...it’s possible to land and repair the craft if something goes wrong.
Always assuming that the something that went wrong was something in the surveillance gear and not something in the aircraft itself....
The British military is reportedly set to purchase two planes that can fly for months on end without needing to land. These large solar-powered “Zephyr” drones would likely be sent to carry out long-term surveillance missions and could constantly monitor an area with high-quality imagery. They could also be used to provide …
Current payload is only 5kg, which isn't much if you want high resolution images 24/7 from multispectral sensors from 20km+. But with so much of the aircraft's mass in the batteries this could rapidly become a real game-changer as battery technology improves; about 25% less battery mass would double the payload, for example.
There's a lot riding on this assumption of battery improvement.
I'll buy an e-car in a heartbeat once batteries are 'twice as good' as they are now.
Autonomous aircraft is pretty far down the list of 'important things' that'll change if and when batteries improve. Just above, 'Hey, my flashlight works longer.'
The e-car problem won't be solved by batteries alone.
Something's gotta charge those batteries. Most western countries are at the limits of their generation capacity with the roll out of new power stations getting harder and harder. SImilarly, power grids and reticulation are creaky and cannot take more load.
It's all Ok while e-cars are just a few overpriced Teslas etc, but a significant shift to e-cars (20% or more) is going to need massive upgrades to generation and power distribution.
Hooray! I had thought I might be the only one who had sat down and worked out that replacing the UK's car fleet with electric cars would require an approximate doubling of the UK's power generation and distribution infrastructure.
I seem to recall hearing that the power generation is currently within a few percent of critical...
@Neil Barnes
Not only would it need the doubling of the power available but it would require that power to be available 24/7/365 - something that renewable power is unable to do (wind generate with no wind and solar doesn't cut it at night)
Another thing is that the power would have to be so cheap otherwise people could not afford to use it - again something renewable energy isn't.
Hooray! I had thought I might be the only one who had sat down and worked out that replacing the UK's car fleet with electric cars would require an approximate doubling of the UK's power generation and distribution infrastructure.
@Neil Barnes Not only would it need the doubling of the power available but it would require that power to be available 24/7/365 - something that renewable power is unable to do (wind generate with no wind and solar doesn't cut it at night) Another thing is that the power would have to be so cheap otherwise people could not afford to use it - again something renewable energy isn't.
There is no need to double power station output or upgrade the distribution network. This is how it will work: solar panels on the house roof, Powerwall battery in the garage, charge your electric car overnight while you sleep. (On the rare occasions you need to drive more than 400km in one day you can use a fast-charge station at lunchtime). As for pricing: solar panels + Powerwall will pay for themselves in a decade at current prices so they are already financially viable, and pricing will improve further as the tech is refined.
"There is no need to double power station output or upgrade the distribution network."
Simply put, I can't afford solar panels, a power wall *and* a car, electric or otherwise.
I'd bet that probably more than half the population of the UK are in the same position. I believe that either we need to:-
1. increase the power generating capacity of the country
2. give away a massive number of free solar cells and powerwalls, (no idea how they'd be paid for, because *I* can't afford to subsidise any more solar panels and windmills via my electricity bill than I already am....)
or
3. perhaps simply accept that for the time being, electric cars are a niche product for the better off among us. (and at the same time, remove the subsidy paid for out of general taxation that makes them unrealistically cheap to buy.)
You seem to be suggesting that in order to relieve the pressure on the grid we should go solar + powerwall? Here's a flaw or two in that plan
1) 400km range is Tesla country, way beyond the means of most. A Leaf, which is more what real people can afford, will do 175km. In the summer with a tailwind and when new.
2) A powerwall will be dead in far less than 3650 charge cycles if you use it's full capacity. If you only use 7KWh then yes one should just about last a decade.
3) 7KWh is not remotely going to get your home off grid but that's not the point, you only need an alternative source equal to what you'll be putting in your car. A Leaf with 175km range has 30KWh batteries so you need three to four powerwalls and three to four rooftops full of solar cells assuming you don't use all the 175km range.
