Google is Killing Its Solar-Powered Internet Drone Program (businessinsider.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google is Killing Its Solar-Powered Internet Drone Program (businessinsider.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @06:40AM from the didn't-work-out dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Google's "moonshot" X division is ending its Titan drone program, which planned to use solar-powered drones to beam internet down to earth. Google bought Titan Aerospace in 2014. The company was developing solar-powered drones that could fly for several days at a time and take images of earth or beam down internet. When Google reorganized into Alphabet in 2015, Titan was folded into X, the Alphabet division that focuses on wild tech projects in hopes of stumbling on the next big thing.

37 of 62 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

took a while; by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 06:56 · Score: 1

I guess they finally figured out that it was one thing to build a solar plane that could stay aloft for a while, and entirely different thing to add the weight and power usage of networking or other equipment.
1. Re:took a while; by tsqr · 2017-01-11 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, building a solar airplane that can stay aloft as long as their business model demands, is a significant challenge. Reliability of servo actuators and electric motors is a major issue. Designing a structure light enough to minimize the power required to climb to very high altitudes, but robust enough to survive winds/gusts during ascent and descent, is a major issue.
2. Re:took a while; by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Also cleaning. Real aircraft are cleaned regularly. When you have an aircraft (of any type) that stays aloft for a year at a time, how do you clean it?
  Cleaning is important because it keeps the airfoil surfaces aerodynamically sound. Even birds groom themselves to stay in good shape, it's a matter of survival for them.
3. Re:took a while; by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's simpler than that: you just need to look up the typical windspeeds at the altitudes it would be cruising at (over 60m/s for much of the year). If you then work out the energy density required for overnight operation with achievable lift to drag (def less than 50, even for a stupidly long flying wing), you get a decent velocity of over 1.2m/s. This equates to an energy density of 12hours*9.8*0.6=510KJ/Kg, so even with state of the art lithium cells over 60% of the mass has to be batteries. If you assume that the props are 90% efficient, that the solar panels are effective late into the evening and early in the morning, so you actually need about 14hours of battery power, and that the battery efficiency is about 90%, then this becomes 87% battery mass fraction, leaving virtually nothing for structure, cells, motors, main power electronics, and finally payload. It's very clear that high altitude solar drones are not possible with existing battery technology.
  If lithium sulphur cells ever leave the lab this may change, but currently they are suffering from dendrite formation after less than 100 cycles, and this seems like an almost intractable issue.
  tl;dr : don't expect solar drones any time soon.
No, *physics* killed it by elrous0 · 2017-01-11 07:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Google just finally recognized it.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:No, *physics* killed it by speedplane · 2017-01-11 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Google just finally recognized it.
  I never understood the solar powered drones for internet access. Solar powered drones only make sense if you need to move large distances over many days. That's not what you need for internet access.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
2. Re:No, *physics* killed it by elrous0 · 2017-01-11 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, good old balloons make much more sense if you just need to get up high and stay there. The whole "solar drones" thing reeks of a hype project combining two trendy technologies that are way inferior to a non-trendy, old-fashioned solution.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:No, *physics* killed it by speedplane · 2017-01-11 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, good old balloons make much more sense if you just need to get up high and stay there.
  I bet good old fashioned communications satellites make even more sense. Despite being expensive to deploy, the cost per person covered is probably drastically less expensive than balloons.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
4. Re:No, *physics* killed it by avandesande · 2017-01-11 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I know people who were working on it out here in NM. Simple explanation- it crashed.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
5. Re:No, *physics* killed it by pr0fessor · 2017-01-11 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to see some data on that. High altitude weather balloons can hit an altitude of 20+ miles but a 20 mile tether doesn't sound practical although that would have a nice coverage area.
6. Re:No, *physics* killed it by tsqr · 2017-01-11 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, good old balloons make much more sense if you just need to get up high and stay there.
  If by "stay there" you mean, "stay at high altitude", yes. If you mean "stay at a fixed location relative to the Earth's surface", then not so much. Station keeping is difficult and expensive with good old balloons unless they're tethered, and tethering is not practical at stratospheric altitudes.
7. Re:No, *physics* killed it by tsqr · 2017-01-11 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  a 20 mile tether doesn't sound practical
  It's not just impractical; it's downright dangerous, even with much shorter lengths. If tether breaks at the ground end, interesting things can happen.
8. Re:No, *physics* killed it by pr0fessor · 2017-01-11 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  The military has been using tethered balloons for radar and communications for years the dangers are well known tow of those articles blamed operational procedures. I'm guessing that a satellite would weather a storm better but I'm not so certain it would be cheaper.
9. Re:No, *physics* killed it by HornWumpus · 2017-01-11 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  You think a solar powered, long loiter airplane would have the speed to fight the jetsteam? Solar powered planes will have the same problem.
