The Dodecahedron is a character in the children’s story The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster, adapted for the stage by Susan Nanus. ChildsPlay AZ, our local youth theater, performed it during their September-October season. As part of our community work, FabLab Tempe built the Dodecahedron puppet the troupe.
The Dodecahedron is a precocious mathematical construct who meets Milo, the main character, at a fork in the road to Digitopolis. He is described as:
The DODECAHEDRON Appears, a 12-sides figure with a different face on each side, and with all the edges labeled with a small letter and all the angles labeled with a large letter. He wears a beret and peers at the others with a serious face.
The FabLab Tempe team built a series of these Dodecahedron puppets that culminated in a stage-ready puppet and backup made mostly of laser-cut acrylic. They started as material and geometry sketches, then choroplast (a fantastic material for working fast) and tape tests and finally as glued, sanded acrylic forms with internal lighting.
Development started with a series of requirements from ChildsPlay’s producers and design staff, mainly that it be portable, lit internally and easy to don/doff because it’s onstage for two minutes and the 5 actors were each playing multiple characters.
Dodecahedron with at least six expressions as faces on geometry
Light and grippy enough for an actor to manipulate easily on stage
Lit from inside – LED per face, NeoPixel, etc lighting.
Rechargeable battery in object or on belt – internal is better as belt might be complicated during scene changes.
Strong enough to survive dozens of shows or cheap enough to build/repair multiple units.
Some elements investigated and rejected included a tensegrity structure instead of finger joints (to complicated) and materials other than acrylic, including HDPE (milk jug plastic), lenticular plastics and polycarbonate. We also descoped the design from the original Dodecahedron as labeling angles and edges and making a doffable beret were to complicated for a two minute puppet.
We iterated through a development spiral that started with the above material and scale tests. Following paper prototypes, 4 units were constructed. The first was a bright and fun choroplast scale rehearsal unit. This was followed by three in laser-cut acrylic, two of which were stage-ready. The final acrylic unit utilized onyx-black acrylic for the faces instead of spraypaint or vinyl stickers, both of which were investigated in testing.
The biggest issue encountered in testing was developing an appropriate handle and handle interface. One constraint was the puppeteer’s size and an injured shoulder. Another was the thinness of the acrylic. Initially the actress wanted a spinning knob on a small lazy susan bearing, but this didn’t provide enough leverage. We eventually came up with using a length of pipe, bicycle handlebar grip and PVC tube mounted on an electrical fixture (thank you, ACE Hardware). The bottom of the Dodecahedron was reinforced with a second layer of acrylic and painted.
Several lighting elements were examined, including a NeoPixel array with Arduino microcontroller, a USB light and glow sticks. The best light was a simple LED bulb from the hardware store. It was bright enough, cheap ($7) and simple to mount.
Fabrication involved many hours of cutting on AME’s Epilog laser cutters and staged assembly. Units were taped, then glued and hand sanded to consistency. Laser cut appliques of the faces were carefully plotted to match ChildsPlay designer Rebecca Akins’ specifications. SciGrip 16 adhesive was used for both the seams and applique. The stage-ready units were then trimmed with black electrical tape.
Photographer: Tim Trumble. The Dodecahedron on stage at Tempe Center for the Arts.
Bill of Materials
Special Thanks to Xin Wei, Connor, Skaidra, Jenn, Sarah, Dwayne, Rebecca and Anthony for making this project possible.
Space Horizons 2017 — Destination: Alpha Centauri was held February 15th and 16th at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. The annual Space Horizons conference covers almost-ready-for-flight space topics. The subject was centered around sending swarms of tiny, postage-stamp sized spacecraft to our nearest neighboring star systems.
This report includes a general proposed architecture, the workshop schedule, some take-away observations and my initial design research output from the lunchtime poster session.
As always, Professor Rick Fleeter (Brown/La Sapienza) organized the workshop, this year with student lead Kat Pisani. The format varies some years, but this year it followed the pattern of a Wednesday early-arrivals talks followed by an intense, all-day workshop on Thursday consisting of panel discussions, talks by professionals and . The official website is https://spacehorizons2017.wordpress.com/
General Proposed Architecture
Destination: Alpha Centauri examined proposals, research and funding to develop and fly swarms of postage-stamp sized spacecraft called WaferSats or ChipSats at relativistic speeds (0.3c is commonly cited) to the Alpha or Proxima Centauri (Rigel Kentauri) star systems. Rigel Kentauri is the current most-interesting target due being the closest star to our own Sun and confirmed to have planets.
