NASA Spends $25M On Unmanned Planes, Awards Aviation Prizes 49
An anonymous reader points out a NetworkWorld story about NASA's purchase of two unmanned aircraft for use in "observing remote locations of Earth not feasible or practical with piloted aircraft." The planes are Northrop Grumman Global Hawks, and NASA selected them for their extreme range and the fact that most other unmanned vehicles don't have the FAA's approval for regular use over the US. NASA also distributed prizes for its General Aviation Challenge this weekend. The goals of the challenge include improving fuel efficiency in aviation, reducing emissions, and aircraft safety. None of the teams were able to achieve the $50,000 prize for managing 30 miles per gallon, but the top team was able to complete the 400-mile course at 28.8 miles per gallon.
Oil independence (Score:2, Insightful)
In order to achive independence on foreign oil, we in the U.S. will not just need to get cars that use less (or no) oil, but aerospace vehicles as well. Even 30 MPG for an unmanned plane isn't going to be nearly enough.
Re:Oil independence (Score:5, Insightful)
MPG doesn't really matter if you're not going anywhere. The Global Hawk is a loitering type of reconnaissance plane, not a fly-over-as-fast-as-you-can type like the SR71. What matters is the gallons per hour, not the miles per gallon.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Fuel consumption efficiency is not the answer here.
It's of course better to be efficient than not, but consuming less oil doesn't move you to independence of foreign sources; it is moving you to less dependency, but not to independence.
The answer (as I see it) is not to impose cheap oil prices (being outside the US this is what I get the feeling the US are doing.
Instead, let the price go up, and more than that, impose a task on oil consumption. That should encourage people to actively seek alternate fuel so
Re: (Score:1)
Damn straight! No more of this lollygagging around, burning barrels of crude in our spare time! What we need is a disciplined, goal-oriented approach to our oil consumption!
Re: (Score:1)
You laugh, but you may be right. We could do a 'Boston Oil Party'. Just start destroying every barrel of oil in sight. That would probably do it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
i agree with you on that, however...
the problem with that is that america's economy is predicated on cheap fuel. take that away, and everything begins to slowly collapse.
i'm not saying that alternative fuels aren't needed, but the rest of us who are actively trying to consume less end up being punished for the overconsumption of others. i'm not saying i'm "carbon neutral" or anything, but if i'm cutting back, and my neighbors aren't -- well, i end up starving because joe bob next door won't give up his fu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
people keep thinking this "magic bullet" is going to come along and save us from oil. but, i don't tihnk that's going to happen.
upping the prices to discourage consumption works to a point -- and then you start killing off those who are unable to keep up financially. you have people just trying to get by who may be using public transport, don't have a car, and are getting killed on the cost of basic necessities driven up by high fuel prices.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh it's that simple then is it? Only 70% and the USA can be free of foreign oil, well christ boy I bet if you took that extra little step and knocked off %100 you could be completely free of or dependency on oil.
-1 Stating the stupidly obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really (Score:2)
But what I find interesting, is that Boeing has the ability to raise millage by 30-50%. The x-48 Blended Wing Body does that. But ppl are fighting against sitting in a theater. I suspect that if Boeing had that aircraft coming right this instant, they would have won the DOD tanker contract, all freighters companies, and most likely a NUMBER of airlines would be buying these as well.Simply put, if Boeing AND the feds w
Hyper mailing and tailgating (Score:4, Funny)
Wait until the drones start hypermiling and catching the draft of passing jets.
Then we will see MPG figures increase.
Of course someone with a honda will just tape wings onto their car and beat it hands down, but they tend to be frowned upon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible in theory, but next to impossible in practice. You would have to stay in the part of the wingtip vortex that's moving upward, and have enough maneuvering power to deal with a frightful amount of curl (in the mathematical sense of "del cross V") at jet speeds.
Migrating ducks and geese do it. Each bird rides one of the tip vortices from the guy in front of him -- that's why they fly in a V formation. It reduces their induced drag by about ten percent, and the strongest flyers take turns flying l
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until the drones start hypermiling and catching the draft of passing jets.
Then we will see MPG figures increase.
That would actually use more fuel overall - Try it you'll see.
The drone may save a little bit of fuel, but you also have to factor in the fuel consumed by the fighter jets that get scrambled when the 747 pilot radios in to report the unmanned craft tailing him.
Needs better diet. (Score:3, Funny)
No wonder! We all know that french-fry oil clogs up arteries. That plane needs to be put on an engine healthy fuel. Lower saturated fats should be used. Otherwise, on take-off and landing - high stress parts of flight - that poor plane will put a wing up to its fuselage and just die.
Units? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Gallons? US or Imperial? NASA has gone metric anyway, so it should be litres. NASA know what happens when you mix your units up...
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/ [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean to ask: African or European liters?
