|
|
| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| We provide an Object-Process-Diagram (OPD) of the 2SEA roadmap in the figure below. This diagram captures the main object of the roadmap (Solar-Electric Aircraft), its various instances including main competitors, its decomposition into subsystems (wing, battery, e-motor …), its characterization by Figures of Merit (FOMs) as well as the main processes (Flying, Recharging). | | We provide an Object-Process-Diagram (OPD) of the 2SEA roadmap in the figure below. This diagram captures the main object of the roadmap (Solar-Electric Aircraft), its various instances including main competitors, its decomposition into subsystems (wing, battery, e-motor …), its characterization by Figures of Merit (FOMs) as well as the main processes (Flying, Recharging). |
|
| |
|
| [[File:Section 3.JPG]] | | [[File:ISRU SD SD jpeg (2).jpg]] |
|
| |
|
| An Object-Process-Language (OPL) description of the roadmap scope is auto-generated and given below. It reflects the same content as the previous figure, but in a formal natural language. | | An Object-Process-Language (OPL) description of the roadmap scope is auto-generated and given below. It reflects the same content as the previous figure, but in a formal natural language. |
|
| |
|
| [[File:Section 3_2.JPG]] | | [[File:ISRU (1).jpg]] |
|
| |
|
| ==Figures of Merit== | | ==Figures of Merit== |
| The table below show a list of FOMs by which solar electric aircraft can be assessed. The first four (shown in bold) are used to assess the aircraft itself. They are very similar to the FOMs that are used to compare traditional aircraft which are propelled by fossil fuels, the big difference being that 2SEA is essentially emissions free during flight operations. The other rows represent subordinated FOMs which impact the performance and cost of solar electric aircraft but are provided as outputs (primary FOMs) from lower level roadmaps at level 3 or level 4, see the DSM above. | | The table below show a list of FOMs by which solar electric aircraft can be assessed. The first four (shown in bold) are used to assess the aircraft itself. They are very similar to the FOMs that are used to compare traditional aircraft which are propelled by fossil fuels, the big difference being that 2SEA is essentially emissions free during flight operations. The other rows represent subordinated FOMs which impact the performance and cost of solar electric aircraft but are provided as outputs (primary FOMs) from lower level roadmaps at level 3 or level 4, see the DSM above. |
|
| |
|
| [[File:Section 4_.JPG]] | | [[]] |
|
| |
|
| Besides defining what the FOMs are, this section of the roadmap should also contain the FOM trends over time dFOM/dt as well as some of the key governing equations that underpin the technology. These governing equations can be derived from physics (or chemistry, biology ..) or they can be empirically derived from a multivariate regression model. The table below shows an example of a key governing equation governing (solar-) electric aircraft. | | Besides defining what the FOMs are, this section of the roadmap should also contain the FOM trends over time dFOM/dt as well as some of the key governing equations that underpin the technology. These governing equations can be derived from physics (or chemistry, biology ..) or they can be empirically derived from a multivariate regression model. The table below shows an example of a key governing equation governing (solar-) electric aircraft. |
|
| |
|
| [[File:Section 4_2.JPG]] | | [[File:Section 4_2.JPG]] |
|
| |
| ==Alignment with Company Strategic Drivers==
| |
| The table below shows an example of potential strategic drivers and alignment of the 2SEA technology roadmap with it.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 5.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| The list of drivers shows that the company views HAPS as a potential new business and wants to develop it as a commercially viable (for profit) business (1). In order to do so, the technology roadmap performs some analysis - using the governing equations in the previous section - and formulates a set of FOM targets that state that such a UAV needs to achieve an endurance of 500 days (as opposed to the world record 26 days that was demonstrated in 2018) and should be able to carry a payload of 10 kg. The roadmap confirms that it is aligned with this driver. This means that the analysis, technology targets, and R&D projects contained in the roadmap (and hopefully funded by the R&D budget) support the strategic ambition stated by driver 1. The second driver, however, which is to use the HAPS program as a platform for developing an autonomy stack for both UAVs and satellites, is not currently aligned with the roadmap.
| |
|
| |
| ==Positioning of Company vs. Competition==
| |
| The figure below shows a summary of other electric and solar-electric aircraft from public data.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 6.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| The aerobatic aircraft Extra 330LE by Siemens currently has the world record for the most powerful flight certified electric motor (260kW). The Pipistrel Alpha Electro is a small electric training aircraft which is not solar powered, but is in serial production. The Zephyr 7 is the previous version of Zephyr which established the prior endurance world record for solar-electric aircraft (14 days) in 2010. The Solar Impulse 2 was a single-piloted solar-powered aircraft that circumnavigated the globe in 2015-2016 in 17 stages, the longest being the one from Japan to Hawaii (118 hours).
| |
|
| |
| SolarEagle and Solara 50 were both very ambitious projects that aimed to launch solar-electric aircraft with very aggressive targets (endurace up to 5 years) and payloads up to 450 kg. Both of these projects were canceled prematurely. Why is that?