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/30/tesla-powerwall-battery-economics-almost-there/
Martin Budden offered that "...solar panels + Powerwall will pay for themselves in a decade..."
Your electricity tariff must be extremely high for your claim to be true. Or other rate-payers or governments are subsidizing you.
The 7-kwh PowerWall, reportedly the only one designed for daily cycles, only holds a trivial $1 worth of electricity (assumed rate $0.15/kwh), so the VERY MOST VALUE it can 'pay back' over ten years is $3.6k (at most; assuming ideal conditions). But the retail price is MORE than that. So it'll NEVER pay back its total installed cost within its roughly ten-year life span. It's greenwash and net negative for everyone except Musk, who finds a market for his vast collection of sub-par 18650 cells (rejected from the Tesla car battery packs). It's bordering on green-fraud, which is one more reason why I view Musk's true green values with some suspicion.
Even solar panels! Even when on sale, they'd pretty much have to be placed into orbit, with 100% duty cycle solar flux, no clouds, no night, to make back their cost in less than a decade. A watt-year is about $1.36 (assumed rate $0.15/kwh). A 45-watt panel is at least $100, not even installed yet. It makes barely $10 worth of power per year in the real world (night, angles, clouds, snow). Same money invested in passive solar gain for heating has much better environmental credentials.
Do you actually have such a solar panel plus PowerWall system? Most fans of solar power don't actually have a system, because they're not actually as daft as their dreams.
Pretty much all new houses where I live are built to the vaguely nordic "passivhaus" standard of energy use, i.e. near-zero for heating and water (zero may be impossible to achieve if north-facing in a valley bottom). Solar panels are a financially attractive add-on for those who can make the investment, thanks to generous subsidies (paid through other suckers' electricity bills, which are ludicrous).
The clever bit about the passivhaus stuff is controlled ventilation, with heat exchangers at the inflow and outflow. That and a very airtight building with very thick walls and windows pretty much solves your heating problem. Power diverted to the fans is minimal compared to what you save.
Where I live* electricity consumption is falling, 80% of the generation is from renewable sources, and the Government is providing incentives for companies to provide charging stations for electric cars.
The limiting factor is the price of the actual cars.
*Not the UK.
Sod batteries:
http://cellaenergy.com/our-materials/ seem to have 3 times the energy density of gasoline. The weight reduction using this technology should reduce fuel consumption considerably.
Not sure if that takes into account the 2.5% increase in efficiency of fuel cells over internal combustion.
Other possibilities of electric Self drive is their potential ability to block together - seriously reducing air resistance and hence fuel consumption.
Youngone "Where I live..., 80% of the generation is from renewable sources..."
Me too. It's called Canada. 65+% hydro to start. Well over 80% carbon 'free', but that includes nukes.
I haven't yet found the figures, but I suspect that Canada's hydro power provides 65% of our *consumption*, but the hydro *generation* may exceed 100% - because we export over a billion dollars of HydroQuebec electricity to the USA. ...Not yet sure about that...
Current payload is only 5kg, which isn't much
Assuming that they are telling the whole truth, and that they don't improve it. Qinetiq and Airbus will know down to the last gramme what the minimum useful payload is, and they'll be fully aware that if the craft can't do anything useful then there won't be repeat orders.
There's typically some hardware that would need inspection and/or test and sign-off every 2000 hours. That's 12 weeks. Some aircraft need inspection every 600 hours, less than a month.
Some of this can eventually be engineered out, but the authorities won't allow anyone to 'Fly To Failure'. Obviously... Any failures at 'X' weeks might result in the authorities granting one-half 'X' weeks for operational purposes. Often it's a 2:1 ratio of expected life to certified life.
The big news here might be the eventual engineering of hardware with extremely long certified life. Owners of light aircraft would appreciate a prop with an unlimited, no inspection, life. The reductions in cost would be enormous. But unemployment for certified aircraft mechanics.
