Slashdot Mirror


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."

42 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by icegreentea · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by uhlume · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >

      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.

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    5. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by antirelic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

      --
      20th century Marxism is not progress...
    6. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by Saib0t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    7. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

    8. Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. by fizzup · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  2. Re:Fly forever! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. BBC report with video is better by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. Re:Interesting feat by Inominate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Interesting feat by kylemonger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  6. ...and this isn't a new one... by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:...and this isn't a new one... by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    2. Re:...and this isn't a new one... by jmpeax · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    3. Re:...and this isn't a new one... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. Re:Fly forever! by moteyalpha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  8. Lithium-Sulfur Batteries by Gruff1002 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Lithium-Sulfur Batteries by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  9. Re:What is its purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. Re:Fly forever! by jmpeax · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Interesting feat by Timbotronic · · Score: 2, Informative

    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...

    --

    One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

  12. Nope. by msauve · · Score: 2

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

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Nope. by jmpeax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Nope. by DriedClexler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  13. Qinetic not very upset at all by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Qinetic not very upset at all by kievit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  14. launch by hand? by an00bis · · Score: 3, Funny
    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

  15. What about the Condor UAV? by Goldenhawk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  16. So what happened? by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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."

  17. QinetiQ by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  18. Re:Interesting feat by geogob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:Fly forever! by Thagg · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  20. Re:Interesting feat by Shihar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  21. Re:Fly forever! by this+great+guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    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".

  22. Re:Fly forever! by rcw-home · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  23. Summary Error by TCPhotography · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  24. Re:Interesting feat by plover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    John
  25. not good for space travel by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  26. Verification by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  27. Re:Interesting feat by g0dsp33d · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    lol: You see no door there!