jump to navigation

Houses of the Mind: Part II January 12, 2009

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development.
add a comment

We are still in the very earliest stages of building digital environments, and we have little idea of what their long-term implications will be. Just as moving our activities from the field into buildings, so too will these new structures radically alter how we live and work. One change that is already upon us is an increased ability or need to multitask.

The other day, my wife was knitting. This in itself does not appear to be technology intensive activity, but she was sitting in front of her laptop as she whiled away the afternoon. Why was her laptop important? She was watching an instructional video by knitting legend Elizabeth Zimmermann while she worked. In fact she was following instructions in the video. Of course the knitting took longer than the instructions, so she would pause Mrs. Zimmermann, and switch over to an episode of “Private Practice” until she competed a section of the garment, and went back for more instructions. While switching between video sources, she would pause just long enough to check and possibly respond to emails. Let’s not forget about Facebook. She had to update her status and see what her friends were up to at the same time.

What’s amazing, is not how many things she was doing all at once, but rather how normal it all is. At work, we think nothing of checking the weather forecast between responding to our boss’s email and writing important documentation. As portable networked devices become ubiquitous, this will only accelerate. While waiting in line a Starbucks you’ll check sports scores while writing the next great American novel. At the same time your calendar reminds you of an old friend’s impending birthday.

Will this technology make our world better? It depends on how we employ them. Walls and roofs meant that we could continue to work even in bad weather, and provided a safe place to recover from illness, and store food. At the same time, walls can be built to control our movement, fracture societies, and limit our opportunities. We have it in us to determine the future of our newly constructed environments. But we must take control of them with knowledge and intention and wisdom.

Rapid Response Theater December 20, 2008

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development.
add a comment

I know theater sounds like a “soft” topic, but there’s a lot of technology employed in theater today, and it’s only going to get more tech-heavy as time progresses. Most theatrical performances employ strictly pre-planned lighting and sound cues, and static sets, but what if all of that could be changed on the fly, in the middle of a performance?

During the day, our concert hall is used by the Edutainers to perform plays and musicals for the general public, so it is fully equipped with modern technical theater equipment. At night, we use the space for a quiz game show for our students, as well as weekly opening and closing ceremonies. During these events, the booth operators are often called upon to change things without warning. The MC’s for the quiz game may throw in an arm wrestling or hoola-hoop competition on a whim. When that happens the booth person changes the lighting appropriately. If he has an ipod, he can also rapidly select audio tracks and pipe them out over the sound system.

We also make heavy use of the video projector to show PowerPoint slides during these events. What if you used a few projectors to create backdrops for theater? With appropriately structured libraries, it would be trivial to change the scenery at the same pace as improv artists make up their lines. Digital audio allows for rapid selection of soundtracks or even sound effects ranging from doorbells to explosions. Most professional theaters already employ digital lighting systems, so they are already prepared for dynamic theater.

Video cell phones will change our lives. December 20, 2008

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development.
add a comment

I witnessed something today that presages the future of hand-held video communications. My wife and I were shopping for yarn in Seoul’s famous Domdaemun market. This is a mammoth textile wholesale and retail building with thousands of small vendors. While my wife picked out yarn for her next knitting projects I watched the pair of Korean women next to her. They were having a lively three-way conversation while poring over yarn swatches in the merchant’s product binder.

I did mention that these two women were having a three-way conversation, right? The third member of the group was on the other end of a video cell phone connection. The two women did not point the camera on the phone at themselves, but rather at the swatch book. Obviously their third, invisible partner was selecting the correct color and style of yarn with their help.

From this little tableau we can glimpse the future role these digital device will likely have. Anyone who does purchasing for a business will be able to use the video link to shorten their purchase approval cycle by showing samples to his boss while still out in the field. Speaking of out in the field, can you imagine a junior electrician who spots an oddity on while working on an electrical connection at the top of a telephone pole. He whips out his phone and calls up a senior electrician with 40 years of experience. He shows his senior partner the oddity and asks for advice before he blacks out the entire neighborhood.

Taking a photo and sending it to a friend or coworker is fine, but it is far more cumbersome than live video, even of poor quality, for real time conversations. This will allow us to share some visual information as easily as we share audio information. Personally I look forward to the day when I’m in the grocery store, and I point the camera at the shelves while asking my wife, “they have three varieties of soy sauce. Which one of these do you want?”

