Solar Electric Powered Aircraft

[Larry Dighera]

Could this be the future?


Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/

The Solair 2 http://www.solair.de/timer.htm is a second generation
solar electric powered aircraft. Here are the specification (in
German): http://www.solair.de/frame.htm
English language information is here:
http://www.delago.de/solair/EHome.htm
Builders other projects:
http://solar-flight.com/davespics/dedication.htm


Zephyr 3, a solar-powered propeller-driven vehicle, is set to fly to
132,000 feet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016082.stm

Sanswire Networks stratellite:
http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3423026


AeroVironment's Helios:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Helios/index.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/Educator/Workshops/Hawaii/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/Erast/helios.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/Previews/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-24.html


A history of solar powered aircraft is here:
http://www.solarflugzeuge.de/

[Shawn]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Could this be the future?
>
Looks pricey. After quick search on the web flexible solar cells cost
about $5/watt or more. 15,000 watts worth of power (20 hp) is gonna
cost, and that's basicly the cost of the "fuel". If you're burning say
4 gallons/hour at $3/gallon the $75,000 worth of solar cells will cost
the same as 6000+ hours of flight. Plus, that's a lot of amps and volts
running around.

Shawn

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:22:01 -0700, Shawn
<sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Could this be the future?
>>
>Looks pricey.

Currently it is. But with a growth rate of 30% per year, the
photovoltaic industry is being targeted by venture capitalists:
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm . With the rising cost of oil,
and the influx of capital, the future is looking even brighter for
solar power. If the volume of photovoltaic production continues to
increase as projected, the cost should fall. And technological
advancements would help push prices down too.

>After quick search on the web flexible solar cells cost
>about $5/watt or more. 15,000 watts worth of power (20 hp) is gonna
>cost, and that's basicly the cost of the "fuel". If you're burning say
>4 gallons/hour at $3/gallon the $75,000 worth of solar cells will cost
>the same as 6000+ hours of flight. Plus, that's a lot of amps and volts
>running around.
>
>Shawn


This quote confirms your calculations:

http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/Forbes.htm
Manufacturers, led by Japanese companies such as Sharp, are
convinced that within seven years traditional solar-cell
technology
will deliver power as cheaply and conveniently as steam turbines.
The economics of solar, once derided as hippie wishful thinking,
are getting pretty compelling. "When I started in the early 1970s,
the going price for solar modules was about $200 per watt,"
recalls Arthur Rudin, director of engineering for Sharp's solar
systems division in Huntington Beach, Calif. "Today the average
price for solar modules is about $5 a watt."


However there appears to be some hope of reducing the cost:

In March 2002 Alivisatos put his reputation--and his venture
capitalists' money--where his mouth is, turning over much of his
research to a Palo Alto firm called Nanosys. The company has
amassed $75 million and is devoting much effort to figuring out
how to embed nanofilaments of semiconductors in cheap, bendable
plastic sheets. Nanosys' goals: 10% efficiency, $1 per watt.
http://www.nanosolar.com/


