Around the World in a Solar Plane

Coati writes "Bertrand Piccard, the guy that flew around the world in a balloon, wants to do it again, this time in a solar plane."

Power storage

[GeckoFood]

So, assuming he has clear skies for most of that trip, no problem. However, if he hits "inclement weather," how much energy does that plane store up before it runs out of juice? Or can it be assumed he will be above the cloud cover for the whole trip? And, is it assumed the trip is continuous or will he be able to stop at "jump points" (this makes more sense for obvious reasons). If he can stop even briefly, this idea becomes a lot more feasible.

A bit of both

[tepples]

Is there any scientific value to going around the world in a balloon

Is there any scientific value to space exploration?

I'm guessing that circumnavigation of Earth in a particular class of vehicle acts as a sort of proof of concept to the vehicle's operation. Engineers at transportation industry companies usually want to work with ideas that somebody else has tested in the field, and this is where the wealthy people's pastimes come in.

Get off the cross

[Gothmolly]

We need the wood.

Spare me the "any mention of ecology gets a lukewarm response from the public because their comfortable existence is threatened".

The problem with many so-called 'ecologists' is that they frame everything in terms of 'saving the Planet'. Here's a clue - the Planet will survive long after we're all dead. The Earth will be there when the sun becomes a red giant and eats it. We shouldn't save the Planet, we should save ourselves. Does the Earth 'care' if biodiversity diminishes due to pollution? Does the Earth 'care' if the light pollution causes algae disruptions in the Great Lakes? No. but we should.

This project is great at raising visibility and research focus in the fields of energy capture, storage and motor design, but these folks aren't the Messaihs.

Re:The grand grand grand grand grand son

[mmonkey]

Given that TNG is set around 2380, wouldn't that be great great great great great great great great great great grand-father? :)

Re:Get off the cross

[penguinoid]

I bet we could exterminate most nn-human life if we really tried. Or if we let factories spew out pollution at any rate they please (which would be a cheaper way to do it). How would you like to breathe smog, instead of air? Granted, though, the *planet* won't die, but what we care about are living things.

Re:eco friendly?

[zeux]

Solar cells are not efficient, we all know that. We know that it takes more energy to build them than they will ever produce in their lifetime.

But hey, this can be improved and to improve it researchers need funds. For researchers to get funds they have to make people understand that it's possible and that beautiful things could be achieved with solar cells. That's one of the purposes of this project.

Anyway, I still prefer that guy building an expensive plane in terms of energy than millions of people riding inefficient SUV in towns.

Re:eco friendly?

[gobbo]

So after a few years of r&D half a dozen custom built protoypes (to be discarded as non-biodegradable junk) and other discarded parts they can have something that probably took more energy to make than a small town uses in a year, but then fly it around the world using only energy from the sun...

A Proof of Concept product is always more costly. You can think of R&D costs not concentrated in a single product, but amortized across the series of product lines inspired by the new engineering, whether those costs are money or calories or a balance of available resources. The long-term savings (in all economic senses) represented by efficient design suggests a real bargain for global society.

The publicity stunt aspect of this is really a kind of marketing for sustainable tech in the long view.

We're not alone...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Perhaps we have a right to wipe humanity of the face of the planet, perhaps we don't. But I don't see how we have a right to wipe out all the countless other species and to poison the earth, sky and the seas.

To use a famous quote, this is a beautiful planet, it's a miracle and we're destroying it.

(Cue a dozen posts from people who think environmental awareness is for only for hippies high as a kite.)

Re:eco friendly?

[Urkki]

Do you truly not see why developing solar energy technology to the level that makes this kind of plane possible is eco-friendly proejct, or are you just trying to troll?

And it's not just developing better solar cells to enhance current applications of solar energy.

Consider for example that if a lot of oribital satellites could be replaced with purely solar-powered autonomous planes that could stay up theoretically indefinitely. Just think how much "non-biodegradable junk" can this project produce to match the environmental impact of just a single space rocket launch...

Or imagine a hydrogen fuel-cell car that could partly refuel itself in a sunny parking lot during the workday, and could keep moving (slowly) even if you run out of fuel. Not much use in higher latitudes maybe, but imagine southern China, India and entire SE Asia with 2 billion cars like this instead of 2 billion cars using fossil fuels.

Re:Get off the cross

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so literal.

Save the planet means save the lifeforms on the planet; save the beauty of the planet; keep it all the same so our grandkids can enjoy a walk on the beach and a trip through the woods.

