Solar Plane Breaks Endurance Record

calmond writes with this excellent snippet from CNET News: "QinetiQ Group PLC claimed Sunday that its propeller-driven aircraft called Zephyr flew for 83 hours and 37 minutes non stop, more than doubling the official world record set by Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk in 2001. The Zephyr is much different from the Global Hawk, which is about the size of a fighter and requires runway for taking off and landing. Zephyr, on the other hand, is an ultra-lightweight carbon-fiber aircraft that weighs less than 70lbs and is designed to launch by hand. The little aircraft flies on solar power generated by amorphous silicon arrays covering the aircraft's paper-thin wings. It is powered day and night by rechargeable lithium-sulfur batteries that are recharged during the day using solar power."

Comments

The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[LWATCDR]

Manned aircraft still have that record beat. Humm several days in an airplane... What fun.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[icegreentea]

The record for longest manned flight is 64 days.

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/long219.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/11/98/great_balloon_challenge/299568.stm

Cessna out of Nevada flew for 64 days, 22 hours, covering the equivalent of 6 circumferences of the earth. In flight refueling, and they dropped down to just above ground level to pick up supplies from a chase car.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[arth1]

The record for longest manned flight is 64 days.
[chop]
Cessna out of Nevada flew for 64 days, 22 hours, covering the equivalent of 6 circumferences of the earth. In flight refueling, and they dropped down to just above ground level to pick up supplies from a chase car.

Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.

Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American.
Consider:

Eilmer of Malmesbury, who flew 220 yards in a glider in the 11th century
Lagari Celebi, who flew an unspecified distance with a rocket in 1633 (well documented!)
Henri Giffard, who flew 16 miles in a powered airship in 1852
George Cayley, who flew a mile in a controlled glider in 1853
John Stringfellow, who flew several dozen feet in a powered monoplane in 1868
Clement Adler, who flew 60 yards in a powered monoplane in 1890, and 320 yards in 1987
Richard Pearse, who flew over 1000 yards, including a controlled turn, in May 1903
Orville Wright, who flew 120 yards in a powered but wind-aided biplane in December 1903
Wilbur Wright, who flew 190 yards in a powered but wind-aided biplane in December 1903

Who gets honoured with having made the first flight? The Americans, of course! The "rules" have been rewritten several times after the fact to include the Wrights and exclude others.

So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[uhlume]

I don't necessarily wish to disagree with your overall point, but your way of making it is asinine. Claiming that Valeri Polyakov "did a 437 day flight"? Disingenuous at best, assuming you're referring to Polyakov's 14 months in orbit on a space station and not some hitherto undocumented atmospheric flight of his. Why are you comparing this to a manned flight record set in a Cessna?

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[ChrisMaple]

The Wrights published their flights and marketed their airplanes. They developed them into a successful business.

Pearse worked in obscurity.

Flights of Adler's steam powered airplanes were not well-publicized and the French government kept results of the 1897 flight secret for a while.

Consequently, the momentum of publicity has kept the Wright's name in the forefront. I do not intend to diminish the accomplishments of Adler and Pearse.

_ It's only reasonable to exclude "flights" outside the atmosphere, otherwise we'll have to make special rules to exclude the moon and man-made satellites from consideration. If you aren't continuously using the atmosphere for aerodynamic lift, you're not flying.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[uhlume]

>

So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.

"Orbital flight" would be a misnomer at best. An object in orbit isn't "flying", it's falling.

And no, I don't think that's nitpicking. Once you're in orbit, it's not much of a feat to remain there, supply logistics notwithstanding.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clement Adler, who flew 60 yards in a powered monoplane in 1890, and 320 yards in 1987

Forgive me for not being impressed by this flight...

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gets honoured with having made the first flight?

And don't even get me started on who made the first supersonic filight. (Hans Guido Mutke)

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same reasons then the longest unmanned flight would be that of some sattelite for some years so I figure the difference between the records is large enough to be seperate.

That apart, said solar plane was built in England making it a binational effort. There's a little left in the old empire and not just her children.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.

I guess it's more that the MIR is not an aircraft, and thus does not quality for the maned aircraft flight record.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[gplus]

It's actually quite impressive. You see, after the first flight Clement worked on the plane in the hangar. And only 97 years later it was ready for the second attempt. Clement, now 146 years old, flew more than 5 times longer the second time.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[antirelic]

Is this informative because of its "anti-american" bend or because it has information? If its because of the provided "information" than the Moderators should actually check out these "factiods" before modding the post. For example:

"Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.

Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American."

Yeah... 437 day SPACE FLIGHT....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriy_Polyakov

No one was talking about "manned space flight"... because in that case, no shit sherlock, 60 odd days isnt shit.

The Americans didnt "change the rules". The reason the above mentioned individuals werent given credit for the "discovery" of flight is because their inventions simply did not translate into successful reproducible air travel. I mean, those guys dont have anything on... BIRDS... that were flying long before man. Why were BIRDS given credit for the discovery of flight...

"So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola."

Yes sparky... RTFA... This is about UNMANNED SUB ORBITAL flight... because if you werent then you would have to talk about VOYAGER I and II... which are have been going for 30+ years and are unmanned and again... American. Oh snap...

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[savuporo]

Dude, Wrights efforts did not directly translate into successful air travel either. The 1903 december flight by Wrights was quite obscure at the time, and Wrights kept well out of public sight for quite long time after that. What Otto Lilienthal did had far more influence wordlwide, Bleirot and Curtis as well. The simple matter of fact is that no party single handedly invent flight or translated it into reproducible air travel, they all had their part to play.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Saib0t]

Is this informative because of its "anti-american" bend or because it has information? If its because of the provided "information" than the Moderators should actually check out these "factiods" before modding the post. For example: "Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth. Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American." Yeah... 437 day SPACE FLIGHT....

I like how you attack the single one item that is definately debatable in the GP's list (note that he mentionned it was space flight too...)

