Video: Avatar, Augmented Reality, and NASA

Indeed, augmented reality models are very cool... and here is a NASA-produced example, Ares I-X, that debuted last month: http://www.nasa.gov/myexploration

OK, maybe he didn't rant about it, but I'll sign up for a mini-rant about Buzz Lightyear, Planet 51, and the Star Wars light saber on the Shuttle. My mini-rant is that this kind of stuff is fine, as long as it doesn't take time and energy away from doing NASA's real work. I am also, by the way, a little annoyed that NASA does commercial promotions without getting paid. However, since NASA does them so poorly, I suppose that we wouldn't get very much money anyway even if we tried to charge, so I suppose it's ok.

Contrawise, though (here's where I switch over to agreeing with Keith) I rather like the idea of NASA doing promotion in conjunction with the Avatar film. That is mostly because Avatar is very much a groundbreaking film for computer animation-- right now, this is the cutting edge, and (completely separate from the story, setting and characters), it will be attracting a lot of attention from the high-tech community. These are people we would like to get involved with NASA. And vice versa.

Or, perhaps, Heinrich's discomfort with the shallowing of our culture and society has been building up during all the previous gimmicks (and other things going on out there) and his wrath finally spillith over.

I have to say that I agree in part with the underlying theme of his point. That we seem forced to resort to such gimmicks (no matter how cool) to grab and (fleetingly) hold folks' attention about important, inherently worthwhile issues and topics is a very sad commentary on the shallowing of collective mind and intellectual capacities of our greater populace.

Sure, we had our Saturn V models and our Major Matt Mason figures to help inspire us as kids, but back then toys were toys and real spaceflight was real spaceflight. Our imaginations (and our education) were sufficient that we could bridge the gap with no need for being force-fed with commercial, govt, or fast-food tie ins. That was for Disney to do with their films, as they had invented the concept back in 1937 with Snow White. I had to build my own Lego lunar modules from scratch, doing my best to adapt the parts available (very little variety, indeed) to create my best facsimile; I couldn't go buy the kit with directions included.

Perhaps there's a balance one can strike and the possibilities you suggest obviously offer intriguing opportunities; nonetheless I believe that such pursuits—the very nature of such pursuits—contributes in its own subtle way to the dumbing and numbing down of the minds of our kids.

Why bother learning math when you have a calculator at hand? I think you know why. Same question here, just a different medium.

I am going to side with Bob, Geoffrey, and Heinrich. There is absolutely no reason for NASA to get involved with "virtual playthings" when there are AMPLE opportunities to do something REAL that will engage youngsters in becoming familiar with how to make a real plane (or rocket) fly.

Every fall at Cal Poly, Pomona (a "learn by doing" school) new ARO majors build an R/C kit airplane and flight test it to learn how to estimate lift coefficient. That is ARO 101. Every winter, the ARO 102 students do a similar project with model rockets. It is engaging, but it also serves the very real purpose of teaching them that they CAN do this. Now just imagine if NASA public affairs funded projects like this in a massive number of high schools! I feel a modern update to an old quote coming on:

Give a kid a virtual plaything, and you will keep them occupied for a little while. Teach that kid how they can build and use a REAL "plaything" and you have set them on a path to science education. Unless you want a job in Hollywood, leave the virtual toys be. There are plenty of real things you can do in science that will engage, entertain, and educate!

Keith, I wonder to what purpose should NASA engage in mass media and culture in order to accomplish its goals of space exploration, normalizing human spaceflight, and expanding US economic base in both LEO and beyond. What level of funding would be necessary to more effectively market its brand. NASA is a government organization not a commercial enterprise.

Why bother learning math when you have a calculator at hand?

Calculators don't do math; they do arithmetic.

That is "doing math" to about the same degree that penmanship is doing writing.

A little worrying here that some folks seem a little off the tech curve, and implications. Augmented Reality is going to become critical in ICT, including spaceflight ICT, in future. Many of us are looking at real applications in the area. There are many ideas out there for innovative new interfaces based on it. Having a way to demonstrate possibilities to students would be fantastic. It also allows you to get interactive objects into students hands without significant cost. You can actually print AR guide objects out via a normal printer, and then hold them in front of laptops to allow the student to have a far more tactile interaction with their learning space. AR also allows important possibilities for bridging the collaborative span in VR environments.

It's hard to imagine that AR won't be a major part of future space missions (it already is in industry, and in military apps), both in space and in mission control/support. Allowing students to literally get their hands on that technology is going to be crucial.

Keith,
I'm not so sure you can choose a technology/concept/creative idea that you think NASA should use for public outreach, and then decide that NASA is failing to outreach because they aren't using that particular idea. I won't make any claims to their success or failure on the matter, just that your logic doesn't necessarily hold. I know you don't extrapolate any grand claims here, but you consistently come up with "blatantly apparent" ideas without considering the possibility that outreach offices have consciously chosen to limit outreach to particular and successful ideas, like Lego toys of NASA spacecraft.

Editor's note: please show me where I "decide that NASA is failing to outreach because they aren't using that particular idea." with regard to this specific technology. Answer: I never said it.

Unfortunately, many of these comments about this amazing new technology, display the short-sightedness of engineers, who somewhat ironically are not always the most visionary and creative of people, when it comes to communication. And in general The lack of inspiration about science and engineering is pretty atrocious these days, not to mention the lack of interest in Space Exploration out among the masses. The old guard doesn’t get that star-trek reruns are not cutting it anymore when it comes to inspiring the next generation who can’t comprehend NASA except for re-treading past achievements. NASA does some amazing things that do not get the publicity they deserve and this type of marketing and outreach would definitely be inspirational and educational.


