Solar Powered Helios Plane Destroyed in Test Flight 325
deglr6328 writes "NASA's solar powered Helios airplane has crashed into the Pacific off the coast of Kauai today during its first test using a regenerative fuel cell power supply. Helios held the record for highest prop propelled plane altitude at 96,863 (set 2 years ago) and was making preparations for a 96 hour continuous flight using its 62,000 solar cells during the day while electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen for use in its fuel cells at night. With the capability to carry 200 lb. to near 100,000 ft. for months on end, Helios was eyed with great anticipation by scientists and RF telecommunications buisnesses alike."
And... (Score:4, Funny)
If it does not crash and burn it was not a good test.
First? Not so much. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm actually rather curious about how it is (er, was) constructed. It looks quite flimsy...
Re:First? Not so much. (Score:5, Funny)
"We were flying at about the 8,000-foot altitude west of Kauai over the ocean and the aircraft simply broke up," said Alan Brown, a spokesman for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, Calif.
It is very flimsy.
Even more sorry... (Score:2)
Re:Even more sorry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't know about that. If I remember correctly Helios was built mainly from carbon fiber. It used A few main Carbon fiber peices and stretched fabric material over them. The plan flexed a great deal, it had to or it would snap. If anything it might have failed because it didn't have enough flex. When the thing flies it looks almost like a U though not as extreme. When it hit turbulance it flexed all over so as to not break. If I had to guess the hooked up somet
Re:And... (Score:3, Interesting)
Famous AirCrafts in history:
1. Apollo1 - blew up on the launchpad
2. Challenger - blew up in the air
3. Concorde: blew up during takeoff
4. Columbia - blew up landing
5. Helios - "broke apart" (aren't we glad we have next generation renewable energy that doen't blow up/cost lives ? )
-n
Re:And... (Score:3, Informative)
Apollo 1 was a result of pressurizing the capsule to simulate the pressure of being in orbit. That pressure environment, coupled with frayed wiring and the amount of velcro was the primary cause for The Fire.
But your point is valid, IMHO.
It's a shame they didn't name it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a shame they didn't name it... (Score:4, Funny)
all planes break up when they get too close to the ground
/me waits for.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I always wonder what the engineers feel like after a shitload of work and money that went into these things....are no more.
I mean...the right answer would be...Built a new one! But, you have to get depressed.
-Rob
Re:/me waits for.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet a lot of mechanical engineers wish they had a restart button.
Re:/me waits for.... (Score:2, Funny)
By any chance are you helping to develup Duke Nukem Forever?
Suuure. (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Appropriate name too.
Anyhoo, it's sad to see such a technological marvel crash into the pacific ocean like it did. Maybe NASA will scoop up the wreckage, figure out what went wrong, and then build another one. It would be great to see what we can learn from Helios in general, and not just on an aviation or RF use either. I mean in the field of solar electric generation, and how even in the Aerospace industry it has it's benefits and drawbacks. I personally would love to be using solar electricity instead of having to pay the electric company, but alas, we can't always get what we want...
KevX45
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
The last line of the article says:
Brown said NASA intends to develop another Helios aircraft, calling it "technology worth pursuing."
(This just proves that i read the article before posting
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
In that case, we are going to have to revoke your Slashdot account.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
The specs of Helios are one click away from the article to which slashdot links to. Maybe next time you could check the story before you start posting.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/FS-0
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I think given its fate, "Icarus" would have been better.
NT4 EoL: coincidence? =) (Score:2, Funny)
Another example (Score:5, Funny)
If God intended for us to use solar airplanes He would never have given us Jet A.
Re:Another example (Score:2)
Re:Another example (Score:2)
I will give up the Hydrogen Powered Jeep [franceisoc...ermany.org] when my cold dead butt is pulled from it.
Not a problem... (Score:2)
But the hindenberg (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But the hindenberg (Score:2, Informative)
I thought the envelope of this ship was rubberized cotton, but could be wrong.
I can just imaging what a nice large surface covered with aluminum powder, subsurfaced with rubber and all coated in nitro cellulose would do when struck by a lightning bolt or something. Actually, I don't have to imagine it, do I... oh the humanity or something.
