NASA's electric plane tech is coming in for a late, bumpy landing
- Reference: 1684391473
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/05/18/nasa_electrified_aircraft_propulsion_audit/
- Source link:
NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are working on tech to make aircraft more efficient and sustainable. The duo think they can improve fuel efficiency by up to 30 percent compared to today's airplanes, while also reducing noise and emissions. NASA said the goal is to have single aisle efficient aircraft in the US commercial fleet in the 2030s, and a widebody a decade later.
"Along with investing in sustainable aviation fuel and other technological advances, a key component of reducing carbon emissions from aviation is advancing electrified aircraft propulsion (EAP) systems – that is, electric motors that drive some or all the propulsors on an aircraft," [1]reported [PDF] the space administration.
[2]
NASA began its EAP efforts in 2009. Since then it's worked to expand flight envelopes, improve turbine engine performance, worked on new concept vertical lift vehicles and funded relevant research and conceptual technology – including flight demonstration projects like the X-57 "Maxwell" Project and the Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD).
[3]We regret to inform you Earth will not be destroyed by an asteroid within 1,000 years
[4]Chinese company claims it's built batteries so dense they can power electric airplanes
[5]Rolls-Royce, EasyJet fire up first hydrogen-fueled jet engine
[6]Alien rock causes cosmic disturbance in New Jersey home
The X-57 is the agency's experimental first all-electric aircraft. It features seven motors and propellors on each wing – a distributed propulsion system it's hoped can be applied to smaller planes, including air taxis.
Unfortunately, the Maxwell Project's costs have overrun by $47 million – a larger figure than its original estimated total cost of $40 million. If that isn't bad enough, it is running almost three years behind schedule. Its first flight is scheduled to take place this year and, although it's likely to make that 20-minute jaunt in the sky, it won't make it to final design. The project has been terminated thanks to – unsurprisingly – funding issues.
[7]
[8]
The Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) Project conducts EAP ground and flight tests in an attempt to mature the technology enough meet the goal of placing it in the US commercial fleet by the 2030s. It includes a contract with GE Aviation to develop that badly wanted single-aisle commercial EAP aircraft, and another contract with electric aircraft motor manufacturer, magniX, for a regional commuter hybrid turboprop aircraft. Both have flight demonstrations slated between 2025 and 2026.
However, the audit said EPFD is showing "early indications of similar schedule delays and cost increases" as the X-57 Maxwell Project. Project contractors estimated a 247-day delay to project completion and a $40 million cost overrun.
[9]
NASA's OIG attributed the bulk of the cost overruns to COVID supply chain issues and worker shortages caused by wage pressures – all issues that admittedly would have been impossible to predict prior to the pandemic.
The OIG also found NASA was overly optimistic, lacked experience, and had no historical data to use in the agency's EAP efforts. Congressional funding delays and other budget issues complicated matters, too.
The audit found the project is unlikely to catch up, as the planned relocation of the NASA Electric Aircraft Testbed facility at Glenn Research Center will cause a further delay by creating a six-month period during which project tests won't be possible.
[10]
Thankfully, just because a project doesn’t make it to completion – like the X-57 Maxwell Project – that doesn't mean no progress is made in terms of technology development.
Overall, NASA's auditors recommended better coordination with experts on estimating costs and challenges on EAP projects. They also recommended resources to minimize funding instabilities from its Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) – the org which manages EAP R&D and NASA climate goal efforts.
