All posts by Drummer

Thank You, Gene Roddenberry, for 50 years of Star Trek!

September 5, 2016All Posts, Science Fiction50 years of Star Trek, Captain Kirk, Desilu Studios, Gene Roddenberry, Leonard Nimoy, Mr. Spock, Star Trek, William ShatnerDrummer

Peter Lobner

By now, everyone knows that Gene Roddenberry originally created Star Trek as a utopian science fiction TV series. The pilot episode, “The Cage,” started filming on 27 November 1964 at the Desilu Productions studios, in Culver City, CA. The main cast members were Jeffrey Hunter (Capt. Christopher Pike), Roddenberry’s wife Majel Barrett (first officer, known as “Number One”), Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock), and John Hoyt (ship’s doctor, Dr. Philip Boyce) and their starship was the Enterprise. Filming and post-production were completed in January 1965. However, this pilot was not well received by NBC executives.

Main cast for “The Cage” pilot. Source: thespacereview.com

On the cnet.com website, Richard Trenholm reported:

“Unfortunately, NBC deemed the pilot episode “too cerebral” with “not enough action” — and demanded that Roddenberry “get rid of the guy with the ears”. But in a then-unprecedented move, NBC commissioned a second pilot. Hunter declined to be involved, so Shatner took over the conn as Capt. Kirk when the series began transmission on 8 September 1966. The rest is history.”

“The Cage” finally was released on VHS in 1986 and was broadcast for the first time in November 1988. You can watch the “The Cage,” at the following link:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/104239/Star_Trek_the_Cage/

Lucille Ball (the “lu” in Desilu Studios) is credited with supporting Gene Roddenberry’s plans for the original Star Trek TV series, and doubtless was instrumental in getting NBC to sponsor the second pilot. Thank you, Lucy! The second pilot, “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” had most of the main cast members that became fixtures in the original TV series: William Shatner (Capt. James Kirk), Leonard Nimoy (Science Officer, Mr. Spock), James Doohan (Chief Engineer, Montgomery Scott), and George Takei (Lt. Sulu). Mark Piper preceded series regular DeForest Kelly as the ship’s doctor. Nichelle Nichols (Communications Officer, Lt. Uhura) had not yet joined the cast. NBC approved the second pilot and the TV series was launched, but not by the second pilot. The second pilot actually was the third Star Trek episode broadcast in the U.S. on 22 September 1966.

The first U.S. broadcast episode of Star Trek was “The Man Trap,” which was the sixth episode filmed. This episode was broadcast by NBC on 8 September 1966 in the U.S., two days after it was broadcast in Canada.

Star Trek the original series (TOS) crew of the Enterprise. Source: buzz.ie

Confused? Well there’s more. The plot of “The Cage” actually was salvaged and incorporated into Season 1 episodes 11 & 12, “The Menagerie,” with Jeffrey Hunter again playing the part of a now seriously injured Fleet Capt. Christopher Pike.

The original series lasted three seasons and produced 79 episodes by the time the last episode, “Turnabout Intruder,” was broadcast on 3 June 1969. The good news is that there were enough episodes for Star Trek to enter syndication, permitting endless re-runs to entertain a growing fan base for generations after the original series was cancelled.

You’ll find a list of all episodes in the original series at the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series_episodes

From here, you can easily navigate to find details on each individual episode.

The original Star Trek’s series spawned five additional television series, thirteen feature films, a host of books and comics / graphic novels, and a huge variety of “toys,” which by now have become highly collectable treasures.

In 1976, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) named their first space shuttle Enterprise in honor of the starship in the original Star Trek series. The original cast members joined NASA and other officials for the rollout the North American Rockwell facility in Palmdale, CA.

Source: NASA. From left to right they are: NASA Administrator Dr. James D. Fletcher; DeForest Kelley, who portrayed Dr. “Bones” McCoy on the series; George Takei (Mr. Sulu); James Doohan (Chief Engineer Montgomery “Scotty” Scott); Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura); Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock); series creator Gene Roddenberry; U.S. Rep. Don Fuqua (D.-Fla.); and, Walter Koenig (Ensign Pavel Chekov)

Gene Roddenberry and the writers of the original Star Trek series deserve a lot of credit for envisioning a very different culture and an optimistic future while creating the series during a period of great political and social strife in the U.S. during the late 1960s. They also deserve credit for conceiving a whole range of advanced technologies that were needed to support their spacefaring mythology. Many of these Star Trek technologies seem to be less science fiction today than they did 50 years ago because we now have many new products and services that embody analogous technologies, or at least some rudimentary aspects of some of the Star Trek technologies.

Many of the technologies in Star Trek TOS still elude us in 2016, but these will be exciting challenges for scientists and engineers during the next 50 years.

Warp drive, for faster-than-light travel
Usable power generation from fusion reactions (for the impulse engines)
Usable power generation from matter – anti-matter reactions (for the warp drive)
Sub-space communications, for faster-than-light communications
Gravity plating, to simulate a gravity field inside a starship
Inertial dampeners, to counter the effects of rapid acceleration and deceleration
Shields, for absorbing the energy from incoming weapons and minimizing damage to the starship and crew
Tractor beam, for capturing objects at a distance and reeling them in. A microscopic scale tractor beam has been demonstrated in the laboratory.
Transporter, for dematerializing a person or object in one location and rematerializing the same person or object in a different location.
Time travel, for moving persons, objects, or whole starships into a different time continuum than our own
Suspended animation of humans, for long duration spaceflight
Neutronium, for impermeable armor / shielding

Gene Roddenberry and his writing staff incorporated all of these technologies into the original Star Trek mythology in the first year of the series. Later Star Trek series and movies introduced a host of additional technologies, including:

You can read more on Star Trek technologies at the following links:

NASA, 20 July 2016: “The Science of Star Trek”

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/star_trek.html

Popular Science, 21 July 2016: “Status Report: 7 ‘Star Trek’ Technologies Under Development”

http://www.popsci.com/star-trek-technologies-where-are-they-now

Forbes, 24 June 2014: “8 Star Trek Technologies Moving From Science Fiction To Science Fact”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2014/06/24/8-star-trek-technologies/3/#722b17c3aa4d

Thanks again to Gene Roddenberry for creating the original Star Trek series, which led to a whole body of engaging spacefaring mythology that is certain to endure. Happy 50^th anniversary!

Source: Reddit.com

Update on North Korea’s Sinpo (Gorae) Submarine and KN-11 SLBM

August 31, 2016All Posts, Military technology, Nuclear Arms & Arms ControlGorae, KN-11, Musudan, North Korea, SinpoDrummer

Peter Lobner

In the presentation files from my 5 August 2015 talk, 60 Years of Marine Nuclear Power, I noted that, while North Korea has a program to develop nuclear-armed submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), it appears that their current focus is on installing these missiles on conventionally-powered submarines. The particular conventional missile-launching submarines (SSBs) identified were a refurbished Russian-designed Golf II-class SSB and a new, small indigenous SSB provisionally named Sinpo, for the shipyard where it was observed, or Gorae. Both the refurbished Golf II and the new Sinpo (Gorae) have missile tubes in the sail and are capable of launching missiles while submerged. You will find my presentation files on the Lyncean website under the Past Meetings tab. The direct link to the file containing information on the North Korean program is listed below:

https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Part-4_UK-France-Others-60-yrs-of-marine-nuc-power.pdf

On 24 August 2016, North Korea launched a KN-11 ballistic missile from a submerged launcher, likely a submarine. The KN-11 missile flew 500 km (310 miles) downrange from the launch point into the Sea of Japan.