Generally, a large phased-array laser Directed Energy (DE) cluster in the 100-300MW power range would be installed on the lunar Farside in such a way that it can’t ever face Earth or our geosynchronous satellites. The propulsion laser is automatically going to be perceived as a “weapon” so it needs to be emplaced cautiously for policy purposes. The laser array boosts each individual WaferSat to 30% light speed (.3c) in ten minutes and can propel about 40,000 chips per year in a continuous stream that extends between the stars. The result, in theory, is a massive, low resolution, interferometer stretching across several lightyears that contains the needed sensors to image planets and moons in the star system(s) they pass through. At .3c the WaferSats require about 20 years transit time to fly by the closest target stars.
Additional uses for the laser propulsion system include power transfer to other spacecraft as part of a space-based beamed-power network and for boosting much heavier payloads like crewed capsules. A 1-gram WaferSat can achieve .3c, a 10-ton capsule can be accelerated to get to Mars in a few weeks instead of six months, using the same system. Professor Fleeter describes this as, “The opposite of missions is infrastructure.” The technology advances could include in fiber laser amplifiers for photonics applications and system-on-a-chip devices for everything from aerospace to medicine to environmental monitoring. “There’s a lot to be done along the way and the more it has other uses the better.” according to Jordin Kare.
The teams working on various aspects of this include The Breakthrough Foundation, Dr. Lubin’s Experimental Cosmology Group at UCSB, Dr. Cahoy from MIT’s StarLab and LaserMotive, among others. Breakthrough has a budget of $100,000,000 dollars in overall funding between Starshot, Listen and their other space projects. This massive injection of private capital is important as it circumvents any protesting over government funding plus they award prizes to researchers doing useful work. UCSB’s Phil Lubin is developing WaferSat spacecraft and the phased-array lasers to drive them. Dr. Cahoy models communication systems at light-year distances and poses questions such as “How many photons do you need to form a bit?”. Jordin Kare of LaserMotive is turning his work on space elevators and laser-powered quadcopter drones toward the practical aspects of launching these relativistic WaferSats.
Other proposed technology paths and questions include using a diamond-wafer particle accelerator or other particle beam instead of lasers, using larger CubeSat-scale craft and whether each chip should communicate with Earth directly or intercommunicate in the swarm first.
Wednesday February 15
Michael Walthemathe, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, on importance of extending human reach beyond the solar system
Phil Lubin, UC Santa Barbara, on progress toward realizing interstellar missions
Thursday, February 16
Larry Larson: Welcome
Rick Fleeter : Introduction to Space Horizons
Pete Klupar: 2017 Keynote Address
Jim Head: The Science Imperative
Philip Lubin: ChipSat and laser propulsion
Ruslan Belikov (NASA Ames), Gregory Tucker (Brown University), Pete Klupar (Breakthrough Foundation) and Emily Gilbert (University of Chicago) on: The value of going to Alpha Centauri plus remote observation from near Earth
Panel: Going There vs. Observing From Here
Lunch and student posters
Kerri Cahoy: Communication link from a low power chipsat 4+ light years away
Zachary Manchester: Flying ChipSats
Jordin Kare: Separating Power Source and Vehicle
Michael Walthemathe: engaging society in exploration
Panel: Societal impact of interstellar exploration
“Low reliability ideas, high reliability hardware.” – Rick Fleeter
Professor Fleeter pointed out that there are thousands of ideas about what to do in space but only a few of which ever actually fly. This appears to scale with the extreme reliability of space hardware.
The main point of the workshop was that we could do this right now but some components are to expensive for it to be practical. A few more years and some developments in manipulating laser light and it will be affordable. This could create the next leg of a transportation network for developing our solar system while exploring neighbors like Rigel Kentauri. Such a DE array could help build massive space telescopes and provide a range of technical advances to any industry that uses lasers. The people developing the first trip to the stars are clearly focused on the technical and economic journey and it’s inspirational potential more than a single end goal. The amount of time, money and careers going into this project require long-term thinking.