How about focusing on the 7 prominent relevant others? Nothing to say on that?

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, I can't let this statement go unchallenged!!!

I also believe the early reports of flying achievements are greatly skewed by American supporters of the Wright brothers, but I do believe that one should be accurate in attacking this. This list has several inaccuracies which need correcting!

There is no indication that Cayley's flights were controlled. Stringfellow flew models, not man-carrying machines. Richard Pearse's amazing achievements were never, unfortunately, properly documented, so the assertion above is a guess (though likely).

You have not mentioned Sir Hiram Maxim (1894), or Santos-Dumont. Nor Whitehead or Langley.

You have also missed out the critical point which this whole thread is about - that a particular record or achievement is invariably hedged round by the conditions it occurs under, and that it is qualified by. The Wrights claim for the 'first flight', depends on your accepting their qualifications. At the time they were arguing for legal patent control of flight, and so made some very precise distinctions. Their claim was that they were the first 'documented, heavier-than-air, man-carrying, controlled, powered flight, which had assistance leaving the ground, but landed safely.', which seems justifiable. But note that this does NOT mean 'the first flight'.

The American press has always trumpeted this as a breakthrough, but really it was part of an unbroken succession of human endeavor. My take on the critical steps are:

1783 - Montgolfier Bros/ Jacques Charles - first documented balloon flights
1790-1850 - Sir George Cayley - first aeronautical engineer, designed first stable heavier-than air glider, made first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air glider.
1850-1860 - John Stringfellow - first documented heavier-than-air powered aircraft (model)
1890 - Clement Ader - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered hop
1891 - Otto Lilienthal - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air, controllable flight
1894 - Sir Hiram Maxim - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered flight
1901 Gustave Whitehead - first undocumented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered flight
1903 William Pearce - first undocumented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered controlled flight
1903 Wright Brothers - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered controlled flight (with take-off assistance)
1906 Santos-Dumont - first documented man-carrying, heavier-than-air powered controlled flight with no assistance

And that's just a few high points - there were many others in between!

The importance of the Wright Brothers (apart from their being American) was that they developed the first workable 3-axis mechanical control system. This was essential for the further development of aviation - body-weight shifting would not scale. Unfortunately, neither would the wing-warping which the Wrights developed. Mechanical flap controls of the kind used in Europe (and also by Pearce) were the way ahead. The Wrights tried to patent ALL methods of control, and successfully closed down American aviation development until the First World War.

For my money the most impressive pioneer was Cayley. He would certainly have had a full aircraft if the technology of the time had allowed it - as it was he predicted what was required with startling accuracy. His papers are still well worth reading for all engineers...

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[meyekul]

Clement Adler, who flew 60 yards in a powered monoplane in 1890, and 320 yards in 1987

I find this hard to believe, unless old Clement flew on their day of birth and then again when they were 97 years old..? One error like this, typo or not, kind of throws off your whole point.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Aram Fingal]

"Orbital flight" would be a misnomer at best. An object in orbit isn't "flying", it's falling.

So you're saying that they do not so much fly as plummet.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[fizzup]

The trick to flying is to fall, and then forget to hit the ground.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[kimvette]

Good point. I wouldn't consider an orbit to be flight in any record-breaking sense. The journey UP to orbit? Sure. Maybe. The journey back? Sure. Maybe. However, manned orbit is a completely different category from flight in the sense that aircraft fly. As you said, an orbit is a controlled fall, and does not rely upon lift.

Even rocket planes which do fly in the atmosphere blur the lines and should be a separate category, especially if they cross the "official" demarcation of space. It ceases to be flight in the sense of lift-generating surfaces counteracting gravity at some point.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[LWATCDR]

"Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.

Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American."
  Yes his record count but not in this classification.
That record is for orbital duration and not for atmospheric flight. It fails on a number of counts including that he didn't takeoff and land in the same craft!
"Eilmer of Malmesbury, who flew 220 yards in a glider in the 11th century"
Not powered and really not well documented. So that doesn't count.
"Lagari Celebi, who flew an unspecified distance with a rocket in 1633 (well documented!)"
How could the distance be unspecified but the flight well documented? It probably also fails because the Wrights are credited with controlled powered flight.
The rest of your "flights" all while great achievements where not documented controlled powered flight.
Take Richard Pearse as an example.
From the Wikipedia, "The documentary evidence to support such a claim remains open to interpretation, however, and he does not appear to have developed his aircraft to match the Wrights' achievement of sustained, controlled flight. Pearse himself made contradictory statements which for many years led the few who knew of his feats to accept 1904 as the date of his first flight."
Also wind can not aid your flight unless you are getting ridge lift which the Wrights where not using. The wind only helped reduce the take off distance at the cost of decreasing the flight distance. Since runways where not invented yet it was a fair trade off. Also the winds there where nice and constant. Gusts are a pain even in modern light air craft. A steady wind makes life a little easier.
What the Wrights really did was apply a lot of science to flight. They where in contact with just about every other aviation pioneer at the time. Their real discovery was how to turn an air plane by combining yaw and roll.
That tends to go over most peoples heads so it is just easier to say that they invented the airplane.

If they hadn't then any number of other inventors would have in a year or two.
So stop with the silly anti US rants and move on.

BTW the US didn't really embrace the Wrights as the inventors of the airplane. Frankly they where ripped off by Bell and Curtis, they modified Langley's aerodrone well after the fact and claimed that he was the inventor of the airplane.
Europe embraced the Wrights and gave them the credit they really did earn. The US had to bring back the Wright Flyer that is in the NAS from France because at the time they Smithsonian had not interest in it!

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[LWATCDR]

Actually I think Vanguard wins that one. Last time I checked it was the oldest man made object in orbit.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[LWATCDR]

Actually in a way the did.
The Wight company went on to build most of the engines that powered the first practical airliners. That that where not powered by Wright engines where powered by Pratt and Whitney engines, a company that was started by former Wright engineers.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[arth1]

"Lagari Celebi, who flew an unspecified distance with a rocket in 1633 (well documented!)"
How could the distance be unspecified but the flight well documented?

