DARPA sets sights on aircraft capable of five-year flight

DARPA's certainly not lacking for ambitious projects these days, but it looks like it's about to get another big one underway nonetheless, with it reportedly now close to awarding contracts for its Vulture program, which aims to build an unmanned aircraft capable of a non-stop five-year flight. As if that feat wasn't enough, the aircraft will also have to be able to carry a 1,000 pound payload, pump out 5kW of onboard power, and keep up enough speed to withstand the winds it'll encounter at 60,000 to 90,000 feet. Needless to say, that's a long ways from becoming a reality, although it seems that the first phase of the project could soon be kicking off, with Vulture program manager Daniel Newman saying that they've had "at least one successful offeror," and that they're now close to doling out the first contracts. That initial phase will run for twelve months, and will require contractors to "define the objective system and design both full-scale and subscale demonstrators." That'll then be followed by phase two, which'll run through 2012 with the goal of testing of a subscale demonstrator capable of flying for three months.

[Via CNET News.com]

[rob @ Mar 5th 2008 3:31PM]

suddenly that 15 hour flight to australia i made seems like NOTHIN

[Shon S. @ Mar 6th 2008 1:29AM]

that looks like something for a skydiving team to jump off of.

[RC @ Mar 5th 2008 3:33PM]

S.R. Hadden will buy one.

[hp540 @ Mar 5th 2008 4:52PM]

+1 for reference to Contact

[LondonConsultant @ Mar 5th 2008 3:35PM]

Five-year mission to bodly go where no pigeon has gone before

[James @ Mar 5th 2008 3:35PM]

Did I miss something? What's the point?

[Kamokazi @ Mar 5th 2008 3:42PM]

Surveilance/Recon....what do you think the extra 5Kw and 1000lbs is for?

[Wes @ Mar 5th 2008 3:46PM]

Semi-permanent wireless transmitters/repeaters with no need for a ground lease or unsightly tower. In theater (military) communications and/or recon. Weather/ozone/climate monitoring stations.

or, my favorite, sky-writing 'We're No. 1' over and over.

[JD @ Mar 5th 2008 5:37PM]

Couldn't an orbiting satellite do the things you both have described? With the fatal exception of skywriting, of course. :) This seems like creating the space pen instead of using a pencil.

[murray @ Mar 5th 2008 5:52PM]

@JD: satellites cost a crapload to launch, and can't be brought down for upgrades/repairs.

[poulan @ Mar 5th 2008 6:04PM]

so the next time this fails and wants to land in someones back yard, unlike the satellite the other week, we will get 20 mins notice to shoot it down and not 20 days?

[Sam Winter @ Mar 6th 2008 1:57AM]

JD - orbiting satellites have much inferior capabilities to aircraft flying at ~100K feet. Think intercepting radio communications, ultra-high resolution imaging, etc etc

[ECG @ Mar 5th 2008 3:39PM]

If it could stay up for that long what's keeping it from staying up indefinitely?

[Travis @ Mar 5th 2008 3:48PM]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics for one.

Solar panels will degrade (though I'm not sure how fast), the motors will wear down, and you just can't dodge birds and meteors forever.

[David W. @ Mar 5th 2008 3:49PM]

I was kind of wondering the same thing...Something to do with the lifetime of the batteries maybe? or simply mechanical failure? *shrugs*

[Rob @ Mar 6th 2008 6:30AM]

On that note, where is the Taapon tag?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokohama_Kaidashi_Kik%C5%8D

[Maldrien @ Mar 5th 2008 3:43PM]

As James said, What's the purpose of a UAV at 90 000 feet flying for 5 years? A new kind of satellite?

[mrpoo @ Mar 5th 2008 4:41PM]

I have the obvious application for this... prison.

[ColonelSmith @ Mar 5th 2008 3:42PM]

Would be useful to the air force I guess. Like a refueling platform that could stay up in the air for long periods of time, sort of like what was in the movie Stealth.

[Phoenix @ Mar 5th 2008 4:14PM]

Except they were airships weren't they? Seems kinda sensible for this kinda thing...

[Abuzar @ Mar 5th 2008 7:24PM]

Yeah, except it would run out of fuel to refill with pretty fast. Then you have to get another plane up there to refuel this so it can refuel other planes.

Seems like a bad idea.

[Sam Winter @ Mar 6th 2008 1:59AM]

refueling platform capable of flight for five years with fuel capacity of < 1,000 lbs? lol

[ssdforums @ Mar 5th 2008 3:44PM]

Can you say Google Earth Live

[KazSur @ Mar 5th 2008 4:19PM]

Yes I can... Gooo-guhl. eeee-aaaarth. Laaaaah-eeeev.
There. Done.

[OneLove @ Mar 5th 2008 3:48PM]

I hope theres a movie and a meal on that flight.

[Mikey @ Mar 5th 2008 3:55PM]

WOW! Thats some feat! Such a long flight time is mind boggling. Even private aircraft need parts inspected/rebuilt after a few hundred hours of flight time.

