Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Tech

New Artemis Plan Returns To Apollo Playbook

Published

on

In their recent announcement, NASA has made official what pretty much anyone following the Artemis lunar program could have told you years ago — humans won’t be landing on the Moon in 2028.

It was always an ambitious timeline, especially given the scope of the mission. It wouldn’t be enough to revisit the Moon in a spidery lander that could only hold two crew members and a few hundred kilograms of gear like in the 60s. This time, NASA wants to return to the lunar surface with hardware capable of setting up a sustained human presence. That means a new breed of lander that dwarfs anything the agency, or humanity for that matter, has ever tried to place on another celestial body.

Unsurprisingly, developing such vehicles and making sure they’re safe for crewed missions takes time and requires extensive testing. The simple fact is that the landers, being built by SpaceX and Blue Origin, won’t be ready in time to support the original Artemis III landing in 2028. Additionally, development of the new lunar extravehicular activity (EVA) suits by Axiom Space has fallen behind schedule. So even if one of the landers would have been ready to fly in 2028, the crew wouldn’t have the suits they need to actually leave the vehicle and work on the surface.

But while the Artemis spacecraft and EVA suits might be state of the art, NASA’s revised timeline for the program is taking a clear step back in time, hewing closer to the phased approach used during Apollo. This not only provides their various commercial partners with more time to work on their respective contributions, but critically, provides an opportunity to test them in space before committing to a crewed landing.

Advertisement

Artemis II Remains Unchanged

Given its imminent launch, there are no changes planned for the upcoming Artemis II mission. In fact, had there not been delays in getting the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket ready for launch, the mission would have already flown by now. Given how slow the gears of government tend to turn, one wonders if the original plan was to announce these program revisions after the conclusion of the mission. The launch is currently slated for April, but could always slip again if more issues arise.

Artemis II Crew

At any rate, the goals for Artemis II have always been fairly well-aligned with its Apollo counterpart, Apollo 8. Just like the 1968 mission, this flight is designed to test the crew capsule and collect real-world experience while in the vicinity of the Moon, but without the added complexity of attempting a landing. Although now, as it was then, the decision to test the crew capsule without its lander wasn’t made purely out of an abundance of caution.

As originally envisioned, Apollo 8 would have seen both the command and service module (CSM) and the lunar module (LM) tested in low Earth orbit. But due to delays in LM production, it was decided to fly the completed CSM without a lander on a modified mission that would put it into orbit around the Moon. This would give NASA an opportunity to demonstrate the critical translunar injection (TLI) maneuver and gain experience operating the CSM in lunar orbit — tasks which were originally scheduled to be part of the later Apollo 10 mission.

In comparison, Artemis II was always intended to be flown with only the Orion crew capsule. NASA’s goal has been to keep the program relatively agnostic when it came to landers, with the hope being that private industry would furnish an array of vehicles from which the agency could chose depending on the mission parameters. The Orion capsule would simply ferry crews to the vicinity of the Moon, where they would transfer over to the lander — either via directly docking, or by using the Lunar Gateway station as a rallying point.

There’s no lander waiting at the Moon for Artemis II, and the fate of Lunar Gateway is still uncertain. But for now, that’s not important. On this mission, NASA just wants to demonstrate that the Orion capsule can take a crew of four to the Moon and bring them back home safely.

Advertisement

Artemis III Kicks the Tires

For Artemis III, the previous plan was to have the Orion capsule mate up with a modified version of SpaceX’s Starship — known in NASA parlance as the Human Landing System (HLS) — which would then take the crew down to the lunar surface. While the HLS contract did stipulate that SpaceX was to perform an autonomous demonstration landing before Artemis III, the aggressive nature of the overall timeline made no provision for testing the lander with a crew onboard ahead of the actual landing attempt — a risky plan even in the best of circumstances.

Docked CSM and LM during Apollo 9

The newly announced timeline resolves this issue by not only delaying the actual Moon landing until 2028, to take place during Artemis IV, but to change Artemis III into a test flight of the lander from the relative safety of low Earth orbit in 2027. The crew will liftoff from Kennedy Space Center and rendezvous with the lander in orbit. Once docked, the crews will practice maneuvering the mated vehicles and potentially perform an EVA to test Axiom’s space suits.

