Author: w.steve.wilson

Back in April, we talked about the advantages (and some challenges) of High-Speed Rail. How to compete with driving on short trips? How to not take forever to get to the West Coast from Chicago? (Riding High-Speed Rail or Shooting through a Hyperloop Tube). Hyperloop may be the answer.

High-Speed Rail and Hyperloop both have a distinct advantage over the competing travel modes—they can be continually connected to a power source for electricity. Cars need to carry batteries and airplanes—well, we’re coming to that.

We followed that up in May with a bit on sub-orbital rocket transportation (Breakfast in New York – Lunch in Singapore – Dinner in London). You get there fast, but electric? I don’t think anybody’s looking at an electric rocket—they’d never get off the ground. They might work in space, and I’ll look at that topic in the future (Mars in six weeks? Maybe.), but not for high-speed rocket travel on Earth.

Finally, even with hyperloop speeding us along at 750 mph, what happens when we have to cross an ocean? When I checked, there was scant information on intercontinental hyperloops. So it looks like for now, airliners will still need to get us there.

And that brings us to the question of electric airplanes. Believe it or not, they are being worked on, and a few prototypes and early models are flying. Airbus has flown a testbed where one engine was replaced with an electric turbofan. The experimental craft is known as the E Fan-X. Not a bad name for an experimental aircraft.

NASA is also working on experimental electric aircraft with the X-57 Maxwell. They’re conducting a series of phase tests that will look at the various systems required for electric flight – power, motors, airframe, and avionics.

For now, electric intercontinental airliners are not likely to be showing up at your local airport. But, one thing I’m betting on, though, is somebody, somewhere, is going to build one. Imagine no pollution, quiet engine noises, and probably very cool designs.

So keep your eyes on the skies. They’re coming.

A Note about the blog posts from the future [CE 2224]: In January of 2021, with Perseverance due to land on Mars the next month, NASA activated their experimental Quantum Transmitter. The transmitter was designed to communicate with Perseverance, without regard to location and at faster than light speeds—near real-time. Unfortunately, they lost the connection after the initialization routine was completed. However, as an unintended consequence, NASA connected with a specific locus in the space-time continuum located on the Moon in 2224. That locus was the storage device of the quantum computer of a popular blog site. It is from that blog site that these blog entries are extracted. I hope you enjoy a peek into our future, and hopefully, I’m not violating some temporal directive. So far, no visit from the time cops.

[Our apologies to our readers, the picture of the rose mentioned by the author degraded during the transfer through the transmission link.]

Guest Author: Antoinette Meilland, Chair of the Agriculture and Horticulture Department, University of Luna, Picard Campus

Posted: Monday, June 14, 2224 (Earth Standard Calendar)

I am delighted to announce the introduction of the first rose variety designed exclusively for cultivation on Luna. In anticipation of our impending independence, the U of L at Picard has developed a unique cultivar of a hybrid tea rose from the collection in the Picard rose gardens.

There was a boisterous discussion around which rose we should start with and which colors we should consider for our new rose. The committee believed we should honor the men and women that first braved space and set foot on the Moon in the latter half of the 20^th Century and the early 21^st Century. So we selected the Peace Rose.

The original Peace Rose became popular in the 20^th Century. Collectors and gardeners alike celebrated the rose for its beautiful cream and crimson coloration. That rose formed the basis for our new variety.

Harkening back to the symbolism of rose colors at the time, we considered the meaning of the blue rose—mystery, the impossible, or the unattainable.

Others suggested black, which can stand for the beginning of new things and significant change, inspiring confidence, signaling the birth of a new era. Black had the added benefit of adding shades of grey, symbolizing our stark but beautiful lunar home.

Respecting our origins on Earth, we choose blue and white for our new rose. Using modern genetic inscription techniques adapted from agriculture, we modified the original Peace Rose genome to generate blue petals on the outside and at the tips, with bright white petals in the center.

In the end, we felt we would honor Earth and the peaceful transition to independence. The blue and white of that lovely planet, perched high overhead, won the day.

So it is my distinct honor to present The Luna Peace Rose.

Having been back in a theater for the first time in over a year, I thought I’d mix it up and talk about movies.

Discussions, arguments, blog posts, “Top Ten Lists,” etc., are replete with opinions and points of view about what counts as science fiction—both in movies and books. I would say Star Trek is science fiction but is Star Wars? Do we relegate that canon to Space Opera, and is that different from Science Fiction?

Is it science fiction if the science is real, but the story it drives is not? For example, is Outbreak (1995) about the race to find the source of the infection, Science Fiction? Lots of science and lots of fiction. (My guess is most people would say no, but you never know.)