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 6_2.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| The Pareto Front (see Chapter 5, Figure 5-20 for a definition) shown in black in the lower left corner of the graph shows the best tradeoff between endurance and payload for actually achieved electric flights by 2017. The Airbus Zephyr, Solar Impulse 2 and Pipistrel Alpha Electro all have flight records that anchor their position on this FOM chart. It is interesting to note that Solar Impulse 2 overheated its battery pack during its longest leg in 2015-2016 and therefore pushed the limits of battery technology available at that time. We can now see that both Solar Eagle in the upper right and Solara 50 were chasing FOM targets that were unachievable with the technology available at that time. The progression of the Pareto front shown in red corresponds to what might be a realistic Pareto Front progression by 2020. Airbus Zephyr Next Generation (NG) has already shown with its world record (624 hours endurance) that the upper left target (low payload mass - about 5-10 kg and high endurance of 600+ hours) is feasible. There are currently no plans for a Solar Impulse 3, which could be a non-stop solar-electric circumnavigation with one pilot (and an autonomous co-pilot) which would require a non-stop flight of about 450 hours. A next generation E-Fan aircraft with an endurance of about 2.5 hours (all electric) also seems within reach for 2020. Then in green we set a potentially more ambitious target Pareto Front for 2030. This is the ambition of the 2SEA technology roadmap as expressed by strategic driver 1. We see that in the upper left the Solara 50 project which was started by Titan Aerospace, then acquired by Google, then cancelled, and which ran from about 2013-2017 had the right targets for about a 2030 Entry-into-Service (EIS), not for 2020 or sooner. The target set by Solar Eagle was even more utopian and may not be achievable before 2050 according to the 2SEA roadmap.
| |
|
| |
| ==Technical Model==
| |
| In order to assess the feasibility of technical (and financial) targets at the level of the 2SEA roadmap it is necessary to develop a technical model. The purpose of such a model is to explore the design tradespace and establish what are the active constraints in the system. The first step can be to establish a morphological matrix that shows the main technology selection alternatives that exist at the first level of decomposition, see the figure below.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 7_.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| It is interesting to note that the architecture and technology selections for the three aircraft (Zephyr, Solar Impulse 2 and E-Fan 2.0) are quite different. While Zephyr uses lithium-sulfur batteries, the other two use the more conventional lithium-ion batteries. Solar Impulse uses the less efficient (but more affordable) single cell silicon-based PV, while Zephyr uses specially manufactured thin film multi-junction cells and so forth.
| |
|
| |
| The technical model centers on the E-range and E-endurance equations and compares different aircraft sizing (e.g. wing span, engine power, battery capacity) taking into account aerodynamics, weights and balance, the performance of the aircraft and also its manufacturing cost. It is important to use Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) when selecting and sizing technologies in order to get the most out of them and compare them fairly (see below).