This new plan closely follows the example of Apollo 9, which saw the CSM and LM tested together in Earth orbit. At this point in the program, the CSM had already been thuroughly tested, but the LM had never flown in space or had a crew onboard. After the two craft docked, the crew performed several demonstrations, such as verifying that the mated craft could be maneuvered with both the CSM and LM propulsion systems.

The two craft then separated, and the LM was flown independently for several hours before once again docking with the CSM. The crew also performed a brief EVA to test the Portable Life Support System (PLSS) which would eventually be used on the lunar surface.

Orion docked to landers from SpaceX and Blue Origin

While the Artemis III and Apollo 9 missions have a lot in common, there’s at least one big difference. At this point, NASA isn’t committing to one particular lander. If Blue Origin gets their hardware flying before SpaceX, that’s what they’ll go with. There’s even a possibility, albeit remote, that they could test both landers during the mission.

Artemis IV Takes a Different Path

After the success of Apollo 9, there was consideration given to making the first landing attempt on the following mission. But key members of NASA such as Director of Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft felt there was still more to learn about operating the spacecraft in lunar orbit, and it was ultimately decided to make Apollo 10 a dress rehearsal for the actual landing.

Advertisement

The CSM and LM would head to the Moon, separate, and go through the motions of preparing to land. The LM would begin its descent to the lunar surface, but stop at an altitude of 14.4 kilometers (9 miles). After taking pictures of the intended landing site, it would return to the CSM and the crew would prepare for the return trip to Earth. With these maneuvers demonstrated, NASA felt confident enough to schedule the history-making landing for the next mission, Apollo 11.

But this time around, NASA will take that first option. Rather than do a test run out to the Moon with the Orion capsule and attached lander, the plan is to make the first landing attempt on Artemis IV. This is partially because we now have a more complete understanding of orbital rendezvous and related maneuvers in lunar orbit. But also because by this point, SpaceX and Blue Origin should have already completed their autonomous demonstration missions to prove the capabilities of their respective landers.

Entering Uncharted Territory

At this point, the plans for anything beyond Artemis IV are at best speculative. NASA says they will work to increase mission cadence, which includes streamlining SLS operations so the megarocket can be launched at least once per year, and work towards establishing a permanent presence on the Moon. But of course none of that can happen until these early Artemis missions have been successfully executed. Until then it’s all just hypothetical.

While Apollo was an incredible success, one can only follow its example so far. Despite some grand plans, the program petered out once it was clear the Soviet Union was no longer in the game. It cemented NASA’s position as the preeminent space agency, but the dream of exploring the lunar surface and establishing an outpost remained unfulfilled. With China providing a modern space rival, and commercial partners rapidly innovating, perhaps Artemis may be able to succeed where Apollo fell short.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

A $5 Bluetooth tracker hidden in a postcard exposed a warship's movements

Published

on


Dutch regional broadcaster Omroep Gelderland reported that one of its journalists tracked HNLMS Evertsen, a Dutch air-defense frigate, during an active deployment in the eastern Mediterranean. The ship was operating to help protect France’s aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle against missile threats when the tracking occurred.
Read Entire Article
Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Audma’s ELISA Technology Enables Speaker Like Soundstage from Any Headphones: AXPONA 2026

Published

on

At AXPONA 2026, the EarGear section was filled with the usual heavyweight brands, but a smaller name managed to stand out. Audma may be a new company on paper, founded in 2024, but its story reaches back to 1978 when Cesare Mattoli began chasing a stubborn idea: getting headphones to sound more like speakers in a room.

For decades, that goal remained out of reach. Mattoli built and rebuilt designs that never quite delivered, held back more by the limits of available technology than a lack of vision. That changed in 2022 with the arrival of ELISA, the Electronic Loudspeaker Imaging Simulating Amplifier, which finally brought his concept into focus. The company later rebranded as Audma in 2024, keeping ELISA as the core technology behind its products. Since then, Audma has introduced two amplifiers, the Maestro HPA1 desktop model and the Brioso PHPA1 portable, both demonstrated at AXPONA as a different way to tackle soundstage without changing your headphones, just the signal path.

