One company’s vision of the automobiles of the future. Volkswagen recently launched Volkswagen 2028, a website that explores VW’s perspective on a number of issues and how those issues might manifest themselves through design twenty years from now, a perspective rooted deeply in Volkswagen’s longer term brand strategy (read that as marketing). This is not so much about showing us futuristic concepts as much as demonstrating the response to different needs, constraints, and technologies. Responses that are increasingly important to people. Specifically, Volkswagen provides us with some detail in how, in the near future, they might respond to issues of sustainability, networked mobility, customization and personalization, and accident prevention. All of the concepts offer hypothetical technologies that either replace the traditional human-car interaction, or enhance it by steamlining and focusing the action of driving. It’s a good exercise, and I have no doubt that the issues and ideas addressed by VW here are the beginnings of some pretty sophisticated changes that we will see in automobiles. While I imagine that all automobile manufacturers are digging into these concepts, at least to some degree, it is interesting to see Volkswagen put it out there in such a cohesive and comprehensive way, though this is clearly as much about marketing as it is about showcasing advanced engineering thinking.
I don’t think this is an issue for most of the rest of the world, but for the United States this is a serious design challenge. This is mostly due to our long established culture of valuing big and fast when it comes to our personal transportation. In the U.S., we’re just catching wind of small and efficient, and this is being driven by our pocketbooks at the moment, and not necessarily by doing what is right. Whatever works to achieve change…
Being an absolute gearhead has presented some interesting dilemmas for me, personally, as I reconcile this fact with my work in sustainable design. I love cars, but I do not love the current range of high-mileage fuel efficient vehicles currently on offer. Yes, the Tesla is sexy and it is indeed fast. It is also around $100k and only six or so have been made and delivered (far below the pace for the 650 promised this year). More options are going to be available in the near future from a range of manufacturers, and these options will begin to push into performance territory while also delivering on great design.
The VW One-Liter concept pictured above appears to be one of these options, at least from the perspective of design. A concept car from a couple years ago, and not tentatively scheduled for production until 2012, the One-Liter seems to be getting more attention from VW. There are plans to produce limited numbers of this 282 mpg, two seat microcar (around 1000 vehicles) over the next year or so with planning being done around it being a mainstream production model by 2012. I like this car. I like the influences of mid-century automobile and aircraft design that doesn’t feel too retro. I like that you access it via a pop-up cockpit canopy, and that the passenger sits behind the driver. I especially like the interior, which looks purposeful and performance focused:
Engineers at VW made good use of materials like magnesium, titanium and aluminum to greatly reduce the weight of the One-Liter, down to a third the weight of a Toyota Echo. Carbon fiber also figures prominently in the design of the vehicle, and is actually a big reason VW is considering production much sooner for this car. The cost of carbon fiber has dropped dramatically much faster than VW had expected, making the production of the One-Liter much more viable. I want to drive one very badly.
A somewhat comical comparison between the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Prius and BMW’s new M3 sedan. The results are NOT what you might think. I am surrounded by people gushing over the Prius precisely because it is ostensibly so very “economical.” Cue the bucket of cold water.
Our little family is definitely feeling the pinch of higher gas prices, to the tune of a couple hundred dollars a month more than we were paying about a year ago. Yet, my wife and I are ok with this and are adjusting our lifestyle and schedule to allow us to drive less. We know that these high gas prices may be what it takes to change not only the habits of Americans as individuals, but of society at large. The net of that will be a very good thing. So we are beginning to drive much less, and be much more thoughtful in our destinations. We are clearly not alone.
A Department of Transportation study (via nextautos) has revealed that in April of this year Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer miles on highways than they did in April of 2007, a 1.8% reduction. So far for 2008 Americans have driven 20 billion fewer miles than they did in 2007. What is interesting, though, is that while those numbers may sound large they are not yet a significant percentage reduction over 2007, though the April numbers continue a six month trend in declining miles travelled. I would anticipate that miles driven will continue to decline and while 1.8% may not seem like a large decline it is my guess that this is a trend that will continue for some time to come. If the high gas prices last as long as many are saying they will, those declines in driving may become permanent lifestyle changes.
I posted about the Mazda Furai concept, pictured above, back in January with regards to how it manifests Mazda’s Nagare, or “flow”, design language. Last week I came across a ton of content at the Car Design Blog with regards to Mazda design and what Nagare means to the organization. Mazda views Nagare as the physical manifestation of their brand and brand heritage, and has put tremendous emphasis on Nagare as the foundation of a future looking design language for the company. Of particular note are the descriptions of Mazda’s design process and the admission by Mazda’s global head of design, Laurens van den Acker, that to realize Nagare they had to break the golden rule of design, which is to simplify:
“Everybody will tell you to remove lines until you have no more left to remove. We are adding lines, which is kind of counter intuitive, but if we do it well it looks natural and creates beauty.”
Laurens van den Acker, General Manager Mazda Design
NASA engineers have been busy testing robotic mobility prototypes for potential use on future missions to the moon and Mars. The engineers, in full astronaut gear, have been putting the machines through their paces on terrain at Moses Lake, Washington that approximates the mobility challenges of navigating the surface regolith of the moon.
The robotic prototypes tested include the twelve wheeled robotic transport pictured above, as well as a six-legged all-terrain vehicle that can carry large payloads, an autonomous drilling rover and a mapping robot. There is an incredibly large and well-shot image gallery of the testing, and the various robotic vehicles, here that is worth viewing. The public was invited to observe, which is further proof of the efforts that NASA is undertaking to engage the public and enlist their enthusiasm. NASA’s relatively recent adoption of social media as a way to create dialog with the public is an additional indicator of a changed view of the role of the public in space exploration.