Some combination of ChipSat swarms and phased-array laser clusters are probably the best way to fly. Separating thrust from craft is probably essential as Dr. Lubin had a presentation that showed how getting matter to relativistic velocities requires propulsion with relativistic exhaust velocities. This mostly excludes putative fusion drives and leaves only antimatter and Directed Energy as propulsion source candidates.
Much of the focus is on commercial-off-the-shelf hardware (COTS). For example, Dr. Lubin’s test arrays use standard DSLR camera lenses hooked up to fiber optic lasers. One issue made clear by all the researchers involved is that fiber laser amplifiers need to become much cheaper for Destination: Alpha Centauri to make economic sense. A goal of $1 or less per watt seems achievable, Dr. Cahoy pointed out that the fiber amplifier in a DVD drive costs about ¢.10 for the 1-watt element. Mass-produced, space-rated fiber amps should be able to be priced within an order of magnitude if enough are being made.
At Space Horizons 2016, Dr. Phil Metzger presented an idea of a boot-strap outer space industrial economy of self-replicating machines. At first, they just make low-efficiency solar panels or other simple objects. Over the course of several decades, the machines create an exponentially increasing industrial base. This topic came up separately this year as a way to enable interstellar flights through automated manufacturing and assembly.
Directed Energy boost creates in-system superhighways for nearby payloads to Mars and other destinations. DE may turn out to be a preferred means of propulsion, electricity and process heat for future inner solar system development, especially of Mars and Lunar craters.
A potential research point I’d like to see addressed before hardware is completely specified is whether microwaves, specifically in the 2.45 and 5.8 GHz ranges, can achieve similar results to a laser array. This would be specifically for integration in a putative Space-based Solar Power (SBSP) demonstration network.
Wafersats might be able to be propelled by a demonstration-level Solar Power Satellite (SPS) in Earth Orbit. This would involve a 100-300 kW beam-forming microwave antenna, likely in polar orbit and powered by solar panels. An assessment should look at recent advances in phased-array microwave sandwiches and life cycle assessment of both systems as part of an integrated beamed-power system. The analysis would look at the trades between lasers as an end output of a power system whereas the SPS would be part of the power system. There should be an effort to include power-beaming in some form in whatever external propulsion system is developed. One immediate issue is beam-focus and whether active beam-forming could address some of the concerns without also flying relativistic mirrors as proposed by Dr. Forward in Vulpetti, Matloff and Johnson (2008). Proposed microwave “sails” have footprints that are orders of magnitude larger than proposed light sails.
Development of the Wafersat system could potentially benefit from this sort of integration with a beamed power network beyond supplying a Farside laser array with electricity. The SPS satellites could potentially serve as a DE propulsion system that can’t work as a weapon.
Design Research Exercise: Technical & Social Imaginaries of Destination: Alpha Centauri
Instead of a poster, I ran a simple design research exercise during the lunchtime poster session. The exercise consisted of a SWOTMatrix and an I Like/I Wish/What If list. SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats; it is a very fast and efficient method for dissecting an idea, situation or scenario. I Like/I Wish/What If is a technique utilized by Stanford’s D.School for team ideation. Participants filled out each section, then ranked all the entries with dot stickers to indicate what they thought were most important in each category.
The most important Strengths of the concept were the vision and inspiration it can provide for children, the infrastructure aspect of multi-use directed energy arrays and having that kind of high-energy laser technology for other applications.
The greatest Weaknesses cited include the very large upfront costs and the possibility of the laser location not being under US control, which was also cited as an opportunity.
Opportunities behind Destination: Alpha Centauri include routine, fast access to our own Solar System (again, infrastructure that plays many roles) especially “student ChipSats of infinite types”, technical spin-offs, public engagement and interstellar dating. Several allusions to social networking with aliens were made across the exercise but ranked low. Everyone involved seems to hope the project will help us find life or even intelligent, technical species but aren’t holding those hopes to high. The last opportunity that was ranked by another participant was the so-called Overview Effect, the change that people experience in seeing the world from space.
Threats cited include the perception of these tools as weapons and their potential to spark a space arms race and the loss of interest should the first project fail.
Participants Liked that the laser arrays would likely be a multi-use, multi-party piece of infrastructure. One entry suggested piles of large, unmarked bills.