Source: An undated photo from North Korean Central News Agency, “underwater test-fire of strategic submarine ballistic missile”

Range of the missile actually may be considerably greater because it appears to have been launched on a “lofted trajectory” that achieved a much higher apogee than normally would be associated with a maximum range ballistic flight. A similar higher-than-normal apogee was observed in the 21 July 2016 flight test of North Korea’s BM25 Musudan land-based, mobile, intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM), which flew 402 km (250 miles) downrange, but reached an apogee of 1,400 km (870 miles). The extra energy required for the KN-11 and Musudan to reach an unusually high apogee would translate directly into greater downrange distance on a maximum range ballistic flight.

You can see a summary of North Korea’s KN-11 test program on the Wikipedia website at the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KN-11#First_KN-11_Complete_Success_Test

For the best analysis of the Sinpo (Gorae) SSB and the KN-11 SLBM, I refer you to H. I. Sutton’s Covert Shores website at the following link:

http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Sinpo%20Class%20Ballistic%20Missile%20Sub.html

Source: H. I. Sutton Covert Shores

Sutton comments on the small size of the Sinpo (Gorae) SSB:

“It seems that she is built to the requirement of being the smallest possible boat to carry an NK-11……This reinforces the view that she is only a test boat with limited operational capability at most.”

While North Korea’s SSBs and SLBMs are works in progress, I think we are seeing substantial evidence that significant progress is being made on the submarine and the delivery vehicle. A big unknown is the development status of an operational nuclear warhead for the NK-11 missile. On 6 January 2016, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test. It has been reported that the yield from this test was in the 10-kiloton range. For comparison, the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of about 15 kilotons. You can find a summary of North Korea’s nuclear tests on the Wikipedia website at the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

In the 29 Aug – 11 Sep 2016 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association is quoted as saying:

“North Korea’s accelerated pace of ballistic missile testing is definitely worrisome,” Kimball says. “They have not necessarily perfected some of these systems to the point where they are effective military systems. That said, if nothing is done to halt further ballistic missile testing, they’re going to eventually – and I mean within a few years – develop a rudimentary long-range capability to deliver a nuclear warhead.”

For quite some time, there has been speculation of technical collaboration between Iran and North Korea on development of long-range missiles, and perhaps nuclear weapons. North Korea’s credibility as a technology partner has been enhanced by their January 2016 successful nuclear test and the more recent tests of the KN-11 and BM25 delivery vehicles.

Cruise Liner Crystal Serenity is Navigating the Northwest Passage Now

August 30, 2016All Posts, Arctic, Global Climate, Marine TechnologyCrystal Serenity, David Thereon, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Northwest Passage, Roland Amundsen, SS ManhattanDrummer

Peter Lobner

Background:

The Northwest Passage connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans via an Arctic sea route along the north coasts of Alaska and Canada. The basic routes are shown in the following map.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

While it has been common for icebreakers, research vessels and nuclear submarines to operate in these waters, it is quite uncommon for commercial or private vessels to attempt to navigate the Northwest Passage.

The first recorded transit of the Northwest Passage was made in 1903 – 06 by the famous Norwegian polar explorer Roland Amundsen in the ship Gjoa.

Amundsen’s ship Gjoa. Source: Underwood Archives/UIG/Everett Collection

Since then, there have been many full transits of the Northwest Passage. You’ll find John MacFarlane’s list of 126 transits for the period from 1903 – 2006 on the Nauticapedia website at the following link:

http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Fulltransits.php

Notable Northwest Passage transits by commercial and private vessels

In August 1969, the heavily modified oil tanker SS Manhattan, chartered by Humble Oil & Refining Company, became the first commercial vessel to navigate the Northwest Passage. At the time, the SS Manhattan was the largest U.S. merchant vessel, with a length of 1,005 feet (306 meters), beam of 148 feet (45 meters), draft of 52 feet (16 meters), and a displacement of 115,000 tons. Total installed power was 43,000 shaft horsepower (32,000 kW).

SS Manhattan and CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent. Source: Associated Press

Prior to the Arctic voyage, the SS Manhattan was fitted with an icebreaking bow and heavy steel sheathing along both sides of the hull and in other vulnerable locations to protect against ice. The specific route of the SS Manhattan, from the Atlantic to Prudhoe Bay and then back to the Atlantic, is shown below. Several U.S. and Canadian icebreakers supported the SS Manhattan during its voyage.

Source: NOAA, Susie Harder – Arctic Council – Arctic marine shipping assessment (AMSA)

Oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay in 1968. A barrel of crude oil was loaded on SS Manhattan in Prudhoe Bay to symbolize that supertankers operating in the Arctic could serve the newly discovered oil field. Further testing that winter off Baffin Island showed that year-round oil tanker operations in the Arctic were not feasible. Instead, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska was built.

In 2007, the Northwest Passage became ice-free and navigable along its entire length without the need for an icebreaker for 36 days during August and September. During that period, the sailing vessel Cloud Nine passed through the Northwest Passage during its 6,640 mile, 73 day transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific. You can read David Thoreson’s blog about this Arctic voyage, Sailing the Northwest Passage, at the following link:

http://davidthoreson.blogspot.com/2007/09/completing-northwest-passage-2007.html

This voyage was a remarkable achievement for a small vessel. In his blog, David Thoreson commented:

“I feel strongly that we have witnessed the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. The golden age of exploration, Amundsen’s era, has come to a close, and a new era of exploration involving study and change in the earth’s climate is just beginning. We on Cloud Nine have experienced both eras. Frozen in and stuck in the ice twice over 13 years, and now sailing through unscathed and witnessing an ice-free Northwest Passage. We have bridged the two eras.”

Are we seeing the start of tourism in the Northwest Passage?

On 10 August 2016, Crystal Serenity departed Vancouver for Seward Alaska and the start of what is scheduled to be a 32-day voyage to New York City via the Northwest Passage. The ship is scheduled to arrive in NYC on 16 September 2016. The planned route for this cruise is shown below.

Source: Crystal Cruises

The Crystal Serenity is smaller than SS Manhattan, but still is a fairly big ship, with a length of 820 feet (250 meters), beam of 106 feet (32.3 meters), draft of 25 feet (7.6 meters), and a displacement of 68,870 tons. On this voyage, Capt. Birger Vorland and two Canadian pilots will navigate the Northwest Passage with more than 1,600 passengers and crew.

Crystal Serenity will be accompanied by the icebreaking escort vessel RRS (Royal Research Ship) Ernest Shackleton, which was chartered by Crystal Cruises for this support cruise. Along the planned route, there are few ports that can accommodate a vessel the size of Crystal Serenity. Along most of the route emergency response capabilities are quite limited. Therefore, RRS Shackleton is equipped to serve as a first response vessel in the event of an emergency aboard Crystal Serenity. RRS Shackleton also carries two helicopters and additional crew to support special adventures during the cruise.

Crystal Serenity in Seward, Alaska. Source: NPR.com, Rachel Waldholz/Alaska Public Radio

You can find a current report on the sea ice extent along the Northwest Passage at the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s website at the following link:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The ice extent report today is shown in the following chart, which shows that the current ice extent is well below the 1981 – 2010 median. However, there appear to be sections of the Northwest Passage around Banks and Victoria Islands that are still covered by the Arctic ice pack. Crystal Serenity is scheduled to be in these waters soon.

Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

You can track the current position of the Crystal Serenity as it makes its historic voyage at the following link:

http://www.cruisemapper.com/Crystal-Serenity-location?imo=9243667

As of 5:50 PM PDT, 29 August 2016, the ship is approaching Barrow, Alaska, as shown on the following map.

Source: cruisemapper.com

A second cruise already is planned for 2017. You can book your Northwest Passage cruise on the Crystal Cruises website at the following link:

http://www.crystalcruises.com/northwest-passage-cruise

Update 24 September 2016: Mission accomplished!

On 16 September, the Crystal Serenity became the first cruise liner ever to transit the Northwest Passage. The west – east passage from Seward, Alaska to New York City took 32 days and covered 7,297 nautical miles (13,514 km).