Chris Bangle is the sometimes controversial head of the global BMW Design Group, and he has worked tirelessly to move automobile design at BMW to a place where it can respond to both the demand for innovation and the needs of the user. He has put together a dream team of designers, engineers, and thinkers who challenge every convention of what an automobile is and how we use it. The most recent work from this team is the GINA Light Visionary Model pictured above. At the most base level, this dramatically effects the look of automobile design. At it’s most complex, it completely changes our relationship to this mode of transportation and brings out a level of emotion that I, personally, have not experienced in a very, very long time. I encourage you to watch this video presentation of the concept if you have any interest in the future of automobile design:
As far as I am concerned, GINA nails it by creating a seamless connection between form and function, by challenging every convention of automobile design, and by FINALLY bringing materials innovation to a point of influence that is beyond the shallowness of style. It is:
“Context over dogma.”
Chris Bangle - Head of BMW Design Group
Much more on this at Winding Road, perhaps the best automotive blog I have yet experienced.
The headline quote is a favorite line from Steve McQueen’s character in the movie Le Mans. It sums up well my current state of mind.
The events of this weekend are such as to make my wife feel like a single mother. That is because for those of us that favor motorsports, this weekend is it. There are races, and then there are RACES… and this weekend is definitely all about those. Yesterday kicked it off with the start of the Nurburgring 24 Hours, which runs through Sunday and is raced on one of the most complex and exciting racetracks in the world, one that I’ve been fortunate enough to lap many, many times. Today is the start of the Isle of Man TT Motorcycle Races, the coolest, most challenging, and dangerous series of motorcycle races which run through June 6th. Tomorrow is huge, with the Formula One Monaco GP run at the racecourse in Monte Carlo, definitely a favorite race. Check out this racecourse narrative from the BMW-Sauber F1 team to get a sense for how challenging Monte Carlo really is:
Tomorrow is also the day for the venerable Indy 500, raced at the “Brickyard” in Indianapolis. Honestly, this is a weekend that makes me seriously reconsider not owning a television. I must strategically plan the entire long weekend with opportunities to intersect with places I might be able to catch the races on television. In between those happy accidents, I’ll be watching the live feeds from a series of about twenty websites.
Coming dangerously close to green washing, Bentley has put together a site to promote their team for the UK’s Greenpower-Electric Car Races For Schools, admittedly a very, very cool initiative. The first thing that got my attention was the minimalist soap-box-derby aesthetic of the Bentley team’s car design. The second thing that got my attention was that there IS actually a program in the UK to create electric racing car teams for schools to focus learning on engineering and technology as careers, the intersection of so many things that I love.
The Greenpower program actually has several categories for students, including both secondary and primary schools, as well as a corporate program. Honestly, this should be an international program and evolve into an entirely new category of motorsports.
I actually watched this race live last year, and was so excited I woke up our sleeping baby daughter. I tend to do that. I had forgotten about this finish until seeing it again on the new blog dedicated to all things gearhead and cool, Unabashed Gearhead Gnarlyness. I love it.
This footage says a lot to me about the lengths we go to in order to win. Let me set the stage… This race at Sebring in Florida is a 12 hour endurance race. That is a lot of laps, and winning is an incredible combination of planning, strategy, durability, avoiding fatigue, and seizing opportunities. Multiples of opportunities. The track itself is brutal with pavement breaks and cracks. It is very hard on the cars, I’ve been there to see it myself. In most cases, races of this type are won by a number of laps, and tend to be anticlimactic. This was a rare and wonderful finish, with two very evenly matched and similarly performing racing cars battling it out to the very end. Both drivers were at the limit of their abilities and of the performance envelopes for their cars. Both drivers were intently focused on finding and seizing an opportunity. Both drivers knew that second place may as well be last place, that losing is not an option. Both drivers were risking everything. This is competition, this is what it takes to win. The driver of the winning Ferrari sums it up nicely at the end when he says “I never give up.”
April 4th marked the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 6, the last of the unmanned Apollo missions and the second time that a Saturn V rocket was launched. This was also the day that Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed in Memphis, Tennessee, and as such Apollo 6 was minimally covered in the news. The Saturn V would play a significant role in getting astronauts to the moon and this launch, forty years ago, was to be the final test of the Saturn V before qualifying and readying it for the planned manned missions. For the Moon program, this was an incredibly important mission and would complete an important phase of systems testing. Apollo 6 did have serious problems which prevented the mission from reaching the designated orbit. These problems were quickly identified and addressed in the next mission, Apollo 7, and in the end, it was the only Saturn V launch that experienced operational challenges. It was the Apollo 6 mission that proved the integrity of the Saturn V launch vehicle. Since Apollo 6 was a test flight, NASA positioned cameras in places that would not be possible on a Moon mission. One of these took the famous set of images of the Saturn V first stage separation and the jettisoning of the interstage ring, pictured above.
After Apollo 6, all future Apollo missions were manned. After Apollo 17 the Apollo program was terminated for lack of funding, indicative of a tumultuous time in American history and a changing domestic agenda. At program termination there were three Saturn V rockets that had been completed in preparation of future Moon missions. Of these, one was ultimately used to launch Skylab, America’s first space station, into orbit on May 14, 1973. The remaining two are on display at various places around the country, including the complete Saturn V at the Johnson Space Center in Houston which is composed entirely of never used flight hardware.
