Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

NASA's Flying Wing Breaks 2 Records 255

Posted by Hemos from the still-going-still-going dept.
ELBnet writes "CNN reports in this story that NASA's Helios flying wing broke the altitude records for both a propeller and jet aircraft with an altitude of 85,100 feet... and they were still climbing shooting for 100,000."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Flying Wing Breaks 2 Records More

NASA's Flying Wing Breaks 2 Records

Comments Filter:
  • I though the SR-71 routinely flew up in the 100,000 ft altitude range. I don't know if that was the "Aviation Leak" operational altitude, or if that's what it hit on its one unclassified flight (the one at the end of its service life where an SR-71 set a new speed record on its way to the museum).
    • The last official information I remember seeing was the SR-71 cruise altitude was 80,000ft. I seem to remember hearing rumors of flights at higher altitudes of over 100,000 ft, but they aren't more then rumors from when I worked at an AF base. The official listed cruise speed was 2070mph with or without payload.

  • But it doesn't scale (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inio ( 26835 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @03:47AM (#2110257) Homepage
    Sure, it makes sense that if you built a huge one of these you could ride it up into space ... or not.

    The problem is that while lift scales with the square of size (make something twice as big and it gets four times as much lift), its WEIGHT scales with the cube (it gets eight times as heavy). This means that you couldn't use one of these to say, lift a rocket into near-orbit and launch it from there. In the end this doesn't get us any closer to space - it just gets the telcos a cheaper short term satellite.
    • Sure - building it out of the same materials would screw up the scaling, but if I remember correctly, there have been one or two breakthroughs in lightweight materials at NASA ;)
    • Their lifting capacity increases with the volume of helium they hold and their weight increases with the surface area of envelope.

      And you don't have to expend any energy just to stay up.

      Heavy lifting airship: http://www.cargolifter.com/

      High altitude satellite airships: http://www.airship.com/

      Both are concepts at the moment though the CargoLifter ship is well on it's way to being constructed.
  • Just hook up ten of these with network cards and cheap Cat 5 cable and it will go, like, 700,000 feet.

  • The Arrogance of Man (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A 247 foot unmanned craft powered by the sun! At first I was tempted to marvel at this achievement, to wonder at the bright minds who bring to life such fanciful ideas. But as I thought more deeply about it, I was overcome with a deep sense of unease.

    Think about it. It boggles the mind. Unmanned flight on the edge of space with a machine that can reportedly stay up until its parts wear out? This just reeks of arrogance. Is there nothing these secular humanist scientists think is beyond the reach of mankind? Do we always have to strive for bigger, better, faster, higher, etc? Do we have so little humility that we always think we can out do our last effort? Would it be so painful to confess to ourselves that we are merely human, and we have our limitations? Any limitations at all?

    Apparently there is nothing we can admit is better left in the realm of the divine than in the hands of man. Given recent developments in this and other fields (like cloning and stem cell research), it seems we've forgotten the lesson learned at Babel. I fear that humanity will have to be taught that lesson again, and it won't be a very pleasant experience.

    • Is there nothing these secular humanist scientists think is beyond the reach of mankind? Do we always have to strive for bigger, better, faster, higher, etc? Do we have so little humility that we always think we can out do our last effort? Would it be so painful to confess to ourselves that we are merely human, and we have our limitations? Any limitations at all?

      yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. The humanity does have limitations, but I think were are able to move the limits further when ever we reach them.

      Just one example: Scientific calculations became too complex for even the most talented and trained human brain, so we invented the computer.

  • not mentioned here so far but i thought it was interesting ;)

  • Port to Lego (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dr_Cheeks ( 110261 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @03:38AM (#2114342) Homepage Journal
    Sooo, all I need to do now is figure out how to incorporate this research in my Lego Mindstorms robot [slashdot.org], to help me get up to the ISS. Fantastic!
  • For the ugliest thing I have ever seen. That thing reminds me of backyard inventer airplanes back in the 30's. Those were the days. Toss an engine on your back and glue some metal sheeting to your arms and you could barely yell the word crackpot before you hit the ground in a flaming ball of fire.
  • it should be able to fly in the Mars atmosphere.

    With a 74 meter wingspan, this comes not really as a surprise.. :)

    • That's the whole point though -- they wanted to demonstrate that a plane could fly in air this thin. The principle of this design lets it be used as a kind of low cost mobile satelite on earth - AND - as like a surveyor plane on Mars. They could cover the planet, up close, in much less time than it would take a ground vehicle to do it. And since it's completely electric running solar during the day and batteries at night it can basically fly forever (until it breaks anyway).

