Some Updates

Hey gang. It's been a minute, but I have a good excuse. Like school. I'm back on track now.

First, I'd just like to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the Japanese people in this most difficult time. I try to put myself in their shoes and can't. We have a friend who is stationed there. She's helping out with the rescue and recovery, though there isn't much one can do from the deck of a destroyer. We worry about her too.

Second, does anyone remember when KVIL did the Pet Shop Boys spoof "Quadaffi Sucks"? It's been in my head non-stop since the air strikes started in Libya.

Next, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that SpaceX has inked a deal with Luxembourg-based SES-SA to launch one of their commercial satellites on its Dragon 9 launch vehicle. The launch will occur sometime in 2013. SES is knows to be relatively risk-averse and conservative in its pursuit of new companies. This deal signals a major shift for SpaceX as the company expands into commercial payload launch.

Finally, apparently I missed Ball Aerospace at the recent Career Fair at school. Bummer. I had really wanted to get to talk to Raytheon about internship opportunities. The timing was bad for me - I wasn't able to be in the kind of shape I would have liked. Better luck next time, I suppose.

An extra tidbit: there is scuttlebutt about us selling both of the Accords and using the proceeds to finance a motorcycle for me. Am I crazy? Absolutely :-)

Cheers,

-- Zach

Blogger keeps telling me I have more followers that I really do...

The B-52 has some life left in her after all.

The Air Force has decided to allow Boeing to continue to perform maintenance and upgrades to its fleet of Stratofortress H-model heavy bombers. By continuing to support the BUFF fleet, the Air Force is guaranteeing that they will remain in a front-line role for at least another decade, if not two. The other message being sent is that the acquisition of a new front-line heavy bomber has taken a back seat for the time being.

There are a couple of points to be made here. First is that proper initial design and simplicity will last for the long haul. I think we so often become enamored of new technology and whiz-bang features that we forget to keep things simple. The fact that the B-52 has been in active service for over 50 years really speaks to the skill and competence of the designers at Boeing. Any attempt at a replacement should heed the same general principles.

Second, in a post-Cold War world, it's okay to be "good enough" when it comes to our military. We aren't going head to head with the best that the talented Soviet designers could muster. We are, however, often called to fight irregular and guerrilla conflicts against adversaries armed with Kalashnikovs and Semtex. A gazillion-dollar B-2 is not the right tool for this conflict. On the other hand, it's relatively simple to "bomb back to the stone age" with an unbroken stream of B-52s dropping a hundred 500 pound iron bombs at a time. In the B-52, we have a bomber that's good enough to handle the tasks that we need to handle right now. We can utilize the money that would have been spent trying to get a new whiz-bang out the door on research and development. When the time comes, we'll be able to make a better weapons system, because the research will be there and the major problems will have been overcome.

Now, China is the wild card. What comes out of Beijing will serve to drive our weapons development for the next fifty years. ABM, anyone?

Cheers,

-- Zach

Lunar X Prize

I really wish I could have participated in this.

The X Prize Foundation and Google announced the Lunar X Prize in 2007. The goal of the competition is to get a rover onto the moon, move 500 meters, and transmit high definition video of the feat. Bonus points will be awarded for finding water, landing near an Apollo landing site, surviving the night-side of the moon, traveling five kilometers, and the nebulously-worded "stimulating diversity" in space exploration.

There have been 29 teams selected for the competition. Teams range from large, well-funded corporate interests to smaller university efforts. In all, fifteen countries are represented.

The prize is relatively small compared with the cost of winning the competition, being $20 million for non-government teams. The cachet of having won, however, makes the whole thing worthwhile.

I'm reminded of how the Collier Trophy helped drive innovation in aeronautics. Every year, someone would do something greater than the year before just to get their name on the cup. The money was inconsequential. These X Prizes are the same way. I just hope I get to participate on an X team someday.