Even having a day's downtime a week would allow one spare plane to provide cover for or six operational planes, allowing continuous uptime (weather and acts of dog, allowing). Having routine maintenance every month wouldn't be too onerous. Components, such as motor and prop assemblies can be swapped out / swapped in quickly.
I'm assuming the small size of it makes inspection of the airframe easier and quicker.
The materials used for the various structural members will be the main driver for inspections. The biggest issue for an airframe is a fatigue type failure of a major structural member. The fatigue characteristics of the materials, which I do not know, will dictate how often the airframe must checked, 2000 hrs might about right. I doubt the materials used on the airframe are that different from composites and metals currently being used. So I would expect similar fatigue life for major structural components. The other "mechanical" issue is the power plant reliability, again how many hours can one safely run it without inspection. Here, I have no idea.
The main concern is not the airframe failure in this case but what it might hit and damage on the ground.
The main concern is not the airframe failure in this case but what it might hit and damage on the ground.
A concern for whom? Your and my governments have been busy deliberately raining tonnes of stuff down on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, so I wouldn't have thought that the accidental and vastly remote chance of a 55kg kite landing on anything in such poor and sparsely populated areas will be taxing too many consciences.
Even over the US and UK, you're still talking about substantially less than the laden mass of a hot air balloon basket, all held up by hot air, flimsy material and rope.
@Ledswinger - you're talking under half the mass of me and my paraglider, which are safety protected by an emergency parachute weighing around a kilo. Half the mass requires, I think, a quarter as much parachute material, so a quarter the weight - not a lot to give up for testing locations, at least.
@a_y.._l...
You've touched on the issue of fatigue life. Aircraft (primary structure) might have a certified life of something like 25,000 or 30,000 hours. Continuous duty, that's (only) three or four years.
I expect that we agree that healthy pessimism is required to avoid major disappointment.
My understanding about much of the fatigue was that it related to the expansion and contraction of the materials as the relative air pressures change (inside vs outside). Planes that do a lot of short hops have more stresses than one doing long distance for the same km.
Its not a Civilian Aircraft.
The Military can fly to failure if they like. Have you seen the switchblade drone?
Also lithium batteries at ~2000 charged hold ~80% (chemistry dependent) of their new power. Each charge discharge cycle effectively holds very slightly less than the previous one.
Agreed, but phones use sensors over distances measured in millimeters to meters. A drone flying above the weather will usually require sensors many orders of magnitude more powerful and usually heavier, even if the computing power of a smart phone is all that is needed, think camera lenses for example.
I wasn't just looking at processing power. Cameras are down to milligrams now, and an array of them can do wonders. Laser communications also don't require as much hardware as they once did. Radios likewise. Now IR and UV sensors haven't kept pace but they have enjoyed some benefits of progress.
Lenses are still heavy - and are unlikely to get much lighter due to the physics of optics.
A camera sensor with a tiny lens is useless at that distance. Even assuming fixed focus it needs a really wide aperture to be any use - and a telephoto lens adds a lot more glass.
Let's cite an example. This is based on 2011 mobile camera technology and only 8 gigapixels. No doubt 4-8x should be possible today. Maybe more.
I checked out your example. Nowhere is a weight of the system specified, however the two vehicles that were used to test lift the system were named, the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk in 2010 with a lift capacity of 9,000 pounds, and the MQ-9 Reaper in 2014 with a lifting capacity of 3,800 pounds. I suspect you are mostly right but I can't find any facts to back up your weight assertions. Sorry.
Tech is not my field so I will take your statements with a slight grain of of salt, but I concede that modern cameras are amazing. I recently purchased a Mobius camera for my motorcycle helmet. It is one third the size of a GoPro, no bigger than a matchbox, one third the price of a cheap GoPro, only $80; and the resolution exceeded all my expectations. A clip recorded at 80 mph on the interstate, when played back on a 22 inch monitor will resolve every stone on the road beneath the bike with no blur at all when you freeze the playback. Really. Now, if they could just do something about wind noise it would be perfect, but in the meantime it is a superb dashcam for my bike, mounted up high. I have the wide angle lens unit.