What about the distinction between Science Fiction and Hard Science Fiction, such as The Martian (2015)? Lots of actual science, some fictional science, some future science, and no aliens.

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, and I’d hazard a guess that there isn’t one. We can share some broad definitions and categories, but in the end, does it matter? Does knowing its genre help you select a movie? Or a book?

That brings me to Monster Movies. Are monster movies science fiction? Does it matter where the monster came from? I would say Frankenstein (1931) is a science fiction/monster movie since it was fictional science that created the monster. But is Dracula (1931)?

Likewise, I would suggest War of the Worlds (1953) is a science fiction/monster movie. The Martians are monsters, but they have an intelligence and reason for coming to Earth. What about The Blob (1958), though? The Blob is an alien life form that comes to Earth and, as a monster, terrorizes a small town. Yes, it’s a monster movie, but is it science fiction? There is no reason for the Blob other than to consume humans and grow, and through that, spread terror. And like many aliens that arrive on Earth, something about our home eventually overcomes the monster. In the case of The Blob—cold. A cautionary note—maybe with the melting of the ice caps, that final “?” at the movie’s end does not bode well for us.

Finally, then, what about A Quiet Place (2018)? The monsters (no spoilers!) come from somewhere, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason for them to be here. They just kill humans and spread terror. They’re not mindless like the Blob, but they don’t seem intentional like the Martians.

[The movie I saw last week was A Quiet Place Part II (2020), but I don’t want to reveal a spoiler inadvertently. If you liked A Quiet Place, see it. You’ll love it.]

So there we are—Science Fiction or Monster Movie, or both? And yes, I love the classics.

I hope you’ll try them both and not worry too much about the category—they’re all fun.

Enjoy the show.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

[Note: BLOG 2021 published on Tuesday due to the Memorial Day Holiday.]

Sunday was another exciting day in Indianapolis as 135,000 fans watched the 105th running of the Indianapolis 500. Quite a few records came out of the race: the fastest time at 2:39:50, Helio Castroneves only the 4^th driver to win four times (A.J. Foyt, Al Unser Sr. and Rick Mears were the others) and at 46, Castroneves was one of the oldest drivers to win. An exciting day for racing.

Here’s a short video of the Top Five Finishes to get a taste of the race (just in case you didn’t watch.

Now – watch it again with the sound off. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Was it as exciting? Did you get that sense of the speeds these cars travel? I’ve been to live races, and the screaming sound of an open-wheel or sports car heading down the straightaway, hard breaking into a turn and then accelerating, is exhilarating.  How much of that exhilaration is the sound of the engines?

What happens when Indy Car racing goes electric? There is a circuit that tests that question, the Formula E. These cars look like Indy Cars but don’t make quite the same sound as you might imagine. And they race differently—slower speeds, switching cars mid-race, standard cars—only the power train and software can be modified (although that is changing this year). Here’s a short video of some race scenes and information about the sport: Formula E Racing.

I would say this could be exciting. I’ll look forward to when the circuit comes to a track near me. It seems the schedule (as noted in the video) focuses on existing city street courses. Since none of these are near me—I guess I’ll just need to go to them—the sacrifices we make. It’s time to plan a trip to Monaco.

The key here, though, is that they’re racing electric cars. When you consider the primary purposes of fielding a racing team, electric vehicles will benefit just as internal combustion cars have. When asked why they race, many team managers certainly talk about the brand. But also, they race to train engineers and for the technology transfer. Many of the innovations that were developed for racing found their way into passenger vehicles in some form. You can see how the technology for squeezing an extra few laps out of a gallon of fuel in a race might help improve the mileage in your family sedan.

It’s reasonable to expect these same benefits to accrue to the general market from promoting electric racing—brand awareness, engineer training ground, technology transfer. I can’t wait for the electric car racing to come to a track near me.

So—drivers “Start your engines”—quietly.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

A Note about the blog posts from the future [CE 2224]: In January of 2021, with Perseverance due to land on Mars the next month, NASA activated their experimental Quantum Transmitter. The transmitter was designed to communicate with Perseverance, without regard to location and at faster than light speeds—near real-time. Unfortunately, they lost the connection after the initialization routine was completed. However, as an unintended consequence, NASA connected with a specific locus in the space-time continuum located on the Moon in 2224. That locus was the storage device of the quantum computer of a popular blog site. It is from that blog site that these blog entries are extracted. I hope you enjoy a peek into our future, and hopefully, I’m not violating some temporal directive. So far, no visit from the time cops.