Cheers,

-- Zach

MLP - 21 February 2011

Today is my youngest ex-utero child's second birthday! Woo-hoo! She decided to start the day with a nice round of screaming. Once we made it to day care, she decided to continue the theme and scream until I was all the way out of earshot. Hopefully, she'll be better after her nap.

I'm going to do some mindless link propagation today, primarily because I'm swamped with schoolwork. Here goes.

The Wall Street Journal is running a story about how NASA's funding is in limbo. Apparently, NASA's buget is a partisan fight. The White House is trying to scale back the amount of funding the agency would receive for support of private rockets. This means that commercial space taxi services might be making shots on their own dime. Congress was understandably skittish last year about outsourcing core NASA functions to private firms.

I'm torn about this. On one hand, I think that NASA and science in general ought to have a nearly blank check to do whatever they need or want. It is a fact that a dollar invested into science and technology research and development returns much more than a dollar once the tech hits the private sector. On the other hand, NASA does need to be frugal (just like the rest of us) and not waste money on things that detract from its core purpose. What do you guys think the right answer is?

Florida Today is running an internal NASA assessment about how they (the agency) mis-calculated the risk of the shuttle flights. They were apparently off by an order of magnitude (1 in 10 instead of 1 in 100). The fact that we only lost two orbiters and their crews speaks large volumes about the skill and dedication of the people associated with the program. It also shows how lucky NASA was. "We were lucky" notes the report. Lucky indeed. How do we go forward and make the next project better and safer?

United Space Alliance is trying desperately to stay in business. They are seeking funding to proceed with a second-phase study on the potential of flying another twelve to fourteen shuttle missions. The United Space Alliance is a joint Boeing/Lockheed-Martin venture; they handle the production of the eternal tank and do other assorted work for the Shuttle Program.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has predicted that China will take a long time to begin to match the United States in terms of low-observable air superiority aircraft. Gates' comments are in response to industry buzz about the unveiling of the first Chinese stealth aircraft, the J-20. Timed to coincide with the Defense Secretary's visit to China last month, the test flights of the J-20 proceeded smoothly. Many pundits feel that this was nothing more than hollow saber-rattling, noting that China has a much more effective arsenal of surface-to-ship ballistic missiles for projecting power in the Pacific.

Time will tell if this is where WWIII would start...

One of my professors is giving a talk on Friday about the Mars Phoenix Lander mission. Dr. John Hoffman will be speaking on behalf of the Texas Astronomical Society Friday, February 25, from 19:00 to 22:00 in one of the lecture halls in the Science and Learning Center.

That's all for today, folks. Happy Monday!

Cheers,

-- Zach

Sometimes, life hands you lemons.

Sometimes, life just hands you lemon aid.

One of the assignments that we have in my technical writing class is to prepare a resume and a cover letter for application to a fictional internship position. The professor provided two postings, one for an electrical engineering position and the other for a software engineering position. He also gave us a third option - find an internship position on our own and tailor our resume and cover letter for that. I would guess that a solid third of the class will choose this option.

Longtime readers know that I am very interested in both NASA and aeronautics. I participated in the College Aerospace Scholars (CAS) program this past May, and I attempted to secure a place for my team with the Reduced Gravity Student Flight Opportunities Program (RGSFOP). My main focus with respect to research is fluid dynamics, specifically the dynamics of trans sonic flow as it relates to propellers. One of the things I've been telling myself to do is to get off my duff and plan out an internship path to help me secure a reasonable grad school.

See how the two coincide? Neat, huh?

So I've narrowed the field down to six possible programs. I'll detail them briefly in a minute, but first I want to point out that I will not be applying for anything this summer. The newest addition to our family is due at the end of June. A summer internship or Co-Op program would heavily interfere with that, and I don't think SWMBO would appreciate me being a thousand miles away for the delivery. Neither would I, come to think of it. That means that I'll go ahead and make a resume and cover letter for the internship but not actually apply.

There is a possibility that a Co-Op could happen during the school year. This might be feasible, especially if it's in conjunction with a school program that I'm interested in. The potential also exists that I could take two or three of the kids with me for that semester, leaving Mom with baby h. Time will tell.

