Boeing Gets $89M To Build Drone That Can Fly For 5 Years Straight

coondoggie writes "One of the more unique unmanned aircraft concepts took a giant step toward reality this week when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency inked an agreement with Boeing to build the SolarEagle, a plane capable of remaining at heights above 60,000ft for over five years. Boeing says the first SolarEagle under the $89 million contract could fly as early as 2014."

Comments

5 Years?

[oldspewey]

I hope David Bowie is writing the mission soundtrack.

Re:5 Years?

[Locke2005]

I think Alan Parson's "Eye In The Sky" would be more appropriate...

Re:5 Years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Judas Priest - Electric Eye ....would be awesomer.

Re:5 Years?

[geekprime]

Can you say wifi access point in the sky?

Re:5 Years?

[mcgrew]

"Ground control to Major Tom
Check ignition engines on"
- David Boeing

Although it sounds more like STOS -- "Our five year mission: to boldly go where no man has gone before."

Re:5 Years?

[oldspewey]

Looks like I'm going to have to post the reference.

Sigh ... I feel old now.

Re:5 Years?

[mlts]

That does make me curious... what embedded OS would something like this run? A version of INTEGRITY RTOS is probably my guess.

Re:5 Years?

[emptycorp]

Can you say spying on americans without warrants?

Re:5 Years?

[KingAlanI]

David Bowie, "Five Years".
To be fair, that does seme to be one of his deep cuts.
I myself had never heard it before now. :)

Re:5 Years?

[geekprime]

They already do that.
The good news is that the noise level is so high they can't find a goddamn thing AND they aren't smart enough to figure out that less is more.

Skyhook

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have named it Skyhook.

SEE!

[blhack]

Isn't it frustrating that the military never encourages the development of new technology?

I cannot think of a single civilian use for something like this, and definitely not a use for any of the derivative technologies. /sarcasm...because, well, nerdgasm

Re:SEE!

[Tragek]

Haha. Indeed. Almost certainly significantly cheaper than your average satellite, while giving a flexibility not available in satellites.

Out of curiosity, is 60,000 feet high enough to avoid commercial airliner traffic? IE, would these things need to hook into Air Traffic Control?

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually doesn't. This is one example where it fails too...

    1. First solar-plane concept was demonstrated by NASA *years ago*, for example as a vehicle for a mars probe.
    2. DARPA takes it and "invents" its own version
    3. Slashdot people post how great military spending is.

So what is this for? Espionage and recon. Civilian use? Surveillance society. Nothing really beyond that.

And no, there is no derivative use of any of the technologies. Why? Because it is not new technology. It's already *here*.

Re:SEE!

[localman57]

At 60,000 feet, i don't think it makes any difference. The odds of a collision are so slim as to be negligible. When you see planes colide it's almost exclusively at low altitude in congested areas (e.g. airports or tourist sight-seeing).

Re:SEE!

[oldspewey]

Most commercial air traffic flies between 29,000ft - 39,000ft. I think there are one or two private jets that are certified to fly as high as 52,000ft. At 60,000ft it's just military traffic.

Re:SEE!

[TubeSteak]

Out of curiosity, is 60,000 feet high enough to avoid commercial airliner traffic? IE, would these things need to hook into Air Traffic Control?

Commercial jetliners are certified to around 45,000 ft and some of the business class jets can go a bit over 50,000 ft.

Either way, 60,000 feet is high enough that the only things you have to worry about are military aircraft and stray weather balloons, because 60,000 feet is where Class A airspace tops out.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is since we don't have Concorde anymore.

Re:SEE!

[blhack]

It's already *here*.

That is absolutely fantastic news. Could you point me at a place where I could buy one?

The reality is that the derivative technologies are not always things like "we need to invent a solar panel", they're not even "we need to invent light composites", they're "we need to figure out a way of quickly producing these exotic materials on a large enough skill to fill the demand that the military is going to have for these.".

Re:SEE!

[radtea]

Isn't it frustrating that the military never encourages the development of new technology?

Isn't it sad that new tech that might as easily be developed for peaceful uses only gets funded by idiots who think that killing people is the first, best solution to any problem instead of what it transparently is: the worst one?

Why not fund these things through a civilian agency like NASA? Why does killing people, which is known to be the most awesomely inefficient, ineffective means of solving problems, get almost all the cash?

Note to the logically disabled: I have not said "violence never solves anything", I've said that it demonstrably is an inefficient, ineffective means of solution to virtually all problems of large-scale conflicts.

Ask any economist if war is ever rational, and they will almost certainly tell you it isn't. There are always ways that all parties can resolve their legitmate conflicts to the greater benefit of everyone.

So thumping your chest and triumphally telling me that "war ended evil XYZ!" is not an argument. To make an argument you have to present the case that there was no other way evil XYZ could have been ended, or that the alternatives would have done more harm than war. With regard to WWII, for example, it is not clear to me that a few decades of containment of the kind used against the USSR wouldn't have solved the problem with far less loss of life and property than war produced.

You are free to disagree: I can certainly see the point is arguable. But simply stating, "We did this with war therefore this could only be done with war" is not an argument, any more than saying "I drive screws with a hammer therefore a hammer is the only way to drive screws" is an argument.

Now let the mod-war begin! (My anti-violence posts seem to wander all over the place, typcially resulting in "-1, Insightful" outcomes, which amuses me no end, knowing I'm offending the losers.)

Re:SEE!

[hedwards]

Indeed, IIRC, when planes are at cruising altitude they are segregated by direction so that they aren't likely to hit each other even without a lot of gizmos. It isn't until you get to lower altitudes near airports or in unregulated airspace that such accidents become much more frequent.

Re:SEE!

[hedwards]

Well, what other aircraft can stay aloft for that long without being in orbit? That's the important bit, well that and it being somewhat mass produced.

Re:SEE!

[h4rr4r]

Transatlantic flights are normally around 40k-45k feet.

Re:SEE!

[MarkGriz]

Isn't it frustrating that the military never encourages the development of new technology?

Joke's on DARPA though..... Boeing is gonna spend that $89 mil on hookers & blow, since they know the world ends 2 years before they have to deliver it.

Re:SEE!

[commodore64_love]

I'd like Boeing to design a solar-powered car like this. Even if it only goes 25mph, being able to go to work without burning money... oops I mean gasoline would be great.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it sad that new tech that might as easily be developed for peaceful uses only gets funded by idiots who think that killing people is the first, best solution to any problem instead of what it transparently is: the worst one?

I don't endorse needless wars, and you will find that your statement does not characterize the military. The fact of the matter is that history has shown that humans resort to violence and oppression. If you are too pusillanimous to face that fact you are doomed to a life of servitude. How do you think American independence was won? What would you have done against Hitler's rise? Written him a sternly-worded letter?

We live in a finite planet with very limited resources. When the time comes, how do you propose we secure our freedom (or the remnants of it) and our very survival?

Your sentiments are too idealistic and in the long run will result in your destruction. The world isn't run by pacifists like you. When push comes to shove, there will be war.

I'm not a warmonger, but I'm not so naive as to think that my security can be ensured through diatribe alone. Military might is but one facet of our defenses.

Re:SEE!

[vought]

Several answers and none is quite right.

Commercial and civilian jets all have certified ceilings that vary depending on the weight, balance, of the aircraft and length of the cruise, headwinds, weather, etc.

Most comercial jetliners can cruise at 36-40,000 feet. The Concorde cruised higher, at around 60-62,000 feet.

Additionally, commercial jets usually stick to well-known routes directed by ATC. Spacing for height and distance is variable.

Re:SEE!

[AllergicToMilk]

Commercial traffic is usually around 30,000 - 35,000 feet.

Re:SEE!

[oldspewey]

Interesting ... I've never been on a flight (during which the pilot announced the cruising altitude or I had access to flight data via seatback entertainment system) higher than 37K, and I've been on various transcontinental flights, transatlantic flights, and transpacific flights.

Re:SEE!

[magarity]

is 60,000 feet high enough to avoid commercial airliner traffic?
 
60k and above is what is called class E airspace and the rules are very simple for class E: It's up to you not to run into anyone else. Except for the occasional SR71 and U2, nothing regularly flies at this altitude (some fighter aircraft can go this high if they have to but they don't just cruise around for the heck of it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)#Class_E
 
PS - most commercial airliners aren't rated for even 40K, nevermind 60. At 60, you can see the curvature of the earth out the window so it would be really cool to actually get to take a flight that could handle it.

Re:SEE!

[JTsyo]

With regard to WWII, for example, it is not clear to me that a few decades of containment of the kind used against the USSR wouldn't have solved the problem with far less loss of life and property than war produced.

How about those that live in the contained area? Sometimes you have to pay the price and do what's right.

Wars these days aren't profitable since we're doing it wrong. It the old days, after you won you got the loot the defeated nations. How do you think Iraq would have made out if the rest of the world didn't intervene in Kuwait? These days the wars are over ideas more than resources or wealth. Not saying war is the right answer but playing a bit of devil's advocate.

Re:SEE!

[icebike]

At 60,000ft it's just military traffic.

And damned little of that.

Currently in the US fleet only F15 F22 and F35 have announced service ceilings in excess of 60,000ft. (Some f15s can achieve 98,000ft (ballisticly).

The experimental Russian P-1, Sukhoi and Su 27, and perhaps a few others could operate up there.

But there is otherwise nothing up that high on a routine basis.

50,000 feet is easily within reach of missiles. So other than areas where there is already full air dominance, I would not expect to see these in combat situations. As a communications and surveillance platform it holds a lot of promise.

Re:SEE!

[MozeeToby]

they're "we need to figure out a way of quickly producing these exotic materials on a large enough skill to fill the demand that the military is going to have for these.".

And then the military contract is fulfilled and there's a high-tech, extremely niche product factory just sitting there waiting to be re-purposed. There's also the knowledge of how to set up a large scale manufacturing facility to create those materials. Basically, there's another tool in the company's toolbox and when the next problem pops up the new knowledge and abilities might just be able to solve it better than the old ones. That's how derivative technologies make it to the market.

Re:SEE!

[vux984]

At 60, you can see the curvature of the earth out the window so it would be really cool to actually get to take a flight that could handle it.

