Solar Impulse 2

Author
Discussion

MrCarPark

Original Poster:

528 posts

140 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
The Solar Impulse 2 flight around the world is closing in on Hawaii after 5 days non-stop from Japan, breaking many records.

It's a staggering achievement for the pilot and team as a whole, but seems to be getting little coverage, which is a shame. True pioneers.


http://www.solarimpulse.com/leg-8-from-Nagoya-to-H...

https://twitter.com/solarimpulse

http://www.flightradar24.com/SOLAR2/6b0a174

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Probably because it's not run from the UK.

Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
More likely because it can't go on X-factor.

It is a great achievement though.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
MrCarPark said:
It's a staggering achievement for the pilot and team as a whole, but seems to be getting little coverage, which is a shame. True pioneers.
really?

don't get me wrong, it's not a trivial project, but I would not call it pioneering.

it's one of those if you spend enough money on it, it's do-able jobs, nothing is actually un-known about building a plane and solar power, just a case of putting it together etc.

Compare this with Bloodhound SSC, where they are having to make it up as they go along, there's not the vast years of knowledge in supersonic cars to work with (hell, there has only been one so far in history).

What I am getting at is if you paid Boeing/Airbus/etc. enough, they could design a solar plane that could do this, obviously it would cost a packet, and you then have to question the 'why do it'?

in practical terms, where is this going?

even if you covered the entire wing area of an A380 (some 845m2) with 33.7% efficient (the Shockley–Queisser limit) solar wafers, you're looking at some 285Kw peak output (based on 1Kw/m2 solar radiation).

just how far do you think that's going to get you in terms of powering a plane?

(for ref: the APU on the A380 is 1.3Mw)







Edited by Scuffers on Friday 3rd July 10:08

MrCarPark

Original Poster:

528 posts

140 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
What I am getting at is if you paid Boeing/Airbus/etc. enough, they could design a solar plane that could do this, obviously it would cost a packet, and you then have to question the 'why do it'?

in practical terms, where is this going?

even if you covered the entire wing area of an A380 (some 845m2) with 33.7% efficient (the Shockley–Queisser limit) solar wafers, you're looking at some 285Kw peak output (based on 1Kw/m2 solar radiation).

just how far do you think that's going to get you in terms of powering a plane?
Who knows where it's going? 110 years ago nobody would have thought an A380 would be everyday transport.

As for being pioneering or not, flying solo for 5 days straight across the Pacific is enough for my definition.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
And having batteries that can power the thing through a mid ocean night is pretty impressive to me.

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

168 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
[quote] Scuffers]
really?
don't get me wrong, it's not a trivial project, but I would not call it pioneering.
it's one of those if you spend enough money on it, it's do-able jobs, nothing is actually un-known about building a plane and solar power, just a case of putting it together etc.
Compare this with Bloodhound SSC, where they are having to make it up as they go along, there's not the vast years of knowledge in supersonic cars to work with (hell, there has only been one so far in history).
What I am getting at is if you paid Boeing/Airbus/etc. enough, they could design a solar plane that could do this, obviously it would cost a packet, and you then have to question the 'why do it'?
in practical terms, where is this going?
een if you covered the entire wing area of an A380 (some 845m2) with 33.7% efficient (the Shockley–Queisser limit) solar wafers, you're looking at some 285Kw peak output (based on 1Kw/m2 solar radiation).
just how far do you think that's going to get you in terms of powering a plane?
(for ref: the APU on the A380 is 1.3Mw) [quote]

Agreed, to me, its a pointless stunt. The monies spent on this could have been spent on battery technology, a quantum leap in such is needed if this battery/elctric vehicle mullarkey is ever going to be widely practical.










Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Friday 3rd July 16:00

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Do you always expect that a feat like this has to have and end goal for the technology in sight before it is attempted?

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

168 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Do you always expect that a feat like this has to have and end goal for the technology in sight before it is attempted?
Having and creating superior technology is far more important than struggling with inadequate technology.

This may have achieved "X" in its original goal but its far from practical, and for a principle to be taken up widely, thats what it has to be. Until there is a quantum leap in the geanerating and storage of power , thats not going to happen.

So yes, this has achieved very little in real terms. A publicity stunt similar to the electric car racing.


Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Friday 3rd July 16:37

MrCarPark

Original Poster:

528 posts

140 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Cheese Mechanic said:
Agreed, to me, its a pointless stunt. The monies spent on this could have been spent on battery technology, a quantum leap in such is needed if this battery/elctric vehicle mullarkey is ever going to be widely practical.
Why would the likes of ABB commit to this project as a stunt? Are they are in it to refine their systems and learn about a new application for their technology, or do you think it's all a doddle and they're just in it for the marketing?

