backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 120 comment(s) - last by delphinus100.. on Nov 29 at 10:07 PM

The HB-SIA solar plane in its hangar.  (Source: Cavotec Blog)

The new solar plane, captained by adventurer Bertrand Piccard is as wide as a jumbo jet, but only weighs as much as a mid-sized car.  (Source: BBC News)

Bertrand Piccard, legendary Swiss adventurer  (Source: Mex's Blog)
Plane has completed initial tests, will see its first test flight in February

Commercial and private aircraft are marvels of modern engineering, but typically they are fuel-guzzling beasts.  As the world moves toward a future of alternative energy and alternative fuels, many are hoping to give the airplane a green makeover.  Some are focusing on biofuel-powered aircraft.  Others are focusing on using alternative energy, chiefly solar power to power passenger aircraft.

Solar power has already been used to power unmanned aircraft, but the challenge of hauling a heavy human up into the atmosphere remains more daunting. 

Enter Bertrand Piccard.  Mr. Piccard, a distinguished Swiss adventurer will captain a new solar one-person aircraft designed by alternative energy engineering firm Solar Impulse.  The aircraft's wingspan is as wide as a jumbo jet (to provide maximum solar panel space), but thanks to space-age carbon-fiber materials only weighs as much as a mid-sized car -- about 1,500 kg (the same as a Toyota Camry).

Describes Solar Impulse chief executive Andre Borschberg in an interview with BBC News, "This is truly a new design - an airplane the size of an Airbus and the weight of a mid-sized car - so we're not taking risks by not understanding something."

On Thursday and Friday the prototype aircraft saw its first action outside the hangar, taxing around the runway, first with a protective trolley and later without.  The testing went smoothly with a Solar Impulse spokesperson stating, "It was just fantastic today. We are very excited about it."

In about two weeks the plane will attempt a very short flight, a so-called "flea hop".  States Mr. Borschberg, "We'll take off at the beginning of the runway, fly a few metres above it - a little bit like the Wright brothers did in 1903 - and then land again, to see how it behaves at the beginning of the flight."

In February, assuming the test flight goes well, Captain Piccard will attempt to boldly go where no man has gone before, piloting the new design in a full flight.  The flight is intended to be followed by an attempted Trans-Atlantic flight in 2012.  Describes Mr. Borschberg, "If this is satisfactory, we will dismantle it and transport it [to Payerne air force base in western Switzerland] where we will do the real first flight of about two hours, in February."

There have been a handful of past solar aircraft, but most have relied on first storing energy in batteries, then flying (one example is the Sunseeker from the 1990s).  The HB-SIA, as the new aircraft is called gets enough charge directly from the panels to take off during the day.  It does utilize charge stored in batteries to power night time flight.  It flies at a relatively slow speed of 28 mph to maximize energy efficiency.  The design is intended to be able to fly for multiple days without stopping.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2009 5:08:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It flies at a relatively slow speed of 28 mph to maximize energy efficiency. The design is intended to be able to fly for multiple days without stopping.


At that speed it would HAVE to fly for days to get ANYWHERE. "Relatively" slow ?? I can go faster on a 10 speed.

Now I'll wait to get rated down by the eco freaks who don't care how stupid and impractical something is, as long as it's "greener".




RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By DEVGRU on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Souka on 11/24/2009 7:37:37 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure they'll utilize a TAIL-wind.... also, is 28mph WITH a tailwind?!?! :) *j/k of course*


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By grath on 11/25/2009 4:10:53 PM , Rating: 1
Just pray that nobody ever wants to fly west


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By widowmaker314 on 11/24/2009 5:17:56 PM , Rating: 5
You are completely missing the point. By pushing this technology in impractical ways, you discover more about it and that is what matters. You discover and develop new ways of using this technology in more practical ways.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By EricMartello on 11/24/2009 6:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna have to go ahead and agree with you on that one. There is really nothing they can do, practically, to make a solar powered plane driven by propellers compete with a modern jet. Even if this thing used ducted fans instead of props it would probably struggle to sustain 50 MPH.

I don't think it is bad for people to try to be more responsible about how they use natural resources, but taking it too far - to the point where it is just retardedly impractical - serves little purpose to anyone.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By bissimo on 11/24/2009 6:25:14 PM , Rating: 4
YEAH!
People are stupid for trying new things! Everyone should keep doing everything the same forever! Innovation is for assholes! If something's not a sure-fire success, you shouldn't even think about trying it!


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By EricMartello on 11/24/2009 7:17:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
YEAH!
People are stupid for trying new things! Everyone should keep doing everything the same forever! Innovation is for assholes! If something's not a sure-fire success, you shouldn't even think about trying it!


Innovation starts with a good idea...solar "passenger" plane...not so much. Good ideas are often extensions and improvements of existing ideas that are proven to work. Example:

Wheel -> Cart/Carriage -> Car/Truck/Train

Human flight was once a foreign idea that many people scoffed at - but a lot of that was due to the difficulty of making a working prototype airplane. Nobody ever said "being able to fly would be impractical" so hence it was a worthy pursuit.

quote:
Never is a silly word to use when it comes to technology.

Solar cells are currently 20-35% effective in absorbing/converting solar energy into electricity depending on the technology used. If that were bumped up to ~80%, I'm sure a solar powered plane would be much more competitive.


I think this particular idea is stupid. The only way this might work with solar/electric power is if you went with a "flying wing" type of design and covered the whole upper surface with solar panels. Even then, it would still be more like a flying cruise ship than a speedy jet assuming you could generate enough thrust to get it off the ground.

For reference, a modern 747 has 4 engines that put out 66K lbs of thrust each - up to 264K total at full power. If you could generate 25% of that with solar power and sustain it, maybe the flying wing idea above would become a bit more practical as a flying cargo transport that is slower than a normal jet but faster and cheaper than a cargo tanker boat.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By The0ne on 11/24/2009 9:31:51 PM , Rating: 4
Most innovations come from bad and often times horrific and deadly ideas and concepts. That is why R&D is so important, so that things can be iron out. Problem in the past was that R&D really didn't exist much nor highly supported.

