Archive for the 'Space' Category

Ideas About Ideas

The New York Times recently issued the ninth edition of its annual Ideas feature for its magazine.  I’ve read through most of the entries and found several really fascinating; others were also interesting but neglected to surface other important angles.  I thought I’d use this space to highlight both, seeing as Tropophilia is all about ideas that may bring about change in our world.

The Advertisement That Watches YouI’ll leave the details of this particular implementation to the article, but the essence of the technology is a billboard with a built-in camera that, through facial recognition technology, can tell when anyone within a certain radius of the advertisement is looking at it.  This one, interestingly, changes to its main message when people are not looking.  You can imagine, however, how this technology might develop over time: electronic ads could be powered off until it new there were passersby actually looking at the space.  Facial recognition could also be used to power an impressions-based ads payment system, much like exists on the web: advertisers would only have to pay per “view” or elapsed “eyeball time” on the ad.  Of course, such commercial use of facial recognition technology also raises enormous privacy concerns (How long are camera images kept?  Would the technology eventually be used to identify people and serve ads based on their personal interests, or  even the clothes they were wearing or the book they are reading at that moment?).  It will be interesting to see how this area grows, if at all.

Bicycle HighwaysI thought this was a cool idea, but I’m not sure I see it gaining widespread adoption outside of cities that have significant numbers of bike commuters.  What I think is really clever is the possibilities raised with GPS and RFID technology that would allow for bikers to create on-the-fly pelotons, which in turn would be able to gain privileges for traffic lights and such: a mix between EZPass and carpool lanes.  Throw in a custom social network for the city so you could plan your departures in order to meet up with a regular riding group, and this could be really great for those cities with big biking cultures.

The Counterfeit SelfI think this research has implications for the Web.  There has long been a debate about authentication online: when writing a blog, posting comments, or joining a social network, is it “better” for users to have the ability to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, or should they be encouraged or required to use their real identity (obfuscated to whatever degree they prefer).  Many argue that encouraging or requiring authentication would, for example, solve the problem evidence by the (often hateful and troll-like) comments of any given YouTube video.  Opponents summon the right to free dom of speech as a defense of anonymous use of the web.  Some governments, like South Korea, actually require what is referred to as “real name verification” for websites in their jurisdiction that surpass a certain threshold of users; users are required to authenticate against a national registry before they can interact with the site.  Considering the idea of how behavior is influenced by fake identity could offer a fresh perspective in this debate.

Good Enough is the New GreatOne aspect that this idea doesn’t cover (and I can’t remember anymore if the Wired article does or not) is information.  Just as consumers are turning to cheap cameras, low-fi music files, and YouTube videos, they are also turning to Twitter for their information fixes.  Many argue that in moving from mainstream to social media as our main source of information, we make a similar sacrifice of quality for convenience.  I think that may be true in the short-term, but I’m hopeful that just like companies are starting to fit better and better sensors into those tiny Flip cameras, so will Twitter eventually recapture some of the fidelity of the “news” that it carries.

Continue reading ‘Ideas About Ideas’

A Geek Out Moment: Our Tiny Blue Atom Planet

I opened up a Google Earth link on the web today called “Satellite Database” (Google Earth required to view).  I patiently waited a few seconds for the program to open and load the file. When the screen populated, this is what I saw.

wow

Click that image and view in full size, or better yet, click the link above and view this in Google Earth yourself.  In short, we have an astonishing number of satellites orbiting our world.  Thousands upon thousands.  Those are not stars in that picture.  Every single one of those little bitty particles surrounding our planet is a human produced mechanism.  Those that are not inactive are beaming radio waves between each other and to the surface.  Some are equipped with cameras, some with telescopes.  How are they not colliding?  How is the International Space Station not being torn to shreds?  I know the answers to these questions, but still… it is nothing short of incredible that we have managed to distribute this many machines into orbit around our planet, when just over 100 years ago we had not even figured out how to sustain powered flight on Earth.

You can click on any satellite and have its trajectory mapped (hence the several colored lines swirling around the planet).  What’s more, the positions of all the satellites are updated every 30 seconds.  I want to keep this open on my side monitor all.  day.  long.

I have no philosophical or other insightful point to make here.  I’m only trying to say one thing, and it is the following.

Damn.

This one time, at Space Camp…

It’s not news to anyone that Jarred and I were space geeks at an early age.  Not too many people I know could start a story with “when I was at Space Camp…” (something we can both say legitimately…I think Jarred went for a decade or something).

But anyway, I went to Space Camp as a 10 year old in 1995 and I distinctly remember seeing these elaborate models and renderings of the eventual International Space Station.  Even as a young kid, at the time I thought that these plans seemed a bit TOO big, a bit too overwhelming in scale and in the amount of international cooperation required.  It seemed to be a vision of the distant future, much like our simulated flight to Mars (which, if memory serves correctly, ended in disaster).

Well, I’ve been happily wrong since the International Space Station started coming together 10 years ago.  These pictures of the station over its lifetime are phenomenal.  Do yourself a favor and check out the rest; here’s a tease:

05.08.09

<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Bs39zVqots">http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Bs39zVqots</a>

That is all.

On Prizes and Progress

Last month John McCain made a campaign promise that, if elected, he would champion a $300 million prize to develop an inexpensive and powerful automotive battery that could “leapfrog” current available batteries. While the announcement garnered some press coverage, it was covered with fervor in the political as well as technology blogosphere. In fact, it seems to have been one of the most polarizing political announcements in technology and clean-technology investment spheres since a number of candidates promised to make changes in laws regarding carried interest. Tech investors left a number of interesting commentaries on the McCain battery plan. Many deemed the intentions of the plan as noble, but the logistics poor. One of the major arguments, among others, was that the development of such a battery would have a monetary upside that would far outweigh the $300 million prize. Others argued that such money would be better used in some kind of federal R&D program that could foster emerging battery research.

These commentaries got me thinking about prizes and the inherent “carrot and stick” issues that surround such achievement-based prizes. While the clean-tech detractors certainly make interesting and very true points, they’re forgetting the intangible inspiration factor that such a prize could create. An excellent example of such inspiration success could be the $10 million Ansari X-Prize awarded in October of 2004. In the the nine years from introduction to its presentation to the Paul Allen-backed winner Mohave Aerospace Ventures, the prize inspired over twenty-six teams made up of both amateurs as well as professionals to create and successfully launch a reusable manned spacecraft in two separate flights within two weeks. What many fail to point out is that over $100 million was invested in technologies leading up to the two successful Mohave flights.

Wait, isn’t something off here? Why would Mohave and Paul Allen put up ten times the financial muscle into winning a prize that doesn’t even cover the costs of research and development? In the typical investment world such ideas are shear lunacy. In this case wouldn’t it make sense that the prize money merely inspired the group towards the end goal? Why can’t the same true for battery improvements, or wind power, or any other publicly available prize? Isn’t the mere possibility that such a prize could inspire a talented scientist or engineer to shift their efforts towards developing new technology worth forgetting a few logistical shortcomings in a plan?

There however is another important fact that many clean-tech investors have left out. Beyond talk of batteries and prizes, recent campaign statements by both major party candidates illustrate the fact that both candidates are actively interested (at least for now) in making some serious changes to federal energy policy. Placing individual candidates positions aside, if promises from both candidates hold true into a new administration shouldn’t clean-tech investors (as well as the general public) be excited about the possible sea change such policies will bring?

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user AndyArmstrong.