As reported by IBTimes: The Tesla Model S may be one of the fastest cars on the road, but its speed doesn't automatically make it a good cop car.
The Los Angeles Police Department recently acquired two electric vehicles for its enforcement fleet: a BMW i3 and a Tesla Model S. The i3 will handle light duty like traffic enforcement and neighborhood patrols, but the Tesla has been painted as the ultimate destroyer of police pursuits; vehicle pursuits are one of the LAPD’s greatest challenges, but the Tesla Model S won’t eliminate car chases. In fact, it really shouldn’t even be involved. Now, don’t get me wrong. The Model S is a fantastic car by just about all accounts -- the P85D version recently broke Consumer Reports’ grading scale -- but it doesn’t belong as a police pursuit vehicle. Just because the Model S is faster than most things on the road, that doesn’t make it fit for police pursuits. The Price
First and foremost, the Tesla Model S is a luxury car. This is by no means a cheap vehicle, even at its cheapest civilian price ($70,000). Add to that all of the specialized equipment and systems a police cruiser requires, and you’ve got a very, very expensive tool, with equally pricey repair costs; by way of comparison, a fully loaded Dodge Charger Police Package when new typically cost about $45,000 a few years ago. The quickest Tesla Model S, the one that would “end all pursuits,” starts north of $100,000 and that’s without any police equipment. Will the LAPD really want to put such a prominent vehicle in harm’s way, knowing the enormous repair cost? It would become a PR nightmare, once the local press discovers the costs (which would be paid with public funds, after all). The Ability Yes, the Model S is extremely fast. In P85D and P90D guise, it’ll rocket to 60 mph in under three seconds, and it would continue to outpace and outrun most conventional vehicles well into triple-digit speeds. But should a criminal pursuit become a high-speed battle of attrition, the Model S would lose some of its quick-acceleration advantage. Prolonged acceleration heats the battery systems of the Model S, and the car automatically reduces power. Unlike the traditional highway patrol cars, the Model S can’t be fast for the entire pursuit. Not that it will be allowed to reach those speeds very often. Extremely high speed pursuits are already spearheaded by law enforcement helicopters, to give fast-moving suspects breathing room for an inevitable mistake. Never mind that there’s not much out there that can outrun a basic LAPD helicopter (the Eurocopter AS350B2, with a top speed of 178 mph). The Procedure Typical high-speed freeway chases usually end with a cavalcade of LAPD Ford Crown Victorias or Dodge Chargers following the suspect from a distance. Through the streets, pursuing officers often have to get aggressive, charging over medians and physically pushing suspects into submission. The Tesla Model S is a fantastic car, but it’s just not built to withstand the kind of abuse that police vehicles typically see.
Old Ford Crown Victorias, new Ford Tauruses, Dodge Chargers, Chevrolet Impalas and Caprices were built specifically to handle these law enforcement duties, en masse and (comparably) inexpensively. When one is broken, it’s not a particularly complicated matter to fix it or replace it, but despite Tesla’s popularity surge, they’re rare and expensive vehicles. It’s good that the LAPD has added a couple of EVs to its fleet, but this doesn’t spell the end for police pursuits. Not yet. Horses aren't great police pursuit vehicles either, but the NYPD keeps mounted units for visibility and public relations. So think of the LAPD's Model S as the Los Angeles equivalent: a community relations tool or statement about a more efficient car-based society.
As reported by The Verge: Behind self-driving, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication is one of the biggest sea changes in transportation technology on the horizon — it could have an enormous impact on driving safety, if it's implemented quickly and correctly. The concept is pretty simple: cars, signs, and traffic signals all communicate to one another over Wi-Fi-like airwaves, so that drivers (and automatic safety systems built into cars) have more information about the traffic and environment around them. (Here is a compelling demo of V2V techput on by Ford at CES a couple years ago, and I can say that the promise is pretty huge.)
There's no federal rule in place for requiring V2V yet, but the US Department of Transportation is hoping to get those rules in place by the end of this year — and in the meantime, it's rolling out huge new pilot programs to put the technology to the test. In the New York City boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn, traffic signals will be equipped with V2I hardware, while up to 10,000 city-owned vehicles will be outfitted with V2V. (It's unclear whether drivers of these vehicles will have access to the data through instrumentation, or whether it's just being collected as part of the DOT's ongoing V2V research.)
As part of the same announcement, the DOT is awarding $17 million to Tampa to try to alleviate rush hour congestion with V2V tech and "to protect the city's pedestrians by equipping their smartphones with the same connected technology being put into the vehicles," while the state of Wyoming will be spinning up a pilot program to track heavy-duty trucks along Interstate 80.