Without proper R&D, you will still have scientist and engineers dying left and right trying out there ideas :) And as a fellow Engineer, no matter how impossible it may seem I think we all know better that knowing better now usually turns out wrong in the future.

There are way too many examples to even begin citing here. But for DT, how about the 1GHz CPU limit and the 640K :D Those are always fun to bring up lol.

Oh, and when I did my science project on solar cells over 25 years ago it was getting at most 15%. Yes, it's slow but I blame that on bad PR resulting in less funding for R&D.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By mcnabney on 11/25/2009 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 1
Don't try to compare this to a technology which can increase performance by shrinking the process.

The simple fact is that solar cannot possibly compare in any way to a jet engine. A 747 uses 45 megawatts of energy when flying. Using the most efficient solar panels it would require a surface area of about 62 acres to power it. Even a 100% efficient panel would still require 16 acres to power it. Completely undoable, and that isn't even factoring for things like, you know, clouds.


By Shining Arcanine on 11/25/2009 1:45:28 PM , Rating: 3
The megawatt is a unit of power, not energy.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/25/2009 12:43:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Human flight was once a foreign idea that many people scoffed at - but a lot of that was due to the difficulty of making a working prototype airplane. Nobody ever said "being able to fly would be impractical" so hence it was a worthy pursuit.


You're so wrong it's not even funny.

“Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” - Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

There are many more where that came from.

Using your argument the solar plane is just an extension of a good idea proven to work, also.

Gliders -> propelled flight -> solar propelled flight

It's just simply a change in how the energy is made. Each extension of a good idea is always far less practical than the current technology when it first comes out. So how is this any different? Automobiles were once far less practical than a horse/buggy and people scoffed them, but innovation pulled it through. How do you have any idea that solar powered flight will not become practical? It's ignorant and/or naive to say that solar power will not work, it is still in it's infancy and no body knows what will come of it after many years of refinement.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By EricMartello on 11/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/25/2009 5:52:59 AM , Rating: 5
I don't cite wiki or Google, don't make assumptions it makes you look arrogant. those are actual quotes from actual people in history.

And right back at ya, what the hell are YOU talking about?! Your long drawn out post is full of nothing but assumptions and ignorance.

You fail to recognize the vast improvements of solar cells and fail to understand that it takes time to refine some technology. History has proven that.

Just because this airplane is slow doesn't mean future revisions or new designs will also be, don't you realize that this is a concept and not for any practical use?? You are only looking at the here and now, open your eyes to the bigger picture.

The key for all these solar powered ideas is in the solar technology and composite lightweight materials which are improving all the time. You seem like one of those pessimistic individuals that cannot seem to see the good or potential in things. Even if we can't make a completely solar powered plane there is still potential application for solar panels on airplanes, and these kinds of concepts are what helps people apply it and refine it. Before now I bet many people have not seen any application of solar panels on airplanes, now that they have it opens the doors for more possibilities and new ideas. You obviously cannot see this.

You are a insecure individual that relies on insults to make himself feel intelligent, congrats.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By tastyratz on 11/25/2009 8:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
While he has attempted to convey his points through insults and judgemental nitpicking I am going to go on a limb here and say I agree with a few of the things he has said.

You raise a valid point for the use of solar panels on planes for other uses, I don't know if this would result in much more research in composites as we already have many reliant viable and funded technologies (from ultralights to cars) which fuel them. Let me start by saying I agree these projects are what fuel much useful research. Space travel may not be standard every day household practice but many useful things in our daily lives have resulted from nasa research.

BUT - when strictly isolated to discussing solar flight the use of this technology for the same tasks we currently perform is extremely and highly improbable.

The amount of energy contained in modern fuels is absolutely staggering on paper. The plane is essentially electric. The amount of energy required to power an electric motor (even considering leaps in efficiency) at reasonable air travel speeds carrying a standard passenger jet's cargo is unfathomable. Battery technology has advanced quite a bit over the years but it would need to advance to the point where multiple flights can be made on a single charge to approach practical any viability. (the sun went down/unexpected storm means we must land in the Atlantic? no thank you). While batteries are less of a problem for grounded electric cars they are a huge problem as cargo for air planes.

Solar panels also have been around for decades with minimalistic energy production and advances. While the recent advancements have accelerated the efficiency multi-fold comparatively they are still fractional percentages of true viable usability in this application.

Those 2 hurdles are within mans control however and what make it improbable instead of impossible.

Solar flight as presented however has 1 irrefutable showstopper that cant really be argued:

Purely for safety reasons no matter how the solar and battery technologies advance, in flight solar charging can never be required as the sole source of energy simply based on the volatility of sunlight. No technology advancement will give us more sunlight, stop night from happening, and stop flying in/below clouds from being unavoidable at times. That right there is what stops this from being more than a novelty for commercial use above anything else.

The reality is (like others have stated) the technology can certainly develop but even allowing for multiple breakthrough advances but the amount of time required to be vested in R&D on a project like that would likely mean a better more practical technology would surface before it could truly come to fruition.

The "airprius" Will make a great substitute of the Gulfstream for all the Cameron Diaz's of the world though.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/25/2009 7:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for your thoughts, it's much easier to debate with someone who doesn't outright attack and insult you.

I totally hear what you are saying, it makes sense. Current solar technology definitely needs work, as did the first internal combustion engines in order to become practical. It took well over 100 years before the first internal combustion engine/automobile became practical and by that time it was quite different than its predecessor.

quote:
The reality is (like others have stated) the technology can certainly develop but even allowing for multiple breakthrough advances but the amount of time required to be vested in R&D on a project like that would likely mean a better more practical technology would surface before it could truly come to fruition.


