the good word groundswell

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Solar Impulse Completes its Round-The-World Journey

As reported by Engadget: In March 2015 Solar Impulse 2 took off from Abu Dhabi and tonight it has successfully returned, completing a 40,000km+ round the world trip. It managed the feat "without using a drop of fuel," becoming the first to manage the feat thanks to sunlight, piloted by Bertrand Piccard and Andre Borschberg. Its arrival is a bit delayed, partially due to some problems withheat-related battery damage, but just making the trip helps the project's goal to show off the potential of transportation powered by green energy sources.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Google Cuts Its Giant Electricity Bill With DeepMind-Powered AI

As reported by Bloomberg Technology: Google just paid for part of its acquisition of DeepMind in a surprising way.

The internet giant is using technology from the DeepMind artificial intelligence subsidiary for big savings on the power consumed by its data centers, according to DeepMind Co-Founder Demis Hassabis.

In recent months, the Alphabet Inc. unit put a DeepMind AI system in control of parts of its data centers to reduce power consumption by manipulating computer servers and related equipment like cooling systems. It uses a similar technique to DeepMind software that taught itself to play Atari video games, Hassabis said in an interview at a recent AI conference in New York.

The system cut power usage in the data centers by several percentage points, "which is a huge saving in terms of cost but, also, great for the environment," he said.

The savings translate into a 15 percent improvement in power usage efficiency, or PUE, Google said in a statement. PUE measures how much electricity Google uses for its computers, versus the supporting infrastructure like cooling systems.

Google said it used 4,402,836 MWh of electricity in 2014, equivalent to the average yearly consumption of about 366,903 U.S. family homes. A significant proportion of Google’s spending on electricity comes from its data centers, which support its globe-spanning web services and mobile apps.

Saving a few percentage points of electricity usage means major financial gains for Google. Typical electricity prices companies pay in the U.S. range from about $25 to $40 per MWh, according to datafrom the U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Prices in different regions range from a few dollars to more than $100). Either way, saving 10 percent on data center power consumption, for instance, could translate to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings for Google over multiple years. Google acquired DeepMind in 2014 for 400 million pounds, or more than $600 million at the time, according to The Guardian.

The application of DeepMind’s technology builds on previous efforts by Google to apply machine learning, a type of AI, to its data centers. Back in 2014, the company said it used neural networks, a type of pattern recognition system, to predict how its power usage would change over time, letting it arrange equipment in more efficient ways.

The DeepMind work goes a step further. Instead of making moves in an Atari game, the software changes how equipment runs inside the data centers to get the highest score -- in this case more efficient consumption of electricity.

"It controls about 120 variables in the data centers. The fans and the cooling systems and so on, and windows and other things," Hassabis said. "They were pretty astounded."

This is just the beginning of the project, Hassabis said. Now that DeepMind knows the approach works, it also knows where its AI system lacks information, so it may ask Google to put additional sensors into its data centers to let its software eke out even more efficiency.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

SpaceX Will Attempt to Land Three Rockets at Once

As reported by Gizmodo: Having successfully launched and landed a few single rockets, SpaceX is now planning a simultaneous triple rocket landing. This is going to look cool.

SpaceX told The Orlando Sentinel that it’s seeking government permission for two extra landing pads in preparation for the launch of the new Falcon Heavy rocket. The private spaceflight company says that it might attempt to land its Falcon Heavy rockets on one of its drone barges—a protocol that the SpaceX has nearly perfected in the past year. Eventually, however, SpaceX wants to land three rockets on solid ground. The extra two ports SpaceX hopes to build at Cape Canaveral’s Air Force Base, where the company already has one port, would give it the real estate to do that.

When the Falcon Heavy launches, it will be the world’s most powerful rocket, beating the current title-holder, the Delta IV, with more than twice the power. The Falcon Heavy will be capable of lifting up to 54 tons of weight into space. To get that much thrust, it actually has three separate rocket cores, and that means that the company will need multiple landing pads to successfully save all three rockets.