P.S. If you want to see what this camera is capable of, check out rcgroups.com
What are the economics of replacing the local police helicopter? The Met supposedly costs £850ph - http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2014/july_2014/2014070000470.pdf - which a crude calculation gives £7.5 million a year. So it's looking like the same order of magnitude for payback over a few years.
Obviously this would be a quieter solution - I fondly remember the Strangeways riots stopping the local flyboys buzzing the house at 3am.
You're not comparing like with like when comparing a running cost with purchase cost. These things are going to cost money in staff and maintenance too, hopefully notas much but those props and motors will need some looking after - and at QuinetiQ rates.
Not quite sure what use this will be to Police if it only operates on clear, cloudless days. Actually that's not unlike the current Police helicopter service.
Qinetiq, sold off by the MoD, Designs the Zephyr, gives the design to EADS Airbus (or possibly licences it), the MoD buy it from EADS Airbus. The logical non-cynical assumption would be that Qinetiq was research only without the required manufacturing facilities, but from their website:
We make unmanned aviation work for both government and commercial customers – applying quality surveillance and intelligence technologies to provide safe and cost-effective operations.
We’re Europe’s largest commercial operator of unmanned aircraft, with a reputation for executing services in difficult environments.
and one has to wonder how much of the £11.5 million for 2 aircraft has now gone on Qinetiq advising the UK government which is also on their website:
Procurement Advisory Services (PAS) provides essential, independent, expert services across the entire acquisition life cycle.
So they independently advised the MoD to buy their design from someone else to remain impartial.
You couldn't be more wrong.
The team that developed this couldn't get money out of MoD to do the research, and only succeeded in being able to prove it practical via a route involving a marketing stunt. They continued to find bits and pieces of money, but in the end the clueless suits sold it off to Airbus, rather than exploit it for QQ and the UK.
It's actually the typical story of insufficient foresight and money - not double dealing.
Much of their usefulness is no doubt based on how easy they are to lock onto and shoot down( or take photos and complain to embassy) from the surface. Invariably very useful when engaging in foreign adventures where the largest threat is an RPG. Not so useful for a real war. Could see them being very handy back home for emergency situations where say the mobile network goes down during a disaster though.
- If you just want to go up, balloons are great; if you actually want to hold a certain altitude, decidedly less so. It's not really possible to just stay neutrally buoyant passively, and fiddling with the buoyancy invariably gets messy. Major altitude changes are even worse - if you let out gas, you're not getting it back...
- Balloons tend to have the equivalent aerodynamic drag of a flying olympic swimming pool, so even with some propulsion moving them is unwieldy, moving them fast is out of the question, and basically pretty much any wind gets to sweep them away when they just want to stay put.
- Solar wings might be a large-ish target but they're nothing compared to the target surface of any balloon; not good if the point is to avoid detection and/or a rocket on its way up.
- Whether you use hydrogen (ay carramba del los santos kaboom...!) or helium, those tiny atoms tend to just slip through any material and go bye-bye sooner rather than later - now you're either carrying heavy tanks with reserves or you're definitely not staying up "never land" style..
- Plus a million other reasons I can't think of right now but I'm sure exist... ;)
They don't need to be planes.
The MOD will be testing out the Airlander 10 for surveillance purposes this year.
http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/news-and-media/selex-es-and-hav-to-team-up-for-mod-airship-testing
They are already working on turning it into a electric aircraft, I'm guessing they will pursue smaller versions for surveillance operations as it offers better chance of a profit before going for larger versions.
£!0.5 million for a couple of glorified Keil Kraft Kits!!!!. Methinks they are trying to get back all the development costs on the first sale. But hey it's an ex-defence company selling to a Gov't defence procurer so pretty much par for the course.
I suspect civilian applications will be far more useful. A small dispersed global fleet of these things in the air all the time, that can be dispatched over disaster zones to image the damage and provide limited phone coverage.