Slashdot Mirror


Solar Powered UAV to Set Aviation Endurance Record?

Iddo Genuth writes to mention that a group of Israeli students is hoping their latest unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) will soon break the world aviation record for endurance that has stood for over 17 years. The piece features a short history of solar power aviation and an interview with the students.

59 comments

  1. hmm by mastershake_phd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The work done at the Technion as well as elsewhere around the world is starting to attract the attention of the aviation industry with the hope of creating green aircrafts with a much higher endurance threshold.

    I dont really see this being applied to commercial passenger or cargo planes. Maybe ultralites.

    1. Re:hmm by chris09876 · · Score: 1

      It's possible that they mean airplanes could gain some energy by covering themselves with solar panels? I'm with you though; I don't see any of this being viable for any commercial airline in the immediate future.

    2. Re:hmm by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      and that's why you won't be the one to make money off of it.
      today ultralites, tomorrow something else. i'm no avionics/aviation specialist, but come on. real advances happen when people think outside of the box. typically, "the box" just means "what was previously thought impossible."

    3. Re:hmm by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I'm with you though; I don't see any of this being viable for any commercial airline in the immediate future.
      Why not? Besides the obvious energy gains, what about the gain realized by not having to take off with whatever fuel the solar energy replaced? There's the extra cost for maintenance, but lifting all that fuel to 10,000 meters has got to be expensive.

      This doesn't have to replace traditional fuels, it can supplement them.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps passenger compartment lights, entertainment needs, air conditioning, etc... I don't think anyone is suggesting flight instruments and the like be powered by anything that isn't 110% reliable. IANAEE of any sort, but is there any issue that this would solve? Fuel efficiency, perhaps? Or is the power draw of in-flight non-essentials a moot point?

    5. Re:hmm by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's more than likely not meant to attract the attention of civilian industry.
      Longer-lasting spy-plane surveillance missions or even explosive carrying missions would probably not be something the Israeli Military would be adverse to. Unmanned probes that can reach not just Beirut but Tehran, and stay up for days waiting for the target? It's a sure seller, and the rich uncle Sam will as always pay for the new toys.

    6. Re:hmm by h2_plus_O · · Score: 2, Informative

      dont really see this being applied to commercial passenger or cargo planes. Maybe ultralites.
      Think military, recon, and intelligence-gathering. The ability to have a drone orbit the same patch of earth for days over a target with live video feed? You could spy on the sunbathers next door without being detected for sure.
      --
      If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
    7. Re:hmm by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      I agree.. How much Jet fuel is used to Power the heating/AC, Power ports, TV's lights, etc. When they pull a plane to the gate, they hook it up to a power system to keep the AC, lights, etc, running, without wasting fuel. How much could be saved both fuel and electricity at the airports?

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    8. Re:hmm by DieByWire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This doesn't have to replace traditional fuels, it can supplement them.

      While technically not impossible, it would be completely impractical.

      Solar's strength is high and slow. High, because you're actually going to get more sunlight (power) as you climb, whereas combustion engines lose power as you climb due to thinning air. (One reason why Helios was pushing 100,000 feet.) Slow, because you're using an electric motor to turn a big, slow revving prop. (Props can't get anywhere close to mach without tremendous loss of efficiency.)

      While in theory you could use the electic power to turn a ducted fan, it would never produce enough thrust to make up for it's drag and weight at airliner speeds.

      Solar's niche is high altitude, slow speed and long endurance. It will have some neat uses, but there's not enough oomph for high speed or high payload applications like jetting to Vegas for the weekend.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    9. Re:hmm by Xymor · · Score: 1

      Well, make a solar powered blimp, and bingo, You got yourself a low cost, low orbit "satelite" which is maintainable and can be upgraded.

    10. Re:hmm by smallfries · · Score: 1

      True, but that isn't really the target market. These are aimed at 0-emmision satellite replacements. Think of a solar power plane at 100k feet as a mini-satellite with a reduced coverage area. The market is telecoms (lower latency) and spy-work. The NASA version has a mixture of solar panels and fuel cells so that it can charge during the day and then use the power to keep up during the night.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    11. Re:hmm by Poruchik · · Score: 1

      Again, why can't you run your engines off jet fuel, and everything else (lights, radio, etc) from solar cells? Save some fuel in the process.