The promise of V2V is pretty huge: imagine being warned of a chain-reaction collision several cars in front of you that you can't see, for instance, or a disabled truck that can let you know to stay clear of the right lane ahead. And it might not be that far off — even though the rules aren't set in stone yet, GM has already committed to starting its roll-out to production cars sometime in 2016. In fact, the DOT's press release is even more optimistic, saying we could see V2V in "early 2016."
As reported by Gizmodo: Google just hired a man who’s worked in the automotive industry for 25 years, John Krafcik, to lead the company’s self-driving vehicle project as Google Auto’s CEO. This hire is big. Why? Because it’s the first major hire from the automaker side of the road.
Picking Krafcik to lead Google Auto is a sign that Google may be preparing to push the driverless car project outside the Google X safety bubble eventually. There have been other signs too, like the aggressive testing Google’s done on the streets of California. Plus the project was recently given the green light to test in Texas.
It’s no cross-country trek, but these tests do prove just how serious the company is about getting these driverless cars ready for mass production. It’s still not clear whether or not Google will be doing the actual producing, but the company is setting up an infrastructure to lead its experiment into the realm of a real company: Krafcik used to be the CEO for Hyundai Motor America and was with Ford before that. Currently he’s the president of a auto sales and pricing site called TrueCar. He’ll be joining the Google Auto later in September.
The company has said it doesn’t plan on taking its driverless cars out on their own anytime soon. But Krafcik’s hire definitely means the project now has the option to do so when the time is right.
As reported by Fortune: Several big names in the cellular communications industry are backing a company called Ingenu that this week launched what it hopes will be a nationwide wireless network dedicated to the Internet of things.
Richard Lynch, the former CTO of Verizon Communications, is chairman of the Ingenu board. John Horn, the former CEO of Raco Wireless, a machine-to-machine (M2M) company that worked closely with T-Mobile and was purchased by Kore Wireless, is the CEO.
On the board and acting as advisors for Ingenu are Ivan Seidenberg, former CEO of Verizon Communications, and Dr. Andrew Viterbi, former CTO of Qualcomm. So what do these men see in Ingenu, which was formerly marketing the same technology as On Ramp Wireless? The company has raised more than $100 million from GE Ventures, ConocoPhillips, NRG Energy, Third Wave Ventures, and others to build a wireless data network using a technology called RPMA, which stands for random phase multiple access. Without delving too deeply into the exciting world of spectrum management and modulation, they are building a network for low-bandwidth data transmissions using the same frequency band as Wi-Fi.
The idea behind what Ingenu calls The Machine Network is that companies can use the network to transmit very small amounts of data over fairly long distances at a low cost and be assured that they will arrive. The network also uses pretty significant security on the packets, which means that the data transmissions will be secure. The network will compete with similar low-data-rate networks for the Internet of things, such as those being built by SigFox in Europe and San Francisco. It will also compete with the LTE and 3G cellular networks that the carriers offer, although the argument against cellular networks is that those networks have so much more capacity and are generally more expensive, so using them for small scale transmissions from Internet of things is akin to using a firehose when a faucet will do.
Ingenu has built test networks in Dallas and Phoenix, which are popular places in the U.S. to test wireless networks of all kinds. It’s physically easy to set up wireless networks in those cities because of the lack of water and topography to interfere with the spectrum. The company has an ambitious plan and lots of capital, but what it is attempting is a big bet. History is littered with failed attempts to build new wireless networks. And while Ingenu has experienced executives on its side, there are several issues that could stand in its way.The first is the network infrastructure. Ingenu says that it will need towers every 300 square miles to deliver a signal, which is actually not that bad. Most cellular networks require towers to be far closer together. However, on the receiving side, any device that wants to receive the Ingenu signal will require a special radio. Ingenu plans to license the radio technology out to other vendors since it doesn’t want to be in the hardware business. Still, any specialized radio product is going to add costs no matter who manufactures it.
There’s also an issue about how the Ingenu describes the RPMA technology in its technical white paper. It explains that it can distance its towers (which lowers its tower-siting costs) so much because it turns up the power on its antennas, which essentially makes them “shout” louder to be heard over many miles. This is fine for the towers, which have an external power supply, but for the receiving device, this could lead to problems when they are trying to send messages back to the tower. The louder a device “shouts” to be heard the bigger a drain the signal is on the battery, which means that any device on this network needs both a proprietary radio and significant battery power. That may limit the types of devices this network could be used for to larger items or those that don’t need to communicate as often.