    • Helios footage (Score:3, Informative)

      by roguerez ( 319598 )
      On the Nasa site there are some movies [nasa.gov] of the Helios.

      For the paranoid:

      http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/Helios/inde x.html

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @03:33AM (#2117234)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Coincidence (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ZeldorBlat ( 107799 )
    While this post isn't insightful in any way, I tought I'd share in an attempt to humor some of you. I was actually in Kauai last week with some of my friends, and we were driving around the southern end of the island doing touristy things. We decided to check out a secluded beach we had heard about on the west side of the island, so we began driving. Eventually we got to a dirt road that supposedly led to this beach. After driving a couple of miles, we saw a guard house down the road and some signs that, in no uncertain terms, told us we shouldn't be there. Apparently, this was the military base where this thing is housed and flies out of. Needless to say, I couldn't check it out in person because once we were about 100 yards from the gate, three machine-gun toting guards came running out of their shack to see who we were. We promptly turned around and headed back. We did manage to find the beach, which was quite beautiful, by the way.

  • Some more info (Score:3, Informative)

    by Caid Raspa ( 304283 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @03:57AM (#2124127)
    can be found on the Helios website [216.117.138.36]

  • Well, it propably will get used by the US government for spying anyway, wont it?

    Perhaps it could be used for broadband communication? Just have them circuling above with antennas...
    • Isn't something similar beeing planned already ?

      AFAIK it is, but not with small lightweight planes, but with ballons.

      Baloons would be better suited for this (especially communications), because they can go higher, stay up longer, and have the ability to carry a larger payload.

      Maybe someday we will have something similar to Iridium that uses baloons instead of satelittes, thereby beeing cheaper and more affordable ?
      • Balloons are an interesting idea, but they're harder to control than a plane. The Helios can stay up for extended periods and be brought down, in a controlled fashion, when they want to. They could even fly it to different airfields if they really needed to. Harder to do that with a balloon which tends to be at the mercy of the prevailing winds.

        Unless the balloon is tethered, how do you keep it in a geostationary orbit? Also, I'm not sure you're going to get a balloon much higher than 96,000 feet.

        Just a few random thoughts.

        -Coach-

  • Mandatory NASA Joke (Score:4, Funny)

    by JBowz15 ( 451573 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @03:25AM (#2129683)
    NASA breaking an altitude record?
    I suppose it's better than breaking a Mars probe.

  • "David's Sling" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bob_Robertson ( 454888 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @03:31AM (#2130524) Homepage
    Did anyone else read Marc Steigler's book, "Davids Sling", in which just such systems are used for dropping bombs on completely unsuspecting targets?

    Lets face it, even with a small payload, like 600 lbs, that's two reasonably effective gravity bombs from an aircraft that is not even made of metal, so practically invisible to radar.

    Bob-

    • Seems like with the thing being so slow, it would be spotted by somebody.
      • How often do you see jet contrails overhead, yet you can barely make out the jet? These planes are flying at about 35,000 feet.

        This plane is much smaller than a 747 and will be 2-3 times higher. Throw on some paint of the appropriate color and this plane will not be seen without some powerful optics.

    • "Gravity bomb" ??? Ah! (Score:2, Informative)

      by renoX ( 11677 )
      You know when you get higher the bombs won't get any faster.

      When an object is dropped from a plane, it accelerates first at about 10 m/s-2 then as its speeds increase, the friction with the air increase.. So it accelerates until a certain speed limit that's all.

      It takes about 500 meters for a skydiver to reach its speed limit.. So you don't gain anything by going higher.

      Yes, if you go higher the air pressure is lower so at the beginning the speed of the bomb is higher, but as it goes down, the air pressure increase and the bomb slows down.

      • It takes about 500 meters for a skydiver to reach its speed limit.. So you don't gain anything by going higher.

        A bomb is going to be considerably more aerodynamic, so it's terminal velocity is higher.
        • It's still not going to be as fast as a cannon fired projectile. The maximum damage a weight dropped from altitude can do would be less than a cannon firing solid shot of the same weight. The difference here is that 60 lbs. is more weight than a typical cannon ball.

        • > A bomb is going to be considerably more aerodynamic,
          > so it's terminal velocity is higher.

          You're quite right, but in your own statement you also prove his point. No matter that the terminal velocity of the bomb is higher than a skydiver, it's still going to reach that terminal velocity at some point in the fall. Assuming it reaches terminal within 5,000 feet instead of 1,666, it's still going to be moving at that speed if you drop it from 6,000 feet or 85,000 feet. So, as he stated, there's no point in terms of velocity to carrying it nearly into orbit before dropping it.

