As reported by Motor Authority: Facebook's purchaseof OculusVR may be making headlines, but Ford has liked its virtual-reality technology for some time. In its Virtual Reality Immersion Lab, the Dearborn automaker uses Oculus Rift headsets to evaluate the exterior and interior designs of cars that don't exist in the physical world, at least, not yet. Once they don a headset, engineers can explore virtual vehicles while motion-capture cameras track their movements and coordinate with software to match the digital presentation with their movements in the physical world. This allows Ford to evaluate designs without having to spend time crafting mockups. Engineers can walk around a virtual car to preview its exterior design, or "get in" to see if the interior layout will work once the car leaves the design studio and is put in the hands of customers.
Virtual reality speeds up the design process, Ford says. The Rift system can switch between different lighting conditions so engineers can see, for example, how a car will look in bright sunlight and compare it to how it would look on a cloudy day. Employees in Dearborn can also link with counterparts in Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, and India, keeping everyone on the same page.
The technology also gives Ford engineers X-ray vision. They can--virtually--see through a vehicle's structure, which helps when making decisions about the packaging of mechanical hardware, and changes to the design that might interfere with hard points.
So while it's unclear what Facebook's plans for Oculus are, it seems Ford has found plenty of use for virtual reality.
As reported by IT World: A little-known U.S. space plane quietly broke its own space endurance record this week as its current unmanned mission surpassed 469 days in space.
Much of the information about the X-37B and its mission is classified, but the little that is public points to it being a development vehicle for new Air Force space capabilities while serving a secondary role for the U.S. military and intelligence community as a testbed for new space-based surveillance technologies.
The current mission, dubbed USA-240, is the third for the X-37B and began on Dec. 11, 2012, atop an Atlas V rocket at Cape Canaveral. The spacecraft is taken into orbit on a rocket but lands like the space shuttle by gliding down to Earth.
That isn't the only similarity it shares with the space shuttle. It looks visually similar, sort of like a mini shuttle, and it, too, started life as a NASA project. The space agency solicited proposals in 1998 for projects that would push the boundaries of space development and exploration, and later awarded Boeing a $137 million contract for the X-37.
Originally envisioned as something that would be launched from the shuttle to test reusable launch vehicle technology, the X-37 never made it into space and eventually was transferred from NASA to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2004.
That's when it moved into the shadows.
It didn't emerge again until April 22, 2010, when the Air Force launched an Atlas rocket carrying what had been renamed the X-37B. Details of the mission were kept secret, but soon after launch, amateur satellite hunters spotted the X-37B orbiting the Earth at about the same altitude as military satellites.
The mission lasted 240 days, ending with a landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on Dec. 3, 2010.
A second mission, using a second spacecraft, took to the skies just under three months later, on March 5, 2011. The gap allowed engineers to make some changes to the craft based on what had been learned in the first flight.
Again, little information was forthcoming from the Air Force, but the flight turned out to be a record breaker. Though the mission was designed to last up to 270 days, the Air Force said it would push past that point and kept the X-37B in orbit until June 16, 2012 -- a total of 469 days in space -- ending again at Vandenberg.
The current mission has now surpassed that record-breaking second flight.
The X-37B program appears to be aimed at giving the Air Force a space plane that can stay aloft for long periods, return to Earth and then be turned around fast and put back into orbit, said Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an authority on satellites and launches.
"The Air Force now has a policy of acquiring capabilities rather than missions, so some general somewhere probably thinks it would be spiffy to have a space plane that can launch at short notice," he said. "It's worthwhile learning lessons from the shuttle and how to do turn-arounds cheaper."
Mystery surrounds the actual missions being undertaken during these flights, but McDowell thinks it's serving a similar role as the space shuttle by carrying a science or intelligence payload.
"I believe it's testing some kind of experimental sensor for the National Reconnaissance Office; for example, a hyperspectral imager, or some new kind of signals intelligence package," said McDowell. "The sensor was more successful than expected, so the payload customer asked the X-37 folks to keep the spacecraft in orbit longer."