Guest Author: Apinya Ungrangsee, Musical Director, Plinius Symphonic Orchestra (PSO)

Posted: Monday, May 24, 2224 (Earth Standard Calendar)

Since its founding one hundred fifty years ago in 2074, the PSO has been hoping to someday present a concert with instruments manufactured entirely on Luna.

My fellow Lunarites, that time is now.

For quite a while, Luna has manufactured brass and woodwinds, percussion, and even pianos. But quality string instruments had been eluding us. The shortage of the proper wood for violins, violas, and cellos and the high cost of shipping finished instruments from Earth has limited the number made from natural materials. Most of our talented musicians have shared the few imports available and relied on manufactured materials for most of our string section.

That constraint is now over. When Plinius was first founded and the agricultural sections were brought online, the founding musical director convinced the city government to set aside a small plot for some special trees. At his own expense, Maestro Puente shipped Alpine Spruce saplings from the Fiemme Valley in Italy to the Moon. Those trees, replanted several times, flourished in the controlled environment and over the last twenty-five years have been judiciously harvested.

The final violin, manufactured on Luna from trees that started their lives in the same forest, “Il Bosco Che Suona”—The Musical Woods, which yielded the wood for the famous Stradivarius instruments made five hundred years ago, was delivered.

The entire string section now plays instruments created from woods grown on Luna and manufactured by our own local luthiers.

Join us on Saturday, June 17, 2224, for a fabulous evening of music and celebration as the Plinius Symphonic Orchestra welcomes soloist Joachim Branson, playing selections from the 17^th and 18^th Centuries in honor of the completion of our Luna Strings.

Back in April, I posted about high-speed rail and how jumping to hyperloop technology might give flying some competition—maybe even supplanting it on some routes. (Riding High-Speed Rail or Shooting through a Hyperloop Tube). It garnered a couple of comments on the post and quite a few observations over e-mail. Still a great topic, and we’ll watch what happens.

One issue with hyperloop, well, call it a deficiency, for now, is intercontinental travel – or even getting to Hawaii for that matter. I’ve seen concepts for tunnels and above-ground structures, as in the video in my April blog, but across the ocean is a whole ‘nother matter.

Then along comes SpaceX, again, with what could be a total game-changer in travel if they can pull it off. (Does anyone doubt that they will?) I came across a video that animates how an inter-continental, sub-orbital transportation system might work. Take a look – Sub-orbital Trip.

Now that would be a fun trip—if short. Of course, there’s a long way to go before that happens, but they are testing a prototype of the basic concept in Texas. Several challenges to overcome – the G-force at take-off and landing, weightlessness, and of course, the cost. Depending on how a sub-orbital flight might compare to other methods (read flying for that), you’d also need to consider just how important it would be to get halfway around the world in 30 minutes.

On a side note, though, it could be a boon to cargo. Imagine a critical piece of equipment, or a life-saving organ transplant, arriving in under an hour. You can imagine scenarios where a rocket trip would be just what you need. Would that “pay the freight,” so to speak? It’s hard to say.

In the recent past, when we had a chance to get somewhere really fast, how many of us went? The Concorde was a beautiful airplane, amazingly fast, and I enjoyed watching it land every Saturday morning in Barbados when I was on a project. But practically speaking, how did it fare?

Generally, it wasn’t the economic success its promoters hoped for—but it did have a certain cachet. Those who could drop $8,000 to $12,000 to get to Paris – why not go and save half the flight time. But as a game-changer in the airline industry, shrinking the world, not so much. Even so, we hated to see her go – Final Flight from JFK.

So, is the Concorde a harbinger for SpaceX? Will cargo prove to be the real market? Will they solve the inherent challenges in flying at 17,000 miles per hour?

Given a chance, if the cost wasn’t an issue, would you go?

We’ll just need to keep an eye on Boca Chica and watch the skies. Have a safe trip.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

I had thought I’d return to the subject of Robots this week. But I can’t let China’s successful landing of a rover on Mars go by without comment. In a previous post (March 29th – Engineering Feats Post), I remarked on how difficult it was just to navigate to the Red Planet, let alone land on it. Congratulations to the Chinese Team for achieving both on the first try.

What a remarkable achievement. Until now, the United States had been the only country to successfully land and operate a rover on Mars. That brings the current number of operational rovers to 3 and 1 active lander. The place is filling up.

This success comes on the heels of Perseverance landing and the successful flights of Ingenuity. But there’s actually been quite a bit of activity over the last 50 years on and around Mars. In fact, the Perseverance mission is augmented by MAVEN, the MRO, and the whole Mars Relay Network, as I discussed in that same prior post.

