgoy will allow for far greater range than batteries.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
IANARS,BIKSWA (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist, But I Know Some Who Are)
The amount of fuel required to slow the Orbiter to that degree is prohibitive both in terms of weight and storage. You'd need about the same amount of fuel to slow the craft as it took to accelerate it to the required velocity to achieve orbit.
And the human body has a terminal velocity of around 130 mph - not enough to generate significant heat from friction.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
" And the next one won't be as flimsy."
Don't know about that. If I remember correctly Helios was built mainly from carbon fiber. It used A few main Carbon fiber peices and stretched fabric material over them. The plan flexed a great deal, it had to or it would snap. If anything it might have failed because it didn't have enough flex. When the thing flies it looks almost like a U though not as extreme. When it hit turbulance it flexed all over so as to not break. If I had to guess the hooked up something wrong like a bolt and it broke in rough air. Or maybe they didn't account for the pressure differance with altitude for the fuel cell system on some part and it burst and that was the end of the game. This would be easy to do since people take atmospheric pressure for granted and only think about their hoses from the standpoint of the inside pressure. remove 15 psi/ 101 KPa from the outside and your relitive presure goes up and kaboom. The would have used as light of stuff as possible so they might not have had enough margin or error. Even on one little overlooked part. It only takes a mistake on one part. Or maybe they simply blew up the fuel cell stack, or something froze and cracked.
Shit happens.
Well formed argument, I disagree with you, but I respect you a lot for not degenerating into the ranting, ball of flame that usually comes out in this discussion.
I do have a couple of questions/counter points for you...
Do you think that it is only the top people in the nation that employ people? I this day of the individual middle class investor, a very large portion of people who are not rich own portions of American businesses, that means that they are employing others, right?
Also, I heard bill clinton bitching about how he wants to pay taxes and he doesn't want the 80k he's going to save with bush's tax cut....but I don't see him donating it to the government. You can do that, you know, but even the very people who bitch the most about this tax cut won't take the opportunity to do so. That tells me far more than their rhetoric ever could.
I don't see it that way, because he (and I for that matter, although I will be getting far less than 80K) realize that it is the aggregate power of all the money being cut that is required, his 80K will just be pissing in the wind. A society where all tax is donation is a nice idea, but I think we do need laws to mandate equivalent contributions so that sufficient funds can be raised...
Personally the biggest change I would like to see in the tax code is fair treatment of all economic entities. Corporations don't pay income tax, they pay profit tax, why do people pay income tax? I say, either charge corporations income tax, or tax people on their increase in net worth.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...