It was well documented that it occurred. It was done as part of a celebration for a Sultan's birthday, unless I remember wrong. With lots of witnesses, and the brave pilot even receiving a title (Spahi?) as a reward. He landed in the sea, and no-one thought about marking the spot and measuring the distance. That wasn't what was important. That he flew and survived was.

It probably also fails because the Wrights are credited with controlled powered flight.

That's exactly what I mean by moving the goal posts. One can't defend it as "first flight", so it becomes "first powered flight", then "first controlled powered flight", then "first documented controlled powered flight", then "first pre-announced documented controlled powered flight", and unless the madness stops, the goal posts will be moved to "first pre-announced documented controlled powered daytime flight with alternating crews after having eaten refried beans".

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[LWATCDR]

No the goal was always a powered controlled flight.
You could be shot out of cannon but that doesn't count. You can be flung from a catapult and that doesn't count.
The goal was to take off and land where you want to in a heavier than air craft. You just think the goal posts moved because you never really knew what they where to start with. Kind of like wanting to count a stay on a space station.
The Wrights made the big break through. The final part of the puzzle. They figured out how to turn. If you can not turn then you can not choose where you are going. They also really pushed the idea of using wind tunnels to test airfoils, they also where one of the first to realize that a propeller is nothing but a rotating wing.
The also designed and built their own engine. Not to shabby for a pair of bicycle makes in the middle of nowhere Ohio in the early 1900.
They where aircraft hackers! They where the Woz of airplanes!
But no the goal posts where never moved. The goal post was always controlled heavier than air flight. And like all science it must be documented and repeatable.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, orbit is "falling".

What if the US Air Force or Navy took a F22 for a world tour on supercruise? Say at Mach 1.7 or 1.8? I sure it will need fuel, but it will break speed records.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

"That wasn't flying! That was falling... with style!"
--Woody in Toy Story I

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

None of these people produced anything close to what the wrights did in terms of reproducable flight for that time. PERIOD!!! You euro crybabies need to try again.. You guys are terrible, always bitching about Americans.. Invent your own shit and compete on your own merit and STFU about Americans. Earn your respect for once.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

if its solar powered, why can't it just fly around the world non stop, forever? just continue on a path of perpetual sunlight?

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[arth1]

The Wrights made the big break through. The final part of the puzzle. They figured out how to turn.

No, they didn't. They used an inferior design that they had outright stolen from others, which implied twisting the wing surfaces. And they did no turns on their first two flights, either.
Pierce had already done turns six months earlier, on a plane equipped with proper ailerons. Which was WAY ahead of the silly wing twisting that the Wrights used.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[savuporo]

I dont know but Rolls Royce, Bentley, Bristol, Napier , Daimler-Benz, Gnome Engine Company, Junkers and a whole lot of others would argue with that.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[LWATCDR]

Rolls Royce really wasn't used by many airliners until they went to jets.
But take a look at the how many none US airliners used Wright, P&W or P&W derived engines.
The Fokker Trimotor line, JU-52, JU-86 "BMW bought the rights to make P&W engines", And on and on.
But yes the Wright engine legacy if you include P&W which I think is fair gives them a HUGE place in the history of aviation.

Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft.

[LWATCDR]

Um get over Pierce he even contradicted himself. He fails the documented criteria. Just look up the Wikipedia entry.
It wasn't just wing warping it was combining roll "wing warping" and yaw "rudder" to make a turn.
Oh and wing twisting may be making a come back. It does have a some advantages over ailerons. NASA has been testing an F-18 that using wing warping! If Pierce had document his flight then maybe he would have gotten some credit but he didn't.

Fly forever!

[suck_burners_rice]

If they could make one of these solar powered things fly fast enough to be in daylight at all times, it could fly forever! Well, at least until something goes wrong. :-(

Re:Fly forever!

[Kjella]

If it was that easy, they could just go to one of the poles where the sun never sets for half a year. Though I suppose the ambient temperature and low angle might be a letdown. On an equally unrealistic note, to travel with the sun at equator it'd have to do 40000km in 24 hours = 1667km/hour. Yes, we can make planes that fast OR planes that lightly glide using solar power but I'm pretty sure we won't get both at once.

Re:Fly forever!

[moteyalpha]

Seems that the path is not that simple. If I start at daylight and travel to the pole it will be 1/4 circumference and it would be morning again on the other side. So more like 400kph?

Re:Fly forever!

[jmpeax]

Actually, it doesn't need to be daytime for it to operate, hence how it was able to stay airborne for 83 hours. It uses high capacity batteries to get through the night.

Re:Fly forever!

[mi]

But it did come down, which means, some resource got drained... Which one? The batteries, which may have been only partially recharging during the day, is one possible explanation....

Re:Fly forever!

[Thagg]

But it did come down, which means, some resource got drained... Which one? The batteries, which may have been only partially recharging during the day, is one possible explanation....

The first people to fly a solar-powered plane through the night, Tom Gage and his team at AC Propulsion, flew for 48 hours...and could have probably flown forever -- the resource that was drained was the on-ground pilots.

The plane was flown to use thermals as much as possible during the day, but it was tiring work.

Anyway, after two days, and with a battery charge higher than what they started at, they figured that they had made their point.

Re:Fly forever!

[this great guy]

As explained in the BBC article, flying over one of the poles is not necessary to fly forever. This team is now working on a defense project codenamed Vulture to extend their design to be able to fly non-stop for 5 years on any spot on the Earth's surface. Although they don't mention why Zephyr couldn't fly more than 84 hours, presumably it was either because it wasn't able to recharge its batteries fast enough during daytime, or they voluntarily stopped the experiment after 84 hours. In any case it looks like their design is not far from being able to "fly forever".