As we near the end of the Space Shuttle’s operational life, and work continues on the replacement Orion/Constellation program, it is interesting that NASA has in some ways gone back to the future and put in place a program that is a direct descendant of the successes of the Apollo and Saturn programs, in some cases using identical systems technologies.
It has been a while since I have posted about robots, so via DangerRoom comes news that we are that much closer to bigger, better, and more stealthy flying robots of death. At least the United States Navy is. We’ve had operational drones and remotely piloted craft that could fire on targets, but within the next year the Northrop Grumman X-47B will take flight, and begin aircraft carrier landing testing a year after that. This is a mean machine, and brings an array of capabilities to bear all from a compact, efficient, and radar resistant form factor. It’s not a small craft, but it is much smaller than all other carrier based aircraft. It’s mission profile reads like a Tom Clancy novel:
Ballistic missle defense
Irregular force attack
“Manhunting”
Strike-coordinated armed reconnaissance
Combat air support
Special operations force support
Air interdiction
Electronic surveillance
SEAD/EW (I have no idea what this means…)
The impetus behind creating this robotic aircraft is to provide the Navy and Marines with a platform that can stay in flight for 50-100 hours, carry 4,500 pounds of ordinance, and perform the toughest missions under the most dangerous of circumstances. Clearly criteria that make a pilotless option priority. Additionally, there are plans to make the airframe compatible with carrying directed energy weapons. That would be lasers.
I don’t care what business or what industry you are talking about, innovation matters big time. I get this, and my investigations into how you cultivate a culture of innovation is an ongoing theme on schneiderism. I find it really interesting that companies like Toyota (as well as BMW, Porsche, Audi, Tata, Nissan, VW, Mazda…) continue to receive coverage with regards to the success of the innovative internal cultures they have supported, and the measurable benefits of those cultures in terms of market success, while essentially the entire American automotive industry struggles to find itself, let alone perpetuate a culture of innovation, let alone even THINK about market success. Many, including myself, have looked closely at how Toyota’s long history of creating and supporting innovation wherever it sets up shop. In many ways, innovation defines Toyota. Recently, Fortune took a similar look at Honda and revealed another deeply innovative company culture. It also revealed the demonstrable benefits of that culture.
For Honda, innovation is equivalent to excellence, and excellence clearly pays. The article states that since 2002 Honda’s revenues have grown close to 40%, approaching $94.8 billion. Most interesting to me is that Honda’s U.S. market share has risen from 6.7% in 2000 to 9.6% in 2007. That is partly because of American manufacturers LOSING market share, but is also because Honda continues to provide smart, affordable and innovative products that people WANT. Badly. Honda, along with Toyota and BMW, are the only automobile companies to make it into Fortune’s list of the top 20 of the World’s Most Admired Companies. Apple is number one, by the way.
So, how does Honda make this happen? They let people experiment and explore. The culture encourages this. Leadership wants it. More specifically, they encourage their engineers, especially those who drive R&D, to be entrepreneurial in their pursuits. The kicker is that at Honda not only are employees typically paid less than at the competition, but their opportunities to move up in the organization are pretty limited. That’s because Honda is very, very flat as an organization… and it is this flatness that empowers people to experiment and to be entrepreneurial. To innovate. Employees tend to be incredibly loyal to Honda, as an added bonus, and this also is directly related to the flatness of the organization. That, and they magnify their passion by being around others who are so invested in experimenting, improving, and creating. Others that are passionate about innovating. There is even a surprisingly cool section on Honda’s corporate website dedicated to their focus on innovation, and the important results of that focus. Masaaki Kato, president and CEO of Honda R&D, offers his perspective on Honda’s innovation success:
“We want to look down the road. We do not want to be influenced by the business.”
Masaaki Kato, president and CEO of Honda Research and Development
This video, via Winding Road, is utterly amazing. The organic, chaotic, nature with which this traffic flows, melds together, and merges at an intersection in Hyderabad, India is incredible to see. That it seems to work, despite a number of close calls, is a testament to the focus and mettle of the drivers and pedestrians transiting this intersection. The way the traffic fluidly comes together and then separates reminds me of how the blood mixes in the ventricles of the heart.
On February 23rd legendary auto racer, journalist and author Paul Frere died at the age of 91. His death was due to long term complications from an accident he had racing at Germany’s Nurburgring racetrack back in 2006. He never fully recovered from that accident. Frere pursued his passion to the very end.
He led an inspiring life, moving from racing motorcycles to completing 11 Formula One Grand Prix, racing in the Le Mans 24 Hours (winning it in a Ferrari in 1960 with co-driver Olivier Gendebein) and the Mille Miglia, becoming a renowned automotive journalist and highly regarded motorsports author. His automobile reviews were thorough, memorable and born out of a passion for going fast well. He raced with and against the best, and wrote for the rest of us to share his experience and expertise. His amazing book Sports Car and Competition Driving, which holds a permanent spot on my bookshelf and was originally written in 1963 (my copy is the 1992 edition), was my introduction to the world of high performance driving and motorsports. Through this book, Paul Frere taught me how to heel-and-toe, properly anticipate and apex a corner, trail brake at speed, and track out. He taught me that smooth is fast, and that driving well is understanding the science of vehicle dynamics. I have had the privilege of driving on some of the world’s most prestigious racetracks, from the Nurburgring to Laguna Seca, and every time I did I would remember his book, recalling his insights.
