Skip to main content

Hummingbirds Over Fukushima

300px-MicroAirVehicle Never very happy to be outdone by the French, the American government is, like their baguette-eating comrades, sending over to Japan some helicopter-like drones to help out at Fukushima. The more the merrier, we say:

The government intends to use a small U.S. remote-controlled aircraft to check radiation levels around spent nuclear fuel pools at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, sources said.

Use of the T-Hawk drone, which is capable of hovering and moving vertically, was proposed by the U.S. government, the sources said. The U.S. military has employed it in reconnaissance operations in Iraq and other countries.

Reportedly measuring about 35 cm in diameter, the T-Hawk has been described as a "micro air vehicle."

The T-Hawk drone is made by Honeywell, so we wandered over there to see how it measures up against the French Helipse. Pretty well, as it turns out:

  • One or two air vehicles, one ground station
  • Packable within two packs, compatible standard Modular, Light Weight, Load Carrying Equipment (MOLLE) systems
  • Deployment and stowing operations accomplished in less than five minutes
  • Simple, intuitive operation requiring minimal operator training
  • Capable of carrying day and thermal cameras, radio relays and data links
  • Streaming real-time video to the warfighter
  • Vertical takeoff and landing enables hover and stare mission profile
  • Available in both military and civilian end-use

Plus you can put it together in about 10 minutes. Honeywell doesn’t say how much these cost, but a nine-session training course (which I guess is “minimal” enough) will run you about $95,000, so we’re assuming quite a lot. With the Helipse and Honeywell drones, the skies over Fukushima will look like a flock of hummingbirds have moved in.

Say hello to T-Hawk.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…