Slashdot Mirror
Solar-Powered Plane Makes Runway Debut
MikeChino writes "The much-hyped Solar Impulse airplane just completed its first runway test, paving the way for a 20-to-25-day trip around the world next year. Conceived by Bertrand Piccard, the single-pilot plane successfully used its four solar powered motors to taxi around the runway. If all goes according to plan the plane will be able to fly day and night without fuel, signaling a bright future for solar-powered flight."
would have to factor in wind resistance from the giant wings, but that's cross sectional area, I thought, that causes drag, so if you made the wings really thin...
If the weight ratio is too great, you could simply have two planes and suspend the pilot on a line between the wings.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Da*nit, I want to get on a Zeppelin in say Toronto and spend 2-3 days cruising leisurely (which a nice train style sleeper-cabin, restaurant and bar, free wi-fi of course) to Europe, ideally with service running on an a day that is modified in length in order to reduce jet lag once I get there. If travel were civilized spending more time doing it would be ok. Case in point: Life lessons from an ad man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oNHD41MLMk
But a manned plane would be pretty neat. Hope it has enough batteries for the night - the solar UAV does a lot of gliding, which might not be possible with a heavier aircraft actually attempting to get somewhere.
RTFS!
"If all goes according to plan the plane will be able to fly day and night without fuel, signaling a bright future for solar-powered flight."
We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
we definitely need more and more of that kind of solutions, not sure though if such solar planes will make it info mainstream
If the weight ratio is too great, you could simply have two planes and suspend the pilot on a line between the wings.
Probably necessary in more northern latitudes such as Europe, but in Africa I reckon one plane could easily carry the pilot.
Have a look where the design team and the sponsors come from.
It crashed in 2003 in the Pacific Ocean :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pages_from_64317main_helios-3.jpg
Unexplainably, it stopped the project. I still wonder why.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Yes I realised my mistake about one ohnosecond after I posted that.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
suspend the pilot on a line between the wings.
What? Held under the dorsal guiding struts?
This guy isn't insightful, he is a twit.
Not all planes are passenger planes. This plane would be perfect for unmanned or long range observation. Carrying all your fuel aboard becomes incredibly expensive the longer your range has to be. This plane solves that by refueling constantly while inflight.
Insightful? No, short-sighted, yes.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You'd need some place to put the solar panels, which will also put a lower limit on wing surface, because there's a minimum amount of energy you'll need.
Then due to this plane not exactly flying at 900 kph, you'd need short wings to prevent it from stalling due to the wind movement created by flying over a cow that's thinking about farting.
So you need a minimum wing surface, and you need a relatively short wing. Your only choice is going wide.
Now add to that that the maximum weight of the plane is obviously very limited (and you already have the pilot, so you add 300 pounds for safety). In essence those enormous wingspan cannot be supported by a structure that's internal to the wing, as that would add too much weight. So you have 3 cockpits : 1 manned, 2 unmanned. 3 planes "loosely" connected (some sort of elastic bands, apparently).
So you get this plane : it's really 3 planes connected to eachother at the wingtips. This is necessary due to low-speed flying and the need to collect energy. Before you ask about making a jetliner carrying 300 people solar-powered ... does it really need to be stated that's not going to happen ? It would need a wingspan of several miles, and would fly perhaps 100-150 kph.
The real reason these planes are getting built is their potential to replace satellites, and even cell towers. Once we have commercial autonomous planes that can keep flying for 10 years at, say, 15 km height we don't need satellites anymore. Furthermore, these planes would be satellites that have other advantages, like the fact that they can actually operate with an antenna gain less than 500 (no need for dishes). They would not introduce a significant delay (satellite communication low-earth-orbit adds somewhere near 300 msec transit time, geostationary ones add close to a second. Nobody, even non-gamers, like pingtimes more than a second).
And best of all : they're mobile. Can you imagine ? Some 3rd world or muslim dictator decides to grow some brains and steps down. The parliament votes to create a communications infrastructure, and asks $carrier to do so. Carrier launches 30 (or whatever number required) of these planes from a location deep within the united states, and 5 days later the entire country is covered in a completely functional cell phone network that does not require uplinks (beyond the planes themselves). The same network provides internet and television services. Whether a carrier needs to provide coverage in central manhattan or northeast pakistan, the infrastructure deployment process is identical : just build the plane. No permission (beyond countrywide flight permission that is), no pulling fiber, no renting roof space, no ...
And the military applications are equally great. Want to attack a country ? How about a permanent rocket launch basis in the sky that does not ever need to come down ?
Well, a plane is just a flying car after all...