http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm
A new generation of solar cells based on lightweight conductive
plastics could cost as little as $40 a square meter, compared with
$400 for the silicon panels that have been used since the 1970's.
These so-called organic solar cells could make solar a viable
option even without government subsidies, experts say.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:22:01 -0700, Shawn
> <sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet> wrote in
> >::
>
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> Could this be the future?
> >>
> >Looks pricey.
>
> Currently it is. But with a growth rate of 30% per year, the
> photovoltaic industry is being targeted by venture capitalists:
> http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm . With the rising cost of oil,
> and the influx of capital, the future is looking even brighter for
> solar power. If the volume of photovoltaic production continues to
> increase as projected, the cost should fall. And technological
> advancements would help push prices down too.
>
> >After quick search on the web flexible solar cells cost
> >about $5/watt or more. 15,000 watts worth of power (20 hp) is gonna
> >cost, and that's basicly the cost of the "fuel". If you're burning say
> >4 gallons/hour at $3/gallon the $75,000 worth of solar cells will cost
> >the same as 6000+ hours of flight. Plus, that's a lot of amps and volts
> >running around.
> >
> >Shawn
>
>
> This quote confirms your calculations:
>
> http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/Forbes.htm
> Manufacturers, led by Japanese companies such as Sharp, are
> convinced that within seven years traditional solar-cell
> technology
> will deliver power as cheaply and conveniently as steam turbines.
> The economics of solar, once derided as hippie wishful thinking,
> are getting pretty compelling. "When I started in the early 1970s,
> the going price for solar modules was about $200 per watt,"
> recalls Arthur Rudin, director of engineering for Sharp's solar
> systems division in Huntington Beach, Calif. "Today the average
> price for solar modules is about $5 a watt."
>
>
> However there appears to be some hope of reducing the cost:
>
> In March 2002 Alivisatos put his reputation--and his venture
> capitalists' money--where his mouth is, turning over much of his
> research to a Palo Alto firm called Nanosys. The company has
> amassed $75 million and is devoting much effort to figuring out
> how to embed nanofilaments of semiconductors in cheap, bendable
> plastic sheets. Nanosys' goals: 10% efficiency, $1 per watt.
> http://www.nanosolar.com/
>
>
> http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm
> A new generation of solar cells based on lightweight conductive
> plastics could cost as little as $40 a square meter, compared with
> $400 for the silicon panels that have been used since the 1970's.
> These so-called organic solar cells could make solar a viable
> option even without government subsidies, experts say.
>
Interesting stuff.

http://www.daystartech.com/govrelease.htm

Frank

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>Could this be the future?
>
>
>Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/

I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Corky Scott

[Malcolm Austin]

I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather better
at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0

I have enough wind generators here in the North of England to be sure
that we are "green" and not just with our wellies. (rubber water proof
boots to the rest of the world!)

Malcolm...

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Could this be the future?
>>
>>
>>Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/
>
> I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
> days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
> based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
> amounts we consume per day now anyway.
>
> Corky Scott
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:17:02 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote in
>::

>Interesting stuff.
>
>http://www.daystartech.com/govrelease.htm


Yes. Interesting indeed.


From the DayStar Technologies, Inc. web site:

Ultra Lightweight Thin Film PV for Orbital & Airborne Vehicles

DayStar has developed expertise and know-how in fabricating its
high-efficiency CIGS thin-film solar cells on very lightweight
metal foils. The target of this effort is to surpass the 1000 W/kg
specific power benchmark (at the cell level). The Company has
presently achieved a 1400 W/kg specific power on small-area cells,
and 1000 W/kg on product-scale (24-cm2) cells. The CIGS cell
technology is presently unique in being able to meet this specific
power benchmark and surpass the 200 W/m2 performance benchmark
that is otherwise unattainable by other thin-film technologies.

DayStar is presently investigating this technology under a Phase
II SBIR from the Department of Defense, administered by NASA /
Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. The target development
focus for the Phase II contract is to develop manufacturing
technology for the cell production process.


So it would appear that light weight photovoltaic technology is
beginning to move forward.

There's something to be said for high efficiency cells too:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/photorelease/q3/pr_030725s.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:26:59 -0500, Corky Scott
> wrote in
>::

>There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
>based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
>amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Don't forget about coal. There's a lot of that.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.htm
Worldwide, coal is the most abundant of the fossil fuels, and its
reserves are also the most widely distributed. Estimates of the
world's total recoverable reserves of coal in 2002 were about
1,081 billion sort tons. The resulting ratio of coal reserves to
production exceeds 200 years, meaning that at current rates of
production (and no change in reserves), coal reserves could in
theory last for another two centuries.