Since the Viking program, there have been 17 attempts to put a lander or a rover on Mars. Seven of those attempts were not successful missions. But ten were successful and operational from anywhere from a few months to several years (14 years for Opportunity). A good summary of the missions with a map of their landing sites and some great rollover features can be found on Wikipedia at Mars Landings.

The skies over Mars are a pretty busy place as well. There are currently eight operational orbiters, managed by six space agencies circling Mars. (Check out the summary at Mars Orbiters) It’s hard to believe, but the 2001 Mars Odyssey, operated by the US, has been in orbit for almost 20 years.

With continuing missions and advances in technology, the Earth’s space-faring nations are building up capabilities that will someday, I hope, get us to Mars to stay. As we go, we’re developing an infrastructure of data gathering, communications and navigation assets that will enable future missions.

My only concern is how the locals will feel about us dropping in unannounced. Enjoy a cautionary tale at Unwarranted Surveillance.

Thanks for dropping by. Leave a comment and let me know if you’re excited about us going to Mars? Would you go? To stay?

A Note about the blog posts from the future [CE 2224]: In January of 2021, with Perseverance due to land on Mars the next month, NASA activated their experimental Quantum Transmitter. The transmitter was designed to communicate with Perseverance, without regard to location and at faster than light speeds—near real-time. Unfortunately, they lost the connection after the initialization routine was completed. However, as an unintended consequence, NASA connected with a specific locus in the space-time continuum located on the Moon in 2224. That locus was the storage device of the quantum computer of a popular blog site. It is from that blog site that these blog entries are extracted. I hope you enjoy a peek into our future, and hopefully, I’m not violating some temporal directive. So far, no visit from the time cops.

Guest Author: Vivian Ndereba, Chairperson, Lunar Cities Consortium Olympic Committee (LCCOC)

Posted: Monday, May 10, 2224 (Earth Standard Calendar)

It’s almost summertime, and the Games will begin before we know it. It’s always an exciting time, and I’m particularly pleased this year to be Chairing the Lunar Cities committee as the Games expand and add more events on Luna.

This cycle, we are thrilled that the 83^rd Olympiad – Olympia LXXXIII – will expand the events on Luna to include swimming, field hockey, softball and baseball, and Gaming preliminaries and semi-finals for the Lunar teams.

The Lunar Cities are justly proud of the stadia and gaming infrastructure they’ve constructed for the games. And for the first time, the gaming finals will be held in space in the newly assembled gravity environment for the Pointe, the manufacturing facility at Lagrange 1. Space Systems Technologies has graciously agreed to delay expanding their crew accommodations and re-purpose the new gravity wheel for the Olympic competition, housing teams from Earth and Luna. We’re thankful for SST’s continued sponsorship and support of the LCCOC.

However, the continuing application of provincial Earth regulations on Luna’s Olympic participation has long been a topic of discussion between the LCCOC and the IOC. Talks continue over the IOC’s refusal to host track and field events on Luna, even though the 160-year tradition of a distributed games allows for participation by the Lunar Cities. The straight-out banning of Luna weight lifting and gymnastics contestants without a 2-year Earth acclimation period is simply unacceptable, and we continue to protest.

This year, those restrictions risk casting a pall over the introduction of the first pure Luna event – the Super Marathon. For this Olympiad, the run will be an exhibition sport, and runners from Earth and Luna will gather to challenge the 125-kilometer perimeter course at Plinius. There are rumors of a team from Mars joining, but that’s still provisional.

Here’s the point, though—the IOC has banned the use of the new bio-mechanical tight-suits the Luna runners use. The IOC insists that these new suits provide Luna runners with an unfair weight and responsiveness advantage over the established exoskeleton technology. SST engineers have certified that the new suits with a bio-engineered myelin-myocyte layer provide no more mechanical assist than the exo-skeletons. SST has even offered to supply all runners with a standard suit.

However, the IOC claims that the Lunar runners are more familiar with the suits and would be unfairly favored. The LCCOC has offered to house athletes that want to train with the new suits in advance of the competition. The IOC has not agreed, but we will continue to negotiate and push forward with our proposal to let the runners decide.

Finally, we’re hoping that with the completion of the independence effort that will establish the Lunar Cities as a sovereign nation and a full member of the IOC, we can effectively resist these efforts of Earth to dictate the rules. Rest assured your Chairperson and the LCCOC will continue to promote change in the best interest of Luna’s athletes and, by extension, promote a fair and level playing field for all Olympiads.

We’ll keep you posted and on to the Games of the 83^rd Olympiad.

