Slashdot Mirror


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."

6 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Summary Fail by tirefire · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Hey, where's everybody going?

  2. Re:Satellite replacement? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  3. Re:Satellite replacement? by localman57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  4. Re:batteries... by vbraga · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
  5. Re:SEE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:SEE! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?