Slashdot Mirror

"Top Coolest Slacker Job"?!? Methinks instead we found a new addition to this year's Popular Science Worst Jobs in Science article.

This is just avoiding what many people see as the obvious conclusion: the space shuttle in its current incarnation needs to be replaced. It was designed before I was born.

Unfortunately it looks like NASA is moving in the wrong direction, cutting the funding from their shuttle replacement project. Of course, I'm all for making the existing shuttles safer, and what they're doing now is a good idea.

Links:
Big Dig Photos
Big Dig Operations Center
The History Channel on the Big Dig
Official Big Dig Site

You know, I submitted this same story, based on the Popular Science article about WASTE: a secure, private P2P system. I never get my articles published. Who's palm do I have to grease to get a decent article put on Slashdot?!?

You know, I submitted this same story, based on the Popular Science article about WASTE: a secure, private P2P system. I never get my articles published. Who's palm do I have to grease to get a decent article put on Slashdot?!?

The software he used, X-Plane is being used by commercial aircraft and spacecraft companies. Most notably Scaled Composites for simulating SpaceShip One and Carter Copters for simulating their helicopter designs.

Not to mention Jetstream people using it in a full-size Jetstream simulator instead of official replacement components (which are way too expensive) - and that X-Plane is certified for training pilots by the FAA.

Popular Science has a good introductory article about X-Plane.

So yeah, I'd say that for a ballpark simulation - results obtainable in that program are probably damn close to what you'd get in real life. Especially since it's already been used to help design at least one real spacecraft.

Security and speed of boarding become more important in the airline equation than ever before. Marginal increases in speed, do little to improve the overall perception of the flying experience. Radical changes in speed, while exciting to contemplate, will require decades of testing before being considered safe enough for commercial adoption.

Pilotless craft might make sense for small planes where the pilot's pay is a huge fraction of the total transportation cost, but will take much longer to be adopted in 200+ passenger craft, even if the pilot is largely redundant.

That all said, Flying Wings is where I see the future of flight going. That and computer assisted small jump craft of various types. See this recent Popular Science article on flight. There is an expression in military circles when it come to evaluating new aircraft: "looks right, flies right." Looking at the envisioned commercial passenger flying wing concepts in the Popular Science article, one can't help but feel this aircraft has the right shape. Kudos also to whomever created the pictures in the magazine, because at first look, you would swear these beautiful behemoths are already lifting off from tarmacs in Tokyo.

Rather than obsess on airspeed, I think our focus should be on making the trip to the airport fast and easy, and of course the boarding fast and easy. Imaging a airport where it was more like a trip to the local cineplex. You park your car close to the terminal minutes before your flight. The car is moved inexpensively for you to a storage lot (rather than park in the hinter lands and wait for a bus). Or better yet, you have had a quick comfortable ride (mag-lift or not) from a city center, directly to your terminal. You are a frequent traveler, so you have undergone a rigorous pre-screening procedure once a year, and can now be biometrically scanned in quickly for a hassle free entry. Like first class seating, biometric priority boarding could be a real money maker for the airlines. Once on board the flying wing, space is not as much a factor as in tube based airplane designs. Weight is the limiting criteria on the 800-1500 seat flying city, not space, so everyone has space to stretch out, and get comfortable. Even reclining to a complete sleep position, to just sleep through a long trip, very much like the golden age of rail. Personal video screens for each passenger will be considered a must, and you will have a screening choice of dozens of first run movies at a cost similar to seeing it in the theater. Your screen will also allow web-browsing, and by the time you update your journal on /. , and post a few comments, it's time to deplane.

Making airplane fuels more environmentally friendly should also be a priority this century. A lot of fuel is used on take off, so how about mag catapult launch? Perhaps planes that use microwave beam power; using conventional fuels only to get airborne, or for emergencies. The rest of the trip a series of boasts from microwave beam boast areas. Ah, but I'm getting decades ahead of myself, and the crystal ball always grows murky 10+ years out.

Well...although it doesn't go that fast, there was an item in Popular Science about a similar train by the Chinese called the Shanghai Transrapid.

Well...although it doesn't go that fast, there was an item in Popular Science about a similar train by the Chinese called the Shanghai Transrapid.