Well maybe not mind boggling, but very hard to obtain.

[mabhatter @ Mar 5th 2008 6:53PM]

not if everything is redundant. Staying up at that altitude is easy on a plane. While there's high winds, there's no clouds or other weather to contend with. Landing is hardest on the frame and takeoff is hard on the engines, being as this won't be doing much of either... A carbon framed aircraft should be fine for that time frame. That leaves the only things needed to be replacement parts. If you put multiple engines, and other pieces that can be repaired without landing you'll be just fine.

Of course they could just build a Dirigible. Those would work for years too, with a lot fewer pieces.

[blarvh @ Mar 5th 2008 3:55PM]

When will I be able to order my own flying skyfortress? Imagine living on flying platform and taking a small docked plane to work. I guess would noise would be an issue.. but imagine the view!

[CP @ Mar 5th 2008 4:13PM]

Cheaper than a satellite but accomplishes the same thing?

[sully @ Mar 5th 2008 4:11PM]

Unless they solve the problem of lubricants, something's got to give. It's great in theory, like how mid-air refueling can keep a plane up indefinitely. By indefinitely they mean around 36-72 hours before the oil systems have to be flushed. Now I realize electric motors don't require nearly as much...but they definitely require lube and maintenence.

[murray @ Mar 5th 2008 5:58PM]

Brushless motors. Think about the motors in your hard drive and the fans in your computer. Make them bigger, run them at a lower RPM, and build them to last, and 5 years is conceivable.

[bob @ Mar 6th 2008 6:52AM]

Yeah, aren't they building mag-lev wind turbines?

[bob sakamano @ Mar 5th 2008 4:33PM]

....this is my DARPA lopsangh

ZOOLANDER FTW!

[bob sakamano @ Mar 5th 2008 4:36PM]

should we already set aside a missile for this when we lose communication to it and have to blow it up for fear of the toxic fuel and Super AWESOME secrets it probably uses to run

[PhilxBefore @ Mar 5th 2008 5:11PM]

They already fly by themselves for up to 3 months at a time I thought.

[Paul McElligott @ Mar 5th 2008 5:13PM]

Wow, bring the extra batteries for your laptop. That's all I have to say!

[Patiwat @ Mar 5th 2008 5:52PM]

Simple: nuclear powered aircraft.

Both the US and the Soviets developed these during the Cold War. They would be the airborne equivalents of nuclear submarines, capable of cruising above Europe for months at a time and raining down death on an enemy long after the destruction of your own airfields and missile launch sites.

Charles Stross explored their use in his horror/alternative-history short story "A Colder War." In reality, the development of ICBMs made them superfluous.

[engadgetier @ Mar 5th 2008 6:25PM]

I would love to skydive out of one of these things!! :D

[Sirocco @ Mar 5th 2008 6:41PM]

But you know it won't be up there for 5 years straight. We'll need to tinker with it, so will. And like everything else, it is, or will become, superfluous.

[JuggleNuts @ Mar 5th 2008 6:55PM]

Nuclear blimps ... F'n A.

[rawdo9 @ Mar 5th 2008 7:16PM]

Taken from the link above: "Essentially, the Vulture is an aircraft that operates like a satellite, but is not regulated by orbital mechanics. "It could be positioned over the battle, at 65,000ft versus 260 miles," says Pulliam. Operating as a pseudo-satellite in the stratosphere and not low Earth orbit would provide a 65dB improvement in communications capability, he says, and significantly increase onboard sensor resolution."

Also, the article says DARPA has barred nuclear energy from consideration.

[bebop @ Mar 5th 2008 7:43PM]

Can you build a solar powered Zeppelin? That should do the trick.

[Allen @ Mar 5th 2008 8:56PM]

America try to build 5 year plane to spy on enemy.

Mother Russia solve the problem with air-filled balloon and solar-powered air compressor.

I mean really guys, come on. Really? A five year plane? Sure, a satellite costs hells of a lot more, but we have satellites going back to the seventies that are still up and running that will take far better pictures (no turbulence to deal with) and don't cost much to maintain. And like I mentioned above, why not just use a zepplin that hovers at the same altitudes and use compressed air as the source of lift?

[Mellen Trio @ Mar 5th 2008 9:33PM]

There is something exciting and inspirational with this story and the project's challenges. Five years, just think what kind of innovation that will yield which will spill into other areas.

nobosh.com

[John @ Mar 5th 2008 10:51PM]

"at least one successful offeror,"

Offeror? Really?

Try "bidder".

[frankXchange @ Mar 6th 2008 12:02AM]

Didn't NASA have a working version of this concept a few years ago? It's supposed to be a cheaper alternative to communications satellites, no? If it starts to fail or is damaged in some way, it can also be landed and repaired.

Helios is the name: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/Helios/HTML/ED03-0152-4.html

[spaceb @ Mar 6th 2008 1:27AM]

I hope they have an air miles reward program.