More here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/front-1.html
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/coal/coal.asp

[Bob Kuykendall]

I'm with Don Lancaster (http://www.tinaja.com) on this one: Current and
forseeable PV technology is a net energy sink. I'll pay some attention
to these Nanosolar guys as soon as they start making their PV panel
materials in factories that are powered by their own PV panels.

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
> days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
> based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
> amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Considering that we have anywhere from 40 to 200 years of known reserves,
and that breakthroughs happen with considerable frequency, I'd say whoever
wrote the article was pushing an agenda. The history of mankind has been
laced with such hysterics.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Malcolm Austin" > wrote in message
...
> I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather
better
> at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0

Actually, the efficiency of consumption per dollar of GNP in the US is the
highest in the world by about 20%.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Bill Daniels]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
> > days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
> > based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
> > amounts we consume per day now anyway.
>
> Considering that we have anywhere from 40 to 200 years of known reserves,
> and that breakthroughs happen with considerable frequency, I'd say whoever
> wrote the article was pushing an agenda. The history of mankind has been
> laced with such hysterics.
>

The "years of known reserves" is a very tricky number. To get an answer,
you have to project the rate of consumption and what those consumers will
pay. (At one million $ per barrel, we have an infinite supply whereas the
number of years of reserves at $10 per barrel is zero.)

The jokers in the deck are China and India both rapidly becoming first world
economies. If their consumption curve follows the rest of the
industrialized world, we are in very big trouble indeed.

Nuclear, anyone?

Bill Daniels

[Morgans]

"Malcolm Austin" > wrote in message
...
> I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather
better
> at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0

I see the smiley, but that attitude ****es me off, so bad. (and I don't mean
drunk)

If the US were the size of England, it sure would make a difference, on how
much energy we used. Trains would be feasible. We wouldn't have so many
unpaved roads that need SUV's.

I realize there are many people that have larger vehicles than they need,
but when I travel it is by car, not train. I like to be able to take my
whole family, and their stuff.
--
Jim in NC

[Malcolm Austin]

Hi Jim,
sorry I touched a raw nerve there! Without wanting to ramp up
the
"discussion" my comment would be: -

Your argument really seems to say that, dam the rest of the world, we are
going
to use all the energy we want. We did similar things in the past, as with
high
sulphur coal for power generation. The result was lots of acidified lakes
and dead
trees east of us.

Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
rather more
of the country than it currently does..

Malcolm...


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Malcolm Austin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather
> better
>> at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0
>
> I see the smiley, but that attitude ****es me off, so bad. (and I don't
> mean
> drunk)
>
> If the US were the size of England, it sure would make a difference, on
> how
> much energy we used. Trains would be feasible. We wouldn't have so many
> unpaved roads that need SUV's.
>
> I realize there are many people that have larger vehicles than they need,
> but when I travel it is by car, not train. I like to be able to take my
> whole family, and their stuff.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Jack]

Malcolm Austin wrote:

> Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
> rather more of the country than it currently does.

No problem Malcolm, we'll just move to Jolly Old England and make ourselves
at home amongst the "wind generators".

"O-ver, we're coming o-ver, and we won't be back...."

It should make "over-paid, over-sexed, and over here," look like a minor
episode. Of course, we'll have some suggestions on changes that will need to
be made to your customary way of doing things -- hope you won't mind.


Jack

[Grumman-581]

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
> Considering that we have anywhere from 40 to 200 years of known reserves,
> and that breakthroughs happen with considerable frequency, I'd say whoever
> wrote the article was pushing an agenda. The history of mankind has been
> laced with such hysterics.

Ahhh, but it sure would be nice to end terrorism by no longer needing oil
from the Middle East and we could let them go back to being the POOR camel
****in' Bedoins that they have historically been...

[Grumman-581]

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message ...
> The jokers in the deck are China and India both rapidly becoming first
world
> economies. If their consumption curve follows the rest of the
> industrialized world, we are in very big trouble indeed.
>
> Nuclear, anyone?