So, in no particular order, here are the programs that I'm interested in.

The Lewis Education and Research Collaborative Internship Project (LERCIP), at NASA Glenn. This is a ten week internship program where participants work with NASA researchers to gain real-wold experience is research and problem solving. There are three sessions and the last one begins as baby h is due to arrive. There is a stipend paid biweekly for lodging and expenses.

The Langley Aerospace Research Summer Scholars (LARSS) program at NASA Langley. Fall, spring, and summer internships are available for this research internship. Like the LERCIP, the LARSS program is research-focused. This program might actually be a good fit, since there is some flexibility to the dates.

The Summer Aerospace Workforce Development Research Internship Program (SAWDRIP), at NASA Glenn. This program is a collaboration between NASA and industry leaders. Participants are put to work solving real-world problems with real life companies utilizing assistance from NASA. This does not appear to be a paid internship. Summer dates are not given. I'd love to do this in the summer of 2012.

The NASA Aeronautics Scholarship Program. This is a scholarship program combined with a standard NASA summer internship, along with a $10,000 stipend for expenses. This is a research-based program. I really want this.

The NASA Academy. This is a leadership program, where participants learn leadership and team-building skills while performing research at a NASA center. It's a ten week summer program as well. My cursory look doesn't reveal any kind of stipend. I would enjoy this, mainly because it would be a bright feather in my cap. The majority of the projects that I've participated in tent to require me to display effective leadership skills.

The Undergraduate Student Research Project (USRP). This is the "standard" internship program for NASA. Participants stay at one of the ten NASA centers and perform research in their fields of interest. Internships occur fall, spring, and summer. I'll probably apply to this as a fallback position.

I have to get to class now. I'll work on he resume and cover letter over the weekend. More on this topic perhaps tomorrow.

By the way, the roast last night was fantastic. I have no idea what I'm going to cook tonight, but I'll have to cook because SWMBO is feeling under the weather.

Happy Thursday!

Cheers,

-- Zach

Why we're doing the right thing with NASA

I think that the re-purposing of NASA and the cancellation of the Constellation program is the best thing to happen to both the agency and to our country since Apollo. The fruits of these decisions will be seen for decades to come. Letting private corporations handle the delivery truck duties in space is a stoke of luck for the industry as a whole. Why would someone who grew up dreaming of working for NASA say something like that? Other folks have argued the same thing. Here are some of their arguments along with my thoughts on the situation.

First, there are those who claim that NASA doesn't need to be a delivery service. While I agree, I think that they painted themselves into that corner with the Shuttle. It was supposed to have been a cheap, safe, reusable platform for supplying a space station, delivering payloads to LEO, and returning payloads for repair or decommissioning. This is how NASA sold the shuttle, and it might have worked in another universe. Obviously, Shuttle is not the fast, cheap, and easy solution that it was presented as.

A second-order effect of the Shuttle program is the mis-perception of NASA's mission. Everyone from my generation associated the Shuttle with NASA, so everybody sees NASA through what the Shuttle does - deliver things. Lots of folks draw the conclusion that NASA is a glorified space taxi service, and why do they need so much money thank-you-veddy-much? The agency has a pressing need to shed this image. Casting off Constellation will go a long way toward accomplishing that - provided that Mr. Bolden manages to take NASA to an asteroid or Mars or something equally far out.

This brings us neatly to the next point to be made. NASA is in the business of science. Everyone knows about Tang and Velcro, but not everyone knows that their phones are a direct result of NASA research. Much of the technology that we take for granted nowadays (minus the internet - thanks Al Gore!) had its start in the real-world labs of NASA (or even the NACA). By dropping projects that are evolutionary in nature in favor of more revolutionary projects, NASA will manage to get back to its core purpose.

One of the more common arguments against Constellation was that it was essentially forty-year old, over-priced, recycled technology. Now, this argument is in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm something of a pragmatist. Whatever needs to happen to get the job done, within reason, is fine. By reusing the Apollo-era CM\SM\LEM configuration, NASA was going with a winner. We have experience with this kind of setup, and we know how it's supposed to behave. I have no problem with this.