Oh I forgot to mention... Popular Science 'Brilliant 10' award last November 2002 highlighted how nanotechnology which was being researched at Harvard University by Charles Lieber might address Moore's law. Hey spoke of how the current state of semiconducter manufacturing would be considered crude/clumsy if they can perfect the techniques they are working on. See http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,125 43,364572,00.html

If you check the science journals you'll find several articles from the team about nanotech and their 'nanowires'.

This is frustratingly typical of what passes for journalism in this world

The PopSci page linked in the original /. "story" referred to Bombardier as a "company that designs ATVs and jet skis".

That's true, but they also manufacture locomotives and prop and jet aircraft (including water bombers and the famous Learjet), leading me to believe that the company has some serious engineering capabilities beyond recreational vehicles.

Bombardier's site map

I agree with some of the previous posters that there is a very limited market for this. Sure everyone wants to travel halfway around the world in 2 hours, but who can afford it? I think something like the Boeing 7E7 Dreamliner is much more likely to succeed. Most people will choose a more reasonably priced luxury flight over a hypersonic flight even if it does take twice as long.

available at Popular Science here. Better pictures.

This pic from Popular Science shows it better.

...has to be the best of whats new.

It doesn't come with Raquel Welch, but researchers at the University of London have brought the dream of Fantastic Voyage one step closer. The first video-equipped ingestible capsule capable of being piloted is about half the size of a grape and has electrodes on its outer surface that deliver a series of 5-milliamp jolts whenever physicians press a remote control. The charge triggers a small muscle spasm in the intestine, which nudges the capsule forward or backward. Previous incarnations simply went where the body took them. This one allows doctors to get a longer look at suspicious-looking areas. Earlier this year, one of the researchers became the first human guinea pig to try the capsule. It was a success, and more human tests are on the way.

The Boeing 7E7 "Dreamliner" is the best imaginary aircraft of 2003.

Sorry, it is on the list.

Popular Science is running a story on the most noxious jobs in science. Perhaps the slashdot editors might consider running this as a frontpage story in a week or two.

Spoke to soon.

Maybe my mind was blanking it out or something. Either way, it sucks when the most innovative product Apple can spin out in a year is a shop.

It's interesting to see how Popular Science works though. All they have to do is change the date on their articles every month or two and tada!, new contenet. Who knows, we might see this article come up as brand new again in a few months.

I don't think anyone knows for sure but Paul Allen is speculated to be the backer behind Rutan. The article goes on to say that Internet tycoon types with entirely too much money on their hands seem to be the primary funders of this kind of thing.

does is qualify for a spot in the "10 worst jobs in science" from popular science?

This sounds like the winner in the PopSci/Core77 design contest: movie polaroids. The "flapping" of the polaroid could theorhetically charge the "battery" and pushing a button would play back what you just recorded. Check out the idea here.

...I nearly died laughing when I saw the icon next to job # 8. The juxtaposition of Barney with that job....well, check it out for yourself here.

From the worst hall of fame.

Now who would even think of doing such things????

This month's issue of popular science has an article also. Click.

Check here for a shot that shows the scale and here for a small action shot and a bunch of other ornithopters.

I think "RTFA" applies...

Has anyone noticed that there is a profound difference between a one-person piloted aircraft and the Mentor thing that resembles a broken umbrella/dragon fly dragging a chinese lantern. Or even these things

I thought the article referred to the "Mentor" alfoil thing, not the small flapping one-man aeroplane. But I guess that makes me a slashdot rebel because I read the article?

This article has a picture of the ornithopter:

Mentor Micro-Air Vehicle

Wow, it looks weird.

If you're interested in hydrogen you'll probably be interested in an article in Popular Science on how the first retail hydrogen station is opening in Iceland. Makes sense since the country has few cars and lots of geothermal electricity coming from the Reykjanes geothermal area where the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates meet.

The first scientists to recognize that rapidly pulsed detonations might be used to create thrust were probably the Germans, who developed the V-1 "buzz bomb" in the 1930s. "The Germans attempted a detonation with the V-1 but never got it," says Chris Brophy, a propulsion research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. "The V-1 was a pulse-jet, more of a high-speed deflagration."

From page 2

I am more worried about the 2005 law that requires GPS/triangulation in all cell phones for 911 call locating. Here's a link to an article in Popular Science about China and how people were using their cell phones to find out which buildings were infected with SARS.

