1
W hat do some forms of mass- market software, cellular tele- phone equipment and diving gear have in common? Try bringing them out of the U.S., and you will nd that as far as the American government is concerned, they are all munitions. When it comes to exporting themeven a single unityou might as well be car- rying a bomb or a bullet, in the words of Douglas R. Miller of the Software Pub- lishers Association in Washington, D.C. The technologies are controlled by the International Trac in Arms Regu- lations (ITAR), drawn up more than 50 years ago during World War II to keep sophisticated equipment from falling into hostile hands. But advanced tech- nologies are widely available today, and a number of themincluding all three mentioned aboveare freely sold on open markets everywhere or will be soon. ITAR is increasingly bothering American manufacturers, who say it borders on the ridiculous. The export controls arent serving their original purpose, Miller states. All theyre do- ing is impeding American business. As currently implemented, ITAR pro- hibits the export of certain U.S. technol- ogies without a State Department li- cense. Consignment to the ITAR list can be almost the same thing as an export ban because of the lengthy delays often involved in processing a license. (Less sensitive technologies are controlled by the Commerce Department, from which export approvals are routine.) Theres more on the ITAR list than is appropri- ate or necessary, asserts Paul Freeden- berg, a trade consultant and a former undersecretary of commerce in the Rea- gan and Bush administrations. After heavy lobbying by industry groups, the Bush administration agreed in 1992 to allow relatively unfettered 46 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN September 1995 T he black automaton hovered ominously in front of them as it flashed its sharp blades, but the young men stood their ground, trusting that their preparations would prevent the menacing machine from coming any closer. Neither a scene from Star Wars nor some secret military test, this display took place at the Fifth Annual Internation- al Aerial Robotics Competition in Atlanta, where students were putting their robot helicopter through its paces. This past July teams from 10 universities assembled in a stadium on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Tech- nology, each vying for $10,000 in prize money. Success was achieved if a flying robotic vehicle could locate small metal pucks and carry them across a tennis-court-shaped arena. No robot in the first four competitions had come close to showing the requisite aerial dexterity. The serious contenders in the 1995 contest were, for the most part, motorized balloons or gas-powered model helicopters. The University of British Columbia entered a hybrid half-balloon, half-helicopter—but its blimp ( below ) proved a poor performer. Another curious design, a “tail sitter” from the University of Texas at Arlington, took third place. This flyer sat in a cylindrical frame that supported its top-mounted engine and propeller. Eight movable vanes arrayed around the central axis provided some control— enough to take off, stay airborne for 30 seconds and land without anyone’s getting hurt. The one European team, Berlin’s Technical University, entered an ungainly blue balloon dubbed Tub Rob (above). Crude in appearance, it outperformed most of the sophis- ticated helicopters and took second prize. The Berliners also distinguished themselves by having a woman leading their group, whereas the U.S. teams appeared populated only by men. Asked about gender bias on his all-male team, David A. Cohn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shrugged. “We’re M.I.T.,” is all he offered. The first-place winner, a helicopter from Stanford Uni- versity, was the product of years of preparation, timely corporate financing—from Boeing—and at least one Ph.D. thesis. Signals from the Department of Defense’s Global Positioning System determined the craft’s position and ori- entation. Whereas other helicopters flew erratically, if at all, the Stanford chopper was rock-steady against the At- lanta skyline. (It wavered visibly only while its human pi- lot took control by radio command.) The robocopter easi- ly maneuvered itself to the proper point, then bobbed up and down to nab a metal disk with a small magnet sus- pended by string. It carried the captured disk to the drop site but lacked the means to release it. With such success, it seems likely that the 1996 flying- robot games will be dominated by satellite-guided helicop- ters. But there will probably be a balloon or two as well. Who knows, next year’s competition is scheduled to take place at Disney World, so spectators might yet see an ele- phantine robot powered by floppy ears. —David Schneider Arrest that Passenger Traveling with technologyperhaps even a laptopcan be illegal Magnicent Men (Mostly) and Their Flying Machines ROB NELSON Black Star ROB NELSON Black Star Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc.