      --
      $signature =~ s/$signature//;
    12. Re:hmm by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the added weight of the solar cells is going to make you burn more jet fuel to lift than you save by collecting sunlight to power the instruments/lights on the aircraft. Not to mention it would be incredibly expensive and I bet fairly hard on the solar cells (wings flex during flight).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:hmm by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it would be incredibly expensive and I bet fairly hard on the solar cells (wings flex during flight).
      The added maintenance costs are a problem. But the price depends on the expected life of the cells; flex is not so much an issue, since a grid of smaller cells can be used that will allow flexion of the wing. I'd expect debris to be a bigger factor, really reducing efficiency in the long run. As for weight, I'd expect the cells to be fairly light; fuel, on the other hand, is quite dense. It's just guesswork without seeing the numbers and running some calculations, but as efficiencies increase (and fuels costs also increase), it'll become cost-effective at some point.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    14. Re:hmm by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      or would the weight/price/maintenance of expensive high-efficiency solar cells offset any gain you might have hoped to have made? that seems more likely in my book.

    15. Re:hmm by DieByWire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Again, why can't you run your engines off jet fuel, and everything else (lights, radio, etc) from solar cells? Save some fuel in the process.

      Same reason you don't have solar cells on your gasoline powered car powering your electrical system - because its waaayyyy cheaper to just let the engine turn a generator. Airliners also fly during the evening, at night, and at high latitudes where the sun's angle incidence is too low for the solar panel to produce meaningful power.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    16. Re:hmm by DieByWire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When they pull a plane to the gate, they hook it up to a power system to keep the AC, lights, etc, running, without wasting fuel. How much could be saved both fuel and electricity at the airports?

      Why don't you just put solar panels on the terminal roof then? Cheaper, no weight added to aircraft, easier to engineer, and useful when the plane's not there.

      Solar power for airplanes is a niche market - high, slow, endurance, light weight. You won't be seeing it on airliners anytime soon.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    17. Re:hmm by bberens · · Score: 1

      No, but I could foresee the eventual application to the venerable 'flying cars.'

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    18. Re:hmm by spun · · Score: 1

      Read the article. The entire Sunrise II aircraft with enough solar cells to put out 600 watts weighed about 4lbs. Solar cells are light.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    19. Re:hmm by xtracto · · Score: 1

      What I want is a solar powered citadel. Or at least something similar. Imagine a Mall located over the clouds =o) that would be cool.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  2. Break the world record... by 26199 · · Score: 1

    For a small solar radio controlled flight:

    In 1990 Dr. Wolfgang Schaeper from Germany set the world distance record in a closed circuit for a small (Category F5) solar Radio Controlled Flight UAVs. Schaeper's 190km record approved by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) stood unchallenged for more than 17 years, but now a team of nine students from the Technion is developing what they believe might be the next contender.

    That's a long way for a small aircraft, but a full-sized one would be more exciting.... (and I bet it'd go further).

  3. Well that was fast by stox · · Score: 1

    The website is already suspended. Another notch in the Slashdot gun.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Well that was fast by garcia · · Score: 2, Funny

      The website is already suspended. Another notch in the Slashdot gun.

      The server runs on solar power. Unfortunately it's cloudy and their reserve ran out w/all the Slashdot traffic.

  4. UAVs? Long range? Oh dear! by mpaque · · Score: 3, Funny

    "... could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States."
    -- Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation before the U.N. Security Council, February 5, 2003

    Oh, snap! These are just students trying to set a new endurance record. The purity and essence of our natural... fluids are not at risk. Surely we must issue the recall code immediately.

  5. Low-cost Satellites by writerjosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is why solar powered flight is important:

    "Called the Zephyr, it's an aircraft that can fly continuously using nothing but solar power and "low drag aerodynamics". The combination of solar panels on the upper wing surface and rechargeable batteries allows Zephyr to be flown for many weeks and even months. The first flight trial of the Zephyr were conducted recently by QinetiQ in White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

    Two aircraft were flown for four and a half and six hours respectively, the maximum flight times permitted under range restrictions. The maximum altitude attained was 27,000 feet above sea level. The ultra-light aircraft is designed to fly at altitudes as high as 132,000 feet (25 miles/40km), above normal commercial air-lanes and most weather.