I'm sure at 60 you can see the curvature much more dramatically, but you can see the curvature just fine at 40k too. The view from the cockpit (back when children and such were -gasp- invited to see the cockpit) it was particularly apparent. These days you'd probably need to be on a private jet to get more than a port-hole view though.

Cite: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39

Re:SEE!

[bchernicoff]

Your own wikipedia link defines Class E airspace completely differently than you have.

Re:SEE!

[TheWizardTim]

PPS at 60K your blood begins to boil if you lose cabin pressure. The SR71 and U2 pilots wear full pressure suits, combat pilots that could go to this altitude don't go for long. Might do it to try and outrun a jet that can't climb to this height. If they were to lose cabin pressure, it would not matter too much that they are wearing O2 masks.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absolutely fantastic news. Could you point me at a place where I could buy one?

Tech for stuff like U235 bomb is old and well known, yet you can't but it. Same thing with a solar plane, you can't but it because it is useless so no one makes it.

quickly producing these exotic materials on a large enough skill to fill the demand that the military is going to have for these.

It is not going to be quickly produced. And it is not exotic materials.

This isn't some "magic science". It is tech that is already here and developed that will be used to build a flying wing.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-034-DFRC.html

^^ original concept. The entire current project is banking on continued improvement of batteries from non-military sector. There is *nothing* in this where the military complex gives anything back or develops anything. All they do is take stuff from NASA + commercial improvements over the years and you buy it as "military innovation".

Re:SEE!

[h4rr4r]

Last Christmas my hop across the pond the pilot put ATC chatter right on one of the audio program channels. I could be mixing up the altitude maybe.

Re:SEE!

[Acapulco]

Actually, wars are very profitable nowadays. Even more so than before as I see it.

In ye olden days you got the loot, some land, some slaves, tributes...and that's about it. Today you get to run a full military-industrial complex for years. Besides the oil and other "loot" you might get, you also get a lot of political power, influence over other nation's economies, a boost to your own. You can even get some political and control advantage at home 'cause you get to have more leverage in passing unpopular laws (e.g. anti-terrorist laws, increased airport/seaport/land security laws, privacy-invading laws, etc).

I've even read a few articles/opinions that state that most of the US economy nowadays is partially direct and very much so indirectly dependent on wars. And it makes sense if you do a bit of research on the 50+ wars and conflicts the US has been in in the past century. Where do you think that humongous Defense budget goes? I find it very hard to believe that the DoD is stock-piling wads of cash. In war-time you get the huge advantage of being able to leverage people's fear into paying more war-related taxes or just getting general approval for increasing the DoD's budget. That money in turn gets spent on hundreds of thousands of soldiers, defense contractor's employees, etc. This in turn activates the economy because people have more money to spend, and so on.

I'm not sure about it, but I've even heard about how WW2 helped the US get out of the Great Depression among other factors.

So yes, I believe Wars are VERY profitable nowadays.

Re:SEE!

[Wyatt Earp]

Service celling of a 777 is 43,000, same for A-380 and 787.

My cousin is an airline pilot, CRJs and now A-320s and they generally fly at 41,000

Re:SEE!

[Tiger4]

Controlled airspace ends at 60,000 feet. You are on your own. Above that is technically outside air traffic control purview, although radar coverage goes well up to and beyond 100k. They can see you, they just won't talk to you ;-)

Re:SEE!

[Wyatt Earp]

From your link - "In most areas of the United States, Class E airspace extends from 1,200 feet (370 m) AGL up to but not including 18,000 feet (5,500 m) MSL, the lower limit of Class A airspace."

There are no classes of airspace that match your definition from that link

Re:SEE!

[electrostatic]

Go USA! Five year in the sky totally kicks ass.

The LCD screen I'm looking at is made in China. It's a safe bet yours is too.

My laptop is made in China.
My cellphone is made in China.
My MP3 players are made in China.
My CS, DVD and Blu-Ray players are made in China.
My Roku box is made in China.
My media-center electronic equipment is made in China.
My Samsung HDTV is made in Korea.
My new refrigerator is made in China.
My Canon camcorder is made in Japan.
My cordless phone is made in China.
My USB hard drives are assembled in China.
My CFL replacement light bulbs are made in China.
My new kitchen appliances and serving ware are made in China.

My electric toothbrush is made in China.
And the list goes on...

Re:SEE!

[WNight]

idiots who think that killing people is the first, best solution to any problem instead of what it transparently is: the worst one?

That's the problem with standing armies. Why bother building it if you're not going to use it?

Why does killing people, which is known to be the most awesomely inefficient, ineffective means of solving problems, get almost all the cash?

Defense gets a lot of focus because if you can't defend yourself nobody is going to care what your opinion is. Only when they can't walk over you will they bother to talk. Not that the defense needs to be killing machines. It needs to be chosen in response to the actual threats.

There are always ways that all parties can resolve their legitmate conflicts to the greater benefit of everyone.

Some problems aren't for solving. Hitler didn't have a problem with the Jews/gays/etc that talking would help.

With regard to WWII, for example, it is not clear to me that a few decades of containment of the kind used against the USSR wouldn't have solved the problem with far less loss of life and property than war produced.

The soviets killed millions of "their" people while we had them bottled up. Also they developed nukes and weren't really very bottled.

If we'd left the Nazis in Poland(? France? Most of Europe?) and tried to bottle them up, even if effective, it would have led to the complete extermination of their victims.

Ask any economist if war is ever rational, and they will almost certainly tell you it isn't.

If there's a cheaper way of solving the problem, no. And a vast majority of times there is. But some people set out to kill others for "no good reason" and as such can't be talked out of it.

Note also that asking an economist about the value of human life is likely to get you a useless answer.

I think we should turn most of our armed forces into a national guard. For real defense - not attacking. And turn most of the rest into peace-keepers who we let the world have a large say in the distribution of, to keep actual peace and not enforce our favorite warlords, to make the world a safer place and generally reduce the chance of needing to go to war.

I see North Korea's dictator (and others) as a threat we shouldn't leave. He kills "his" own people and holds the lives of millions of SKs hostage (as well as some actual SK and Japanese kidnap victims) to keep his position. We don't leave armed snipers in the mall simply because it's cheaper than sending someone in to get them. The problem is that because he's declared himself the head of a sovereign state our governments feel compelled to go to war instead of acting against him and his power structure directly (or they feel they'd endorse a shoot-the-leader policy) so even if we did anything we won't do it without killing tens of thousands of draftees and bombing civilians - and then we'd probably just put the dictator in jail.

Re:SEE!

[arkane1234]

I can see the curvature of the earth on top of a local mountain at 12,000 feet, so 60k feet is only going to be an exaggerated version of that.
I can attest to that from the 12,000 feet skydives, as well.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, is 60,000 feet high enough to avoid commercial airliner traffic? IE, would these things need to hook into Air Traffic Control?

Yes! Most commercial traffic is between 30,000 and 35,000 feet; and of course, below. Rarely is there ever any traffic above 35,000. Above 35,000 is almost exclusively military territory.

Re:SEE!

[Wyatt Earp]

War ended the systematic murder of Jews, Roma and Homosexuals in Europe.

Explain how the Nazi government was going to rationally treat the Slavs, Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, mentally ill and genetically defective people in Western and Central Europe.

By advocating isolation of Germany, Finland, Italy, etc, you'd condem millions of people to terrible fates just because.

The idea that "there are always ways that all parties can resolve their legitmate conflicts to the greater benefit of everyone," was thrown out the door and stomped on by Hitler following the partition of Czechoslovakia.

Would Blacks in the American south have been better served by decades more slavery?

Re:SEE!

[timeOday]

50,000 feet is easily within reach of missiles. So other than areas where there is already full air dominance, I would not expect to see these in combat situations.

When was the last combat situation where the US did not establish air dominance within a week or two? 40 years ago in Vietnam?

The main disadvantage of these compared to satellites is they're no good overhead nations you're not (yet) at war with, since airspace is sovereign territory.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the main problems above FL400-ish (which is 40.000 feet on a normal day) is that the time of useful consciousness, when a sudden decompression were to occur, is measured in seconds rather than minutes. Meaning you have just a handful of seconds to put on that oxygen mask before you pass out.

If you go to the FL500 region (50.000 feet) there's actually a limit above which one of the pilots has to wear a full-face oxygen mask at all times so that he can initiate a rapid descent. Because the rest of the occupants will be passed out before they can even comprehend what's going on and reach for the mask.

At FL600 and above you need to wear a space suit to survive a sudden decompression.

As far as I know, the FAA does not provide any service to aircraft above FL600. NASA does. The fact that it's class E is totally irrelevant because you can't reach it, practically speaking, without an IR, an IFR clearance and RVSM capability, and there's no traffic to be separated from anyway. So for all practical purposes they could've classified it as A or G, or anything in between, and it would not make a difference to anybody up there.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcWSI03NKo0

to paraphrase "it's just the batteries that need to improve"

Re:SEE!

[StarfishOne]

James May, a presenter on the BBC car show "Top Gear" did a documentary called "James May On the Moon".

In this documentary he took a ride on a U2 spy plane. And what an awesome view you get on those altitudes!

See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PmYItnlY5M

Re:SEE!

[icebike]

Exactly so. (Although Iraq took longer than two weeks in spite of the fact that we had been overflying the country for years. US aircraft were getting shot at well after the time the announcement of air superiority was declared).

But again, this brings us to speculation of what might be the main use of these things.

Com and surveillance. For 5 years? I suspect even the Taliban would have found a way to sneak a missile in over the course of 5 years for something up there 24/7 flying semi predictable patterns of slow flight. (And how could it be anything other than slow since its probably going to be relying on solar power for most of that 5 years).

These seem more likely to be used for domestic surveillance or perhaps Sea surveillance than any thing else. Drug interdiction. Border monitoring. Radar control.

5 years is forever.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the link:

The airspace above FL600 is also Class E.

What do you think FL600 is?

Re:SEE!

[Cytotoxic]

But your condoms are made in the USA!

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's make a checklist and weigh the points.

