So often the military is the one pushing the boundaries of our existing technology.

Now imagine if we applied the same funding dollars to non-military research. What would the result be?

Presumably, they are using LH2 for this since it delivers high gravimetric energy density. At high altitudes, the cryotank doesn't need to insulate quite as well as it would need to on the ground.

High-altitude UAVs may be one of very few legitimate applications of H2ICE technology.

What would the result be?
PORK...........

Due to the risk of freezing of conventional liquid fuel at frigid high altitude, liquefied H2 (LH2) or CH4 (LNG) will avoid that risk.

LH2 is much lighter LNG, hence an endurance aircraft, which must carry a lot of fuel, would benefit greatly. At high altitude, the aerodynamic parasitic drag is small in comparison to the induced drag required to remain aloft. Induced drag is the direct result of weight.

Furthermore, H2 fuel can result in more efficient combustion hence higher thermal efficiency to further enhance endurance at higher altitude.

Thus, LH2 is an ideal fuel for high-altitude and long range aircraft.

Put one of Mazda's rotaries in there for reduced weight, I should think.

@ Red Badger -

and R&D on military technologies isn't PORK? I suspect a very large chunk of the Pentagon's entire budget of $400+ billion is over and above genuine defense requirements.

Pork-barrel projects are, unfortunately, a fact of life in democracies. The situation is particularly bad in the US because its constitution defines institutions and electoral procedures that made sense in the 18th century but perhaps less so in the 21st. Many other countries - the UK is an exception - have had to re-write their foundation documents several times since then, avoiding the weaknesses of past versions and, taking into account the media technology and the population's level of education. A root-and-branch review of federal institutions in the US - including above all the Presidency and Congress - could very well increase the effectiveness of public spending in all sorts of areas, including R&D.

In this particular example, the greatest benefits may come from cheap broadband communications for mobile users. This could include everything from up-to-the-minute traffic maps to video-on-demand on commuter trains or buses, in addition to basic internet access. Driving your own car to commute to work just might become a waste of your valuable time.

@Rafael,

Autos running under autonomous remote control will be the real 21st century mass transit. We may well be surprised how quickly it comes.

Virtually all the enabling technologies are now in place. Drive by wire, cheap computer power, wireless communications, GPS, cheap sensor technologies, lane sensing technology, and intelligent cruise control and the availability of lots of controlled auto lanes already in existence as "HOV" lanes are prerequisites to such a system, and they are are here now.

Starting on such routes it will eventually spread to other secondary roads, in a natural progression. I would not be surprised to see lots of experiments along that line by the 2010s.

The ideal mass transit system is probably modeled best on the choice of transport of the moneyed class, who can select and have chosen the most flexible system for their own use. The chauffeured limousine model, is the model Mankind will likely adopt for its preferred mass transit model. Rather than the cattle cars of the 1870s technologies, that so many loopy, unimaginative, limits handicapped, leftists seem to want to condemn the masses to enduring.

The world does not have to be filled with enormous limos, but the features of the limousine service is what I am describing. But even then the living room limousine for each of us is not in the cards for the early decades of the 21st century. But even that could be true by the 2030s, when Energy or Pollution or Limits problems no longer exist in any real sense for any human on the Planet.

The world would be much more civilized place when your auto can drive you to work, drop you at the front door, and either go park itself in some distant lot, or return home to serve as a vehicle for a spouse, or even go off and get itself serviced.

It could return to pick you up and the normal end of day; and yet also be summoned if you need to leave sooner just as a chauffeured limo would be able to do.

You drive it yourself, or let it join the autonomous remote system, letting you perform other tasks that you choose as you yourself describe.

The Future looks so bright. I can't wait to see what we actually do.

Am I missing something here? Why are we using tax money on developing a high altitude H2 ICE? Why isn't that money used to further develop the solar powered electric UAV for the slow hovering stuff and Global Hawk for the fast observation/weapons systems?

Sounds like Ford hype to me, i.e.,"The upgrades used in the 2.3L are essentially the same as those used on Ford’s 6.8-liter hydrogen ICE platform."

@ Stan -

I'm aware of the DARPA Urban Challenge but I don't think it's fair to claim that all the requisite technologies for unmanned cars are ready for the real world just yet. Besides, even the ones that are cost an arm and a leg. Acceptable perhaps for the battlefield but not for regular civilian service. A car traveling at speed is not a Roomba, it can kill. For the foreseeable future, on-road vehicles will by law continue to require a driver. This represents a big cost issue for urban transit.

I do agree with you that getting people not to commute with their own car, largely to ease congestion, is extremely difficult. A service that offers a comparable level of comfort and convenience would be quite expensive because unlike traditional public transport, it will be privately operated and not subsidized.

