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

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

Feature: Tasty Food

Today I'd like to talk a little about a subject neat to everyone's heart - food. Having three children with another on the way means that we spend a large part of our time devoted to the simple acts of preparing food, shoving it in our faces, and then cleaning up afterward. This is the first in a long-running and semi-irregular series on cooking in our house. One of my goals for this year has two parts. First, I want to do more of the cooking. I like to cook, even though I'm not any good at it. That will improve over the course of the year, but I have to actually cook more first. Second, I want to try one new recipe a week. I'll post those here, along with some feedback as to how the cooking went and if the food was tasty.

Coincidentally, my wife went grocery shopping last night. She returned with twelve paper bags full of primarily breakfast and lunch foods, along with a smattering of fruits and veggies. Oh, and five pounds of ground beef and a ROAST! Woo-hoo! We love roast.

Okay, on to the cooking stuff. We have now two crock pots. I'd like to think that we'll use them maybe twice a week for roasts or chicken stuff or what have you. There are six one-pound bags of different types of beans in the larder. I'm dying to try out a slow cooker bean recipe. One problem - the baby and I are the only two people in the house that eat beans. What I really need is a way to cook beans so that they don't have the texture of beans.

We usually keep a couple of pounds of frozen veggies. There's almost always frozen chicken breasts too. I wonder if you could stir-fry frozen chicken and veggies at the same time and have it come out right. There's an avenue of research.

We love fruit and vegetables. Often, a bowl of fruit becomes a meal. Another recipe that I'm dying to try out involves a steamed veggie plate. I could be bad and add cheese to it, to make sure that the kids eat it. Or, I could just wait until they're really hungry ;-) Fruit salad should be a weekly thing in our house, but I don't know if it's substantial enough. What would one pair with a fruit salad? Would you put salad in your fruit salad? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think that we maybe eat too much red meat. Rather than have it four or five times a week, I want to cut that down to once or twice a week. That should help with our health and with our budget. If I could figure out how to get everyone else to eat beans, I'd be home free. Beans are a prime red meat replacement. Maybe I'll just have to wait and make the bean-things for my lunches.

There's another topic for discussion - lunch. The Pickle gets her lunch for free from school, but she usually doesn't like it. I want to send her lunch with her, but it needs to be inexpensive. Sandwiches are only palatable for so many consecutive days. Maybe she'll start taking leftovers once or trice a week. Pizza, chicken, and roast are all good cold, and she loves them all.

Okay, I'll admit that this isn't my best post ever, but it will get better. Tonight, the missus wants to make a roast. Tomorrow, I'll try making something. I'll let y'all know how it goes.

Until then, bon appetite.

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