That theory is backed up by comments made by the Air Force to The Christian Science Monitor before its first flight that it would be involved in "various experiments" that will allow "satellite sensors, subsystems, components and associated technology" to be taken to space and back.
Another clue to the X-37B's role might be in its control within the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office, a Washington, D.C., unit that attempts to fast-track new technologies to help deal with specific threats that might have a short lifespan. That's distinctly different from the rest of the Air Force's space operations.
The Rapid Capabilities Office officially reports to senior U.S. military leaders but also,according to Aviation Week and Space Technology, exists as a "little acknowledged interface between the Air Force and the intelligence community."
As reported by RT.com: Alaska is poised to become the third US state to ban use of unmanned
aircraft, or drones, by hunters, as several other states have taken
steps to curb use of the technology when in pursuit of wild game.
On March 17, the Alaska Board of Game approved a regulatory
proposal that would prohibit hunters from using unmanned aerial
vehicles to locate and track game. The state’s Department of Law
is expected to approve the rule on July 1, the Anchorage Daily
News reported.
Alaska Wildlife Troopers proposed the rule change to the Game
Board after hearing of a drone-assisted moose kill in the state
in 2012. The practice is not widespread, but the troopers say the
increasingly cheap and advanced technology has the capability to
transform the state’s game hunting landscape.
"Under hunting regulations, unless it specifically says that
it's illegal, you're allowed to do it," Capt. Bernard
Chastain, operations commander for the Wildlife Troopers, said.
"What happens a lot of times is technology gets way ahead of
regulations, and the hunting regulations don't get a chance to
catch up for quite a while."
Last month, Montana banned drone use in hunting, as did Colorado
in January. Idaho and Wisconsin include drones in their current
prohibitions against “use of aircraft to hunt, to harass hunters,
or to disturb wildlife,” according to Fox News.
In addition, hunting groups in New Mexico, Vermont, and Wyoming
have started efforts to outlaw drone use.
“We feel that the use of drones to aid in hunting is
inappropriate and overwhelming technology that would essentially
undermine the concept of fair-chase hunting,” Eric Nuse,
leader of the initiative in Vermont, told Fox.
Nuse - former executive director Orion, The Hunter’s Institute -
echoed the Alaska troopers’ rationale for pushing a drone ban
despite limited evidence at present of hunting use.
“We want to make sure it doesn’t get a foothold,” he
said. “We see this as a great chance for abuse and before
people have invested a lot of money in this technology let’s
speak up first.”
Colorado’s law was spurred by hunters who do not want drones to
give sportsmen an unfair technological advantage.
“We prefer not to see regulations as a general rule,”
said Tim Brass, a spokesman for Colorado’s Backcountry Hunters
& Anglers. “Sportsmen have a tradition of policing
themselves. This was part of our effort to do that.”
Brass said a YouTube video of a drone tracking a moose in Norway
encouraged him to pursue a drone rule in Colorado.
“Hunting should remain an activity of skill and woodcraft,
not just technology,” Brass’ group said after the Colorado
Parks & Wildlife Commission voted to ban drones. The group
added that drones could have legitimate uses for agriculture and
search and rescue missions, for example.
Related, in December, Fox highlighted a Louisiana exterminator who uses a
drone to hunt feral pigs that have severely damaged crops and wildlife
throughout the South.
As reported by Motor Authority: About a year ago Motor Authority brought you the first details on a flywheel-based hybrid system Volvo is developing that could reduce fuel consumption by up to 25 percent. Volvo has since partnered with Flybrid Automotive, part of transmission specialist Torotrak, to further develop the technology and eventually bring it to production. The way the system works is that whenever a driver hits the brakes, such as during the approach to a red light, kinetic energy that would otherwise be lost as heat is transferred from the wheels to a Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) mounted to the axle not driven by the engine. The kinetic energy spools up a flywheel inside the KERS, in essence storing the energy for as much as 20 minutes before it begins to disperse. When the driver hits the gas pedal, the stored energy is transferred back to the wheels via a specially designed transmission, and can either boost power or reduce load on the engine. To maximize efficiency, the flywheel is made out of carbon fiber and weighs just over 13 pounds. It’s contained within a vacuum and spins at up to 60,000 rpm. The system is designed so that the engine is also switched off as soon as braking begins. The energy in the flywheel can then be used to accelerate the vehicle when it is time to move off again--even without the engine. Volvo says the KERS can deliver as much as 80 horsepower. As you may have guessed, the system would be most efficient during stop-start city driving.