I hear ya, but it's completely possible that the process of working on improving solar technology may be what yields the more practical technology to surface. My point is that negating this breakthrough as impractical and pointless like a few individuals have is not going to help advance things and it never will. Some of the most impractical ideas in history have proven to become something much more than they originally were after many many years of refinement. I mean, look at all of da Vinci's sketches and ideas that have been re-engineered in modern society that were completely impractical then. You can't completely negate an idea just because it sounds like it wont work, you have to get out there and test, refine and rebuild it. That is how many of our engineered marvels became reality, not by being close minded and putting off ideas as pointless because of hearsay.

Thanks again for your polite input!


By delphinus100 on 11/27/2009 11:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have zero doubt that a solar-powered aircraft will have certain practical applications...but there are some niches it will not fill, just as there are some things no prop-driven plane can hope to do, vs. jets.

Consider the absolutely ideal case of an aircraft that's completely covered with photovoltaic cells that we'll assume are 100% efficient at converting light to electricity.

As we get better with composites, nanotubes and similar materials, you could make an extremely light and strong airframe. (God knows Boeing's trying hard to work in that direction.)

There are propeller designs that could allow a plane to push surprisingly close to Mach 1. You could probably design some very efficient electric motors that would be adequate to the task of driving them.

But is there a match between the power those motors will require for that performance, and the absolute theoretical maximum power-from-sunlight that the total surface area of this plane could give you at noon on a completely cloudless day (and perhaps above a fairly reflective surface like white desert sand)?

I doubt it.

And remember, ground based-solar can, in principle, take all the area it needs. Increasing a plane's surface area, all other things being equal, increases drag, increasing your power requirements for the same speed.

So, you can't hope to compete on speed (And speed isn't just for the benefit of passengers...a faster plane can fly routes more often, and it's only making you money when it picks up more people/cargo and flies again. [Consider, how much money would a slow taxi make per day?] Yes, the 'fuel' is free, but the plane still has to pay for itself, before you can see a profit. Especially at night, or other real-world conditions.) with other commercial planes. Period.

However...

If your application requires range and endurance (Maritime or other patrol/search and rescue? Communications relay?) more than speed, then maybe you now have something...


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Fritzr on 11/25/2009 5:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
One use for a solar owered aircraft would be aerial freighters. Think solar powered Zeppelins.

I have copy of a popular science book that includes a brief history of flight. The author concludes the section with his opinion that nothing useful can be done with present day tecnology. Published 1917. 30 years later...


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 7:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
I would go for the solar powered zeppelins since they rely on gas for lift, not on thrust. The problem with the solar powered aircraft is that it does not generate enough thrust to do much more than get itself aloft, and that with a very fragile airframe that probably will not withstand very much dynamic loading due to its need for light weight construction. If you are only relying on solar power for forward thrust (like a solar powered car) with the quantity of square yards of fabric space in a zeppelin, I think you might have something there. Plus you have the structural capability to carry a back up ICE engine for emergencies.

I would never get in a solar powered plane (I would bet someone lunch that a solar powered plane trip is Piccard's last adventure) but I would get in your Zep any day.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By bigbubba on 11/25/2009 6:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is usually the precursor to wikipedia links followed by stupid comments that reflect the poster's general lack of understanding beyond what the Google/Wiki tells him.

That really sets an unshakable foundation for what you are about to say next...I like how you set that up...you almost seem intelligent.

LOL, couldn't stand being put in your place??! The reply of a desperate man!


By Ytsejamer1 on 11/25/2009 8:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By The0ne on 11/25/2009 10:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
Saw a driver this morning, just a few minutes ago, driving his own custom solar power vehicle lol. It's a egg shell and one seater but he's driving it in the streets and with good speed. Makes me want to build one myself :D


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By AnnihilatorX on 11/25/2009 3:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'll remind you how scientists "discovered" the ever so useful radar of its current use.
They were inventing death ray machines for the world war.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 7:41:15 AM , Rating: 4
No they weren't, bonehead, they were testing radio transmission across a busy ship channel and noticed that the signal became attentuated when a ship passed between the towers. Go read another web article.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By stromgald30 on 11/24/2009 6:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Never is a silly word to use when it comes to technology.

Solar cells are currently 20-35% effective in absorbing/converting solar energy into electricity depending on the technology used. If that were bumped up to ~80%, I'm sure a solar powered plane would be much more competitive.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Ringold on 11/24/2009 7:26:39 PM , Rating: 1
Never, in regards to solar aircraft competing even with bio-fuel powered jet aircraft like an A380, seems appropriate.

I don't have to do the math to know that enough solar energy doesn't fall on the realistic wingspan of a safe, realistic aircraft design to transport 525 people at 560mph for 8200 nautical miles non-stop.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By gabacus on 11/24/2009 9:37:05 PM , Rating: 5
Never... hmmm...

i see 2 different types of people in the world...

villages who stay in their little village, hunt, gather, make loincloths etc...

and explorers, those who venture out of the village in search of new lands

standing at the waters edge, a villager would say "all i see is water i cannot drink"

the explorer would say "i wonder what is out there past the horizon."

the villager will never know what is out there until they are told by the explorer


By MamiyaOtaru on 11/25/2009 3:50:17 AM , Rating: 3
Your BS platitudes don't change reality. You can only get so much energy from the sun per square meter, and you'd need way to many meters to gather enough to propel a hundred passengers + baggage through the air at reasonable speed. Dream all you want, but I'd steer far away from investing in solar powered passenger planes


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By EricMartello on 11/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/25/2009 6:19:04 AM , Rating: 1
I don't just think, I KNOW you're missing the point.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 7:45:28 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you have solved the sound barrier issue for prop blade tips when trying to propel your solar powered plane to commercial aircraft speeds? The sonic cracks from those blade tips will make flying in that thing unenjoyable - IF you could ever get your solar powered electric engine to that speed while generating any thrust.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By EricMartello on 11/25/2009 3:42:32 PM , Rating: 1
I'm waiting for you to offer something other than wishful thinking to support you argument. Explain how we are going to generate 260K lbs of thrust with solar/electric power? Hell, even 180K lbs of thrust...do it. Even with 100% efficient solar cells and super-conducting electric motors with near 100% efficiency it would not happen. For that reason, the notion of a solar-electric passenger plane as a replacement for something like the 747 or A380 IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Also, LOL at the morons agreeing with you and rating down the factual posts.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/26/2009 5:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Your so stuck on trying to compare this to 747's and jets that you are totally missing the point. Do you really not see any other practical application for this or understand that this concept is just opening the doors for innovation? Are you really that close minded or just being a troll? It's pointless to even try to debate with you. By all means continue yammering on, it's your rating.


