Hi,

I just got done reading one of your posts from shortly after Obama announced his new plan. I understand Constellation’s problems and so agree with you that it needed to be replaced with a better plan. But if water ice from the Moon could be returned to LEO (lower earth orbit), then this would completely open up the solar system. Constellation wasn’t going to do this but neither will Obama’s plan. But I think that there is a way to achieve this while still achieving the inspiring first act of sending humans to an asteroid. The key is to not send humans to the moon (initially) but to develop and bring back lunar resources using only medium-lift rockets and telerobotics.

What I am talking about here can be called “sustainable space development”. This means developing in-space resources and so reduce the cost of fuel in LEO thereby reducing the quantity of mass you need to get to LEO and from LEO to everywhere else.

The new plan should heavily emphasize extending the COTS/CRS/CCT concept to beyond LEO. It is a concept that seems to be working; seems to keep development costs down; and seems to have resulted in a commercial rocket that beat the Ares I to orbit even though they had less money to work with. If this approach is already showing early success, why not expand it beyond LEO in those areas where there are potential markets to be developed. Why should commercial space development only get less than 2% of NASAs budget? The budget should reflect a greater balance especially when it comes to sustainable development which can facilitate the other goals. I think that the amount should be about 15% of the budget. Initially, these funds should be drawn from the heavy lift vehicle (HLV) development and operations. After lunar water ice is being brought to LEO then we can examine whether an expensive HLV is needed after all.

Regarding robots, robonauts can repair other robots and set up a worksite. The way that I see it is that teleoperated robots will precede a human return to the Moon because they can launch on smaller craft, can go on one way trips, require less massive life support, can survive better when exposed to the elements, and their “deaths” don’t launch multi-year investigations. They set up power and ISRU (in-situ resource utilization) systems, start basic mining operations, prepare habitats, and maybe prepare (sinter?) landing sites. They do most of the industrial labor but also prepare the things for a low-mass delivery of humans. We still eventually need humans in commercial operations if only for hotels. I would add that establishing a self-sustaining manned base should be an important goal recognizing that we’ll likely see the development of self-replicating and accelerating technology in a number of fields by about mid-century.

I would like to suggest that there may be a way of returning to the Moon for far, far less cost than Apollo. A rendez-vous of two Falcon 9 Heavy LEO payloads would mass to about 64,000 kg. I believe that this would allow the delivery of about 3,000 to 5,000 kg to the lunar surface. With a proper plan, we could funnel any number of things to the lunar surface with this mass of payload. Project M shows a robonaut being delivered to the lunar surface on something that looks to be within this range. Solar panels would fit as would modest-sized regolith extractors, ISRU equipment, and small earth movers. None of these things would need to come with an ascender and fuel. If fuel could be extracted from the lunar water ice or regolith in quantities sufficient to provide enough fuel for ascension then this would mean that fuel wouldn’t need to be delivered to the lunar surface. At that point, I believe, one could begin to return lunar resources to the Earth or to LEO using aerocapture.

Obama’s plan for a manned mission to an asteroid could still continue. The Orion capsule is far less massive than the Altair lunar lander and so the amount of fuel needed for earth departure should not require a HLV. A couple of Falcon 9 Heavies should be able to provide enough fuel.

Thanks for your time and I hope to hear back from you,

John

This raises a few questions and concerns. First of all, isn’t Canonical scared of legal actions from Apple? Apple is not quite the worst software patent troll, and not always the most agressive, but its recent history shows that it takes threats seriously and will use it’s patent on “multitouch”. The patent itself is ridicoulous, of course. As Dana Bankenhorn of ZDNet points out, Ubuntu is trying to go further than Apple has gone regarding Mac’s multitouch integration.

Apple may claim a patent on its mousetrap, but can it claim to control all methods for catching mice?

Of course, that’s not how law works. However ridiculous software patents can be, they are real, and companies like HTC are sweating under their power.

The easy answer would be to point out that Canonical is not based in the US, and therefore not subject to Apple’s patents as long as they don’t sell these products over there. Ubuntu is free, so inclusion of multitouch should not be a problem.

But will Ubuntu’s multitouch framework, dubbed uTouch, actually go beyond previous implementations? The answer seems to be “yes”.

The design team has lead the way, developing a “touch language” which goes beyond the work that we’ve seen elsewhere. Rather than single, magic gestures, we’re making it possible for basic gestures to be chained, or composed, into more sophisticated “sentences”. The basic gestures, or primitives, are like individual verbs, and stringing them together allows for richer interactions.

–Mark Shuttleworth

Mark Shuttleworth admits that what they are doing isn’t a revolution in human-computer interaction, but it “feels like a good step in the right direction.” I believe he is being modest here. Apple has a way of picking the best innovations in the lot, rebranding and perfecting them, and then releasing the next great thing. It has taken what already existed, and then revolutionized the computer industry by making it theirs. They’ve done that with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, all of which were commercal sucesses. But Apple has also been very strong in the laptop business these last years, and multitouch has been a part of that.