That’s not a deal killer, but there’s also a philosophical issue with these low-data rate networks—will they be enough over time? The Machine Network offers 624 kbps download speeds, which is enough for tiny instructions and 156 kbps upload speeds, which is enough for basic time, temperature, and other sensor data. However, the network’s planned capacity could quickly become eclipsed by the needs of future products connected to the Internet of things. Take what happened with OnStar for example. It was once enough to have basic 2G cellular radios in cars for OnStar service, but once faster access was available software updates, real-time navigation, and streaming music all became must-have features.
A sensor that today reports temperature data may be repurposed tomorrow with a lens to deliver images or a mic to send sound. At that point, the low-data-rate networks look pretty old-fashioned.
Ingenu plans to offer its services to smart city, smart grid, and other Internet of things customers. It has not disclosed any customers at this time, but it says it has more than 35 networks across the globe in operation.
As reported by Mashable: It was about time: Crew Dragon, SpaceX's new spacecraft designed for crewed missions to the International Space Station andbeyond, finally gives astronauts the level of comfort they deserve.
The first photos and video of Crew Dragon's interior, published Thursday, show a sleek, modern space with four windows, seats made of "highest-grade" carbon fiber and Alcantara cloth, and plenty of displays to provide the crew with real-time info on the spacecraft's situation.
According to SpaceX, the astronauts aboard the Crew Dragon will be able to set the interior temperature to between 65 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit, using the built-in Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS). The capsule also has an advanced emergency escape system (which was tested in May), and all of its functions can be controlled both autonomously, by astronauts on board, or by SpaceX's mission control on Earth.
SpaceX currently holds a contract with NASA to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station, with the first flights expected to start by 2017.
Boeing, which also holds a contract to fly crew to the Space Station for NASA, gave a new name to its spacecraft for crewed missions just last week, calling it the CST-100 Starliner. The Starliner is designed to carry seven astronauts, and is expected to make its first flight to the ISS in 2017.
Crew Dragon has a multitude of displays, providing the capsule's passengers with vital, real-time info.
Right now, NASA buys seats for American astronauts on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft to get to the ISS. The Commercial Crew Program will hopefully change that, though the funding for the program has not yet been fully sorted out, causing NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to send a sternly worded letter to Congress back in August.
As reported by Fortune: In a remote Nevada desert, a cell phone tower is operating largely from electricity generated by solar panels and stored in a collection of lithium-ion batteries. When the batteries are close to empty, a backup generator kicks in, but the ample sunshine in the baking desert means the generator is rarely used.
The gear was built by Japanese electronics giant Panasonic, and it’s one of two that rural wireless carrier Commnet Wireless is using to power isolated cell phone towers far from the power grid in Nevada. Panasonic is working with energy management partner PowerOasis on the wireless industry system, called Green Tower.
The technology is one of the first examples of Panasonic—through its North American division Panasonic Eco Solutions— selling grid energy storage technology in the U.S., outside of selling its batteries to U.S. partners like Tesla. And it might not be the last.
Jamie Evans, managing director of Panasonic Eco Solutions, tells Fortune that Panasonic is “exploring” and “considering” other ways to directly sell grid energy storage in North America. That could include battery banks connected to the power grid, enabling utilities to better manage electricity supply and demand, or paired with solar projects to enable the use of solar energy at night.
But the Green Tower tech is the only one Panasonic has “launched and is actively pursuing in the U.S.” says Evans.
An off grid battery pack and solar panel system from Panasonic is tapped by a cell phone tower in Nevada.Photo courtesy of Panasonic.
Panasonic is a massive electronics company that makes and sells batteries worldwide. In addition, Panasonic works with partners like Tesla that use batteries for their businesses.
The various arms and business models mean Panasonic can sometimes be a partner and supplier to a company like Tesla, while also being a competitor. Its partner relationships can be complicated.
For years, Panasonic has been providing batteries for Tesla’s electric cars, enabling Panasonic to become the leading electric car battery supplier in the nascent electric car market. Tesla and Panasonic have also agreed to be key partners when it comes to building Tesla’s large battery factory, known as the Gigafactory, just outside of Reno, Nev.
But both Panasonic and Tesla are increasingly interested in selling battery systems to utilities, commercial building owners and homeowners. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said that his company, which unveiled its grid battery products in May, has seen high demand.
That’s because the market for energy storage is growing rapidly in some regions. In the U.S. there will be an estimated 220 megawatts of energy storage projects installed this year, mostly using lithium-ion batteries. That’s the equivalent of energy stored to power about 220,000 homes. By 2019, deployments could reach 858 megawatts of energy storage.