Crystal Serenity arrives in NYC. Source: Crystal Cruises

China is Developing Floating Nuclear Power Plants

August 26, 2016All Posts, Power Generating Technology - NuclearAcademic Lomonosov, ACPR50S, building floating nuclear plant, CGN, China, China General Nuclear Power Corporation, China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, CSIC, floating nuclear power plant, KLT-40SDrummer

Peter Lobner

Various reports in 2016 indicate that China has designed and is constructing its first indigenous floating nuclear power plant. This mobile power plant is intended for deployment to remote coastal locations and to islands being developed by China in the South China Sea. According to China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN), this floating nuclear power plant is intended to operate as a combined energy supply platform that is capable of delivering electric power, low-temperature process heat, and fresh water as needed by the particular application. Construction of the first unit started in 2015 and is scheduled to be completed in 2018 and operational by 2020. It also has been reported that China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) is building the first floating nuclear power plant, with plans to build a total of 20 for deployment in the South China Sea.

The availability of ample supplies of electric power, low-temperature process heat, and fresh water will enable more rapid development in remote regions, including construction of new infrastructure for harbors, airports, defense and commercial activities such as oil exploration and oil field exploitation and other marine resource development.

CGN reports that the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) for the first floating nuclear power plant is a single “small modular offshore reactor” ACPR50S, which is a compact two-loop pressurized water reactor (PWR). China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) recently approved this reactor design as part of the 13th Five-Year Plan for innovative energy technologies. The ACPR50S is rated at 200 MWt, with an electrical output of 60 MWe.

In comparison, the first Russian floating nuclear power plant, Akademik Lomonosov, has 2 x KLT-40S modular PWRs that will provide 70 MWe net electrical output and low-temperature process heat for shore installations. Akademik Lomonosov is schedule for its initial core load at the Baltiisky Zavod shipyard in St. Petersburg, Russia in late 2016. After completing reactor testing, it is expected that Akademik Lomonosov will depart St. Petersburg in October 2017 and be towed along the north coast of Siberia to the Arctic port of Pevek, where it will be moored and connected to the grid.

The physical layout if the ACPR50S is shown below. The major components of the NSSS are the reactor vessel, two steam generators and primary pumps, and one pressurizer.

ACPR50S NSSS. Source: CGN

The primary system is housed within a containment structure that is protected against damage from a ship collision (similar to design features in NS Savannah and other early commercial nuclear powered vessels). Active and passive safety systems provide for core and containment cooling during an accident. Severe (beyond design basis) accident mitigation measures include opening safety plugs to submerge the NSSS in seawater to ensure continued core cooling. The physical arrangement of the NSSS within the vessel is shown below.

APR50S physical arrangement in the vessel. Source: CGN

The floating nuclear power plant is designed for on-ship refueling and pre-treatment of radioactive waste. When the floating nuclear power plant is deployed in a remote location, a visiting offshore engineering services vessel will provide logistics and maintenance services as needed.

The following figure shows how a floating nuclear power plant might look moored to a pier and delivering electric power, process heat and fresh water to a shore installation.

Source: CGN

The floating nuclear power plant also could be deployed to support one or many oil drilling platforms as shown below.

Source: CGN

A important issue related to China’s deployment of floating nuclear power plants is that they may be deployed to support military development of islands in contested areas of the South China Sea. Time will tell how this scenario plays out.

Modern Airships

August 26, 2016Aeronautical, All Posts, Aviation, Commercial aviation, Military technology, TransportationDrummer

This August 2016 post, which included links to 14 articles on specific historic and modern airships, was replaced in August 2019.

“Modern Airships” now is a three-part post that contains an overview of modern airship technology in Part 1 and links in Parts 1, 2 and 3 to more than 275 individual articles on historic and advanced airship designs. Here are the links to all three parts:

Modern Airships – Part 1: https://lynceans.org/all-posts/modern-airships-part-1/
Modern Airships – Part 2: https://lynceans.org/all-posts/modern-airships-part-2/
Modern Airships – Part 3: https://lynceans.org/all-posts/modern-airships-part-3/

I hope you’ll find the expanded Modern Airships series of posts to be informative, useful, and different from any other single source of information on this subject.

Best regards,

Peter Lobner

August 2019

The First Digital Camera Started a Revolution in Photography and Much More

August 24, 2016All Posts, Photography, Telecommunicationscamera phone, first digital camera, smartphone, Steve SassonDrummer

Peter Lobner

In 1975, I was shooting photographs with a Nikon F2 single lens reflex (SLR) film camera I bought two years before. The F2 was introduced by Nikon in September 1971, and was still Nikon’s top-of-the-line SLR when I bought it in 1973. I shot slide film because I liked the quality of the large projected images. I was quite happy with my Kodak Carousel slide projector and circular slide trays, even though the trays took up a lot of storage space. Getting print copies of slides for family and friends took time and money, but I was used to that. Little did I suspect, at the time, that a revolution was brewing at Eastman Kodak.

The first digital camera prototype: 1975

In 1975, Steve Sasson invented the digital camera while working at Kodak. This first digital camera weighed 8 pounds (3.6kg), was capable of taking 0.01 megapixel (10,000 pixel) black & white photos, and storing 30 photos on a removable digital magnetic tape cassette. An image captured by the camera’s 100 x 100 pixel Fairchild CCD (charge coupled device) sensor was stored in RAM (random access memory) in about 50 milliseconds (ms). Then it took 23 seconds to record one image to the digital cassette tape. For the first time, photos were captured on portable digital media, which made it easy to rapidly move the image files into other digital systems.

Steve Sasson & the first digital camera. Source: MagaPixel

David Friedman, who has interviewed many contemporary inventors, interviewed Steve Sasson in 2011. I think you’ll enjoy his short video interview, which reveals details of how the first digital camera was designed and built, at the following link:

https://vimeo.com/22180298

Arrival of consumer digital cameras: 1994

In February 1994, almost 20 years after Steve Sasson’s first digital camera, Apple introduced the Kodak-manufactured QuickTake 100, which was the first mass market color consumer digital camera available for under $1,000.

Apple QuickTake 100. Source: Apple

The QuickTake 100 could take digital photos at either 0.3 megapixels (high-resolution) or 0.08 megapixels (standard-resolution), and store the image files on a internal (not removable) 1MB flash EPROM (erasable programmable read-only memory). The EPROM could store 32 standard or eight high-resolution images, or a combination. Once downloaded, these modest-resolution images were adequate for many applications requiring small images, such as pasting a photo into an electronic document.

In the following years before the millennium, the consumer and professional photography markets were flooded with a vast array of rapidly improving digital cameras and much lower prices for entry-level models. While my old Nikon F2 film camera remained a top-of-the-line camera for many years back in the 1970s, many newly introduced digital cameras were obsolete by the time they were available in the marketplace.

For a comprehensive overview of the evolution of digital photography, I refer you to Roger L. Carter’s DigiCamHistory website, which contains an extensive history of film and digital photography from the 1880s thru 1999.

http://www.digicamhistory.com/Index.html

Film cameras are dead – well almost. On 22 June 2009, Kodak announced that it would cease selling Kodachrome film by the end of 2009. Except for continuing production of professional film for movies, Kodak exited the film business after 74 years. FujiFilm and several other manufacturers continue to offer a range of print and slide film. You can read an assessment of the current state of the film photography industry at the following link:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/04/23/manufacturers-talk-state-film-photography-industry/#.V73QqWWVtbc

Arrival of camera phones: 2000

In the new millennium, we were introduced to a novel new type of camera, the camera phone, which was first introduced in Japan in 2000. There seems to be some disagreement as to which was the first camera phone. The leading contenders are:

Samsung SCH-V200, which could take 0.35 megapixel photos and store them on an internal memory device
Sharp (J-Phone) J-SH04, which could take 0.11 megapixel photos and send them electronically

At that time, small point-and-shoot digital cameras typically were taking much better photos in the 0.78 – 1.92 megapixel range (1024 x 768 pixels to 1600 x 1200 pixels), with high-end digital SLRs taking 10 megapixel photos (3888 x 2592 pixels).