Participants Wished that there was a near-term and smaller scale space-based test “to start playing with photon delta-V”. This is in some ways an obvious stepping stone between laboratory benchtops and megawatt facilities on the Lunar Farside but is also the exact kind of policy nightmare regarding space-based weapons that no government would allow to fly, private mission or public. One unranked idea that was discussed elsewhere in the workshop was “brakes” of some kind at the destination star. As it is, the individual WaferSats pass through the target star system in a few hours traveling at relativistic speeds. The advantage to Dr. Lubin’s proposal is that thousands of these craft make that journey in a continuous mesh.
What If questions included “What if I could change the gravity constant” and whether there are aliens and how that would impact the project and our understanding of our place in the universe.
These process photos include the final results, two development pictures and one of researchers participating in the exercise. In my experience, space scientists and engineers are often surprised and excited when designers bring our research tools to help them analyze their chosen fields and projects.
Space Horizons is always an interesting conference. Professor Fleeter knows all the interesting people in the space sector and brings a keen sense of understanding what is nearly possible and about to happen in space projects. This year’s topic was closing a circle as the first Space Horizons was about ChipSats when they were a completely new concept. Now the discussion isn’t whether ChipSats or Wafersats for Dr. Lubin’s team are possible but whether they are appropriate as our first interstellar emissaries.
Real action is happening on this right now at deepspace.UCSB.edu, Breakthrough Foundation, Lasermotive and other labs across the US. This concept, whether as StarShot or another team, presents enormous commercial and academic opportunities along with workforce development, youth inspiration and the potential of a new “Earthrise” moment from 4 lightyears distant.
Vulpetti, G., Johnson, L., & Matloff., G. L. (2008;2009;). Solar sails: A novel approach to interplanetary travel. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-68500-7
This is an old project from teaching at AS220’s Fab Lab Providence (now AS220 Industries). The premise was simple, to create a pinhole camera using the Epilog Minihelix laser cutter in the Fab Lab and shoot some pictures using equipment in the Paul Krot Community Darkroom. The cameras were made and used over two Saturdays in March 2010 with the fabrication class led by myself and the photography segment led by Miguel Rosario.
The cameras are unique for pinhole cameras in that they use reloadable film holders based on old large-format cameras. This enables them to be reloaded inside a black bag in the field. The film holders are sized for 4″x5″ film or photo paper. In the class, we used black and white photo paper.
The cameras largely follow Alan Kay’s concept of self-documenting software in that in cutting the files, the instructions are etched into the surfaces for easy assembly. There are also aiming guides etched into the top surface for lining up shots.
Materials: 1/8″ board, hot glue and glue gun, gaffer’s tape, scissors, utility knife.
Download files and laser cut them using your preference of materials. 1/8″ Foamcor, cardboard, plywood or MDF will all work.
Assemble the camera body by laying down base and attaching the front, sides and center divider. Attach the top cover. Hotglue all edges inside and out then seal over with gaffer’s tape or other light-proof material.
Take a small piece of copper, aluminum foil or copper cladding (3M EMI Shielding Tapes 1181) and place over the aperture on the inside front of camera. Tape it in place to guarantee a fit. Take a small needle or bobby pin and carefully poke a hole in the center of the foil.
Attach the back plate, glue and light-proof.
Attach the film holder cover with gaffer’s tape.
Make folding film holders from the two holder components and gaff.
Glue the two pieces of the lens cap together. Add the lens cap to the camera. It can be attached with hook-and-loop, tape or jammed into the aperture. Jamming it in place is not recommended for field cameras as it can damage the foil, but does work for practice assembly.
Insert film into holders, load camera and shoot to your heart’s content.
Overall this project was a real success. The workshop had only two students and two instructors but we all successfully built, shot and printed using these cameras. There is a lot of possibilities for combing these kinds of very old technology with digital fabrication.
Tiltshift lenses are all the rage but a decent one is painfully expensive. Lensbaby offers a range of affordable tiltshit and fisheye lenses in the $90-1300 range which is a far cry from the $2500 kit I really want from Canon. Here is a quick rundown of the cheapest tiltshift lens on the market, Lensbaby’s 50mm Spark. Overall this lens is fantastic for what it does at this price point.
Included here are some exposure tests, feedback on how the lens operates and a video showing what it can do with an older DSLR camera for both video and stills used as motion graphics.