Not saving the planet is trashing it in small ways by throwing a soda can down in a forest or large ways by nations using the oceans as a sewer.

Not saving the planet is letting lots of species die out - faster than evolution can replace them.

New York trash including needles washed up on New Jersey beaches a while back. Soviet built reactors blew up making milk unfit to drink from Norway to China for a few months. Car caused air pollution makes it harder for me to breathe some days.

Slogans that work are better than slogans that are technically more accurate.

So help save the planet and be a hero!

Re:Get off the cross

[gobbo]

Here's a clue - the Planet will survive long after we're all dead. The Earth will be there when the sun becomes a red giant and eats it. We shouldn't save the Planet, we should save ourselves. Does the Earth 'care' if biodiversity diminishes due to pollution? Does the Earth 'care' if the light pollution causes algae disruptions in the Great Lakes? No. but we should.

That's a very humanistic position, which suggests that homo sapiens' mental capabilities separate us from the rest of the planet. You're saying that the whole enterprise of linking human destiny with the ecological structure of Gaia [fsbusiness.co.uk] [or whatever name you give the "vast, self regulating system [umass.edu]" that we live inside of] is annoying to you, as it diminishes us and is out of touch with the people.

Here's a clue: people saying 'save the planet' are doing several things: 1) referring to the ecosphere as it is, not just a playground for hominids, 2) pointing out that ecology is an interconnected web with unforseen dependencies, 3) pointing out that our survival as a species may depend on us curbing our global practice of extinction, 4) stating that our humanistic rise above our environment's demands is a liability when it comes to understanding all that, so humanism needs adjustment.

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees, as the saying goes, and for those connected to a natural environment, a diminished ecosphere is an oppression. In many senses, saving the planet = saving ourselves.

Re:We're not alone...

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't going to "wipe out all the countless other species" out there. I seriously doubt we could do it, even if we tried, at this point.

We'll kill some, but we'll also create new environmental niches for other species to evolve to fill. The various rodents, and pets, and farm animals that have evolved and prospered in symbiosis with man may not be "exotic" enough to satisfy those high as a kite hippies you mentioned, but they are no less alive or a part of this world's environment.

What one being sees as "poison(ing) the earth, sky and the seas" is just the opening of new ecological niches.
The last time there was a truely large scale "poison(ing) (of) the earth, sky and the seas" was when plants first flooded the world with harsh burning oxygen, killing all sorts of anaerobic life, and giving birth to aerobic life and animals as we know them. I trust you don't see that as having been a bad thing?

Whatever nasty reactive chemicals we spew into the environment are likely to become the food of tomorrow's most feccund life.
Our nuclear waste and depleted ozone will generate mutations, and spur new evolution to fill those niches we're creating.

We won't, we can't, destroy the planet; but we will change it.
If you're so small minded that you have to classify everything that evolved before man as 'a good ecosystem' and everything that evolved after we became dominant as 'a bad ecosystem', then you're missing a whole lot of the beauty of this planet's life.

Re:TRULY A WASTE

[MrAngryForNoReason]

It's called 'withheld income tax'.

I would challenge you to find anyone who doesn't notice the amount of income tax they pay.

Awareness my Ass

[rocker_wannabe]

Just repeat after me:

"It's all about money."

"It's all about money."

I have a 2kw solar system on my roof so I'm certainly not anti-renewable energy. I just think people should realize that the problem has nothing to do with technology or people's desire maintain their lifestyle because it's not even allowed to come down to that. It's about greed and established infrastructure. I don't think it's any coincidence that the major solar panel manufacturers are all owned by oil companies. I can't prove it but it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that they are controlling the price of solar panels to keep the usage at a level that is comfortable to them.

We have reached the level of corporate control in this world that is reminicent of the movie Rollerball (for those of you old enough to remember it). The U.S. courts and the EU and make a good show of protecting their citizens but corporations don't need to do anything illegal to get what they want. With enough money and lawyers you can blunt any reform that comes down the pike. Movies have to be more dramatic but the truth is much more banal.

I'm glad Mr. Piccard has the ability to put together these inspiring projects. I wish he'd invite me to be on his team. I just don't think for a minute that it's going to address the real problem.

"I tried solar power but it just made my skin peel. I'll stick with food, thank you."

Re:Everyone asking 'can it fly at night'

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they fly East, reducing the amount of energy they have to store. Days and nights are both shorter, reducing the contiguous time spent flying on batteries.