Space Flight is the New Nuclear Weapon August 21, 2008

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development, India, Iran, JAXA, News and politics, Russia, South Korea.
add a comment

How can you possibly compare human space flight to nuclear bombs and missiles? The link is not to be found among technologies, but rather in the quest for national prestige.

During the cold war many nations aggressively pursued nuclear development programs. Although they were always clothed in the rhetoric of national defense, nuclear weapons have never been employed for this purpose. You could argue that the US and Russia needed to counter each other’s arsenals, but millions of bullets have been fired, though not one nuclear weapon has been fired in anger since WWII. Additionally, smaller nation had no similar justification.

Iran, North Korea, South Africa, Egypt, India, and Pakistan all created nuclear programs. Were they really needed for national defense? South Africa has gone so far as dismantling their arsenal. That’s a clear sign that it wasn’t required to keep thee nation safe from outside threats. These programs were more about national prestige than about defense.

Even among the superpowers, nuclear weapons development was one way for the two nations to demonstrate their technical superiority. Because the big boys had nukes, any nation that wanted to be viewed as serious contender for regional leadership, they needed nukes too. Iran and Pakistan are both potential leaders for the Islamic world, and hence they needed to demonstrate their capabilities by developing nuclear weapons.

Today, those nukes are becoming less important. There are hints of a new space race. This time any powerful nation can participate. Even private companies can participate. Of course The US and Russia have spaceflight programs, but that’s not new. What is new is the number of other nations announcing a commitment to space flight. In recent years China leaped to the stage with two manned flights. This is a direct challenge to Japan’s quieter program launching astronauts on other nation’s vehicles and contributing serious hardware to the ISS. These two nations also happen to be the biggest powerhouses in Asia, and are flexing their space muscles for their neighbor’s benefit.

South Korea’s Yi So Yeon, who visited the ISS this year is another good example. Although she conducted experiments on orbit, the Korean scientific community was angered by the decision to spend $30 million on her flight. Their complaint is that more money was spent on this one flight than on all other government sponsored scientific projects combined. This is a clear indication that the flight was politically motivated to demonstrate that South Korea is a world player.

Now Iran has announced plans for a manned space program. The national benefits of such a program are murky at best for a nation like Iran. It’s just one more move in the game of international politics and regional control. In the next few months we can expect to hear Pakistan either make a similar announcement, or they will attempt to dismiss Iran’s claims as impossible. As I said before, space flight is the new nuclear program.

Young Astronauts Club: Building the Future Today July 27, 2008

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development, South Korea.
1 comment so far

Many of us are fans of spaceflight, and we believe that the government and/or private industry should make a greater commitment to developing space capabilities. However, must of us don’t do anything about it beyond complaining to our fellow enthusiasts on message boards and blogs. There are plenty of things we could do, like writing to our Congressmen, joining the Mars or Planetary Societies, even seeking employment in the New Space businesses.

This month I’m taking action to promote the future of spaceflight. Ok, so it’s a little step, but at least it is action. The reason I’m interested in spaceflight is not because of all of the benefits it will have for mankind. Sure that’s part of it, but those reasons are later additions to my core passion for the subject. In reality, I was addicted to spaceflight as a child. NASA documentaries and propaganda on TV, in magazines, in books, and in my school created a desire in most of my classmates to launch ourselves into outer space. In the long run, I think this was a good thing, and want to pass that experience on to future generations. So, I have started a Young Astronauts Club.

I work at an English language immersion camp in South Korea. For our month-long summer program we created a dozen clubs for students to choose between. My creation is the Young Astronauts Club. My wife and I put a short video together to promote the club to the students.

Over the course of the month, we will build a scale model of the solar system, perform an egg drop, build a model space station or moon base, program Lego robots, and launch paper rockets.

I was inspired to set up the club because of the recent flight of Yi So Yeon, the Korean astronaut. I wanted to give my students a stronger connection to her trip to the ISS, and show them how they could do the same thing. I’m just trying to plant the seeds of future spaceflight into the fertile minds of today.

Exploration Confusion July 6, 2008

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development, NASA.
1 comment so far

I’m about to criticize NASA’s planes for the near future, so I’d like to state for the record that I am a fan a NASA and all that the organization has accomplished. I love NASA, and have no desire to see it dissolved, undercut, or otherwise destroyed. Having said that, I’d like to point out that the current steps being taken for our follow on vehicle to the Space Shuttle, are all backwards.