I do, however, take issue with the cost. Orion and Constellation were over their budgets and behind schedule. If we're going to recycle technology for the purpose of getting there faster and cheaper, shouldn't it be, you know, faster and cheaper? Dropping the deadweight is the right move, and the only one sustainable given NASA's business model.

For many, especially those who work directly and indirectly for NASA, the cancellation of Constellation sounds like the death knell of the once proud organization. I think that this is utter rubbish. This is not an end, but a beginning. Let's hop in the wayback machine and look at another time not so different from the one we see now.

It was the late 1950s. The Soviet Union was becoming an ever more menacing threat. With the launch of Sputnik, they seemed to be in the lead in space. This held dire consequences both for our national security and our national prestige. We needed an answer, and we needed a good one.

President Kennedy provided that answer for us. By committing to a moon landing, he gave the newly formed NASA a purpose and a goal. We were to succeed in that endeavor, end the Soviet moon program, and eventually cause the USSR to go bankrupt.

Now, I realize that NASA doesn't currently have the same kind of lofty goal as it did in 1961, but bear with me. NASA's goal is perhaps less important than the effect of Kennedy's speech.

In focusing NASA on the moon, JFK relieved it of the task of air-based work. Generally speaking, the majority of the interesting problems associated with airplanes had been solved, or were well on their way. Stable supersonic flight, variable control surface configuration (swing-wings), jets, rockets, zero-zero ejection seats - all of these had been tamed by 1960. In hindsight, it was only natural for NASA to essentially release these tasks and this research to the industry - Boeing, McDonnell, Grumman, and the like. Freed of the burden of supporting research not directly applicable to Apollo, NASA went on to accomplish great things. The aircraft industry did too.

I think we are again at such a point. NASA doesn't yet have the grand mission that so many (myself included) wish fo it. However, it is time for the aerospace industry to step up and take over the mantle of putting things in LEO. Costs will eventually come down, spin off technologies will come to market, and safety will hopefully remain a priority.

There are dangers to this setup to be sure. Safety is obviously the bugaboo. Corporations will try to cut corners in the name of profit. People will die. But people died from airplane crashes, especially with the advent of new technology (reference the Comet disasters). One wonders if space will remain as tightly regulated as it is now. Deregulation usually only helps shareholders and boards of directors.

In any event, I feel that now is the time for private enterprise to step up to the plate and deliver space to the rest of us. Those that have been laid off due to Constellation should be able to jump right into what companies like Orbital or SpaceX are doing. Hopefully, we'll end up being as successful as we were in 1969.

Thanks for reading. I'll talk to y'all tomorrow, maybe about food.

Cheers,

-- Zach

Feature: Mindless Link Propogation

One of the things about being subscribed to several different industry digests is that I receive a ton of email updates. These updates are usually about trivial things or things that don't interest me. Often, however, they are interesting - sometimes very interesting. I'll usually find three to five unique things every day that tickle the proverbial fancy. This leads me to a problem.

See, I only type about sixty words a minute. The bulk of my blogging happens in the morning, between shower and breakfast. Trying to write about all of the nifty things I see in the course of a day is incredibly difficult, especially if I want the entries to be more than, "Hey, I found a link." One solution to the problem is to try to work all of these thing into one big post every week. Another solution is to simply ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

If I did that, I'd be shirking my responsibility to me readers and to myself. We don't like shirking.

I think I'll do a big link propagation post every ten days or so. This lest me keep space open to write about the other seven-hundred thirteen things I want to write about without letting the mindless links take over the site (like zombies).

Here we go, then, in no particular order.

There's a story on TechNewsDaily about how researchers have come up with a way to hide an object from sonar. The object is placed in the center of this disk-thing. The disk has several concentric rings which have different indicies of refraction. The sound pulse from the sonar is bent neatly around the center of the disk, reforming on the other side and continuing on as though nothing had happened.