On one hand;
1. It should steer easier than a satellite, more flexible.
2. doesn't need an expensive rocket launch.
3. Greenest airplane I can think of

On the other hand:
1. Probably next best thing to vaporware since actually getting off paper and into a working 3 dimensional object that works as advertised is sloooooooow.
2. Boeing is manned by union labor who really couldn't give a shit if it works or not since that takes up thought processing time better left for things like, bargaining for more undeserved pay, figuring out how to foist your work off on underlings, filing grievances against those whose positions you want, stealing tools and raw materials for that hobby race car in the garage, finding a place to drink, smoke,screw,defecate without the shop steward finding out...etc.
3. Putting two bureaucracies to work on one project...well...need I say more.

Re:SEE!

[holmstar]

Damn it... I envy James May's work life. Fast cars, toys, spy planes...

Re:SEE!

[countertrolling]

I cannot think of a single civilian use for something like this...

I can. If this thing can stay in the air for 5 years, imagine how long it can keep you trapped inside waiting on the tarmac without having to pull into the gate.

Re:SEE!

[siddesu]

Yes, it is frustrating.

Imagine all that money going into research that is not tied to the need to kill people and maintain a rigid command structure and comparative advantage in violence.

Imagine the priorities are decided not by the perception of the next imagined military threat or "need".

Then you'll begin to understand what Eisenhower was talking about.

FYI, the US taxpayer has been swindled into shelling out at least 50 or 60 times more than necessary to create a credible response to the Soviet nuclear threat. Imagine all that money going into useful science ...

Mineshaft gap indeed.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom must be universal, otherwise it is no true freedom, and if we are to prevail as a species, we shouldn't waste the little resources we have in fighting wars.

Guess what: there is no "true freedom". You're coming close to a "True Scotsman" fallacy anyway.

Re:SEE!

[Anynomous Coward]

I'll do you one better still. Looking out over the sea at the beach (0ft MSL) you can see that the horizon is not a straight line. It's subtle, but noticable.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be necessary because of peak oil. I hope it's used to carry passengers. Wouldn't count on it though.

What would you want permanently in the sky? Clouds, or the ability to make them would be one answer.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk of our freedom and our survival, so who are they?
Since all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, their freedom should be the same as our freedom, no?

Some highfalutin words that don't mean much, eh? The world population nears 7 billion. Barring major technological innovation (think Star Trek replicator), there isn't enough resources to satisfy a consumption level anything above poverty. You speak of us and them, as if the concept is foreign to you...

It is plain as day what it means. Humans are tribal. Blood ties are the considered extremely important. Ask any parent if he'd kill someone to secure the safety of his children and he would say 'yes'. It doesn't matter whether this is the most logical thing to do, or the most productive thing to do in the long run. It is what it is.

Humans optimization is both selfish and local. Greedy algorithms are apt to find the global worst solution. Plan for it, expect it.

Re:SEE!

[definate]

And all we had to do was set aside disproportionate amounts of capital and give extreme leniency to their entire budget. What a bargain!

It's weird that this is apparently such a beneficial vehicle, but for some reason nobody has created one before this. I guess we in the non-military world, just totally don't get it. But once the military spends an inordinate amount of money, then we'll realize that this is super beneficial, and that if they hadn't of done it, that we should have.

*I was being sarcastic above*

Your discussion and others in this thread about the value of this sort of technology, is extremely simplistic, and basically treats the military as some exogenous entity which doesn't affect us. Even lowering the scope to only this project, and ignoring its other budget problems, you're still not considering the total cost, and might be too enthusiastic about its benefits.

Re:SEE!

[timeOday]

Agreed for the most part, except I'm not so sure the Taliban could reach 60,000 feet. The stinger missile, for example, reaches 26,000 feet. The SA-7, only 5000 feet, the SA-16 and SA-18, 11,000 feet. What defence could the Taliban possibly mount?

Re:SEE!

[Mspangler]

It sounds like a Boucher Daytripper communications relay, which played a small part in the book Single Combat by Dean Ing.

Published in 1983. I found my copy and looked. The fictional one reached 130,000 by the end of the day, and dropped to 60,000 ft at night.

Reality is catching up to fiction again.

Re:SEE!

[icebike]

Realistically, its the remotest of possibilities that the Taliban could attack one of these aircraft unless their Iranian friends wanted them to.

Even the ancient Sa-5 Gammon missiles that Iran has in quantity are capable of reaching that altitude, and portable enough to transport across a porous border.

Highly unlikely I admit, but then 5 years with one of these aircraft peeking over their borders 24/7 might just goad Iran into such a "loan".

There is some Slant Range Radar imagery from 86km away taken from Global Hawk on page 50 of this document. The actual maximum range of the full sensor package is still classified, but that image of Lake Success Dam had more than enough resolution to show major troop movements.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. I thought high level debt of Germany was what triggered the WWII in the first place.

Re:SEE!

[Idiomatick]

DARPA is cool. I'd say the majority of new tech to come from military spending is DARPA. And they get 3 billion a year. That is like what? A bit less than half the cost of one boat to the military? (Seriously... the US spends over 8billion dollars on a single aircraft carrier).

So.... the US spends roughly 1 trillion per year on the military. And DARPA 0.3% of that pie. And then from that .3% some of it trickles into civilian projects, possibly after more than a decade of red tape. Really, I think there might be room for some increase in efficiency there.

Re:SEE!

[Idiomatick]

Not war gave Canada its independence. And ended slavery and gave black people rights. It did the same in most countries in the world. In the states, not war gave women and blacks the right to vote. Not war gave gays rights. And I believe to some extent not war ended slavery in the American south (13th amendment?)

Your argument is an emotional grab (appeal to emotion fallacy). And is a fallacy of choice. Perhaps in some situations war is the only answer. But it is not the answer in the vast vast majority of situations.

Willing to bet any amount of money that civvie tech research has saved way more lives than war has (and thats IF you ignore the deaths war causes).

Re:SEE!

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Concorde could reach 60k.

An SR71 got diverted once because of this. The SR71 was flying somewhat faster, but Concorde's passengers were munching canapés and drinking Champagne, and her pilots were only a little less comfortable ;-)

Sadly, both are now grounded.

There's still a few English Electric Lightnings flying in South Africa, they can do 60k, and they're demilitarised.

Re:SEE!

[Kagura]

I don't live in a condo.

Re:SEE!

[robot256]

I don't live in a condom, either.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Certification is not practical use. Few commercial/private planes ever travel above 40,000 or so; and then only maybe on trans-continental flights to avoid weather or to hop a big tail wind. The vast majority travels between 30,000 and 35,000 feet.

Re:SEE!

[Wyatt Earp]

Yes, in the British Empire and Commonwealth slavery ended quicker for most, but look at the plight of the Australian Aboriginal people, are you telling me that their oppression by the British and Australian governments and people were just fine? That they'd not have been better off if they'd been able to resist and fight for their territory and rights?

While the American Indians were defeated, being able to resist and fight, sometimes winning a battle and even a war like Red Cloud's War, lead to positive outcomes and stronger positions. American Indian tribes didn't suffer from Stolen Generations like the people of Australia did.

American Blacks did get the right to vote with war, the end of the American Civil War gave the Blacks the right to vote, the end of military occupation eroded that right and lead to Jim Crow, which was a regional and state issue, not a Federal one. Near insurrection in the 1960s, not peaceful protest lead to the Voters Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.

The 13th Amendment was politically viable and enforceable precisely because of the American Civil War, not in spite of it.

Warfare kept the Jewish people from being cast out of Palestine in 1948, not negotiation. Remember negotiation failed there when the Arabs decided to push the Jews into the sea.

Likewise revolt, insurrection and revolution lead to the end of serfdom in Russia, negotiation with Czars didn't end serfdom in Russia.

Re:SEE!

[StikyPad]

most commercial airliners aren't rated for even 40K

Depends on your definition of "most", I guess.. I'd say 45k is a better ceiling.

707 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
720 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
727 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
737-100, -200 max altitude is 35,000 or 37,000 ft.
737-300, -400, -500 max altitude is 37,000 ft.
737-600, -700, -800, -900 max altitude is 41,000 ft.
747 max altitude is 45,100 ft.
757 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
767 max altitude is 43,100 ft.
777 max altitude is 43,100 ft.

FWIW, every transoceanic flight in recent memory (all 747-400s) has been at or just over 40k.

Still a valid point that 60k is quite high.

Re:SEE!

[Phoghat]

50,000 feet is easily within reach of missiles. So other than areas where there is already full air dominance, I would not expect to see these in combat situations. As a communications and surveillance platform it holds a lot of promise.

See U2 Aircraft service ceiling 70,000 feet see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident

Re:SEE!

[AmiMoJo]

Flying London to Tokyo I can see the curvature of the earth at about 11,000m / 36,000 feet. It's only a few degrees but is clearly visible.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

unregulated airspace that such accidents become much more frequent.

Actually, most accidents occurred near navigation aids such as VORs because everyone intersects the navigation device on one of its radials. This is true without regard for their altitude. Now that GPS is ubiquitous, this rarely happens except within controlled airspace, such as for use by IFR traffic. But since this is heavily controlled airspace, this is fairly rare these days.

Re:SEE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Noble sentiment, but that was hardly the goal of WW2.

As a side point, during the times of Stalin and Mao, the number of people "removed" is in the tens of millions if not in the couple hundred million.

Re:SEE!

[korogorov]

Interesting ... I've never been on a flight (during which the pilot announced the cruising altitude or I had access to flight data via seatback entertainment system) higher than 37K, and I've been on various transcontinental flights, transatlantic flights, and transpacific flights.

The Paris-Rio de Janeiro flight from Air France, when done by an Airbus A330, goes most of the time at 41K feet. I know this because I was surprised when I saw this and I thought it to be outside the operational range of the plane. It turns out 41K is precisely the ceiling service of that plane. I've also seen repeatedly altitudes of 39K ft (for example in flights from europe to south asia). BTW, near the equator, the altitude at which a plane can operate is much higher than near the poles, and it is also necessary to fly higher because of the equatorial storms.

Re:SEE!

[hey!]

"there are always ways that all parties can resolve their legitmate conflicts to the greater benefit of everyone," was thrown out the door and stomped on by Hitler following the partition of Czechoslovakia.

That would only be demonstrated by your example if the outcome of WW2 was the best possible outcome for Germany. I'd argue that Hitler's strategy was less than optimal for Germany, since it led to regime change, partition, and territorial loss. That was a less than perfect outcome not only for the nation, but for the regime, so it actually supports the hypothesis that warmongering is irrational.

