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."
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.
"More unique"? You can't qualify "unique", it's like saying "more dead" or "more binary".
Hey, where's everybody going?
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
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?
Boeing Gets $89M To Build Drone That Can Fly For 5 Years Straight...for that much you think it could turn too!
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.
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?
Wait until Google gets these. Google Maps could be updated in real time.
Whether or not that's a downside has a great deal to do with your point of view...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?