People play a game where you "kill" a nearby person after you locate them using your cell phone equipped with GPS. Just what I want, ANYONE to be able to locate me on the street (opt-in service or not isn't my point).

The first major wave of location services could beam to the U.S. as early as Christmas, when 44 percent of the nation's 149.2 million cellphone subscribers are expected to be traceable, according to the research firm In-Stat/MDR.

No thanks, I would prefer to die after placing a call to 911 rather than have whoever decide that they want to track me via GPS/triangulation.

Live free or die.

Just my worthless .02

While the photo on the BBC article shows a "backpack" with hard wings sticking out of it, the description (especially that of his legs getting tangled in the rear wings) sounds more like a "Birdman" type suit.

Popular Science did a great article on gliding/sky diving with wings featuring the Birdman suits. Read it here.

This article has some good info that helps answer comments made below about diving with wings not really being free-fall, but in fact being a form of gliding.

Here's a couple of guys that added wings to their sky diving suits so they can glide. The wings are made of fabric and inflate like a parasail. A pair of wings fit between each arm and torso and a third wing between their legs.

Apparently, they were not the first to sky dive with wings strapped on. Of interest is the survival rate of people who have tried this in the past: something like 4% if I remember correctly.

Check out The Flight of the Bird Men .

> I really wish the Ministry of News would declare this newsworthy beyound the nince websites and occassional backpage news blurb.

Actually, in the year 2003 press coverage has started to pick up. If you pick up a July copy of Popular Science or Wired , the cover stories are about the X-Prize. And I'm certain that as the X-Prize teams near their launch dates, press coverage will pick up dramatically. And once the X-Prize is won -- well, that will be interesting.

Here are the articles:
Popular Science article and
Wired article

Actually, I read in a PopSci article (right here) that Rutan does have plans for the SpaceShipOne/WhiteKnight, but that he wants others to build and commercialize them:

Rutan's historical model is Wilbur Wright's tour of France in 1908, which sparked tremendous growth in the industry. Rutan wants SpaceShipOne to kick-start a similar burst of innovation. Hence his ambitious post-X-Prize testing and demonstration plan: Fly every Tuesday for five months, 20 flights in a row on schedule, to determine the system's cost and reliability. Though he envisions everything from 10- passenger suborbital tour buses to a giant White Knight that uses eight 747 engines to launch a 300-ton spacecraft, Rutan says those are for others to build: "The Wrights didn't build the world's first airliner--they didn't need to," he says. "I hope people don't expect me to certificate a spaceship and offer rides. I want to be doing something more exciting by then."

Go, Burt!

Was a story about a "Car stereo that can kill cat".

Popular Science had an article on this months ago. Then they recently had a followup where a newer version of the system actually somehow eliminated the person's body from the picture; all you (the operator) could see were the guns, etc., superimposed on a generic body.

Here's the followup:

--RJ

...doesn't the result of splitting H2O using another energy source result in more energy than was used to do the splitting? Not unless I'm miss-remembering the laws of thermodynamics (you might be thinking of potential energy). Thermodynamics

And I don't agree with your opinion that cars would be 10-100 times more expensive, maybe initially. Look at all technology how prices drop real quickly. The problem isn't the technology as much as the materials - you need a high quality electrolyte membrane between the electrode and anode. This means your materials to make the cell are made of expensive metals that aren't dependant on technology. They break down, bond and degrade under the performance requirements of a car.

In the interest of exploring the current potential cost of a fuel cell power plant I'll give you an example -
fuel cell
Here's a currently available home fuel cell technology that provides 1.2kw. For $8k. The EV1 (ford's electric car) uses 102 KW for roughly 137 HP. To power this car with a fuel cell you'd need 82 of these units, running about $680,000. Not including the cost of the engine and 'carrying case' - the seats, body, breaks, wheels. The cost of the hydrogen (note that it's derived from natural gas or PROPANE... a petroleum product, not electrolyzed water) is $100 per bottle. That means a tank of gas for those 82 units powering your car will run $8,200. Ouch.

How many technological breakthroughs in materials and science will we need to make that fuel cell cost the same (and weigh less) as the batteries in an EV1? Even with Moores Law (technology doubling at half the price) we're looking at roughly 12 years. But since fuel cells are dependant on materials sciences (not technology), Moores law will probably be a bit slower.