          Virg

    • Re:"David's Sling" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Caid Raspa ( 304283 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @05:08AM (#2133500)
      Lets face it, even with a small payload, like 600 lbs,

      The thing itself weighs about 1600 lbs, so 600 lbs is lots, but with something like 60 lbs could also have quite nasty effects.

      that's two reasonably effective gravity bombs

      Why gravity bombs? Both Russian and US armies have 'tactical nukes' with a few kt power, that can be fired with a cannon. A small container of something (Anthrax? Smallpox? Nerve Gas?) would also be quite effecive.

      from an aircraft that is not even made of metal, so practically invisible to radar.

      So, you wouldn't even know who did it. As this is very public research, has the US army something better or have they not realized the potential of it?

      I hope it is the latter.

      • The most likely solution would probably be a small laser-guided missile.

        Quite effective, if you know what room of a building your trying to trash.

        Such bombing systems have become prevailant since after the Vietnam War. Indiscriminate bombing got a deservedly bad rap, so now they take the trouble to tell the bomb exactly where they want it to go.

        At 60 lbs, though, the best you could do would be the wartime equivalent of vandalism. Useful for sending a message, but not much more.
      • has the US army something better or have they not realized the potential of it?

        Congratulations, you've just tipped them off. You have started world war 3, and got modded up fo it. Thaks!
    • Yes, I remember that book, the first I ever read on a computer (an Apple Hypercard stack), and I'd love to find a copy somewhere.

      As I remember it, the unpiloted planes in David's Sling were smaller craft more like the remotely piloted vehicles already in use by the US military. What made Steigler's unpiloted planes devastating in his book was that they were autonomous - using computer AI to find and attack their targets. I seem to remember they used analysis of battlefield radio transmissions to locate and take out the commanders.

      But that could all be wrong - it's been a very long time since I read the book. Would love a chance to read it again but it's out of print.

      --Jim
    • No, I did not read Steigler's book. The only David's sling I'm familiar with was used to throw a few round stones that killed a giant. Seems appropriate enough for a 250ft wing that could be brought down with a sling shot. Less apropriate when you imagine the types of folks who would want to use such a dinky weapon would more likely be named Yasser.
  • In addition to the exciting news that NASA had broken a flying wing record, Slashdot editors publically announced a new Zero Wing record, with the 1 millionth "All Your Bases Are Belong To Us" post being officially recorded today.
  • The craft, NASA said, might one day play host to experiments for pharmaceutical companies and others that would fly it to the edge of space, conduct experiments and then fly it down -- all by remote control.

    Why would you want to conduct experiments at 100,000 ft at 20 MPH? You aren't going to have low/micro gravity conditions... Is there some other reason or has NASA's PR department just gotten too used to blurting that out when asked why technology xyz might be useful?

    • Re: This bit seems odd (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Caid Raspa ( 304283 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @04:42AM (#2114219)
      " ..experiments for pharmaceutical companies ..."

      has NASA's PR department just gotten too used to blurting that out

      People are not interested in seeing tax money used in science unless they feel they could benefit from it. So, saying something like this to people who don't have a clue on science is

      Why would you want to conduct experiments at 100,000 ft at 20 MPH?

      A few things come to mind.

      Chemical analysis of rocket exhausts might be possible, if you put this in the right position. The solid-fuel stages might leave some dust particles that give hints to what kind of fuels are used. This would help in estimating the ICBM payload capacity.

      Low-orbit satellites have orbital velocities of several miles per second, so if you want to have a better look at that Chinese ICBM base, Helios could be a choice.

      Atmospheric research would benefit from this. You could send up a whole armada of weather stations in the upper atmosphere instead of a single weather satellite.

      Studies of the Earth's magnetic field and it's connection to the solar wind could use measurements right under the auroral oval, where solar wind hits the upper atmosphere. Combining these with radar-scattering experiments would be extremely interesting to geophysicists.

      As this thing runs on solar, and is well above clouds, it only need to stay on the sunny side of Earth to run forever. Perhaps a medium-sized battery and some smart remote pilot could keep this up during nighttime, goin only halfway down and climbing back up every morning?

      • Low-orbit satellites have orbital velocities of several miles per second, so if you want to have a better look at that Chinese ICBM base, Helios could be a choice.
        Of all the potential applications, this must be the killer.