Actually, a car is a badly designed plane. Just try driving one off a cliff, and you'll see what I mean.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Well, this solar plane isn't so much a plane as it is a motor glider given the wingspan and aspect ratio. The motor is just enough to get it off the ground and help gain altitude when thermals and other updraft conditions are not present. Gliders seem to fly just fine and they have a zero power-to-weight ratio, so that argument is a bit naive. Gliders can also be fairly fast given the right conditions: there are high-performance glider races where the gliders fly around 200 knots over a course of about 180 nautical miles (although I wouldn't say the particular aircraft in this article would be a "high performance" aircraft).
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Relax, it's just for research. They're not saying that it'll completely replace all airplane technology, or even that it will ever displace current jet fuel models - it's just something that's worthy of being looked into. Instead of asking ourselves if we can use this to fuel a jumbo jet, let's start with a simpler engineering problem and see if it's practical for powering, say, a 4-passenger private vehicle. Or maybe an unmanned drone for non-passenger purposes.
What is important about this is that if they can show that it's practical and stimulate some interest, then maybe they can get more funding and attention. That's why they have these prototype designs and demos - not cause they think it'll solve every energy-related problem the world faces. Sure, not every new, 'promising' technology ever turns out to be as great as we expect them to be; but if they weren't labeled as such, those few that actually have a chance of being viable would never receive attention.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
I was in the Louvre looking at the old French crown jewels when I heard someone read the display: "Fifty-four THOUSAND carats!?!?! WOW!"
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Hydrogen is an energy transmission device, it's never been a SOURCE of energy. We can't "mine" hydrogen or produce it out of nothing.
Uh, yeah, that's what I said, asshole. We lose around 5% of our electrical power in transmission in this country (including conversion related to transmission.) The efficiency of hydrogen through electrolysis is under 60% in basically all real-world cases. Can you see why Hydrogen is fucking stupid, given that it is prohibitively expensive (in terms of energy cost) to make, and that the other forms of hydrogen ARE in effect mined, since again we make most of it from Natural Gas? Which, BTW, comes from wells, we don't make it. We crack the hydrogen out of natural gas in conceptually much the same way we crack the useful hydrocarbons from crude before we burn them in our cars.
You could make the argument that hydrogen electrolysis would work for solar or wind farms to store generated energy, but I have no idea how efficient that would be. I'd imagine it would need to be on a very large scale to be worth it.
Maglev-bearing flywheels are cheaper to build, easier to contain (bury them) and more efficient to store power in. Hydrogen is a boondoggle looking for justification. The only case I can think of where it would actually be useful is in fork lifts, where it would be even cleaner than running them on propane. The problem there is that flywheels need a lot of counterweight and as such are perfect candidates for counterrotating flywheels, which can be spun up rapidly with a variety of technologies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, hydrogen has very good energy density by mass (the best of any chemical fuel). By volume, it's very poor. That's why you see hydrogen used as a fuel for rockets (where mass matters much more than volume), but not aircraft. A commercial airliner running on hydrogen would require a huge insulated tank that would add lots of weight and drag; you can't just tuck the fuel into the wings like you can with jet-A. It may become usable for small aircraft, but I don't think you'll see it used for anything larger (except maybe super-high-altitude UAVs and exotic hypersonic vehicles).
However, I do agree that biomass-based synthetic fuels will be far more prevalent in the future. Assuming we don't try to force the use of inefficient food crops for production through heavy-handed government and lobbyist actions (coughcorncough), and instead focus on using mroe efficient plants, algae, and leftover/waste biomass, it will likely work out. I know that there are already a few promising replacements for piston-engine avgas and diesel and jet fuel under development, and I think such things are a far better investment of funds for several reasons. They are essentially carbon-neutral once applied on a large scale, they eliminate strategic and economic dependence on politically volatile nation-state cartel members, and they are essentially "drop-in" replacements for current fuels, allowing current infrastructure to be used and changed over much more cheaply than drastic changes.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
You'd figure the holier-than-thou would be the ones to find out what the world's standard was and slavishly adhere to it, proclaiming all the while how superior it is, and how anyone who clings to an outdated system out of convenience or custom is a total moron. I can tell you firsthand the Chinese are baffled when it comes to decimals and commas being the wrong way around.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You didn't look very hard, did you?
TECHNCIAL DATASHEET
Wingspan: 63,40 m
Length: 21,85 m
Height: 6,40 m
Weight: 1 600 Kg
Motor power: 4 x 10 HP electric engines
Solar cells: 11 628 (10 748 on the wing, 880 on the horizontal stabilizer)
Average flying speed: 70 km/h
Take-off speed: 35 km/h
Maximum altitude: 8 500 m (27 900 ft)
http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/documents/challenge_solar.php?lang=en&group=challenge