  Yes they might work outside the jetstream, but it moves.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
10. Re:No, *physics* killed it by tsqr · 2017-01-11 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Satellites are prohibitively expensive, and are not a great solution for Internet connectivity because of very high latency, as anyone who has ever used Hughes Net can attest. Tethered balloons are a poor solution because they're vulnerable to inclement weather, and if you deploy them in sufficient numbers to provide decent coverage, the tethers become hazards to aircraft.
  Untethered airships with station-keeping capability would be much better, if you can load them up with enough batteries to station-keep and run the comms equipment through the night, and carry enough solar cells to recharge the batteries while keeping station and running the comms equipment during the day. Solar-powered fixed-wing aircraft are interesting because they can climb during daylight hours and then trade altitude for power at night.
  Long-term (i.e., months at a time) persistent coverage is a tough nut to crack, which is why it hasn't yet been demonstrated. The problem will likely become easier with the development of higher energy-density batteries and solar arrays with higher power/weight capability.
11. Re:No, *physics* killed it by tsqr · 2017-01-11 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  You think a solar powered, long loiter airplane would have the speed to fight the jetsteam? Solar powered planes will have the same problem.
  Yes they might work outside the jetstream, but it moves.
  A high altitude, long endurance aircraft would fly at nearly twice jetstream altitude, so the jetstream would not pose a problem for station-keeping. There isn't much wind at 55,000 to 65,000 feet. The problem, as I pointed out in an earlier post, is getting the airplane though the weather on ascent or descent. The structural robustness required to achieve that tends to make the airplane too heavy to climb to stratospheric altitudes. There are interesting experiments being done involving very flexible wings and active shape control, but that is definitely not ready for prime time at this point.
12. Re:No, *physics* killed it by HornWumpus · 2017-01-11 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't much air at 55kft ether. I don't presume to know the flight envelope for an entire class of yet unbuilt airplanes.
  Consider the difference in power required for transmitters depending on altitude.
  Also: Google for 'jetstream altitude' returns 8 to 15 km. 15km is about 50,000 feet (using the 3 meters is about 10ft shortcut).
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:No, *physics* killed it by swillden · 2017-01-11 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Google just finally recognized it.
  I never understood the solar powered drones for internet access. Solar powered drones only make sense if you need to move large distances over many days. That's not what you need for internet access.
  Drones also make sense if you want to stay roughly stationary at high altitude over many days, which would be very nice for providing Internet access. Google's other approach, using balloons, has the problem that unless you tether the balloons to the ground you basically have to let them follow the wind. That means you need enough balloons to provide complete coverage, so that as one balloon floats out of range, another one comes into range. Even if you have enough balloons to provide that level of coverage, you also have to figure out how to deal with different airspace jurisdictions; unless you can steer them by moving them up or down into different air currents, or unless you bring them to the ground and truck them back "upwind", they may eventually (depending on latitude) float into the airspace of some country that doesn't want them there.
  The greater controllability of drones, plus the fact that they can usually travel upwind, has a lot of value for providing cheap high-flying Internet coverage. But it also comes with a lot of challenges.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
14. Re:No, *physics* killed it by pr0fessor · 2017-01-11 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Then forget tethering and go for a powered blimp. It would have the ability to do station keeping and wouldn't need to trade altitude for power and it would probably cost less than a fixed wing aircraft. Either way a fixed wing aircraft and a powered blimp will both be effected by weather.
15. Re:No, *physics* killed it by tsqr · 2017-01-11 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't much air at 55kft ether. I don't presume to know the flight envelope for an entire class of yet unbuilt airplanes.
  Stratospheric flight at altitudes above 60kft using solar powered fixed wing aircraft was achieved quite a few years ago. You might find this informative. Still, long endurance remains a daunting challenge.
16. Re:No, *physics* killed it by HornWumpus · 2017-01-11 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's possible, doesn't mean that routine operations will happen at that altitude. Like I say: 'entire class of yet unbuilt airplanes'.
  And nobody has started to address the electric power requirements a hotspot at 60 kft would have. At a 25 mph cruise speed, the wing loading is very low. It's possible the plane will work, just not with a useful payload. Without even looking at power issues, finding a place for directional antenna's on that plane will be challenge, depending on what band they run on.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
17. Re:No, *physics* killed it by speedplane · 2017-01-17 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to see some data on that.
  If balloons were much less expensive than satellites, I imagine that we'd see a lot more of them in the US.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
18. Re:No, *physics* killed it by pr0fessor · 2017-01-17 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  We do see them in the US they provide low altitude radar across the entire southern boarder and are called TARS, however each one covers a large area so there aren't very many.
19. Re:No, *physics* killed it by speedplane · 2017-01-18 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  We do see them in the US
  My point is communications satellites are far more abundant than balloons. That's likely for a reason: cost.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Re:why? by slacktide · 2017-01-11 07:23 · Score: 2