NASA ran test on the fabric a few years ago: http://www.hydrogenus.com/advocate/ad22zepp
It's ok (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very interested to know exactly what went wrong. From what I briefly read, I'd imagine it was the actual construction which had a problem, not the technology. Unless this was a pre-flight damaged part, this could be valuable information as I'm sure this plane used the latest designs, as other planes will be using.
Re:It's ok (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering it's been up to >96,000ft already, I'd say that was a pretty good example of "working model", not "prototype". The fuel cells were prototype, not the UAV itself.
"broke up" (Score:2, Funny)
I suspect a piece of foam.
NASA investigation team has its work cut out (Score:5, Funny)
I don't envy them.
Wait, yes I do!
Re:NASA investigation team has its work cut out (Score:2)
Nobody Died (Score:3, Informative)
It's called trial and error (Score:5, Insightful)
The odd 747 full of paying commercial passengers has been known to fall out of the sky as well.
You pick up the pieces, figure out what went wrong, start over and hope to do better next time.
Those who refuse to fail will never achieve any measure of success.
KFG
Re:It's called trial and error (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah they should find a way of only build the even ones.
Re:It's called trial and error (Score:2)
You state:
Unfortunatly, picking up the pieces does little to console the relatives of those onboard said 747 or, as in this case, the people who have seen their hard work of the past years quite literally fall to bits.
I agree that one has to learn from ones mistakes, but I can't help to think that one should always s
Shoulda asked... (Score:2)
Helios huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Helios huh? (Score:2)
Re:Helios huh? (Score:2)
If you've not played Deus Ex, this will not make sense. Go and play Deus Ex, it is damn fine game.
Give 'em a break (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad place to fly... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe flying it in a missile test range wasn't such a good idea...
Re:Bad place to fly... (Score:4, Informative)
Joking aside, it actually is a good idea. No commercial air flights, non-commercial flights tightly controlled, all other "interesting" flights scheduled well in advance. It's about the best place I can think of to get 4 days of uninterupted flying, guarenteed.
-JS
I'm not trying to be a troll here ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is a great proof of concept. I know it was going to fly for 96 hours, but wouldn't it have been neat to just fly it around the world instead? Just start it up at the crack of dawn ... and crusie around the globe and pass over big cities so people can see it for themselves and watch as a "space craft" is above them.
I dunno I think this thing looks cool and I want one :-)
Turbulence? (Score:4, Informative)
Website here [nasa.gov] if you want to learn more.
Oh yeah, and how about a new moderation category?
"-999 Oh my god not those tired old chestnuts AGAIN" for all the fuckwits who have nothing better to do than drag out the tired old jokes every time someone mentions NASA here, as well as all the other pathetic unfunny crap that you losers repeat over and over and over again!
Re:Turbulence? (Score:2)
Yeah. I'm sure the whales marvel at that graceful W shape on the ocean floor
Re:Turbulence? (Score:4, Informative)
Next time you fly in a passanger airplane, sit near the wing and watch it in flight. At first, it may be a little disconcerting to watch the wing flex as it plows through the air, but this kind of structural flexibility is what aids in it's strength.
Remote-Controlled, eh? (Score:2, Funny)
BBC story on UK aircraft about to be launched (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently it's going to beat that ~96000 record the Helios set, but won't be officially eligable because it's not going to take off under it's own power.
The balloon that launches it is fairly impressive too:
"As tall as the Empire State Building, their manned envelope will be the biggest ever flown."
Martians! (Score:3, Funny)
We must declare war on adventurist protectionism.
Mars delenda est!
Blimps very interested in fuel-cell technology (Score:5, Interesting)
During the presentation, someone asked about what the commercial applications were for such technology. Apparently, blimp companies are VERY interested in fuel cell technology. Blimps, as they burn off fuel for the steering engines, get lighter. In order to get back down to the ground, they sometimes have to blow out helium which is VERY expensive. But with a fuel cell, the blimp actually gets heavier as flight goes one because they can hang onto the "exhaust" (water) and keep the blimp in equilibrium through the entire flight.
The military is of course interested too because fuel cell powered planes are VERY quiet (electric motor) and the technolgoy will allow for far greater range than batteries.
