Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airbus' Solar-Powered Zephyr Smashes Flight Duration Record on Maiden Outing (newatlas.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up,-up,-and-away dept.

A solar-powered aircraft from the European aerospace giant Airbus has completed a maiden flight lasting 25 days, 23 hours, and 57 minutes. In doing so, the production model unmanned solar-powered aircraft set the record for the longest flight ever made by any aircraft. From a report: Originally built by British defence company Qinetiq and now owned by Airbus, the Zephyr aircraft is designed to soar through the stratosphere for months at a time by drawing on the power of the sun. It is similar to Facebook's now defunct Aquila aircraft in this sense, and is hoped to one day provide satellite-like services with the flexibility of an unmanned drone. The latest version of the Zephyr weighs just 75 kg (165 lb), but is able to carry up to five times its own weight. Flying above weather and other air traffic at 70,000 ft (21,300 m), the aircraft can be controlled from the ground and has the potential to carry all kinds of payloads, be they to collect high-resolution imagery, provide voice communications or, as was the idea with Aquila, beam internet service to underserved areas. [...] It took off from Arizona on the 11th of July and has only now come down to Earth, a total of 25 days, 23 hours and 57 minutes later. This was the first outing for the production model Zephyr S, and the team is already setting its sights on its next voyage.

22 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Energy density by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    How many tons of cargo does the Zephyr carry?

    According to the article summary:

    The latest version of the Zephyr weighs just 75 kg (165 lb), but is able to carry up to five times its own weight.

    So around 825 lbs.

  2. It is not the longest by mjdrzewi · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is not the longest flight ever, by any aircraft, by time. The record is over 64 days, 64:22:19:05 to be exact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... It looks like it has the unmanned record though. Still a cool achievement having a solar powered plane in the air for that long, and has potential as a satellite replacement.

    1. Re:It is not the longest by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I was about to post this too. Perhaps they meant the record for this century, or without refueling. Still, it's kind of surprising that the longest (time period) record, and most recent was almost 60 years ago. It's even crazier that to get to 7th place it beat out a flight that took place 88 years ago. I guess that no one cares about this record as it seems like it would be somewhat easy to beat with modern tech. Perhaps modern regulations are what is stopping someone from attempting it.

    2. Re:It is not the longest by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Two guys spent 64 straight days cooped up in a Cessna 172?

      My condolences for their sanity.

  3. Cheap Satellite with Catches. by foxalopex · · Score: 2

    There's potential for this to be an inexpensive communications repeater or used for satellite photography (google maps would probably love something like this to keep up to date land imagery). I don't see it being too useful for military because it's too light to have any real defence and it would probably be highly vulnerable to solar flare disruption events. (Probably fry and crash it).

    1. Re:Cheap Satellite with Catches. by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      I don't see it being too useful for military because it's too light to have any real defence

      You'd have to be a pretty sophisticated adversary if you can find and target a 75kg glorified R/C aircraft flying at 70,000+ feet

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Cheap Satellite with Catches. by blindseer · · Score: 2

      I don't see it being too useful for military because it's too light to have any real defence and it would probably be highly vulnerable to solar flare disruption events.

      I disagree, I see this as highly valuable for the military. One problem the military has is keeping communications over a battlefield. If this airplane can provide internet access to far off places then it can provide communications to and from a battlefield and among those on the battlefield.

      Also of military value would be the other planned use for this airplane, providing imagery. Knowing where the friends and foes are located would be quite valuable. Drones were quite effective in previous conflicts to direct artillery, if this can stay in the air for days instead of hours then that would be very valuable. This could likely provide weather reporting with a different instrument package.

      This thing flies so high and for so long they call it a "pseudo-satellite". One problem with satellites is that they are too high to look through clouds, get something lower and more can be seen. Another problem with satellites is they keep moving. They come over the target, and then they aren't over the target. A "pseudo-satellite" can be parked where it's needed and when it's needed.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Cheap Satellite with Catches. by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      Good enough against sheepherders from a military perspective. But it's completely useless against any sort of real advecary. For any semi-competent air defence it's easy pickings. Imagine trying to fly that thing over Donbass, hah, it would be downed before you can say "Buk".