By EricMartello on 11/28/2009 1:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your so stuck on trying to compare this to 747's and jets that you are totally missing the point. Do you really not see any other practical application for this or understand that this concept is just opening the doors for innovation? Are you really that close minded or just being a troll? It's pointless to even try to debate with you. By all means continue yammering on, it's your rating.


Still no evidence...not even an educated guess as to how solar power could be practical for passenger aircraft. You just continue to say how we're all "blind to the possibilities" - what possibilities?

For your convenience, I've quoted a part of the first paragraph of this article for you...how about you start with some basic reading comprehension before you spam the comments with ignorant optimism about something you have no clue about.

quote:
Others are focusing on using alternative energy, chiefly solar power to power passenger aircraft .


Read the bold part...this is what we're talking about, and it just so happens that the main competition for this application would be...dun dun dun...a 747 or any other jet-powered passenger plane. Prop powered commuter planes represent a small percentage of the total commercially operated planes in action and even they sustain speeds well over 28 MPH while carrying 20-30 passengers plus cargo.

I'll say it again - SOLAR POWERED PASSENGER PLANES WILL NEVER BE A PRACTICAL REPLACEMENT FOR CURRENT PASSENGER JETS . We are not talking about other applications - we are talking about the application STATED in the article.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Calin on 11/25/2009 4:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah!
Friction propelled cars will never be able to compete with rocket-propelled ones (see the world land speed record).

On the other way, this is just as great (or just as insignificant) as the world first aerial circumnavigation without refueling. I will just show that some things are possible (even if completely impractical).

Congratulations to the people that made this a reality


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/24/2009 7:38:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No, sorry. Compared to traditional airplanes this will never be "practical". It could be more practical than it is now, sure. But never truly practical.


quote:
I'm gonna have to go ahead and agree with you on that one. There is really nothing they can do, practically, to make a solar powered plane driven by propellers compete with a modern jet


Sure THIS plane will never be practical, but you have to start somewhere. Just like the Wright Brothers and Nicholas Joseph Cugnot. I'm sure MANY people couldn't find a practical use for the Kitty Hawk or the first automobile amde in the late 1700's that went 2 MPH, but look where it got us over the coarse of 100+ years! This thing isn't made to compete with jet planes or any traditional plane for that matter, so that point is irrelevant. It's meant to show how solar power can be utilized and get people developing new ideas. Who knows, this could be a beginning to a new generation of airplanes. Maybe this will help guide people to refine the technology so that in 50-100 years solar powered planes WILL compete with jets. Impractical ideas that become mainstream are all throughout history, it takes refinement and innovation to make a good idea practical. Without people coming forward with ideas like this we wouldn't get anywhere.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By lelias2k on 11/24/2009 6:21:22 PM , Rating: 4
And evidently computers used in the 40s, which were less powerful than a current pocket calculator, would never be practical either.

Get real man. The thing is the size of a cabinet and can barely be programmed, it definitely has no future...

Anyone who puts down green developments we're seeing nowadays just because they don't seem fit for our current use is simply clueless about how technology evolves...


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By lelias2k on 11/24/2009 6:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, breakthroughs in solar power are going to come from the manufacturing of the panels themselves. THAT is the limitation, NOT how you apply existing ones.


It seem to me that even you believe that the limitation is related to technology...

Then again, there's so much BS coming through your keyboard I didn't expect you to remember that...


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By monomer on 11/24/2009 7:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. Developing lighter airframes, efficient engines, and engineering all this into a self-sufficient package is completely useless endeavour.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Jedi2155 on 11/24/2009 7:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hello UAV loiter capability?

I think there are a TON of practical applications for this especially in the realm of surveillance. Its a lot cheaper than launching a satellite.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By EricMartello on 11/25/2009 5:03:32 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah man, that's smart thinkin! Solar powered surveillance...except that most surveillance happens at night...


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/27/2009 1:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's called batteries, you know, the ones that store solar power? Think for 2 seconds before you respond.


By EricMartello on 11/28/2009 2:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
Cute idea except you're only extending your lack of knowledge even further:

1) Batteries would drastically increase the weight of the craft and would not be able to provide sufficient power for continuous operation (aka loitering) AND simultaneously powering the onboard electronics.

2) As the batteries deplete, they would need to be recharged. Battery charging can quick-charged or trickle-charged.

3) Quick-charging is based on the battery's discharge rate - that rate depends on the type of battery being used. The quick-charging process draws a lot of amps and would most likely max out the solar cell's power output, thus preventing any other system from functioning.

3) Trickle charging occurs at 0.5 to 1.5 amps and the time it takes would most likely be longer than that of available daylight, which would prevent the batteries from being fully charged.

4) Considering the payload capacity reduction and increased electrical load required for charging, solar power / batteries would not be a smart solution if your goal is to have a drone that can loiter non-stop for hours. I guess the engineers already realized that fact or the predator drone would already be designed using solar panels and batteries to keep it in the air nearly indefinitely.

5) A lighter-than-air aircraft (i.e. a blimp) would be the optimal choice for something that needs to be airborne for long periods of time over a specific area.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 7:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is already used for surveillance. A solar powered aircraft like this has been flying over the western US for nearly two decades. AND it flies at night on battery power. The ONLY innovation in this craft is the ability to take off on solar power instead of battery power.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By AnnihilatorX on 11/25/2009 3:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
Also, who said planes must carry loads of passengers? A personal 2 seater low power plane for commute may even be possible if solar panel efficiency is say tripled and wing span reduced to reasonable manageable size.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By mindless1 on 11/25/2009 9:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
Let's think about that. If solar power is tripled it is still huge for 2 person travel. At 28 MPH top speed it is also incredibly slow, remembering you can't usually land where you want to go, rather at an airport so it could take longer than just driving the whole way (certainly so in most cases).