    QinetiQ believes that stratospheric platforms will rapidly become commercially viable and revolutionize future communications. High altitude platforms of this sort could provide a cheaper alternative to satellites in remote areas and developing countries. They can also enable observation of natural disasters and humanitarian crises."

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/solar_powe red_p_2.php

    1. Re:Low-cost Satellites by nsayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Among the advantage to stratospheric platforms over geostationary orbit satellites:

      1. Antenna aiming isolation. The same downlink frequency can be shared by many more users since the downlink antennas could be directional enough (like satellite dishes are) to reject other sources. This is true of geostationary orbit satellites, but the locations can only really be varied along an arc over the equator. Aeronautical platforms can be moved in two dimensions (obviously they really are in 3 dimensions, but the antenna aiming will still simply be azimuth and elevation).

      2. Better geographical isolation. Because they're lower, their horizon area will be much, much smaller. This means their service areas can be more easily limited. This can be done with antenna geometry for geostationary orbit satellites, but in general they can still see almost an entire hemisphere of the earth, so they can still raise the noise floor in otherwise out-of-service areas.

      3. Less delay. Geostationary orbits are far enough away that they introduce a delay that is unacceptable for most duplex applications (such as telephone or Internet traffic). Aeronautical platforms would be close enough to the ground that that delay would likely not be a factor.

      4. More servicable. The cost of launching geostationary payloads means that the payloads must be designed for a long service life, which raises the cost of the payload significantly, as well as the risks. Aeronautical platforms simply have to come down for a landing, be serviced, and then take off and fly back to station.

      5. Less chance of solar outages. Twice a year, there are a few days in a row where geostationary satellites transit the sun. Often, their signal gets drowned out when that happens. Aeronautical platforms stationed outside of the tropics, the problem can be avoided pretty easily (simply place the station to the north of the service area for the Northern hemisphere or to the south of the service area for the Southern hemisphere).

    2. Re:Low-cost Satellites by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Two aircraft were flown for four and a half and six hours respectively, the maximum flight times permitted under range restrictions. The maximum altitude attained was 27,000 feet above sea level. The ultra-light aircraft is designed to fly at altitudes as high as 132,000 feet (25 miles/40km), above normal commercial air-lanes and most weather.

      QinetiQ believes that stratospheric platforms will rapidly become commercially viable and revolutionize future communications. High altitude platforms of this sort could provide a cheaper alternative to satellites in remote areas and developing countries. They can also enable observation of natural disasters and humanitarian crises."


      I've never thought about it, but how high could a plane fly before the air is just too thin to fly any higher? These things have the potential to kill commerical satellites. These things have the advantages of satellites except have the possibility of being much cheaper just due to launch costs. I could also see sending up replacement craft as being much easier compared to if a satellite had a malfuncion.

    3. Re:Low-cost Satellites by Manhigh · · Score: 1

      Here are the issues I can see with these replacing satellites:

      1. What about night? These things are going to be unable to see the sun for several hours every day, instead of two days a year. You need to size the batteries to be capable of handling that period. That much weight on a solar aircraft would be difficult.

      2. Wear and tear. High altitude aircraft will have to deal with high altitude winds, and have motors running constantly. You can bring them down to service them, but what if they crash. How often will that happen? Geosats are built to last for 10 years on average.

      3. Maintainence. What are the operations costs of a fleet of these vehicles vs. a fleet of satellites.

      I would expect high altitude blimps to be a more cost effective replacement for satellites, although I dont think the satellite industry has anything to worry about for another few decades.

      --
      "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
    4. Re:Low-cost Satellites by nsayer · · Score: 1

      1. Getting all the ratios correct to build a plane capable of lifting the payload and the batteries required for overnight endurance is part of the challenge, but I believe that "good enough" solutions are already with us or are right around the corner.

      2. Of course satellites need to last for 10 years - there's no way to service them at all. Their design, build and deployment costs are astronomical (heh) because of that. The equivalent costs of aeronautical platforms will be so much lower by comparison that the maintenance costs will hardly matter. If they crash, they crash - same with aircraft today, but aircraft - particularly commercial aircraft - have a record of safety I'm not sure you're fully appreciating. I would suggest that if these aircraft were going to be autonomously or remotely piloted that they carry automatic parachute systems as a fail-safe. You also, in general, will probably want to be orbiting these things above farmland or water rather than skyscrapers.