I'm a big fan of the fuel cell, it's just that it's touted benefits are a far... FAR cry from reality. It's like the 'American Idol' of the energy world - a lot of hype, but talent? Not so much. (It's funny, I held the same position you do about 2 years ago. Someone challenged me, I got a stick up my ass and tried to prove him wrong, and in the process swore never to admit to him that he's right. ;))

One other thing to consider - lead acid batteries can be recycled with water cheaply. Fuel cells... pretty much can't unless someone's figured out how to unbond gold from nickle.

Yeah, I'm sure flying stealthbombers is what every flight sim fan's dreams are made of. Try something more logical (and sexy), like the F-22. Or, if you still can't get over your bomber fetish, at least comprimise with an FB-22.

Evolution. I see this "Tumbleweed Earth Demonstrator" as a one-cell precursor to Theo Jansen's Strandbeests. This critters literally walked using nothing but wind power.

Transparent displays would also be a significant advance for the field of Augmented Reality.

And here's a story about using your cell phone to interface with your car.

VTTi

First, in reference to your comments on structural and weight limitations, the actual force born by the wings is far less, since there is far less gravity. In addition, while the thinner air is certainly a hindrance to how much lift can be acheived with the same area, it also means that the stresses that must be absorbed from turbulence and the like are probably a lot less.

In reference to unfolding wings, these have, I recall, been tested on Earth, so if they work in our dense air and stronger gravity, they should be fine on Mars. If I knew a link I'd post it; you can probably find more with google.

Finally, you talk a lot about control system algorithms. However, there are a number of reasons that Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles are simpler when flying than when driving. There are a couple of relevent articles in this month's Popular Science, as well as a very good one in the New York Times magazine from a few weeks ago that I just finished reading. If you think about it, the amount of leeway available in the air is far greater than that on the ground; whereas a car driver must maintain precision navigation within a few feet on a road and avoid obstacles and the like, a pilot can, during cruise, simply trim out the plane's elevators, maintain a proper heading, and get by without even an autopilot. If he drifts off by a few hundred feet altitude or a few degrees heading, it doesn't really matter. This is why we already have numerous UAV's in the air in the military (such as the well-known Predator drone) and why Boeing 777s and the new Airbus 330 (isn't that it?) both can supposedly fly without even needing a pilot, in an emergency.

In comparison, DARPA is working with a few contractors to develop UAV ground vehicles, but is really nowhere near production stage.

My knowledge about gliders specifically is limited, my personal experience being limited to powered planes, but I would imagine that with a fair level of accuracy, finding thermals and gaining altitude should not be all that difficult, since most of the control software already exists in some form or another.

They back tracked

Not anymore

What you're describing usually goes by the name of augmented reality (as opposed to virtual reality). Here is a webpage with some good info on it, but you can always just google.

EDIT: This comes from a linked Popular Science article someone a few layers deep in the postings.

robi

They can react, fight and make logical decisions based on inputted given data. The program is so details that agents can get dirtier as the battle progresses.

Not a very detailed or well written article. There's a slightly better one on Popular Science.

From Pop Sci:
Massive characters, or "agents," function as complex beings subject to physical forces, with specific body attributes that range from the biological (short, good eyesight, dark skin) to the behavioral (aggressive). These features govern a Massive character's ability to generate credible motion. Each character is assigned a host of potential actions, as many as 350, each about a second long (sword up, sword down, step forward, step back). How these actions play out is determined by the character's brain, a tangled web of anywhere from 100 to 8,000 behavioral logic nodes, which provide the rules that allow each character to perceive, interpret and respond to what's happening around it: to make decisions and act. These nodes group into rule collections which control aggression, fighting style, movement across varied terrain, and a dozen other factors. Regelous originally tried to use pen and paper to sketch the relationships between nodes in a character. "It got chaotic very fast," he says, and Massive designers now use a special graphical user interface to connect nodes and create an agent's brain. A fully formed character--a map of its tendencies, its personality, if you will--looks like a huge, multidimensional spider web on the screen.

It sounds to be like a they used fuzzy logic neural networks. Interestingly enough, the battles would resemble Koza's Genetic Programming paradigm. Randomly generated orc programs, represented by tree structures, selected for fitness by success in battle. This would also explain how agents can get dirtier as the battle progresses.