Nuke China and India? Well... If you *insist*...
<politically-incorrect-grin>

[Morgans]

"Malcolm Austin" wrote

> sorry I touched a raw nerve there! Without wanting to ramp up
the
> "discussion" my comment would be: -
>
> Your argument really seems to say that, dam the rest of the world, we are
> going
> to use all the energy we want.

No, not at all. There are not ANY alternatives to driving for most people,
with the exceptions being the percentage of people living in or very near to
the few largest cities that have good mass transit systems.

I do carpentry work. I have a full sized van to carry my tools and
material. It does not get good gas mileage, but I can not afford to get a
second small efficient car to drive back and forth to work.

My wife has a mini van, because we have 2 kids, and do a lot of driving for
vacationing, and entertaining with other couples. Once again, there is no
alternative, but to drive a larger vehicle for commuting, if you are going
to use it for the size as you need it, sometimes.

There are lots of people that live on gravel roads, WAY out in the country,
sometimes with 100 meter (and more) drop-offs right next to the road, with
no guard rails. 4 wheel drive is necessary for when it is very wet, or snow
is on the road. Sometime these roads never get plowed, until the snow melts
weeks later. Do you see any safe and reliable alternatives?

It is true, that there is a segment of our population that could drive
smaller vehicles. That needs to happen, and I realize that. It is not
possible for some.

I would love to walk a couple blocks and catch a train, and walk a couple
more blocks to get to work. The neares passenger line is 90 miles away, and
it is one line, straight though the sate, with no branches. This is in a
state that I think is larger than England. Imagine that; one line for all
of England.
--
Jim in NC

[Malcolm Austin]

Only one stipulation if you don't mind:-

WE DRIVE OF THE LEFT OF THE ROAD, AND NOT THE LEFT OF
THE CAR!!

We have enough trouble with the Europeans with that one !!! :-))

Malc....

PS. Oh, and I hear your not over sexed anymore, whys that ????????


"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> Malcolm Austin wrote:
>
>> Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
>> rather more of the country than it currently does.
>
> No problem Malcolm, we'll just move to Jolly Old England and make
> ourselves at home amongst the "wind generators".
>
> "O-ver, we're coming o-ver, and we won't be back...."
>
> It should make "over-paid, over-sexed, and over here," look like a minor
> episode. Of course, we'll have some suggestions on changes that will need
> to be made to your customary way of doing things -- hope you won't mind.
>
>
> Jack

[Vaughn]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> There are lots of people that live on gravel roads, WAY out in the country,
> sometimes with 100 meter (and more) drop-offs right next to the road, with
> no guard rails. 4 wheel drive is necessary for when it is very wet, or snow
> is on the road. Sometime these roads never get plowed, until the snow melts
> weeks later. Do you see any safe and reliable alternatives?

In just a few moments I will be driving my Honda Civic on an interstate
that will be a sea of SUVs. Most of those SUVs will be carrying only one person
and damn few of them will be dirty, or look like they ever have been. It makes
me sick.


Vaughn

[W P Dixon]

>
> In just a few moments I will be driving my Honda Civic on an
> interstate that will be a sea of SUVs. >
> Vaughn
>Well I would sure look strange trying to get out of the mountains with a
>deer strapped onto a Honda Civic. ;) I do understand your argument, alot of
>soccer moms and dads need a 4x4 like another hole in the head. Myself I
>have an 84 Ford F-150 4x4, with a built up 351 Windsor and C-6 trannie. Not
>built up for racing but for pulling and yanking! Look at the bright side,
>if I get stuck in snow or mud or what have you I just pull myself out with
>my huge WARN winch. Hee Hee, I had to have something to mount on that big
>brush guard besides deer spotter lights and my "American by Birth, Southern
>By The Grace Of God" tag! :)

Patrick

[Bob Fry]

"Morgans" > writes:

> We wouldn't have so many
> unpaved roads that need SUV's.