With the pedal floored, drivers should experience boost for around 10 seconds. And since conventional brakes develop such a huge amount of energy, which is normally wasted, even gentle braking for eight seconds will fully recharge the KERS. That’s much quicker than what a conventional electric hybrid needs to charge up its batteries, and the flywheel-based system has the added benefit that it is cheaper to produce and maintain. It's also a lot lighter: the prototype KERS weighs only around 130 pounds. A 254-horsepower S60 T5 prototype Volvo is using to test the system can accelerate from 0-62 mph in just 5.5 seconds, which is about 1.5 seconds quicker than the regular S60 T5. Better still, the KERS creates a part-time ‘through-the-road’ all-wheel-drive system to add extra traction and stability under acceleration since its attached to the axle not driven by the engine. So when might we see in production? A Volvo engineer told Autocar that “some form of KERS” would be inevitable on production cars after 2020.
As reported by CBS NY: Texting and driving is dangerous but a new survey finds talking on a cellphone while behind the wheel may be even worse.
As WCBS 880′s Paul Murnane reported from Stamford, the National Safety Council’s annual report found 26 percent of all crashes are tied to phone use, but noted just 5 percent involved texting.
“Everybody’s on a telephone. If people do cut you off, you look and
they’re talking on the telephone. I think they are a problem.” a driver
told Murnane. “Hands-free or not.”
“People just get too involved in the conversation. Either pull over or wait,” said another man.
A spokesperson for the non-profit Governors Highway Safety
Association told Marketwatch.com that it may be that drivers are more
comfortable calling than texting in a moving vehicle.
The group believes the data on distracted crashes is underreported.
Big city taxi systems could be 40% more efficient with device
enabled taxi sharing.
As reported by the Medium: Everything today is about information and algorithms for processing it. Think of what Google’s PageRank algorithm did for web search, transforming an impenetrable jungle of web pages into an easy-to-use and hugely powerful information resource. That was then, in the late 1990s. Now think taxis. In New York City, people take more than 100 million taxi trips every year, as individual parties hail cabs or book them by phone to suit their own needs. Taxis, as a result, criss-cross the city in a tangle of disorganized mayhem. Cabs run in parallel up and down Madison Avenue, often carrying isolated people along the same path. Those people could share a cab, yet lack a mechanism to achieve that coordination. But that mechanism might soon exist, and it could make taxi transport everywhere a lot more efficient. That’s the message of some fascinating new research by a group of network theorists (the paper is unpublished, currently under review at a journal). It’s fairly mathematical, and relies on some technical results from graph theory (as did Google’s PageRank algorithm), but the basic insight from which it starts is quite simple: a good fraction of the trips that taxis take in a city overlap, at least partially, and so present opportunities for people to share cabs. Using real data from NYC, they’ve shown that a simple algorithm can calculate which rides could easily be shared by two parties without causing either much delay. In principle, the algorithm could be exploited by smart phones to help people organize themselves — it could make NYC taxi system 40% more efficient, reducing miles traveled, pollution, and costs.
7 days of taxi traffic history.