"While efforts underway show promise, the ability to meet the FY 2025 to 2028 timeframe is largely contingent upon the projects' ability to establish realistic cost and schedules estimates and ARMD committing funding and physical resources to support those estimates," OIG wrote, adding that it recognized the challenges associated with predicting timelines. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-23-014.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_specialfeatures/emergingcleanenergytechweek&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZGX3QU@nXFp5IHTM3HoeRgAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/17/no_earth_killing_asteroids/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/20/catl_dense_batteries_for_planes/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/29/rollsroyce_easyjet_hydogen_engine/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/11/new_jersey_meteorite/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_specialfeatures/emergingcleanenergytechweek&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZGX3QU@nXFp5IHTM3HoeRgAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_specialfeatures/emergingcleanenergytechweek&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZGX3QU@nXFp5IHTM3HoeRgAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_specialfeatures/emergingcleanenergytechweek&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZGX3QU@nXFp5IHTM3HoeRgAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_specialfeatures/emergingcleanenergytechweek&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZGX3QU@nXFp5IHTM3HoeRgAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Any scientists left at NASA?
Nuclear plants? Nosiree. I prefer to have my radioactive waste pumped directly into the atmosphere, thankyouverymuch.
Re: Any scientists left at NASA?
So .. you live either near a coal tip - if Eggborough's one was on a nuclear site it would be classed as at least low level nuclear waste because if the natural radiation - or possibly somewhere like Cornwall, with all that radon gas wafting around.
Re: Any scientists left at NASA?
They may also live near Khmelnytskyi. Couple of days ago, there was a very large bang there, followed by a small spike in gamma radiation of a few nSv over normal background. Then some reports of that drifting into Poland, and much speculation about whether it did or didn't happen. If it did, one theory was it was due to DU ammunition stored there, but that's not normally a gamma emitter. Or it could just be fake news. Given certain sections of the media love spreading FUD about radiation, they were a bit quiet about this one.
But back to the story. Given battery requirements for EVs, why aircraft? If the requirement is lower CO2, then there are already multiple ways to create synthetic aviation fuel that would be sustainable.
Re: Any scientists left at NASA?
And we're going to get people to build those plants how exactly? Most Western governments would be voted out in an eyeblink if they tried to start nuclear projects on the scale required to do that. Changing public opinion is going to take decades, and that's assuming no major accidents occur for a while: each of those sets us back twenty years even when nobody dies, whereas killing people by the hundreds of thousands per year via coal emissions (plus those killed or displaced by AGW-enhanced extreme weather) appears to be just fine. And any government who tried it via authoritarianism would be accused of running a military nuclear program and sanctioned, regardless of whether it's true or not.
I wish we could use your solution, but we won't. Not any time soon. So, looking for any alternative, even if it's just for short-range stuff, has merit.
Politics is a problem every bit as hard as physics, sometimes harder.
Maybe
If they tried for a more realistic timescale instead of cold-war-era-dick-swinging a la "by the end of this decade" moon programs, they wouldn't look like such numpties.
Even Diamond, arguably actual pioneers in adopting new technologies (*) , state they're going to first roll out a single engine 2-seater trainer designed for pattern/circuit work with an endurance of 45 minutes. They hope for this year and certification next year.
https://www.diamondaircraft.com/en/service/electric-aircraft/
And yes, I absolutely have more confidence that Diamond can pull it off, far more than I trust current NASA to do so.
(*) probably because they're in central Europe where the NIMBYs would have otherwise shut down general aviation to where they wouldn't even be able to produce commercial pilots anymore.
Re: Maybe
Pipistrele already have a flight certified all electric trainer with 50 mins range, so it's already possible.
$47 millions out of a $40 millions estimate is not that bad, as far as this sort of things goes. When I read a headline about "government project costs more than initially projected", usually multiples are involved.
Hmm
"government-mandated net-zero greenhouse gas emission targets by 2050."
The problem of course being government setting a target with no clue how it could ever be hit. It has been a great driver at making people poorer and inflicting economic damage but beyond fantasies of saving the earth it hasnt achieved much positive.
Any scientists left at NASA?
You don't need more than a school level qualification in a STEM subject to work out that practical electrified aircraft (other than small puddle-jumpers) are an impossibility. OTOH we know how to make hydrocarbon fuel from water and CO2 - just add (lots of) energy, if only we had a worldwide system of nuclear plants to provide it. And there's already a worldwide distribution system for it and propulsion systems that can use it.