Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Spends $25M On Unmanned Planes, Awards Aviation Prizes

Posted by Soulskill on from the boy-are-my-arms-tired dept.

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.

6 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Oil independence by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Oil independence by rossdee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MPG doesn't really matter if you're not going anywhere. The Global Hawk is a loitering type of reconnaissance plane, not a fly-over-as-fast-as-you-can type like the SR71. What matters is the gallons per hour, not the miles per gallon.

    2. Re:Oil independence by pxlmusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i agree with you on that, however...

      the problem with that is that america's economy is predicated on cheap fuel. take that away, and everything begins to slowly collapse.

      i'm not saying that alternative fuels aren't needed, but the rest of us who are actively trying to consume less end up being punished for the overconsumption of others. i'm not saying i'm "carbon neutral" or anything, but if i'm cutting back, and my neighbors aren't -- well, i end up starving because joe bob next door won't give up his fucking Yukon XL or Excursion to cart his fat ass and his coffee 30 miles to work every day.

      OTOH, i think that although raising prices to discourage consumption is hard, it doesn't work as well in America as it might elsewhere because we were accustomed to cheap gas for so long. old habits and all that...

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    3. Re:Oil independence by pxlmusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      people keep thinking this "magic bullet" is going to come along and save us from oil. but, i don't tihnk that's going to happen.

      upping the prices to discourage consumption works to a point -- and then you start killing off those who are unable to keep up financially. you have people just trying to get by who may be using public transport, don't have a car, and are getting killed on the cost of basic necessities driven up by high fuel prices.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    4. Re:Oil independence by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh it's that simple then is it? Only 70% and the USA can be free of foreign oil, well christ boy I bet if you took that extra little step and knocked off %100 you could be completely free of or dependency on oil.

      -1 Stating the stupidly obvious.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  2. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    From TFA, that challenge also required flying 400 miles. Simplest explanation is the Pipistrel doesn't have enough range to fly that far with that kind of efficiency.