“Above a certain level, driving becomes a sport, demanding of its addicts instinct and accurate reflexes combined with perfect judgment. In this sphere, only those who enjoy an outstanding natural gift and who take a profound interest in the subject will ever reach the top.”
The Cold War was the catalyst for the development of a diversity of interesting vehicles, platforms and technologies, but few have been of more interesting to me than the Soviet “Lun” ekranoplan pictured above and below. The Soviet Union began developing the wing-in-ground (WIG) ground effect technology in the 1930’s, but the craft reached a pinnacle of sorts in the 1980’s with the Lun (one of which can be seen at Google Earth), though WIG craft have yet to reach any broad application, whether military or commercial. Ekranoplans benefit from WIG in two important ways, the first being the ability to achieve incredibly high speeds and the second that flying at 10 to 50 feet above the surface makes them largely undetectable by radar.
WIG works as a high pressure region develops beneath the wing’s lower surface and above the water surface, which enhances its lift compared to a conventional wing in free air. The close proximity of the water also disrupts the formation of wing-tip vortices, which are a major cause of induced drag on conventional wings in free air. To benefit from WIG, the airfoil must have a relatively flat lower surface in order to increase lift. WIG craft have an advantage over water-bourne craft in that a huge amount of power is needed to overcome the drag of the water. By flying just above the water that power can be used for speed and carrying capacity.
Ekranoplans were developed in a range of sizes and applications, but they could reach enormous proportions and cargo carrying capacity. The Lun, among the largest to be developed, spanned 240 feet long with a wingspan of 144 feet. Its size would be comparable to a Boeing 747. It had a maximum takeoff weight of 882,000 pounds and a range of over 1,800 miles. This behemoth could cruise at 341 mph, leaving traditional naval vessels quickly in its wake.
Several nations, including Russia and the United States, continue to explore the potential of WIG (like the Boeing Pelican), and China appears to have an active WIG program, but to date none have pushed this technology to the limit as Soviet designers and engineers did towards the end of the Cold War.
A Soviet Lun Ekranoplan transport at rest with crew on the exterior giving an idea of the size of the craft.
That graphic above looks like it could have been from 1969. I posted about the Constellation and Orion programs earlier, but just spent way to much time on HowStuffWorks and found an excellent and concise summary of the details around the Orion CEV. It is interesting how much from the Apollo program we are leveraging for Orion and Constellation. NASA has gone back to the future, so to speak. It makes perfect sense, in the vein of continuous improvement, as the Apollo program worked very well nearly forty years ago. With today’s advancements in electronics, computers, materials, and propulsion (not to mention everything we have learned from the shuttle and the ISS), Orion should benefit from a very long list of innovations and improvements. Earlier I had read that this program would not be coming online until 2015, five years after the decommissioning of the Space Shuttle leaving quite a gap in our ability to reach space without the help of others. Now I am seeing estimates of 2011 for Orion to be operational, keeping us in what is building up to be an incredibly competitive space race with China, India, Japan, Russia, and the ESA.
I have been following this story like the wide-eyed ten year old that I am when it comes to anything related to even the remote possibility that I might someday be able to experience the weightlessness of space. Earlier this week Sir Richard Branson unveiled the design of Virgin Galactic’s new orbitalspace launch system, the carrier vehicle WhiteKnightTwo and the suborbital craft SpaceShipTwo (pictured above). This would be phase two of Virgin Galactic’s plan to “improve” humanity’s access to space. At $200,000 per seat that would be wealthy humanity, at least initially until the operation scales and ticket prices come down dramatically. Back in 2005 Branson’s Virgin Group and Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites announced an agreement to form a new aerospace production company to build a fleet of commercial sub-orbital spaceships and launch aircraft. The new company, The Spaceship Company owns the designs of the SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two launch systems. See my previous post on Burt Rutan.
SpaceShipTwo will hold six passengers and two pilots and will fly higher than SpaceShipOne, the craft created by Scaled Composites that became the first private venture to enter Earth’s orbit, winning the Ansari X-prize in the process. Virgin Galactic hopes to launch its first public flight before 2009 and is now taking seat reservations. 200 people have already purchased tickets.
The commercial flights will be about 2.5 hours in duration with only a few minutes of that actually being spent in orbit experiencing weightlessness. At $200,000 per flight, that is $1,333 per minute.
1. He just turned 85 and still has a firm and influential grip on high performance car design.
2. He not only built fast, winning racing cars… he raced too and won in his own right.
3. He usually wears a black cowboy hat.
4. In addition to a multitude of fast cars that have his name, there is also his signature chili.
5. Summing up his consistently successful approach to creating winning racecars, he said:
“It’s a massive motor in a tiny, lightweight car. “
As cool as he is, I’m going to have to pass on the chili. That’s Carroll Shelby up in the photo above posing next to one of his winning Ford GT40 Mark IV’s from the 1960’s. I posted a little bit about that a few months ago. I wasn’t born yet, but the Ford team’s victories with Shelby’s direction and leadership are legendary. They were also instrumental in burning in me a passion for fast sports cars, racing, and winning against the odds.
More about Carroll Shelby here, here, and here (ignore the goofy soundtrack…)
I don’t love this car. I love what this car represents, which is a significant departure from the mainstream in racing car design. Motorsports, and automobile design as a whole, seem dominated by incremental, and sometimes imperceptible, changes. This concept, the Furai from Mazda that debuted at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, is going its own way. It furthers the Mazda design team’s expression of its Nagare, or “flow,” design language that was unveiled earlier at the L.A. autoshow. The body of the car applies Mazda’s design language to achieve incredibly complex geometries that in some areas appear grotesque, while in others refined and beautiful. I especially enjoy the roof as presented in the image above. I want more building architecture that can achieve this elegantly complex folding and crossing.