Re:Fly forever!

[rcw-home]

The plane was flown to use thermals as much as possible during the day, but it was tiring work.

Perhaps for military use it's desirable to fly that low, but another way to get a solar plane flying forever is to get it light enough and get the sink rate low enough (1 foot/second) that it can glide all night (100000 feet -> 40000 feet) and still be in the lower stratosphere by sunrise. That way you don't need batteries, and you'll always be above the clouds and weather.

A plane designed for this will be flimsy and fly extremely slowly near ground (slower than walking speed), so it'd have to be launched and retrieved during calm weather, but once up, there would be very little to go wrong - at most latitudes it could circle in one spot indefinitely.

Re:Fly forever!

[TheRaven64]

With that kind of range, the non-military applications are quite exciting. A solar powered aircraft can be used as a relay, just like a communications satellite, but with much lower latency. Rather than building towers on the ground, we can start popping them in the air, where they have line of sight to a much larger area. This would be a huge boost for telecommunications in third-world countries, where a few thousand of them could be deployed in a mesh network covering an entire area and only needing a small number of exit points to get to the rest of the Internet. Unlike fixed towers, they can dynamically rearrange their configurations so that large collections of devices are covered by more base stations.

Re:Fly forever!

[lurking_giant]

Do the math... I doubt your ultralight would ever make it to the necessary altitude. 12 Hours X 60 Minutes X 60 Seconds = 43,200 seconds to climb 100,000 feet... Your plane would need to climb at greater than 2.31 feet per second to make it to 100,000ft in a 12 light cycle. Tough to do with a plane that flys at a walking pace.

Re:Fly forever!

[rcw-home]

Do the math... I doubt your ultralight would ever make it to the necessary altitude. 12 Hours X 60 Minutes X 60 Seconds = 43,200 seconds to climb 100,000 feet... Your plane would need to climb at greater than 2.31 feet per second to make it to 100,000ft in a 12 light cycle.

2.31ft/s (0.7m/s) for a 10kg plane is 70 watts. Add in a foot per second to cancel out drag and you're at 100 watts. Such a 10kg plane could have upwards of 500 watts of solar panels (and produce a good fraction of that during the day).

Tough to do with a plane that flys at a walking pace.

First off, if you've watched electric RC gliders, you'd know that optimal glide speed and climb speed are very different. Second, air pressure at 40000 feet is less than a quarter of sea level air pressure, meaning those speeds would be at least twice as fast as they would be at sea level.

They tried it with Sunrise and Sunrise II back in the 70s (and that's where I'm getting the 10kg and 500 watt figures from). Supposedly, command and control problems prevented them from getting above 20000 feet. I expect those problems could be easily solved today.

Yeah, but ...

[PPH]

... the leg room in first class sucks.

What is its purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point of this device? Surveillance right?

Re:What is its purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The whole thing was built only to be mentioned on Slashdot.

Interesting feat

[geogob]

Very interesting might I add. But the suggested applications of such a plane / technology seem to be far fetched. From TFA:

Zephyr's impressive fight time opens up a lot of potential for the aircraft the fields of earth observation and communications relay.

Telecom or science equipment tend to be bulky and heavy. Even with the size reductions of the equipment we witness today, it's still big... too big for the payload of such an ultra-light aircraft.

Furthermore, theseà systems require power; power you either need to carry with you (fuel cells, batteries, etc.) or produce with solar cells. As most of the power from the cells is probably used for flight systems, not much would be left for payload powering, cooling, heating, etc.

The idea is nice, but for me, at this stage, it's nothing more than a toy to get credits for breaking records. Not a serious attempt to develop a usable platform. The potential isn't that great.

Re:Interesting feat

[Inominate]

Yea Goddard's liquid rocket was a waste of time. It only flew 40 feet and couldn't even carry a payload! The idea was nice, but it was nothing more than a child's toy.

Seriously though, it's a step towards making long term solar powered flight work. Creating aircraft able to keep flying indefinitely on solar power is not trivial. Once we can make it work though, then it's time to start scaling it up and sticking payloads on it.

A solar powered aircraft able to stay in the air for months or years at a time would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a satellite while being able to perform many of the same jobs.

Re:Interesting feat

[kylemonger]

These little planes might be useful in disaster situations, when ordinary comms are down. Wi-Fi capability has already been crammed into the SD card form factor. Seems likely that a very light weight Wi-Fi access point could be constructed as well. With that, how many of these planes would need to be launched to provide a communications network over an area wrecked by an earthquake or a flood?

Re:Interesting feat

[amirulbahr]

Even a payload on the order of 10kg would be very useful if the cost of the aircraft is practical. Remember, the launch costs are close to nil, so all you have to pay for is the craft itself and maybe come access to ground or satellite based monitoring and control. I can imagine many agencies, departments and private organisations would have a lot of use for something like this.

Re:Interesting feat

[Timbotronic]

According to the BBC article it carried a 2kg payload. That's enough for a decent observation and communications platform and this is only a prototype - they're talking about a much bigger version that could stay aloft for months.

Sion Power make the Lithium Sulfur batteries and they claim an energy density that's almost twice that of Lithium Ion. If that's true the power shouldn't be too much of a problem once the UAV's reached cruising altitude. It would be good to know some more about those batteries...

Re:Interesting feat

[corsec67]

If your "communications" could be data instead of voice, then I have an example of exactly how small a network could be, with existing wireless sensor nodes. That one is on a USB for a "base station", and is normally powered by 2 AAs, with the whole computer being the size of the back of the AA battery pack. The range on the radios there are about 100 meters.

If the AA batteries aren't needed, like if the plane is going to provide power, that is a very small and lightweight network.

Re:Interesting feat

[geogob]

I do agree with the fact that it's a step forward, and a very nice step. But the article present this as flight time that opens a lot of potential. My point was that, for a practical application, it is not all about flight time. A platform with infinite flight time, but zero payload capability is of no use.