The interesting question is this: given that Nazi Germany pursued a cynically self-interested policy with respect to rearmament and territorial acquisition through the thirties, why didn't they continue to pursue their self interest when it required moderating their aggressive tendencies?

I'd argue that it's a bit like the entrepreneur who starts a promising business but somehow can't make the transition from start-up to viable business. The skills and culture needed to seize power and begin the acquisition of an empire are different from those needed to run an empire. By 1939 they were locked into behavior that had succeeded brilliantly for them over the past decade at a time when they would have been better served by slowing down. If Hitler had given Chamberlain what Chamberlain promised his people -- "peace in our time" -- if he'd put Poland on the back burner for a few years, he *might* have had a chance to stay in power for decades longer. If he played his cards skillfully, he might have seen a pro-Nazi government in Britain and an anti-communist government in the US that would have welcomed his challenging the expansion of a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

I believe that kind of regime tends to end up riding the tiger. Their need for a steady stream of scapegoats and conquests makes them aggressive and successful in the short term, like cancer.

So it is both true that there is always a better way to settle differences than war, but it is also true that you can't count on people pursuing their rational self interests.

Re:SEE!

[Mr. Slippery]

How do you think American independence was won? What would you have done against Hitler's rise? Written him a sternly-worded letter?

Indian independence was won without war; some have argued that American independence could have been won similarly. I haven't analyzed the issue in depth, so I remain agnostic, but it should be noted that the Founding Fathers envisioned a nation without a standing army, defended by citizen militias. It is interesting that serving in an institution whose existence the Founders saw as anathema is considered a patriotic act these days.

Hitler would not have come to power without the stage being set by WWI. Against his rise I would have suggested 1) not having an age of colonialism and militarism that created a World War; 2) that failing, destroying the German economy and humiliating the German people at the end of the war; 3) that failing, not giving economic and political support to Hitler as he came to power, as in fact many Americans did; 4) that failing, boycotts, limited blockades, and a policy of isolating Germany as it became more militaristic; 5) that failing, as soon as German troops and tanks rolled into Poland, swift but restrained military response, surrounding Germany and the invaded territory, total and complete blockade.

When the time comes, how do you propose we secure our freedom (or the remnants of it) and our very survival?

I propose we cooperate with other human beings as much as we can, with an aim to make us all free and all survive. "Us vs. them" thinking is the root of the problem.

Yes, I know there are nutcases out there; I teach martial arts and self-defense classes, so not only do I believe there is a time to open up a can of whoop-ass, I teach people how to do it. But that option should be way down on the list, and most of our energy should be directed at finding ways to avoid having to open up that can.

The U.S. could cut is military budget in half and still outspend any other nation more than three-to-one. Our military spending is 46.5%, nearly half, of the world's total budget for destruction; China is in second place with 6.6%.

Meanwhile, all U.N. programs equal less than 2% of world military spending. If we put half of our current military budget to work on finding ways to feed, clothe, house, cure, and educate people around the world, we could outspend the U.N. 11-to-1 in promoting peace, security, and human welfare, while still maintaining military might that no other nation could challenge -- certainly much more than adequate for defending the nation.

That we choose not do do this, but instead run a military-industrial complex for the benefit of the investment and political classes, occasionally makes me question our survival potential as a species.

Re:SEE!

[Idiomatick]

The jewish people SHOULD have been thrown out of palestine. Jesus christ, you know how much damage Israel's creation has caused? Bunch of fucking terrorists take some land and once established they attack everyone around them with their vast economic advantage. And have since repeatedly caused/incited military action leading to many thousands dead. Their brutal and aggressive strategy has cause all of their neighbours to hate them immensely. Really it is a perfect example of how war fucks things up for DECADES if not centuries at this rate. Seriously.

Also, my entire post is still totally valid. I don't know why you thought that giving a few more examples would be helpful.

Re:SEE!

[Wyatt Earp]

You mean the Jewish people who were there from the time of the Second Jewish Revolt on? Or those who came back and bought their lands back from the Ottoman Empire? Or the ones that settled there during the Mandate? Or the Holocaust survivors who fled from British concentration camps and Eastern European pogroms following the Second World War?

An independent Jewish state, one they tried to get with negotiation, isn't the problem, the real problem is that Jews have the audacity to not let themselves be eliminated from the planet.

Take that mentality to the American Indians, how much better off the American West, southern Mexico and Central America would be if the goddamned Indians had the common sense to just let themselves be thrown off the land mass.

I'm glad you admitted to being an anti-Semite.

Re:SEE!

[Idiomatick]

I am NOT an anti-Semite, plenty of Jewish folk in my neighborhood, in fact I volunteered at a Jewish old folks home a few years ago. I am however anti-Israel as it currently stands, particularly anti-Zionist. The fact that the people conflate a religion a nationality and an ethnicity together is terrifying and rather inconvenient. Could you imagine if the same existed elsewhere? Christian = American = White people. I am not fond of America at times but that doesn't make me racist. The lack of separation is really bad.

You present a rather sad fallacy of choice. The Jewish people can A, flood into the Middle east and slaughter the inhabitants their to carve out an independent state. Or B, get eliminated from the planet. You said "kept the Jewish people from being cast out of Palestine" ... they weren't there yet. Jewish people moved there in droves. It isn't at all similar to the natives of North America who had been there for centuries. A small fraction of jewish people lived there but their numbers multiplied from 1945-1955.

Also I should probably say that I was hasty before. I was thinking of the Six Day war. Not 1948. I'll chalk that up to lack of sleep, and emotions. Apologies.

I mainly blame 1948 on the UN but I think they were in a tough position. The way I feel about it is this: The UN knew that the Jewish people starting shit in the area were a problem. They also came out of the worst conflict of all time with many MILLIONS dead. They were quite aware that no country on the planet would be willing to send troops to foreign lands at that time. And the idea that they would send troops to fight people they supposedly just spent millions of lives to save? Laughable. So the UN did damage control. They basically screwed the Arabs by giving away the arab land to the jewish people. And figured it was the best option they had. It wasn't.

As for the American Indians, how did that work out for them? I hear they are drunks that live in casinos. In Canada where there was far less war we had far less reason to slaughter them and push them into the sea. Through communication we worked some things out. And today they enjoy likely more rights than non-native Canadians. Such as tax benefits and cheap cigarettes. I'm failing to see the benefits of them fighting an unwinnable battle that garnered no concessions from the new US government. Seemed a bit.... or should I say totally counterproductive. Unless it is purely a matter of pride.

Anyways, our opinions aren't really that far off. We both believe war can be useful sometimes. And that for most issues there is probably a better way to deal with things. Full scale nuclear war, likely not a great idea if someone cheats you in a card game. Likewise turning the other cheek while you are being invaded possibly not the best option. I just think there are more options most of the time. And that war is brought on by emotions NOT rational decision. Afghanistan is an example of this.

Re:SEE!

[Wyatt Earp]

I'm an American Indian. 1/4 Prairie Band Potawatomi and I grew up on the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

American Indians have been Vice President of the United States, Senators, cabinet members, generals and business people.

Saying things like "they are drunks that live in casinos" is flat out ignorance. American Indians in the US work, pay taxes, serve in the military and generally are successful. They don't just get "tax benefits and cheap cigarettes."

Not only are you anti-Semitic you are a racist against American Indians. I bet you could go on all day about Blacks and Asians too.

Re:SEE!

[Idiomatick]

And I'm 1/8th Cree... I fail to see what my bloodline matters though.

I meant that the Indian people and culture was wiped out. Fragments remain. But they didn't get to keep any of the things they were fighting for. They lost their land and freedoms. Many lost their lives. They lost their livelihoods. And due to enforced 'education' their children in many cases as well. What benefit did war bring them?

And the people you mention were truly American first Indians. How many of them practice things from their cultural heritage. How many speak the language? That was my point. The position that they have been put in is sad. Indians are slightly tanned white folk, they are not a unified people or a strong distinct culture. Obviously the mixing pot effect was a big part of this. But really. What tangible benefit did war bring them? I'm pretty sure they didn't say '100years from now I hope Natives become average members of YOUR nation'

Also, I do not think that Indians are drunks that live in casinos. I was referring to how they are portrayed. What the stereotype is. I bet that if you asked 100 people to describe natives a pretty sizable chunk would have the word casino in the description.

And to be clear, I'm not fucking racist. I thought you were a war loving douche before I learned you are part Indian. Some of my best friends are black or Asian, I even learned Japanese... which takes a while. You have to be more dedicated than I to learn the language of a group you hate.

Re:SEE!

[Wyatt Earp]

No, American Indians did not lose their culture or freedoms. Are American Indians as a people better off now than they were 200 years ago in the US? Absolutely.

Are they better off in Mexico or Peru than they were 500 years ago? No, not really. The American Indian Wars in the second half of the 19th century were generally low intensity conflicts with low casualty rates. I know the western Indian Wars because thats what I did in grad school and where I grew up, your mileage varies when you look at the eastern Indian Wars from oh, 1750 to 1840.

American Plains Indians retain their religion, if they are interested, we had to take a year of Sioux Religion in a public high school. If their religion or culture were dead, that wouldn't be the case.

Example, Avril Looking Horse is the 19th Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe, they didn't lose that did they? Alaska Natives kept large chunks of their land and that which was taken was paid for which lead the Native Corporations.

Tribes that didn't go to war with the US government in the 19th century did get favorable positions in regards to assistance and had a better shot at keeping their lands, look at the Crow, Hopi and Mandan for examples of that.

Plains Indians tended towards "war loving douche", never forget they were a horse culture first and foremost from 1700 on.

I'm also a damned center-right Likud loving Jew.

more unique

[Anonymous Coward]

Something can't be "more unique." It's unique, or it's not.

Re:more unique

[Anonymous Coward]

—Usage note
Many authors of usage guides, editors, teachers, and others feel strongly that such “absolute” words as complete, equal, perfect, and especially unique cannot be compared because of their “meaning”: a word that denotes an absolute condition cannot be described as denoting more or less than that absolute condition. However, all such words have undergone semantic development and are used in a number of senses, some of which can be compared by words like more, very, most, absolutely, somewhat, and totally and some of which cannot.
The earliest meanings of unique when it entered English around the beginning of the 17th century were “single, sole” and “having no equal.” By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared: The foliage on the late-blooming plants is more unique than that on the earlier varieties. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.
See also a1, complete, perfect.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Re:more unique

[interkin3tic]

Well then how can we show that something is uniquer than something else, but that something else is fairly unique itself?