In November 2002, Sprint became the first service provider in the U.S. to offer a camera phone, the Sanyo SCP-5300, which could take 0.3 megapixel (640 x 480 pixels) photos and included many features found on dedicated digital cameras.

Sanyo SCP-5300. Source: Sprint

In late 2003, the Ericsson Z1010 mobile phone introduced the front-facing camera, which enabled the user to conveniently take a “selfie” photo or video while previewing the image on the phone’s video display. Narcissists around the world rejoiced! A decade later they rejoiced again following the invention of the now ubiquitous, and annoying “selfie stick”.

Ericsson Z1010. Source: www.GSMArena.com

You’ll find more details on the history of the camera phone at the following link:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/camera-phone-history/

Arrival of smartphones:

The 1993 IBM Simon is generally considered to be the first “smart phone.” It could function as a phone, pager, and PDA (personal desktop assistant) , with simple applications for calendar, calculator, and address book, but no built-in camera. The important feature of the smart phone was its ability to run various applications to expand its functionality.

The first mobile phone actually referred to as a “smartphone” was Erikkson’s 1997 model GS88 concept phone, which led in 2000 to the Erikkson model R380. This was the first mobile phone marketed as a smartphone…..but it had no camera.

With the introduction of camera phones and smartphones in 2000, and front-facing cameras in 2003, it wasn’t long before the most popular mobile phones were smartphones with two cameras. Now, just 13 years after this convergence of technology, it seems that smartphones are everywhere and these devices have evolved into very capable tools for high-resolution still and video photography as well as photo processing and video editing using specialized applications that can be installed by the user.

With these capabilities available in a small, integrated mobile device, it’s no wonder that the sale of dedicated digital cameras has been declining rapidly.

Impact of mobile phone cameras on dedicated camera sales

Here is a comparison of the digital image sensors on three representative modern cameras:

Nikon D800 DSLR camera: 36 megapixels (7360 × 4912 pixels), FX full-frame (35.9 x 24.0 mm, 43.18 mm diagonal) CMOS image sensor
Sony DSC-HX90V compact point-and-shoot camera: 18.2 megapixels (4896 x 3672 pixels), 1/2.3 type (6.17mm x 4.55mm, 7.67 mm diagonal) CMOS image sensor
Apple iPhone 6 cameras: Main camera: 8 megapixels (3264 x 2448 pixels), 1/2.94 type (4.8mm x 3.6mm, 6.12 mm diagonal) CMOS, Sony Exmor RS image sensor. Front-facing camera: 1.2 megapixels

The Nikon’s FX sensor is as big as a the photo’s image would be in a 35 mm film camera. This is called a “full frame” sensor. Most digital cameras have smaller image sensors, as shown in the following comparison chart.

Source: www.techhive.com

The IPhone 6 image sensor is smaller than any shown in the above chart. Nonetheless, its photo and video quality can be quite good.

For more information on digital camera image sensors, check out the 2013 article by Jackie Dove, “Demystifying digital camera sensors once and for all,” at the following link:

http://www.techhive.com/article/2052159/demystifying-digital-camera-sensors-once-and-for-all.html

The rapid rise in the quality of mobile phone cameras is making small digital cameras redundant, and is having a dramatic impact on the sale of dedicated cameras, as shown in the following chart.

Source: Mayflower Concepts, petapixel.com

The above chart indicates that only 40,000 dedicated cameras of all types were sold in 2014; far below the peak of about 120,000 units in 2010. The biggest impact has been on compact digital cameras, with the DSLR cameras holding their own, at least for the moment.

While I still like my current Nikon DSLR, I have to admit that I’ve found some higher-end compact digital cameras that have most of the capabilities I want in an SLR but in a much smaller package. While I won’t make my mobile phone camera my primary camera, I may retire the DSLR.

Immediate communications and privacy

The rapid rise of the smartphone was enabled by the deployment of 3G and 4G cellular phone service. See my 20 March 2016 post on the evolution of cellular service for details on the deployment timeline.

With access to capable wireless communications networks and a host of photo and video applications and services, the cameras on mobile phones became tools for capturing images or videos of anything and instantly communicating these via the Internet to audiences that can span the globe. We’re now living in a world where many awkward moments get recorded, meals get photographed before they’re eaten, and there’s a need to post a selfie during an event to prove that you actually were there (and of course, to impress your friends). Thanks to the advent of the cloud, all of these digital photographic memories can be preserved online forever, or at least until you don’t want to continue paying for cloud storage.

Privacy is becoming a thing of the past. What happens in Vegas probably gets photographed by someone and, if you’re lucky, stays in the cloud…..until it’s needed, or hacked.

I don’t think Steve Sasson imagined such a future when he invented the first digital camera in 1975.

Exploring Microgravity Worlds

August 24, 2016All Posts, Planetary science, Spacecraft and MissionsAsteroid Redirect Mission, Chang'e 2, China National Space Agency, CNSA, Dawn, ESA, European Space Agency, Hayabusa, Hayabusa-2, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, JAXA, microgravity, microspine grippers, NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NEAR-Shoemaker, OSIRIS-Rex, Rosetta, Ryugu, Super Ball Bots, tensegrityDrummer

Peter Lobner

1. Background:

We’re all familiar with scenes of the Apollo astronauts bounding across the lunar surface in the low gravity on the Moon, where gravity (g) is 0.17 of the gravity on the Earth’s surface. Driving the Apollo lunar rover kicked up some dust, but otherwise proved to be a practical means of transportation on the Moon’s surface. While the Moon’s gravity is low relative to Earth, techniques for achieving lunar orbit have been demonstrated by many spacecraft, many soft landings have been made, locomotion on the Moon’s surface with wheeled vehicles has worked well, and there is no risk of flying off into space by accidentally exceeding the Moon’s escape velocity.

There are many small bodies in the Solar System (i.e., dwarf planets, asteroids, comets) where gravity is so low that it creates unique problems for visiting spacecraft and future astronauts: For example:

Spacecraft require efficient propulsion systems and precise navigation along complex trajectories to rendezvous with the small body and then move into a station-keeping position or establish a stable orbit around the body.
Landers require precise navigation to avoid hazards on the surface of the body (i.e., craters, boulders, steep slopes), land gently in a specific safe area, and not rebound back into space after touching down.
Rovers require a locomotion system that is adapted to the specific terrain and microgravity conditions of the body and allows the rover vehicle to move across the surface of the body without risk of being launched back into space by reaction forces.
Many asteroids and comets are irregularly shaped bodies, so the surface gravity vector will vary significantly depending on where you are relative to the center of mass of the body.

You will find a long list of known objects in the Solar System, including many with diameters less than 1 km (0.62 mile), at the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size

You can determine the gravity on the surface of a body in the Solar System using the following equation:

where (using metric):

g = acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the body (m/sec²)

G = universal gravitational constant = 6.672 x 10^-11 m³/kg/sec²

M = mass of the body (kg)

r = radius of the body (which is assumed to be spherical) (m)

You can determine the escape velocity from a body using the following equation:

Applying these equations to the Earth and several smaller bodies in in the Solar System yields the following results:

Note how weak the gravity is on the small bodies in this table. These are very different conditions than on the surface of the Moon or Mars where the low gravity still allows relatively conventional locomotion.

As noted in my 31 December 2015 post, the “U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,” which was signed into law on 25 November 2015, opens the way for U.S. commercial exploitation of space, including commercial missions to asteroids and comets. Let’s take a look at missions to these microgravity worlds and some of the unique issues associated with visiting a microgravity world.