Posted By: W. Steve Wilson

Posted: May 10, 2021

For some, it was an anxious weekend. We just didn’t know where that Chinese rocket was going to end up. I was hoping maybe a small piece of debris might land in my backyard and provide a cool garden statue. That didn’t happen, and our worst fears were for naught—no one was injured, and it ended up in the ocean.

That got me wondering—just how much of that stuff is up there. Various space experts did interviews and talked about all the thousands and thousands of pieces of junk that are orbiting the Earth. For the most part, they don’t cause harm—space is a big place. But they’ve moved the International Space Station to avoid a collision. The latest Crew Dragon launch took some precautions, and rocket launches have been re-scheduled (India’s launch). But it’s getting worse—orbits are becoming filled with working satellites, non-working satellites, spent boosters, trash ejected from the ISS, and junk from sixty years of space exploration. (ESA Summary)

Much was said over the weekend about who’s responsible, how we can address the problem, how we need treaties, etc. But what about the economic opportunity? As late as March of this year, it was reported that there might be as many as 129 million pieces of junk, 34,000 larger than 10cm (about 4 inches). That’s 9,200 tons of debris whizzing around the Earth in various orbits and of a myriad of materials. (IET Article)

Let’s for a moment assume we could launch that mass at close to what SpaceX is running per kilogram to the ISS, ~$2,500/kilogram. At that rate, it would cost approximately $21 billion to launch that much material. Even at the declining costs of launches, it could be $15 billion.

 Imagine if you could capture all that junk and remanufacture it into useful materials or products. What if you could build something in space from the trash? To quote Scotty from The Voyage Home – “So, is that worth something to ye, laddie? Or should I just punch up ‘clear’?”

And people are working on it. To quote from the IET Article: Speaking ahead of the launch, UK Science Minister Amanda Solloway said: “The removal of hazardous space debris is not only environmentally important but is also a huge commercial opportunity for the UK, with companies like Astroscale leading the way in demonstrating how we can make space safer for everyone.”

So that might just be the next big commercial opportunity in space. Should we focus on capturing the junk for recycling? Or just clean up the garbage? Who owns all that junk, and would salvage rules apply if someone could find a way to use it? Or is there money to be made by being paid to clean it up—like a landfill that needs to be reclaimed?

Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Thanks for stopping by.

For as long as I’ve been watching Sci-Fi movies, filmmakers have endowed robots with some form of personality. Sometimes they are evil, sometimes kind, sometimes neither. Occasionally they even evolve. In any case, the artists have used speech, expressions, size and form, actions, etc., to induce an emotional response in their viewers.

One of my favorites is HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not exactly a robot, but even in ordinary conversation, I must admit, HAL creeps me out. Check it out here in a clip from the movie: HAL Conversation. I know I might be influenced by what happens in the film, but HAL’s speech stays consistent and creepy.

But other times, even-keeled robot speech isn’t so creepy. Sonny in iRobot doesn’t seem so creepy but still uses that even-toned speech pattern. Take a listen: Sonny Conversation. You may have a different take on it, but at least give the nod to some excellent voice work from Alan Tudyk (IMDB Page).

OK, so this could go on and on. Maybe I’ll write a BLOG on all my favorite robots, but for today, I’d like to consider how robot designers are using form, speech, and expression to elicit feelings when interacting with their creations.

A few years ago, a complex, social robot named Sophia was introduced to the world. She could mimic facial expressions, body English and gestures and answer complex, subjective questions. At one point, she was “interviewed” at the UN: Sophia’s Speech. The creation of Sophia is, of course, an impressive technological feat and a milestone in the creation of human-like robots. Still, though—there is a creepiness factor. I’m not sure meeting her in person would engender any warm fuzzy feelings. I’d be impressed and just a bit uncomfortable—particularly if she knew my secrets. One question I’d like to ask—were they striving towards duplicating human likeness and intentionally eschewing forcing Sophia to be explicitly likable?

On the other hand, what’s your reaction to this little guy? Meet Pepper. What’s not to like? Fun, non-threatening, likable. The designers found the triggers for our emotional responses.

So to some questions:

How should we react to features intentionally designed into a robot to make them likable or more human? Does this change as robots become more human-like? Is it any different from any other device designed to attract our attention and elicit engagement? [Screen time issues anybody?]

When do we stop seeing them as machines and have feelings towards them, even at the level of pets?

How would you react to a robot being intentionally damaged by their owner?

How do we feel about sending clever robots into dangerous situations?

When will robots become sophisticated enough that they’ll get to choose how they interact, if they want to be likable or not, and if they even want to obey our commands?

More to come on these topics and others in the coming weeks. Stay tuned.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]