Odd (Score:4, Interesting)
None of the four planes entered won the $50,000 prize; the best attempt achieved 28.8 miles per gallon.
versus
The "Prius of airplanes," the 100-horsepower-engine Pipistrel typically can go as fast as 170 mph and get 50 miles to the gallon.
So wasn't the Pipistrel Viper entered in the mileage competition, and why not if it'd have easily won?
Re:Odd (Score:5, Informative)
The Pipistrel won $250,000 from NASA last year http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9758741-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20/ [cnet.com]
And in TFA:
But in answer to your question (again from TFA!):
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
From TFA, that challenge also required flying 400 miles. Simplest explanation is the Pipistrel doesn't have enough range to fly that far with that kind of efficiency.
Will these innovations ever be adopted? (Score:4, Interesting)
The general aviation industry has advanced at a glacial pace ever since WW2, and it got worse with the excesses of litigation that almost put the GA manufacturers out of business. Electronic fuel injection is still regarded as newfangled and unproven, for instance.
I know there are reasons for this (basically, developing an all-new engine that conforms to the safety standards can't be afforded the industry), but the end result is that any innovation seen in this competition will be viewed with deep distrust by the GA industry, and in 10 years, non-experimental GA planes will still be no more advanced than they are today.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well there's a damned good reason for that too. When your cars computer dies or a fuel injector clogs you pull over to the side of the road. In an airplane you can also pull over to the side of the road, unfortunately that road happens to be 5000' below you. Pilots don't WANT to fly in anything that hasn't been tested and proven again and again and again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a general aviation pilot and would LOVE to have a fuel-injected engine. More power, better reliability, better fuel economy, smoother running, and one less control to monitor.
One big problem with EFI is how to handle total loss of the electrical system. As it stands now, you can lose the alternator, the battery, and one magneto and still fly. Same with mechanical (Bendix systems) injection. However, with the mechanical systems, you don't gain a whole lot. There is still a mixture control- they basi
Re: (Score:1)
When your cars computer dies or a fuel injector clogs you pull over to the side of the road. In an airplane you can also pull over to the side of the road, unfortunately that road happens to be 5000' below you. Pilots don't WANT to fly in anything that hasn't been tested and proven again and again and again.
As a pilot who has made an emergency no-power landing, I will disagree with you. I want advances that decrease my workload, especially during critical phases of flight or during an emergency.
High performance piston powered aircraft have three engine controls; The throttle - controls engine rpm, the mixture control - controls the fuel/air ratio of fuel and air going into the engine, and the prop control - controls the pitch of the propellor which allows the pilot to optimize the propellor performance for rat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
At least part of this, the constant speed propeller [wikipedia.org] is in widespread use. Although, especially in a multi-engine config, I'd want one with the ability to feather the propeller in case of an engine out (to lower Vmc). I'd also want to make sure the one I used allowed me to dive-start an engine.
When the Porsche-engined Mooney was produced, a constant speed prop was not common in light singles, such as the Mooney M-2x, Piper Arrow, and Cessna 182.
I agree that in a multi-engine configuration the pilot needs to be able to feather the prop on a dead engine.
Loss of Direction? (Score:2)
Kinda cool, but this looks more like a DARPA project. Maybe if NASA could concentrate on the 'S' part of their charter, this project would make more sense. How about re-doing the project, (and get more budget), but apply it to motors that could lift a 40 foot cargo container to maybe 60 miles up? Using less fuel? Using a more efficient lift body? Now Shippers would start to listen. Shippers would start to consider less Ships, and Trains; and MORE aviation solutions in their Logistics.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm no expert in the matter, but isn't it (somewhat) of a waste of fuel/energy to lift something 60 miles up, then move it towards the intended destination? For comparison - would you climb the Grand Canyon, walk across it (say on a bridge), and climb back down just to
Re: (Score:2)
I work alot with shipping; and the average cargo container is 40 feet long. These metal crates get banged around a lot but for contemporary cargo hauling, they handle pretty good. I know the time is going to come when something is manufactured in California and, (hopefully), is delivered to the space port in Arizona. Most likely, it will be in a cargo container. I see these containers, routinely stacked 5, and 6 high, and at our dock port, there are hundreds of them waiting to be picked up, or waiting t
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting the A part is just as much part of their charter as the S part. DARPA is a defence agency, so commercial and general aviation isn't part of their charter.
There's almost never a need to transport cargo through space. The stuff that gets packed in 40-ft containers usually isn't so time-critical that it needs transportation faster than is available now.
Sending anything 60 miles up and giving it enough speed to get the correct ballistic trajectory (remember, no air to speak of at 60 miles) ine
$25m for 2 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well this sure puts an end to General Atomics's claim that one Global Hawk costs over $100m.
They didn't buy new ones. They bought the old test ones not used for production.
Plus they didn't have to buy all the sensors. You can really save money when you don't need to buy a SAR (just like holding off on that NAV unit for your Escalade).
For comparison (Score:2)
This can't be easily adapted to un-manned flight, but it's still interesting for comparison.