2. Recent and Current Missions to Asteroids and Comets

There have been several spacecraft that have made a successful rendezvous with one or more small bodies in the Solar System. Several have been fly-by missions. Four spacecraft have flown in close formation with or entered orbit around low-gravity bodies. Three of these missions included landing on (or at least touching) the body, and one returned very small samples to Earth. These missions are:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) NEAR-Shoemaker
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s (JAXA) Hayabusa
European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosetta
NASA’s Dawn

In addition, China’s Chang’e 2 mission demonstrated its ability to navigate to an asteroid intercept after completing its primary mission in lunar orbit. JAXA’s Hayabusa 2 mission currently is enroute to asteroid rendezvous.

Following is a short synopsis of each of these missions.

NASA’s NEAR-Shoemaker Mission (1996 – 2001): This mission was launched 17 February 1996 and on 27 June 1997 flew by the asteroid 253 Mathilde at a distance of about 1,200 km (746 miles). On 14 February 2000, the spacecraft reached its destination and entered a near-circular orbit around the asteroid 433 Eros, which is about the size of Manhattan. After completing its survey of Eros, the NEAR spacecraft was maneuvered close to the surface and it touched down on 12 February 2001, after a four-hour descent, during which it transmitted 69 close-up images of the surface. Transmissions continued for a short time after landing. NEAR-Shoemaker was the first man-made object to soft-land on an asteroid.

Asteroid EROS. Source: NASA/JPL/JHUAPL

JAXA’s Hayabusa Mission (2003 – 2010): The Hayabusa spacecraft was launched in May 2003. This solar-powered, ion-driven spacecraft rendezvoused with near-Earth asteroid 25143 Itokawa in mid-September 2005.

Asteroid Itokawa. Source: JAXA

Hayabusa carried the solar-powered MINERVA (Micro/Nano Experimental Robot Vehicle for Asteroid) mini-lander, which was designed to be released close to the asteroid, land softly, and move across the surface using an internal flywheel and braking system to generate the momentum needed to hop in microgravity. However, MINERVA was not captured by the asteroid’s gravity after being released and was lost in deep space.

In November 2005, Hayabusa moved in from its station-keeping position and briefly touched the asteroid to collect surface samples in the form of tiny grains of asteroid material.

Hayabusa in position to obtain samples. Source: JAXA

The spacecraft then backed off and navigated back to Earth using its failing ion thrusters. Hayabusa returned to Earth on 13 June 2010 and the sample-return capsule, with about 1,500 grains of asteroid material, was recovered after landing in the Woomera Test Range in the western Australian desert.

You’ll find a JAXA mission summary briefing at the following link:

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/474206main_Kuninaka_HayabusaStatus_ExploreNOW.pdf

ESA’s Rosetta Mission (2004 – present): The Rosetta spacecraft was launched in March 2004 and in August 2014 rendezvoused with and achieved orbit around irregularly shaped comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. This comet orbits the Sun outside of Earth’s orbit, between 1.24 and 5.68 AU (astronomical units; 1 AU = average distance from Earth’s orbit to the Sun). The size of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is compared to downtown Los Angeles in the following figure.

Source: ESA

Currently, Rosetta remains in orbit around this comet. The lander, Philae, is on the surface after a dramatic rebounding landing on 12 November 2014. Anchoring devices failed to secure Philae after its initial touchdown. The lander bounced twice and finally came to rest in an unfavorable position after contacting the surface a third time, about two hours after the initial touchdown. Philae was the first vehicle to land on a comet and it briefly transmitted data back from the surface of the comet in November 2014 and again in June – July 2015.

NASA’s Dawn Mission (2007 – present): Dawn was launched on 27 September 2007 and used its ion engine to fly a complex flight path to a 2009 gravitational assist flyby of Mars and then a rendezvous with the large asteroid Vesta (2011 – 2012) in the main asteroid belt.

Dawn approaches Vesta. Source: NASA / JPL Caltech

Dawn spent 14 months in orbit surveying Vesta before departing to its next destination, the dwarf planet Ceres, which also is in the main asteroid belt. On 6 March 2015 Dawn was captured by Ceres’ gravity and entered its initial orbit following the complex trajectory shown in the following diagram.

Dawn captured by Ceres gravity. Source: NASA / JPL Caltech

Dawn is continuing its mapping mission in a circular orbit at an altitude of 385 km (240 miles), circling Ceres every 5.4 hours at an orbital velocity of about 983 kph (611 mph). The Dawn mission does not include a lander.

See my 20 March 2015 and 13 Sep 2015 posts for more information on the Dawn mission.

CNSA’s Chang’e 2 extended mission (2010 – present): The China National Space Agency’s (CNSA) Chang’e 2 spacecraft was launched in October 2010 and placed into a 100 km lunar orbit with the primary objective of mapping the lunar surface. After completing this objective in 2011, Chang’e 2 navigated to the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point, which is a million miles from Earth in the opposite direction of the Sun. In April 2012, Chang’e 2 departed L2 for an extended mission to asteroid 4179 Toutatis, which it flew by in December 2012.

Asteroid Toutatis. Source: CHSA

JAXA’s Hayabusa 2 Mission (2014 – 2020): The JAXA Hayabusa 2 spacecraft was launched on 3 December 2014. This ion-propelled spacecraft is very similar to the first Hayabusa spacecraft. Its planned arrival date at the target asteroid, 1999 JU3 (Ryugu), is in mid-2018. As you can see in the following diagram, 1999 JU3 is a substantially larger asteroid than Itokawa.

Source: JAXA

The spacecraft will spend about a year mapping the asteroid using Near Infrared Spectrometer (NIRS3) and Thermal Infrared Imager (TIR) instruments.

Hayabusa 2 includes three solar-powered MINERVA-II mini-landers and one battery-powered MASCOT (Mobile Asteroid Surface Scout) small lander. All landers will be deployed to the asteroid surface from an altitude of about 100 meters (328 feet) so they can be captured by the asteroid’s very weak gravity. The 1.6 – 2.5 kg (3.5 – 5.5 pounds) MINERVA-II landers will deliver imagery and temperature measurements. The 10 kg (22 pound) MASCOT will make measurements of surface composition and properties using a camera, magnetometer, radiometer, and infrared microscope. All landers are expected to make several hops to take measurements at different locations on the asteroid’s surface.

Three MINERVA mini-landers. Source: JAXA

MASCOT small lander. Source: JAXA

For sample collection, Hayabusa 2 will descend to the surface to capture samples of the surface material. A device called a Small Carry-on Impactor (SCI) will be deployed and should impact the surface at about 2 km/sec, creating a small crater to expose material beneath the asteroid’s surface. Hayabusa 2 will attempt to gather a sample of the exposed material. More information about SCI is available at the following link:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/1904.pdf

At the end of 2019, Hayabusa 2 is scheduled to depart asteroid 1999 JU3 (Ryugu) and return to Earth in 2020 with the collected samples. You will find more information on the Hayabusa 2 mission at the JAXA website at the following links:

http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/hayabusa2/

and,

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jan2013/presentations/sbag8_presentations/TUES_0900_Hayabusa-2.pdf

3. Future Missions:

NASA OSIRIS-REx: This NASA’s mission is expected to launch in September 2016, travel to the near-Earth asteroid 101955 Bennu, map the surface, harvest a sample of surface material, and return the samples to Earth for study. After arriving at Bennu in 2018, the solar-powered OSIRIS-Rex spacecraft will map the asteroid surface from a station-keeping distance of about 5 km (3.1 miles) using two primary mapping instruments: the OVIRS Visible and Infrared Spectrometer and the OTRS Thermal Emission Spectrometer. Together, these instruments are expected to develop a comprehensive map of Bennu’s mineralogical and molecular components and enable mission planners to target the specific site(s) to be sampled. In 2019, a robotic arm on OSIRIS-REx will collect surface samples during one or more very close approaches, without landing. These samples (60 grams minimum) will be loaded into a small capsule that is scheduled to return to Earth in 2023.