Tested on a Canon T3 with no extra filters. This lens is the most fun I’ve had with a camera since my first SONY Handicam with Niteshot.
Images and Video by SM@SH and J05H, shot February and March, 2017. Video footage was captured on a pleasant evening’s sunset, March 5th, 2017. No color balancing or other image editing has been done in an effort to keep it close to the camera’s output so readers can see what kind of images the Spark produces.
This poppy flower sprouted among the gravel in our xeriscaping and became the subject for testing this lens. This rugged but delicate flower has gone through three phases, first sprouting a single blossom, then two and back to one.
All focusing and effects are done in-camera using the Spark’s manual focus ring. This is accomplished simply, by holding the lens and directing the focal plane with the fingers. It is very intuitive when shooting both video and still images. The field-of-view is fairly narrow which helps to give it the dream-like quality when combined with the fixed f5.6 aperture.
The fixed aperture means that a modern Canon DSLR doesn’t recognize a lens is attached. The aperture is fixed at f5.6, there is no autofocus or image stabilization. All photo imaging needs to be done by manually adjusting any settings. Video has a warm, close feel due to the fixed lens settings and manual, touchy focus. Shooting with the Spark is a raw, fun experience.
Exposure Tests — Fixed f5.6 aperture, 1/100th second exposure, ISO in steps from 100 – 6400.
Welcome to Mars puts you in the rover next to Max as he fixes radios, robots and relays while remaining emotionally unavailable to his hacker coworker Aubrey. Max is a disgruntled technician working out his five-year contract on the surface of Mars, Aubrey is somewhere within radio range. Their employer is Red Ram Energy Drinks, LLC, they are in space to prove that Red Ram NITRO EDITION is the only energy drink tough enough to colonize another planet.
Welcome to Mars is an upcoming short film being developed by Connor Coffman (DC 2016). It is being produced over the second half of 2016. Welcome to Mars started as part of Connor’s coursework in ASU’s Digital Media program and has grown into a test-case for the DC Incubator.
This is Connor’s first film project.
As a test of the DC Incubator system Welcome to Mars provides an exact test case. Connor recently finished in Digital Culture program and has an interest in integrating the entire chain of production. He has been working on the concept for Welcome to Mars for years but only recently started to put production of it together. It combines fabrication, product development, cinema and critical analysis of potential cultural situations.
The film, trailers and other material will be entered into various festivals and film competitions.
Welcome to Mars is more than just space fantasy. It looks into issues of corporate power, individual agency, unintended consequences and the inherent nihilism of existence. Welcome to Mars aims to be a technically accurate, politically & socially acute examination of space exploration and human development as it seems to be evolving.
Welcome to Mars teaser and suit movement test:
Well, that’s the surprise.
( a disgruntled roboto technician goes to Mars as part of the RED RAM mission. Hilarity, ennui and long drives in a lychen-transformed desert ensue. )
Connor Coffman — Director, writer, editor, plays ‘Max’, etc.
Joshua Gigantino — Producer, Technical Consultant, etc.
Welcome to Mars is being shot on location… in Arizona. Specific sites include the Monarch Theater in Phoenix, local industrial sites, Arizona desert locations (the perfect stand-in for a partially terraformed Mars), and studio sets.
The suit is representative of what is called a Mechanical Counter Pressure spacesuit (MCP). This is a type of vacuum garment that uses fabric pressure drawn across the skin to protect the wearer. The effect is somewhat like a wetsuit or thick leotard. These suits were tested successfully in the 1970s by Annis & Webb (1971) and have been in off-and-on development since, notably through Dava Newman’s team at MIT’s Man-Vehicle Lab with their Bio-Suit concept and by Akin & Korona with their work on MCP gloves.
The Welcome to Mars suit provides certain functionality tests and usage examples for daily activities during hypothetical Mars surface activity. These include extended periods of driving in unprepared or semi-prepared terrain, tasks in non-optimal conditions, equipment malfunctions with minimal support and other potentially lethal events.
It is built on top of a go-kart jumpsuit, motocross chest protector and skydiving helmet. The backpack or PLSS is custom designed. Normal boots and gloves are being used, the boots in a similar way to how Mercury astronaut suits were worn, the gloves are a stand-in.
Fit & Movement Test
Cropped screengrabs from Teaser video.
Other props being developed for Welcome to Mars include a rover based on a dune buggy, handheld controller device, Aubrey’s cockpit and other sets. We are attempting to use as much actual space-related hardware and existing but modified equipment as possible. One interesting item is a small satellite ground station donated by the local hackerspace HeatSync.
Red Ram Brand Development
Red Ram is tough, aggressive, in-your-face, no-bull ENERGY for the modern liquid consumer’s hydration needs. Packed with caffeine, electrolytes and our special mix of mood enhancers, Red Ram NITRO EDITION brings new meaning to the word ENERGY.
The brand concept and overall action is based on Red Bull’s work with Felix Baumgartner and Monster energy drinks. Red Ram is specifically marketed to young men with nothing to lose except the Amero credits in their pocket. They regularly hold stunts, sponsor extreme sports events and storm the heavens.
Red Ram brand development
The teaser was cut in Resolume, the trailer and movie will be cut in Adobe Premiere. A variety of digital video cameras are being employed in production.
A Creative Roadmap for DC Incubation
Welcome to Mars’ production provides a ready model for a Digital Culture Incubator. The scenario is that a finishing DC student needs a little more mentoring, production, fabrication or just other’s to help maintain a pace on a worthwhile project. ASU has amazing startup channels such as Edson Institute but these tend to be for projects that are almost ready for market. A DC Incubator would provide students with a framework and access so they can then utilize other channels toward final fruition.
As a stand-in for an ASU-based workshop while building out Welcome To Mars equipment and props this summer, Connor has relied on HeatSync Labs in Mesa. HeatSync is a local hackerspace that provides access to some fabrication tools and lots of community input.
The only element missing as an initial test-case for a DC incubator is other teams actively mentored under the same system working side-by-side.
Welcome to Mars initial production has been largely successful in that in 3 months of summer work Connor has built most of a prop spacesuit, accompanying material and put together most of the production chain for shooting in cooler temperatures this autumn. A first treatment of a script has been written along with supporting text. An autumn shooting schedule is being implemented.
Annis, J. & Webb, P. Development of a Space Activity Suit. (NASA report CR-1892) (1971). LARC, Hampton, VA.
The icons and associated media support the discussion being led by Professor J. Marty Anderies at Arizona State University’s Center for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment. The icon system was developed in collaboration with CBIE professors and graduate students.
Deliverables have included the icons for the IJC issue, a color wheel, palette, supplementary graphics, brochure layout collaboration and the icon masters. These files are currently hosted on a private GitHub page and shared in Dropbox.
Design Principles for
Common Pool Resource Governance &
Clearly Defined Boundaries
Collective Choice Arrangements
Rights To Organize
The broader research project is based on political economist Eleanor Ostrom’s 2009 Nobel Prize-winning work into governance, recognized for having “challenged the conventional wisdom by demonstrating how local property can be successfully managed by local commons without any regulation by central authorities or privatization” (2014). Commons are a type of institution determined by human need and agreement as resources available for a larger subset of the public than just an individual or corporation’s particular use. Ostrom founded CBIE at ASU in summer 2006 along with Professors Anderies and Janssen.
First use of the icon set was in a brochure available in English and Thai, next intended for versions in Chinese and Spanish. The brochure communicates the results of an investigation into farmer’s participation in shared social and physical infrastructure. The study was conducted in Columbia, Thailand, China and Nepal, involving 118 rice-producing agricultural communities and involved Chiang Mai University, the International Water Management Institute, the Asian Institute of Technology, Universidad de los Andes and ASU’s CBIE. It draws further results from experimental tests at ASU using a five-person irrigation game and two formal dynamical models. The study is funded under National Science Foundation grant GEO-1115054 as “When Strengths Can Become Weaknesses: Emerging Vulnerabilities in Coupled Natural Human Systems under Globalization and Climate Change.”
The icon set was developed pro-bono as student research in
approximately 40 hours.
The icons were developed using an iterative sketching process based on initial brainstorming done previously by the CBIE. These sketches were then tested using a set of Google Forms. CBIE specialists ranked and voted on each icon to develop messaging consensus. All attempts were made to ensure the icons are relevant across cultural and language boundaries.
Pen-inked line art was scanned into Adobe Illustrator 6, converted to single color line art then built up into the icon images. Sections of the drawings, for example the hands in #4 Collective Choice Arrangements or #6 Conflict Resolution, were drawn separately and composited as vectors in Illustrator.
An example of the development process can be seen here in the progress to finalizing #7 Rights to Organize.
1. CBIE Brainstorm
2. CBIE Brainstorm
3. CBIE Internal Feedback
4. First sketches to CBIE
Development Process for
#7 Rights to Organize
5. Second round drawing
6. Feedback Quiz
7. Approved line art
8. Final Art in color
One aspect of icon development that was proposed but discarded as duplicative was a set of wayfinding icons based on a set of three short bars and one long bar in various configurations. This was envisioned as tools for page layouts and possibly brainstorming sessions. The main icon set appears to work well enough for these purposes that the wayfinding icons weren’t needed.
The color wheel and palette are derived from photos of research sites and sessions in Columbia and desert sunsets in Arizona. The original photographs are from the project or original works. Histograms of regions of the photographs were explored using PixelStick software, matched to Itten’s color theories with special attention to what Itten (1970) refers to as “color chords”, a couple of stock color wheels and a Pantone set for verification with a 4-color process. The subtle tones and hues of sunsets, cacti, red Columbian irrigation ditches, sun-bleached concete and pale tropical sky present a bright, comfortable and immediately familiar palette.
The final palette tool is a color wheel that can be used to pick sets of complimentary colors along with binary and trinary colors. The successive inner rings are related compliments for use with the eight main colors as outlines, shadows, details and trim colors. The inner three rings are the sky and concrete lights and silhouette darks for backgrounds and other base graphic elements.
This project produced a set of icons for use in print, new media, rural outreach as well as dialogic policy development. They are currently in use in the International Journal of the Commons and in outreach material from CBIE. The project also produced a color palette and tools based on images related to the research. A range of supplementary material was also produced.
This project was an interesting collaboration with a dynamic group of mixed-methods social scientists. The project attempted to create tools that would be relevant and useful to them, their international research partners and collaboration partners in rice-farming areas worldwide.
NobelPrize.Org Editorial Staff (2014 ). Nobel Media AB 2014. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2009/ostrom-facts.html
Quote: “Schematics never fully prepare you for the real thing.” – Admiral Patterson, Star Trek: Voyager, Relativity
Description: archKit is a first step in building a life-size rapid prototyping or sketching system for architects. A kit of full-sized, projection-ready wall panels are presented along with a reconfigurable ceiling to provide a first system of rapid prototyping for architecture.
The system is intended to explore the quality of light in space in the context of defining the negative space needs of the architectural design process organically inside an experiential collaboration framework.
As shown December 9th, 2014, the kit consists of 7 interlocked panels of wood and muslin fabric. Together they form a 28’ (8.5m) wall or a 64^2’ room, a hut, wall or hogan with included fabric doorway. Hogan are 8-sided Dene (Navajo) structures that mean “Sacred enclosure” according to Nabokov & Easton (1989). Similar ritual and functional spaces existed among the Hohokam, Hopi and other Puebla nations. archKit includes a simple adjustable roof that can move between peaked and flat configurations. A simple re-rigging would enable the roof to also form 2-, 4- and 8- fold peaks to follow these various Puebla people’s architectures along with geodesic domes and yurt structures.
Architecture is the construction of thoughtful shelter or the “human-based differentiation” of physical space by the “creation of a BOUNDARY” according to Alexander (2002) . Architecture’s roots are in ancient permanent structures, temporary shelter and the definition of space. Examples of these three states include the Parthenon atop Athen’s Akropolis, ancient North American Tipi tents and palisade walls of wood or cloth.
archKit provides the basics for realizing full-scale prototyping of architectural projects. This is in direct contrast to the standard process of sketching leading to small models to CAD renderings. It allows architects and others to participate in a more hands-on approach.
Alexander makes a point of boundaries, centers and “emerging wholeness”. CAD systems can “just as easily create a monstrosity as something good.” because “There is no such thing as neutrality in such matters.” Instead, Alexander starts by sketching with small bits of material to “find out what harmonious volume would unfold from the site itself.” This process continues on-site with full-size wall segments and materials tests in ever more accurate design spirals that eventually lead to a complete solution.