-S
Re:Blimps very interested in fuel-cell technology (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no reason for them to do this when they could easily compress the helium and then either pull in a heavier gas from the atmosphere to increase their weight, or reduce their displacement.
interesting trivia (Score:2)
Fuel (Score:2)
Not enough weight carrying ability! (Score:3, Informative)
Then there's one last problem. The problem of risk. The risk of having a cellular shelter go up in flames is extremely low. The risk of having a high tech plane fall out of the sky for whatever reason (wind shear, fuel out, human error) and damaging your $13,000 a piece cellular radios is extremely high... (compared to that of traditional methods of transmission). This cost is only that of the actual radios. There's much more cost and weight associated with a cell site.
If you were the CEO of a cellular company, you'd have to be a complete friggin' moron to think this has any chance of becoming real anytime relatively soon.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2)
Helios crashed about a half-hour into Thursday's flight, which was intended to test its fuel cell system.
It did fail.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:4, Insightful)
In science, if you demand perfection, don't expect any advancement.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2)
They failed to test the fuel cell.
Sounds about right to me.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2)
I just thought it pretty damned amusing that the same post with a few words changed was apropos to both threads. Even more amusing that they both were modded up.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:3, Interesting)
As for your point about using a cool liquid to make reentry safer, we don't have to use a cryogenic liquid, water works just fine. Spraying it as a fine mist on the exterior of the craft would cause it to boil, making a
Re:A thought or two... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in my experience. Sure, this is the case among the more scientifically minded people I know - programmers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians - and a few of the more (how to put this without sounding elitist.. oh, this is slashdot..) intelligent members of the general population. But on the whole the "normal" people I know are all dead set against any form of space exploration. The us
Re:A thought or two... (Score:5, Interesting)
liquid n2 is a couple of hundred degrees below zero, but the plasma that it would have to fight is several thousand degrees. I doubt that the shuttle could carry enough n2 to do the job.
Not to mention that you'd have to have a massive amount of pipes, etc... note really feasible.
Hole in the wing... (Score:3, Informative)
That point aside, if they had made it further into
Re:Hole in the wing... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I was under the impression that the escape system was designed for early-launch problems (when the shuttle has little lateral velocity and is not too high).
The shuttle lands at a couple of hundred miles an hour... _if_ you could bail out before landing, it wouldn't be long before landing (as jumping at speeds over 300 mph is courting death).
There was a guy who bailed out of a fighter at over mach 1 (well, an ex-fighter, it was exploding at the time), and survived,
Re:Hole in the wing... (Score:2)
Wow! I'd love to know more about this. A little Google searching didn't turn anything up... sounds awesome/interesting.
Re:Hole in the wing... (Score:2)
The drag broke both arms and legs, almost ripped one leg off, there was incredible bruising over his entire body, and numerous other wounds that I don't remember. The doctors said he would probably never walk again, but he did his rehab, hardcore, and now he is back in the F-15...
I don't have a source (I think it was on the discovery channel, but
Re:Hole in the wing... (Score:2)
The Russians have a seat capable of ejecting a person at over mach 2. Basically it straps their arms and legs tight to the seat, then it deploys and small air break in front of them to break up the supersonic airflow and pops a couple of very small stabilizing parachutes out the back to minimize the tendency to tumble.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, if we want more funding for an agency then a strong case for it must be made. We shouldn't fund NASA just because it is NASA. NASA has done a poor job of creating a vision for what can and should do. It isn't clear to me why they should continue at current budget levels. I wonder if part of the reason is that it has become a government agency that is more focused on sustaining itself then offering a service to the people it serves.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that a little like saying "With so many kids failing in school, it's obvious why the government is so reluctant to spend more money on improving education..." or "With so many people dying from these new diseases, it's obvious why the government is so reluctant to spend more money on researching a cure..."
You don't launch a plane expecting it to crash, which is to say if it ha
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2)
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2)
The best way to absorb heat would be a phase change, but not of LN2. For the best cal/gm from liquid to gas at a reasonable temperature, use plain old water.
But you'd have to carry a lot of it.
Re:A thought or two... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we first need to get The Chimp and his people out of office. As long as we have greedy people in office NASA won't get $$$, since that money can be spent on semi-automatic guns for "hunting."
I would venture to say that most of us
Re:A thought or two... (Score:5, Informative)
IAARS. (I Am A Rocket Scientist.)