Musk went on Twitter to further explain that two of those rockets would land practically simultaneously, while the third would arrive after a slight delay. You can see how the process would unfold in this animation the company put together:

Three rocket landings at once certainly sounds like something to see, but Musk also went on to hint at one more landing down the road. While the rocket cores in the Falcon Heavy are designed to return, the upper stage of the rocket is not—not yet anyways. Musk tweeted:

Prob best to stay focused on the Mars rocket, indeed.

Monday, July 18, 2016

SpaceX Launches Critical Space Station Docking Port for NASA

As reported by CBSNews: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket roared to life and streaked into space early Monday, boosting a Dragon cargo ship into orbit loaded with nearly 5,000 pounds of equipment and supplies bound for the International Space Station, including a critical docking mechanism needed by U.S. crew capsules now under construction.

SpaceX also pulled off its fifth first-stage landing and its second touchdown at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Recovering, refurbishing and eventually re-launching Falcon 9 stages is a key element in company founder Elon Musk's ongoing attempt to dramatically lower the cost of spaceflight.

Musk tweeted about it:

But the first-stage recovery Monday was a purely secondary objective.

The mission's primary goal was to boost the SpaceX Dragon cargo ship into orbit and along with it, the long-awaited International Docking Adapter, or IDA.

The half-ton Boeing-built component will replace one that was destroyed in a June 2015 Falcon 9 launch failure and keep NASA on track for initial test flights of the new crew ferry ships in 2017 or 2018.

Also on board the Dragon: 815 pounds of food, clothing and other crew supplies, 280 pounds of spacewalk equipment, 119 pounds of Russian hardware, 617 pounds of U.S. station equipment and spare parts and a full ton of research samples and equipment, including an innovative device the size of a small candy bar to carry out the first gene sequencing in space.

"We're really interested in how this works in microgravity; it's never been done before," said astronaut Kate Rubins, a molecular biologist launched to the space station July 6. "We're going to be trying to do the first DNA sequencing in space, and it'll be a combination of a bacteria, a virus and a mouse genome that we'll be sequencing."

The MinION gene sequencer works by measuring very slight changes in electrical conductivity as DNA components pass through a biological pore. Rubins said the research she hopes to carry out will help scientists better understand the mechanisms behind bone loss, muscle atrophy and other negative aspects of living in microgravity.

"It also has a benefit for Earth-based research as well," she said. "When we do things in a remote environment up here, we can understand how these technologies might work in remote places on Earth that don't have access to good medical care," Rubins said.

Other experiments of interest aboard the Dragon include a study to determine the effects of weightlessness on microorganisms that originated in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster; a study to learn how beating heart cells are affected by weightlessness; tests of an experimental ship tracking system; and another to evaluate a new type of heat exchanger to control spacecraft temperatures.

Also on board: 12 mice that will be returned to Earth aboard the Dragon in late August. The rodents will be studied after the flight to determine how they were affected by exposure to weightlessness.

"This research cargo will support over 280 experiments," said Camille Alleyne, a space station program scientist at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are in a variety of disciplines, including human research, biology and biotechnology, physical sciences, Earth and space sciences, technology demonstration and education."

The latter category includes a cache of tomato seeds that will be distributed to school kids after the flight to find out what effects, if any, might be due to time spent in weightlessness.

Putting on a dramatic overnight sky show under a nearly-full moon, the 20-story tall Falcon 9's nine first stage engines ignited with a torrent of fiery exhaust at 12:45 a.m. EDT, boosting the rocket away from pad 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Liftoff came just 31 hours after launch of a Russian Progress supply ship from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan that is carrying 5,800 pounds of supplies and equipment. If all goes well, the Progress MS-03/64P supply ship will reach the station Monday evening, docking at the Earth-facing Pirs module around 8:22 p.m.

The 229-foot-tall Falcon 9, generating 1.5 million pounds of thrust, initially climbed straight up from launch complex 40 and then arced away to the northeast as it thundered directly into the plane of the space station's orbit.

Spectators, including VIPs and the media, were forced to leave the nearby Kennedy Space Center an hour before liftoff because of recent modifications designed to enable the Dragon's landing parachutes to deploy in the event of a mishap that might leave the capsule -- and its valuable cargo -- intact after a booster failure.

