io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 6:46 PM
Fri Nov 20
27 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/19/09
If it's not an unstoppable vortex of whirling jagged metal (or alternatively, some sort of evil djinn that looks like a tornado with badly CGIed red eyes), wake me when Bill Paxton shows up.
08:14 AM
08:47 AM
Hmm, maybe that's how SyFy channel gets it's movie ideas.
11/18/09
11/18/09
averages around 15-20 mph"
[hurricanes.noaa.gov]
With eyes typically 20-40 miles wide, it would probably be fairly easy to thread it all the way to land. You'd better have a good place to dock quickly though and get under cover...
11/19/09
Of course, I'd love to try...
11/19/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/15/09
Also, has anyone made an Ethan Hawke joke yet? #saturn
11/14/09
11/15/09
Perhaps swamp gas? #saturn
11/14/09
11/14/09
But its gonna take soooo long.
A solid 19 years to be ready to send a balloon to another planet, damn that makes it seem like we're even further behind than I've hoped. sigh #saturn
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/13/09
BTW- what does this look like in the visable spectrum? #space
11/14/09
11/08/09
11/08/09
Then, it could be seen as a valiant attempt to incentivise long-term innovation and foster enthusiasm for aerospace engineering, against a background of plummeting 'hard-science' degree enrollments and the voracious appetite for future 'rocket-scientists' displayed by the software and financial 'industries' (that turned out well, didn't it?).
Now, however, it should be easier to see it, for what it was all along.
Now, when $900,000 (it looks a little different, doesn't it?) is a lot of money, to an organisation that is about to lose its current launcher, have its future launcher cancelled (soon) and lose most of its funding and employees, it (actually the 'not-for-profit foundation', that it seeded with $2,000,000, but does not 'control') has decided to voluntarily disburse this 'award', for the only 'achievement' in the 'Challenge' that doesn't have a defined (I wonder why that was?) criteria for 'success'.
In NASA's own words, "although a space elevator remains a distant prospect" (no kidding?), interest remains "in wireless power transmission for other applications".
However, "beaming power to lunar rovers travelling in shadowed craters, where solar energy is unavailable" seems somewhat less likely than the remote recharging of the plethora of military UAVs which were also being planned in 2005.
Their precursors are currently limited only by their vulnerability during take-offs and landings for refuelling (responsible for 95%+ of losses and unscheduled downtime) and the endurance of their 'Heinlein Waldo' tele-operators, curently conducting Joe Haldeman's Forever War, from the windowless rooms of Edwards Air Force Base (where, conveniently, the 'Challenge' took place).
Freed from these limitations, by the availability of endless remote recharging and the parallel development of non-Asimovian, 'Three Laws'-free, AI platforms (three guesses, as to what they're calling that program), their progeny and successors will be on the road to crossing the Rubicon of autonomy and eventual self-determination, that has been so long foretold.
Lest you miss the symbolism, the USAF's future UAV development program was, is and probably will be then, widely known as 'USAF Hunter-Killer'. #nasa
11/09/09
Okay well you just went over the line into crazytown. I hope you enjoy your stay. I hear they have an Arby's. #nasa
11/09/09
Skynet-comparisons are like the AI-variant of Godwin's Law. #nasa
11/09/09
You'll see the same pattern of 'seeding' of arms-length independent 'foundations', 'competitions' and 'awards'.
Then try tracking the subsequent career paths of the participants in the winning (and far more interestingly the losing) teams. #nasa
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
Mobile telepresence for humans trying to operate in risky environments is a logical development.
Once created, it has a logical development path of its own.
Even at the earliest stages, operator endurance was exceeded by that of the technology (hence UAV pilots 'flying' 14 hour shifts, six days a week, leading to massive physical and psychological attrition rates amongst personnel and desperate attempts to recruit retired pilots).
This has led to more and more routine functions being turned over, first to remote (control base) AI and then internal (UAV) AI (flying from operator controlled takeoffs and landings to mission areas, and loitering on station until operator intervention is required for mission execution).
The main goal at present is to reduce the need for operator controlled events.
Hence the "interest in wireless power applications" [particularly laser power to solar cell, which is what all of the competing teams in the 'Challenge' eventually ended up using (that's why the award has taken place now, all competing technologies have fallen by the wayside "We have a winner!").
The eventual goal, is that UAVs will be totally electrical and totally autonomous, will never need to land and takeoff again for refuelling (directed energy recharging) and rearming (directed energy weapons replacing munitions), will never need to leave mission areas and will require no operator intervention other than setting of overall mission goals.
This requires the development of high level mobile AI (hence the funding of the other 'Challenges') with an unprecedented level of autonomy.
Which in turn, requires the development of even higher level distributed AI, to exercise adequate command and control functions over this myriad of UAVs [the only thing currently restraining their number is operator availability, not (automated) manufacturing capability or funding (they're dirt cheap compared to manned equipment and personnel].
You can see where this is going, as can everybody involved.
But it's already gone far further and far faster than anyone thought possible.
And its logic is undeniable. #nasa
11/08/09
miles of structure up and out of our atmosphere to convey things into space. what could go wrong there?!
11/08/09
11/08/09
Terrestrial vehicles are closer, unless NASA means near-term goals. #nasa
11/08/09
11/08/09
11/08/09