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 7_2.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| ==Financial Model==
| |
| The figure below contains a sample NPV analysis underlying the 2SEA roadmap. It shows the non-recurring cost (NRC) of the product development project (PDP), which includes the R&D expenditures as negative numbers. A ramp up-period of 4 years is planned with a flat revenue plateau (of 400 million per year) and a total program duration of 24 years.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 8.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| ==List of R&T Projects and Prototypes==
| |
| In order to select and prioritize R&D (R&T) projects we recommend using the technical and financial models developed as part of the roadmap to rank-order projects based on an objective set of criteria and analysis. The figure below illustrates how technical models are used to make technology project selections, e.g based on the previously stated 2030 target performance and Figure 8-17 (see the Chapter 8 of the text) shows the outcome if none of the three potential projects are selected.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 9.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| A roadmap shows the R&T/R&D projects and demonstrators that have been (completed), are being (active) and could be (proposed) undertaken in order to progress the technology at the component or system level towards the set targets/goal set by the higher or lower-level roadmap. Please add what is essentially a Gantt Chart with milestones.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section_9_2.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| ==Key Publications, Presentations and Patents==
| |
| A good technology roadmap should contain a comprehensive list of publications, presentations and key patents as shown in Figure 8-19. This includes literature trends, papers published at key conferences and in the trade literature and trade press.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 10 1.JPG]]
| |
|
| |
| ==Technology Strategy Statement==
| |
| A technology roadmap should conclude and be summarized by both a written statement that summarizes the technology strategy coming out of the roadmap as well as a graphic that shows the key R&D investments, targets and a vision for this technology (and associated product or service) over time. For the 2SEA roadmap the statement could read as follows and is displayed in an Arrow Chart:
| |
|
| |
| '''Our target is to develop a new solar-powered and electrically-driven UAV as a HAPS service platform with an Entry-into-Service date of 2030. To achieve the target of an endurance of 500 days and useful payload of 10 kg we will invest in two R&D projects. The first is a flight demonstrator with a first flight by 2027 to demonstrate a full-year aloft (365 days) at an equatorial latitude with a payload of 10 kg. The second project is an accelerated development of Li-S batteries with our partner XYZ with a target lifetime performance of 500 charge-discharge cycles by 2027. This is an enabling technology to reach our 2030 technical and business targets.'''
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Section 11.JPG]]
| |
Roadmap Creators: | Lanie McKinney
Technology Roadmap Sections and Deliverables
This technology roadmap has the unique identifier:
1SRG - Space Resource Generation
The number 1 denotes that this is a Level 1 technology roadmap at the market level. In reference to our technology, Level 1 encompasses all conversion technologies used in space, Level 2 describes the product level, for example oxygen generation. Level 3, the system level, could reference a solid oxide electrolysis system for oxygen production and Level 4, the subsystem level could represent the material used for the electrode stack.
Roadmap Overview
Space Resource Generation refers to the thermal or chemical conversion processes to generate resources in space environments which relax launch requirements, and subsequently enable a range of exploration and commercial activities in space. The commercial space market is set to be valued at ~1.8 trillion USD by 2035, and space resource technologies will be needed to support numerous human space stations, rocket refueling, metal production, radiation shielding, etc. in Low-Earth Orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Space resource generation includes both “in-situ resource utilization” (ISRU) and resource recycling technologies, because these two categories of technologies share similar operating principles and may provide different value across different environments.
[[]]
Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Allocation
The 1-SRG tree from the DSM above shows us that the Space Resource Generation (1-SRG) has a range of
part of a larger company-wide initiative on electrification of flight (1ELE), and that it requires the following key enabling technologies at the subsystem level: 3CFP Carbon Fiber Polymers, 3HEP Hybrid Electric Propulsion and 3EPS Non-Propulsive Energy Management (e.g. this includes the management of the charge-discharge cycle of the batteries during the day-night cycle). In turn these require enabling technologies at level 4, the technology component level: 4CMP components made from CFRP (spars, wing box, fairings …), 4EMT electric machines (motors and generators), 4ENS energy sources (such as thin film photovoltaics bonded to flight surfaces) and 4STO (energy storage in the form of lithium-type batteries).
Roadmap Model using OPM
We provide an Object-Process-Diagram (OPD) of the 2SEA roadmap in the figure below. This diagram captures the main object of the roadmap (Solar-Electric Aircraft), its various instances including main competitors, its decomposition into subsystems (wing, battery, e-motor …), its characterization by Figures of Merit (FOMs) as well as the main processes (Flying, Recharging).
File:ISRU SD SD jpeg (2).jpg
An Object-Process-Language (OPL) description of the roadmap scope is auto-generated and given below. It reflects the same content as the previous figure, but in a formal natural language.
File:ISRU (1).jpg
Figures of Merit
The table below show a list of FOMs by which solar electric aircraft can be assessed. The first four (shown in bold) are used to assess the aircraft itself. They are very similar to the FOMs that are used to compare traditional aircraft which are propelled by fossil fuels, the big difference being that 2SEA is essentially emissions free during flight operations. The other rows represent subordinated FOMs which impact the performance and cost of solar electric aircraft but are provided as outputs (primary FOMs) from lower level roadmaps at level 3 or level 4, see the DSM above.
[[]]
Besides defining what the FOMs are, this section of the roadmap should also contain the FOM trends over time dFOM/dt as well as some of the key governing equations that underpin the technology. These governing equations can be derived from physics (or chemistry, biology ..) or they can be empirically derived from a multivariate regression model. The table below shows an example of a key governing equation governing (solar-) electric aircraft.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