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
MrCarPark said:
Who knows where it's going? 110 years ago nobody would have thought an A380 would be everyday transport.

As for being pioneering or not, flying solo for 5 days straight across the Pacific is enough for my definition.
You could never power a proper robust plane capable of carrying cargo/passengers from the sun, even if you got 100% efficiency - there isn't enough power in sunlight. Just as you can make a human powered plane, it's not robust and of no practical use.

As technological development, it may or may not have some spin offs, depends if they've genuinely innovated or just used what's known.


rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Being a pedant, it'll need more than a 'quantum leap' in battery technology as a quantum leap would be the smallest possible leap. Another one that annoys me is the use of decimated to mean almost wiped out when it means reduced by one tenth.
Pedantry over. As you were.
But I agree, a magic wand needs to be waved over batteries before cars, planes or anything else are usefully powered by them.

Edited by rovermorris999 on Friday 3rd July 16:51

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

168 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
MrCarPark said:
Why would the likes of ABB commit to this project as a stunt? Are they are in it to refine their systems and learn about a new application for their technology, or do you think it's all a doddle and they're just in it for the marketing?
Its a publicity stunt. The technology is inadequate for wide application. Once it is , it will be usefull, that has yet to occur. In fact, reading on what had to be done, to enable this to happen, highlights its inadequacy. As said, money time and effort would have been better used in research of enhanced power storage/generation.

greygoose

8,224 posts

194 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
MrCarPark said:
Who knows where it's going? 110 years ago nobody would have thought an A380 would be everyday transport.

As for being pioneering or not, flying solo for 5 days straight across the Pacific is enough for my definition.
I agree, but impressing some of the PH audience seems impossible at times. Radio 5 had an interview about the flight this morning.

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Maybe the tagline should be changed to "the future is slow"?


Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
MrCarPark said:
Who knows where it's going? 110 years ago nobody would have thought an A380 would be everyday transport.

As for being pioneering or not, flying solo for 5 days straight across the Pacific is enough for my definition.
You could never power a proper robust plane capable of carrying cargo/passengers from the sun, even if you got 100% efficiency - there isn't enough power in sunlight. Just as you can make a human powered plane, it's not robust and of no practical use.

As technological development, it may or may not have some spin offs, depends if they've genuinely innovated or just used what's known.
exactly, this is nothing new or cutting edge, and as you say, practically, this is a dead end, we are never going to get airliners that are solar powered, and unless battery tech improves by at least 100x power/weight density, that's out too.

DocJock

8,341 posts

239 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
rovermorris999 said:
Being a pedant, it'll need more than a 'quantum leap' in battery technology as a quantum leap would be the smallest possible leap. Another one that annoys me is the use of decimated to mean almost wiped out when it means reduced by one tenth.
Pedantry over. As you were.
But I agree, a magic wand needs to be waved over batteries before cars, planes or anything else are usefully powered by them.

Edited by rovermorris999 on Friday 3rd July 16:51
Re your pedantry, that is the historical definition, which has (according to Oxford Dictionaries) been superseded by the modern definition which you dislike.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
MrCarPark said:
Who knows where it's going? 110 years ago nobody would have thought an A380 would be everyday transport.

As for being pioneering or not, flying solo for 5 days straight across the Pacific is enough for my definition.
You could never power a proper robust plane capable of carrying cargo/passengers from the sun, even if you got 100% efficiency - there isn't enough power in sunlight. Just as you can make a human powered plane, it's not robust and of no practical use.

As technological development, it may or may not have some spin offs, depends if they've genuinely innovated or just used what's known.
exactly, this is nothing new or cutting edge, and as you say, practically, this is a dead end, we are never going to get airliners that are solar powered, and unless battery tech improves by at least 100x power/weight density, that's out too.
Hold on - we really don't know yet where something like this will lead. I certainly don't see much scope for solar powered jumbos any time soon - but how about solar powered unmanned ultra light weight drones that monitor the upper atmosphere for weeks at a time?

Or perhaps use a similar technique to roam the atmosphere of Mars - or Titan - or Jupiter?

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Have they not already done something like that Eric?

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Hold on - we really don't know yet where something like this will lead. I certainly don't see much scope for solar powered jumbos any time soon - but how about solar powered unmanned ultra light weight drones that monitor the upper atmosphere for weeks at a time?

Or perhaps use a similar technique to roam the atmosphere of Mars - or Titan - or Jupiter?
err...

that sounds to me like an idea looking for an application rather than the application leading to a new innovative solution.

as for monitor the upper atmosphere for weeks at a time, what's wrong with weather balloons?