The military applications are nothing new here, everything described can already be done by existing UAVs, just not with so long an endurance or so high. That just means you need more 'predators' on-station and on-standby to replace those needing to return for fuel. Clearly it will have a military role, but...

The civilian applications (business) are new. That modest word 'telecommunications' tucked in there means you can do things like: broadcast 100s of HDTV channels; two-way high-speed internet access while mobile or fixed; wireless phone service; all with a coverage area the size of Montana or as small as Manhattan, your choice. Anything you could do with your own personal communications satellite can be done with this platform without the need for a dish or the huge capital investment.

You'll need 3 of these to provide 24/7 service, one in service, one on hot-standby flying nearby, and one on the ground waiting to go up should one of the active units fail or need to return for fuel or maintenance.

Since transmission is line of sight (free-space), transmission powers will be modest and building penetration good too. The limit is really how much equipment can it haul upstairs and how long can the fuel run the electrical load.

This is going to provide competition to the likes of Verizon, Comcast, DirecTV, Sirius and all the broadcast media.

Red Badger and Lad,
While there have been lots of pork barrel projects, this H2 research plane is definitely not one of those!

It has been my contention that someday, LH2 will replace kerosene to power the majority of long-distance jetliners. The light-weight and clean-burning characteristic and CO2-free emission is undeniable. A long-distance, high-altitude jetliner can reduce its gross weight to over half and could save 40% in energy required for the flight with the use of super-light LH2 fuel.
This research is a great way to work on the LH2 tank and insulation technology prerequisite for future airliners. Perhaps that's why Boeing is directly involved in this project, eventhough UAV is not Boeing's strong suit.

For the auto industry, H2-ICE may precede FCV by many years, and a highly-efficient H2-ICE-HEV will stimulate the construction of an H2-infrastructure that will free us from petroleum dependency.

Stan,
You indeed are a man of vision.
But, there is no need to remove the human being behind the wheel, only to have him receive unemployment checks or welfare checks every month, because electronics will one day make driving much safer, easier and with less effort.
With increasing outsourcing of good manufacturing jobs overseas, (and even telephone-answering service jobs to India or Phillipines), driving job will be the few remaining occupation a person with limited education can aspire to!

Can we really carry tat many H2 fuel and fly tat long? Or required mid air refuel?

Autonomous cars:
I can see potential and hazards here.
Hazards: who will pay when one of these kills someone - that has to be the biggest problem of all.
Even though you could make one that is safer on average than people, they will still kill people, and someone will have to pay - and if that is the manufacturer, you can forget it.
Perhaps you could frame legislation that would pay expenses from a global pool - but it would take work.
Problems like cost and sensor availability will be solved - these things are subject to Moore's law and will become affordable soon enough (no predictions).
You will need a "killer application" (excuse the pun) to get them started, and I think it will be mobility for old people. Most societies duck out of the problem of taking granny off the road (until she has a crash) because noone wants to drive granny around, but if you could get her an automatic car (which would be safer than granny), it could work.

You could argue that they could be used for motorway driving and let the human drive in town, but what do you do if the driver has fallen asleep (which is very likely) and you cannot wake them up in time, or if there is an "event" on the motorway?

However, I believe that we will see autonomous vehicles on public roads within 20 years.
You might make them very narrow so you could fit 2 in the place of a modern 4 seat car, you could ahve the kids driven to work, you could work (or sleep) while being driven yourself.

If people can figure a legal framework, it can be done, the engineering is doable (but hard), but moore's law is driving things in that way.

The first automatic car might be from Intel (or Google) rather than Ford.

I remember posting on here shortly after the announcement of the DARPA Urban Challenge about self-driving vehicle technology. It's funny how positive everyone sees it now. The response was less than warm back then. I do believe the liability of accidents is a serious issue in our current legal environment, but on the other hand about 50k deaths occur due to vehicle usage every year in the USA. So a couple 100 deaths from malfunctioning auto-pilots is more than acceptable with mass market penetration.

I just can't wait for the Urban Challenge to start. The efficiency of the motorways could drastically change if all cars were intelligently routed without all the stop and go and idling at traffic lights.

The biggest impediment to this will be the American car-driving culture.

Roger Pham,
UAVs are Boeing's strong suit. Google: Boeing UAV
They are and will be a big player in unmanned/pilotless aerial vehicles.

i like this idea in concept, particulalry to introduce new telecommunication services.
but why not use a blimp like machine instead? helium filled blimp with LH2 for the engines.. i assume it would be able to stay afloat for even longer, no?
like perhaps months or years. or would the high winds up there mean that to overcome the drag it would require a substantial amount of fuel just to stay in one place, even if the air is thin at 70,000 feet....
to concerve fuel, it could be tow-assisted up to 30k or 40K feet.
can someone explain why this isn't viable?

Battery power to the interstate slotcar lane is an infrastructure dream on mine. Good go Rafael