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

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.)