Slashdot Mirror
NASA, Google Award $1.35M For Ultra-Efficient Electric Aircraft
coondoggie writes "NASA today awarded what it called the largest prize in aviation history to a company that flew their aircraft 200 miles in less than two hours on less than one gallon of fuel or electric equivalent. Their aircraft is the Taurus G4 by Pipistrel-USA.com. The twin fuselage motor glider features a 145 kW electric motor, lithium-ion batteries, and retractable landing gear."
Could such an aircraft be configured for mapping the surface of Mars?
I wonder where most of the technology is driven, by large scale commercial operations like Boeing etc, or the smaller scale university departments and independent efforts. Most of the new Dreamliner "concepts" like the composite materials are something sport gliders have been pioneering for decades. Hopefully we'll see some trickle-up from this, or at least encourage some good engineering.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Cri-Cri electric plane ;-)
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
or not bothering with building the plane until a more sustainable form of battery or capacitor is on the market.
I wonder, wonder, wonder if having more electric vehicles will result in more research for better batteries and capacitors compared to not having electric vehicles.
I wonder, wonder, wonder.
on less than one gallon of fuel or electric equivalent
This is obviously neglecting the energy required for the initial charge of the batteries. A jet would fare much better if you didn't count the fuel in it's tank when it took off.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
All of those metrics would have been met by the Rutan Voyager in 1984. They flew 26,366 miles on 1080 gallons of fuel and flew at an average speed of 116mph.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Composite aircraft components have been used in military aircraft for quite some time. I believe the AV-8 Harrier of the 1980s is one example. While these aircraft may not have the mass of a commercial airliner keep in mind their high G maneuvering. The loads/stresses on these smaller aircraft may be comparable or greater than those on a commercial airliner.
Interesting to see how many NASA and DoD contracts they've identified that are essentially trying to crowdsource innovative, cost-effective solutions that improve the aerospace performance envelope.
Big budgets and high-caliber engineering skill and equipment are great for developing a concept, but unfortunately, innovation isn't a skill we teach well in school yet, and the need for innovative approaches are at the core of these problems. I really hope these programs have success!
I'd also look at the various civilian spacecraft efforts going on. They seem more innovative than the traditional aerospace companies. Of course to be fair these traditional aerospace behemoths have been working to NASA specs and have not done anything on their own like the little guys out at Mohave and elsewhere.
Electric vehicles can benefit from upgrades in battery tech even if it's a radically different electricity storage medium (say a supercapacitor). Electrons are electrons, motors don't care if the wattage comes from a LiPo, LiAir, Supercap, NiMH, NiCad, or even lead acid...
Besides, in 3-4 years we'll have Mr Fusions and our electric planes and cars will be ready for a drop-in replacement. Combustion vehicles will require a major retrofit.
Combustion vehicles would generally need an entirely new engine if someone discovered a more energy dense fuel.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Peregrine falcons can reach over 200 MPH in a dive.
They get their own fuel.
They are self replicating and have amazing eyesight.
They can be trained.
While they're not naturally distance fliers, then can convert their insane dive speed to distance.
Why spend millions developing fragile, limited, little planes?
Spend tens of thousands training a bunch of birds, and strap a camera to them.
They last for years, are undetectable by radar, and are unremarkable when actually detected.
Or at least take a clue from birds - why spend lots of energy flying non stop? Build an ultralight with the ability to perch and take off from a perched stance. Give it solar panels so it can recharge while perched. Hell - give it some probes so it can siphon juice from power lines.
If the goal is automation and size, we need to stop with the fixed wing bullshit.
If the goal is speed and flight duration, we've got larger, high-altitude craft that already fit the bill.
If the goal is all four, then until there's a major materials-related breakthrough, training birds is probably the best bet.
Perhaps they are referring to a gov't sponsored competition. I believe the X-Prize competition was sponsored by a private organization.
You do realize that a camera and wireless card would significantly reduce this plane's efficiency, right?
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
The test is to deliver 200 passenger miles per gallon. The winner had four seats so it was allowed to use up to four gallons (equivalent) of fuel to cover the 200 mile distance.
While the initial 'cost' of a lithium battery is higher than the initial 'cost' of an internal combustion engine, the overall or "lifecycle" cost of a lithium battery is lower than that of an internal combustion engine.
Like what?
Deeed a deeeeeeeeeengo steeeeeeaaaal a baayyyybeee deedgeereedoo?
Strewth.
Mate, our economy is a fantasy teetering on the brink of collapse.
It's only the fact that China has been buying most of the raw materials as fast as they've been pulled from our mines that has allowed us to believe that we're economically bullet-proof.
Just look at the current Australian property bubble: it makes the US one look like a mere baby.
Aussie houses are horrifically overpriced, and only the blindness and greed and ignorance built on recent Chinese investment has allowed the market to get that way.
If - when - China scales back its Aussie buying sprees our economy will implode in a way that will make the collapses in other countries look utterly trivial.
I recall reading that Blue Origin had made some startling advances in achieving "smoking crater".
Maybe NASA is funding these projects is to show that it isn't that easy.
Space never existed; thats the whole point. If it exists, it isn't space.
Also, although NASA haven't noted it, There is no dark side of the Moon, really. Matter of fact, its all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the Sun.
African or European? Either way, I bet they can carry a couple of coconuts.
and how many tonnes of fuel do you think goes through a car over its lifetime? a lithium ion battery you only need to make once.
Shut up you insensitive bastard, a woman lost her baby its no laughing matter.
Rocket Surgeon.
funny how they seem to hide the fact that the winner is a small glider company from Slovenia, EU, called Pipistrel, see here: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/pipistrel-won-the-nasa-green-flight-challenge-for-the-third-
and they have been winning this challenge for 3 years in a row now!
funnily enough, the winner is a European company, called Pipistrel, see here: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/pipistrel-won-the-nasa-green-flight-challenge-for-the-third-
they have been winning this award for 3 years in a row...
congrats indeed, from neighbouring Hungary :)
indeed, it's a company from Slovenia, see here: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/pipistrel-won-the-nasa-green-flight-challenge-for-the-third-
have been winning this challenge for 3 years on a row now...
indeed, congrats from neighbouring Hungary! :)
Airport taxes get higher. Freedom suffers.
If you could use your time off to live in Thailand for two weeks on $200 wouldn't you? Even if it took 22 hours to fly there?
It won't. Everyone is already very aware of how much the world needs better battery technology, and how valuable such technology would be.
So cell phones, laptops, cordless tools, wheel chairs, or medical equipment wouldn't benefit from better batteries and wouldn't pay handsomely for the technology. Electric vehicles are a drop in the bucket of all the applications that would benefit from a better battery. The answer to your wonder is NO this technology is moving at a quick pace but the constraints of quick recharge, longevity, mass production considerations, and costs of the raw materials all contribute to making this problem a very difficult one to solve.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.