A research group from two Beijing, China universities is developing maglev technology to launch spaceships into orbit at a fraction of the cost of current rocket departure methods. A spaceship would be magnetically levitated over a track and up an incline, and lift off when it reaches a velocity of 620 miles/hour. [source link] Researchers at NASA are also apparently investigating similar technology. [source]
Another fascinating propulsion possibility are lasers. The Department of Defense has invested in developing battlefield viable lasers beyond 100kW solid state by 2009, but the same technology could allegedly be used for pushing satellites and probes to Mars in days rather than months. [for more information, click here.] [Thanks, Futurismic]
HOVER (high occupancy vehicles in express routes) is an efficient carpooling system originally developed in Auckland, New Zealand to reduce congestion. Hover provides a system that does not require pre-planning for drivers, no commitment to participate everyday, or travel at specific, predesignated times. Lots of cars commute to similar destinations, and have empty seats, so it’s a great system to reduce highway congestion, and reduce automobile emissions. The organization advocates that “park and ride” facilities for the “park and pool” system be publicly funded like roads and buses. Check out the video below.
One of Jacque Fresco’s future construction concepts is that prefab components will be assembled by robotic cranes, and buildings will have an infinite number of possible design variations. Many perceive prefab construction to have unoriginal, cheap, cookie-cutter designs, but in reality it simply means that components are efficiently manufactured and assembled quickly like Legos. Traditional construction results in a ton of waste, is usually energy and resource inefficient, and less structurally strong than prefab construction.
I just watched Scoble’s video about Urban Seeder, a new website in beta that invents a new paradigm for technology to assist meeting people you see in the real world. Urban Seeder was born out of a year long thesis project by its founder, who researched how people flirt and find love. It’s an interesting approach, since most consumer entrepreneurial ventures are born out of the instinct of its creators, and not a deep analysis of consumer behavior. (Large corporations, on the other hand, often have reams of market research and consumer insights data to support the viability and potential of a new product or service, as a way to mitigate risk.)
It’s clear that the founder’s research indicated there was a need for a method to safely allow relationships to seed and grow anonymously, and offer a way to seed a relationship more effectively than a casual passing, which can be a missed opportunity, and less forward than giving out a phone number.
However, does the site go too far in its attempt to alter conventional flirting behavior? The site will sell personalized and wearable patterned clothes and accessories that are recognizable by other users of the service, for example, and if you have an interest in meeting the person, you can take their picture and the service will recognize the pattern and point you to the person’s online space. How strange of a behavior is that? Will you really want to take a picture of someone, because you hope to meet them, and not have the guts to introduce yourself?
Or, you can give out seed cards, which have a code that directs you to a private and personal online space, which includes where you will be on a given night. But, do you really want to respond, or go to a physical place where the giver of the seed card will be, without knowing what the person looks like? (the site seems to favor anonymously giving out seed cards, and yes, I know that’s a superficial question, but I would bet a very real issue. There’s a reason why Hot or Not is so successful.)
This leads me to ponder a fundamental innovation question: Is it possible for an innovative solution to be too unfamiliar to be widely adopted, even if it’s clearly better than its current competition? For example, I think the Segway is an incredibly good way for people to commute within cities. It’s possible to travel at a much faster pace and to travel a farther distance than walking. It doesn’t require finding a parking space, or sitting in traffic for extended periods of time, as you often must do with a car, and it produces no harmful emissions. Yet, it has not been widely adopted. To what extent is this a question of affordability vs. marketing or a challenge of altering behavior? (another example of an innovative product that significantly improves life is Tivo, which has taken ten years to be widely adopted vs. Google, which arguably was adopted extremely quickly, because it offered an incremental and not revolutionary innovation.)
Also interesting to me is Urban Seeder’s use of video to demonstrate how the service can be used. Video can be an extremely effective way to communicate how innovative concepts function.
Tomorrow, 8 undergraduate teams from four Chicago area colleges will be competing for fame and fortune in an entrepreneurial quest in downtown Chicago. The teams will follow clues to various organizations, including Motorola, and the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, where the students will complete tasks a la The Apprentice. By the end of the day, the students will have completed an elevator pitch, a rapid prototyping activity, a media interview, and a written opportunity assessment report. Video clips and photographs will be posted in real time on this website and youtube.
Designer Tom Shannon has received a patent on a new type of blimp with 61.5 million LED’s, so the entire surface can be used for video advertising. Tom is trying to raise funding to build and operate the blimps. [via wired]
Da Vinci technology from Texas Instruments claims to be nothing more than the future of technology. It apparently enables a world where high performance video can be streamed live to an array of devices, including portable devices, in-car computer systems and television command centers.
I watched Future Cars last night, a mini-series on the Discovery Channel, and there were several interesting concepts. For example, why not design a car frame or shell with an inner interior compartment that has a cushion surrounding it, so in a collision the cushion absorbs the impact and protects the inhabitants to a much greater extent than current airbags?
Also, why has there been no real innovation in the big trucks segment? There was a highly aerodynamic designed truck cabin featured that potentially increases fuel efficiency by 50% without any engine modification.
Also watched Future by Design this week, the documentary about Jacque Fresco I previously mentioned here. I’m still absorbing much of it, particularly Jacque’s vision of a resource based economy of abundance, but there were some really no brainer design concepts. For example, he demonstrated a type of material, a shape memory alloy, that could potentially be used in automobile exteriors, so in the event of a bump or collision, the frame simply fixes itself. Of course, there will be electronics that significantly reduce the chances of a collision in the first place.
Or, cargo ships with modular sections, so the ship never has to be unbalanced or inefficiently travel empty. And, Jacque raised the possibility to transport things underwater, where there is much less resistance than on the surface, with an air bubble system to further reduce resistance.
Or, homes that are slightly pressurized to eradicate dust.
Or, building a bathroom system, so sink and shower waste water is used to flush the toilet.
Each of his designs aren’t just whimsical visions of futuristic aesthetics, but really have a logical basis for function and improved interaction between different social and environmental factors. It’s an inspiring documentary. Check it out!