Then there is the cost of solar cells versus a battery pack that is cheaper and would have plenty of runtime because we both know nobody is going to travel, let alone commute such a distance that it would take several days in a 28MPH airplane to get there, so entirely battery powered is not out of the question.

What this is more than anything is leveraging existing tech to make a novelty item. Grand waste of time and money but seen as a hobby, most hobbies are for the enjoyment and do cost time and money.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By FITCamaro on 11/24/2009 11:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah.....a plane that has to be the size of an Airbus to be able to carry the weight of itself and a single person at 28 mph. Yeah that has ANY chance of ever being practical.

Trying to power an aircraft with solar power is probably the dumbest use of it ever. You'd need near 100% efficiency to even come near the realm of feasibility.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/25/2009 12:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really not understand that you have to start somewhere? This airplane is not for any practical purposes it's more proof of concept that it can work. It takes many years of refinement and innovation to make somethings practical. Just because it doesn't seem practical now doesn't mean it cannot be developed to become practical over time. Without people designing things like this we wouldn't be anywhere as humans. Like I said in another post of mine, the first self propelled automobile designed in the late 1700's went 2 MPH and weighed 8000 lbs. That is FAR from practical, but look where many years of refinement and innovation got us! The same can be said for the airplanes and the Kitty Hawk. Just because this current model of solar plane is slow and impractical doesn't mean that it should be discredited and not looked into more. You're as bad as Reclaimer when it comes to thinking outside the box.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 7:53:10 AM , Rating: 4
Okay, every one is missing the SOLE innovation in this aircraft. One like it has existed for nearly 10 years. Its ONLY innovation is being able to take off on solar power alone. PERIOD. Helios was developed at NASA Dryden in 2001 and looks almost exactly like this bird.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/26/2009 3:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
That is also for military purposes, not civilian. This shows that not only military can accomplish this kind of technology now and opens the doors.


By AnnihilatorX on 11/25/2009 3:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
Hell if there is a solar personal flying machine that is refined to be more compact or foldable, flies 30mph, I'd gladly buy it if I can use it and if I can afford it.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By EricMartello on 11/25/2009 5:07:01 AM , Rating: 3
Logic and reason is a lost cause in this thread, my friend.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By bigbubba on 11/25/2009 6:04:00 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, you and Reclaimer are to blame.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By The0ne on 11/25/2009 10:15:27 AM , Rating: 1
It's isn't logic, it's personal opinion on technologies that you and others really can't appreciate. It is thinking inside a closed box that an idea will not spawn other ideas, creating potential innovations. Worst, it's using current applications to prove your statements that it SURELY can't happen. Yea, that 640K limit seemed impossible alright. That land speed record was impossible too. And while at it, lets add that the earth was not flat.

Innovations don't happen to people sitting around arguing over and over that it's illogical and impractical to even start something. That type of person is called a dumbass and is usually lazy.

As Einstein would, I ignore these ignorant fools and continue with finding answers.


By EricMartello on 11/25/2009 3:51:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's isn't logic, it's personal opinion on technologies that you and others really can't appreciate. It is thinking inside a closed box that an idea will not spawn other ideas, creating potential innovations. Worst, it's using current applications to prove your statements that it SURELY can't happen. Yea, that 640K limit seemed impossible alright. That land speed record was impossible too. And while at it, lets add that the earth was not flat.


Please, humor me and dispute the logical arguments with some facts and not "Yeah man, let's do it cuz we believe in it! WOOOOO" bullshit. Go ahead and explain how a solar-electric plane could ever match a current 747 in terms of safety, practicality, utility, efficiency and cost. Do it or shut up.

quote:
Innovations don't happen to people sitting around arguing over and over that it's illogical and impractical to even start something. That type of person is called a dumbass and is usually lazy.


Innovations never happen from the pursuit of a failed concept...ahem...like the concrete warship. Solar technology has been around for DECADES and only now is it moving from "completely impractical" to "largely impractical".

quote:
As Einstein would, I ignore these ignorant fools and continue with finding answers.


Einstein made some great contributions but a lot of his work was highly theoretical, untested and (still) unproven. We cling to his theories because nobody has come up with anything better...which is kinda sad if you think about it...and he died pursuing some ridiculous "theory of everything" where he tried to condense the whole of existence into a single equation. Possible? Yes...but knowing that would be like a cockroach knowing the bottom of your shoe is made from rubber - knowing it won't change anything and will not stop him from being squished.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By phantom505 on 11/25/2009 12:50:31 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. How fast and good were the first cars?


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Totally on 11/25/2009 10:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well the current tech it eventually replaced (read: horse and buggy)didn't exactly blow it was in terms of performance.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By leonowski on 11/24/2009 5:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the ultimate goal is to get to an efficient way of travel. Do you think we are done with exploring different ways of using different types of energy? Should we just give up because oil is ready and cheap?

These are baby steps. No expects this to be the final product. You can't make a final product without trying different things out. It has nothing to do with what you call "eco freaks." It has everything to do with human curiosity and our desire to create new/interesting things.

If we didn't go through this, we would all still be living in caves scared of the outside world. Why don't you come out of your cave and appreciate progress and discovery?


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By B166ER on 11/24/2009 5:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Grrr, I'm ready to fight! GRRR!!


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By leonowski on 11/24/2009 5:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Where in this reply did I tout conservation? My point about progress is exactly what you repeated "Progress is what got us OUT of the caves!"

If it is a research grant, why do you mention "eco freaks"? Are research grants funding eco freaks?

Research is simply a search for knowledge, which is what this project is doing.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By leonowski on 11/24/2009 5:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. You should just share you knowledge with the world so we can stop wasting our time with research.

I can't believe these morons are trying things out when you had the answer all along.

Thanks.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By leonowski on 11/24/2009 6:08:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No it has everything to do with research grant money probably.