I guess I could just stick to describing things as uniquest or semi-unique.

Re:more unique

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it should be Uniquer!

Re:more unique

[Jedi Alec]

Simple, just compare how many Stones of Jordan you need to trade for it... :)

Summary Fail

[tirefire]

"More unique"? You can't qualify "unique", it's like saying "more dead" or "more binary".

Hey, where's everybody going?

Re:Summary Fail

[just_another_sean]

Apparently, not necessarily.

Re:Summary Fail

[Darinbob]

This concept is slightly pregnant with potential.

Re:Summary Fail

[Gotung]

You may not be able to be "more dead". But you can be mostly dead.

Re:Summary Fail

[mcgrew]

Hey, where's everybody going?

Trying to get her more pregnant.

Re:Summary Fail

[phantomfive]

It's pretty clear you can. 101110001101010101 is definitely more binary than 10111. Count the digits.

Don't try to outgeek me. There's no more geek. :)

Re:Summary Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun storming the castle.

Re:Summary Fail

[T Murphy]

It makes sense- something unique is different somehow; if it is very different, "more unique" gets that across. Maybe your favorite grammar authority says otherwise, but as long as you are communicating clearly, it works for me.

Re:Summary Fail

[owlstead]

18 to 5

Re:Summary Fail

[Will.Woodhull]

I fully agree with parent.

Each of you is unique... just like everyone else. But then there's Einstein...

So "more unique" is a distinct concept expressed succinctly to cover the Einsteinian cases. It is not logical-- it is in fact an oxymoron-- but it is used in the English language, not PHP, Perl, or any of our other logical languages. Any processor capable of properly parsing spoken English would have less difficulty with 'more unique" than with "there, their, they're". It is good English. Good English is not logical: it is used by entities that are not logical to communicate mostly irrational expressions between themselves. Generally for either arguing, boasting, or while trying to get into someone's pants.

Re:Summary Fail

[StikyPad]

If I'm following you properly, and I think I am, you're saying that you couldn't possibly be more dead than you already are?

If that's so, I applaud you sir, for posting from beyond the grave. A more unique spectacle I have never seen.

Re:Summary Fail

[sincewhen]

You sir, will bring about the downfall of civilisation.

At least 60,000 feet up for five years?

[pushing-robot]

Take $89 million...buy a Falcon 9 launch...pocket the difference.

Satellite replacement?

[Anonymous Coward]

So could this function as a more temporary satellite? Just fly it high and keep it over a certain area and it could perform some of the functions I imagine. Be easier to service/replace too. It would also cut down on all the crap in our orbitals, which is a plus.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it still has to move.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[oldspewey]

On the downside it's well within SAM range, though I imagine it has a pretty small thermal signature so that might present a more difficult target.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[jandrese]

The big advantage is that it can loiter over a particular area for a long time. This is wonderful for something like relaying radio traffic. The problem with satellites is that they're either overhead for only a few minutes at a time, or they're so far away you need a 3 meter dish to communicate through it (not to mention the speed of light starts to become noticeable). It should also be suburb for surveillance work for the same reason: You can have one hang out over a target area for as long as you like, unlike a satellite where you are a slave to orbital mechanics.

The downside is that a slow moving drone, even at very high altitude like that, is pretty easy to shoot down.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[localman57]

Whether or not that's a downside has a great deal to do with your point of view...

Re:Satellite replacement?

[Lanforod]

If that were such a downside, how come AWACs planes don't get shot down? 3 of those have crashed, none have been shot down. I could see these replacing the AWACs if they were large enough to pack a lot of technical equipment in.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[mlts]

I can see these put into use for keeping communications operational, should the Kessler Syndrome come into play making LEO impassible (courtesy nations like China showing off their target practice skills and the resulting space debris).

Another use would be bandwidth for populated areas, so traffic wouldn't have to be bounced off a satellite just for region to region traffic.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[mysidia]

The downside is that a slow moving drone, even at very high altitude like that, is pretty easy to shoot down.

Only if you are looking for it, and you have suitable instruments to detect its position, and something to shoot that can actually go that far up.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[sunking2]

Anything going that high is guided by ground radar. And I'd imagine this thing probably has a huge radar signature.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[hedwards]

It's going to have a thermal signature that is just about zero. It's getting its energy from the sun, which means that it's probably a bit hotter during the day, and probably noticeably so during the night, but still probably a challenge to target.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[thrillseeker]

The downside is that a slow moving drone, even at very high altitude like that, is pretty easy to shoot down.

Not really that easy. One advantage of being that high is that a surface-to-air missile will have expended much of its energy by the time it gets to you - it takes a smaller adjustment on your part to be outside the kill radius. If any of the modern approaches to stealth are incorporated it could be quite difficult to acquire and maintain track on a high altitude target.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[snspdaarf]

If that were such a downside, how come AWACs planes don't get shot down?

On a tour of an AWAC plane at Tinker AFB years ago this same question was raised. The colonel giving the tour smiled and said, "For the same reason the guys announcing the football game don't get run over by the players."

Re:Satellite replacement?

[h4rr4r]

They keep them as far back as possible and as well protected as possible. When was the last time we actually had to even fight for ownership of the sky?

Re:Satellite replacement?

[Tiger4]

"Guided by ground radar"? What do you think this is, 1955 ? We've been using GPS navigation and satellite guidance systems for over 20 years. Send the commands up to the satellite, the satellite retransmits to the aircraft. It works for your home dish TV, and I'd bet Boeing can make the aircraft work at least as well as that.

And I suspect it would be pretty hard to get the target countries to host a US radar guidance system so we can spy on their nation. So "guided by ground radar" has some major operational problems from day one.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[godel_56]

Anything going that high is guided by ground radar. And I'd imagine this thing probably has a huge radar signature.

More likely radio control and GPS.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[Wyatt Earp]

1999, first couple nights of the Serbian War, the Serbs were out numbered and out matched, but they fought hard and since it was such a small theatre it was a struggle.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[arkane1234]

GPS and dish tv satellites are geosynchronous, so they stay in the same spot at all times.
Since we know where they are in the 3 dimensional space, we can easily triangulate. It's hard to have a plane be in that exact of an airspace.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[StikyPad]

I believe it's relative temperature, not absolute, that matters for target acquisition and it's pretty damn cold at 60,000 ft (18km). Depending on the operating temperature of the engine, it might stick out like a sore thumb.

Re:Satellite replacement?

[vbraga]

GPS is not in GEO. GPS is in a Middle Orbit (MEO): about 20200km.

http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/orbits.htm

batteries...

[martas]

i suppose one of the biggest challenges will be developing [lightweight] batteries that can function for 5 years while being dis/recharged every day... i.e. 1800 times. could be tough.

Re:batteries...

[oldspewey]

Hell, give me $89 million and I'll take a crack at figuring the battery problem out.

Re:batteries...

[vbraga]

Just remember satellites already goes through this kind of cycle everyday.

Re:batteries...

[pushing-robot]

So they can keep working after the sun sets?

Re:batteries...

[martas]

uhhh, well, sort of... but: depending on their orbit, "night" can be much more rare/less long than for a plane; due to lack of atmosphere, they get a lot more energy from the sun per sq inch of solar cell than a plane; and last but by far not least, they don't have to fly. mechanical motion is extremely rare for your average satellite. i'd think that changes the problem quite a bit.

Re:batteries...

[h4rr4r]

LiFePo, can I have the money now?

Normally rated for 2,000+ cycles and 5 years sounds pretty reasonable.

Re:batteries...

[CraftyJack]

So they can keep working after the sun sets?

Yep. Or the Earth gets in the way, however you prefer to think of it.

Re:batteries...

[ElectricTurtle]

It may surprise you to realize that sometimes people need satellites to operate on the 'night' side of the terminator. The planet has kind of a big shadow.

Re:batteries...

[myrdos2]

In TFA, they say the energy will be stored in fuel cells.

Re:batteries...

[snowraver1]

No they don't. The satellites that sit at a geo-stationary orbit are far enough out that they get sun almost 100% of the time. The earth is tilted, so much of the year they do get 100% sun. The closer satellites orbit with much shorter period, so they might only have to run on battery power for an hour or less.

Re:batteries...

[martas]

which is just a fancy way of saying "we haven't the foggiest idea how we're gonna store the energy"...

Re:batteries...

[Anonymous Coward]

They use humans as batteries.

Re:batteries...

[butterflysrage]

or, more accurately, when they are in the earth's shadow (not that common in high orbits, but regular for anything in LEO)

Re:batteries...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

ABSL Li+ batteries should do the trick. We did a satellite design with them for a 14 year operational life. You need a ton of them, because they are small capacity. However, they are light enough that it shouldn't be a problem.

Re:batteries...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

It actually depends on your orbit. There are quite a bit of operations LEO satellites that spend a long time in Earth shadow (as in ~6 hours or more). Of course, your orbit is determined by your mission, so, yes, there are definitely some satellites that go through a cycle like this every day, or, for that matter, a few times a day (depending on your period, inclination, RAAN, etc. etc. etc.).

Re:batteries...

[timeOday]

I don't get it either, when the article says "harvesting solar energy during the day that will be stored in fuel cells."

Quoting wikipedia: "Fuel cells are different from conventional electrochemical cell batteries in that they consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished - a thermodynamically open system. By contrast, batteries store electrical energy chemically and hence represent a thermodynamically closed system."

So AFAIK there is no way to "recharge" a fuel cell from solar cells, and it's weird they'd come into it since there are plenty of other rechargeable battery technologies.

Re:batteries...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and this also means they go through many more charge cycles

Re:batteries...

[Anonymous Coward]

At 60,000 feet maybe the aircraft simply power down their engines and glide through the night then regain altitude in the daytime.

Re:batteries...

[ceoyoyo]

A satellite wouldn't get a whole lot more power from the sun than a plane at 60,000 ft. There's not a whole lot of atmosphere to get in the way at that altitude.

Re:batteries...

[smi.james.th]

Presumably though, the idea with this thing would be to fly where the sun is, so from the east to the west staying in the daylight as much as possible, then it wouldn't need batteries. I've not done the maths, I don't know how fast it would need to fly to do that, but that's what I'd assumed it would want to do.

