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

Rocketry in Junior High

If we're going to make more rocket scientists, it stands to reason that we need more kids playing with rockets. That's the thinking behind the model rocketry elective program at Millville junior high school in Redding, California. One of the school's teachers, William Hutt, suggested teaching the class this year. Open to seventh and eighth graders, the class is a challenging mix of conceptual physics and aerodynamics. Once past the first twelve weeks, students get to build relatively simple Estes model rockets. These models are then flown in a launch event that draws the whole school outside.

Launch procedures are borrowed from the army and from NASA. Students man science, meteorological, engineering, communications, and security stations, and all have to give a "go/no go" to the range master for a launch. The professionalism inherent in the breakdown of tasks is impressive, especially when you consider that the range is staffed by 12- and 13-year-olds. Also impressive is the amount of theory and training that goes int the launches. The curriculum is modeled after a graduate program, and the students have to digest it before getting to shoot their rockets.

Something that I found awfully impressive from the article was the fact that the first student interview in the story comes from a girl. As a father of three girls, I sincerely hope that math, science, and engineering will be of interest to them. I realize that it may not be their cup of tea, but I do not want negative pressure from their peers to sour their view of the sciences.

Our family is coming soon to a decision point. I will probably go to grad school somewhere other than Texas. This means that we'll have to send the Pikl and SWWNO to different schools. I'd love to start a rocketry club for my kids at their current school, but would it be worth the effort to get it going just to leave? I'll have to ponder that.

In the meantime, know that I love my new laptop and that I'm getting back on track with the blogging next week.

Cheers,

-- Zach

Fast Trains

One of the more interesting things to come out of Obama's proposed 2012 budget is the request for $53 billion for research, development, and implementation of an interstate fast train system. Fast (> 150 mph) trains have been a staple of Europe and Japan for decades. China has also gotten into the fast train game, having recently inaugurated what is maybe the fastest train in the world. The demand for rapid train access from one city to another has increased over the years, owing to many factors. One is the reduced pollution of a train relative to an equivalent number of cars. Another is the noticeable reduction in gridlock in areas where fast train service has been implemented. A third is the relative ease and luxury associated with being able to let the train do the moving while the passengers concentrate on other tasks (for example, I'm typing this post on the DART light rail.)

Unfortunately, nothing like the intercity train system so prevalent in Europe exists in the US. I firmly blame Dwight Eisenhower. The national interstate highway system was his baby, and it helped cement the status of the car as king of getting from a to b. Little could he have known just how big of an impact the auto would have on the country and the environment. (I guess I can forgive him a little bit, then.) Now, almost fifty years on, we find ourselves increasingly spending more and more time suck in traffic. The car-as-birthright paradigm has unfortunately led us to urban sprawl, "white flight", and excessive resource usage. Fast train service between cities, or even between central suburban locations and cities, could go a long way toward easing these problems.

Not only do I like the idea of taking the train to work and school, I like the idea of helping to design and build it. There are big aerodynamic problems to contend with. Segmented trains have complex engineering challenges. Comfortable seating, safety, power, efficiency, and good looks are all important considerations. I wonder if I could do grad work on this.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Fast trains are good. Inter- and intra-city trains are good. Mass transit that goes where people want to go is good. All of these things will be designed and built by teams of engineers. Maybe I'll get to participate too.

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

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

Super Slappy Science Updates

Happy hump day, intrepid readers. Normally, I'd be at apogee preparing for the terminal dive phase of my week. Unfortunately, my plans were derailed by sleeping almost ten hours last night. Oh well. I suppose I needed it.
Super slappy science, in no particular order.
Collapse? What Collapse? Societal Change Revisited
The concept that societies simply vanish, or that they die a fiery, cataclysmic death, is one that Hollywood loves. It would seem, however, that it's not consistent with reality. Large societies tend to weather large stressors well, and it is almost impossible to point to one event and say "Yes, the sack of Rome by the Visigoths caused the collapse of Western Civilization."
Civilizations are like tires with slow leaks. Problems exist for long periods of time, occur slowly, and tend to mask their effects. The people comprising the society may not even notice that there's a problem until long after the society is gone.
This is fascinating stuff. Applied to our own civilization, it shows that the fall of the US is not imminent.
NASA - Shaping the Shuttle
It's stories like this that persuaded me to get into this field in the first place. This is why I want to be an engineer.
NASA - NASA to Show Live Webcast of Nanosatellite Launch
Nanosatellites offer the promise of high launch frequency and low launch cost. Of course, miniaturization is an issue...
I just found a post that was supposed to have gone live on October 24^th. Oops. It's included here below for the sake of completeness.
------
You know that you're old when your Saturday night is spent furtively trying to get children to sleep (and back to sleep). I put the little ones down at about 8 or so, then promptly passed out. Smersh fell asleep pretty quickly, but SWWNO fought it until almost midnight. Smersh woke up about 12:30 am, likely from nightmares or night terrors. When that happens, the only way to get her back to sleep is to stand in the middle of the living room under the bright bright light and twirl slowly. Counterclockwise. For an hour.
Of course, SWWNO woke back up at 6:30 and woke her sister up shortly thereafter. I thanked my wife for a "rockin' Saturday night" and got up to begin the new day.
Rockin' Saturday nights when you're old. Why didn't they mention this in school?
The failed NASA balloon launch has been studied. From the report:

In summary, the causes for this mishap evolved from: (1) a flawed underlying assumption, (2) a problematic historical mindset, and (3) an ineffective organizational structure.

This is actually kinda neat. I saw a show on TDC about the folks that launch the majority of NASA's balloons. Their professionalism was impressive.
-----------
That's all I have time for right now. Until Friday...
Cheers,
-- Zach