Because forecasters predicted winds that could blow a descending capsule back toward the launch site after an in-flight accident, Air Force range safety officers ordered non-essential personnel to leave the area in case of a landing that could result in the release of toxic propellants.

But the climb away from the Cape was picture perfect. The first-stage engines burned for two minutes and 21 seconds, propelling the rocket out of the dense lower atmosphere before shutting down. A moment later, the first stage fell away and the single engine powering the second stage ignited to continue boosting the Dragon toward orbit.

The first stage, meanwhile, flipped around tail first and carried out the first of three engine firings to halt its forward velocity and begin the flight back to a landing at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Four minutes later, three of the first-stage engines re-ignited to slow the ship for descent back into the discernible atmosphere. Then, about seven-and-a-half minutes after launch, the engines fired back up a third time for landing.

Spectators in nearby Port Canaveral were treated to a spectacular show as the stage descended through a clear night sky atop a jet of fiery exhaust, deploying four landing legs and settling to a smooth touchdown on a pad known as Landing Zone 1. The landing was heralded by two sonic booms that rumbled across the Space Coast.

Going into the mission, SpaceX had made 9 attempts to land a Falcon 9 first stage, chalking up four successes: three on an off-shore "drone ship" and one at the Air Force station last December. The record now stands at five successes in 10 attempts. If all goes well, SpaceX hopes to re-launch its first used booster this fall.

While the first stage was flying back to Florida, the Falcon 9's second stage was boosting the Dragon toward space. Finally, about nine minutes and 37 seconds after liftoff, the Dragon separated from the second stage. A few minutes after that, two solar arrays unfolded and locked in place.

If all goes well, the Dragon will carry out a computer-controlled rendezvous, approaching the station from below early Wednesday. Expedition 48 commander Jeff Williams, operating the lab's robot arm, plans to latch onto the Dragon around 7 a.m. Flight controllers in Houston then will take over arm operations, moving the cargo ship into position for berthing at the forward Harmony module's Earth-facing port.

Friday, July 15, 2016

The Hysteria Over Tesla’s Autopilot Has Been Blown out of Proportion

As reported by BGR.com: Over the past few weeks, Tesla’s Autopilot software has been unfairly singled out and scrutinized as a piece of technology that Tesla recklessly deployed before being 100% ready for day-to-day use. This hysteria against all things Tesla reached a fever pitch this week when Consumer Reports published a self-righteous piece calling for Tesla to disable Autopilot until they get the technology figured out. And late on Thursday, we learned that even the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation directed a letter to Elon Musk asking him or Tesla representative to answer a few questions.

With all of the commotion, speculation and, at times, wild accusations being thrown in Tesla’s direction, you might be forgiven for assuming that Teslas on Autopilot have been running amok like mindless zombies on The Walking Dead and causing accidents by the hundreds.

It’s time to jump back to reality.

Despite an avalanche of hit-pieces and misguided op-eds, it’s far too soon to say with any certainty that Tesla’s Autopilot software has been the direct cause of any specific crash. With respect to the fatal Model S crash that happened in Florida last May, one witness claims that the driver may have been watching a portable DVD player at the time of the crash. Additionally, evidence suggests that the driver (a former Navy SEAL who friends say had a “need for speed“) was likely speeding at the time of the crash.

More recently, it came to light that the widely publicized Model X crash in Montana involving Autopilot was likely the result of a) the feature being used incorrectly and b) the driver ignoring repeated warning alerts to re-assume control of the vehicle.

Just last night, Tesla disclosed that the Model X that crashed and turned itself over on a Pennsylvania highway did not, as it turns out, have the Autopilot software turned on.

Now this isn’t meant to blame the victims, but rather to illustrate that perhaps education about Tesla’s Autopilot software would be more beneficial than blindly casting the technology off as something dangerous and to be avoided.

One area where Tesla may have made a misstep lies in the Autopilot name itself. It certainly works well from a marketing perspective, but calling the feature Autopilot arguably gives drivers a false sense of security: the name suggests, even on an unconscious level, that Teslas are futuristic vehicles capable of traversing through any and all road conditions with ease, all without the need for human assistance.

