Facebook's Solar-Powered Drone Under Investigation After 'Accident' (theguardian.com)

Facebook has hit a hitch in its plans to use a solar-powered unmanned drone to provide internet access to developing nations, after it was revealed the American National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has opened an investigation into an accident on the drone's first test flight in June. From a report on The Guardian:At the time, Facebook described the flight as "successful": the drone, called Aquila, stayed aloft for 96 minutes, three times the planned duration. "We have a lot of work ahead of us," Jay Parikh, Facebook's head of engineering and infrastructure, wrote when Facebook revealed the test flight, in late July. "In our next tests, we will fly Aquila faster, higher and longer, eventually taking it above 60,000 feet." In a second, more technical, blogpost published that same day, Facebook's Martin Luis Gomez and Andrew Cox acknowledged the failure in passing. "Our first flight lasted three times longer than the minimum mission length, so we were able to gather data on how the structure and autopilot responded under a range of real-world conditions to help verify these predictions," they wrote.Reporter Casey Newton mentioned on The Verge that at the time, Facebook had led them believe that everything was alright, and there were no hiccups.

Comments

missing quote

[sacrilicious]

In a second, more technical, blogpost published that same day, Facebook's Martin Luis Gomez and Andrew Cox acknowledged the failure in passing. "Our first flight lasted three times longer than the minimum mission length, so we were able to gather data on how the structure and autopilot responded under a range of real-world conditions to help verify these predictions," they wrote.

I read that three times trying to figure out whether the "in passing" mention of failure was so subtle that I was missing it. Nope, the editors simply left out the actually relevant quote:

“We are still analysing the results of the extended test, including a structural failure we experienced just before landing. We hope to share more details on this and other structural tests in the future,” Cox and Gomez added.

Re:missing quote

[TWX]

What does Hagrid's dog have to do with this?

Re:missing quote

[LenE]

OK, Internet super-engineer. You clearly do not know anything about aircraft or spacecraft structures.

Materials used for small drones have a very difficult time scaling up to very large lightweight structures. Care to expound on the loads and stresses experienced by a 144 foot wingspan wing, that weighs only 900 lbs? This drone was built to be light and barely strong enough. That was its design point. Have you shown the world that you can do better and can credibly criticize their design?

Extremely high aspect ratio wings, like this one, just don't want to quit flying. It is a real challenge to bring it down onto the ground. The pilots possibly exceeded design Vne trying to get it down. This exponentially increases drag forces on the airframe. Ground-effect makes landing even more difficult, and with a 144 foot wingspan, ground-effect starts at ~72 feet above ground.

Add to this the non-homogeneous nature of gusting winds in proximity to the ground, and it is not inconceivable that design limits were exceeded by a fluke of nature. There is not enough public information of what weather conditions existed during landing, but sudden adverse conditions during landing are not unprecedented. Did Lockheed's engineers under-design the structure on the L-1011?

Disclaimer - I work for an aerospace prototyping firm (not related to Facebook), and have worked on things that cover the conceivable gamut of Reynolds numbers that can be "flown". Although I have not worked on Facebook's drone, I have an intimate knowledge of the modern materials used in this air vehicle. My opinions expressed here are my own.

tons of other questions need to be answered.

[nimbius]

this device exists solely for internet.org, zuck's imperialist project to bring internet to india through facebook. Among questions still unanswered:

1. why are you continuing to insist on this if India itself has flatly refused this "branded internet" thats contingent upon your social media site
2. How will you fly drones in foreign airspace without the consent of a host country?
3. How do you justify brining internet to countries like Malawi, Zamibia, and Angola when a grain shipment or food programme would do far more to improve the lives of these people than another American drone?
4. Egypt and South Africa already have high-speed internet available to the general public. did you forget this? or are you just trying to erode public investment in open and neutral networks?

Re:tons of other questions need to be answered.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Re. point 3: teach a man how to fish and all that. That's what the internet is for, and even crappy limited access through feature phones has already improved the lives of countless people in developing nations, far more than any one shipment of grain would have. Access to information on weather and prices, access to markets, mobile payments, all these have enabled people to improve productivity, operate in new markets, and start new businesses.

Drones might be a good solution to deliver Internet to such locations: cheap and difficult to vandalize. I just wished it wasn't the Zuck doing this.

Re:The best thing about "developing countries" is.

[bobbied]

Oh no... Once the villagers figure out WHO was responsible and how much $$ they have, you can bet the army of ambulance chasing local lawyers will be out in force making sure Facebook pays though the legal system.... Unless they have bribed the proper local authorities to skirt the legal system.

Either way, they will pay...

Re:BFD

[bobbied]

This is interesting how?

Facebook crashed and burned and now the NTSB is investigating? How's that not interesting? An internet company catches the attention of the National TRANSPORTATION and SAFETY board seems like interesting news to me.

Re:Sturctural Failure

[tsqr]

Are you fucking shitting me? No aircraft designed since 1990 should ever have a structural failure unless the pilot deliberately took it over structural mach. The FAA was grossly negligent to throw away a century's worth of aviation safety experience and just let any fucking idiot put anything in the sky and call it a drone.

Actually, aircraft structural failures, while not common occurrences, aren't all that rare. They sometimes result from, and nearly always end with, an unplanned encounter with the ground. Sometimes they result from a control failure that causes the departure controlled flight. Sometimes they occur due to fatigue. And they happen a lot with uncertified, experimental, developmental aircraft.

Re:LOL at "developing nations"

[HornWumpus]

Don't forget Malaria.

'Society' is lucky to actually 'invest'* 1%. The difference in disease rates is a part of why societies/cultures with latitudes above the winter 'frost line' had resources to play with. They still squandered them on cathedrals more often than not.

* Things like school buildings, city walls, field clearing and literal swamp draining. As opposed to things like education and farming, which are ongoing expenses.