One question that has plagued me since the destruction of Columbia: If there wouldn't have been extreme heat going into the wing, would the crew still be alive? I'm no aerodynamics expert, but isn't it possible, at the point of entry into the atmosphere, when temperatures start to rise, that the shuttle release some liquid nitrogen or some other super-coolant in some manner as to keep homeostasis of the vehicle?
Upon reentry, the Orbiter (the white and black plane-lookin' portion of the Shuttle), is carrying no cryofuels. They are stored in the large red-orange External Tank, and used up during launch. The Shuttle uses LOX and LH2, both of which are f'nasty to deal with and are economical only to generate the immense thrust necessary to achieve orbit. While in orbit, the Orbiter maneuvers using (relatively) small hydrazine thrusters. N2H4 is also f'nasty, but somewhat less so than either LOX or LH2. NASA's Shuttle Basics website [nasa.gov] provides a good nontechnical overview of mission stages.
The Orbiter doesn't maintain homeostasis during reentry. The bottom gets really, really, really hot. Because the Orbiter is essentially falling back to Earth, the crew wants to bleed off as much speed as possible. By taking advantage of friction with the air, the Orbiter can slow down, and not be travelling at Mach 20 or so when it lands. It is a tricky balancing act among speed, attitude, and heat--the tiles can only absorb so much thermal energy, the crew has only aerodynamic control of the Orbiter's attitude, and there is a whole lot of kinetic energy that needs somewhere to go.
From my understanding of the physics of reentry, and the information available about the Columbia breakup, I do not think that the only factor was heat. The speeds at which spacecraft travel during reentry are so far beyond the speed of sound that aerodynamicists classify them not as supersonic, but hypersonic. The hypersonic regime (generally > M5) is somewhat counterintuitive. Friction with air generates enough heat at reentry speeds (M20 and up) to vaporize graphite and cause dissociation in N2 and O2 molecules, creating an ion cloud around the spacecraft.
We would not be able to travel at hypersonic speeds if not for a quirk of geometry. If you look at a supersonic vehicle, such as the X-1 [nasa.gov], you will notice that the leading edges of the wings and fuselage are pointed and form very sharp angles. This causes the shockwave formed by supersonic speed to break cleanly around the vehicle, which is good for aerodynamics. If you look at a hypersonic vehicle, like the Orbiter, you will notice a blunt, rounded leading edge and nosecone, which causes the shockwave to separate from the craft, forming a cushion of air. This insulates the Orbiter somewhat from the heat of reentry.
If that rounded profile is compromised, in Columbia's case by loss of tiles on the leading edge, the shock will break as in a supersonic craft, allowing both heat to transfer to the wing, and also subjecting the Orbiter to the considerable kinetic forces generated by air resistance. Heat did not tear Columbia apart. Her own speed did.
-Carolyn Lachance
Re:A thought or two... (Score:5, Informative)
>
>The Shuttle uses LOX and LH2, both of which are f'nasty to deal with and are economical only to
>generate the immense thrust necessary to achieve orbit. While in orbit, the Orbiter maneuvers
>using (relatively) small hydrazine thrusters. N2H4 is also f'nasty, but somewhat less so than
>either LOX or LH2.
???
The OMS uses hydrazine / nitrogen tetroxide, which is way, WAY more nasty than LOX / LH2.
LOX / LH2 are cryogens, and contact with them will give you frostbite. Hydrazine is carcinogenic and toxic, but nitrogen tetroxide is roughly as poisonous as the best war gasses from WWI. Plus, it has very low surface tension, so when it spills, it spreads extremely rapidly, which causes it to vaporize even faster than the already high vapor pressure would indicate. The various oxides of nitrogen are famous for the "BFRC" ( big red cloud ) that results from spills, which you should run away from very fast.
John Carmack
Re:ft or meters (Score:2)
0 is 0 (Score:3, Funny)
Do you realize that 0m = 0ft = sea leval?
Re:0 is 0 (Score:2)
Re:0 is 0 (Score:2)
Understand my post before you insult me...
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, let me get this straight. You list some of NASA's failures and ignore all of its successes, and conclude from that analysis that NASA is a big waste of time and money? Hmm...
NASA's budget is 14 GigaUSD [space.com] per year. Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut [alternet.org] is 35 GigaUSD per year. If your true interest is taking care of problems at home like war and famine, you should be attacking the Bush administration, not NASA.
