Do the words "sitting duck" mean anything ?
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a flying solar panel: BAE Systems' satellite alternative makes maiden flight in Oz
A BAE Systems pseudo-satellite drone has made its maiden flight in Australia, just under two years after being announced as a marketing concept. The Phasa-35, a 35m wingspan "solar-electric aircraft", as BAE calls it, took to the skies over Woomera Test Range in southern Australia. Most eye-catching about the craft, other than …
COMMENTS
-
-
Monday 17th February 2020 12:57 GMT Matthew Smith
70,000 ft is seriously high. Commercial traffic normally flies at around 40,000 ft. The Russian BUK, like the one used in Ukraine to shoot down the Malaysia Airlines jet, can just reach 80,000 ft.
And if you're fighting another army of shepherds/cavemen, then an AK-47 bullet is doing well to reach 400 ft. So yeah, its safe.
-
Monday 17th February 2020 14:33 GMT jmch
I think weather would be much more concerning. I'm sure it's fairly robust, but from the photo it looks like a strong gust of wind would snap it like a twig. And while 'normal' winds at 70k feet, above the tropopause, are less of a concern, around the equator storms may reach up to 70,000 ft and the vertical updrafts may be at more than 100kts vertical speed.
And is it that much cheaper? Google tells me the cost of a sat in LEO is $5k per kg, so a 15kg microsat would cost $75k. Surely this plane costs LOTS more than that, even accounting for the satellite needing to weigh more for shielding etc
-
Monday 17th February 2020 15:26 GMT batfink
I dunno. There doesn't seem to be a lot to it. Probably carbon-fibre at a guess (and not a lot of it), plus solar panels, batteries and some lightweight engines, plus some guidance mechanism. Once a proper production line starts up this should be doable for > $75k.
Plus the cost of the production line setup of course, but we're not counting the setup costs of building satellite launch vehicles in this comparison either.
Also reusable (well, if you're careful), which is something you don't often get with satellites.
-
Monday 17th February 2020 17:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Satellite repair and refurbishment solutions are just in the works. Though so far the "get a second engine and hug the existing satellite" option is the only current use solution, as the shuttle is out of use.
But these aircraft seem much more manageable than satellites for small scale stuff.
-
-
-
Monday 17th February 2020 16:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
15kg is the payload. Not the control systems, backhaul, power generation, attitude adjustment, gyros etc. So you're going to need to double, probably triple the weight.
But even if you've done all of that...
-Now try and get that micro-satellite to stay over one location in low earth orbit....as it goes past at 20,000mph...
-Now try and get NIIRS 8 level imagery out of an LEO satellite, you'll find you need a full sized imagery satellite to do so.
-Now try and get your payload back for maintenance or replacement.
- Now try and move your system to another location...changing orbits costs fuel and you don't really do it with micro-satellites.
- Now try and get a launch slot at short notice to cover a specific region
-
Monday 17th February 2020 22:52 GMT Denarius
@jmch
Weather in Oz. Good point. Not just tropical regions. Back around end of 1972 or 1973, a thunderstorm south of Perth Lat 36S something, was returning radar echoes above 70,000 feet. Rare, but given the persistent east coast trough lines that hang around for months over the last few years, I suspect anything hanging around the Oz SE corner may find the skies unfriendly. Being a drone it can be controlled to stay away from big forming storms so not a showstopper. Given the current source of detailed bushfire activity involves Lear jets carrying fire oriented sensors and satellites, the possibility of cost reduction is possible if one trusts BAE. However, launching a drone in fire weather would be an exercise in butt clenching.
-
-
-
Monday 17th February 2020 22:43 GMT Red Ted
Going that high
The U2 aircraft flew that high (nearer 80,000ft in fact) and an English Electric Lightening managed to intercept one during a NATO exercise in the mid 80’s. The lightening then turned over at about 90,000ft and passed it again on the way down.
So I rather suspect that there are a number of offensive aircraft that could intercept it.
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 08:39 GMT werdsmith
Re: Going that high
A ballistic climb, the Lightning would have to accelerate to full speed then point itself up, the pilot would be aiming the whole plane like a missile to intercept. Then the fuel load would be spent and the rest of the flight would be about finding somewhere to land quickly.
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 14:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
>70,000 ft is seriously high. Commercial traffic normally flies at around 40,000 ft. The Russian BUK, like the one used in Ukraine to shoot down the Malaysia Airlines jet, can just reach 80,000 ft.
That's what the US thought too until 1960 when Gary Powers was shot down in his U2 spy plane at 70,000 ft, missile technology has improved since 1960.
-
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 08:29 GMT thames
In military terms it's far less of a sitting duck than a satellite. In a war with an advanced opponent your satellite communications network will be gone within days or even hours of the start of the war, while a HALE like this can be kept well back from the front lines while still acting as a communications relay and so be difficult to see or hit. This is why there is so much military interest in these. The UK are the leaders in this field.
-
-
-
-
Monday 17th February 2020 13:08 GMT et tu, brute?
Re: Why, oh why...
That's my point: why are we, glorified monkeys, so backward that all we can think of (and provide money for) is ways to kill other glorified monkeys?
When are we going to be advanced enough to do science and scientific applications just for the benefit of humanity (and other species), rather than for advantages in killing others?