Most likely because it was not cost competitive with other aerial internet access projects that Google is studying - such as Project Loon.
https://x.company/loon/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can track the flight tests on https://www.flightradar24.com/ by searching for HBAL as the identifier.
How to clean... you almost had it by SuperKendall · 2017-01-11 07:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Cleaning is important because it keeps the airfoil surfaces aerodynamically sound. Even birds groom themselves to stay in good shape
So the answer is obvious - we bio-engineer birds that clean themselves - but ALSO clean the drones!
Or we develop a drone with a tongue, basically go with whichever idea can get grants or Google pay money.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:How to clean... you almost had it by The-Ixian · 2017-01-11 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  So the answer is obvious - we bio-engineer birds that clean themselves - but ALSO clean the drones!
  You are missing the obvious - we bio-engineer birds that clean themselves - but ALSO can deliver Internet to the ground!
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
2. Re:How to clean... you almost had it by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-01-11 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  Two African swallows can carry a Wifi transmitter between them using a bit of string.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re:How to clean... you almost had it by Stele · 2017-01-11 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  Hell, even a lousy pair of European swallows could manage one of those wifi transmitters if it were small enough!
Re:Won't produce revenue for Google's customers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

More likely the regulatory/insurance climate is insane. I would bet that the money required to get the proper radio frequencies, get government approval for a drone holding pattern high enough over an urban area and insurance to cover any accidents would bankrupt a small country. There are most definitely also some technical hurtles but I would wager those are relatively minor in comparison. I think Musk summed it up when he was discussing the challenges of starting SpaceX, I believe he said something to the effect that the rocket science was easy, cutting through the red tape took a majority of their time/money. And that is for an industry that has existed for decades.
Re:Won't produce revenue for Google's customers by jason-eric · 2017-01-11 08:20 · Score: 2

I agree totally. Sadly Google has such deep pockets that they are a good target for lawsuits. That's why we can't have nice things.

--
United States
Re:Won't produce revenue for Google's customers by Excelcia · 2017-01-11 08:28 · Score: 2

More likely than that is that it's now a defense/NSA (depending on whether the surveillance is foreign or domestic) project for surveillance drones with unlimited on-station time. Really, that's what they were anyway. The announcement of them as internet-for-the-poor was just a public advertising campaign to get the word out to those in procurement.
Re:Google is killing one of their projects? by Aighearach · 2017-01-11 09:12 · Score: 1

This one had an exceptional turnaround time from buy to kill though. They usually at least run it long enough they can pretend it failed.
I assume they just buy this stuff because somebody needs an exit, and google is their ATM.
Fiber by transami · 2017-01-11 09:25 · Score: 1

What gets me is that they have given up on Google Fiber. If Google can't make that work, how can anyone? Something is very wrong, and I suspect it is over regulation and corporate collusion with prior players (AT&T and Verizon). That doesn't bode well for the future of the Internet.

--
:T:R:A:N:S:
1. Re:Fiber by swb · 2017-01-11 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the MBAs have won and there's just too many finance and number people at Google, and Sergey and Larry have lost the enthusiasm and social cohesion with the smart post-docs with wild ideas that might just work if you threw money at them.
  Maybe with fiber they also figured that 5G was close enough and would end up actually competing with wireline "broadband" enough that whatever pressure value Google Fiber would offer wasn't worth the future investment.
Hot air by Alomex · 2017-01-11 14:20 · Score: 1

Google/Alphabet seems to have a soft spot for hot air, mostly hype pie in the ski projects that were common in the 80s. Boston Dynamics was a survivor of that era and Google bought their story at the tune of 1 billion dollars only to have to turn around and sell it at a loss.
Their merger and acquisitions department is in sore need of a few more skeptical minds.
Re:why? by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · 2017-01-12 07:31 · Score: 1

Thank you for the links! I didn't know how to use Google... :-(