Oh, puh-leeeeeeze!

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Dick
Cheney, 2001.

[Shawn]

Malcolm Austin wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> sorry I touched a raw nerve there! Without wanting to ramp up
> the
> "discussion" my comment would be: -
>
> Your argument really seems to say that, dam the rest of the world, we are
> going
> to use all the energy we want. We did similar things in the past, as with
> high
> sulphur coal for power generation. The result was lots of acidified lakes
> and dead
> trees east of us.
>
> Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
> rather more
> of the country than it currently does..

Death Valley is currently covered in wild flowers. I was there last
week, beautiful. The world is changing so fast these days, you can't
even rely on a time tested metaphor.

Shawn

[Rolf Blom]

On 2005-03-31 08:11, Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
>
>>Considering that we have anywhere from 40 to 200 years of known reserves,
>>and that breakthroughs happen with considerable frequency, I'd say whoever
>>wrote the article was pushing an agenda. The history of mankind has been
>>laced with such hysterics.
>
>
> Ahhh, but it sure would be nice to end terrorism by no longer needing oil
> from the Middle East and we could let them go back to being the POOR camel
> ****in' Bedoins that they have historically been...
>
>

And your new transport would be a horse & carriage instead of the SUV?

/Rolf

[George Patterson]

Malcolm Austin wrote:
>
> PS. Oh, and I hear your not over sexed anymore, whys that ????????

Something called "political correctness." Whistle at a girl these days and you
wind up in court, and God help you if you make a pass at someone at work.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[Malcolm Austin]

Sounds like I "crashed and burned" on that one then?

(doesn't it make you happy there's no engine and fuel in most gliders!)

Malcolm

PS> Apologies to the readers for going distinctly way, way off message
here...


"Shawn" <sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet> wrote in message
...
> Malcolm Austin wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> sorry I touched a raw nerve there! Without wanting to ramp
>> up the
>> "discussion" my comment would be: -
>>
>> Your argument really seems to say that, dam the rest of the world, we are
>> going
>> to use all the energy we want. We did similar things in the past, as
>> with high
>> sulphur coal for power generation. The result was lots of acidified
>> lakes and dead
>> trees east of us.
>>
>> Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
>> rather more
>> of the country than it currently does..
>
> Death Valley is currently covered in wild flowers. I was there last week,
> beautiful. The world is changing so fast these days, you can't even rely
> on a time tested metaphor.
>
> Shawn

[[email protected]]

We just aren't hurting enough yet for any change. Business as usual,
until we can't take it anymore.. Then the world will scramble.
Whatever happened to fusion?

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...

snip
>
> Nuclear, anyone?
>
> Bill Daniels

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> Whatever happened to fusion?

Fusion works real well, except for a little problem with excess heat production :-)

The people at Oak Ridge did extensive research into the issue of "cold fusion"
since about 1970. Over 20 years later, they had still not licked the problem of
keeping the plasma from burning a hole in the containment chamber. I don't know
if they're still at it -- my father (who worked there) died some time back.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:16:21 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>Don't forget about coal. There's a lot of that.

I was actually thinking in terms of what's useful to burn for energy
in our airplanes.

Many industries switched from coal and high sulfur oil to liquid
petroleum gas to reduce emissions in the last two or three decades.
Their profits are tied to the cost of oil, which is rising rapidly
right now.

It doesn't matter that we still have an estimated 200 years of oil to
use up, it's still a finite reserve, it isn't being magically replaced
somehow. At some point in the much nearer future, what is relatively
easily tapped right now, will become increasingly more difficult to
remove. Something will needed in the future to replace it. Perhaps
it will be nuclear (or as GW puts it, newkular) I don't know but the
time to think about this is now before it becomes a crisis and the
world goes to war over oil. Hmm, going to war over oil... Isn't that,
oh nevermind.