I'm instantly reminded of my first Physics class, and so thankful that I understood what my professor was saying. This is a brilliantly simple idea with scads of potential applications, from medicine to building to cars and aircraft to the mentioned sonar-evading submarines.

Also from TechNewsDaily, this is a countdown of seven technologies in cars that got their start in aerospace. I love articles like these, for obvious reasons. I feel like the work that I'm doing now and will be doing in the future will really pay off. Worst-case scenario, I can work just about anywhere and do just about anything with a degree in physics and aeronautics.

December 14 of 2011 is the scheduled launch date for Orbital Sciences Corporation's Cygnus X1 craft. The purpose is to test the Commercial Orbital Transportation System, a system designed to dock with the ISS. The payload is a token cargo load. Obviously, the primary function of the launch is to test the technology being used by a commercial vendor. Orbital has achieved 17 of the 21 milestones set for it by NASA to ensure a successful launch and rendezvous with Station.

I'm super excited about this. I fully believe that this is the way to go with respect to getting cargo into space and performing crew ferry functions. Let NASA do the really interesting stuff, and let the private sector do the mundane chores. The parallels between now and the early part of the Space Race are strong. The NACA was transiting into space, leaving private companies to handle further refinements in aeronautics. Everyone won then, everyone will win now. Go Orbital!

MIT has a blog called Technology Review. One story that they published last week was that Russian physicists had figured out how to work around the radio blackouts associated with re-entering spacecraft. The concept is simple - since the plasma sheath blocks radio waves, why not turn the sheath itself into a transmitter. The work is still very preliminary, but it has the potential to be a very useful tool.

Apparently, the moon has a core similar to the Earth's. Sifting through Apollo-era data, NASA researchers have concluded that the moon has a solid inner core ans a fluid outer core. The biggest difference is that the boundary layer between the crust and the core is much larger, as a percentage, than the Moho in our planet.

The primary mechanism for this discovery is advanced signals processing capabilities developed over the last forty years. Previously, there had been too much noise in the seismic signals to accurately divine what was in the moon. Now, new signals processing techniques have allowed researchers to cancel out the noise, leaving a clean signal for analysis.

China has unveiled a new fifth-generation stealth fighter. Actually, it looks more like a fighter/bomber, owing to its gargantuan size. Similar in shape to the F-22 but sized more like a Tupolev Tu-28, the J-20 is designed for air superiority and first-strike duties. Given the high ground clearance and apparent large internal space (for fuel or weapons), it would seem that the J-20 is primarily designed for long range strike duties. It's most likely not for aircraft carrier use - the thing's just too big.

The real question is who is the intended target of the J-20? Russia and China have never been the best of friends, and China seems interested in pushing the US out of the Pacific. Whether this aircraft can perform at the level of Russian or American fifth gen fighters remains to be seen.

That's enough for one day. Tune in tomorrow for a musing on the space race and how it's applicable today.




Also, before I forget, today is my fourth anniversary!. Woo! Go us! Love you hunnee :-)

Cheers,

-- Zach

Team UTD Next Steps

Moving forward is not always an easy task. There's the ever constant effort to try to "build up steam", as it were, so that any progress can be built on prior gains. It becomes especially difficult to gain momentum when one hits a setback. It takes discipline and courage to get back on the horse. One must realize that a stumbling block is a signpost on the road to success.

I've not always been the best at displaying tenacity in the face of adversity. I'll readily admit that it's super easy to throw in the towel and call it a day. On the face of it, my lack of success in getting our team a spot for the 2011 RGSFOP looks like a pretty big hiccup on the road to academic success. However, I realize that this is just the sort of jumping off point that I need in order to get where I want to go.

First thing's first: our proposal wasn't bad. The concept wad solid. What we lacked was the fleshing out of the project. Figures, sensors, a better plan, more cohesive writing. These are the major takeaways that I gleaned from our feedback. The primary plan, then, is to tighten up our RGSFOP proposal and resubmit it this fall. One of the team members has offered to fly a reduced-size project on a Cessna in order to establish a baseline for the big test. This will serve as the primary focus for Team UTD this year.