The overall feel of the car is very organic… or alien. Your choice. After following automobile design and motorsports for just about my entire life it is exciting to see a manufacturer make a bold, radical move. It has been a while.
Like many things in the latter days of the Soviet Union, the Buran (Russian for blizzard or snowstorm) program was a response. It was a reaction to NASA’s space shuttle and an effort to give the Soviet’s an edge in getting to orbit, though the concept of reusable space vehicles in the Soviet Union predates the American space program. Buran was the most expensive and complicated space program in Soviet history, and one that contributed to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union as its economy fell apart and the political stability of the once proud nation fragmented. The Soviets sunk everything they had into both their response to the Strategic Defense Initiative and into the rekindled space race, and this broke their already fragile economy. It was a gamble that they lost as the walls, both literally and figuratively, began to come down.
Buran was an endeavor that mobilized the best and the brightest in Soviet aerospace, and these were very, very bright individuals. The innovations, accomplishments and firsts of Soviet aerospace are many. This made the Buran progam’s end all the more frustrating as this huge effort was finally canceled in 1993 because of the crumbling Soviet state and the resulting loss of all funding. Sad that Buran only made one flight in 1988, unmanned, as a test. The program never had a chance to prove its value.
Pictured below is the Buran shuttle mounted piggy back on its transport aircraft, an Antonov An-225 which was designed specifically to carry the Buran program shuttles between landing and launch sites, much like the NASA shuttles and their custom 747 transport. The An-225 is still the largest powered aircraft in the world.
The Buran program is often criticized as essentially being a copy of the United States space shuttle, the result of espionage by the Soviets. The similarities are undeniable, and at the project’s inception in 1976 Soviet leaders pushed for the program to copy the American shuttle to maintain parity with the United States, though Soviet aerospace engineers argued for the utility of a smaller reusable shuttle. Superficially, there are incredible similarities between the two craft, as seen below:
In reality, there were many significant differences between the two craft:
- Buran utilized manned & robotic flight, the US shuttle was retrofitted for robotic flight.
- Unlike the shuttle, Buran had no main rocket engines freeing tremendous weight & space.
- Buran’s launcher, Energia, was designed to carry up to 80 metric tons into orbit on its own.
- Energa was also being designed to carry payloads to the moon without Buran.
- Buran could lift 30 metric tons of payload into orbit, vs. the shuttle’s 25 metric tons.
- The thermodynamic tiles of Buran were very different than the shuttle, and thought superior.
On May 12, 2002, a hangar housing the only remaining Buran shuttle, and quite possibly the actual shuttle that flew in 1988, collapsed due to inadequate maintenance and upkeep. The collapse killed eight workers and destroyed the shuttle.
I recently read through the Defense Department’s Unmanned Systems Roadmap: 2007-2032 and found it absolutely fascinating. We are watching our military evolve right before our eyes in ways that are quite paradigmatic, and will most likely determine the nature of the next century of war fighting. I have frequently posted on interesting developments with respect to robotics on this blog, and have pointed out before the significance of the Defense Department having a cohesive and longterm strategy as it relates to robotics, that the innovation pendulum has already begun to swing from research institutions and private industrial ventures to the military industrial complex. This would not be the first time this has happened, as in the last century, for a time, innovations in aircraft, communications, GPS, and even materials technology was largely driven by military determination, budgetary abundance, and need. The graphic above lays out the unmanned systems capabilities by status and military branch deployment, and it is comprehensive. A similar graphic from five or six years ago would have had about 20% of this graphic’s population. In great detail the report catalogs current capabilities contrasted against specific needs that require further research and development as the investment in unmanned systems technology continues to grow. In effect, it is indeed a detailed roadmap that lays out the developmental action plan to meet the Pentagon’s growing needs for robotic systems of all types. These needs are:
I. Reconnaissance and Surveillance
Expressed as the number one priority, being able to accurately monitor areas of interest in detail while maintaining covertness is highly desirable. Systems in use are already successful, but require standardization and interoperability to better support the increasing diversity of Defense Department users.
II. Target Identification and Designation
Lacking as a current substantial capability, the ability to quickly and positively identify military targets in real-time is a definite need. Combined with reduced latency and improved precision munitions, this capability would further the effort to minimize the risk assumed by “manned systems” while offering better operational effectiveness.
III. Counter-Mine Warfare
Sea mines continue to be a significant threat, and since WWII have caused more damage to US vessels than all other weapons combined. Combine this with the constantly changing IED threat facing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is a real need for improved and superior mine countering technology. Further development of unmanned systems to identify, mark, remove and or destroy both land and sea mines is a significant need.
IV. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) Reconnaissance
The report expresses two substantial needs related to CBRNE, both the ability to efficiently find weapons and to accurately survey affected areas that have been compromised by them.