OSIRIS-REx spacecraft. Source: NASA / ASU

For more information on OSIRIS-REx, visit the NASA website at the following link:

http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nasas-asteroid-sample-return-mission-moves-into-development/

and the ASU website at the following link:

http://www.asteroidmission.org/objectives/

NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM): This mission will involve rendezvousing with a near-Earth asteroid, mapping the surface for about a year, and locating a suitable bolder to be captured [maximum diameter about 4 meters (13.1 feet)]. The ARM spacecraft will land and capture the intended bolder, lift off and deliver the bolder into a stable lunar orbit during the first half of the next decade. The current reference target is known as asteroid 2008 EV₅.

ARM lander gripping a bolder on an asteroid. Source: NASA

You can find more information on the NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission at the following links:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/what-is-nasa-s-asteroid-redirect-mission

and

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/756122main_Asteroid%20Redirect%20Mission%20Reference%20Concept%20Description.pdf

4. Locomotion in Microgravity

OK, you’ve landed on a small asteroid, your spacecraft has anchored itself to the surface and now you want to go out and explore the surface. If this is asteroid 2008 EV₅, the local gravity is about 1.79 E-05 that of Earth (less than 2/100,000 the gravity of Earth) and the escape velocity is about 0.6 mph (1 kph). Just how are you going to move about on the surface and not launch yourself on an escape trajectory into deep space?

There is a good article on the problems of locomotion in microgravity in a 7 March 2015 article entitled, “A Lightness of Being,” in the Economist magazine. You can find this article on the Economist website at the following link:

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21645508-space-vehicles-can-operate-ultra-low-gravity-asteroids-and-comets-are

In this article, it is noted that:

“Wheeled and tracked rovers could probably be made to work in gravity as low as a hundredth of that on Earth……But in the far weaker microgravity of small bodies like asteroids and comets, they would fail to get a grip in fine regolith. Wheels also might hover above the ground, spinning hopelessly and using up power. So an entirely different system of locomotion is needed for rovers operating in a microgravity.”

Novel concepts for locomotion in microgravity include:

Hoppers / tumblers
Structurally compliant rollers
Grippers

Hoppers / tumblers: Hoppers are designed to move across a surface using a moving internal mass that can be controlled to transfer momentum to the body of the rover to cause it to tumble or to generate a more dramatic hop, which is a short ballistic trajectory in microgravity. The magnitude of the hop must be controlled so the lander does not exceed escape velocity during a hop. JAXA’s MINERVA-II and MASCOT asteroid landers both are hoppers.

JAXA described the MINERVA-II hopping mechanism as follows:

“MINERVA can hop from one location to another using two DC motors – the first serving as a torquer, rotating an internal mass that leads to a resulting force, sufficient to make the rover hop for several meters. The second motor rotates the table on which the torquer is placed in order to control the direction of the hop. The rover reaches a top speed of 9 centimeters per second, allowing it to hop a considerable distance.”

MINERVA torque & turntable. Source: JAXA

The MASCOT hopper operates on a different principle:

“With a mass of not even half a gram in the gravitational field of the asteroid, the (MASCOT) lander can easily withstand its initial contact with the surface and several bounces that are expected upon landing. It also means that only small forces are needed to move the lander from point to point. MASCOT’s Mobility System essentially consists of an off-centered mass installed on an eccentric arm that moves that mass to generate momentum that is sufficient to either rotate the lander to face the surface with its instruments or initiate a hop of up to 70 meters to get to the next sampling site.”

MASCOT mobility mechanism. Source: JAXA

You will find a good animation of MASCOT and its Mobility System at the following link:

http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-18664/#/gallery/23722

NASA is examining a class of microgravity rovers called “hedgehogs” that are designed to hop and tumble on microgravity surfaces by spinning and braking a set of three internal flywheels. Cushions or spikes at the corners of the cubic body of a hedgehog protect the body from the terrain and act as feet while hopping and tumbling.

NASA Hedgehog prototype. Source: NASA

Read more on the NASA hedgehog rovers at the following link:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4712

Structurally compliant rollers: One means of “rolling” across a microgravity surface is with a deformable structure that allows the location of the center of mass to be controlled in a way that causes the rover to tip over in the desired direction of motion. NASA is exploring the use of a class of rolling rovers called Super Ball Bots, which are terrestrial rovers based on a R. Buckminster Fuller’s tensegrity toy. NASA explains:

“The Super Ball Bot has a sphere-like matrix of cables and joints that could withstand being dropped from a spacecraft high above a planetary surface and hit the ground with a bounce. Once on the planet, the joints could adjust to roll the bot in any direction while housing a data collecting device within its core.”

Source: http://www.nasa.gov/content/super-ball-bot

You’ll find a detailed description of the principles behind tensegrity (tensional integrity) in a 1961 R. Buckminster Fuller paper at the following link:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/rbfnotes/fpapers/tensegrity/tenseg01.html

Grippers: Without having a grip on a microgravity body, a rover cannot use sampling tools that generate a reaction force on the rover (i.e., drills, grinders, chippers). For such operations to be successful a rover needs an anchoring system to secure the rover and transfer the reaction loads into the microgravity body.

An approach being developed by Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) involves articulated feet with microspine grippers that have a large number of small claws that can grip irregular rocky surfaces.

Microspine gripper. Source: NASA / JPL

Such a gripper could be used to hold a rover in place during mechanical sampling activities or to allow a rover to climb across an irregular surface like a spider. See more about the operation of the NASA / JPL microspine gripper at the following link:

https://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/tasks/taskVideo.cfm?TaskID=206&tdaID=700015&Video=147

5. Conclusions

Missions to small bodies in our Solar System are very complex undertakings that require very advanced technologies in many areas, including: propulsion, navigation, autonomous controls, remote sensing, and locomotion in microgravity. The ambitious current and planned future missions will greatly expand our knowledge of these small bodies and the engineering required to operate spacecraft in their vicinity and on their surface.

While commercial exploitation of dwarf planets, asteroids and comets still may sound like science fiction, the technical foundation for such activities is being developed now. It’s hard to guess how much progress will be made in the next decades. However, I’m convinced that the “U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,” will encourage commercial investments in space exploration and exploitation and lead to much greater progress than if we depended on NASA alone.

The technologies being developed also may lead, in the long term, to effective techniques for redirecting an asteroid or comet that poses a threat to Earth. Such a development would give our Planetary Defense Officer (see my 21 January 2016 post) an actual tool for defending the planet.

IAEA’s Nuclear Technology Review 2016

August 23, 2016All Posts, Fusion, Nuclear Waste & Spent Fuel Management, Power Generating Technology - NuclearAdvanced Reactors Information System, ARIS, COP21, fuel cycle, IAEA, Nuclear Technology Review, small and medium size reactorsDrummer

Peter Lobner

In June 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a report by the Director General entitled, “Nuclear Technology Review 2016,” which highlights notable developments in 2015 in the following segments of the worldwide nuclear industry.

Power applications
- Generation
- Fuel cycle
- Safety
Advanced fission
- Gen III large water cooled reactors
- Fast reactors
- Gas-cooled reactors
- Small & medium size reactors (SMRs)
- Gen IV advanced reactors
Fusion
Accelerator and research reactor applications
Other applications
- Emerging industrial applications of radiation technologies
- Advances in medical imaging technology
- Use of radiation in connection with managing mosquito disease vectors
- Use of isotopic techniques for soil management

The following chart from the IAEA report shows the age distribution (years of operation) of the worldwide fleet of 441 operating power reactors. The median age of this fleet is about 26 years, and you can see a bow wave of aging nuclear power plants, followed by far fewer younger plants already in operation.