Re:batteries...

[complete loony]

If they're that light, a whole ton of them would take up a lot of space. How big was this satellite?

Re:batteries...

[vbraga]

You can always charge a fuel cell by reversing the potential difference I believe. But, most of the time, doing this is not an energy efficient process. There are fuel cells made for situations like this (SOEC comes to mind).

Re:batteries...

[Agripa]

24 hours per day and roughly 24,000 mile circumference so 1000 miles per hour will hold the sun in the same position in the sky. If you flew at 500 miles per hour then you could extend daylight by 50 percent.

Re:batteries...

[smi.james.th]

Thanks... Got no mod points ATM unfortunately.

That's very quick for an electric plane. Maybe they will need batteries.

Re:batteries...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Big, very big. But that wasn't due to the batteries, that was due to the primary payload as well as some structural and control system factors. We actually had some extra room even with the batteries installed.

Way too much

[BufferArea]

Boeing Gets $89M To Build Drone That Can Fly For 5 Years Straight...for that much you think it could turn too!

Re:Way too much

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother-in-law, Frank, can drone for 5 straight years, and at the much lower cost of two PBRs per hour.

Re:Way too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a "don't ask don't tell" thing. The airplane has to be straight for 5 years or the term of its enlistment.

Re:Way too much

[Kilrah_il]

No, what they meant is that it could fly for 5 years without... Whoosh.

Re:Way too much

[arkane1234]

What's PBR? Peanut butter raisins?

Re:Way too much

[Anonymous Coward]

The gay ones cost a fortune too.

2014?

[Stargoat]

Four years development. Is this an alternate universe Boeing? Perhaps it is a Boeing from the past, when they could actually build airplanes that might approach a reasonable construction time.

Further, the Solar Eagle is going to use propellers? I thought the big advantage of jet engines was less maintenance time. How is this going to fly with mechanical and exposed propellers for 5 years at a time?

Re:2014?

[oldspewey]

I'm curious to hear more about your concept for a solar-powered jet engine.

Re:2014?

[Stargoat]

I have no concept for solar powered jet engines. And I'm not selling it for 89 million either.

Re:2014?

[gman003]

You can't run a jet engine on solar power. And AFAIK, propellers are actually easier to maintain than jets, since they have much simpler parts. The main advantages to jets are ability to burn fuel at higher altitude and ability to attain higher speeds.

Re:2014?

[Haffner]

According to military contractor friends, basically, they inflate the bid, then they use that money on another project that is waaaay overbudget, and when the deadline comes around for the project they got funding for, they say "we need more funding" and get it. Repeat ad infinitum.

Re:2014?

[ElectricTurtle]

While I'm sure there will be no shortage of design challenges, there is a fair amount of precedent to work from in terms of the Pathfinder and Helios prototypes. It's also important to note that the design of a UAV can be an order of magnitude less rigorous than that of a piloted aircraft because you don't have to pressurize it or design a flight deck or account for human survivability etc.

Re:2014?

[radtea]

I'm curious to hear more about your concept for a solar-powered jet engine.

I don't see why a solar or electric Brayton-cycle heat engine shouldn't be possible. I'm actually curious that no one has done this for solar farms instead of Stirling-cycle engines. While the theoretical efficiency of the Stirling-cycle engine is ideal, the practical problems are large due the the number of moving parts and issues with heat transfer.

Brayton-cycle turbine engines inject the heat into the working fluid away from the moving parts, and one can imagine the air flowing through a heated mesh to perform the transfer. Not a winner for this applciation, where direct electric-drive propellers have compelling efficiency and possibly weight advantages, but for solar farms it might very well be competitive with Stirling engines.

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously you don't understand sarcasm nor conservation of mass.

Re:2014?

[h4rr4r]

The maintenance issue is with internal combustion engines, these props will be spun by an electric motor.

Re:2014?

[hedwards]

They can still do it, they just screwed up in assuming that such a plane could be build with parts from around the world. Some companies just don't know how to deal with multinational production.

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, the Solar Eagle is going to use propellers? I thought the big advantage of jet engines was less maintenance time. How is this going to fly with mechanical and exposed propellers for 5 years at a time?

The main advantages of different engines lies in their operational regimes. This aircraft requires relatively little thrust due to high aspect ratio and L/D and low speed requirements. A jet engine requires a lot of fuel and operates most efficiently approaching M=2 IIRC. Electric motor driven props are appropriate for low speed and fuel requirements (~5 years worth).

For what it's worth, I'm an aerospace engineering student.

Re:2014?

[Phoenix Dreamscape]

Four years development. Is this an alternate universe Boeing? Perhaps it is a Boeing from the past, when they could actually build airplanes that might approach a reasonable construction time.

Yeah, it's safe to ignore both time and money estimates from government contractors until it has blown both its time and budget constraints a few times. The first bid is always impossible and full of half-truths and omissions to win the contract. The politics are stupid, but at least sometimes it results in good research.

Re:2014?

[thrillseeker]

There's a study out there of using a hydrogen powered fuel cell to drive an electric motor attached to a high bypass jet engine - from memory 80% of the power of a high bypass engine come from the air flow vice the exhaust - recent advances have probably improved that.

Re:2014?

[Bo'Bob'O]

It already mentions that the plane runs on fuel cells, so I would imagine there is some sort of electrolysis going on so that it store it's energy as oxygen and hydrogen already.

Of course, it wouldn't be anything near the kind of efficiency.

Re:2014?

[cynyr]

i thought most prop planes these days were turbo props, basically a turbine engine hooked to a prop but i could be wrong.

Re:2014?

[smellsofbikes]

Both piston aircraft and commercial jet aircraft are propeller-based. Piston aircraft and turboprop aircraft have a big exposed propeller, powered by pistons or a geared jet, while commercial turbofan engines, as used on 90% of airline transport aircraft, have a set of propellers enclosed in a housing, that are powered by a jet.

Piston aircraft are *much* less reliable and have *much* lower time between overhauls than jets, because jets basically have a very small number of non-contact bearings, while piston aircraft have a quite large number of physically contacting bearings and sliding surfaces. Jet engines are much more expensive to build, but they last for tens of thousands of hours.

Jet engines are attractive to aircraft designers because they have high reliability, low vibration, have a much higher power-per-unit-weight and power-per-unit-volume, and are much less affected by the lack of air pressure at high altitude. They aren't as efficient as piston engines, and high bypass ratio jets, as seen on most transport jets, are not as efficient as turboprops. But their size, reliability, and power overcome the very slight efficiency loss.

It is possible you could run a turbofan with electric motors rather than a jet, but that would be somewhat pointless for this kind of design requirement.

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

When simply talking about the method of pushing the majority of the air (propeller vs. fan) sure a propeller would be easier to maintain than a fan. Fewer blades after all.

When talking about the method of driving the method of pushing the majority of the air (reciprocating vs. turbine), I'd much rather work on a turbine. The core concept for a turbine engine (in a turbofan engine) is actually ridiculously simple compared to the reciprocating engine. But it doesn't matter as this thing will most assuredly have electric engines.

But regardless, who cares about "maintaining" a propeller vs a fan? This is supposed ot end up at 60,000 ft for 5 years. Someone going to call the wrench monkey to hop in the new and improved Boeing JetPack (TM) to go work on it? Electric motors are insanely reliable and almost all of the wear and tear that occurs on a propeller or fan blade is going to occur at or near ground level (birds, dust, rocks, etc). Rarely do either come apart without FOD or an inherent manufacturing/design defect and there isn't a whole lot of FOD at 60,000 ft.

Re:2014?

[noidentity]

Simple, it will use solar power to run motors that pump jet fuel up long tubes that run from the ground.

Re:2014?

[snspdaarf]

Maybe they are going to whack that Dyson guy and take his blade-less fan technology.

Re:2014?

[angiasaa]

Simple, it will use solar power to run motors that pump jet fuel up long tubes that run from the ground.

Haha! Why put the weight of motors and pumps on the craft?

If the tubes run up from the ground, they could just as well pump the fuel up from a ground station.

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jet are better than P for Piston, not P for propeller. That's why you have Turbo-prop.
But the motor is electric on this case...

Re:2014?

[greyhueofdoubt]

This aircraft will not be man-rated. That shaves off years. Then consider that Boeing has decades of cutting-edge research already done and ready to apply.

I work in aerospace. Give me four years and I'll build you an airplane myself. Give me four years and a team of some of the finest engineers on the planet and I'll give you an aircraft that can stay aloft for five years.

This thing will not be another f-22. Even if it was, those problems are solved now anyways. This project is simply a matter of optimizing certain parameters well beyond what is considered typical. Just like the sr71, the a380, or the f-22.

-b

Re:2014?

[evilviper]

And AFAIK, propellers are actually easier to maintain than jets, since they have much simpler parts.

A propeller is a dumb chunk of metal. A jet IS the engine. Hence, turbo props. Traditional propeller+piston aircraft are most definitely harder and more expensive to maintain than jet engines. Remember, piston engines were being torn down and rebuild an order of magnitude more often than the earliest jet engines needed to be, and has decreased further still in the time since...

The main advantages to jets are ability to burn fuel at higher altitude and ability to attain higher speeds.

You are mistaken. Jets dominated the industry because they were cheaper to maintain, and more reliable. The higher speeds were a bit of luck. The fact that the Concorde isn't still around, combined with the continued existence of commercial turbo-prop aircraft should be enough to disprove your belief right off.

Re:2014?

[Stargoat]

I don't doubt that you could build another F-22 or even an A380 or SR-71. But I don't think you could deliver an aircraft that can stay aloft for 5 years. We can barely create computers that can stay on for 5 years at a stretch, let alone propellers, engines, and wings capable of being very light and staying aloft irregardless of weather conditions for 5 years. It's got to stay up in a really hostile environment fighting gravity the whole time.

Had Boeing said weeks at a time, I might have bought that. But 5 years?

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be under the impression that jet engines rely on heat to generate thrust. They don't. Heat is wasted energy; jet thrust arises from massflow (kg/s) and to a lesser degree the pressure difference between the exhaust and the ambient air. Combustion has proven to be an effective way of expanding (accelerating) a fuel-air mixture, but heat is a useless (and quite detrimental) byproduct of that. If we had a chemical reaction that only increased the P while not affecting the T, that would be ideal.