If I could, I would leave, so mine's the one with a Hitchhiker's Guide in the pocket...
-
-
Monday 17th February 2020 17:02 GMT steelpillow
Re: Why, oh why...
"Elon Musk? Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson?"
Bezos did have a crack, it was developed by UK company Ascenta and called Aquila. Amazon bought Ascenta then later closed the project down as "impossible". https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/26/facebook-permanently-grounds-its-aquila-solar-powered-internet-plane/
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 11:07 GMT Denarius
Re: Why, oh why...
@veti Really ? What about civil wars ? WW1 clash of empire, collapsing empire and wannbe empires which was a continuation of the Franco-Prussian War which may have had echos in idiots wanting to do a Charlemagne rather than a fight over resources. In tribal societies it was more about gaining kudos rather than land. eg New Guinea. In Torres Straits the inter island warfare was about obtaining heads as trading units in exchange for canoes from big trees. Land was not considered. And as for why much of the middle east became a desert, Timur the lame killed 90% of the farmers who maiontained the irrigation canals. Why ? Not for gain. Some of the intrusions into India werre the same. Mass murder and looting then abandonment of the "conquered" land. Perhaps some humans just enjoy destruction.
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 21:32 GMT veti
Re: Why, oh why...
Civil wars are about who gets to govern the land. Which, ultimately, boils down to who gets to work it and who gets to live in the big houses. The imperial projects that led to World Wars 1 and 2 were about finding places for the restless young people of Europe to move to. In the 19th century Britain and France had exported their restless youth to (mostly) Africa, and Germans and Italians wanted the same options.
Even smaller wars that are ostensibly about "status" of one warlord versus another - ultimately, the question is "who's more important here, who's in charge?" And the reason why anyone cares about that - the reason why people align themselves to one side or another - is that the person in charge ultimately gets to say who's a part of "their" community, and who isn't. Life can be made very difficult for outsiders (read: those who failed to support the warlord in their effort).
Killing farmers and other ways of razing land (like Rome did to Carthage, or the Greeks to Troy) is a way of ensuring that it will be a long time before any challenge to you and your people arises from this area again. If you don't think you can exploit the land, the next best thing is to make sure nobody else can either. That means fewer rivals (who might, one day, grow to challenge you for dominance over your land).
It's always about land.
-
-
-
-
Monday 17th February 2020 20:36 GMT The Basis of everything is...
Re: Why, oh why...
Which has more chance of success:
Dear Shareholders. We're going spend 10's of millions developing something cool and then try to sell it to a few people who might want to email cat pictures across the outback
Dear Shareholders. We're going to spend 10's of millions developing something cool and sell it to countries x,y and z who want to see what their neighbours are up to and will pay enough to cover the development costs and 15 years of spares. Plus we can also sell it to anyone else who wants to email cat pictures across the outback.
Also military development is not state aid. Says Airbus, Boeing, you get the idea...
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 11:05 GMT Roland6
Re: Why, oh why...
Funding.
A friend's business was very much about civilian application of drone tech. however, they found that the MoD were much more forth coming with the necessary seed funding for research style product development (ie. our work might not result in a working product) than the commercial sector. Having adjusted their orientation, they now have a much more secure funding stream.
It's one of the daft things about HS2, I'm sure if the government set up a sovereign fund to spend/invest £106Bn on technology innovation over the next 20 years, they would generate a substantially larger economic impact...
-
-
Monday 17th February 2020 14:38 GMT Pen-y-gors
Up to 1 year?
Even allowing for the usual "Up to " meaning "far less than" as in "up to" 100Mbps, what causes the 1 year limitation? Dead batteries?
And presumably launching could be a bit of a fingers crossed moment. They fly above the jet stream but they have to get through it to reach cruising height.
-
Monday 17th February 2020 15:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Up to 1 year?
Typically, these systems run on battery power overnight, and recharge during the day, with the life-limiting factor being the number of charge-discharge cycles the batteries can endure while still being able to maintain a nominal level.
A comparable project of which I was aware required their batteries to still be able to charge to 90% of their initial maximum to be declared mission-capable. As well as time, this was dependent on a number of meteorological factors (principally wind encountered, but also temperature, moisture and/or salt accretion, etc), but in the majority of cases the batteries were reliable for approx 3 months. For management level briefings this was given as 90-90-90, i.e. 90% of batteries could meet the target of holding 90% charge after a period of 90 days.
-
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 10:22 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Up to 1 year?
'why are we using feet btw!'
In aviation everyone* uses feet for altitude as it's a more convenient unit. E.g. 1000' is a usable distance to separate flight levels, and gives you easily remember-able numbers, e.g. FL30 is 30,000' and hard to confuse with FL31 or 29. In those countries using metric flight levels it's not only more confusing, but they don't seem to be able to agree on what heights to use if the Wikipedia article is vaguely accurate.
*Bar China, Russia, North Korea, and a collection of the 'Stans.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th February 2020 08:12 GMT Kevin McMurtrie
Payload power
How much power is available to the payload? I can imagine that designing your payload with its own solar panels in a way that's aerodynamically compatible would be difficult. Nuclear power would be frowned upon in applications that are likely to crash to Earth.
All kinds of interesting things are possible if there's enough power available.