Slashdot Mirror


Liquid Hydrogen Powers a UAV For a Cool 48 Hours

An anonymous reader writes "While liquid hydrogen may not be a mainstream fuel for drones, the aerospace industry has said it holds the promise of flight endurance on the order of days, seemingly just another far-fetched aerospace industry pitch ... until now. The Naval Research Laboratory just announced that the Ion Tiger, a diminutive 37-pound airplane with a 17 foot wingspan, flew for 48 hours and 1 minute on liquid hydrogen and a fuel cell (anyone else notice the oddly specific duration? Guess it's better than 47 hours 59 minutes). This is a dramatically different scale than the liquid hydrogen powered 150 foot wingspan Boeing Phantom Eye and 175 foot wingspan AeroVironment Global Observer, which have yet to live up to their multi-day endurance projections. Interestingly enough, the well-known Global Hawk only has an endurance of 33.1 hours, which barely cracks Wikipedia's list of notable UAV endurance flights. Of course, solar-electric airplanes have flown for two weeks continuously, but that sure seems like refueling!"

18 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Two furlongs a fortnight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about you try to use units that make sense? Here's a diagram that illustrates the sillyness https://7chan.org/sci/src/132255181954.jpg

    1. Re:Two furlongs a fortnight... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, they certainly should have used "172.86 kiloseconds" instead of "48 hours, 1 minute". Those odd factor-60 minutes and hours should die. It's not that hard to remember that a day is 86.4 kiloseconds and a year is about 31.5 megaseconds, after all.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Two furlongs a fortnight... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually a good way to remember the length of a year is to remember that pi gigaseconds give (almost) a century.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  2. Re:I think liquid hydrogen is dangerous as hell by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    Actually hydrogen mixed with oxygen in the relation 2:1 is much worse than hydrogen as a concentrated cloud.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Re:I think liquid hydrogen is dangerous as hell by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

    That is.... Water!

    After the explosion, yes.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  4. Re:Wait..what?! by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An RTG is only a problem if it lands on your head, those things are designed to withstand an uncontrolled reentry from space.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. Re:There's nothing odd with 48 hours 1 minute by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's so no pedantic arseholes sneer about them probably rounding up.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  6. Re:Wait..what?! by m.alessandrini · · Score: 2

    RTGs, if I'm not wrong, give a small amount of energy, useful in space where you need little energy but for very long times. Not to mention their weight.

  7. Nice comparison by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    The Global Hawk is the size of a 747. The Ion Tiger is a small lightweight drone with a 17" wingspan. And the Phantom Eye is large at 150" wingspan, but also described as lightweight. Comparing flight duration seems a bit unfair. Anyone have a better idea how to properly compare efficiency of engines?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Nice comparison by Sique · · Score: 2

      While the Global Hawk surely is large, it's a far cry from a 747. It has a wingspan of about 130 ft and a length of 48 ft. Compare that to the 211 ft wingspan and 230 ft length of a 747-400!

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Nice comparison by gatkinso · · Score: 2

      I am sure the OP meant 737.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    3. Re:Nice comparison by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      90% seems awfully high. I was under the impression typical performance was around 40%-70%, depending on the chemistry and materials.

      In general, the limiting factor is the quality of the hydrogen - the oxygen can generally come straight from the atmosphere. In this case, it's pure hydrogen stored as a liquid, so fuel cells tend to be fairly efficient.

      Take Apple's fuel cells powering their data center, and they're running off natural gas, which is 20% carbon for the most part (by stoichiometry) which is impure and has to be dealt with. And nevermind that natural gas, while being mostly methane, also contains longer gaseous hydrocarbons that provide more "poison" to the cell that has to be dealt with.

      Of course, you could refine methane to hydrogen and carbon, but hydrogen itself is rather difficult to transport since it doesn't like to be contained easily.

  8. Re:Hate drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd suggest some sort of catapult. Although I'm not sure Arduinos are the best type of ammunition.

  9. No comparison with Global Hawk by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    It flies at 300 knots and weighs ~30,000 lbs (~14,000 kg).

    I worked on the NASA Global hawks for a few years. They are incredible aircraft and certainly not in the class of the toys it is being compared with. Predator comes close (I was on an effort to put a sensor on the NASA Predator but funding got yanked) but Predator doesn't have nearly the capability of Global Hawk.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  10. Re:I think liquid hydrogen is dangerous as hell by delt0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you where misinformed. H2O2 is not really a good fuel on its own. Too heavy for starters for so little energy. But its less safe mostly because its also unstable.

    Like all mono propellants, it can break down to a more stable less energetic configuration without the need of getting mixed with anything. So say the fuel tank wasn't cleaned properly? Well we get H202 decomposition which liberates O2 and heat. Now its hotter and it decomposes faster, which produces more heat and faster decomposition.... I have personally seen this with my own monopropellant rocket.

    Can you handle H202 safely? Yes. But you can also do that just fine with LH2 with the added benefit its pretty safe till you mix it with oxygen, and its has much more energy per kg. An important feature for long endurance flights.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  11. Re:There's nothing odd with 48 hours 1 minute by redback · · Score: 4, Interesting

    also if you say '48 hours' it sounds like you are approximating. but 48:01 is precise enough for people to know that you are serious.

    The first man to calculate the height of mt everest calculated it to be 29,000 feet exactly. To make it sound as precise as it was, he said it was 29,002 feet.

  12. These guys aren't into marketing... by PseudoCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    I worked with this group and I can tell you they're not into marketing, but the press people that prepared the release probably are.

    The bulk of what this NRL section does is technology demonstrators. They were also the first to air drop a drone from another drone. The odd number is probably an exact accounting of the time spent on powered flight; climb, cruise and loiter segments are the most significant for accounting for energy use during flight. Gliding and coast segments are not so interesting.

    Props to my old crew at NRL, and to the memory of Jim Kellog who developed the first prototype of what became the Ion Tiger.

    --
    "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    1. Re:These guys aren't into marketing... by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      Gliding and coast segments are not so interesting.

      In this case, they are. The aircraft was powered by cryogenic liquid hydrogen. Even when they were coasting, they were still generating fuel (hydrogen gas), and that fuel could only be stored for a short period before rising tank pressures would have necessitated venting. Their fuel had a limited lifetime regardless of whether they were actually using it.