This is why turbofans are much more efficient than pure turbojets. The fan generates "cold thrust" that doesn't solely arise from a heated expansion of the flow. (It also happens that in nature, slightly accelerating a large amount of air is more efficient than greatly accelerating a small amount, hence the large diameters of the fans and of helicopter main rotors. The latter approach loses too much energy due to turbulent mixing with the ambient fluid.)

Heating the air through an electrified mesh sounds like a nice way to waste as much energy as possible. That's probably why it hasn't been done.

Re:2014?

[ceoyoyo]

Propellers are much more efficient than jet engines. And why should a propeller not last five years?

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

A solar-panel coated Weather balloon made of self-repairing nano-fabric equipped with a hydrogen generator, tank, and a propeller.

I could build the same thing for 100k. Gimme Gimme.

Re:2014?

[noidentity]

Haha! Why put the weight of motors and pumps on the craft?

If the tubes run up from the ground, they could just as well pump the fuel up from a ground station.

Duh, it's solar powered. If the pumps were on the ground, you'd have to run long wires up to the craft to connect to the solar panels. That'd add even more weight, and you'd lose a lot of power due to wire resistance.

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

lots of computers have been running for more than 5 years, I have heard of one at a friends workplace that has hit 7, granted this is not ideal as it is probably quite exploitable by now

Re:2014?

[angiasaa]

If you had pumps sending fuel up to the craft, why would you need solar panels at all? Why power the pumps from the craft?

As long as it's tethered, it might as well have all its energy supplied from the ground, or dynamos hooked to the fuel drinking rotors.

Re:2014?

[noidentity]

Please get your sarcasm detector checked out :)

See grand-grand-... parent post. None of it was serious.

Re:2014?

[angiasaa]

just proof of concept you see.. :P

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flight international had some decent articles on this technology several years ago when it was still an entirely DARPA project.

The tests utilised a number of different concepts for driving the props so I would be curious to find out what they really did settle on. In any case they operated at extremely low RPM so the usual operational issues are much more manageable or not present at all.

The entire design relies on both its shape and the altitude it operates at, when DARPA were testing it had to be launched from FL300 and used a chute to land as it would simply fall out of the sky below FL250. At FL600 you don't need a great deal of airflow with that design to generate lift.

Re:2014?

[radtea]

You seem to be under the impression that jet engines rely on heat to generate thrust.

A graduate of the University of Toronto, I see.

Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[Animats]

Wait until Google gets these. Google Maps could be updated in real time.

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what I was thinking. "Live traffic cam". You could see where the backup is at and decide which side street to skip over to.
With the right post-processing Google could even get a rough "flow rate" of major roads w/o DOT putting wire loops in the ground.
(Not sure it would be worth the cost .. possibly it would allow them to also get the new 45degree satellite in more places.

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until Google gets these. Google Maps could be updated in real time.

The U.S. Air Force has that functionality already. It is one of the primary functions of the worldwide aerosol spraying (chemtrails) they do.

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[recharged95]

I'm expecting to see a Google "Follow Me Now" button next to "Live Traffic".

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaaaaaa... no, at least not without some SERIOUS backend. Aerial photography capture is quite a bit more complicated then most people seem to think. While technically with the right aircraft you can spit out a relatively (~20-100ft) accurate map with no ground control points it takes DAYS just to process the data into an uncompressed georectified image, and that's if you don't mind some pretty severe frame edge misaligns. I work for a county GIS (electronic maps) department in Lower Michigan, and on top of the week or so of work required to set up the two dozen ground control points (~2'x'2 white arrows) and high accuracy GPS them it took MONTHS before the PRELIMINARY images made it to us (Uncompressed, 400GB in thousands of separate image files), and after we confirmed them another month before we received the final compressed images. Now some of that of course was a queue, but the fact that there was such a long queue suggests the processing time involved. Now I suppose Google could build themselves a couple supercomputers and wiz through the things in a few hours but they would still have to get HUNDREDS of GB of data down from the drones, that would take some time. On top of all of this the summary says that this drone will fly at 60,000 ft. Pretty much all aerial photographs of any real useful resolution are flown at no more than 16,000 ft (ours were flown at ~10,000 ft for 1' resolution). Maybe in a decade or so with some pretty decent technological advancements (data transfer rates, camera resolution, processors) it might be possible, but I doubt it could be done now (for an uninsane cost). The fastest I've heard of a company getting aerial photography to a customer was a a couple weeks, in a disaster situation (hurricane, tornado, etc).

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[DaFallus]

Wait until the FBI and local police get these. I'm sure the idea of having an unmanned, omnipresent watchdog in the skies causes them to cream in their pants.

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[St.Creed]

Next X-Prize:

1 million dollar for the first practical, do-it-yourself, anti-air missile that can reach 60K altitude :)

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[Simon (S2)]

I think they already have them. Or something very similar.

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[arkane1234]

Silly boy, the US Air Force isn't doing it globally.. it's strategically designed to aim at you alone. We have all known this, we just didn't tell you. Damn, now it's going to take longer.

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[arkane1234]

Honestly, it sounds like something that Britain would blow their load over....AND implement without any problems.

Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!"

[Walter Carver]

God help us all.

400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[Tekfactory]

Where the hell are you going to launch it from?

I mean seriously maybe they'll launch it from the US during the airwar and it'll finally get to the combat theater by time we've achieved air superiority.

I'd probably designed like a glider and to loiter for a long time by definition, would it just be easier to tow this thing like a glider to the theater of operations?

I really like the concept and all the Weather satellite type work, and cellular nodes or broadband that could use this kind of platform. Unlike the Solar powered plane that flew recently this thing will actually have a payload and energy budget that includes the cameras and comms gear.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it in the air and circle international waters if you *think* something will happen in an area, send it closer until it's "ok" to enter airspace. 5 Years is a long time.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[amicusNYCL]

Where the hell are you going to launch it from?

Do you realize how many airstrips worldwide are operated by the US? I'm sure they would have no problem launching from Diego Garcia, that was a fine place from where to launch B-52s, KC-135s, and B-2s for their missions to Iraq.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[Haffner]

Everyone talks about America's unquestioned air superiority. I don't doubt it would be an easy win in terms of military power, but what happens if we went up against a force that could hack our planes out of the sky? Seriously, how likely is that? I don't have a good handle on that.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[kestasjk]

I don't think the ease of takeoff a landing are a top priority for a plane which lands once every 5 years..

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[mysidia]

Launch it from flight? Mount it to the back of a plane, with wings stowed, take off with it.

At 10000 feet, someone climbs up to it, mounts the 200ft wings on, undocks it, gets back in their plane, and flies back to the ground, while the 400ft beast is powering up and launching its automated flight programs.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[MozeeToby]

Even assuming an absolute worst case scenario, a single usable takeoff point in the entire world, conflict on the other side of the planet, and a cruise speed of 50 mph it would take a whopping 10 days to reach it's destination. And if they can really stay up for 5 years straight, you could have a fleet of them spread around the world ready to be deployed to nearby conflict zones.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[MozeeToby]

Military hardware is not civilian hardware. Just to get a data link into a modern plane you would need to crack the encryption, crack the radio network to allow you in, and even then you'd still have to crack the actual systems on the plane itself. Now if you meant jamming, that is somewhat easier, but I can assure you that the military radios have ways to prevent that as well.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[smellsofbikes]

Where the hell are you going to launch it from?

I'm going to guess they'd launch it from one of the big strips in the Mojave desert and then set it over the US/Mexico or US/Canada border as very-long-term surveillance.

Plus if it runs for 5 years, why not just make 40 of them, launch them all, and leave them all over the world, like the GPS satellite network? If you've got 5 year misson plans, why bother hurrying when you can just have one local?

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[h4rr4r]

That way of preventing jamming is called an ARM. Since your jamming is a nice loud way to announce where you are it is also a good way to shorten your life expectancy.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the hell are you going to launch it from?

I mean seriously maybe they'll launch it from the US during the airwar and it'll finally get to the combat theater by time we've achieved air superiority.

I'd probably designed like a glider and to loiter for a long time by definition, would it just be easier to tow this thing like a glider to the theater of operations?

I really like the concept and all the Weather satellite type work, and cellular nodes or broadband that could use this kind of platform. Unlike the Solar powered plane that flew recently this thing will actually have a payload and energy budget that includes the cameras and comms gear.

These don't get launched during the airwar... they get launched NOW (say, 6 of them, evenly distributed around the world), so that they can quickly cover anything happening anywhere in the world, at any time during the next 5 years. In the best scenario, another 6 would be launched in 30 months, ensuring that there are always 6 in mid-cycle and 6 on swapover every 30 months.

Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields

[brbrbrad]

Maybe they'll just have a few dozen in the air at all times spaced evenly around the world. In the meantime they could be performing scientific or even commercial functions.

Helios, Pathfinder, Paul MacCready, etc...

[captrb]

Been reading about these ideas since I was in diapers. Okay, I was in diapers drinking beer, but still. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Prototype

Re:Helios, Pathfinder, Paul MacCready, etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in diapers drinking beer

That was one legendary party Jethro threw, wasn't it?

Re:Helios, Pathfinder, Paul MacCready, etc...

[TheRaven64]

I was in diapers drinking beer

You worked at NASA, huh?

Should have named it Kee-zos-en.

[MRe_nl]

The solar eagle, whose wings open to create the day, and close to cause the night-time.

Weather Balloon?

[Yossarian45793]

Don't weather balloons already meet this criteria? They can reach 60000 ft and stay there for extended periods (not sure about 5 years). How much do you want to bet that Boeing is just going to build a $89 million balloon with a solar panel on it?

Re:Weather Balloon?

[oldspewey]

Weather balloons last for days/weeks at best, not years. Weather balloons also can't loiter over a specific area - they are at the mercy of the prevailing winds.

Re:Weather Balloon?

[hedwards]

Weather balloons can't be steered, and they aren't going to stay up there for extended periods of time without being refueled. With the added downside of them stirring up UFO paranoia. We're still dealing with the backlash from the spy balloons of the 40s and 50s.

2014? 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't give them enough time to test it.

Oh great...

[CCarrot]

...flight connections are going to be even more of a hassle than they are now!