        This thing is a fantastic spy plane! Just think of the advantages over a conventional spy plane or satellite. Instead of waiting for a satellite to pass over the target area, or sending a recon flight, you can monitor your target 24 hours a day with live action video! And it has such a small radar signature that they won't even know you're there!

        ..or am I wrong about the radar signature?

      • Actually, the thing does have fuel cell batteries that keep it up at night. It does not have to "stay on the sunny side of the earth", nor would that be possible when you only fly 20 miles per hour.
    • Why would you want to conduct experiments at 100,000 ft at 20 MPH?

      You don't, 20mph is V2 for this aircraft.

  • The latest (Score:4, Informative)

    by quintessent ( 197518 ) <my usr name on toofgiB [tod] moc> on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @04:02AM (#2141258) Journal
    As of 4:11 in Hawaii, helios was up to 96,500 feet! [216.117.138.36]
  • Does anyone know if this technology can scale down? Would it be possible to use the same principles to build a craft that is 10 meters across instead of 100?

  • Say goodbye to $$$geosync$$$ satellites (Score:3, Interesting)

    by standards ( 461431 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @07:44AM (#2142169)
    The real usefulness of such a craft, as the article briefly mentions, is to be a communications platform.

    Ever call a friend in a far-away land? Or use the internet via one of the satellite providers? Communications to a geosync satellite, some 25000 miles away in geosync orbit, causes almost 2 seconds of delay. Plus, once a satellite is up there, it can't be brought back. (for those of you who don't know, no, the shuttle only goes some 150 miles up and costs a $zillion per flight).

    Such a solar-powered, high-alititude plane can be flown high above the weather, stay aloft indefiniately, and can be used as a handy communications platform for a city. It's a lot cheaper than sending a satellite into geosync, AND it can be brought back down for upgrades of maintenence. Plus there is added protection from solar radition. Yahoo! Add a fuel cell for night time, and you've got a great, cheap alternative to a communications satellite.

    So although it seems like a silly idea, or only Mars-centric, it is getting a lot of interest from communication providers like BT and AT&T.

    Say goodbye to geosync satellites? Perhaps!
    • I was just thinking that acutally. Once you hit 60,000 feet or so you're out of FAA airspace (Every once in a while a traffic controller would query an SR-71 at that altitude...) If you can keep one of these things in the air for a few hours on remote control and power a communications platform, it'd be great for high speed internet. The problem is, with all the extra gear you'd have to put on it and the extra power requirements of same, could you still keep the craft in the air for any length of time? If the answer to that is yes, I want to buy stock in the business that starts flying these things...

      Oh, and the story said the plane has a fuel cell for night time flight.

    • There's far more sane technologies out there.

      http://www.airship.com/

      No need to supply power just to keep the thing in the air. Any power supplied is for position maintenance and supplying power to the payload.

  • This updated story [yahoo.com] on Yahoo! says they made it to 96,500 before NASA decided to turn it around. Go NASA!

    It's also got a bit more info about the craft itself, and their reasons for building it including purposes like Mars surveying missions.

    Enjoy!

  • How does it maintain position? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) <robert.merkel@b[ ... g ['ena' in gap]> on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @04:30AM (#2153917) Homepage
    I've no idea what average wind speeds at 100,000 feet are, but I know wind speeds at airliner altitudes are typically *much* faster than 20 mph. Assuming that's the case at these higher altitudes, sounds like you'd have about as much control over where these planes went as a high-altitude balloon (ie not very much).

    If that's so, what's the advantage of the plane, nifty though the technology is?

    • I've no idea what average wind speeds at 100,000 feet are, but I know wind speeds at airliner altitudes are typically *much* faster than 20 mph. Assuming that's the case at these higher altitudes, sounds like you'd have about as much control over where these planes went as a high-altitude balloon (ie not very much). What matters is the force the wind exerts agains the plane. Given that pressure decreases with altitude, this means that for the same speed of wind, the force exerted in the plane also decreases with altitude.

    • Re:How does it maintain position? (Score:4, Informative)

      by coreman ( 8656 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @06:53AM (#2125676) Homepage
      The 20mph was at much lower levels while taking off. At the maximum levels it was flying much faster in order to have enough air moving over the wings to produce lift (you need lift enough to offset the weight) The peak speed listed is 170mph for this flight. It couldn't do that at sealevel, even in a straight dive due to the drag.
  • This plane is also in the running for the Mars flights. They did a balloon drop of an uppowered version to test it out. Started at 101k feet

    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0108/14marsp la ne/

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close