Audma Maestro HPA1 Headphone Amplifier
Audma Maestro HPA1

While most headphone manufacturers try to squeeze more space out of their designs by tweaking cup geometry, airflow, and damping materials, Audma takes a different route. Its approach centers on delay line processing at the amplification stage, shaping how the signal reaches each ear rather than altering the headphone itself. The idea is straightforward: keep your existing headphones and source, insert one of Audma’s amplifiers into the chain, and let the processing do the heavy lifting in creating a more speaker like presentation.

Audma Brioso PHPA1 Portable Headphone Amplifier with ELISA
Audma Brioso PHPA1

How Audma ELISA Reworks Spatial Cues Inside Your Headphones

The ELISA circuitry uses delay line processing to create an image that more closely approximates what a listener hears with speakers or live music. One of the core issues it addresses is that headphones separate channels too well. In real world listening, the brain determines direction and distance based on the time delay between when a sound reaches each ear and the reduction in level at the farther ear.

Advertisement

With headphones, that mechanism is largely lost because each channel is delivered almost entirely to one ear. Some amplifiers and digital audio players attempt to compensate with crossfeed. Crossfeed mixes a portion of each channel into the other with reduced level and a slight delay so that both ears receive both signals, more like real listening conditions. Different implementations vary the amount of delay and level, which is why reactions to crossfeed tend to be mixed.

Audma builds on that same principle but with a more advanced approach. ELISA allows adjustment of both delay and perceived direction rather than just blending the channels. On both the desktop and portable amplifiers, listeners can control the apparent distance and angle of the sound, effectively expanding or narrowing the stage and shifting their position relative to it. In practice, that means you can move closer to the performance or further back by making a few adjustments, rather than changing headphones.

ELISA Enabled Products

audma-hpa1-rear
Audma Maestro HPA1 rear

The Maestro was Audma’s original release and is designed to function as both a headphone amplifier and a preamp. Connectivity is extensive, with XLR, RCA, coaxial, optical, and USB inputs, along with both RCA and XLR outputs. The chassis follows a fairly standard full size footprint at 16 x 4.5 x 16 inches (W x H x D) and is available in either brushed metal or black, with weight ranging from roughly 20 to 25 pounds depending on configuration.

On the digital side, the Maestro incorporates an AKM 4499REQ DAC capable of up to 768 kHz/32-bit PCM and DSD256, making it a serious standalone DAC as well. As a headphone amplifier, it offers an output impedance of 6 ohms and six selectable gain levels at 0, +6, +12, +18, +24, and +30 dB, allowing it to accommodate a wide range of headphones. Output power is rated at 4 watts into 32 ohms and 8 watts into 300 ohms, and it had no issue driving 600 ohm headphones during the demo, including a borrowed Beyerdynamic headphones.

Audma Brioso PHPA1 portable headphone amplifier rear
Audma Brioso PHPA1 (rear)

Along with the standard controls and ELISA stage and angle adjustments, the Maestro also includes phase control, giving the listener another layer of tuning to better match personal preference and system synergy.

Advertisement

The portable Brioso PHPA1 offers both headphone amplifier and DAC functionality but drops the preamp role in favor of battery operation. Its size and shape are roughly comparable to a Samsung Galaxy S25+, measuring about 3 inches wide, three quarters of an inch thick, and just under 6 inches tall. Weight comes in at around half a pound, making it easy enough to carry on a daily basis.

Internally, it uses the AKM 4499EXEQ DAC paired with the 4191EQ modulator, supporting up to 768 kHz PCM and DSD256. For those who prefer an external DAC, both 3.5 mm and 4.4 mm analog inputs are included. The amplifier section provides four gain settings at 0, +8, +16, and +24 dB, with output power rated at 4 watts into 32 ohms and 5.4 watts into 150 ohms, which is more than enough for the vast majority of headphones.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Battery life is rated at up to 5 hours per charge, depending on listening levels, DAC usage, and headphone load.

Advertisement

Both Audma amplifiers are priced at approximately $5000 USD and are available directly from Audma or through select distribution partners.

The Bottom Line

Audma is chasing something most headphone brands only nibble at from the edges. By moving spatial processing into the amplification stage, ELISA offers a level of control over stage width, depth, and positioning that goes well beyond typical crossfeed. It’s clever, and in the right setup, it works.