There are other projects out there, too.

Some of the things that Team UTD is looking into, both as a full-sized group and as smaller "tiger team" units, include the following:

- Rocketry. There's the ever-popular Team America Rocket Challenge. High-powered rocketry can be an avenue of research in it's own right. I've wondered at non-traditional methods for rocket stabilization, and model rockets would allow us to do the research for a fraction of the cost of a full-sized model. Other programs include CanSat and NanoSat, whose goals revolve around payload. There are now programs coming online that would provide an orbital insertion vehicle for a student payload. We could fling a little satellite into orbit! Finally, a large percentage of the research NASA does in the upper atmosphere and at lower G involves the use of sounding rockets.

- Atmospheric transit problems. Both re-entry into Earth's atmosphere and entry into an alien atmosphere present significant design and engineering challenges. I think that Team UTD could provide industry with a cost-effective or novel method for atmospheric insertion. We could piggy-back the testing for this on the high-power rocketry component.

- Scientific balloons. The mishap in Australia notwithstanding, high-altitude balloons are a very viable and current method to solve the problems related to high-altitude science. The simplicity of such a setup is astonishing. One father-son team used their iPhone and a big toy balloon, and recorded data at altitudes in excess of 26 miles. I think they spent about three-hundred dollars on the balloon.

- Current NASA challenges. NASA always has something cooking. Team UTD will apply for everything that is reasonable, splitting into smaller teams as needed in order to meet project requirements.

- Attitude control. Team UTD has access to the tools needed for extensive research in this area. I personally don't know enough about it to talk about it, so I'll wait until I've had a chance to dig into this area before I discuss pros and cons.

- In-flight control surface configuration modification. If you've ever watched Robotech, you know what this is. UT Dallas is at the forefront in the materials research needed to produce the kind of meta-morphing craft needed to go from a runway to orbit and back again. The possibilities are incredible, and the research is scant. I admit to not knowing as much about this as I should.

There are other avenues that we can pursue, both individually and as a team. I'll delve into them as they become more relevant. For now, this is essentially our working list. If anyone has a pet project they want researched, let me know and I'll see if it fits into our long-term goals. If so, you might help us do science!

Cheers,

-- Zach

NASA's Environmentally Responsible Airliner results...

The Seattle pi recently ran an article on the finalists for the NASA Environmentally Responsible Airliner Concept competition. Included are artist's renderings and the companies that produced the designs. I remember having seen a RFP for this last year. At the time, I didn't have the spare mental capacity to take on such a challenge. I really wish that I could have  participated in this.

The designs shown on the website are all blended lifting bodies with rear-mounted engines. I like the rear engine layout for airliners, because it reduces noise and vibration levels in the passenger cabin. One drawback to this configuration is the potential for a deep stall. The designs appear to be slippery enough to allow clean air into the intakes, hopefully reducing or eliminating that problem.

While blended lifting bodies offer exceptional payload and relatively short takeoff and landing rolls, I'm really not crazy about them. My first love is the Lockheed Constellation, an achingly beautiful aircraft. Blended lifting bodies look like pregnant guppy-whale-things. They aren't especially pretty, and that may be their undoing in the air passenger industry.

I would posit that airlines acquire aircraft that fit their need, as the budget allows. Generally, airliners are a temperamental bunch, displaying faults and quirks like any human. Air crews develop personal relationships with individual aircraft, and passengers will travel the globe, change flights, and pay extra to fly a specific airframe (witness the popularity of Airliners.net.) It is therefore in the best interest of the industry to push the design and development of pretty aircraft.

These designs aren't pretty.

Beauty issues aside, I have to wonder if current airports will require modification for these new designs. They appear to have very long wingspans. Could the wings fold like those of a carrier-based aircraft? If they fold up, could they also fold down to take even greater advantage of the massive lift generated by their shapes? Is there any potential for trans- or supersonic performance?