Magnificent Men (Mostly) and Their Flying Machines

  • Upload
    david

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

What do some forms of mass-market software, cellular tele-phone equipment and diving

gear have in common? Try bringingthem out of the U.S., and you will Þndthat as far as the American governmentis concerned, they are all munitions.When it comes to exporting themÑevena single unitÑyou might as well be car-rying Òa bomb or a bullet,Ó in the wordsof Douglas R. Miller of the Software Pub-lishers Association in Washington, D.C.

The technologies are controlled bythe International TraÛc in Arms Regu-

lations (ITAR), drawn up more than 50years ago during World War II to keepsophisticated equipment from fallinginto hostile hands. But advanced tech-nologies are widely available today, anda number of themÑincluding all threementioned aboveÑare freely sold onopen markets everywhere or will besoon. ITAR is increasingly botheringAmerican manufacturers, who say itborders on the ridiculous. ÒThe exportcontrols arenÕt serving their originalpurpose,Ó Miller states. ÒAll theyÕre do-ing is impeding American business.Ó

As currently implemented, ITAR pro-hibits the export of certain U.S. technol-ogies without a State Department li-cense. Consignment to the ITAR list canbe almost the same thing as an exportban because of the lengthy delays ofteninvolved in processing a license. (Lesssensitive technologies are controlled bythe Commerce Department, from whichexport approvals are routine.) ÒThereÕsmore on the ITAR list than is appropri-ate or necessary,Ó asserts Paul Freeden-berg, a trade consultant and a formerundersecretary of commerce in the Rea-gan and Bush administrations.

After heavy lobbying by industrygroups, the Bush administration agreedin 1992 to allow relatively unfettered

46 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN September 1995

The black automaton hovered ominously in front ofthem as it flashed its sharp blades, but the young men

stood their ground, trusting that their preparations wouldprevent the menacing machine from coming any closer.Neither a scene from Star Wars nor some secret militarytest, this display took place at the Fifth Annual Internation-al Aerial Robotics Competition in Atlanta, where studentswere putting their robot helicopter through its paces.

This past July teams from 10 universities assembled ina stadium on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Tech-nology, each vying for $10,000 in prize money. Successwas achieved if a flying robotic vehicle could locate smallmetal pucks and carry them across a tennis-court-shapedarena. No robot in the first four competitions had comeclose to showing the requisite aerial dexterity.

The serious contenders in the 1995 contest were, forthe most part, motorized balloons or gas-powered modelhelicopters. The University of British Columbia entered ahybrid half-balloon, half-helicopter—but its blimp (below )proved a poor performer. Another curious design, a “tailsitter” from the University of Texas at Arlington, took thirdplace. This flyer sat in a cylindrical frame that supportedits top-mounted engine and propeller. Eight movable vanesarrayed around the central axis provided some control—enough to take off, stay airborne for 30 seconds and landwithout anyone’s getting hurt.

The one European team, Berlin’s Technical University,entered an ungainly blue balloon dubbed Tub Rob (above).Crude in appearance, it outperformed most of the sophis-ticated helicopters and took second prize. The Berlinersalso distinguished themselves by having a woman leadingtheir group, whereas the U.S. teams appeared populatedonly by men. Asked about gender bias on his all-maleteam, David A. Cohn of the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology shrugged. “We’re M.I.T.,” is all he offered.

The first-place winner, a helicopter from Stanford Uni-versity, was the product of years of preparation, timelycorporate financing—from Boeing—and at least one Ph.D.thesis. Signals from the Department of Defense’s GlobalPositioning System determined the craft’s position and ori-entation. Whereas other helicopters flew erratically, if atall, the Stanford chopper was rock-steady against the At-lanta skyline. (It wavered visibly only while its human pi-lot took control by radio command.) The robocopter easi-ly maneuvered itself to the proper point, then bobbed upand down to nab a metal disk with a small magnet sus-pended by string. It carried the captured disk to the dropsite but lacked the means to release it.

With such success, it seems likely that the 1996 flying-robot games will be dominated by satellite-guided helicop-ters. But there will probably be a balloon or two as well.Who knows, next year’s competition is scheduled to takeplace at Disney World, so spectators might yet see an ele-phantine robot powered by floppy ears. —David Schneider

Arrest that PassengerTraveling with technologyÑperhaps even a laptopÑcan be illegal

MagniÞcent Men (Mostly) and Their Flying Machines

RO

B N

ELS

ON

Bla

ck S

tar

RO

B N

ELS

ON

Bla

ck S

tar

Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc.