WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight

WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight (http://www.Wattflyer.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Electric Discussions (http://www.Wattflyer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Look What NASA Just Got Off The Ground (http://www.Wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74341)

pizzano 08-21-2014 03:22 PM

Look What NASA Just Got Off The Ground
 
It's quite an accomplishment:

http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/...r/bigplane.jpg

Here's the article:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...the-helicopter

Quite impressive Electric power.....!

stevecooper 08-21-2014 05:11 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Cool,,,
bubsteve

quorneng 08-21-2014 05:45 PM

I think its a bit optimistic the say a hybrid design is 'scale free'. Neither electric motors nor batteries scale up well. It get progressively more difficult to get their generated heat out the bigger they get.

Sham 08-21-2014 06:40 PM

I can't possibly imagine that that design will ever be practical.

Nice as a technical exercise though.

dereckbc 08-21-2014 07:15 PM

Well the Marine's Osprey was the worlds most dangerous aircraft.

dahawk 08-21-2014 08:19 PM

When I worked in an R&D organization, we had a saying:" There are no bad ideas, just ideas" Something might come out of it. Maybe nothing like you see here but it might spawn another idea.

Tepid Pilot 08-21-2014 08:50 PM

From the photo they obviously lifted it with a crane. Big deal.

TP

DHC Beaver 08-21-2014 10:27 PM

I'm just wondering what would happen if 1 motor or esc packs up.An expensive re-kit?
I'm also thinking some considerable computer power could be required to stabilize the thing.
I suppose those poor guys at NASA have to justify their jobs somehow:D.

mclarkson 08-21-2014 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tepid Pilot (Post 955654)
From the photo they obviously lifted it with a crane. Big deal.

TP

I suspect the crane is more of a safety line, there to save the model if it loses lift (or its mind.)

pizzano 08-22-2014 12:03 AM

The article states:

"For now, Greased Lightning only has a wingspan of 10 feet (3 meters), and its first test flight (National Aviation Day, August 19) was tethered. Untethered flights are planned for later in the year — and hopefully we’ll then get some awesome videos of it flying around, too"

For those who missed the "printed" text....rather than "only look at the pretty pictures".......lol

firemanbill 08-22-2014 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHC Beaver (Post 955663)
I'm just wondering what would happen if 1 motor or esc packs up.An expensive re-kit?
I'm also thinking some considerable computer power could be required to stabilize the thing.
I suppose those poor guys at NASA have to justify their jobs somehow:D.

yeah, now that the Space administration has no space program...:(

dereckbc 08-22-2014 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firemanbill (Post 955672)
yeah, now that the Space administration has no space program...:(

Yeah but NoBama finally realized his mistake and did a U-Turn. He took the advice of Russians US Diplomat and bought NASA a trampoline to launch USA astronauts into space.

firemanbill 08-22-2014 03:13 AM

LOL. Seriously though I work on Langley AFB and the NASA Langley research center shares land with us. This where the Mercury, Gemin, and Apollo programs all got their legs. Heck I have have to take Commander Shepard Blvd by NASA to get to work.

Once in awhile I will cut across NASA just to be nosy as I have access to that side as well as a fire fighter. It is like a ghost town, buildings boarded up, equipment we spent billions of dollars on just sitting around rusting.

It is truly sad.

dereckbc 08-22-2014 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firemanbill (Post 955676)
Once in awhile I will cut across NASA just to be nosy as I have access to that side as well as a fire fighter. It is like a ghost town, buildings boarded up, equipment we spent billions of dollars on just sitting around rusting.

It is truly sad.

Have not seen that site, but sounds like what I saw in Florida at Apollo Launch Pads. It was a surreal experience for me because as a kid I got to go to Apollo 15 launch and watch. Then go back a couple of years ago see it now.

firemanbill 08-22-2014 11:23 AM

I bet, There is so much history in both places. Sad to see it be the shell of what it used to be. :(

hkeelljr 08-22-2014 03:01 PM

Better not let the FAA catch them. On a more serious note, it is sad that where the U.S. was in the forefront with space tech. Looks like we're in the basement now.

xmech2k 08-22-2014 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkeelljr (Post 955685)
Better not let the FAA catch them...

That was the whole reason behind the tether! Not free flying, so no one was getting paid to 'fly' anything and such.

dereckbc 08-22-2014 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firemanbill (Post 955681)
I bet, There is so much history in both places. Sad to see it be the shell of what it used to be. :(

What baffles me is why NASA did not reuse the sight for the Shuttle missions. All they had to do is wreck out the Apollo concrete pads and rebuild for the Shuttle, and whatever comes next after Obama is out.

Rockin Robbins 08-23-2014 03:57 PM

That will be just fine. Spacex, in spite of political sniping, is redoing our launch capability to be what it should have been in the first place. After all we launched the same antiquated space truck called the Space Shuttle from the 1970's to last year.

Now Boeing has a contract to build (crap! Now I have to access my home computer to get this right and not sound like a total fool. The facts are too outrageous to be believed.) "the Space Frontier Foundation published that the Space Launch System is “built from rotting remnants of left over congressional pork. And its budgetary footprints will stamp out all the missions it is supposed to carry, kill our astronaut program, and destroy science and technology projects throughout NASA."

Just read a report that three Congressmen (Senators I think) are attacking Spacex, trying to besmirch their recommendations because there have been holds in some countdowns and a temporary docking failure with the ISS (which was fixed in a couple of hours and docking proceeded without a hitch), saying that Spacex is "unreliable." This is from congressmen in districts fed by space pork, Washington state and others.