    4. Re:Cheap Satellite with Catches. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Another advantage over satellites is that it can land, be repaired or upgraded, and take off again at very low cost. Even when the Space Shuttle was flying, fixing stuff in-orbit is a right pain in the arse.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Cheap Satellite with Catches. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Good enough against sheepherders from a military perspective. But it's completely useless against any sort of real advecary. For any semi-competent air defence it's easy pickings.

      Define "semi-competent air defense". These solar powered airplanes can fly for days at altitudes of 70,000 feet. That means that they can take off from just about anywhere in the world, reaching altitude in a safe area, then fly over to the battlefield and loiter. Most commercial aircraft have a maximum altitude of 45,000 feet or less. Some military jets can go higher than that 45,000 feet but only by restricting their weapon payload and maneuverability. The few aircraft designed to go that high are recon jets, and they have no weapons, that's assuming they could engage a target that's moving at subsonic speed while they are going Mach 3.

      Because so few aircraft fly above 45,000 feet there are few anti-aircraft systems designed to engage a target that high. This altitude is in the territory of anti-ballistic missile or anti-satellite weaponry. The US military has such weapons, as do many allies. China doesn't have such capability, not yet anyway. Russia might have it, but they lost a lot of ability to keep making these weapons over the decades.

      Here's a short video telling a tale on what happens when an Iranian F-4 fighter jet tries to shoot down an American surveillance drone.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      These "semi-competent" air forces will not be going against a solitary drone flying overhead. They will have to get through the air defenses that come with that drone to shoot it down. Being at such a high altitude is in itself a very good self defense mechanism, it is out of reach of most every military aircraft and most every anti-aircraft system in existence, and leaves a lot of room between it and the ground for defensive aircraft to fly.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  4. Not nearly the longest flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That isn't anything near the longest flight made by any aircraft. This wikipedia page shows six flights that were a longer duration.

  5. Re:Energy density by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    you would not want to be in an aircraft for 26 days in a stretch

    I wouldn't want to be either. But These guys did it for a little shy of 65 days in a Cessna almost 60 years ago. So this is not exactly the record for longest continuous flight of any aircraft.

  6. Re:Energy density by ewibble · · Score: 1

    I think this is non-refueled flight.

  7. Re: um, are you bad at reading, or is it math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It can carry up to 27 tons of sarcasm.

  8. Re:Energy density by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean almost continuously refueled? Because that's what a solar panel on the drone is doing.

    Not at night.

  9. Missed! by fgouget · · Score: 1

    It took off from Arizona on the 11th of July and has only now come down to Earth, a total of 25 days, 23 hours and 57 minutes later.

    They missed their target by 3 minutes obviously ;-)

    1. Re:Missed! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Time compression.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  10. Re:so what by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    who cares

    Your local police department.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  11. Re:Energy density by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Balloons and blimps have also stayed aloft for longer than 27 days. The claim, as written in TFA, is wrong.

    Sure, you can qualify if by saying "without refueling" or "heavier than air" or "powered flight" or whatever, but TFA doesn't say that. It says "any aircraft", which is baloney.

  12. I asked the exact same question by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    In 1995 to the engineers at Edwards Air Force Base. "What is the longest duration flight you have going? A month?"

    I got the ole "No comment" with a wink.

    My gut tells me the US has an aircraft out there from years ago that has already done the Airbus feat.

    But, regardless, it is a neat trick.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  13. How does it land? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    I've found video of takeoff, but not of landing. I see no landing gear. Does landing also involve a bunch of people running and holding it?

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  14. Re:Energy density by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    IFS Zephyr carries a few dozen passengers including the protagonist.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20