The roadmap is the result of more than 18 months of work between the Department of Defense, the services and other military and government agencies. While past reports focused primarily on unmanned aircraft systems, there have been significant successes with test deployments of other supporting unmanned systems and the new document subsequently addresses land-and maritime-operated unmanned systems, as well. It is the DoD’s determination that the integration of all the robotic systems are the future of DoD integrated operations from both a systems perspective and also from a joint-service perspective. Integration and interoperability are keys to maximizing the utility and effectiveness of the various systems discussed. The report goes on to elaborate on a series of goals as it relates to unmanned systems:
- Improve effectiveness of unmanned systems through improved integration & collaboration
- Achieve greater commonality and interoperability of systems, controls & communications
- Develop standards that support safe operations & integration with manned systems
- Implement standardized protective & safety controls for unmanned systems deploying arms
- Utilize rapid prototyping, rapid deployment & real world testing to fast track development
The report is extensive, at nearly 200 pages, but the chart below lays out robotics/unmanned systems capabilities timeline for the next 25 years. As I stated previously, by 2030 the military as we know it will cease to exist and we will have a very, very different operational force.
“Testing leads to failure, and failure leads to understanding.“
That puts him in alignment with a number of innovation leaders, those that believe that success is born out of learning from failures and capitalizing on that learning. In an intensely competitive world, not fearing failure and successfully mitigating and taking advantage of risk can be the difference between whether or not you are relevant next year. Anyway, a comment on my post What’s Left For Architects offered up a quote from Burt Rutan in reference to his employees at Scaled Composites, the company building SpaceShipOne, shown behind him in the photo above. Here’s the quote:
“You don’t get the privilege of designing something unless you have the capability of building it with your own hands.”
That’s a powerful statement, and incredibly prescient for a number of industries, the most obvious for myself presently being architecture. Architecture in the United States has done an impressive job moving about as far away from the actual making as possible. In many ways this has occurred due to a fear of failure, and a fear of risk. But that’s changing. Slowly. Stay tuned. Moving on, the comment and the quote it contained motivated me to do this post on Burt Rutan. Easily one of the most prolific innovators and leaders in the world of aerospace, Rutan is championing the first privately funded venture to put humans into orbit. Back in 2004 he and his team won the highly publicized Ansari X Prize for successfully sending SpaceShipOne into orbit. Twice. In two weeks. I do not think that NASA has ever accomplished that with the same launch and orbital vehicles. Though they suffered a tragic setback earlier this year, Rutan and his team are still focused and unwavering on their goal set. That is because this is a really big deal, and smart business people like Sir Richard Branson see the enormous potential of broadening our access to Earth orbit. Beyond SpaceShipOne, though, Rutan has a laundry list of innovations and achievements including Voyager, the first aircraft to circle the Earth without refueling. The man is a relentless, tough, smart, designer, engineer and collaborator. He is also an accomplished team builder, and while it may be his name that is linked to all of these achievements, his success has been from putting together exceptional teams, and supporting them. I leave you with one last smart quote from the man:
“If you don’t have a consensus that it’s nonsense, you don’t have a breakthrough.”
That question is on the whiteboard of Bill Johns office at Lockheed Martin, and is his mantra as he engages in what is perhaps the most important program for the U.S. space program in the last thirty years. The question has a box around it with a “do not erase” pointing to it. Johns is a senior manager at Lockheed Martin, which in August 2006 won the $8 billion contract to build the next generation of NASA’s reusable space vehicles. Called “Orion,” and depicted in the rendering above in orbit around the moon, this crew capsule is being designed to take six astronauts into orbit in support of the International Space Station, or four astronauts to the moon. The space shuttle, initially the darling of an aggressive NASA in the 1970’s and 1980’s, continues to be plagued with problems and technology challenges. That, and it is incredibly expensive and inefficient to operate. NASA is decommissioning the three remaining space shuttles in 2010. It should be noted that as a wide-eyed 10 year old I wrote a letter to NASA expressing my own excitement with the shuttle program. Not only did NASA respond, but they sent me an enormous trove of images, press releases, and an autographed photo of the first shuttle crew. That was 1979. I think I speak for many when I acknowledge the disappointment that has become the shuttle program.
The Orion crew capsule, part of the larger Constellation program, is scheduled to replace the shuttle by 2015, leaving a five year gap in the United State’s ability to get into space without any help. This is a bit of a digression, but it is important to point out that during those five years we will see a proliferation of space exploration and orbital entry vehicles from Japan, China, India, Russia, the European Space Agency, and private ventures like Virgin Galactic. We are at the beginning of a new space race, and the competition is intense.
So, there is a lot of pressure on Bill and his team. And $8 billion is not that much money for a program of this importance. That is the equivalent of about six weeks of expenses for U.S. operations in Iraq. Needless to say, the Orion and Constellation programs have some daunting challenges to overcome, and it is how they are overcoming these challenges that is immensely interesting. Here are some details on how they are doing it…
1. Build on the successes of the seemingly antique Apollo program:
- Apollo is the model for Constellation, put a crew capsule on top of a giant rocket
- The hatch for the crew capsule is from the Apollo capsule with minor changes
- One of two heat shield technologies being tested is the one used for Apollo
- The reentry parachutes are slightly modified versions of those from Apollo
- The launchpad for Orion will be a rebuilt pad that originally launched Apollo 10
2. Take advantage of “off-the-shelf” technologies, which are superior to those currently in use:
- Flight control computers are engineered versions of those used for the Boeing 777
- Much of the avionics electronics are from already existing and massively tested craft
- The solid rocket boosters will be modified versions of those from the space shuttle
3. Utilize a “small,” agile and innovative team:
- The team that created Apollo numbered in excess of 400,000
- The Orion team is made up of 1600 at Lockheed Martin and 600 at NASA
- Orion utilizes rapid prototyping and environment testing with actual astronauts
- There is a focus outside of the space program for innovation (like NASCAR)
That’s a quote from Evel Knievel last year. He died today at the age of 69. Definitely the end of an era, and the loss of a personal childhood icon (a pre-Hunter S. Thompson childhood icon… and just as weird and cool). The man jumped his motorcycle over big and scary things. Buses, sharks, and canyons… all were but opportunities for Evel Knievel. And he fractured over 40 bones in the process. Crazy? Yes. Cool? Yes. An American hero? Most definitely, in the most American way, which is to say honest and imperfect. A memorable quote from the man:
“You come to a point in your life when you really don’t care what people think about you, you just care what you think about yourself.”