OK, then it isn't research grant money pushing this like you said earlier. We are back to my original point of this NOT having to do with "eco freaks" but instead with basic human curiosity. They want to know if this proof of concept is viable. If it isn't, fine. It's better to fail after trying than to fail without trying. And even better than both of those: succeeding.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By leonowski on 11/24/2009 6:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
But you began this "debate" by attacking "eco freaks" and immediately discounting this article simply because of your distaste for other opinions that differ from your own.

Later, you use the word "again" in this sentence:

quote:
Again, breakthroughs in solar power are going to come from the manufacturing of the panels themselves.


Yet, you never made this strong point before. You could have just said that. Instead, you chose to "piss" on this idea and everyone who seemed to support it.

I do think you point is strong in that solar panels need to be improved. But we can burn the candle at both ends here and try to apply what we know and have now to practical solutions. Again, if we find that this isn't practical, we need to continue burning the candle at both ends.


By eddieroolz on 11/25/2009 12:37:59 AM , Rating: 1
Admit it; he pretty much killed your argument there. Babbling on like a child will not help thy case.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By mattclary on 11/24/2009 5:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, the ultimate goal is to get to an efficient way of travel.


Imagine if you will, a contest where you are given a gallon of gasoline and 2000 lbs of steel. You are told to use the energy in that gallon of gas to move that mass 20 miles. That, my friend, is a challenge in efficient thinking.


By Chernobyl68 on 11/25/2009 1:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'de give the fuel to a locomotive, and stick the load on a train.

Done.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Chernobyl68 on 11/24/2009 6:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, the ultimate goal is to get to an efficient way of travel. Do you think we are done with exploring different ways of using different types of energy? Should we just give up because oil is ready and cheap?


A solar powered plane that is efficient but not practical will never see widespread adoption. The efficiencies will never be realized on a large scale, and so is actually inefficient because its a waste of time.

You want an eco-friendly way to cross the Atlantic? Take a sailboat. That's what a plane that only makes 70km per hour is competing against. It may take a day or maybe two longer, but you can take 10 people or more on a high-tech high-speed racing sailboat. And its not experimental technology.


By Chernobyl68 on 11/24/2009 6:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Strike that, you're competing against solar powered lighter than air craft (blimps/derigibles)


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By lelias2k on 11/24/2009 6:30:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The efficiencies will never be realized on a large scale


I love how people get attached to absolutes.

Yes, the world is flat.

No we can't fly.

The moon? Are you crazy?

For every "never" there is someone who one day will turn it into reality.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Ringold on 11/24/2009 7:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
Never seen people so dead-set on arguing just for the sake of arguing; it's only making you look like an idiot. There is no possible a way that a product that has no mass-market appeal can achieve the efficiencies of scale as other products that do, because it lacks the.. scale.. of sales. The way the guy framed his statement was correct.

With your apparent line of thinking, a mom and pop general store should be able to compete with the global hyper-efficient supply chain of WalMart. Sorry, does not and can not happen and never will (assuming they are servicing the same customer needs).

Unless you want to argue with most every economist going back to Xenophon (430 BC) anyway.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By lelias2k on 11/25/2009 12:59:19 AM , Rating: 3
Since you didn't get my point, let me spell it out for you:

His comment about this being a waste of time is based on the assumption that this is efficient, but not practical.

It's silly to say never when eventually technology might evolve enough to make this concept applicable in a practical solution.

There, I don't even need to point out the viable solutions that are there right now for this kind of project.

On top of that, to think that technology only evolves to be mass-marketed is to totally neglect the power of niche markets.

So next time, instead of calling people idiots, ask questions if you don't get it.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Connoisseur on 11/24/2009 5:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that new endeavors not be attempted at all just because that the initial iterations are less practical than current technology? If everyone thought that way, we'd still be riding horse-driven buggies and using an abacus to do our math.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Connoisseur on 11/24/2009 5:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is not, and never will be, better.


Lol I wonder what spectators to the first steam-powered engine said...

Seriously though, you're suggesting that we simply try to improve on the existing status quo?
1) not trying to be a green nut here, but we WILL EVENTUALLY run out of that lovely oil to power our planes/trains and automobiles and no level of tweaking existing powerplants will solve that problem. One way or another (via chemical, solar, nuclear, midget or other powerplant), this issue needs to be addressed.
2)You're saying that you're ABSOLUTELY 100% sure that solar power won't be a viable technology in the next 10, 20, 50 years? Even if you're a solar power expert, that seems extremely presumptuous to say you know how technology is going to advance in the future.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
By Connoisseur on 11/25/2009 10:37:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Okay so we can't ? Let me get this right, I'm being attacked for pissing all over this solar plane and being called a naysayer, but you get away with saying we can't make standard aircraft better ??


I think you quoted my comment without actually reading it. At what point did I say that we SHOULDN'T improve on existing designs? FYI, when the adverb "simply" is used in that context it implies "only". Another way to exactly restate the same comment:
"You're suggesting that we ONLY try to improve on the existing status quo?"

Note that this isn't me changing my argument in the face of adversity. It's the exact same argument with one word replaced with a synonym. Once again, no matter how much you enhance the existing jet designs, the end result is that they're going to be grounded in the long term due to an inevitable lack of fossil fuels. There are a couple of routes to take here:
1) Sit with our thumbs up our collective butts thinking that oil will magically never run out and that the tech we have is good enough.
2) Find a new fuel/energy source.

Dismissing an idea just because it's not feasible in the short term is an extremely short-sighted argument and will lead to technological stagnation. Even if this tech isn't feasible for it's original use, it could also be used for other purposes (perpetually flying UAV's for ex.). if I did the leg-work, I could probably find dozens, if not hundreds of examples of new technologies that started off exactly this way.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By leonowski on 11/24/2009 5:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
And how do we jump those hurdles? By not being in the race? By complaining that there are no ways around the hurdles?

Your analogy using hurdles implies that you think that these challenges can be overcome. I mean, you didn't say "huge brick walls" - but good engineers can get around brick walls too. :)


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Keeir on 11/24/2009 6:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And how do we jump those hurdles? By not being in the race? By complaining that there are no ways around the hurdles?


