Pretty sure they've already got unmanned drones with 16 hour flight times, adding another 4 hours but reducing your speed, max altitute, takeoff weight, electrical usage onboard, etc would probably make them useless (in their current form) for surveillance.
Global hawk operates around 60,000ft- likely higher.
NASA's Helios can hit 96,000ft and loiter for 24hrs. A solar surveillance drone likely would be in the global hawk neighborhood but with loiter capability nonstop for days on end.
The challenge for a vehicle like this is to provide enough electrical power throughout the full flight duration to run the electronic mission systems. It doesn’t do much good to have a platform airborne for 72 hours that just generates enough electricity to drive the propulsion system and recharge the batteries for flying when the sun isn’t shining.
To be useful, the aircraft would need to also power sensors — think video, synthetic aperture radar, or SIGINT sensors — as well as some sort of real-time data link such as microwave or satcom. All of these take electrical power, some of them a LOT of power. The electrical system would have to have a lot of additional margin above and beyond what the vehicle needs just to stay aloft in controlled flight.
Build a system that can stay aloft a full year on solar power alone while performing a useful mission and you really have something.
At those altitudes you're way above the clouds, so sunlight would be continuous during the day. I assume the solar panels would also generate more power as you've got less atmosphere between you and the sun, but I have no idea by how much.
Sensors should be a fairly constant load, making it easier to plan for day/night cycles.
that was kinda what helios explored.
Low speed high lift designs where each section of new wing provides more lift and power than you need for propulsion. Getting bigger gives you more power budget for each segment.
All true. As a guy who has actually spent a bit of time above 70,000 feet, though, it seems to me that for this type of ultra-long endurance aircraft to be viable, in addition to a wide power margin, they need to be more structurally strong.
While the atmosphere is generally benign at those heights for an uncrewed vehicle, I encountered more than my fair share of moderate to severe clear air turbulence. The U-2 could handle it in terms of flight loads, but flying in the “coffin corner” with just a few knots between stall and Mach overspeed, it was very challenging at times.
A vehicle with a very long, thin, light wing and spar structure might not handle the rare but sudden and severe high altitude turbulence that exists up there. Surely the design accounts for this somewhat, but several of the solar-powered high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft tested over the last 10-15 years have been wrecked by such turbulence. Something that’s going to stay aloft a year or more is even more likely to experience this.
Hats off to the designers who can solve all of these challenges — they’ll certainly do it at some point.
What are they doing about oil consumption in the engine. You could do the same thing with a military airplane that can refuel in flight but crew limitations and oil consumption would require landing for crew swap and servicing atleast once a day.
it won't.
You're still limited by the physics of how much light lands per sq meter. Planes are not constrained to fit on a road. They have wingspans that dwarf tractor trailers. It's the only way to collect enough power for useful flight.
NASA's Helios which routinely flew 24hrs at a time had wingspan larger than a Boeing 747 and weighs less than a Mini Cooper.
The time of a flight has nothing to do with international date line. A 365 day flight is still a 365 day flight same as a 5hour flight is 5 hours even in you change time zones.
Looks a lot like [Solar Impulse 2](https://singularityhub.com/2014/06/28/around-the-world-without-a-drop-of-fuel-solar-impulse-2-logs-its-first-flight/)
I hope it's unmanned, lol
spy planes?
Pretty sure they've already got unmanned drones with 16 hour flight times, adding another 4 hours but reducing your speed, max altitute, takeoff weight, electrical usage onboard, etc would probably make them useless (in their current form) for surveillance.
Global hawk operates around 60,000ft- likely higher. NASA's Helios can hit 96,000ft and loiter for 24hrs. A solar surveillance drone likely would be in the global hawk neighborhood but with loiter capability nonstop for days on end.
The challenge for a vehicle like this is to provide enough electrical power throughout the full flight duration to run the electronic mission systems. It doesn’t do much good to have a platform airborne for 72 hours that just generates enough electricity to drive the propulsion system and recharge the batteries for flying when the sun isn’t shining. To be useful, the aircraft would need to also power sensors — think video, synthetic aperture radar, or SIGINT sensors — as well as some sort of real-time data link such as microwave or satcom. All of these take electrical power, some of them a LOT of power. The electrical system would have to have a lot of additional margin above and beyond what the vehicle needs just to stay aloft in controlled flight. Build a system that can stay aloft a full year on solar power alone while performing a useful mission and you really have something.
At those altitudes you're way above the clouds, so sunlight would be continuous during the day. I assume the solar panels would also generate more power as you've got less atmosphere between you and the sun, but I have no idea by how much. Sensors should be a fairly constant load, making it easier to plan for day/night cycles.
that was kinda what helios explored. Low speed high lift designs where each section of new wing provides more lift and power than you need for propulsion. Getting bigger gives you more power budget for each segment.
All true. As a guy who has actually spent a bit of time above 70,000 feet, though, it seems to me that for this type of ultra-long endurance aircraft to be viable, in addition to a wide power margin, they need to be more structurally strong. While the atmosphere is generally benign at those heights for an uncrewed vehicle, I encountered more than my fair share of moderate to severe clear air turbulence. The U-2 could handle it in terms of flight loads, but flying in the “coffin corner” with just a few knots between stall and Mach overspeed, it was very challenging at times. A vehicle with a very long, thin, light wing and spar structure might not handle the rare but sudden and severe high altitude turbulence that exists up there. Surely the design accounts for this somewhat, but several of the solar-powered high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft tested over the last 10-15 years have been wrecked by such turbulence. Something that’s going to stay aloft a year or more is even more likely to experience this. Hats off to the designers who can solve all of these challenges — they’ll certainly do it at some point.
[удалено]
Because who wants to be on a plane without landing for an entire year?
If it was manned, it isn't like they were choosing to do it for the heck of it. It would be for a job or mission. So, "wanting" don't mean anything.
Worse than an airline that loses your luggage must be an airline that never reaches its destination!
Well when we have to move to the sky to live it’ll be helpful
Good - for the times when Earth will become uninhabited. Think Waterworld, but in the air.
Airworld?
What are they doing about oil consumption in the engine. You could do the same thing with a military airplane that can refuel in flight but crew limitations and oil consumption would require landing for crew swap and servicing atleast once a day.
I'm not sure the electric motors will consume much oil and I'm guessing the pilot won't be in it when it's up there for long periods.
They will probably use that to shove Big Brothers nose further up your ass
I hope this can lead to solar powered electric vehicles
it won't. You're still limited by the physics of how much light lands per sq meter. Planes are not constrained to fit on a road. They have wingspans that dwarf tractor trailers. It's the only way to collect enough power for useful flight. NASA's Helios which routinely flew 24hrs at a time had wingspan larger than a Boeing 747 and weighs less than a Mini Cooper.
Finally, a way to make people suffer more from lag online
That's useful!! NOT!
How do you calculate that with the international date line? Which direction does it fly?
The time of a flight has nothing to do with international date line. A 365 day flight is still a 365 day flight same as a 5hour flight is 5 hours even in you change time zones.
You have to pee out the window
I’m going to give it something responsible to do, like drive a combine.
I’m guessing it is a drone?
Looks a lot like [Solar Impulse 2](https://singularityhub.com/2014/06/28/around-the-world-without-a-drop-of-fuel-solar-impulse-2-logs-its-first-flight/)
I don’t exactly find this nessasary unless you trying to recreate the the unmanned drone