Evel Knievel (1938-2007)
Update: And not moments after posting I find this kick ass tribute via Coop at Positive Ape Index:
“He was the last relic of the way America used to be, before the lawyers and pussies took over. A holy fool, watched over by angels who drank Old Style and smoked Lucky Strikes. A crazy, fearless, larger-than-life crackpot, last in a long line of same, heir to Davy Crockett, Wild Bill Hickok, P.T. Barnum, Horatio Nelson Jackson, “Cannonball” Baker, and every other kook who refused to listen to reason. The world is a smaller place without him.”
Nissan is determined to stake a claim on technological advancement and the future of the automobile. To this end, Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn recently set the R+D goal of launching 15 new technologies per year beginning in 2009. This effort will go a great distance to instill in Nissan a focus on innovation and the opportunity to very strategically explore and re-investigate how our cars interact with us, and how we interact with our cars.
One technology that Ghosn highlighted, and believes holds significant promise, is that of the in-car robotic assistant/companion, called the “Robotic Agent.” Ghosn feels that there are major opportunities for Nissan with the advancement of robotic technology, and has previewed concept cars, check out the Pivo2, that hint at how this may manifest itself. Despite the potentially enormous distraction to already enormously distracted drivers that this may present, Ghosn believes that a personal robot, able to chat with drivers while highlighting driving conditions, or offer advice based on traffic reports, will eventually make it to a production vehicle.
I know I ask the obvious, but what happened to driving being about simply focusing on the road? As much as I adore my personal robotic assistant I have absolutely no desire to chat with him while driving. He should be balancing my bank account and picking up my dry cleaning during that time.
There is a lot of talk around the successes that Toyota has enjoyed as of late, especially when contrasted against the slow demise of the traditional automotive industry leaders G.M. and Ford. Toyota’s success has been remarkable, and here is a quick recap from a recent article in Business Week:
- Toyota has not lost money in a quarter for over 55 years… since 1951
- In 2006 Toyota posted net profit of $17 billion (while Ford and G.M. circled insolvency)
- Over a 25 year span Toyota went from veritable industrial startup to diversified global empire
- Toyota is now the largest automotive manufacturer in the world
There are a number of reasons why Toyota sustains success in a fiercely competitive industry recognized for unrealistically low margins. The most obvious of these is that Toyota continues to defy convention and determine its own course. In that Business Week article author Keith McFarland reviews “How Toyota Became #1″ by David Magee and digs deep into what has contributed to the success that Toyota enjoys and comes up with some pretty powerful themes. Magee’s book looks at:
- Focusing on the long term
- Jumping beyond the current trend
- Making quality everyone’s responsibility
- Managing individual strengths
These themes essentially define Toyota’s corporate culture and you see them at work every day. They are operational practices for the entire company, but modeled and executed with prejudice by the executive management. This is consistent with the reality that effective and innovative cultures begin at the top. Beyond all of this, though, McFarland identifies another quality of Toyota’s culture that has helped drive success. Curiosity.
Toyota’s culture was conceived by curiosity. Sakichi Toyoda, the company’s founder, set out to revolutionize weaving technology and build the best looms possible. Not just in Japan. In the world. He went on a tour of looms in Europe and the United States and brought the best ideas and practices back to Japan where he improved on them and secured over 100 patents in the process. His son and successor, Kiichiro, went on his own tour of Detroit automakers in the 1920’s and upon his return moved Toyota into the automobile manufacturing business. 70 years of this approach has empowered Toyota and allowed it to always bring the best back to the company, to continuously improve, and to reward creative thinking. Toyota is not necessarily propelled by the unending belief that things can be done better as much as it is compelled by the constant search to find better ways to do things. This is institutionalized continuous improvement, it is institutionalized curiosity.
While automobile companies on this side of the Atlantic determine how best to disassemble enterprise, elsewhere things are somewhat more positive. In contrast to the hard times seen by GM, Ford and Chrysler, Porsche has had a remarkable few years. So much so, that with the strong increase in sales, and the commensurate increase in profits, the employees of Porsche will be getting a significant bonus, and one larger than their bonus last year. I posted about the changes that went down at Porsche in the mid-1990’s, and as a result of those changes the successful strategy that has transpired. It would seem that Porsche is on the right track, and continuing to expand into new markets with new products. This will not last forever, as luxury automotive products can reach saturation in a market very quickly, but for the time it is a reality to be savored. Not fifteen years ago Porsche was on the brink of insolvency.
Porsche is, and has been, the world’s most profitable car company as of late. As a result, its 8,000 workers will receive a bonus of $7,350. Their bonus last year was $4,900. The increase is due to the fact that they sold nearly 98,000 cars and as a result profits rose by 3.4 percent to $10.5 Billion. Fifteen years ago Porsche’s sales numbers were decreasing towards 10,000 units.
