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

Selecting an Internship

Wherein our intrepid scholar will plan out the next three years of his life.

Nowadays, employers expect that you will have participated in two to three internships over the course of your college career. This is in addition to having performed research pertinent to your field, received good grades, and done some extracurricular (perhaps volunteer) work. What this means for me is that I'm already behind the curve. I've done the CAS, but that's it.

Now, however, the resume and cover letter assignment for my technical writing class has given me both the opportunity and the impetus to fix that. I'll write a resume and cover letter for a program that begins this summer, but I won't be able to participate because of the arrival of baby h. I also have o keep in mind that I really want to take the next physics class in my sequence from UTD, and I need to take it in the fall of 2011. Given my off-kilter class history (beginning in the spring, three developmental classes, opting to take the time to get an associated degree), I fully expect to not be through with my BS program until the end of fall 2012.

This has a few advantages. I can do two summer internships and one full spring internship between now and grad school. This allows me the ability to make the necessary contacts for employment out of school, and it will help me to both choose and get accepted to a graduate program.

Spring 2011 - finish this semester, get the two roadblocks that I have out of the way (Calc II and Mechanics)

Summer 2011 - Enjoy a new baby :-)

Fall 2011 - Load up. Two math and two physics, at least. Maybe a winter class as well.

Spring 2012 - Keep a heavy load. Plan an exit trajectory toward grad school.

Summer 2012 - Summer internship with NASA.

Fall 2012 - Complete BS and matriculate :-)

Spring 2013 - Spring Co-Op with NASA.

Summer 2013 - Summer internship with NASA.

Fall 2013 - Begin grad school!

With this plan in mind, I've chosen three programs to apply tofor the NASA programs listed above.

First is the Langley Aerospace Research Summer Scholars program (LARSS). This program has spring, summer, and fall sessions. I'd choose the spring session, to be completed during the spring of 2013. This is a research-intensive internship and should help me finalize the research I want to do pre-grad school.

Second is the NASA Academy. This is actually the first program I'd do in summer of 2012. It is an intensive summer research and leadership program, perfect for the roles that I continue to find myself in. There's a large carrot at the end of the stick - induction into the NASA Academy Alumni Association (NAAA). This would really help my networking base and is therefore a very high priority.

Finally, the NASA Aeronautics Scholarship program serves two purposes. The first is to get scholarship money into the hands of aeronautics students. The second is to provide summer internship opportunities for those students. This is my aim for the 2012-2013 year, with the summer internship occurring just before the start of grad school.

I think that I'll do the assignment for the LARSS program. It seems to be the most business-centric of the three programs, and the feedback I receive from the professor will help me zero in on what I need to better win this internship.

In the meantime, I think I'll reconnect with my CAS contact and see if she can help me put this plan into motion. Now, I'm off to start this assignment. My wife and I will be out of town for the weekend (anniversary trip!), but she requested that I bring the laptop. Maybe I'll get some more schoolwork done.

I doubt it ;-)

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

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

Physical Education

I'd guess that, for a majority of folks, Physical Education classes are something distasteful. Maybe you needed an easy class to make a certain number of credit hours, or maybe you needed a fluffy class to round out a difficult semester. Most of you probably found sweating at inconvenient times to be distasteful. Unless you're a jock, it's likely that phys ed served you little purpose.

Sometimes, though, this class is not an end, but a beginning. Occasionally, it begins a habit that becomes a life-long pursuit instead of a semester-long chore. This is the case with my experience with college Phys Ed. I took it as a spare class over a summer semester. The workload was trivial, the assignments were all online. I managed to convince the coach that being the primary caregiver for multiple children counted as strength training (he had three boys, so he understood my logic).

The only thing about that class that presented any sort of challenge at all was the aerobics component. Naturally, I would have chosen to ride my bike to fulfill that requirement, but it was in dire need of service that I had neither the time nor the inclination for. I did have time to make a quick trip to Academy and grab a pair of running shoes. They were also quite a bit cheaper than the bike parts I needed.

The class requirement was something like thirty minutes of aerobics a day. Running fit the bill perfectly. Of course, my form was horrible, I didn't really stretch, and I had no idea what I was doing. But none of that really mattered, because I was moving. That's the great thing I received from that class - the knowledge that I could make thirty minutes or an hour every morning to go run. This tool has made all the difference for me. Phys Ed became a semicolon instead of a period.

The first half) year that I ran, I really didn't take it too seriously. I would run when it was convenient, usually not go very far, and take however long I wanted to. No big. Last year, I started to get serious. I got a subscription to Runner's World, bought new shoes, and started "training". Mostly, I still ran when I wanted to, whatever distance I felt like (normally four miles), and in whatever time didn't make me puke. Near the end of the year, I decided that I wanted to do a half-marathon, and nearly signed up for the DRC Half in November. Boy, am I glad I didn't.

I almost immediately over-trained. My shinsplints, never really controlled during my short runs, came out with a vengeance after several eight-milers. Two weeks of recklessly upping my mileage quickly ended any running season I may have aspired to. I was ashamed with myself - my pride had done me in.

This year (as they say) will be different. I'm planning on doing three half marathons; the Dallas Rock 'n' Roll half on March 27 (I will probably walk a lot), the White Rock Half on May 7, and the DRC Half in November. I plan on running a 5-k or two and a 10-k or two between halves (halfs?) to check my fitness. I pledge to not over-train, under-eat, or worry too much about my negative splits. Having fun and setting up a benchmark of fitness will be the order of the day.

All of this motivation, and all because I didn't have time to fix my bike one day. Funny ol' world, isin't it?

Cheers,

-- Zach