But in reality, Tesla’s Autopilot software in its current incarnation was only designed to be used in specific conditions, a fact Tesla makes a point of emphasizing.

The Autosteer feature in particular, Tesla informs its drivers, should only be used “on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings, or when there is a car directly ahead to follow.” Tesla also adds that the feature should not be used “on other kinds of roads or where the highway has very sharp turns or lane markings that are absent, faded, or ambiguous.”

Nonetheless, Tesla has indicated that it will soon publish a blog post that more clearly delineates the capabilities and limitations of its Autopilot software.

Consumer Reports, though, isn’t satisfied and takes Tesla to task for selling consumers a “pile of promises about unproven technology.” Driving the point home, Consumer Reports’ VP of consumer policy and mobilization Laura MacCleery added that “consumers should never be guinea pigs for vehicle safety ‘beta’ programs.”

This is grossly misleading. To date, Tesla vehicles with Autopilot engaged are statistically safer than other cars out on the road. But because Tesla is Tesla, any word of a crash where Autopilot software may or may not have been activated gets blown up out of proportion. Thing is, we’ve already been down this road before: remember when the sky was falling back when some media outlets were reporting that Tesla cars were statistically more prone to catching on fire?

Consumer Reports suggests that Tesla disable Autopilot software until it’s ready for prime time use. But such a suggestion completely ignores the realities that govern technology as advanced as self-driving automotive software.

The following statement was made in the wake of the release of Apple Maps and I believe the same applies to Tesla’s Autopilot software.

Unfortunately, like dialect recognition or speech synthesis (think Siri), mapping is one of those technologies that can’t be fully incubated in a lab for a few years and unleashed on several hundred million users in more than a 100 countries in a “mature” state.

Autopilot software can only improve out in the real world when used by real drivers. If we as a society want to live in a world where cars can one day drive themselves, the stark reality is that there will be a growth or learning period involved that will have to take place out in the real world.

On another front, Jalopnik raises a good point in stating that we need to start holding drivers accountable irresponsibly using software designed to make everyone on the road safer.

Consumer Reports argues that Tesla’s Autopilot system, as it sits, is too open for misuse. I don’t buy that. Because nowhere in the system’s marketing, in its instructions, or even its implied promises of capability, does it ever absolve that responsibility that we’ve relied on for over a hundred years. It’s still the responsibility of the person sitting in the driver’s seat, not the responsibility of the company that created it. That’s how we’ve looked at cars since they’ve been invented, and no one is going after Ferrari, for instance, for all the deaths caused when its cars are used improperly. We’re not demanding it electronically limit the speeds of its cars, adjustable only to GPS-informed local speed limits.

And as Tim Stevens of CNET points out, we only hear about Tesla’s Autopilot software when crashes occur, not when they’re avoided.

This controversy is about many things, but at its core, I firmly believe Autopilot is a technology that can and has saved lives. The problem is, we’ll never know how many lives are being saved by the various active safety systems found in modern cars. We’ll only know when they fail to save a life.

But like most items that travel through the meat grinder that is the news cycle, information about Tesla’s Autopilot software has been completely distorted to serve the conclusory arguments that Tesla’s software is half-baked and not safe for drivers to use.

Tesla’s Autopilot feature is far from perfect, and undoubtedly, Tesla can take any number of steps to improve its performance and to better educate its consumer base about its limitations. If the feature malfunctions during normal use and results in an accident, the company deserves to be critiqued. But catapulting weighted accusations at the company based on incomplete and, often times, incorrect information does nothing more than needlessly engender fear.

Lastly, Consumer Reports’ list of four recommendations for Tesla underscore how deeply the company’s technology is misunderstood.

Two of the four recommendations read:

Disable Autosteer until it can be reprogrammed to require drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel
Test all safety-critical systems fully before public deployment; no more beta releases

As to the first point, requiring drivers to keep their hands on the wheel runs counter to the very notion of what Autosteer is. What a laughable suggestion.

As to the second, Tesla has said publicly that Autopilot is beta software only in the sense that the system has yet to cumulatively log more than 1 billion miles.

Musk later clarified that Tesla will likely reach that data point sometime within six months.