If Ubuntu could make their uTouch framework efficient on all machines and then deliver what they are promising, there would be a revolution. unfortunately, that’s not what’s going to happen.

You’ll need 4-finger touch or better to get the most out of it, and we’re currently targeting the Dell XT2 as a development environment so the lucky folks with that machine will get the best results today. By release, we expect you’ll be able to use it with a range of devices from major manufacturers, and with addons like Apple’s Magic Trackpad.[...]
Window management will be gesture-enabled in Unity, so 10.10 Netbook Edition users with touch screens or multi-touch pads will have sophisticated window management at their fingertips.

–Mark Shuttleworth

The problem here is inherent to Ubuntu’s nature. Ubuntu, as the free OS it is, has to be designed to work on the widest range of devices that it could possibly run on. These devices are the ones that most people own, as they will buy their computer (touchscreen/multitouch included or otherwise) before knowing that they could install Ubuntu.

This means that the progress the Ubuntu has done will not be available for all Ubuntu’s users, not only because Canonical can’t control what hardware their users own, but also because hardware vendors might all have different goals regarding hardware, goals that may be incompatible with Canonical’s vision.

If you already are a fan of Ubuntu, your first reaction may be to think that “choice”–one of the open-source community’s favorite words–is a good thing, and that it’s evil for any OS to be tied to one particular vendor. You’d be right of course, but that’s not the whole story. Innovations in terms of computer interaction need two things.

First, they need the will and talent of the software developers, interface designers and the OS team as a whole. These people think of new ways in which users could interact with their software stack, primarily through the graphical user interface. But the user cannot interact with the software without the use of hardware. This hardware must be adapted to the needs of both the interface and the user. That’s where hardware designers come into play.

Apple’s pioneering in terms of computer interaction these last years has come from the fact that the same company controlled both the hardware and the software. It is not an inherant superiority of the OS itself–or the fact that allmighty Steve Jobs runs the company–that makes Apple appear more innovative, it is their ability to innovate when both ends of the product need to evolve.

Microsoft understood this, and while they’re still not going to be selling their own hardware, they are already setting hardware requirements for Windows v.next. That means that Microsoft will have some say on how hardware should evolve to suit their software. Ubuntu, unfortunately, will not have this luxury.

The nature of opensource makes it free, but this freedom comes with a price. In some respects, Ubuntu is the most innovative OS out there, and Canonical’s uTouch guidelines shows us why. Canonical is willing to try new things, and the UI (user interface) team has had some great ideas, but they are limited by the scope of their company and the type of product that they are distributing.

The answer, of course, would be for canonical to sign deals with PC OEM’s for some Ubuntu-approved computers that would provide the users the “full Ubuntu experience.” That would be if Canonical’s relations with the said OEM’s was easy, but the recent news about Dell’s offerings shows that it isn’t.

If Ubuntu were the future of computing, we’d see some real innovation. Canonical seems to be a company that’s ready to shake things up a little, and innovate in ways that prove they think far beyond just the next product, but they need to have a say on the hardware that their OS is installed on if they really want to make a splash. If they don’t, they’ll always be lagging behind Apple and Microsoft.

Contact the author via email

But let’s not open the champagne bottles yet.

The first, obvious, gargantuan, monstrous, scandalous thing about Flight is the omission of the word “simulator”. I immediately contacted Microsoft about this, and a spokesperson came back to me with this frightening answer:

With “Microsoft Flight” we’re approaching the flight simulation genre from the ground up, with the focus on the universal appeal of the experience of Flight. We believe the simplicity of “Microsoft Flight” perfectly captures that vision while welcoming the millions of existing Flight Simulator fans.

I know, dear sim fans, I know. What our virtual world needs is endless tweaking and optimizing, not a ground-up redesign. On the other hand, a dumbed down product designed to appeal to the trigger-happy halo-playing masses isn’t a simulator, so kudos to Microsoft for being honest about it and naming it right.

But is all hope really lost? A decisive factor when it comes to games is who is building them, obviously. Some games rely entirely on one man, like X-Plane, Flight Simulator’s main rival, which was built from the ground up by a genius called Austin Meyer.

In flight simulator’s case, it was a group of people called ACES studio. It’s precisely this studio which was let off a few years ago. When asked if former ACES members were behind Microsoft Flight, I was told by Microsoft that

Microsoft Flight is being developed internally at Microsoft by a team that includes many of the same creative minds that helped deliver countless entries in the Flight Simulator franchise.

This is good news, but I wasn’t completely convinced yet. Will I finally give up on my FS9 installation? One decisive factor will be realism. In this area, X-Plane will be hard to beat, because it uses something called blade element theory, rather than a physics engine based on static tables. In other words, it’s the physical features of an aircraft that will determine its performance, just like in real life. I asked Microsoft if they planned on implementing a new model, and here is what they replied:

We aren’t ready to share a specific development details at this time, but I assure you this game is very real.

Of course, the game is real, but will it feel real? Only time will tell. I wouldn’t expect a release before christmas of 2011, but we look forward to X-Plane 10 in the meantime.

Here is the official trailer:

Contact the author via email