Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Solar Powered Helios Plane Destroyed in Test Flight 325

Posted by michael from the in-the-event-of-a-water-landing dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar Powered Helios Plane Destroyed in Test Flight More

Solar Powered Helios Plane Destroyed in Test Flight

Comments Filter:

  • And... (Score:4, Funny)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowardNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:00AM (#6310173) Journal
    Thus continuing a great tradition of first flights.

    If it does not crash and burn it was not a good test.

    • First? Not so much. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Soulfader ( 527299 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ecapsgis>> on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:05AM (#6310208) Journal
      Thus continuing a great tradition of first flights.

      If it does not crash and burn it was not a good test.

      Apparently, in your hurry to post this profundity, you missed the summary, which specifically mentioned the altitude record set two years ago. Not a first flight by any means.

      I'm actually rather curious about how it is (er, was) constructed. It looks quite flimsy...

      • Re:First? Not so much. (Score:5, Funny)

        by notque ( 636838 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:45AM (#6310521) Homepage Journal
        Apparently, in your hurry to post this profundity, you missed the article.

        "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.

    • Re:And... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by noah_fense ( 593142 )

      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)

        by blinder ( 153117 )
        Not to be a stickler here, but the Apollo 1 accident didn't really have anything to do with the fuel (alluded to in the "...renewable energy that doen't[sic] blow up...")

        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)

    by Delusion- ( 153011 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:03AM (#6310188) Homepage
    ...Icarus.

  • /me waits for.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by caffeinex36 ( 608768 )
    the obligatory obnoxious ebay post....

    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

  • Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kevx45 ( 654613 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:06AM (#6310221) Homepage Journal
    96,000 ft! I wonder how much that thing weighed. Anyone have a link somewhere to specifications on the Helios?

    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

  • You gotta admit that the timing [slashdot.org] is awfully disturbing...
  • Yet another example of the dangers of solar power.

    If God intended for us to use solar airplanes He would never have given us Jet A.
    • This flight it was testing the fuel cells. So, your post should have read: "Yet another example of the dangers of Hydrogen power"
      • Idunno, personal issue there buddy.

        I will give up the Hydrogen Powered Jeep [franceisoc...ermany.org] when my cold dead butt is pulled from it.

  • It's ok (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Epistax ( 544591 ) <epistax@gmail. c o m> on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:09AM (#6310255) Journal
    All in the name of science after all. Good thing whatever went wrong happened in the prototype phase, before anything but monetary anticipations were relying on it.

    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)

      by ozbon ( 99708 )
      As the plane's flown before, I'd reckon it's more likely that it's the part that was the problem.

      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)

    by djward ( 251728 )
    "We were flying at about the 8,000-foot altitude west of Kauai over the ocean and the aircraft simply broke up..." The cause of the crash is unknown, Brown said. NASA is forming an accident investigation team.

    I suspect a piece of foam.

  • NASA investigation team has its work cut out (Score:5, Funny)

    by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:12AM (#6310275) Homepage Journal
    Man, do I feel bad for that NASA investigation team. Having to spend a large amount of time on the beautiful, garden island of Kaua'i, with its sunny south shore, and lush, tropic north short (with some incredible surfing), not to mention Mt Wai'ale'ale, where it rains 360 days a year and has vegetation that grows no-where else, and the breath-taking Napali cliffs...

    I don't envy them.

    Wait, yes I do!

  • Nobody Died (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jad LaFields ( 607990 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:13AM (#6310281)
    In case you didn't RFTA, the craft was an unmanned, remotely controlled plane. The article blurb didn't make this clear. So don't worry, everybody, nobody got hurt. (Except for maybe a few egos =)

  • It's called trial and error (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:14AM (#6310296)
    Not trial and success. There's a reason for that.

    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
    • The odd 747 full of paying commercial passengers has been known to fall out of the sky as well.


      Yeah they should find a way of only build the even ones.

    • You state:

      "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."

      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

  • ..this guy. [tilleyfoundation.com]

  • Helios huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Flakeloaf ( 321975 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:22AM (#6310354) Homepage
    Helios? Sounds more like Daedalus to me.