Personally I think they ought to send James Cameron onto the ISS with an Imax camera, and see what kind of film results –I’m sure it would be amazing..


Like it or not, rich-web technologies, immersive environments and augmented reality are part of the future, and Space Exploration and educational outreach should be all about utilizing cutting edge technologies.

Just FYI, NASA has an augmented reality model of the Ares 1-X already available. Wouldn't be surprised if others in the works.

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/myexploration/index2.html

Inspiration - that's what this kind of thing does. And it does it very well and does not require more than an average PC with a webcam.

Take a look at what the US Post Office does with it for virtual package visualization --> https://www.prioritymail.com/simulator.asp It lets you try out this exact kind of 3D coolness on your own computer.

Also, take a look at this amazing video of an indie game called "levelhead" --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ks1u0A8xdU It's basically using the same concept to make a solid cube look hollow.

The principle here is that you use a unique pattern on some object that the user places in front of the camera. Then the program can determine the object's orientation and position based on the platform and render something on top of it. The levelhead game above simply renders a 3d "inside" on every face of a 3d cube based on the pattern, making the cube look hollow.

Ray et al.

It's extremely easy and cheap to create this kind of "virtual play thing" and distribute it on the web, where it can reach millions of people for little cost. Put it on a webpage that also teaches at the same time, and you're talking about potential outreach and inspiration to a LOT of people - far far more than you'll ever create putting on events.

If you haven't, try the USPS virtual package at https://www.prioritymail.com/simulator.asp

Or better yet try the GE example at http://ge.ecomagination.com/smartgrid/ It's very much a marketing "fluff" piece, but it shows a lot of the potential for what you can do visually.

PS

Here is an open source library for creating these kinds of Augmented Reality applications -->
http://www.libspark.org/wiki/saqoosha/FLARToolKit/en

"You clearly decided to be negative before you typed a single word. If you are this outraged then you should have been screaming about ..."

Very astute. I decided to be negative before I typed a single word. I won't argue with that. I do, in fact, think about what I'm going to write before I write it!

You know, if I were screaming all the time, I wouldn't have time to do anything constructive. In fact, the NASA linkages with these movies that you cite are kinda cute, and nothing to scream about, though nothing to jump up and down about either.

My point is just that what human space flight is about has to touch the taxpayer in ways that are more substantial than blatant advertisements. True national needs and great endeavors don't really benefit from toys in Big Macs. Those toys appeal to our sense of "coolness" and not our sense of importance. In fact, the "coolness" is aimed squarely at the space nerds, who don't need a lot of convincing to support human space flight. As I am a true space nerd, I would sure love to get one of these toys, but I have no illusion that it would send any kind of potent message about the national need that space flight serves.

Geoffrey,

Arithmetic is a foundational element of mathematics (it's sure there in all my "History of Mathematics" texts, right at the beginning), just as penmanship is a foundational element of clear, effective writing/communication.

Arguing over the precision of my semantics is missing the point: some have argued for decades in the echelons of education (or merely conveyed the notion through their attitude) that kids shouldn't bother with learning their arithmetic since they have calculators available for doing such menial drudgery, and the technology will only improve in this regard. Such is the calculator mentality that many children (and adults) possess today.

Meanwhile, we are raising generations of kids (some now adults) who do not understand—they don't even have the ABILITY to understand—the foundational underpinnings of the technology (including the math)upon which our society depends. We teach them to play games on their computers but rarely teach them the simple basics of real computer programming; we teach them how to retrieve information from the internet but not how to organize their thoughts into coherent arguments composed of well-constructed paragraphs...much less instill in them the critical faculties required to assess the validity or logic of that same downloaded information gleaned from the all-powerful, all-knowing world-wide web.

Some of this creeping malaise that weakens the mind stems from the spoon-feeding that is going on across the board. Such heavy-handed 'endorsements' and tie-ins as are being suggested here, while possessing some merit, have played their part in this watering down of the intellect of our population.

A long, long time ago kids were taught HOW to think, especially in college (even much more so before my own time). Now, for the most part, they are being taught WHAT to think. And I believe our society is the worse for it.

The only thing that I might add to an excellent post is that not only are kids being taught what to think, they are being taught that all opinions are equal even if unsupported by fact.

OK, the McDonald's thing is a "mere novelty". I seem to recall that airplanes, rockets, and computers were in this category during their infancies. Imagine (extremely important and wise way to spend effort) the potential for providing EXPERIENCES with serious virtual hardware and/or software (influencing behavior of the virtual hardware) during proposal, design, review, decision-making, training, and operational control or performance environments, to mention just a few. Per Benjamin Franklin, "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I learn. Involve me, and I remember."

I don't have a problem with NASA going to the mass media, and in fact, I would encourage it. Right now that seems to be the best way to reach people. I'm not saying NASA should just go out and blanket the media with triviality, though. I would like to think that there are people out there who could handle outreach intelligently.

Lamenting the state of our culture doesn't really accomplish anything constructive. NASA, as a government agency, is supposed to work for the taxpaying public. If the people at NASA want the public to understand and support what they're doing, then it's up to them to do what it takes to communicate with the general public, and specifically the adult, voting, taxpaying population, not just kids.

If you look at what NASA does honestly, while the science and research are important and have many benefits, a lot of what people get out of NASA is just plain entertainment. Watching rockets launch, seeing pretty pictures, and watching astronauts do their thing provide entertainment. If NASA is valued to a significant degree for the entertainment it provides, then it's only natural for NASA to work with the mass media. I'm not saying that NASA should be run for the express purpose of entertaining people--it shouldn't. However, NASA's ability to entertain can help with outreach.