      3. You need to add up *all* of the operational costs. That fleet of satellites is phenomenally expensive by comparison.

      So why hasn't it been done so far?

      I posit that it's a historical accident. The first need we had was for trans-oceanic telecommunications links and continental multi-casting (that is, satellite distribution of TV programming). For those uses, geostationary satellites are superior because they're higher up and thus have a larger horizon. That, and the technology for a pilotless solar powered airplane didn't exist. If, instead, our need was based around, say, metro- or regional-area wireless data transmission...

  6. Still a few bugs in this by sehlat · · Score: 3, Funny

    TFOT recently covered several other ground braking projects developed by students from the faculty of aerospace engineering in the Technion.

    "ground braking"

    Obviously the return and land part of the project needs work.
    1. Re:Still a few bugs in this by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      Well, where else are you supposed to brake?

    2. Re:Still a few bugs in this by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      ground braking

      In other words, a new braking system for the landing gear????

      groundbreaking (Link to Merriam-Webster)

  7. First test will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It will be first tested to guide Israeli bulldozers against Palestinian olive groves.

    1. Re:First test will be... by kike · · Score: 1

      Song About Old Troll
      Troll sat alone on his seat of stone,
      And munched and mumbled a bare old bone;
      For many a year he had gnawed it near,
      For meat was hard to come by.
      Done by! Gum by!
      In a cave in the hills he dwelt alone,
      And meat was hard to come by.
      http://tolkien.cro.net/talesong/troll.html

    2. Re:First test will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can only hope...

  8. Re:UAVs? Long range? Oh dear! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, Colin is assuredly correct. In fact, if you built enough of them you wouldn't even need to transport them to get them close. That's part of the allure of solar power. You'd probably lose some due to weather, of course. You actually used to be able to order an R/C predator with GPS, digital camera, and waypoint support, but I can't find it now. It was based on the US Military's Predator UAV.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re:UAVs? Long range? Oh dear! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    A team has already crossed the Atlantic using a small radio model plane. The one from the story is really much of a threat but yes it could be possible. I am not going to loose a lot of sleep over it right now.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  10. Wow! by andre_nho · · Score: 1

    The world record is a unmanned plane that flew for 17 years??? Good luck breaking this one. André

  11. mirror(dot) since slashdotted by jaredmauch · · Score: 1
  12. early endurance == mechanics aloft by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    I was reading a book about some early aviation firsts, and they had a story about two brothers who set an early record of something like 36 hours aloft. They refuelled by having a truck with jerrycans of gas drive along the runway, while one brother was out on the landing gear grabbing them off the truck and heaving them into the plane. THEN he got to pour them into the tank, which was located in front of the windshield. Even better, was relashing the valve clearances *while the engine was running*. (Which isn't as unusual as it sounds: the early Ford 427 engines also had valve adjustment done with the engine idling, which SUCKED, lemme tell you what.)
    So, using a UAV sounds like a vastly safer and more pleasant experience.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:early endurance == mechanics aloft by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      It was 27 days aloft, not merely 36 hours (recall that Lindberg's solo non-stop unrefueled flight across the Atlantic was 33 hours back in 1927). This record set in 1935 still stands.

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    2. Re:early endurance == mechanics aloft by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      DAYS?
      Lordy.
      I feel like I've been through the wringer after 8 *hours* flying left-seat.
      Thanks for the correction.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  13. See Also ... by Pegasus · · Score: 1

    Aerovironment Pathfinder ... which developed into NASA's Centurion. Don't know how this israeli thing looks (something about cpu quota exceeded), but I think Aerovironment's flying wing was/is the right way to go.

  14. Red-eye? by eck011219 · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to book an overnight flight on this thing, but I'm not seeing any on the schedule. Oh, wait ...

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  15. Leaders on this are, surprisingly, AC Propulsion by Thagg · · Score: 1

    A company called AC Propulsion has already made a solar powered plane that has flown for longer than two days. The plane uses regular solar cells and batteries, using the solar cells to charge the batteries so that it can fly on the stored power during the night.