When planning a space mission, you usually start by determining the goals of the mission. The goals may be “to search for the evidence of past water on Mars,” or, “before this decade is out, to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth.”

Once you have your mission objectives you can start to decide what tools and systems are needed to fulfill the mission. These become the engineering specifications that determine the size and shape of the spacecraft. Then you can go out and buy launch services on a Pegasus for small payloads, a Delta II or IV for larger payloads.  Or if you need to, you can start designing a new booster that fits the needs of the mission.

In pursuing President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, NASA started with the booster design, not the mission objectives. This has lead to an odd design cycle. Once they decided to use a shuttle derived solid booster for the crew vehicle launcher, that drove the design of the Crew Exploration Vehicle now known as the Orion capsule. Unfortunately, once they determined the mission objectives, they realized the “stick” lacked the thrust to push the Orion into space. NASA was forced to add a fifth segment to the solid booster to achieve the required thrust. They also discovered that using a Space Shuttle Main Engine for the upper stage was impractical. So they swapped the SSME for a to-be-redesigned Saturn era J2 engine.

The whole point of using Shuttle derived hardware was that it was already man rated. Thus it would dramatically reduce development and testing time and money. With the modifications now in place, everything must follow the full proofing process, and loses the advantages of using derived systems.

Few NASA observers thought the stick was a great solution when it was first proposed. We were willing to accept it because development was supposed to be quick, inexpensive, and take advantage of technical continuity with the Shuttle program. Now that those benefits are quickly dissolving, we should reexamine whether the stick is the right booster to put the Orion in orbit, or even if the Orion is the right vehicle at all.

In my next post, we’ll explore possible alternatives based on one simple idea: NASA should do those things that only NASA can do.

Houses of the Mind May 17, 2008

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development.
add a comment

There was a day, long ago when no human lived inside a house. That’s a difficult concept to wrap your head around, because most of us spend most of our time inside houses, offices, factories, or other man made environments. In the past hundred years we’ve also built a wide variety of mobile environments like cars and airplanes. These structures provide many benefits. They help keep us warm in winter, cool in summer, improve food storage, protect us from predators, and generally make our lives better. It’s hard to picture life without even a grass hut or an improved cave, but there was a time before these inventions.

Humans lived for centuries before we invented structures. People were born under the stars, squatted in the wind and rain, found mates, and propagated the species without the benefits of buildings. The eventual shift from living under the canopy of the heavens to the ubiquitous use of buildings had a profound impact on human society social structures. Social interaction tends to shift from the family to the community of people living near each other. Hierarchies based on possession can evolve like city-states, and monarchies. Even warfare makes more sense when the warring parties own towns and cities. The changes that moving into structures has caused or contributed to are so widespread that they are often hard to identify.

Human society is on the cusp of a similar change. We are moving from physical environments to digitally manufactured environments. Now I’m not saying we live in cyberspace, but we are spending more and more time in electronically generated spaces of our own choosing. What is making this possible is the ubiquitous spread of portable digital hardware, especially networked devices. When I drive down the street, I see many people with head bowed and headphones in their ears. They are text-messaging friends, playing video games, or watching videos. The first thing many of us do when we return home, or enter our office is turn on the computer and jump into our email.

Other authors have previously noted how online relationships and communities are affecting society. They tend to be geographically dispersed, open to new members, but insular in ideas. New cell phone applications and handheld devices that take advantage of wireless networks are starting to allow us to take these communities with on the road, outside our structures. Add to that the ability to constantly choose our own audio input, whether that’s rock and roll, ocean waves, or an audio book, and the ability to choose video for visual stimulation, and you have something as profound as building a house. We do not know what impacts this will have on our society. After all, it took millennia for us to build houses with air conditioners, refrigerators, indoor plumbing, even furniture, and just as long to build the society I was born into. What form of society will our children be born into and inherit?

Space Yoga April 27, 2008

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development, India, NASA, Russia.
3 comments

Astronauts and Cosmonauts aboard the International Space Station spend two hours a day exercising to keep bone and muscle loss to a minimum. Bones become brittle and muscles waste away in microgravity without constant work. Current exercise regimes include a bicycle ergometer (stationary bicycle), a treadmill for running, and the Resistive Exercise Device that simulates weight lifting with elastic bands. That’s not a whole lot of options. How could we increase the variety with increasing the equipment?

I would like to suggest we add yoga to the list of exercise regimes. When you think of yoga, you probably think of guys turning themselves into pretzels, but the art is really good at building a core of strength as well as flexibility.

