Slashdot Mirror
NASA Spends $25M On Unmanned Planes, Awards Aviation Prizes
An anonymous reader points out a NetworkWorld story about NASA's purchase of two unmanned aircraft for use in "observing remote locations of Earth not feasible or practical with piloted aircraft." The planes are Northrop Grumman Global Hawks, and NASA selected them for their extreme range and the fact that most other unmanned vehicles don't have the FAA's approval for regular use over the US. NASA also distributed prizes for its General Aviation Challenge this weekend. The goals of the challenge include improving fuel efficiency in aviation, reducing emissions, and aircraft safety. None of the teams were able to achieve the $50,000 prize for managing 30 miles per gallon, but the top team was able to complete the 400-mile course at 28.8 miles per gallon.
In order to achive independence on foreign oil, we in the U.S. will not just need to get cars that use less (or no) oil, but aerospace vehicles as well. Even 30 MPG for an unmanned plane isn't going to be nearly enough.
My blog
Wait until the drones start hypermiling and catching the draft of passing jets.
Then we will see MPG figures increase.
Of course someone with a honda will just tape wings onto their car and beat it hands down, but they tend to be frowned upon.
liqbase
No wonder! We all know that french-fry oil clogs up arteries. That plane needs to be put on an engine healthy fuel. Lower saturated fats should be used. Otherwise, on take-off and landing - high stress parts of flight - that poor plane will put a wing up to its fuselage and just die.
Gallons? US or Imperial? NASA has gone metric anyway, so it should be litres. NASA know what happens when you mix your units up...
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
None of the four planes entered won the $50,000 prize; the best attempt achieved 28.8 miles per gallon.
versus
The "Prius of airplanes," the 100-horsepower-engine Pipistrel typically can go as fast as 170 mph and get 50 miles to the gallon.
So wasn't the Pipistrel Viper entered in the mileage competition, and why not if it'd have easily won?
The general aviation industry has advanced at a glacial pace ever since WW2, and it got worse with the excesses of litigation that almost put the GA manufacturers out of business. Electronic fuel injection is still regarded as newfangled and unproven, for instance.
I know there are reasons for this (basically, developing an all-new engine that conforms to the safety standards can't be afforded the industry), but the end result is that any innovation seen in this competition will be viewed with deep distrust by the GA industry, and in 10 years, non-experimental GA planes will still be no more advanced than they are today.
Kinda cool, but this looks more like a DARPA project. Maybe if NASA could concentrate on the 'S' part of their charter, this project would make more sense. How about re-doing the project, (and get more budget), but apply it to motors that could lift a 40 foot cargo container to maybe 60 miles up? Using less fuel? Using a more efficient lift body? Now Shippers would start to listen. Shippers would start to consider less Ships, and Trains; and MORE aviation solutions in their Logistics.
Shaft!
Who's the black private dick
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shaft!)
You're damn right
Who is the man
That would risk his neck for his brother man?
(Shaft!)
Can ya dig it?
Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about
(Shaft!)
Right on
You see this cat Shaft is a bad mother--
(Shut your mouth)
But I'm talkin' about Shaft
(Then we can dig it)
He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his woman
(John Shaft)
Well this sure puts an end to General Atomics's claim that one Global Hawk costs over $100m.
even now, the commercial jets are testing bio-fuels. They will certainly switch to these.
But what I find interesting, is that Boeing has the ability to raise millage by 30-50%. The x-48 Blended Wing Body does that. But ppl are fighting against sitting in a theater. I suspect that if Boeing had that aircraft coming right this instant, they would have won the DOD tanker contract, all freighters companies, and most likely a NUMBER of airlines would be buying these as well.Simply put, if Boeing AND the feds were smart, they would push this aircraft hard and fast.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
More than a few people have flown over 1000 km (620 mi) with no fuel. Ok, the launch requires some energy, but some don't need fuel: http://www.glider-one.si/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=1
This can't be easily adapted to un-manned flight, but it's still interesting for comparison.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
There are already thousands of general aviation aircraft out there flying with a diesel engine.
Very Light Aircraft have had built-in parachute devices (yes, rocket launched) for years. Kevlar cockpits? Been there, done that.
As others have mentioned, 30 mpg is a low yardstick by itself. It's easily achieved for light loads or when you don't mind (or even enjoy) riding thermals along the way. They should at least require a minimum useful payload and minimum speed to have any meaning at all.
I don't see any progress. And NASA gives its name and prizes for that?