The following chart from the IAEA report shows the number of new plants under construction by region. As of the end of 2015, a total of 68 nuclear power plants were in various stages of their decade-long construction cycles. This chart clearly shows that Western Europe and the Americas are minor players in the construction of new reactors. Most of the new power reactor construction is occurring in Asia and Central / Eastern Europe.

IAEA reported that, in 2015, worldwide nuclear power generation reached 381.7 GWe. Projections for the future growth of nuclear power generation thru 2050 were given for two cases:

Low case: In this case, new plants just make up for the generating capacity lost from retiring plants. Projected 2050 worldwide generation: 371 GWe.
High case: This is a much more optimistic case, yielding about 964 GWe worldwide generation by 2050.

IAEA noted that, “The 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) resulted in the Paris Agreement that neither identifies nor excludes any particular form of energy.” The Paris Agreement does not discriminate against nuclear power as a means for reaching lower carbon emission goals. In contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) euphemistically named “Clean Power Plan” fails to give appropriate credit to nuclear power as a means for utilities and states to reduce the carbon emissions from their portfolio of power plants. (See my 3 July 2015 and 27 November 2015 posts for more on CPP).

IAEA further noted the contribution of nuclear power to meeting lower carbon emission goals:

“Nuclear power has significantly contributed to climate change mitigation by avoiding nearly 2 billion tonnes (metric tons) of carbon dioxide per year. For nuclear power to help limit global warming to 2^o C by 2100, its capacity would need to match the high projection to avoid nearly 6.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”

Among the small and medium size reactors (SMRs), IAEA noted that the following three were under construction in 2015: Argentina’s CAREM-25, Russia’s KLT-40S, and China’s HTR-PM. Another dozen SMRs were considered to be in the advanced design stage and potentially deployable in the near-term.

IAEA maintains its Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS), as I reported in my 13 February 2015 post. This is a very comprehensive source of information on all types of advanced reactors. You can directly access ARIS at the following link:

https://aris.iaea.org

The “Nuclear Technology Review 2016” provides a useful overview of worldwide nuclear fuel cycle activities:

Worldwide uranium mining in more than 15 countries produced about 57,000 tonnes of Uranium (U) in 2015. Kazakhstan is the leading producer, followed by Canada.
Worldwide annual capacity for conversion of U to UF₆ was about 60,000 tonnes in 2015, approximately matching annual demand. Canada, China, France, Russia, UK and U.S. operate conversion facilities.
Worldwide annual enriched light water reactor (LWR) fuel fabrication capacity is about 13,500 tonnes vs. an annual demand of about 7,000 tonnes. In addition, the fuel fabrication capacity for natural uranium fuel for pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs) is about 4,000 tonnes vs. a demand of 3,000 tonnes. Thirteen nations produce LWR fuel, and five produce PHWR fuel.
Spent fuel reprocessing is being carried out in 5 nations: China, France, India, Russia and UK; with France and Russia offering reprocessing services to international customers. France and UK have the greatest capacity, reprocessing about 1,000 t HM/year.
IAEA reported that, “by the end of 2015, (worldwide) spent fuel in storage amounted to around 266,000 tonnes of heavy metal (t HM) and is accumulating at a rate of around 7,000 t HM/year.
Several nations are planning or developing their own geologic disposal facilities for spent nuclear fuel

There’s a lot more information in the IAEA report, including information on fusion, accelerators, research reactors, and industrial and medical applications of nuclear technologies. You can download this IAEA report at the following link:

https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC60/GC60InfDocuments/English/gc60inf-2_en.pdf

A Walk in the Woods With Boston Dynamics’ Atlas Robot

August 7, 2016All Posts, RoboticsAlphabet, Atlas, Boston Dynamics, DARPA Robotics Challenge, DRC, Google X, Schaft, SpotMini, Toyota Research InstituteDrummer

Peter Lobner

The DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) Finals held in June 2015 demonstrated the rather limited capabilities for state-of-the-art robots, all of which required teleoperators (remote operators) to augment limited autonomous capabilities aboard the robots. One criticism of that competition was that the original rules got watered down because of the limitations of the robot competitors. Performance of the robots could be characterized as slow and deliberate. None of the robotic competitors that fell over could get up and one was decapitated by the fall. Here’s a video compilation of robots falling during the 2015 DARPA finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0TaYhjpOfo

Team KAIST won the competition with their Hubo robot, which didn’t fall, but wasn’t designed to recover from a fall. Team IHMS Robotics placed second in the competition with their Running Man robot, which was based on the Boston Dynamics Atlas robot. Several other teams also based their entries on the Atlas robot. See my 2 July 2015 post on the DRC Finals.

In February 2016, Boston Dynamics posted a video of a new version of their Atlas robot, which they describe as follows:

“A new version of Atlas, designed to operate outdoors and inside buildings. It is specialized for mobile manipulation. It is electrically powered and hydraulically actuated. It uses sensors in its body and legs to balance and LIDAR (Light Imaging, Detection And Ranging) and stereo sensors in its head to avoid obstacles, assess the terrain, help with navigation and manipulate objects. This version of Atlas is about 5′ 9″ tall (about a head shorter than the DRC Atlas) and weighs 180 lbs.”

New version of Atlas. Source: Boston Dynamics

The autonomous balancing capabilities of this new version, especially its ability to recovery from upsets, seem significantly better than anything seen during the DRC. Atlas recovered nicely from the slip in the above photo. You can see the new version of Atlas perform in the Boston Dynamics video at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Another interesting new robot from Boston Dynamics is the quadruped SpotMini, which they describe as follows:

“SpotMini is a new smaller version of the Spot robot, weighing 55 lbs. dripping wet (65 lbs. if you include its arm.) SpotMini is all electric (no hydraulics) and runs for about 90 minutes on a charge, depending on what it is doing. SpotMini is one of the quietest robots we have ever built. It has a variety of sensors, including depth cameras, a solid state gyro (IMU, inertial measuring unit) and proprioception sensors in the limbs. These sensors help with navigation and mobile manipulation. SpotMini performs some tasks autonomously, but often uses a human for high-level guidance.”

SpotMini. Source: Boston Dynamics

On 23 June 2016, Boston Dynamics posted the following short video of SpotMini in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf7IEVTDjng

Google acquired Boston Dynamics in late 2013. Since then, Google was reorganized, with the “parent firm”, Alphabet, being created in 2015. Shortly thereafter, Google’s research and development group, formerly Google^(x), was renamed simply X, or Google X. This group includes a robotics team known as Replicant.

In March 2016, Google announced that Boston Dynamics was up for sale. One reason appears to be that the Boston Dynamics robotics work did not fit in the business model planned for Google X, which has a greater focus on relatively near-term return on investment in the form of a marketable products. You can read an interesting article on Boston Dynamics being put sale at the following link to the Bloomberg Technology website:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/google-is-said-to-put-boston-dynamics-robotics-unit-up-for-sale

In late May and early June 2016, several sources (Nikkei, Tech Insider, and engadget) reported that Toyota was negotiating with Alphabet for the sale of Boston Dynamics. Also part of this sale may be Google’s Japanese robotics company, Schaft, which won the 2013 DRC Trials with its S-One humanoid robot. Schaft withdrew from the 2015 DRC Finals for the declared reason of wanting to focus on commercial products. See the article on the engadget website at the following link:

https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/01/toyota-alphabet-boston-dynamics/

It will be interesting to see how and when the sales of Boston Dynamics and Schaft are completed. If these firms do wind up being bought by Toyota, then Toyota’s Research Institute should become a very powerful center for robotic development.