Most yoga positions rely on gravity, but not all do. For example there is a version of uttanasana, forward bend, where you lock your fingers around your big toes before straightening your legs. No gravity needed there to stretch the back, and put stress on the leg joints and muscles. Other positions could be similarly modified to make them more effective in micro, or lunar gravity. A trained yoga instructor with a strong foundation in physiology should also be able to develop sequences to help alleviate back pain, which is a common orbital complaint.

I did a little research, looking for any references to yoga in space, or NASA studies, but there’s almost no information out there. In 1984 Squadron Leader Rakesh Sharma of India spent a little over a week on Russia’s Salyut 7. One of his experiments was using yoga to combat motion sickness. If anyone knows the results of his experiments, I’d love to hear about it.

DARPA and NASA Working From the Same Playbook March 10, 2007

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in DARPA, Future Development, NASA, News and politics.
add a comment

If the VSE (Vision for Space Exploration) is to become a reality, then engineers must develop several critical path technologies. These include autonomous rendezvous and docking, and robotic assembly of space structures. NASA’s Exploration Systems Directorate is not the only organization interested in these technologies. DARPA, the military’s high-risk, high-reward research arm is working to develop the same capabilities.

At this moment, DARPA’s Orbital Express mission is testing out these technologies on orbit. Launched on March 8, the mission consists of two purpose built vehicles: ASTRO, and NextSat. The two spacecraft were boosted into space together on an Atlas V and are scheduled to separate, and then rendezvous and re-dock. Before separation, they have some impressive mission goals. ASTRO carries an extra supply of hydrazine, and will demonstrate refueling techniques by transferring the liquid to NextSat. ASTRO is also equipped with a robotic arm, resembling the little brother of that on the Shuttle and the ISS. The arm will replace electronics components on NextSat with spares carried on ASTRO. If all goes well, ASTRO will demonstrate rendezvous, docking, refueling, assembly, and repair capabilities.

All of these are on NASA’s wish list, if for different reasons than those of the Defense Department. In fact, NASA engineers are heavily involved in Orbital Express, and supplied software and sensors to the program. Although DARPA sees vital national security uses for these technologies, they also envision spawning a military/civilian space infrastructure around in-space servicing of satellites and manned facilities.

Of course, success is not guaranteed. DARPA’s first attempt at autonomous rendezvous and docking failed spectacularly two years ago when DART bumped into it’s docking target and sent it into a new orbital path. Perhaps that is why they are testing out the refueling and repair systems before undocking and performing rendezvous maneuvers. If successful, it will have applications for crew and cargo delivery to the ISS in Orion or COTS capsules. It will allow for robotic missions to upgrade future orbiting telescopes. There are many possible applications that we are only beginning to dimly perceive.

Cloning Cows February 9, 2007

Posted by Brian Pfeifer in Future Development, clone.
add a comment

It looks like the FDA is poised to approve cloned cattle for human consumption. While the expensive of cloning makes it unlikely that we’ll be eating clones any time soon, it does suggest how cloning may be employed profitably in the near future. Most cows don’t snuggle up to their favorite bull anymore. Artificial insemination is the standard practice, and pedigreed semen can sell for a surprising price. While it may not be worth it to clone an animal destined for your dinner table, a more likely scenario is to create a clone of an aging prize bull. The semen from the clone should sell just as well as that from the original. It will be financially rewarding sectors like this that will provide the real impetus to perfect cloning techniques.

While beef may be big business, the way horse breeders spend money, I’m surprised we haven’t heard of cloning attempts in that arena. Stud fees for horse dramatically eclipse those for cattle. And think if you could raise and train a dozen clones of a thoroughbred winner. Some are bound to lose out due to injuries, but at least one should be a champion like the original. On the day that a clone wins the Kentucky Derby, cloning will have come into its own.

What of the moral implications of cloning? Through the process of selective breeding we have been manipulating genetic lines of animals and plants for the entire history of farming and animal husbandry. If we look at it in the same light, we can at least wrap our heads around it. As for cloning humans, we should think of it like any other medical procedure. First, do no harm. After that, it’s a matter of individual moral understanding. Cloning is in our future. Its possible benefits are too great for us to simply turn away from it. Can it be abused? Certainly, but so can any other technology we’ve developed. It’s in the application that we demonstrate our wisdom, or lack thereof.