Anyway, I leave the article to you, dear reader. Tomorrow, I'll talk about what kinds of wacky projects I might be doing with Team UTD.

Cheers,

-- Zach

New Drones for the Military

I am completely unprepared to write about air or space today. I'll do the best I can.

The LA Times has an article about the next generation of unmanned aerial vehicles slated for use in the military. Three vehicles are discussed, briefly; the Global Observer, the the X-47B, and the Phantom Ray.

The Global Observer is a massive aircraft with four almost comical-looking propeller engines, each having two blades. It looks like a single-winged Dornier creation out of the early Twenties. Powered by liquid hydrogen (just like the Shuttle) and boasting a wingspan comparable to that of an early model Boeing 747, the Global Observer is designed to loiter at 65,000 feet for periods of up to a week. On-board cameras can take a single image that's larger than Afghanistan (though there's no information of the resolution of this image). This functionality will allow military commanders and political leaders to essentially see what's going on in the world's hot spots at a given time, in real time (or near-real time), on one big image.

The X-47B looks like something Batman would fly. Stealthy, angular at the leading edge, with an air intake where you would expect the cockpit, and able to carry two JDAM weapons for use against transient targets of opportunity. The X-47B's claim to fame is that it can conduct operations from an aircraft carrier, giving it a very quick strike capability and essentially unlimited in-theater endurance. This is what the failed A-12 Flying Dorito would have done for the Navy.

Finally, we come to the Boeing Phantom Ray, which is an outgrowth of the X-45 Program (itself the child of the Bird of Prey stealth demonstrator). Though not designed for any one role, the Phantom Ray could conceivably be adapted to nearly any function short of air superiority. The Ray is about the same size as the X-47B, but carries more payload (up to 8 JDAM weapons) and cruises faster (0.8 Mach vs 0.45 Mach, about the same speed as an airliner). This would seem to make the Phantom Ray the better aircraft from an all-around perspective.

One marked advantage of the latter to aircraft mentioned is the fact that they are turbofan powered instead of propeller-driven. This means that the X-47B and the Phantom Ray can go faster and climb higher than the Predator and Reaper drones in use today. I think it will be interesting to see how quickly these aircraft are brought into the fold and deployed. They *could* save many US lives.

Cheers,

-- Zach

Baby It's Cold Outside...

So I've been wanting to work on some projects separate from the standard undergraduate school projects. Not that there's anything wrong with a standard-type project, mind. I just never do what it is that I'm supposed to do.

Those of you who were following my other blog (But Will It Fly) know that my team was not selected for the NASA Reduced Gravity Student Flight Opportunities Program. Now I know why - the reviewer comments are in. Once I have a minute to collect my thoughts, I'll post something on that blog and probably cross post to here.

There are two projects that I'm looking at right now, in addition to a second attempt at the RGSFOP. The first is, as I've mentioned before, what to do about the massive amount of wake turbulence thrown off by massive jetliners like the new Boeing 747-800 and the Airbus A-380. My question is whether or not all of the energy in the air, combined with whatever water vapor may be available, could be made to essentially form water. In other words, could the turbulence be forced to turn into rain.

Imagine the times that you see a speedboat in the water, or an aircraft carrier or something. Now, imagine the wake of these vessels, instead of stretching out for miles behind them, were to turn into ice cubes (or something else equally improbable). This would leave the surface of the water very smooth. That's the gist of what I want to do.

The second project will form the basis of my graduate research (I hope). There have been attempts to shape, move, distort, fold, mutilate, and spindle shockwaves that are generated when aircraft travel faster than the speed of sound. These attempts have born fruit, notably with the NASA Quiet Spike F-15. It is my intent to apply this research to high speed propellers. I want to figure out how to allow a prop to spin at a rotational speed faster than sound without making everyone within a ten mile radius nauseous. I also want to see if a propeller driven aircraft can go faster than sound without coming apart, by way of moving or hiding the shockwaves that would come off the propeller.