Current implementation is a ‘Wizard of Oz’ approach of obvious theatrics involving simple projection and artist’s tape combined with narrative components. Further implementations will use AME iStage systems and other digital sensing to present increasing levels of fidelity to these kinds of architectural simulation.
Further systems will include wrap-around graphics for environmental/in-situ placement, digital manipulation of window and other elements. Critical digital elements should include accurate projection of horizon, slope, water drainage, sun angles and accessibility features.
Janich (1984) writes that “A topological space is a pair consisting of a set and a set of subsets”. In this project that set is the iStage blackbox theater, the subsets are the defined and undefined spaces generated by the archKit. Typically, the projector system and supporting computers are part of the closed set of the theatrical/studio space and the wall system provides an open set of enclosed space.Topologically the boundary should not exist but with feedback from architects it is clear that the walls need to be significantly thickened. The current panel set is only 7 panels, additional sets would modify but not negate this open set. In wall configuration the panels still define a space.
In creating a performance out of a design practice, elements of Artaud’s Theater of Cruelty organically emerge from the process. The audience are the performers, the only spectators were technicians and students maintaining the iStage’s technical systems, even they became actors inside the closed topological set. Artaud (1934) writes of a goal to make “…theater a believable reality which gives the heart and the senses that kind of of concrete bite which all true sensation requires.” Creating a prototyping system for a specialist field requires that believable reality be as representative and high-fidelity as possible while maintaining flexibility to improvise.
Highlight Color Explorer – rapid iterations of color for accent walls and other interior exploration.
Mobility – Light, mobile panels that can be quickly reconfigured.
5-8 Panels – Seven panels allows for a simple room to long wall.
Experiment with LEDs for color illumination.
Long-term Development Goals:
Wall Tracking: using RFID or optical tracking for wall positioning.
Interactive wall interfaces for color selection, windows, etc.
Sound Space: changes echo with size and shape of wall using convolution reverb.
DWG output: flat architectural CAD file output.
Wall-thickness units of dense foam.
Produce open-source stack of equipment plus bill of materials for architects and others to build and use as needed.
1×2” spruce strapping
108” bleached muslin fabric
archKit is being developed using action-research and ethnographic approaches. Current methodology is purely qualitative. A more quantitative approach can be achieved when archKit is fully digital with wall sections and people able to be tracked. Construction of the current set of panels consisted of assembling spruce strapping and muslin cloth panels in the AME FabLab. Ethnographic research has consisted of interviews and brainstorming sessions with two Architecture graduate students at the Design School at ASU who both have interests in hybrid digital-physical systems.
Three forms of color projection are being explored. First, using video projection for full color and motion graphics, but also Arduino-powered NeoPixel LEDS and a generic multicolor LED lighting strip.
Construction was with spruce strapping cut to length and mitred together with small braces for stability. 108” white muslin cloth was then stretched and stapled over it. Eye-screws were attached at top and bottom to complete each panel. The panels were then lashed together with paracord into a 7 panel array. The arrangement is mostly self-standing. A simple roof structure was rigged using paracord, mason’s twine and translucent construction plastic. Materials were kept as simple and construction-oriented as possible to provide a familiar environment for architects.
Testing has so far been conducted only in final critique. archKit will continue to be developed as a deployable component or kit for AME to spur collaboration.
Interviews with two architectural graduate students that are now collaborating on the project:
AF interview notes:
Roof & Foundation are critical to avoid just an interior paneling system. Light angles, drainage and domes need to be considered.
Book: Architectural Graphic Standards
Floor grid-system – IT style lifted floor or elevated floor tiles.
JC interview notes:
Interior panel partitions that mimic thickness of real walls. Office partitions crossed with SIPS panels.
Accessibility prototyping will be big – ramps, handholds, etc
System integration with BIM
Small scale mockups for high-tech buildings like hospitals and urgent care facilities.
Phoenix vs. Chicago: very different building materials. How to take into account?
Alexander, C. (2002) The Process of Creating Life. Berkeley, CA. Center for Environmental Structure.
Artaud, A. (1934) The Theater and It’s Double. Unknown translation or publisher.
Janich, K. (1984) Topology. Silvio Levy, Trans. New York, NY. Springer-Verlag.
Nabokov, P. & Easton, R. (1989). Native American Architecture. New York, NY. Oxford University Press.