The problem is the price of entry. At around $5000, you’re being asked to rethink your entire signal chain for an effect that some headphones, like the Grell OAE2, already attempt to deliver for well under $500. No, they don’t offer the same level of adjustability or precision, but the gap in cost is hard to ignore.

If ELISA delivers on its promise in a controlled environment, Audma might be onto something genuinely different. But at this level, different isn’t enough. It has to be indispensable.

Advertisement

For more information: audma.it

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Hackaday Links: April 19, 2026

Published

on

We’ll start things off this week with a story that’s developing more than 25 billion kilometers from Earth — on Friday, NASA announced that the command had been sent to shut down Voyager 1’s Low-energy Charged Particles (LECP) instrument. As the power produced by the spacecraft’s aging radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) continues to dwindle, engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have been systematically turning off various systems to extend the mission for as long as possible. It’s believed that deactivating LECP should buy them another year, during which engineers hope to implement a more ambitious power-saving routine. If this sounds a bit familiar, you’re probably thinking of Voyager 2. The plug was pulled on its LECP instrument back in March of 2025.

The JPL engineers hope that their new plan may allow them to reactivate previously disabled systems on the twin space probes, but even if everything goes according to plan, there’s no fighting the inevitable. At some point, there simply won’t be enough juice in the RTGs to keep the lights on. Although it’s going to be a sad day when we have to bring you that news, surviving a half-century in space is one hell of a run.

Speaking of ending a run, just a week after Amazon announced that pre-2012 Kindles would no longer be supported, the company is letting users know that the Kindle software for PCs will be discontinued in June. In its current form, at least. As Good e-Reader reports, Amazon is developing a new client for users who want to access the Kindle ecosystem from their computers, but it will only run on Windows 11. Since older software could be used to strip DRM from purchased ebooks, it seems likely this is another attempt to lock the platform down.

Because, of course, people post car crashes on Facebook.

We’re not fans of arbitrary limits being placed on ebooks and the devices that read them, but on the other hand, there are definitely systems out there that could stand to be tightened up a bit. For example, research out of Quarkslab has shown that the electronic control unit (ECU) from a wrecked vehicle can reveal a surprising amount of information.

After picking up a used ECU, they were able to dump its NAND flash chip and decode the log files it contained. It turns out the car had GPS logs going back to the day it rolled off the assembly line, and the researchers were able to reconstruct every trip it ever made.

Advertisement

By cross-referencing the last recorded coordinates with social media posts, they were even able to find pictures of the crash that took the vehicle out of commission. It’s bad enough that personal information can be scraped off of secondhand hard drives; now we’ve got to worry about what happens to our cars after they get hauled off to the junkyard.

If these are the sort of stories that keep you on two wheels rather than four, you may be interested in the latest innovation from Škoda Auto. In an effort to reduce collisions with pedestrians, they’ve developed a bike bell that penetrates active noise cancellation (ANC) systems. The logic goes like this: if someone is walking around with headphones that feature ANC, they might not hear the bell of an approaching bike. So they teamed up with researchers from the University of Salford to essentially find the weaknesses in existing ANC systems.

As you might have guessed, irregular noises are harder to block out than constant tones. Researchers uncovered a gap between 750 and 780 Hz where sounds could sneak through. The mechanical bell uses both principles to defeat ANC, and in testing, it was shown to provide headphone-wearing pedestrians  more time to react to an approaching bicycle.

Finally, we’ll bring this week’s post full circle by starting and ending on a space story: earlier this week, PBS released the hour-long documentary Artemis II: Return to the Moon on YouTube. Watching PBS programming on YouTube might seem a bit odd, but that’s the world we live in these days. At any rate, the video is a fascinating look into what went into the recently concluded Moon mission and has us even more excited for Artemis III and beyond.

Advertisement


See something interesting that you think would be a good fit for our weekly Links column? Drop us a line, we’d love to hear about it.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Today’s NYT Connections Hints, Answers for April 20 #1044

Published

on

Looking for the most recent Connections answers? Click here for today’s Connections hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands puzzles.


Today’s NYT Connections puzzle is pretty tricky. It was a little unnerving to see “cannibalism” as one of the clues. Read on for clues and today’s Connections answers.