So, as much as this a good step forward, TFA is a bit over enthusiastic regarding the "opened up" potential.

Re:Interesting feat

[Shihar]

I think the quasi-satellite implications of this really can't be overlooked. Shooting things into space, especially into a geosynchronous orbit is really expensive. Shooting things simply into orbit is still extremely expensive AND you need to launch multiple satellites to get continuous coverage. If you could pop a few of these up at a fraction of the costs, you could get massive coverage, extremely cheaply.

For a place like the US that would be neat and useful, but where it would REALLY pay dividends would be in places like India where they have shitty infrastructure and a democratic government that can't blast peoples' houses easily to make way for new infrastructure (like they can in China). If you could toss a few of these up over India, you could cheaply (much cheaper than laying down land lines or towers) get some serious coverage even to remote places with bad roads.

Re:Interesting feat

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously though, it's a step towards making long term solar powered flight work. Creating aircraft able to keep flying indefinitely on solar power is not trivial.

Wouldn't a helium zeppelin achieve this goal?

Re:Interesting feat

[plover]

A platform with infinite flight time, but zero payload capability is of no use..

You're probably too young to remember seeing them, but the Echo series of communications satellites were simply 100 foot diameter mylar balloons. They were passive -- they had no payload at all -- but NASA was able to bounce radio signals off of them.

A stationary "mirror in the sky" might make for a good way to bounce radio signals into and out of a hostile area without the power requirements needed for satellite communications.

Just because there is no apparent practical application doesn't mean there will never be one. I am frequently amazed at what people can do with the simplest things.

Re:Interesting feat

[paul248]

Well that's not very nice.

Re:Interesting feat

[julesh]

Telecom or science equipment tend to be bulky and heavy. Even with the size reductions of the equipment we witness today, it's still big... too big for the payload of such an ultra-light aircraft.

Furthermore, theseà systems require power; power you either need to carry with you (fuel cells, batteries, etc.) or produce with solar cells. As most of the power from the cells is probably used for flight systems, not much would be left for payload powering, cooling, heating, etc.

On this test flight, the plane carried a 2kg payload, which was a fully working communications relay. The specs in the BBC article seem to suggest it could carry up to 3kg (i.e., there's a 3kg variability in the aircraft weight section). While the articles I've seen don't elaborate on why the flight was terminated, my suspicion was they only wanted to show that the plane would fly for as long as the relay's batteries would last: 80ish hours seems reasonable for a low-power (i.e. local area) radio relay with a small high-density battery pack.

With two of these you could fly continuously with more than enough time to recharge batteries and perform routine maintenance between flights.

Re:Interesting feat

[TheRaven64]

The thing you forget to mention is latency. Geosynchronous orbit is 35,800Km above sea level. This works out as 0.119 seconds each way, giving to an absolute minimum round trip time of a quarter of a second, assuming you have infinitely fast switching at both ends. The round trip time to something in the atmosphere from a point directly below it is under 160us[1]. For reference, the round trip time including protocol and switching overhead to a machine on my local wireless network is 1ms. This means that the latency between any pair of machines covered by the same atmospheric pseudosat would be almost indistinguishable from the local network.

Even without the cost difference , and the ease of deployment, these would have a huge advantage over satellites. I'm not sure if this is the right technology, however. I'd be more inclined to expect monomolecular carbon balloons filled with hydrogen and manoeuvred with solar powered engines to be the communications platform of the near future.

[1] That u should be a mu, but Slashdot mangles non-ASCII characters.

Re:Interesting feat

[g0dsp33d]

There's also a lot less latency when you don't have to go the extra few miles between syn and ack packets.

BBC report with video is better

[Herschel Cohen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7577493.stm

...and this isn't a new one...

[msauve]

from the article:

the Zephyr's reported flight times didn't meet all criteria laid down by The World Air Sports Federation -- the governing body for air sports and aeronautical world records -- and will probably remain unofficial.

If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.

Re:...and this isn't a new one...

[poopdeville]

If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.

Maybe. That doesn't mean their record isn't legitimate, especially if the "rule" they disregarded was irrelevant, and especially since they have flown further than anybody else.

Re:...and this isn't a new one...

[jmpeax]

The "rule" they didn't follow was to have the relevant organisation in on the action. From the BBC:

[The record] remains "unofficial" because QinetiQ did not involve the FAI (Federation Aeronautique Internationale), the world air sports federation, which sanctions all record attempts.

I think it's fair to say that regardless of who officiates it, they have broken the record.

Re:...and this isn't a new one...

[Falconhell]

NO FAI record claim can be lodged, and quite right too. Any FAI record claim must be overseen by a registered FAI official observer, who checks data loggers installation and seals. The loggers use an encryption system, and strong physical security to prevent cheating

No FAI logger/observer=no record.

There would be several official FAI observers at each gliding club just about everywhere, so they are easy enough to find if needed. If these guys really wanted an official record they should have followed the rules.

Re:...and this isn't a new one...

[Anonymous Coward]

QinetQ has a real name. the real name is DERA for Defense Evaluation and Research Agency. This is a grey hat former TLA defense agency -- no way in hell they will let civilians in to see their airplane.
its a military aircraft for replacing satellites when doing long range covert surveillance. this is not a regular model aircraft.

Re:...and this isn't a new one...

[LWATCDR]

If the FAI has a logger that would fit this critter.
Also I wonder if they could have gone for an AMA record. If I remember the AMA has it's own records for some categories.
I could be be mistaken since I have not looked into that stuff for a very long time.

Re:...and this isn't a new one...

[serviscope_minor]

No FAI logger/observer=no record.

No, no FAI logger = no FAI record.

It may well still be a record, just not an FAI one.

Re:...and this isn't a new one...

[Anonymous Coward]

HUH!
Also, I bet this "solar plane" was
- less than 16 years old,
- Had most of Google censored,
- Had a more pleasant female "voice-over" for reports,
- Probably had a small piston engine in it,
- designed to fly over Tibet!

And probably ran on Pinoqachole-denatured gasoline....

Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

[Gruff1002]

Sulfur is a relatively cheap material, so lithium-sulfur batteries have the potential to be less expensive than other battery types. With a lower starting cost to manufacturers, lithium-sulfur batteries could save consumers money. There is also a possible cost savings because lithium-sulfur batteries tend to provide much longer charges than lithium ion batteries. With double the lifetime or greater, you might be able to get by with a single lithium-sulfur battery for your laptop or rechargeable hand tool. Another reported advantage of lithium-sulfur batteries is their ability to work well in very cold weather. www.wisegeek.com

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

[timmarhy]

wrong. it's price has gone through the roof in the last few months.

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

Materials without a commercial application are usually cheap, until a commercial application is developed...Like, say, making batteries.

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

[FrankDrebin]

Apparently the higher energy-density Li-S batteries use a compound called Thionyl Chloride, which is toxic, corrosive, and controlled as a chemical weapon. Not a comforting thought, having those flying around overhead, unmanned.

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

[starshinecruzer]

I've actually heard quite a bit about Lithium-Polymer batteries that sounds promising. I first saw one in my old Erisson T-28 cellphone, and it made the thing light as a feather.

More recently Apple is using them in the AirBook to cut down on weight. 2 big advantages of Li-P: during the construction phase you can literally pour the material into any shape you want. Also ounce for ounce it is (or was, before I heard about the Sulfur batts) the lightest battery out there.

There were some drawbacks, namely if a powerful current is accidentally sent through one the polymer explodes, not unlike juicing a capacitor. Also I heard some sketchy science about battery life, but my Ericsson battery never had to be replaced in 3 years of usage; I ended up replacing the phone first!

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

The company making these high energy density batteries is Sion:
http://www.sionpower.com/product.html

The web site seems to have been quiet for a couple years, but the use of these batteries in aircraft suited to spy work, may just mean they have customers that would like them to keep a low profile.

Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries

[Detritus]

Sulfur has some major applications, like making sulfuric acid, which is an important ingredient for many industrial processes. I recently watched a documentary on acids that said sulfuric acid production was a good indicator of a country's industrial development. It is produced in huge quantities.

... and is designed to launch by hand....

[bangenge]

Like a paper airplane? But bigger?

Nope.

[msauve]

as your own cite says: the FAI "sanctions all record attempts." It's not a record, especially since they apparently self-officiated.

Re:Nope.

[jmpeax]

I don't want to get into a big thing here, but if this unmanned aircraft flew for longer than any other unmanned aircraft, it has broken the record. The FAI may deem themselves the ultimate authority on these things, but in my books their lack of involvement doesn't automatically mean a record hasn't been broken.

I suppose you might question the authenticity of the tests, but given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet the FAI weren't consulted in many of the other longest flights either, eg B52 and B2 combat missions to the middle east from nases in the USA, and Global Hawk flights over that way too.

Of course if it was the FIA that was the overseeing body, they wouldn't be allowed autopilots, and the engines would have to last for 2 flights.

Re:Nope.

[DriedClexler]

Wow, it's not every day you see a post like that one:

given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.

And then the sig:

Amnesty International

Re:Nope.

[jmpeax]

Do you often take cheap, out-of-context, sensationalised shots like that?

This from a person who tries to summarise life with a while statement in his sig.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

but given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.

You are a funny guy..

Re:Nope.

[DriedClexler]

Take a chill, dude. I just thought it was an interesting contrast. Obviously, Amnesty Int isn't doubt the military's trustworthiness about a flight record for which the military would suffer the consequences for being wrong. I didn't intend it as a criticism.

And it's a REDUNDANT statement in my sig, tyvm! :-P

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's out-of-context about it?

They already broke that record last year

[dave1g]

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/10/1917254

Solar Craft Flies Through Two Nights
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday September 10 2007, @03:43PM
from the nasa-awash-with-envy dept.
Power Technology
An anonymous reader writes "A solar-powered, unmanned craft has flown for 54 hours -- a record for both unmanned aerial vehicles and solar craft. None before has managed to store enough solar energy to fly through more than one night. There is also a video showing the 18m carbon fiber wing craft being launched."

Qinetic not very upset at all

[Duncan Blackthorne]

If my hunch is correct, then QinetiQ isn't very upset by not being listed as a world-record-breaker with this flight. Qinetic is a military contractor. Unless I'm completely mistaken, this plane being constructed with so much carbon fiber, wouldn't it have a very small (perhaps non-existent) radar signature? I'm sure it could carry a small payload, like reconnaisance cameras, for instance? All that plus no need to refuel, and I'd say that the military would be very interested in contracting QinetiQ to build a fleet of these for them. I'd also imagine that you could include a satellite uplink to the payload, and never have to even have the thing land in order to download it's recorded recon data.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[kievit]

I looked at the checklist on the internation aeronautics federation web site, and it looks like QinetiQ could easily have complied with the rules, they just had to invite an official and agree on how to document the flight, which seems quite reasonable and obvious to me.

So I guess you're right: the folks at QinetiQ probably do not care about "official" world records. They just want publicity, and sell stuff.

Or maybe there are some unmentioned important details.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[Perf]

Radar signature isn't very important if telemetry is being transmitted. Two things that would help is burst transmission and a narrow transmit beam.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[Duncan Blackthorne]

*nodding* sure thing. If I were the Systems Engineer for the project, I'd have it only spit a stream of data at my satellite when I asked it to. In the meantime though it's not a very effective surveillance device if you can see it on radar easily and arrange a small "accident" for it..

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[MarsLander]

Unless I'm completely mistaken, this plane being constructed with so much carbon fiber, wouldn't it have a very small (perhaps non-existent) radar signature?

I think you might be completely mistaken. ;)

"Dielectric composites are relatively transparent to radar, whereas electrically conductive materials such as metals and carbon fibers reflect electromagnetic energy incident on the material's surface."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[evilviper]

Unless I'm completely mistaken, this plane being constructed with so much carbon fiber, wouldn't it have a very small (perhaps non-existent) radar signature?

It may be structurally carbon-fiber, but those solar panels covering the entire body, and all the batteries and motors certainly aren't.

But both are besides the point. Once you've scaled a plane down to smaller than common types of birds, it's effectively invisible anyhow, with the enemy recon plane being indistinguishable from wild-life.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[Anonymous Coward]

The radar cross section is indeed very small. Due to power and weight issues, they can probably also not carry a transponder. This makes it difficult to use the airplane in regular airspace (not a military issue, but it can hamper its civil use as satellite replacement) Normally, the plane flies high above regular air traffic, but take-off, landing and emergency situations can change that.

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[mpe]

But both are besides the point. Once you've scaled a plane down to smaller than common types of birds, it's effectively invisible anyhow, with the enemy recon plane being indistinguishable from wild-life.

So long as you don't do anything stupid like try to fly it faster than any bird or transmit RF signals. Also the RCS of an object is not a function of size...

Re:Qinetic not very upset at all

[hurfy]

I don't know about the birds in your area but the ones around here are a bit smaller than 18 meters....

Invariably these things are really slow. Radar? Perhaps one should just look up to find it instead. (i did assume upto 18 meters doesn't actually mean 1 meter!)

This isn't the toy Rc plane you buy for 19.95 and flies for 3 minutes ya know ;)

launch by hand?

[an00bis]

an ultra-lightweight carbon-fiber aircraft that weighs less than 70lbs and is designed to launch by hand

i never want to meet the man who launches this aircraft by hand

Re:launch by hand?

[Anonymous Coward]

"aircraft that weighs less than 70lbs and is designed to launch by hand "

"i never want to meet the man who launches this aircraft by hand"

That's nothing! Whan I was 8 years old, I was routinely launching aircraft that weighed less than 70lbs by hand. Mind you, they weighed a lot less than 70 lb. Usually 69lb, 12oz less .....

Re:launch by hand?

[Anonymous Coward]

To Bill Braskey!!!

What about the Condor UAV?

[Goldenhawk]

I think the claim to have beaten the Global Hawk by 2x is a bit misleading - it implies a doubling of existing capabilities. In fact, it only UNOFFICIALLY doubles an OFFICIAL record, which itself is not the longest flight recorded by any means. In 1989 a Boeing UAV named Condor flew over 58 hours, and had a design endurance of 80 hours. Okay, they never claimed it as an official record, but it was still a valid flight, just like this was.

Here's an interesting video:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/boeing-condor-uav/4285692709

And some facts:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7988

Granted, the Zephyr is theoretically limited only by the service life of its electrical components - it could stay up until something broke or wore out. But please, let's use real facts here.

Re:What about the Condor UAV?

[Anonymous Coward]

The zephyr actually out-flew the Condor's theoretical limit.

Yankee nationalism again, you just don't want to be beaten by the Brits.

It was the same with the Boeing 787 that was going to be so much more successful and well-organised than the A380.

Re:What about the Condor UAV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you watch the video or read the link you tard?

We Americans did this back in 1988, so lets do some basic math. So two decades(20 years) later they have finally caught up, but only to beat it by 3 hours 37 minutes sure sounds like the British beat us terribly.

You Euro twits are hilarious in trying to all group up and form an airline industry fueled by national pride. With fuel prices and less long distance flying, there is no reason to load that big hog 380 when you get better fuel economy with the 787.

Anyways who cares Boeing has probably developed well past this.

Re:... and is designed to launch by hand....

[icegreentea]

See the RQ14 Dragon Eye. It's a Marine Corp UAV. You launch it with a bungee cord. I imagine if your arm was strong enough, you really could launch this one like a paper airplane too.

So what happened?

[bogaboga]

I was of the hope that I would know how its flight ended. Sadly, the entire story does not mention this. Anyone in the know about how this magnificent plane's flight ended...or did it crash?

Or why didn't they just let it continue flying after all it had an endless supply of "juice."

Re:So what happened?

[evanbd]

UAVs still have pilots. Pilot fatigue may be the limiting factor... iirc, that's how their previous demo flight (54 hours) ended. Since it's an R&D article, my guess is that time was long enough to accomplish the flight goals, and they wanted it back in the hangar to keep working on it. There are probably other reasons, but I would guess those are both significant ones.

QinetiQ

[Philip K Dickhead]

QinetiQ CIA link

QinetiQ, the British defence and security technology company that was spun out of the Ministry of Defenceâ(TM)s research laboratory, has appointed George Tenet, 53, former head of the CIA in America, a non-executive director. The company hopes to develop closer links with the US intelligence establishment.

Re:QinetiQ

[draco664]

The company hopes to develop closer links with the US intelligence establishment.

So that intelligence can be passed on to the CIA in a more cost effective manner, no doubt. Up until now, the spooks have had to do the fact-checking themselves...

Re:QinetiQ

[kickassweb]

But they'll still make the taxpayers foot the bill as if they're using 747s or worse.

And who gets to make the rules?

[Skapare]

... especially the one that says the FAI is the authority?

Re:And who gets to make the rules?

[Falconhell]

That would be the worlds sport aviation bodies, who mostly delegate matters involving records to the FAI.

Without an FAI logger (More correctly called an IGC logger, not an FAI logger, as they are mainly used for gliding, powered aircraft records are mostly pointless) there is no real world proof, other than the word of the manufacturers. The loggers are made by a few different manufaturers,
such as LX navigation, Volkslogger and EW.

No FAI/IGC logger = no CREDIBLE record. Does that make it easier to understand?

They were so concerned not to let anyone see the plane they published a photo on the Internet.....pleeease.

Proof is very inconvenient eh?