< /sarcasm>

Think of the Planet!

[Roger W Moore]

Take $89 million...buy a Falcon 9 launch...pocket the difference.

...and get mugged by environmentalists!

But There is Mostly Dead

[twmcneil]

MIRACLE MAX:It just so happens that your friend is MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between MOSTLY dead and ALL dead. You see, mostly dead is still slightly alive. And there's only one thing you can do with mostly dead.
INIGO: what's that?
MIRACLE MAX: search through his pockets for loose change

But why?

[ArcadeNut]

What possible mission would you need to fly for 5 YEARS straight? Seems to me someone got the Govt to approve another "Pork" project.

Re:But why?

[arkane1234]

Air surveillance over Iraqi territory
Air surveillance over Afghan territory
Surveillance over international waters by Somalia's coastline
American border surveillance
 

Re:But why?

[ArcadeNut]

Sure, but why would you need to do it for 5 years straight? You can use multiple aircraft, and swap them out. Sounds like a huge waste of time to get one that can stay airborne for 5 years...

I bet universities could do this cheaper

[GodfatherofSoul]

Give 20 of the best $1 million grants, and I bet you'd have a workable design faster and cheaper

why don't they...

[alta]

just push it up a little higher and let it fly even longer...

And we'll call that flight path "orbit"

And instead of drone, we'll call it a satellite.

And we'll let it fly for 20 years!

I'll take my 89 mil in large bills thank you.

Re:why don't they...

[my $anity 0]

If you can fly a sattelite up into orbit you probably deserve 89 million dollars.

Opportunity Response

[Bob9113]

Opportunity sent a message to NASA saying, "Oh yeah, baby, that's the stuff. I want to meet this new bird. Talk me up to her, guys, OK? Tell her I've been doing the same thing, but on another planet. Don't mention the wheels. Say, by the way, you said 90 days, umm, can I come home now?"

oblig: http://xkcd.com/695/

Except For:

[Anonymous Coward]

skeet shooting.

Your FEDERAL tax dollars at work.

Cheers.

Five years straight?

[fahrbot-bot]

I'm not sure I see the goal/benefit for this metric.
How about 5 planes each flying 1 year straight?
Wouldn't that be easier, cheaper, more flexible and dynamic?

Why 5 years?

[FalcDot]

Maybe it's just the fact that English isn't my native tongue, but... Is this 5 year thing a requirement for the project? Or is it just that Boeing estimates such a plane could conceivably fly for 5 years?

Because I just can't imagine any sort of scenario where something like this absolutely has to stay in the air for 5 straight years and could not be replaced by 2 or 3 of these things doing one-year rotations.

What, no successful test run?

[brundlefly]

If development is complete 4 years from now, how can they have finished even a single test flight where it worked as advertised?

Straight?

[ultramarweeni]

What if turns out that the drone is making some certain wrist gestures and painting itself in pink/violet/rainbow colours before it reaches five years "straight" flight?

Re:Straight?

[arkane1234]

Then it wouldn't be an airplane nor a glider.

Perhaps this could also be used to orbit mars?

[joshier]

I don't have much knowledge in this area but it sounds do-able..

Re:Perhaps this could also be used to orbit mars?

[TimSSG]

The Air is Much Thinner on Mars; so, it is likely not doable. Tim S.

5 Years?

[virtualonliner]

I am going out on a limb and say that it is not running on Windows!

2014 my Ass

[AtomicDevice]

"Boeing believes the SolarEagle could fly as early as 2020 or maybe whenever they get around to finishing it after going tens of millions over budget"


There, fixed that for you

5 years non-stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me of an story by Asimov... 8-/

This is kinda OT, but Arrgh! Misleading title!

[angiasaa]

Technology: Boeing Gets $89M To Build Drone That Can Fly For 5 Years Straight

I think it's a lousy idea to spend all that cash to build a drone that can fly straight for 5 years!
I prefer craft that are designed to turn, and at least be maneuverable in as many directions as possible. One can always lock the controls to fly them straight right? Right!? :P

Err, I really wish people would title their posts with some level of intelligence yeah? :|

Re:This is kinda OT, but Arrgh! Misleading title!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they hire some nascar engineers it will at least be able to turn left, too.

5 years without multiple SEUs?

[Loconut1389]

Must be majorly radiation hardened at 60k feet for 5 years. They must also have a multiple vote/checksum system?

Re:5 years without multiple SEUs?

[grikdog]

It's flying up there with the sprites (topside lightning shafts directed up), so maybe it'll get some good meteorology done too?

Spindly glider wings VS a 'flying wing' ??

[LoudMusic]

I know very little about aviation design, other than the vacuum effect of wings. I'm curious why these solar powered electric planes are glider design rather than flying wing design? It would seem you could get more useful cargo space for batteries and significantly more lift surface.

Re:Spindly glider wings VS a 'flying wing' ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Spindly glider wings - high aspect ratio, provide more efficient lift and have inherent roll stability, and when combined with a tail wing or canard, provide dynamically stable flight in pitch. The 'flying wing' design is inherently less stable in pitch and roll and the lower aspect ratio means higher drag and thus fuel consumption. I'm an aerospace engineering student.

Re:Spindly glider wings VS a 'flying wing' ??

[Aviation Pete]

I know very little about aviation design, other than the vacuum effect of wings. I'm curious why these solar powered electric planes are glider design rather than flying wing design? It would seem you could get more useful cargo space for batteries and significantly more lift surface.

for flying that high, you need to maximize the lift from your wings. Flying wings need to use some of the lift potential for pitch stability, so they will create less lift per wing area. The drag increment from a tail surface is comparably smaller than that of the bigger wing.

In more precise terms, you need to maximize the product of lift coefficient and the square of the Mach number. This product is typically 0.6 for a well designed straight wing and more like 0.4 for a swept flying wing.

Re:Spindly glider wings VS a 'flying wing' ??

[ceoyoyo]

Because a wing generates most of it's lift at the front, and most if it's drag at the back, the efficiency of a wing is related to it's aspect ratio, which is the ratio of the wing's length to it's breadth. A high aspect ratio wing is very long and skinny. The ideal wing would be infinitely long, infinitely skinny, and would fly without requiring any energy.

A high efficiency plane needs high efficiency wings. Flying wings are not high aspect ratio. The reason you associate high aspect ratio wings with gliders is that to achieve the best possible glide ratio, gliders have wings with the highest aspect ratio (most efficient) they can achieve with given materials.

Combination ?

[aepervius]

Would not a combination of battery recharged by solar cells and nuclear beta generator or similar be a better case ? I am a bit stumped for the lubricant tough.

Satellites don't cut it

[engineerofsorts]

Come on folks--surveillance satellites can, just like any other satellites, come in a couple of flavors: high-orbit geosynchronous or geostationary, and low-orbit. The high-flyers/geostat/geosync are great for getting a marginal picture of the same area--great for tracking hurricanes and himmicanes. The low-flyers are great for taking some sorda-detailed pictures every few hours or days, depending on how many birds you have flying. On the other hand, survaillance aircraft have their varioius advantages/disadvantage: The Global Hawk/UAVs have maybe 12 to 24 hour "dwell time" over a target area, but they, in reality, have serious operational difficulties--marginal payload capabilities/reliability/etc (unless you talk to someone trying to sell you some). The now-retired SR-71 was fast, but had lousy dwell time--maybe 30 minutes over target before you had to go home. The venerable U-2 (yes, they still fly them) still provides "reasonable" dwell time--about 12 hours total flight time, and still provides some of the best/most diverse recon capabilities around, but requires a lot of inconvenient life support for the pilot. My concern--being such a noted authority on everything--is that a lightweight, stay in the air forever recon plane as proposed will not have anywhere near the mulit-spectral recon capability that a U-2 presently has, and will prove as worthless as the Global Hawk.

No turns?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's too bad. I'd expect a plane like this would need to turn from time to time.

What a relief!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the people in charge won't have to deal with all those pesky blackouts when they want to continuously monitor me with just one drone.

Snake Oil

[nickdwaters]

It's nonsense. The probability of mechanical failure is outrageous, given the environmental conditions, and nature of mechanical devices. If it were biological in basis, that I can see. If anything it's a good exercise in engineering. Go Stimulus!

Grammar Nazism

[Anonymous Coward]

"One of the more unique..."

More unique? Unique is binary, it's either a 1 or a 0.

Re:Grammar Nazism

[owlstead]

You're a bit late to the game, so we'll call it grammar neo-Nazism if you don't mind.

Fly For 5 Years Straight

[asimulator]

That's one helluva non-stop flight.

Re:It's enough

[arkane1234]

Saying that is like saying that Obama killed 52 people in 2009. (52 people were executed by different states in 2009 citation: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states-2009 )

See, that number your tossing around was performed by Los Angeles, and it was 7.76 jobs. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100917/bs_yblog_upshot/report-los-angeles-spent-70-million-in-stimulus-funds-to-create-7-76-jobs

Obama is the American president, not a Los Angeles mayor, nor a California governor.

Fact.

not to be cynical, but...

[Eil]

If it's like most government contracted aerospace vehicle development projects, it will cost 10 time as much, will arrive 10 years late, and will deliver 1/10th of what was promised.

Re:not to be cynical, but...

[sixsixtysix]

the military will continue to piss our tax dollars away instead of just doing it all in-house, which is where the majority of the stuff(weapons/vehicles/etc) should be done.

Is this a development of Helios I wonder?

[starseeker]

Reminds me of the Helios prototype solar wing:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-068-DFRC.html

Old News

[StikyPad]

Five years is nothing.. the Vanguard 1 has 44 years under its belt, and an orbital decay of 240 years. Then there's the Voyager 1, which has been flying for 33+ years, and, in all likelihood, will never land! On earth anyway...

Depending on the specs of the contract, they should have just given the government a satellite.

How to solve this... sorta not really

[scout-247]

Make the UAV fly at 1000 mph so it can be consistently 1pm if it follows along an easterly path forever.

For that money...

[Anonymous Coward]

For $89 million, I'd fly it for 5 years straight!!

Read the title...

[Anonymous Coward]

' Boeing Gets $89M' != Boeing delivers functional and practical product

Doomed to failure

[Anonymous Coward]

This project is doomed to failure. They obviously have not factored in the weight of the peanuts necessary to sustain a flight for 5 year.