That’s quite a turnaround, and I applaud the success. Porsche is an amazing case study in the value of decisive leadership, clear vision, knowing how to expand the value of a recognized and iconic brand, innovation across the board, and a belief in reinvention.
There is a terrific article in Motortrend about Ron Dennis and his new “office” (pictured above). Ron leads McLaren… the designers and builders of incredibly high performance road and race cars. Most notably, McLaren has long been involved in Formula One racing, historically building and sponsoring (if not outright leading) some incredible winning campaigns. Think Mika Hakkinen in the late 90’s or so. McLaren is also behind the McLaren F1 BMW V12 powered roadgoing supercar of the mid-90’s that made my jaw hit the floor before I knew any better. It was hand-built by McLaren and sold to very wealthy people for around $1m.
But I digress, and though Ron Dennis is all kinds of cool, and although McLaren is an incredible design/engineering/R+D force in the world of high performance automobiles, this post is actually about workplace design. The article in Motortrend does an excellent job documenting, describing and exploring the new McLaren Technology Center designed by the starchitect Sir Norman Foster, the same knighted gentleman doing surreal projects all over the UAE and Dubai.
The new center is enormous, definitive in its design, and is a hub of quiet and focused activity for the 1000 staff that work there creating and developing high-performance vehicles. It is technically state of the art, and actually looks more like the HQ of NASA… or at least what NASA’s HQ should look like in movies. The environment created by Sir Norman Foster for McLaren is pure and unadulterated Ron Dennis. Ron is very much a top-down leader, and makes no apologies for this. In fact, he seems to revel in his level of control and influence over his organization. The design of this environment was not about focus groups and it was not about surveying employees. It was about listening to exactly what Ron wanted, analyzing that, and turning it into architecture. Here is a choice quote from the author of the article in Motortrend:
“Backwoods philosopher Henry David Thoreau warned we should ‘beware of any enterprise requiring new clothes.’ Dennis now has one of the biggest sets of new clothes of them all, a gleaming monument to the client’s uncompromising obsession and the architect’s near-perfect ability to deliver it. Architecturally speaking, it’s what you should expect when one of the world’s most technically bonkers architects is given a huge budget and a sympathetic brief. And it’s startling. But it’s clearly more than is strictly necessary to build Formula 1 cars.”
It goes on to state that the goal was to give the employees the absolute best environment within which to do their work. I get that, but looking at the photographs, and contrasting that with the facility VW created for the assembly of their Phaeton luxury car in Dresden, seen below, you cannot help but feel the concept of “the best environment” has very different manifestations.
I mean this in the most objective way possible, but where would you rather work? I have spent an inordinant amount of time wrenching on cars, and fast ones at that, and have a love for a clean, well lit and organized garage with everything in its place… but I also crave an environment that I would like to spend time in. This brings us right to the core of issues around involuntary, or non-preferred environments as illuminated by Orfield Labs in an earlier post about the Open Plan Work Group, and efforts to move our workplaces to align more closely with the other environments that we prefer, that we engage in voluntarily. The question I would love to ask the engineers and technicians that spend their days (and probably many evenings) in this operating theater environment is “Does it work for you?” Maybe it does, but I sense a chasm between the efforts to recreate the set of the movie Gattaca and provide the best possible environment for your people to toil in.
Do I sound harsh?
This commentary is in no way to imply that I do not think the new facility is cool looking. It is incredibly cool looking. Maybe too cool looking. The goal here, I believe, is not to just create environments that look “cool.” The goal here is to create environments that work, and this means work in relation to the human factors of the people that inhabit the environment. Given this, and when seen through the lens of architectural dynamics, I cannot help but think the McLaren Technology Center harbors enormous liabilities as it relates to human factors… especially when contrasted with the VW facility pictured above. We see this all of the time, where an organization decides to build a new headquarters and an enhanced presence. Inevitably, this comes down to how design is deployed to reflect the culture and brand of the organization… and it seems to stop there. How these environments actually engage the people that make up the organizations seems to not make it onto the agenda, or not until the very end when it is more of an afterthought. There is more time spent on the public face, on materials that are impactful, than on supporting culture and environments that enhance health. Foster’s firm, Foster+Partners, has a workplace consulting group… they must be engaged in these issues, and they may have brought them to the table in their initial design discussions with Ron Dennis. I surmise, though, that Ron’s style precluded anything being entertained that was not within the boundaries of his aesthetic vision, of which he is admittedly obsessive. The headline, “Dust Can Be Eliminated” is a direct quote from Ron Dennis.
One last quote from the article:
“Staff are allowed no personal mementoes on desks. Dennis tried a total ban on food and drink in the workplace because ‘food contaminates.’ There were slight mumbles from the normally docile staff. Water was offered as a concession.”
A colleague of mine has launched his blog at knowlesystem. His focus is honed and specific to the forces changing and shaping the world of architecture and design. Cool stuff. We have had an infinite number of incredible discussions and brainstorms on this topic, and this was suggested as a way to begin capturing this content, and involve others in the conversation. I highly suggest subscribing as there will be a proliferation of compelling content coming forthwith.
Congrats on the site, Stephen.
Another colleague introduced acmesiren a couple weeks ago, and I wanted to offer a more formal welcome and congrats to Nick as well. His blog is focused on finding and revealing what is new, cool and interesting in the world of experimental music. Also, very cool stuff. And a terrific resource.
Both blogs are featured in the schneiderism blogroll in the right column, which is naturally an incredibly high honor.