The Times has a Connections Bot, like the one for Wordle. Go there after you play to receive a numeric score and to have the program analyze your answers. Players who are registered with the Times Games section can now nerd out by following their progress, including the number of puzzles completed, win rate, number of times they nabbed a perfect score and their win streak.

Advertisement

Read more: Hints, Tips and Strategies to Help You Win at NYT Connections Every Time

Hints for today’s Connections groups

Here are four hints for the groupings in today’s Connections puzzle, ranked from the easiest yellow group to the tough (and sometimes bizarre) purple group.

Yellow group hint: Cough, cough!

Advertisement

Green group hint: Reel it in.

Blue group hint: Spin a web.

Purple group hint: Not Sunday or Tuesday.

Answers for today’s Connections groups

Yellow group: Mass of smoke.

Advertisement

Green group: Fishing gear.

Blue group: Associated with black widow spiders.

Purple group: ____ Monday.

Read more: Wordle Cheat Sheet: Here Are the Most Popular Letters Used in English Words

Advertisement

What are today’s Connections answers?

completed NYT Connections puzzle for April 20, 2026

The completed NYT Connections puzzle for April 20, 2026.

NYT/Screenshot by CNET

The yellow words in today’s Connections

The theme is mass of smoke. The four answers are billow, cloud, plume and puff.

The green words in today’s Connections

The theme is fishing gear. The four answers are bait, hook, net and rod.

Advertisement

The blue words in today’s Connections

The theme is associated with black widow spiders. The four answers are cannibalism, hourglass, venom and web.

The purple words in today’s Connections

The theme is ____ Monday. The four answers are blue, cyber, manic and meatless.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

The next Mac Studio and MacBook Pro releases could be postponed by several months

Published

on

Anyone looking to upgrade to the next Mac Studio or MacBook Pro might have to wait a little longer, thanks to the ongoing global memory shortage. As reported by Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, “at least two of the company’s upcoming machines … could debut a little later than the company initially planned,” referencing the refreshes to Apple’s desktop and its laptop that’s expected to get a touchscreen.

Bloomberg reported that the upcoming Mac Studio, which follows up the current lineup in the M4 Max and M3 Ultra configurations, was first expected to release in the middle of the year. However, Apple is already dealing with shortages of its existing Mac Studio stock, likely due to the device being a popular choice for anyone running local AI models. With no stop to the shortage in sight, Gurman predicted that the refreshed Mac Studio’s release could be postponed to around October instead.

It’s not just Apple’s desktop offerings being affected. Gurman also reported that the release of the next MacBook Pro could be delayed. While Gurman said the release timeline of the touchscreen MacBook Pro could be between the end of 2026 to early 2027, he’s now predicting that it would arrive toward the later end of that timeline. Of course, Apple isn’t the only consumer tech company heavily affected by the RAM shortage. However, Apple can at least take advantage of its successful MacBook Neo release amidst the memory shortage crisis affecting all laptop makers.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Predicts Humankind Won’t Survive Another 50 Years

Published

on

Live Science spoke with physicist David Gross, who today received the $3 million “Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics”. He was part of a trio that won the 2004 physics Nobel prize for research that helped complete the Standard Model of particle physics. But when asked if physics will reach a unified theory of the fundamental forces of nature within 50 years, Gross has a surprising answer. “Currently, I spend part of my time trying to tell people… that the chances of you living 50 [more] years are very small.”

Cold War estimates for a 1% chance of nuclear war each year seem low, Gross says. “The chances are more likely 2%. So that’s a 1-in-50 chance every year.”


David Gross: The expected lifetime, in the case of 2% [per year], is about 35 years. [The expected lifetime is the average time it would take to have had a nuclear war by then. It is calculated using similar equations as those used to determine the “half-life” of a radioactive material.]

Live Science: So what do you suggest as remedies to lower that risk?

Advertisement

Gross: We had something called the Nobel Laureate Assembly for reducing the risk of nuclear war in Chicago last year. There are steps, which are easy to take — for nations, I mean. For example, talk to each other. In the last 10 years, there are no treaties anymore. We’re entering an incredible arms race.

We have three super nuclear powers. People are talking about using nuclear weapons; there’s a major war going on in the middle of Europe; we’re bombing Iran; India and Pakistan almost went to war. OK, so that’s increased the chance [of nuclear war]. I would really like to have a solid estimate — it might be more, and I think I’m being conservative — but a 2% estimate [of nuclear war] in today’s crazy world.