IGC = International Gliding Commission.

To the poster who mentioned would a logger fit, they are quite small, around the size of a packet of 20 cigarettes, and would easily fit into the machine shown.

The poster who mentioned the AMA is on the right track, that would be the proper organisation, but guess what, they are a FAI affiliate, so I am guessing the same rules apply.

AC, they were so concerned not to let anyone see the plane they published a photo and details on the Internet.....pleeease, get a grip!

Re:And who gets to make the rules?

[maxume]

When you are making a list, the guy with the pencil is pretty much always the ultimate authority.

It's a Slashdot record

[Skapare]

... until Anonymous Coward decides to break it.

Re:... and is designed to launch by hand....

[narftrek]

Exactly that or off a small catapult which they still consider "hand launched"

Why not during summer solstice?

[okmijnuhb]

I'm surprised it wasn't tried nearer the summer solstice, around the 3rd week of June, for the longest daylight.

Re:Why not during summer solstice?

[Born2bwire]

If they are doing a proof of concept flight here then it would be a bit pointless to schedule around the summer solstice, securing the most ideal conditions possible. Customers and other interested parties are not interested in what the system can do under ideal conditions, but under realistic conditions. They could have taken it up to the arctic regions to ensure constant daylight but that would not give an accurate indication on how it would behave in a typical environment.

But...

[GameGod0]

This would be cool if the end application wasn't to kill people more effectively.

Re:But...

[Detritus]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Summary Error

[TCPhotography]

Anyone who writes that the Global Hawk is the size of a fighter has never seen one in person. The damn thing is HUGE. The wingspan is even greater than that of a U-2. It's an awesome plane with some serious potential.

Re:Summary Error

[hurfy]

Not only is the Global Hawk huge, this thing apparently IS the size of a fighter (or BIGGER!) with 'upto' 18 meter wingspan. No idea why 'upto' is needed, maybe they lost their tape measure.

not good for space travel

[speedtux]

Solar planes are going to reduce the need for satellite and satellite launches. That may lower the cost for some services, but it will also mean that there's less interest in commercial uses of space.

Steve

[sstair]

Anyone else thinking "plane of the ecliptic" when you read the headline?

Verification

[mcrbids]

Don't confuse a "feat" with a "record". Feats are what people do. Records are feats that can be proven to have happened. If an achievement is not properly documented, there's no way to know for sure whether it was done.

So it's not whether or not the feat was surpassed, it's whether the feat was surpassed in a way that can be verified. I can say to you that I've got a cure for cancer, or tell you that I can run 30 MPH barefoot, but neither claim means anything there's some verification of the process - some official body (EG: the American Medical Association in the United States) has performed testing to some standard process to verify that the cancer cure I claim actually works at least most of the time. (In medicine, almost nothing works 100% of the time, not even aspirin)

You and I have no particular doubt that they flew the time they're claiming. But if it has not passed the most widely recognized process for validating this record, the RECORD still stands, and will stand until the proper process has been followed to record the fact that the old record has been broken.

However, they have a plan, which entails aircraft like this flying for MONTHS ON END. So they probably don't much care about documenting the record, since their numbers are likely to improve dramatically over the next year or so. Why go through the effort of documenting what is, for them, a rather minor, incremental step, solely to prove a record?

Re:Verification

[vertinox]

Don't confuse a "feat" with a "record". Feats are what people do. Records are feats that can be proven to have happened. If an achievement is not properly documented, there's no way to know for sure whether it was done.

I thought this was more of a "proof of concept" rather than breaking any records. I think this team's main goal is get a working prototype the military can use for reconnaissance missions.

Arguing whether it broke an official record will be a moot point once they get a production model in the field which will most likley have better air times anyways.

Re:Verification

[R3d M3rcury]

If an achievement is not properly documented, there's no way to know for sure whether it was done.

Ah, the philosophical question: If a plane flies for 83 hours and 37 minutes and nobody sees it, did it really fly?

Dickhead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it because your username is Dickhead that you're replying to a thread about small penis size?

Military - therefore a bit secret

[fantomas]

The plane was made and flown by QinetiQ, the semi-commercial part of the UK's military R&D. They are building the plane for the US military.

They were probably quite happy to let the world know their plane is sort of the best you can get, because they are expected to make money these days and are looking for business.

On the other hand it's military, they are hoping to sell it to the US military, so they probably didn't want to give all the secrets away. I can't see them letting some "sports federation" official onto Area 51 or wherever just to confirm how high it went. Not til they've sold a few and worked out the next version any way.

Re:Qinetic not a Contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

No. QinetiQ is not a military contractor. It is a British company that provides contracts to others. It is a public face to the UK's secret services, and acts much like the US's DARPA.

Remember, James Bond got all his great techo-gadgets from Q. But he was fictional. Real spies have to go to QuinetiQ to buy their goodies.

You may just be confused because their spies and our spies are working together, and happen to have the pull to use US military locations to test their cool toys.

Follow-up story

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Information Week has the story as well, with more details:

"The Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona was an appropriate setting for Zephyr's world beating flight as many landmark aviation developments have taken place there in recent years," Simon Bennett, managing director of QinetiQ's Applied Technologies business, said in an announcement. "In addition to setting a new unofficial record, the trial is a step towards the delivery of Zephyr's capability for joint, real-time, battlefield persistent surveillance and communications to forces in the field at the earliest opportunity." [emphasis mine]

Solar house ?

[MmmmYah]

All of a sudden solar is big ;) zdnet just had an article about new solar panels and hempstead ny just got a new solar house: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6PJnYMXgwQ

Re:Qinetic not a Contractor

[Duncan Blackthorne]

*shrug* easy mistake to make I guess; at my last job we evaluated many tiny GPS receiver modules, and at least one of them was made by Qinetiq.

OK ok where is he...

[Schmyz]

....Sir Branson...had to be involved with this in some way....Makes you wonder where Mr. Fosset is....