Spaceflight is Dangerous. Pass the chips.

Snow day number three. I figured my two loyal readers deserved a real blog post, so here's one on safety in spaceflight.

Spaceflight is an inherently dangerous activity. Everything about it has the potential to be fatal, and spectacularly so. First, our intrepid explorer is strapped to an explosive stack the size of a medium city. Then, he's shot into a cold, airless environment that is so full of radiation that sunburn times are measured in seconds. Finally, there's a death-defying plunge toward the ground at twenty-five times the speed of sound, all the while encased in air so hot it's no longer air. While in space, there's no appreciable gravity. Down and up are irrelevant, eating and drinking is a chore, and using the facilities requires advanced gymnastics training.

And yet, still we go. Whether it's for the money, the fame, the science, or for Hillary's reason (because it's there), the will always be those who make the venture regardless of the risk. This is the quality that makes exploration possible and also what makes the rewards of that exploration tangible. Those who forge ahead in the face of tremendous odds reap the rewards of their gambles.

Of course, this means that people will get hurt, and that some people will die. Given all of the potential dangers involved with sending people up a couple of hundred miles above the earth, it is inevitable that accidents will happen. Nothing can work correctly every single time. The nature of the universe and the existence of entropy guarantees that things will break. Human weakness makes mental mistakes a certainty. Someone will forget to turn on the widget, or turn off the widget, or turn the widget at the wrong time, or whatever. It is guaranteed.

That said, someday the deaths associated with spaceflight will be just like the deaths associated with air travel. The cameras will show up, and the reporters will report, and the families will grieve, and that will be it. When an airliner crashes, we reflect on how it could have been us, and how sad those affected must be. Currently, when a spaceship crashes, it's a national tragedy. That's okay now, but maybe not in twenty years.

This article from NPR makes the point that the transition of NASA to more difficult tasks leaves private companies in the space taxi business. Private enterprise faced this same situation four decades ago with the rise of Apollo. When we as a nation set our sights on the moon, air disasters became less disasters and more normal life. As we looked toward the moon, the space closer to home became more familiar, smaller, less mysterious.

An interesting thing to consider is that thousands of people die in car crashes every day, yet we pay little attention to them. Air travel is far safer than car travel, and airplane crashes are becoming far less of the spectacle that they used to be. Someday, spaceflight will go the way of the car - problems will be so marginalized that they may not even appear on our radar screens.

And this is the point. The national psyche (nay, even the world's psyche) can only pay so much attention to events. If the world shut down every time there were an airliner crash, we would never get anything done. More people in space means more space disasters. More spaceship crashes will take up more of the collective psyche until the load becomes too great. It is then that these events will become accepted as the price of doing business in space.

n a perverse way, we'll only become good in space when we can care less about it. Once we can mourn astronauts in the same way that we mourn air passengers, we will be well on our way to space fluency. It's a shame that it'll take many deaths to get there.

On deck for tomorrow: mindless link propagation, and happy ones at that.

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

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

Science and Technology Schooling

Education is a topic that is close to my heart. My wife and I have three kids already, and the fourth is due in June. Our oldest is in public school. We feel that it's sufficient for now, but she'll probably end up going to a magnet or private school sometime in the future. The (currently) middle child is already beginning to display a knack for language and logic. If we had the money to put her in a Montessori, we would. The (current) baby is the quiet reserved one, best known for taking her time in figuring things out. School is going to need to move at her pace, I'm afraid.

When I was in school, I remember how often the games we played were math or science inspired. Whether tasked with counting and manipulating, or given a question and asked to observe to find an answer, science and math was woven into everything we did. Yearly science fairs accelerated the gifted and were a source of wonder and awe for the younger kids.

Then, we moved to south Dallas.

I remember wondering why it was that some of the sixth grade kids could drive their own cars to school. The concept of being held back was utterly foreign to me. I didn't realize that other kids might not want to succeed, and this new understanding troubled me deeply. Why weren't the teachers interested in the kids, and why did the kids seem to hate the teachers? The whole scene made no sense to me.

Over time, I began to understand the dynamics of poor neighborhoods, why kids with so much potential acted so fatalistic toward their education and their lives. Not everyone was the stereotypical ghetto kid, of course. My first-ever crush went to Space Camp and dreamed of being an astronaut. On the whole, however, education was far less of a focus than was survival. Math, science, humanities, art, all cast by the wayside on the journey to big chains and bigger rims.

My schools were typical of those found all over the country. The decline in test scores from US kids is a direct result of something or other. There are too many problems with the schools to point a finger at any one thing (save perhaps parent involvement - the one key indicator to a child's success in school). The decline of the American student is not going unnoticed or unchallenged. A middle school in Minneapolis is offering a complete curricula in STEM learning.

The Richard Allen Math & Science Academy (RAMSA) has only been open for a  year and a half, but it's already showing dramatic results. The curriculum includes math and science foci, as you might expect. Students go on field trips twice a month to reinforce their learning. Daily engineering classes help answer the age-old question, "When will I ever use this in the real world?" And finally. they've built a trebuchet. Who could ask for anything more?

I'm not sure what kind of schools my children will attend. I hope that they are as cool as RAMSA.

Cheers,

-- Zach