OT: People who 'PAY TAXES'?!?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I simply can't understand this line of reasoning. Bush cut income, estate, and dividend taxes, targeting the cuts disproportionately at the wealthy investor class. He did not cut payroll taxes. Certainly people who pay payroll taxes are also "PAY[ing] TAXES", are they not? And isn't it true that payroll taxes generate a huge surplus in the social security trust fund, while income taxes don't pay anywhere near enough into the general account to pay for basic governmental services? Are we not running a deficit?
Now you may argue that payroll taxes are collected strictly to pay out social services and are not collected for general revenue or spent on general services, as such they shouldn't be cut. However, this isn't the case. In fact the HUGE SURPLUS of $200B/yr is siphoned off to reduce our general account deficit. In fact, the currently stated $450B (4.5%GDP) deficit would actually be $650B (6.5%GDP) were it not for the surplus generated from payroll taxes. Note that payroll tax collections are capped at $86K/yr, meaning that any income above $86K/yr is not taxed; this is called a regressive tax because collections don't continue linearly across all income streams. The rich pay much less proportionally for payroll taxes than do you or I.
Realize that general revenues pay for basic government services such as the military, infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, rail, etc), NASA, and government overhead - NOT social services. So, I wonder how anyone can defend a tax cut that reduces revenue from a general account which is already $650B/yr in deficit? And the gall of claiming that it is done on the grounds that income taxes are somehow 'real' while payroll taxes don't matter, when it is the payroll tax surplus which covers 1/3rd of our current account deficit.
Whatever you may think of the rationality of providing social services (I support them, you may not, either opinion is legitimate political debate), certainly you agree that general services slated for payment through income taxes should collect enough on their own to pay for those services. We should not be running a 6.5% GDP deficit (or even a 4.5% GDP deficit) while at the same time cutting the very taxes slated to pay for those services. That the current administration claims to cut these taxes for the people who "PAY TAXES", while at the same time cutting no taxes for those who pay a regressive tax, is simply disingenuous and offensive.
And I haven't even begun discussing our current foreign trade deficit, which is another +5% of GDP. Frankly, if this continues Bush's administration may well take America over the brink into bankruptcy. We're already printing money to prevent 'deflation', the Treasury Department has signaled it's willingness to let the dollar continue to depreciate in value against other foreign currencies, and our manufacturing base is running 1/4 idle.
IMO, these tax cuts are a policy mess. Bush and the fed are 'pushing on a string' with their policy blunders by flooding the investment streets with money while there's nothing left to invest in. We should be pushing the money down to the individual low income tax payers to stir consumption, not further investment and development with no buyers in sight.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Re:OT: People who 'PAY TAXES'?!?!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
I do have a couple of questions/counter points for you...
Do you think that it is only the top people in the nation that employ people? I this day of the individual middle class investor, a very large portion of people who are not rich own portions of American businesses, that means that they are employing others, right?
Also, I heard bill clint
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:2)
I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much
More for Nasa is less to the Military (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:3, Insightful)
So I suppose that unless something can stop war and famine, it isn't worth doing? I mean...we only got tons of great medical technology from the space program...who needs MRIs and CAT scans? They don't stop war and famine! Not to mention the interesting effects on nerve regeneration that happen in space, I mean...allowing nerve-damaged people the opportunity
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anything worth doing has some risk involved, and while engineers and scientists will strive to reduced those risks as much as possible, they cannot be eliminated entirely. NASA is made of of human beings, not perfect automatons whose godlike prowess and forsight eschew all possibility of failure. They're people, flesh and blood, they have families and hopes and dreams, just like the rest of us. A
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:2)
Well, I don't know about stopping war, but the solution to (peace-time) famine easily lies in space. When you send people up there, you have to feed them somehow. Imagine the advances in hydroponic gardening that could happen in space, if the space station was allowed to grow to the point of needing its own food sources. Or what we could learn from coloni
Re:What the hell is going on at NASA? (Score:2)
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of "running a deficit".
Re:the answers do lie in space (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a very reckless and naive belief. When you move into a house, do you trash it and ruin it and then simply flee to the next available house? Our maturity as a species depends on our ability to gain wisdom through maintaining our own home and then work on expanding to new homes, not burning our current home to the ground and spreading on to the next suitable habitat for us to exploit and ruin.
Re:Postmortem rename (Score:2)
Re:Postmortem rename (Score:2)