The only way Solar Powered Flight will be realistic is if we somehow rewrite the laws of nature.

A device capable of keeping several hundred pounds aloft will require a certain amount of power. Even 100% solar capture devices will only provide so much power.

So lets see, if we go with 25% capture devices currently being used, then a 100% "jumbo jet" sized solar area could slowly move 8000 lbs or maybe move 2000 lbs at 50 mph.

Back of the evelope, best case senario really doesn't look that promising.

Now if you do a Blimp where the Solar power only needs to provide forward thrust and not lifting power... maybe maybe


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/24/2009 11:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
You underestimate the potential of humans. Many people have adamantly voiced against the impossibilities of some of the things we have accomplished only to be proven wrong.

1. Flight - “Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” - Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.
2. Steam/coal Power - "You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bon-fire under her deck? I have no time for such nonsense." - Napoleon, on Robert Fulton's Steamship
3. Personal Computers - 'There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.' by Ken Olson of Digital Equipment Corp in 1997.
4. Microchips - "But what ... is it good for?" (referring to microchip) by Engineer at IBM, 1968.
5. EVERYTHING - "Everything that can be invented has been invented." by Charles Duell in US Patent Office of 1899.
6. Telephone - “Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.
7. Moon landing - “To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926

Get my point? I have plenty more.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By MamiyaOtaru on 11/25/2009 3:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
you overestimate the sun.there's an upper limit to the amount of energy per square meter that comes from the sun. Scientific advances will raise the percentage of that we can capture, but they can't collect more than there is. And what there is isn't enough for powered heavier than air flight for greater numbers of passengers at any practical speed.

There are things people thought impossible, and things that are impossible


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/25/2009 6:15:02 AM , Rating: 1
Cite where you get this information, otherwise it's irrelevent.

Also, that doesn't mean that we can't make this technology more practical and use it in more applications in the sky. I'm not suggesting huge passenger planes or for speed and I never did. I'm simply saying that this could be refined to be much more practical. This could be just the beginning of some great new ideas and people denying this possibility are just being ignorant and stubborn.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By delphinus100 on 11/28/2009 12:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Guys, what makes hydrocarbon fuels so good, is that they're a dense, easily storable, easily transportable form of easily (sometimes too easily) released potential energy.

(Nuclear is even denser, but harder to release [not necessarily a bad thing, politically]...and solar is just very remote nuclear. Hydrogen is nice, but currently not easily produced [though there's plenty of work on solar-driven ways of doing that] or stored.)

As long as we're hand waving, how about finding some practical solar-powered way to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels, preferably from atmospheric CO2, and everybody's happy, right...?


By delphinus100 on 11/29/2009 10:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind, someone's already on it...

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23996/


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By blueeyesm on 11/26/2009 9:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
FYI - Ken Olsen made the comment in 1977, not 1997. :)


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By roostitup on 11/27/2009 1:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
Either way, you get the point.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By lelias2k on 11/24/2009 6:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We stopped using buggies because something better came along.


Yeah, that's right, the first automobiles were a million times better that horse-driven buggies.

Do yourself a favor and open a history book for a change.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By mpc7488 on 11/24/2009 5:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no mathematician either, but it says "70 km/h" right in the lower left of the photo. That's about 43 mph.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By lelias2k on 11/24/2009 6:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
And some people still wonder why the metric system didn't work in the US...


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By B166ER on 11/24/2009 5:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
F greener, get over yourself a bit. Technology aint always about your 'scared of change' agenda. Really, you're not that important. Just the idea of doing something for the fuck of it. Yeah, like taking a different route home, or even changing your haircut once, maybe even twice. New tech, old ways begets old tech, old ways every time.


RE: I'm not math matician buuut...
By Spookster on 11/24/2009 5:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Reclaimer77 on November 24, 2009 at 5:08 PM

quote:
It flies at a relatively slow speed of 28 mph to maximize energy efficiency. The design is intended to be able to fly for multiple days without stopping.

At that speed it would HAVE to fly for days to get ANYWHERE. "Relatively" slow ?? I can go faster on a 10 speed.

Now I'll wait to get rated down by the eco freaks who don't care how stupid and impractical something is, as long as it's "greener".


It might be good for bird watching. You can get a good look at them when they pass you.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2009 6:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
AHAHAHAH

oh man, that was good Spook :D


By Rookierookie on 11/24/2009 9:47:49 PM , Rating: 4
An AWACS system that can stay in the air for days at a time. Unmanned recon that can provide 24/7 surveillance over a volatile region. Or even as replacement for airborne blimp ads. The possibilities are endless, if you would only use your brain.

Since when did planes have to be passenger jets? It's amazing how tunnel vision can develope into epic proportions when you think you are incredibly smart.


This is not useless
By widowmaker314 on 11/24/2009 6:44:02 PM , Rating: 4
Nobody said you need to put people on solar planes. This kind of technology would do wonders for UAVs. Imagine a Predator that can stay airborn for weeks or months at a time to support the ground infantry. Imagine high flying antennas that can cover a quarter of the country. Weather instruments that can stay in the air for long durations. These are only examples of what we know would be beneficial to us. Let the technology progress and new uses will emerge.




RE: This is not useless
By lelias2k on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: This is not useless
By sefsefsefsef on 11/24/2009 7:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
My concern is with how light and large it is. Its low mass and therefore low momentum, especially given its physics-defyingly low speed, coupled with its large surface area, seem like it could not stand up to a light breeze. If there was any weather going on at all this thing would have to be grounded.


RE: This is not useless
By lelias2k on 11/25/2009 1:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully this research will return answers to questions like this.


RE: This is not useless
By Reclaimer77 on 11/25/2009 11:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
Umm no. UAV's don't have anywhere near the surface area to fit enough panels to make this viable. Like I said before, current panel efficiencies are the problem, not how they are applied.