Live Science: Do you think we’ll ever get to a place where we get rid of nuclear weapons?

Gross: We’re not recommending that. That’s idealistic, but yes, I hope so. Because if you don’t, there’s always some risk an AI 100 years from now [could launch nuclear weapons], but chances of [humanity] living, with this estimate, 100 years, is very small, and living 200 years is infinitesimal. So [the answer to] Fermi’s question of “Where are the civilizations, all the intelligent organisms around the galaxy, and why don’t they talk to us?” is that they’ve killed themselves…

Advertisement

There are now nine nuclear powers. Even three is infinitely more complicated than two. The agreements, the norms between countries, are all falling apart. Weapons are getting crazier. Automation, and perhaps even AI, will be in control of those instruments pretty soon… It’s going to be very hard to resist making AI make decisions because it acts so fast.
He points out that with the threat of climate change, “people have done something,” even though “It’s a much harder argument to make than about nuclear weapons.

“We made them; we can stop them.”

Thanks to hwstar (Slashdot reader #35,834) for sharing the article.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

5 Cars That Looked Totally Different Just One Generation Ago

Published

on





There’s something to be said about brand recognition — being able to tell what one car is from another at a glance. Companies have their trademark “looks” befitting certain models, sure — Jeep Wranglers are always boxy 4x4s with the seven-slotted grille and Ford Mustangs have the triple-taillight and a fastback coupe body shape. And these trends generally carry on from one generation to the next — a modern Wrangler still bears a superficial resemblance to the old TJ Wrangler from the 1990s, for instance. But every now and then, you get manufacturers trying something new. Whether it’s reusing a name on a brand-new platform or just a total ground-up redesign, sometimes you’re simply baffled to see the same logo on two seemingly completely different cars.

This is actually way more common than one might think. Take the Dodge Challenger, for instance, which went from a pony car in the early 1970s to a rebadged Mitsubishi Galant of all things. There are a few instances of this practice rearing its head, generally when automakers are chasing trends or undergoing large platform changes. An example of the latter is the Dodge Ram, which went from a Spartan, functional pickup in the 1980s to arguably the first modern production pickup truck in 1994.

Advertisement

We don’t see it as often today, with designs focusing more on minimalism and safety. But there are a few newer cars out there that will make you go, “Wait, it looked like that just one generation ago?” Let’s dive in and have a look.

Advertisement

Chrysler 300

What’s the first thought that comes to your mind when you think of the name “Chrysler 300?” Because the answer is generally all over the place; these cars (sadly now discontinued) once began life as midsize 1950s luxury sedans. Then they evolved into 1960s luxury sedans, then 1970s luxury sedans, and so on — the trend ran right up to their ultimate demise. But while these cars never changed their intended purpose, they most certainly changed their looks. Because the modern 2005-2023 Chrysler 300’s father is actually just a fancier Sebring — identical body shape and all, to the point where you’d be forgiven for mistaking the two without the presence of the badge.

Okay, granted, that badge reads “300M,” but it’s a Chrysler 300 — a car which, like its predecessors, prides itself on being refined and luxurious. Although you won’t find a Hemi anywhere near this car (unless you’re a lunatic who swapped in a remarkably inexpensive Hemi crate engine). Instead, you’ll find that classic Pentastar V6 in 3.5L form married to a front-wheel drive setup, all housed underneath a remarkably well-rounded body shell. It was Chrysler’s thing at the time; we all know that look from the Town and Country minivans.

The mid-2000s marked a pivotal period for Chrysler (and Mopar as a whole), with the entire range undergoing massive redesigns. These included the debuts of the new Jeep Wrangler JK in 2007, the Dodge Magnum in 2005, and many others. For the 300, it meant going from FWD budget luxury to intimidating, Hemi-powered RWD aspiration piece, a move that became so iconic that the car remained nearly unchanged right up until it was discontinued.