Lunar Lander XCHALLENGE and Lunar XPrize are Paving the way for Commercial Lunar Missions

August 6, 2016All Posts, Engineering, Robotics, Spacecraft and MissionsArmadillo Aerospace, Google Lunar XPrize, Lunar Lander XCHALLENGE, Masten Space Systems, Team Hakuto, Team Indus, Team Moon Express, Team Part-Time Scientists, Team SpaceIL, Team Synergy MoonDrummer

Peter Lobner

Lunar Lander XCHALLENGE and Lunar XPrize are two competitions promoting the development of technologies, vehicles and systems by private firms for landing unmanned vehicles on the Moon and demonstrating functional capabilities that can support future lunar exploration missions. The legal and regulatory framework for U.S. commercial space activities was greatly simplified in November 2015, when the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act was signed into law. See my 31 December 2015 post for details on this Act.

On 3 August 2016, Lunar XPrize competitor Moon Express became the first private enterprise to be licensed by the U.S. Government (the Federal Aviation Administration) to conduct a mission to the lunar surface. Other Lunar XPrize competitors also are seeking similar approvals in preparation for lunar missions before the end of 2017.

Let’s take a look at how the private sector got this far.

Northrop Grumman / NASA Lunar Lander XCHALLENGE

In October 2007, XPrize and Northrop Grumman, in partnership with NASA’s Centennial Challenges program, launched the $2 million Lunar Lander XCHALLENGE, in which competing teams designed small rocket vehicles capable of routine and safe vertical takeoff and landing for lunar exploration and other applications. You’ll find details on the Lunar Lander XChallenge at the following link and an overview in the following text:

http://lunarlander.xprize.org

Source: XPrize

The XCHALLENGE was divided into two levels.

Level 1:

Required a rocket to take off from a designated launch area; climb to a low, fixed altitude of about 50 meters (164 feet); and fly for at least 90 seconds while translating horizontally to a precise landing point on a different landing pad 100 meters (328 feet) from the launch point. The flight must be repeated in reverse within a two and a half hour period.
Armadillo Aerospace, of Mesquite, TX won the $350K Level 1 first prize in October 2008. Masten Space Systems of Mojave, CA won the $150K Level 1 second place prize on 7 October 2009 when their Xombie rocket completed its flight with an average landing accuracy of 6.3 inches (16 cm).
You can watch a short video on the 2008 Level 1 competition and Armadillo Aerospace’s winning Level 1 flight at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnY5tT4YeE

Armadillo Aerospace Level 1 winner. Source: NASA

Level 2:

Similar to the Level 1 flight profile, but required the rocket to fly for 180 seconds before landing precisely on a simulated lunar surface constructed with craters and boulders 100 meters (328 feet) from the launch point. The minimum flight time was calculated so that the Level 2 mission closely simulated the power needed to perform a real descent from lunar orbit down to the surface of the Moon.

Level 2 landing site. Source: NASA

Masten Space Systems won the $1M Level 2 first prize with the flight of their Xoie rocket on 30 October 2009. Xoie completed its Level 2 flight with an average landing accuracy of about 7.5 inches (19 cm). Armadillo Aerospace took second place and a $500K prize with the 12 September 2009 flight of their Scorpius (Super-mod) rocket, which had an average landing accuracy of about 34 inches (89 cm). These prizes were awarded on 5 November 2009 in Washington D.C.

Masten Aerospace Xoie: Level 2 winner. Source: NASA.

You can watch a short video summary on the XCHALLENGE results, including the winning flight by Xoie at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAvZxa1VXKI

Armadillo Aerospace’s Scorpius: Level 2 second place. Source: NASA

You can watch a short video on the Scorpius 2009 flight at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALKvai4p7OE

The other XCHALLENGE competitors, TrueZer0 and Unreasonable Rockets, failed to qualify for Level 1 or 2.

Google Lunar XPrize

The Google Lunar XPrize was created in 2007, overlapping with the Northrop Grumman / NASA Lunar Lander XCHALLENGE. The Lunar XPrize is intended to actually deliver payloads to the Moon and “incentivize space entrepreneurs to create a new era of affordable access to the Moon and beyond.” The motto for the Google XPrize is: “Back to the Moon for good.”

The basic mission requirements are:

Land a privately funded rover on the Moon at a site announced in advance.
Travel at least 500 meters along a deliberate path on the lunar surface.
Transmit two “Mooncasts” from the surface of the Moon, including specified types of videos and still images.
Receive specified data uplinks from Earth and re-transmit the data back to Earth.
Deliver a small payload provided by XPrize (not to exceed 500 grams).
Private funding for 90% of the total mission cost. No more than 10% government funding, including the value of in-kind support.
Launch contract in place by the end of 2016 and mission completion by the end of 2017.

The primary incentives are large financial award to the first and second teams that accomplish all of the mission requirements: $20 million Grand Prize and $5 million for second place. In addition, there are several other financial prizes that add up to total awards of more than $40 million. Of course, the winner will have bragging rights for a long time to come.

Milestone prizes: $5.25 million already has been awarded to teams that demonstrated robust hardware in three categories: landing, mobility, and imaging. The following Milestone prize winners have been announced:

Source: XPrize

Bonus prizes: Up to $4 million for successfully completing additional scientific and technical tasks not in the mission requirements
Apollo Heritage Bonus Prize: $4 million for making an Apollo Heritage Mooncast from the site of an Apollo moon landing.
Heritage Bonus Prize: $1 million for making a Mooncast from another site of interest to XPrize.
Range Bonus Prize: $2 million for a rover that can traverse five kilometers on the Moon’s surface.
Survival Bonus Prize: $2 million for successfully operating on two separate lunar days.
Water Detection Bonus Prize: $4 million for producing scientifically conclusive proof of the presence of water on the Moon.

The Google Lunar XPrize home page is at the following link, where you can navigate to many details on this competition and sign up for an XPrize newsletter:

http://lunar.xprize.org

The Google Lunar XPrize began with 29 teams and now 16 remain. As noted above, five teams already have won Milestone prizes.

The three teams that competed in the landing milestone competition are taking different approaches. Astrobotics is using a lunar lander developed by Masten Aerospace. Indus and Moon Express are developing their own lunar landers.

So far, only two teams have launch contracts:

On 7 October 2015, the Israeli team SpaceIL became the first Lunar XPrize team to sign a launch contract. They signed a launch services contract with Spaceflight Industries for launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launcher in the second half of 2017.
On 8 December 2017, XPrize verified the Moon Express launch contract with Rocket Lab USA. Moon Express contracted for three launches using an Electron booster, which, as of mid-2016, is still being developed.

By the end of 2016, all competitors that intend to continue into the finals must have a launch contract in place.

So far, only three nations have made a soft landing on the Moon: USA, Russia and China. In 2017, a privately funded team may be added to that list. That would be a paradigm shift for lunar exploration, opening the door for private teams and commercial firms to have regular, relatively low cost access to the Moon.

Update 23 December 2016: Google Lunar XPrize Status

On 22 December 2016, author Daniel Clery posted an article, “Here’s who could win the $20 million XPrize for roving on the moon—but will any science get done?” The author reports that six teams claim to have booked flights to the moon for their lunar landers / rovers. The following chart provides a summary for five of the competitors. The small (4 kg) rover for the sixth competitor, Japan’s Team Hakuto, will be delivered to the moon on the same lander as India’s Team Indus.

Click on the graphic above to enlarge. Source: G. Grullón/Science

As I noted previously, all competitors that intend to continue into the Lunar XPrize finals must have a launch contract in place by the end of 2016, and the mission to the moon must be completed by the end of 2017.

You can read Daniel Clery’s complete article on the Sciencemag.org website, at the following link:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/heres-who-could-win-20-million-xprize-roving-moon-will-any-science-get-done?utm_campaign=news_daily_2016-12-22&et_rid=215579562&et_cid=1068715

Update 23 January 2018: Google Lunar XPrize Competion Cancelled

After concluding that none of the remaining competitors could meet the extended 31 March 2018 deadline for landing on the Moon, this competition came to a close, with the $30M in prizes remaining unclaimed.