RE: This is not useless
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 11:38:44 AM , Rating: 3
NASA built this plane in 2001 and flies it regularly over the Western US at least, and at night and for weeks at a time (it's called "Helios").

THE ONLY INNOVATION IN THIS STINKING PLANE IS THAT IT TAKES OFF ON SOLAR POWER ALONE INSTEAD OF USING CHARGED BATTERIES! Sorry for shouting. Is this one of Jason's articles? All of the wonderful things you proposed have been done for almost a decade.


Man if this dude aint the great, great...
By B166ER on 11/24/2009 5:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
great, great, great grandfather of Jean-Luc. Wouldn't that be about a bitch?




RE: Man if this dude aint the great, great...
By lelias2k on 11/24/2009 6:41:10 PM , Rating: 3
So this has got to be the great, great, great grandfather of the Enterprise, right???


By B166ER on 11/24/2009 7:11:52 PM , Rating: 3
I done seen whatcha did ther'.


Let's do away with over-enthusiasm
By Warwulf on 11/25/2009 10:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
Let's a look at this logically...

The Hughes H-4 "Spruce Goose" has the world's largest wingspan, with an area of 11,430 sqft (1062 m2). Being made out of state-of-the-art (for 1942) wood composite instead of metal, it weighs in at only 300,000 Ibs. It is powered by 8× Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major radial engines putting out 3,000 hp (2,240 kW) each.

Let's say that our proposed solar aircraft weighs only 10% of the Spruce Goose @ 30,000 lbs and only carries a cargo of 100 hot cheerleaders weighing in at 100 lbs each... And each one only takes 20 pounds of make-up, clothing, and their iPhone. That makes for a cargo weight of 12,000 lbs. Now add the two pilots, 200 lbs (my weight... You know I've got to get in on this air orgy) + 100 lbs (12 year old Xbox trained pilot). That makes for a total take-off weight of 42,300 lbs. Using a simplistic linear extrapolation (aerospace engineers, please correct me), we'd need 2,500 kW of thrust to power our plane -- rounded down for convenience. And, you know, let's say computer modelling of idea propeller design shaves that down to 2,000 kW.

Let's say our solar cells receive higher than actual solar irradience at 1.5kW/m2 and have an efficiency of 110% because of inexplicable quantum science -- currently, highest efficiency we've acheived in a lab was 35% using between 6 and 400 times the power of the sun. Current real world usage tops at 19% for state-of-the-art. That means we'd be producing only 1,750 kW.

So you see, even using improbably favorable conditions and inconceivable scientific advances this will never, ever happen.

My air orgy will have to wait.

All of you with you sickening "can do" attitude should just stick to making me my flying car.

Yeah, it's exciting that we're at the point where solar energy can power an ultra lightweight glider at 28 MPH. Sounds like a neat little adventure. But the real advances come from a lab, not puttering around the world in your air-moped. It's a nice demonstration, but will never be feasible as a commercial airliner. Period.




By roostitup on 11/25/2009 8:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's say our solar cells receive higher than actual solar irradience at 1.5kW/m2 and have an efficiency of 110% because of inexplicable quantum science -- currently, highest efficiency we've acheived in a lab was 35% using between 6 and 400 times the power of the sun. Current real world usage tops at 19% for state-of-the-art. That means we'd be producing only 1,750 kW.


The problem here is that you fail to account for improvements of solar collector efficiency that will inevitably happen. This would boost the kW output significantly allowing for the possibility for your wonderful orgy to go airborne :)

quote:
All of you with you sickening "can do" attitude should just stick to making me my flying car.


This could be the technology the leads to developing your flying car! If anything this is actually the most practical use of this technology in the near future.

quote:
Yeah, it's exciting that we're at the point where solar energy can power an ultra lightweight glider at 28 MPH. Sounds like a neat little adventure. But the real advances come from a lab, not puttering around the world in your air-moped. It's a nice demonstration, but will never be feasible as a commercial airliner. Period.


I'm sure a lot of this technology was developed in a lab before the actual real world flight, but in the end you need to have real world tests in order to properly engineer it. Also, seeing this technology work will probably get people back into the lab to see how it can be improved. Never say never...even if it doesn't seem like it will provide the main power to commercial airliners NOW, it could later. Also, there are plenty of possible uses for this on commercial airliners. Don't get stuck on thinking it has to only provide the main power, but many other secondary things could be run to save fuel costs or improve efficiency. This small plane provides the basis for many possible applications of solar panels in flight and showing that it can work is just the beginning.


weight
By DarkPrime on 11/25/2009 8:09:39 AM , Rating: 1
At 1500 kg, this weighs the same as two Toyota Camaries, not one.




RE: weight
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 11:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
1500kg = 3300lbs. So pretty much dead on.


By mattclary on 11/24/2009 5:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me, or does it really make no sense? "Take Fly High-Tech" WTF???




wide as a jumbo jet???
By kattanna on 11/24/2009 5:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new solar plane, captained by adventurer Bertrand Piccard is as wide as a jumbo jet, but only weighs as much as a mid-sized car


looks to have the WINGSPAN of a jumbo jet, but the body of the plane itself looks pretty small




Reclaimer77 is an idiot...
By roostitup on 11/24/2009 7:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
I figured this was on topic because he's so ignorant that he's off topic...




Photo Edit
By brshoemak on 11/25/2009 11:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
Why has no one Photochopped a Star Trek uniform on that pic up top with an "Engage!" or "Make it so" text bubble? It's low hanging fruit.




carbon fiber..
By TheEinstein on 11/25/2009 11:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
Wow the weight of that thing, yeah he used a very expensive custom job on that... the fiber musta cost as much as a 767 would cost at that level of capability. Definitely an expensive way to travel ($20,000 PER MILE, WHILE GOING 24 MPH?!?! *sticker shock*)




options
By Kyanzes on 11/26/2009 11:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It flies at a relatively slow speed of 28 mph to maximize energy efficiency. The design is intended to be able to fly for multiple days without stopping.


Strategic first-strike capability is not currently explored.




ST:TNG
By Chernobyl68 on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki