Foresight Institute Logo
Image of nano

NASA anticipates nanocomputing architectures

from the big-crunch dept.
Stephen Farrington writes "Reading between the lines of a recent posting to the Commerce Business Daily — the publication through which federal agencies announce all competitive procurement plans — NASA is beginning work now to exploit the massively parallel computing architectures that nanotech will enable. According to the August 10th announcement, 'NASA Langley Research Center will solicit proposals for algorithms…capable of effectively exploiting concurrently operating processors whose number may be very large; hundreds of thousands, even millions are expected to become available within two decades.' For more information, go right to the source."

6 Responses to “NASA anticipates nanocomputing architectures”

  1. Kadamose Says:

    That's Funny

    I have a relative who works there, and I asked him about any of the Nanotech projects going on at the moment. And his was response was, that there currently aren't any. All of the departments at NASA are still based on Microtechnology, and he said that probably isn't going to change anytime soon.

    Obviously the folks at NASA are a little two-faced when it comes down to supporting Nanotech. Considering the recent Mars failures, I've come to the conclusion that we (us scientists) don't need NASA (since they obviously lack math skills). So, whatever NASA says, you basically have to take it with a grain of salt.

  2. JonathanDesp Says:

    This article is not a nanotechnology news

    I don't know why Christine Peterson, always, put a relation with Nanotechnology. On the source there is no word "Nanotechnology" and she describe the news as it would be a Nanotech news. Samething for the Zyvex news, she said that the journalism was enthusiast to see Zyvex, but the truth was -> "a big article on the failure of Zyvex, about investing" whoa. There is something wrong with Nanodot, I would prefer to see only mister Terra news, which are better news. The news are not always clean. It's sad to see that, from a non-profit org.

  3. BryanBruns Says:

    MNT and massively parallel computing architectures

    Look at the top of the page: "News and Discussion of Coming Technologies" and for Foresight: "Preparing Society for Advanced Technologies" So the scope of Nanodot and Foresight is not limited to MNT, even if that is the major focus.

    Whether it's done with molecules, MEMS, nanotech, or whatever, massively parallel architectures could have significant impacts. Danny Hillis' Connection Machine may not have been a big business success, but what I've read suggests it was influential in getting people to think differently about how computers might be designed and used. Furthermore, architectures for coordinating massively parallel processes, even in the billions and trillions range, will have more than a bit to do with making nanotech work.

  4. stovetop Says:

    Re:This article is not a nanotechnology news

    Granted that the Zyvex posting was not riddled with nanoTECH. It can also be given that the result of the investment proposal was not happy for those with high hopes for the field. However, the article can also be viewed as a technical introduction of the nanotechnological environment for the layperson. Even without stamping "Nanotechnology" all over it. There is nothing wrong with Nanodot providing discussion for this type of material. Interest for this field must be created for the general public. This is not dumbing it down for the masses.

  5. SeanKiely Says:

    Re:That's Funny

    NASA may be more actively interested in nanotech than you realize… they've posted a "Request for Quotation" for an Atomic Force Microscope to be used by the "Nanotechnology Group at NASA Ames Research Center". Sounds like they're starting to dedicate bodies and money to the field. See the following URL for details:

  6. JonathanDesp Says:

    Re:MNT and massively parallel computing architectu

    Yes, but NASA didnot mention the word "nanocomputing" there is no relation to do with Nanotechnology, with the initiative, and she is putting a relation with Nanotechnology, which is wrong.

Leave a Reply