Advertisement

Chevrolet Corvette

This one is also fairly obvious when you look at it, especially considering this was the first time we’ve ever seen a mid-engine Corvette in dealerships. It’s a car that has arguably marred a silhouette that was well over 50 years old, with the classic front-engine, rear-drive grand tourer coupe layout solidifying in 1963 with the Stingray fastback. Those classic lines of the long hood and sweeping rear end met their demise with Chevrolet’s modern rendition, for better or worse, marking a shift in design philosophy never before seen in the lineup — going from a grand touring sports car to supercar.

Typically the Corvette filled the niche of the former: a sports car. It was less money, less hassle, more practical, and generally more common than a lot of other high-performance vehicles of its era. Even today, you’re more likely to see a Corvette cruising down the highway than, for instance, a Lamborghini that’s more than double the cost (depending on where you live). But modern “fast cars” have a new image attached to them; think of modern Ferraris, the Audi R8, and so on. These are cars which typically command six-figure sums and hit 60 in three seconds or less. But not the Corvette (at least the base model).

The original design was revolutionary for the time, being marketed as “America’s First Sports Car.” And it’s a classic template, one which could easily continue into the future. But GM chose to depart from the “sports car” label, leaving us with what is ostensibly America’s budget supercar. Recognizable in name and performance, but hardly a trace when it comes to aesthetic presentation.

Advertisement

Dodge Charger

This was probably one of the most startling and controversial redesigns of the past couple years, with the Charger going from a pure-bred modern muscle car to a two-door EV (with the Hurricane turbocharged straight six available in model year 2026 onwards). Some might call it blasphemous to release a muscle car with no V8 option available for the masses, but whatever you think about the powertrain, it still wears the Charger badge — and looks almost nothing like its predecessor, with only a passing resemblance in four-door form.

Advertisement

Granted, the Charger was never exactly a svelte sports car in terms of its looks (as you can see in each generation). It was more of a brick on wheels than anything. The original Charger was a full-size sleeper coupe, looking more like a salesman’s car from the outside but potentially hiding a massive engine under the hood. The second-gen is what we generally think of when we hear of a classic Charger, but they both share certain key traits like that iconic, stone-faced grille and fastback roof. The modern Charger takes these elements and reimagines them in a 2020s context, returning the two-door configuration, flat nose, and vintage roof line. It’s a retro-flavored design, for sure, arguably returning the Charger name to a more traditional aesthetic.

Redesigns rarely hit without backlash, as we see fairly often in website facelifts for instance. And the new Charger was met with tons of it, though that generally revolved around its powertrain, not its aesthetics. The actual look of the car is, in fact, far more in-line with vintage Charger design philosophy, which may not be to everyone’s taste. But it’s certainly more faithful than the 2000s-era four-door sedan look, which is arguably its own unique thing.

Advertisement

Toyota Supra

We have yet another sports car entering the chat, this time a Japanese-German chimera born from a BMW — and yes, the Supra has a BMW engine. The B58, to be specific, the same engine as the BMW Z4. Of course, the body is quite different from the Z4, though that doesn’t stop people from calling the MK5 Toyota Supra a BMW. It’s yet another controversial car in this regard, but aside from the question of whether or not it’s a “real” Toyota, one fact still remains consistent: This thing looks nothing like the MK4 A80 Supra, from just about any angle.

One might suggest that such a design departure is obvious enough. After all, the A80 itself looks almost nothing like its predecessor either, trading the boxy pop-up headlights look for that timeless rounded shape. Regardless of what you think about the car (it’s arguably seriously overrated for what it provides), that body shape is instantly recognizable and looks correct even in modern traffic. By contrast, the MK5 is certainly not a bad-looking car in its own right, with exceptionally sporty design language. That said, good luck finding commonality, aside from the 2-door fastback styling.

By contrast, the MK5 Supra is a car with a contemporary aggressive fascia, plenty of vents, a svelte body with bold accents, and a long nose hiding that straight six. The FT-1 concept it was based on was well-received for its looks, with the production Supra basically being a watered-down version. Is it bad? Absolutely not — neither it nor its ancestor were. But you really have to stretch the definition of “similar” to marry this car’s aesthetic language to the MK4’s.