Corky Scott

[Jack]

Malcolm Austin wrote:


> ...I hear your not over sexed anymore, whys that ????????

It's all relative, cousin.

Now that we've seen more of your TV and Movie actors over here we understand
that you lot have just been pretending not to be interested in that sort of
thing: either that or you've just sent the animals over to us and the
regular Brits have stayed home.


Jack

[Harbin]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Could this be the future?
>>
>>
>>Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/
>
> I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
> days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
> based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
> amounts we consume per day now anyway.
>
> Corky Scott
>
Here you go, this should make you fill better:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Harbin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Could this be the future?
> >>
> >>
> >>Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/
> >
> > I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
> > days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
> > based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
> > amounts we consume per day now anyway.
> >
> > Corky Scott
> >
> Here you go, this should make you fill better:
> http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
>
>
What's that smell? will be the new kids travel game. Actually, there are
some bio-diesel startups locally and commercial rapeseed cultivation is
being looked at. We have one new ethanol plant and another on its way.
There is also an H2 station nearby. Bike trails are also convenient for
some.

Frank

[Larry Dighera]

As a follow up to the SunSeeker aircraft information originally posted
to this message thread, here is information on NASA's solar-powered
Pathfinder-Plus:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/Pathfinder/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/pathfinder.html


September 2005: In this 40 second video, NASA's solar-powered
Pathfinder-Plus undergoes Turbulence Measurement Flight Tests.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/Pathfinder/HTML/EM-0023-11.html



================================================== =====================
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >::

>
>Could this be the future?
>
>
>Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/
>
>The Solair 2 http://www.solair.de/timer.htm is a second generation
>solar electric powered aircraft. Here are the specification (in
>German): http://www.solair.de/frame.htm
>English language information is here:
>http://www.delago.de/solair/EHome.htm
>Builders other projects:
>http://solar-flight.com/davespics/dedication.htm
>
>
>Zephyr 3, a solar-powered propeller-driven vehicle, is set to fly to
>132,000 feet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016082.stm
>
>Sanswire Networks stratellite:
>http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3423026
>
>
>AeroVironment's Helios:
>http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Helios/index.html
>http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/Educator/Workshops/Hawaii/index.html
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/Erast/helios.html
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/Previews/index.html
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-24.html
>
>
>A history of solar powered aircraft is here:
>http://www.solarflugzeuge.de/
>

[Malcolm Austin]

Hi,
interesting video's (all the links worked for me!) but it begs the
question,
what has happened since?

Malcolm...


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> As a follow up to the SunSeeker aircraft information originally posted
> to this message thread, here is information on NASA's solar-powered
> Pathfinder-Plus:
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/Pathfinder/index.html
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/pathfinder.html
>
>
> September 2005: In this 40 second video, NASA's solar-powered
> Pathfinder-Plus undergoes Turbulence Measurement Flight Tests.
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/Pathfinder/HTML/EM-0023-11.html
>
>
>
> ================================================== =====================
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote in >::
>
>>
>>Could this be the future?
>>
>>
>>Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/
>>
>>The Solair 2 http://www.solair.de/timer.htm is a second generation
>>solar electric powered aircraft. Here are the specification (in
>>German): http://www.solair.de/frame.htm
>>English language information is here:
>>http://www.delago.de/solair/EHome.htm
>>Builders other projects:
>>http://solar-flight.com/davespics/dedication.htm
>>
>>
>>Zephyr 3, a solar-powered propeller-driven vehicle, is set to fly to
>>132,000 feet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016082.stm
>>
>>Sanswire Networks stratellite:
>>http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3423026
>>
>>
>>AeroVironment's Helios:
>>http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Helios/index.html
>>http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/Educator/Workshops/Hawaii/index.html
>>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/Erast/helios.html
>>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/Previews/index.html
>>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-24.html
>>
>>
>>A history of solar powered aircraft is here:
>>http://www.solarflugzeuge.de/
>>