That's it (isn't that enough?). I'll be posting updates on these three items throughout the year. I have no idea if I can even get the materiel that I need to do the research. That's half the fun though, trying to do the impossible/very difficult/incredibly obscure.

Никогда не сдавайся.



Cheers,

-- Zach

Friday!

It's Friday night, and none of my children want to sleep. Sometimes I wish they came with off switches.

School updates. Calculus test this morning. I either got an A or I got an F. Someday I'll feel comfortable with the material. Physics has been going very well of late. My first test was an F, my second an A. With a little luck, I'll do well in this class. I need to have a good first Physics class. Momentum and all that. History is pretty easy, and it's quite enjoyable. I've a paper due Tuesday, but it should be fairly easy to complete. It's simply a book report on our massive textbook. My oceans class is too easy to be a three thousand level course.
 
On to science type things. NASA will try to launch Discovery December 3rd. The GUCP issue has been resolved and the external tank repair is on track. This will be the first time the tank has been repaired on the pad. Ironic that it happened for the last launch of Discovery.

The troubled life of the F-35 has encountered a new, even more troubling problem. It seems that the rear bulkheads are cracking after 1500 simulated hours instead of the 8000 hours they're designed to last. This issue only affects the B model, because it (the Marine Corps jet) uses a lighter materiel for the part. The best case scenario is that a faulty test regime is to blame for the problem. The worst case scenario is that the problem is a design flaw. That might actually kill the program.

I'd love to have Mike Suffredini's problem: "How are we going to utilize this wonderful vehicle that we've assembled in space?"

In other news, Saturn radiates heat unevenly over its surface. Nobody knows why.

The next space race has begun, but it's about economics, not pride. I think that this has the potential to be the right way forward. Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult without at least some government regulation. Too often the race to be first to market claims safety as its first victim. I'd hate to see good people die because someone was in a hurry to make his money back on a billion dollar investment.

Starting next week, I'd like to add a segment about whatever secondary projects I'm working on. You all know about my involvement with the RGSFOP, and that progress will be recorded there. For my next trick, I'd like to at least research precipitating the energy out of wake turbulence.

Have a great weekend. I and my stomach ache are off to the teevee for a while.

Cheers,

-- Zach

Finally getting caught up

It's incredible. Even with all the best intentions, updating this blog is still incredibly difficult. Here goes.

Family life proceeds apace. My wife was sick for a while. Then I caught an unexpected case of strep throat. Then SWWNO came down with the same thing. My daughter and I both had to go to the doctor in order to get better. I'm still not anywhere near 100%. Maybe by December I'll be back to myself. I sure wish I knew what it was that we caught.

School is kicking me. Hard. Calculus is more difficult than it was last semester, but I think I'm doing better. We didn't focus as much on logs and trig last time. I'd like to think I'm becoming good at trig and inverse trig. Now, we're working on integration by parts. This wasn't even covered in my last class.

I'm doing much better in physics now, thank you very much :-) It seems that I'm much better with relativity and quantum mechanics than I am with waves and optics. I know what to work on for the final, at any rate.

This post is coming to you from a loaner laptop that my kind neighbors are letting me use. They have three total and can only use two at a time. It's about three years old, 17" Gateway (which is at this point really HP), and incredibly heavy. I always think of the old Compaq Portable computer as I lug it around campus. On the other hand, I love it. I can't imagine trying to do all the stuff I'm trying to do without a laptop.

caveat: it's missing the "a" and the "4" keys, and I broke the number "6". Anybody know how to replace keys on a full sized laptop keyboard?

Two quick aeronautics items today:

Boeing refits old Seattle plant for P-8 aircraft production

They made B-29s here. That alone is reason enough to keep the plant active.

FAA reinstates requirement to stay back from Boeing 747-8

So, I guess I'll start looking into precipitating wake turbulence again. I wanted another project!

That's about all I have time for today. It is my intention to get on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday posting schedule. I have tons of material available, so the weak link is me taking the time to write it up. Wish me luck, fellow netizens...

Cheers,

--Zach