Advertisement

Chevrolet Blazer

Typically when a car totally jumps from one segment to another, you get some sort of differentiation in the name — Ford Mustang Mach-E or Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, for example. Other times it’s a revival of a far older nameplate banking on recognition, such as the Ford Capri or Maverick. And then there’s this thing. The Chevrolet Blazer at a glance looks like it fills a similar role to the previous S-10 Blazer. That car was produced until the mid-2000s in North America, supplanted by the TrailBlazer in the midsize segment. Neither model bear even a passing resemblance to the modern crossover, however, either in form or function.

Advertisement

The S-10 and TrailBlazer alike were both unquestionably SUVs, with the S-10 in particular being more off-road oriented with its traditional high ground clearance, optional full-time 4WD, and features on-par with competitors like the Jeep Grand Cherokee. Additionally, Chevrolet even offered it in performance truck trim, with street-oriented option packages like the Blazer Xtreme. Its versatile SUV platform suited many roles well for its day, but its design is certainly dated on modern roads.

Chevrolet’s answer wasn’t to remake it as an SUV but rather as a crossover, debuting in 2019 to mixed reception (putting it mildly). The design proved controversial with the Blazer crowd, expecting a plucky, utilitarian 4×4 to rival the Bronco and getting a decidedly road-oriented unibody instead. It is almost nothing like the Blazers of old, only sharing the rough physical footprint they take up on the road. The Blazer is essentially the reverse of the Chrysler 300, going from a RWD or 4×4 truck to a FWD or AWD midsize that blazes rental fleets nationwide.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Beijing’s robot half-marathon is back for its second year with far less embarassing results

Published

on

To make up for an incredibly laughable inaugural event, Beijing is running back its humanoid robot half-marathon. Fortunately, the event that pits humanoid robots made by Chinese companies against each other across 13 miles went a lot smoother this year.

This year’s half-marathon hosted more than 100 competitors, with first place going to Honor, better known for its smartphones, and its red-clad robot named Lightning. Living up to the name, the gold medalist finished the race in 50 minutes and 26 seconds. That’s several minutes faster than the human record that was recently set by Uganda’s Jacob Kiplimo last month.

Honor swept the other podium spots, with the important caveat that they all navigated the course autonomously, according to the state-sponsored television news agency CCTV. That’s a massive improvement over last year, where the fastest time among 21 robots was achieved by Tiangong Ultra with a record of two hours and 40 minutes. Last year’s event saw many of the bipedal robots receiving assistance from human operators who ran alongside them, as well as some comical mishaps, like falling at the starting line.

However, the BBC reported that around 40 percent of the robots competed autonomously this year, while the rest were remote-controlled. Despite the rapid improvements, this year’s event still had its fair share of crashes, even from Honor’s robots.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Rack Cage Generator Gets Your Gear Mounted

Published

on

Sometimes, as hackers and makers, we can end up with messy lashed-together gear that is neither reliable nor tidy. Rackmounting your stuff can be a great way to improve the robustness and liveability of your setup. If you find this appealing, you might like CageMaker by [WebMaka].

This parametric OpenSCAD script can generate mounts for all kinds of stuff. Maybe you have a little network switch that’s just a tangle of wires on your desk, or a few pieces of audio gear that are loosely stacked on top of each other and looking rather unkempt. It would be trivial with this tool to create some 3D printed adapters to get all that stuff laced up nice and neat in a rack instead.

If you’re eager to get tinkering, you can try out the browser-based version quite easily. We’ve featured similar work before, too—many a maker has trod the path of rackmounting, as it turns out.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

2026 Green Powered Challenge: The Eternal Headphones

Published

on

Noise cancelling headphones are a great way to insulate yourself from the bustle of the city, but due to their power requirements, continuous use means frequent recharging. [Alessandro Sgarzi] has an elegant and unique solution — powering the noise cancelling electronics by harvesting energy from the ambient noise of the city via a sheet of piezoelectric film.

This impressive feat is achieved using a LTC3588-1 power harvesting IC and a pair of supercapacitors, while an STM32L011K4T6 microcontroller processes the input from a MEMS microphone and feeds a low-power class D amplifier. This circuit consumes an astounding 1.7 nW, a power that a noisy city is amply able to supply. Audio meanwhile comes via a traditional 3.5 mm connector, which we are told is the cool kids’ choice nowadays anyway.

We like this project, and since it’s part of our 2026 Green Powered Challenge, it’s very much in the spirit of the thing. You’ve just got time to get your own entry in, so get a move on!

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025