A little more detail: Imagine that you label every taxi ride by its origin and destination, plus departure and arrival time. Represent each such ride by a point on some very big page. For NYC in 2011, there were some 150 million rides starting or ending in Manhattan, so imagine a page with 150 million points on it, each labelled by the above data. These points, in effect, show you all the taxi rides that took place to get people in NYC to the places they wanted to go. What Santi and colleagues do is to ask whether some of these rides might have been “shareable,” in the sense that they actually traveled along parallel routes (or between the same points, along different routes) at close to the same time. If so, then people given the right knowledge could have shared a portion of the trip. This huge collection of points becomes a mathematical graph once you begin linking together the points for any pair of rides that are “shareable.” By studying the properties of this graph, the researchers show that if people were willing to be delayed by up to ten minutes on their journeys, then there are roughly 100 billion pairs of trips that were shareable. If people are more choosy — unwilling to accept more than a five minutes delay — then fewer rides become shareable, but still enough to reduce the total miles driven by taxis by 40%. That 40% might be slightly optimistic, they note, given the constraints on any network system attempting to process this information in real time (and thereby having less than perfect knowledge of the whole set of taxi journeys). The point is that people make their decisions about taxis in an information vacuum, knowing only what they require themselves, and nothing about all the other taxi needs of others around them. Information vacuum isn't good. How many times have you needed a taxi and waited as ten of them zipped by, all traveling in your direction, with each one carrying just one or two passengers? For a few minute delay, many of those people might have been wiling to save some money by sharing part of the ride. To make this happen requires information and algorithms to sift through it, plus a means for sharing this information with everyone who wants it. All of which may be a reality soon. For more detail on this work, see the website of the HubCab project.
As reported by Space News: The European Commission’s argument that its Galileo satellite positioning,
navigation and timing program is a hedge against the day when the U.S.
government arbitrarily shuts off GPS — for whatever reason — has been a driving
political motivation for Galileo since the project’s beginning in the
mid-1990s.
So has the idea that GPS, which is funded mainly by the U.S. Defense
Department, should be seen as inherently unreliable for non-military users
compared to compared to Galileo, which is 100 percent financed by civil
authorities.
U.S. government officials — military and civil — have gone hoarse over the
years explaining that GPS has been formally declared a dual-use system overseen
by a civil-military board. The infrastructure, often described as a global
utility, generates thousands of jobs and billions in annual commercial revenue
and underpins the global financial system in addition to being the default
positioning and navigation service for the NATO alliance.
A scenario in which GPS would be simply shut down — outside of limited-area
jamming during a war — is inconceivable, they say. Despite these assurances, and
perhaps because of Galileo’s unstable financial history, the commission
continues to wave the GPS-shutoff-threat shibboleth.
Here is an example of it from the commission’s “Why we need Galileo”
brochure:
“How secure is your security?
“From the beginning, the American GPS system has been aimed at providing a
key strategic advantage to the U.S. and allied military troops on the
battlefield. Today, the free GPS signal is also used around the world by
security forces such as the police.
“Stieg Hansen is a retired military officer from Malmo now representing a
large producer of security systems. Today he is speaking to a group of people at
an important trade show. Behind him, a bold sign reads, ‘GPS for Security.’ His
audience includes a number of stern men and women, and one person who looks like
a journalist.
“‘The Stryker, as we like to call it in the field, is the hand-held GPS
receiver for domestic security.’ Brandishing a notebook-sized electronic device,
he continues: ‘This little baby has all the hardware you will ever need to
locate, mobilize and coordinate your security team, wherever they may be.’
“Someone in the audience calls out: ‘What if GPS gets cut off?’
“Hansen hesitates, does not look at the person asking the question, then
continues: ‘Most European governments have placed restrictions on the sale and
use of this little baby, due to the powerful electronics inside. Very robust,
very difficult to jam.’
“‘What if the little baby can’t get GPS?’
“‘This little bab…,’ Hansen stops short before finishing the word. ‘This
device’s primary mission is to provide positioning support, velocity, navigation
and timing to all land-based security operations, including police forces in
pursuit of criminals or transporting dangerous prisoners, border guards in
anti-smuggling operations and…’
“‘He’s not answering the question,’ someone murmurs. Other members of the
audience are now looking at each other. One person says to his neighbor, ‘That’s
right. What if GPS stops working?’ Hansen takes a step backwards.”
The pamphlet ends by saying: “The stories presented in this brochure are
fictitious. Any resemblance to real events or persons is purely
coincidental.”
