Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the home-in-the-clouds dept.

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."

50 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. SEE! by blhack · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    1. Re:SEE! by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:SEE! by blhack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.".

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    3. 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.

    4. Re:SEE! by magarity · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:SEE! by icebike · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:SEE! by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:SEE! by vux984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    8. Re:SEE! by Acapulco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
    9. Re:SEE! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    10. 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?

    11. Re:SEE! by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2, Funny

      But your condoms are made in the USA!

    12. Re:SEE! by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

    13. Re:SEE! by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  2. more unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  3. Re:5 Years? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. 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?

    1. Re:Summary Fail by just_another_sean · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apparently, not necessarily.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:Summary Fail by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Funny

      This concept is slightly pregnant with potential.

    3. Re:Summary Fail by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My webcomic
    4. Re:Summary Fail by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Will
  5. At least 60,000 feet up for five years? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  6. Satellite replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Satellite replacement? by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    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:Satellite replacement? by mlts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Satellite replacement? by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  7. batteries... by martas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    weinersmith
    1. 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.
    2. Re:batteries... by martas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      weinersmith
    3. Re:batteries... by CraftyJack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So they can keep working after the sun sets?

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

    4. Re:batteries... by myrdos2 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    5. Re:batteries... by snowraver1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    6. Re:batteries... by butterflysrage · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    7. Re:batteries... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    8. Re:batteries... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  8. Way too much by BufferArea · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Way too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  9. 2014? by Stargoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:2014? by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:2014? by radtea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:2014? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    4. Re:2014? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  10. Now, "Google Maps Live!" by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Now, "Google Maps Live!" by St.Creed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Next X-Prize:

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

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  11. 400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields by Tekfactory · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:400 foot wingspan, no unimproved airfields by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  12. Helios, Pathfinder, Paul MacCready, etc... by captrb · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  13. But There is Mostly Dead by twmcneil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"