The rise of the market has attracted big companies and startups alike. Venture capital-backed tech companies like Stem and Advanced Microgrid Solutions have introduced energy storage businesses that are growing quickly. Meanwhile, older companies like GE have created their own energy storage divisions, and have been actively signing new deals with utilities.
Panasonic Eco Solutions is Panasonic’s North American arm that focuses on selling clean energy products and services to businesses and utilities. Over the past five years, the division has largely focused on building and operating solar panel farms, but it is now looking to expand. While the division is tiny compared to the rest of the company, Evans describes the group as “entrepreneurial-minded” and “growing rapidly.”
Panasonic wants to be a battery supplier for this new and growing market. But it also appears to be moving toward being a service provider that builds and operates energy storage. In addition Panasonic wants to be a brand associated with energy storage, not necessarily just the Intel-inside for batteries.
Panasonic already sells a battery system for homes in its own domestic market, Japan. A home owner can power most of their home’s energy use just from the solar energy generated by the panel and stored in the battery.
Europe and Australia are also potential new markets for Panasonic’s grid batteries. A couple of months ago, Panasonic announced a new deal to test its home battery systems with utilities in Australia. And recently Bloomberg reported that Panasonic plans to sell its home batteries in Europe, first in Germany, and then moving into France and the U.K.
Tesla, too, has been interested in selling its home batteries to customers in Germany because of the large amount of solar in the country. Indeed, German company Sonnenbatterie has already sold thousands of battery systems to customers there using lithium-ion batteries from Sony.
The market for energy storage is still young, and is just starting to grow. There will be room for many companies and many kinds of technology.
As the market grows, it will also help companies determine what part of energy storage is the most valuable. Is it the core chemistry inside the battery? Is it the cooling or power management systems that maintain the batteries? Is it the algorithms that automatically decide to charge and discharge the batteries when needed? Or is it the design of the battery packs?
All of the above will be important in different ways for different uses. But as the market matures, these answers will help companies figure out how best to get into the energy storage market.
It is designed to complement the American Global Positioning System (GPS), while at the same time introducing extra precision for users.
Although dedicated services based on the European network will not be made available until at least 14 operational satellites are in orbit, the signals from every new addition in the sky can be exploited by receiving devices with compatible chipsets.
"There are a number of chipsets that have been developed and are in the market deployed in smartphones and navigation equipment for cars, for instance," explained Javier Benedicto, the Galileo programme manager at the European Space Agency (Esa is the EC's procurement agent).
"Those chipsets are already able to combine the Galileo signals with the GPS signals. That converts into an improvement of the availability of the navigation service which is experienced by GPS users today."
Image copyrightESAImage captionGalileo is designed to have three planes of 10 satellites each (two spacecraft in each plane will act as spares)
The development path to a "European GPS" has been a tortuous one. The project is years late, and the completion cost - expected to be some €7bn by 2020 - is substantially higher than that originally foreseen by EU member states.
But Didier Faivre, the director of navigation at Esa, said the delivery cadence agreed in 2013 was being maintained.
"The famous '30 satellites by 2020' motto is our goal, and we're confident we can do it with additional procurement initiated this year," he told BBC News.
The satellites for Galileo are being made by a German-UK consortium. OHB System of Bremen is the industrial prime contractor and assembles every spacecraft bus, or chassis. The navigation payloads, including the atomic clocks that are at the heart of any sat-nav concept, are prepared in Guildford by Surrey Satellite Technology Limited.
Image copyrightESAImage captionArtist's impression of an OHB-SSTL Galileo satellite in orbit
The consortium is now churning out two satellites every three months.
A pair is currently waiting to be shipped to French Guiana's Kourou spaceport from Esa's test centre in the Netherlands for another Soyuz launch in December. A further duo (these would be numbers 13 and 14) will soon enter final testing before also being shipped to Kourou.
Esa plans just one launch in 2016, sending up a quartet of satellites on the much bigger Ariane 5 rocket. The year 2017 would likely see two launches - one pair of spacecraft lofted by Soyuz, and another quartet on an Ariane.
To date, the EC has only ordered 26 satellites, so it will need soon to order more if it wants to attain the magic number of 30. However, the next procurement will almost certainly call for more than four platforms because of problems with three spacecraft already in orbit.
It is not clear yet whether this trio will be able to take their place in the final constellation. One had a power failure and can no longer broadcast on all its frequencies, and the other two were put in an incorrect orbit by their Soyuz rocket.
Engineers plan to make changes to Galileo's ground systems to take account of these inadequacies, but it is by no means certain that these modifications will allow the degraded satellites to assume a fully functional role in the network.