  • Give 'em a break (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:27AM (#6310404) Homepage Journal
    IANARS, but just look at the problem: to keep a solar-powered airplane flying for 4 days. Given this, I can see why the engineers would have tried to pare this thing down to the bone. Each extra gram (or ounce, pick your units) matters. You are at the absolute edge of the performance figures for each of the components. The slightest flaw can break things (as it obviously did).

  • Bad place to fly... (Score:4, Funny)

    by gunnk ( 463227 ) <gunnk@@@mail...fpg...unc...edu> on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:29AM (#6310414) Homepage
    The remotely piloted, one-of-a-kind Helios Prototype crashed off Kauai within the testing area of the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility

    Maybe flying it in a missile test range wasn't such a good idea...

    • Re:Bad place to fly... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jstott ( 212041 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @09:33AM (#6310998)
      Maybe flying it in a missile test range wasn't such a good idea...

      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)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <<kt.celce> <ta> <eb>> on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:30AM (#6310428) Homepage Journal
    but the design doesn't look all that complicated (in comparison with the rest of the vehicle). It almost seems like getting it patched up and back together won't take that long and there won't be a question of "do we risk another life to try it" because this things pilots stay safely o the ground (which makes flying a little interesting I'm sure).

    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)

    by JimPooley ( 150814 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:40AM (#6310489) Homepage
    It's a very flimsy looking aeroplane. A 247 foot wingspan (a longer wingspan than the 747) that bends into a shallow U when aloft, with an all up weight of 1323 pounds (about the same as a light aircraft with no fuel or people in it) it looks like it wouldn't take too much to exceed its structural limits - some heavy wind shear or possibly a control surface stuck out of true.

    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!
    • A 247 foot wingspan (a longer wingspan than the 747) that bends into a shallow U when aloft

      Yeah. I'm sure the whales marvel at that graceful W shape on the ocean floor ...

    • Re:Turbulence? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Twanfox ( 185252 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @09:43AM (#6311103)
      The thing about flexible wings is that they have to be. So what if the wings bent into a shallow U? The U-2 plane wings did the exact same thing, as well as most glider planes. The bowing of the wings actually comes in handy during turbulence, in that it can flex a little in order to absorb some of the shock instead of simply snaping because the impact of the turbulent air momentarily exceeded the wing's structural tolerances.

      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.
  • Somewhere, the sound of a rocket scientist yelling, "OMG! LAG!!!"

  • BBC story on UK aircraft about to be launched (Score:5, Interesting)

    by boicy ( 547781 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:55AM (#6310621) Homepage
    here [bbc.co.uk] is an article on the new British high altitude UAV that should be launched pretty shortly.

    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)

    by Markus Registrada ( 642224 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @09:10AM (#6310784)
    Those Martians are turning into a real menace! Not satisfied with downing probes that approach their planet, they have taken to shooting down craft as soon as they leave our own.

    We must declare war on adventurist protectionism.

    Mars delenda est!

  • Blimps very interested in fuel-cell technology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) * on Friday June 27, 2003 @09:25AM (#6310919) Journal
    There's a organization in Worcester, MA building a fuel-cell powered plane [aviationtomorrow.com] for a human to fly in. I went to a very interesting presentation there last week put on by ASME [asme.org].

    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

    • In order to get back down to the ground, they sometimes have to blow out helium which is VERY expensive.

      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.
  • Helios began its life as "centurion", which was a bit smaller and then expanded to the helios configuration. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Research/Erast/centurion2 .html

  • Call me naive, but isn't the fact that physical fuel disappears once it is used make it attractive for planes, because it decreases the weight as fuel is used? Why did anyone think that putting big fat heavy batteries (albiet hydrogen-based) would be a good idea for planes?

  • Not enough weight carrying ability! (Score:3, Informative)

    by armyturtle ( 603867 ) <armyturtle1@ya h o o . c om> on Friday June 27, 2003 @05:24PM (#6315440)
    Let me tell you as a RF technician for a national wireless cellular company that there is NO WAY that 200lbs. comes EVEN CLOSE to what you need for equipment. A minimum of 1k lbs. will have to be up there. Also, not to mention that the picture that that company shows with the plane supposedly transmitting down to that entire city would have to carry an assload of frequencies. Need for more frequencies = Need for more equipment. There's no way that plane could carry enough cellular site radios to transmit/receive to/from all the users a city the size depicted in that picture! Not even close. Floating planes transmitting to customers is no where even close to becoming a reality.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Close