Category: CE 2021

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.

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.]

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?

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.]

NASA, JPL, and the Ingenuity Team have done it again. A third successful flight of the Mars Helicopter is one for the history books.

If you haven’t seen the video yet, check it out here: Flight Three

Watching this video in real-time could have been nerve-wracking. When Ingenuity flies out of the frame to the right and then doesn’t come back for a while, I would have been on pins and needles. Knowing that Ingenuity returns safe and sound and successfully lands, ready for another jaunt, made all the difference. The team watching the data come in and learning the results must be overjoyed when the little helicopter returns to its starting point and lands.

According to NASA sources, “Ingenuity is intended to demonstrate technologies needed for flying in the Martian atmosphere. If successful, these technologies could enable other advanced robotic flying vehicles that might be included in future robotic and human missions to Mars. They could offer a unique viewpoint not provided by current orbiters high overhead or by rovers and landers on the ground, provide high-definition images and reconnaissance for robots or humans, and enable access to terrain that is difficult for rovers to reach.” You can stay updated on future planned flights by checking in with Ingenuity every so often at Ingenuity Flight Information.

This particular Mars helicopter does carry cameras for capturing views and navigation. (See some of the details here: Tech-Specs) Ingenuity is a demonstration craft, but I can imagine future versions having sensors, various types of cameras, maybe even carrying navigation beacons for plotting courses. When you consider the varied uses we’ve found for drones, you can envision swarms (well, perhaps not swarms – but flights anyway) of small aircraft navigating around Mars and enriching our knowledge of the Red Planet.

Thank you, again, to the Ingenuity team for your willingness to Dare Mighty Things and for letting us ride along.

I had planned to comment on a topic in Robotics, in particular, human form robots.

But I can’t let the day pass without remarking on the unbelievable achievement of the Ingenuity team and their first successful powered flight on another planet. It boggles the mind to consider the complexities of being successful.

Consider the physical constraints of the environment: dust everywhere, bathed in radiation, thin air (to put it mildly), extreme cold—and no pilot to make real-time corrections. Imagine—the pilot sending the instructions for the flight, which are executed sometime in the future, and then waiting until after the flight is completed to see results.

Not to mention testing a helicopter that can’t actually be flown in a Mars environment here on Earth. The team could replicate the atmosphere, but gravity was another thing altogether. Using simulation and a tethering system that approximated Martian gravity got them close. The real test is flying it on Mars, and today we learned they got it right. I can’t imagine what that would be like. I remember sleepless nights before we were just putting a new application into production from my IT management days, and I could test every little thing. It is a testament to the genius of the team that this first flight was successful.

If you haven’t seen it, check out this historic flight – Ingenuity Flight.

It was all of about 25 seconds, just over twice as long as the Wright Brother’s first flight. But they’ve proved it can be done. It’s no longer a hypothetical possibility. And from the last reports, Ingenuity is in good shape. So—more flights, more practice, more data, and more to learn.

One last word, though—this is about robots, too. Quite a few robots, actually, just not human form robots. If you consider a robot a device that can autonomously carry out complex activities, then we’ve seen the collaboration of several robots: Ingenuity, Perseverance, MAVEN, the MRO, and the whole Mars Relay Network—while the human members of the team waited patiently(?) for the results.

Thank you to the Ingenuity team for your willingness to Dare Mighty Things and for letting us ride along.

Posted By: W. Steve Wilson

Posted: April 12, 2021

I want to start a series of short commentaries on Robotics, particularly human form robots continuing through self-aware robots, the AI and Robot convergence, human-like robots, and maybe artificial life. Now that Jean-Luc Picard is a synthetic lifeform, it seems only fitting.

From recent discussions with friends, it seems we might consider three reasons to create human form robots: Servants/Tools/Workers, Companionship, or the challenge of scientific advancement (to see if we can). The first of these has had extensive treatment in fiction—but there are always more stories to tell, so we’ll explore some of the history and where current technology might be going. The latter two—I’ll see where that takes us.

But this week, let’s consider a fourth purpose—a dance partner. Boston Dynamics has produced a fantastic video where they taught human-form robots to dance to the tune Do You Love Me. You need to see these Robots Dancing.

If you’d like to know how they did it, check out this article where Boston Dynamics discusses the choreography, the machine learning, etc., that it took.

How Boston Dynamics Taught Its Robots to Dance

One section I found particularly interesting was how the professional dancers’ abilities exceeded remarkably the robots’ abilities. The choreography needed to be adjusted to conform to the movement and strength capabilities of the robots. Maybe that is the fundamental question—what can and should robots do and what can and should humans do. Not an easy question—at the risk of an understatement.

We’ll take up that question and others over the next several weeks. I hope you come back and see where it takes us. In the meantime, consider—would you accept a robot as a caregiver? How about a household servant? When does the robot get to decide what it wants to do?

Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to leave a comment.