    During the day, the plane used thermals to try to maintain altitude on as little power as possible. Thermals are, of course, derived from solar power as well.

    As battery and solar cell technology continues to improve, this challenge has gone from being impossible to hard to doable, and it will soon become easy.

    Thad Beier

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  16. excellent by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A hydrogen-filled blimp with docks for solar-powered planes could allow me to reign over those fools on the surface almost indefinitely!

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  17. Hurray to the advanced societies! by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unmanned probes that can reach not just Beirut but Tehran, and stay up for days waiting for the target? It's a sure seller, and the rich uncle Sam will as always pay for the new toys.

    A modern "Western" society (including Israel) is too advanced socially and culturally to deal with the inconvenient people the old-fashioned way — through massive killings, destruction, and/or religious conversions (the latter being the mildest form).

    While undoubtedly a good thing, this inability is seen by some as dangerous (sometimes even fatal) weakness — the underdeveloped enemy usually has no such self-imposed limitations.

    This article, however, reminds of the flip-side of the advanced society — the mind-boggling speed of technological and scientific progress, which will allow us to prevail without the above-mentioned ugliness. Israel, for example, will not need to "pull a Darfur", where hundreds of thousands of people were killed and raped, and millions driven out from their homes by the Arabs hordes unleashed by the government to suppress some insurrection or another...

    Instead, Israel will be able to use these machines to target the real enemies, keeping the innocents alive, even if enraged.

    Progress in weapons is a good thing — better weapons kill fewer people.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  18. Could solar power help this one? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Considering the extra surface area, I wonder if solar power could help out this ship: http://www.aeroscraft.com/Index.html.
    --
    Solar power: the past present and future: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  19. Is there any reason by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    This is somehow a better solution than filling a bag with helium? Or even, simply painting a bag black

    http://perso.orange.fr/ballonsolaire/en-index.htm

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Is there any reason by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Yes. You need the satellites to be able to move. The winds at high altitudes will normally move these balloons far out of any reasonable range in 1 or 2 days, after which they'd have to be collected, which is stupid (and they might drop into sea etc).

      You need to move around to remain stationary in the air. That's what helium balloons don't do.

  20. Re:UAVs? Long range? Oh dear! by rcw-work · · Score: 1

    You'd probably lose some due to weather, of course.

    If you can make a UAV that climbs to ~100000 feet in the day and glides down slowly enough that it's still above ~50000 feet at dawn, then you'll avoid all weather (including clouds) except on takeoff and landing. I could see something like that staying up for months or years at a time.

  21. Airships? by srussia · · Score: 1

    Solar's niche is high altitude, slow speed and long endurance. It will have some neat uses, but there's not enough oomph for high speed or high payload applications like jetting to Vegas for the weekend.

    Maybe a leisurely aircruise to Vegas then. Just imagine all that surface area on a Zeppelin!
    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  22. Re:UAVs? Long range? Oh dear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

  23. Technion Israel Institute of Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technion Israel Institute of Technology is an ultra-religious university. I think it is one of the only religous universities which does so much. It is the home of Dr. Shulamit Levenberg a Charedi (ultra-orthodox) scientist whom Scientific America list in the top 50 leading scientists.

    I say it is about time someone makes a wikipedia article for her.

  24. weird info by PHPfanboy · · Score: 1

    Technion Israel Institute of Technology is a regular Israeli university with a mix of students, religious, non-religious, Jews, Arabs and others - just like all the others.

    Just because you find one haredi (ultra religious) woman on the staff, doesn't mean anything. The only Israeli university with a specific religious agenda is Bar Ilan, near Tel Aviv and even then it's not ultra-religious.

    If you like Shulamit Levenberg, then I suggest you make a Wikipedia article for her, that's the idea of Wikipedia...

    --
    29 mpg. YMMV.
  25. Not only 'solar powered' by renoX · · Score: 1

    The "problem" with these "solar powered" drone is that in fact to do most useful things (like being a cellphone base station), they need to have another power source, so these drones are hybrid.

    I guess that if you have 90% of your energy coming from a fuel cell and 10% for solar cell, you're 'solar powered', but these 'solar powered' planes won't be able to stay forever in the air like a blimp would.

  26. Jews are a race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no shitzkah