But Spacex, the private company is doing it right, for much much less than the government with capabilities that NASA never dreamed of, much less built. Evidence? Okay.

How about launch capability from a cow pasture, no Kennedy Space Center necessary? How about a reusable booster that lands on its tail, ready to be refueled and launched again in under 24 hours? This video is an indictment of a NASA without imagination or capability.
YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


When NASA unveils something new they show a full scale mockup to wow the press. Spacex doesn't do that. When you look at their brand new Dragon 2 capsule you're looking at the real, flyable thing. And it does things NASA never dreamed of. Check out the instrumentation on an articulated video board. This thing lands vertically not on a parachute, and so can land at your local airport or yes, in a cow pasture.
YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


So don't mourn the passing of NASA. The future is being invented at private companies like Spacex without sucking the dollars out of your pocket and without political skullduggery. This is the future that NASA could never envision or build.

Oh, Spacex now owns the Shuttle Landing Facility.

pizzano 08-23-2014 04:54 PM

SpaceX has been under contract with NASA since 2002 (in one shape or form).......

"Under a $1.6 billion contract with NASA, SpaceX will fly numerous cargo resupply missions to the ISS, for a total of at least 12 —and in the near future, SpaceX will carry crew as well. Dragon was designed from the outset to carry astronauts and now, under a $440 million agreement with NASA, SpaceX is making modifications to make Dragon crew-ready.SpaceX is the world’s fastest-growing provider of launch services. Profitable and cash-flow positive, the company has nearly 50 launches on its manifest, representing close to $5 billion in contracts. These include commercial satellite launches as well as NASA missions.
Currently under development is the Falcon Heavy, which will be the world’s most powerful rocket. All the while, SpaceX continues to work toward one of its key goals—developing reusable rockets, a feat that will transform space exploration by delivering highly reliable vehicles at radically reduced costs."

Smartest move NASA ever made. Private industry's have more flexibility, resources, intellectual property/facility and funding. It's really nothing new in the technical world.....more than 90% of all advancements (since 1960) made in NASA progams have been designed/developed/manufactured/tested and supported by out-source private industry and intelligence..... either contracted or direct hire into government programs (tax supported).......... weapons made for mass destruction or surveillance are prime examples.

Sooooo........no weeping here for NASA, today It's just a label. The real advancements are made with private $$$....our tax dollars, more often than not, just "kick start" a program.....to keep it transparent.....;)

http://www.spacex.com/about

dereckbc 08-23-2014 08:16 PM

RR I am not big on NASA. I am in my mid 50's and was 12 when we landed on the Moon. As a kid I was wildly interested in the Space Program. One thing most people are not aware of, well anyone under 50 anyway, is the space program has paid for itself many times over, and just about all the technology and advanced materials we take for granted today comes from the space programs.

Makes me no difference if it comes from the private or public sector as long as we stay out in front of it taking the lead. As it has proven to be an excellent investment and nothing has changed to change that fact.

One thing I do know is the government owns most all the land to make launches from, and frankly the USA is at a bit of a disadvantage. The equator is the best launch site and takes the least amount of energy to put something into orbit. Cape Canaveral is the furthest point south we can launch from in the USA unless you want to move it to Key West. That brings up a thought. Invade Cuba and take over. [popcorn]

Rockin Robbins 08-23-2014 09:10 PM

Did you watch the video of the unveiling of the Dragon 2 spacecraft? The wow just went back into the space programs. Yes, we need to invade Cuba. First, send in McDonalds, Walmart, Target, an Amazon distribution center and an automobile manufacturer to soften them up and then whip Spacex on 'em.

No reason for that land to be a poverty stricken wasteland. Shoot some Old Navy stores, a Hobby King warehouse, several dozen golf courses, Publix Grocery stores and that should mop up the stragglers.

It's the new kind of invasion strategy!

stevecooper 08-24-2014 04:32 PM

Cuba's backwards?? have any of you ever been there???? I have ,4 times in 25 years,, this thread is starting to smell bad,
bubsteve

dereckbc 08-24-2014 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 955760)
Did you watch the video of the unveiling of the Dragon 2 spacecraft?

No but I seen the video of their launch yesterday here in TX of SpaceX Falcon 9 Reusable that blew up for unknown reasons.

Video here

Not sure any of this is really new. Every rocket and missile is built by contractors. NASA does not build anything. They just run the missions. SpaceX is no different than say Lockheed Martin or Boeing Aircraft.

pizzano 08-24-2014 10:56 PM

"Not sure any of this is really new. Every rocket and missile is built by contractors. NASA does not build anything. They just run the missions. SpaceX is no different than say Lockheed Martin or Boeing Aircraft."
Ya....kinda knew that already.......[popcorn]
"Smartest move NASA ever made. Private industry's have more flexibility, resources, intellectual property/facility and funding. It's really nothing new in the technical world.....more than 90% of all advancements (since 1960) made in NASA progams have been designed/developed/manufactured/tested and supported by out-source private industry and intelligence..... either contracted or direct hire into government programs (tax supported).......... weapons made for mass destruction or surveillance are prime examples.

Sooooo........no weeping here for NASA, today It's just a label. The real advancements are made with private $$$....our tax dollars, more often than not, just "kick start" a program.....to keep it transparent".

"......this thread is starting to smell bad,
bubsteve"

Couldn't agree more.....there's always someone "lifting a leg over a hydrant" in almost every thread topic.....LOL.....:D


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 WattfFlyer.com
RCU Eflight HQ

Page generated in 0.10311 seconds with 13 queries