If you're not on Twitter, you really should check it out. Maybe it's not for everyone - it seems like about a third of folks get the point right away, another third wander around and slowly find more value in it (as they find other interesting people to follow), and I guess another third maybe will only use it when they have to (like most every other computer technology).
Anyway, if you're not already following me at aeroG (see last post), you should check that out, it's my main Twitter where I tweet about stuff related to aerospace, research, entrepreneurship, etc.
Now I've made it even easier for you all, because besides the many interesting folks I'm following @aeroG, I've made a whole new Twitter account, AeroTweets that's collected HUNDREDS (over 500 currently) of aerospace twitterers. That's everyone from private, corporate, military and airline pilots to planetary scientists and spacecraft designers, independent rocket developers, many NASA engineers & web folks, and MUCH more!
Twitter's a great way to connect with folks and now AeroTweets gives you both a great way to get started on Twitter and a great way to connect to others in the aero field. To see the list of aero folks, just click on the Following link on the AeroTweets page.
Also, if you are in the aero field or a student, etc., let me know so I can add you on Twitter.
There's been a link at the bottom to my Twitter page, aeroG for quite some time, but if you haven't seen it, you should definitely check it out. I'm using Twitter to make quick and simple links to many aero articles and other valuable content. Here's just a sample of recent items:
It's a subtle question, but one we need to think about. Today is, of course, the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1 (right), and so of the start of the space age. It's a fitting time to think about both sides of this question.
Looking back, to 50 years ago, that achievement certainly qualified as what's called a "watershed event", something that led to a whole bunch of subsequent activity and change. Often such events are only appreciated later, but in some ways the importance of Sputnik was realized immediately. For a decade, science and engineering education got a much-needed surge of interest and emphasis.
The New York Times has given us two very nice gifts to celebrate this anniversary. First, it has produced a quite elaborate series of articles on Sputnik, the space age, etc. Second, it just recently announced that it will no longer be charging for access to at least most articles in its archives, so hopefully the links in this and other posts will keep working! If this example sets a trend for other publications, it could really do a lot for the accessibility of information on the internet.
One of the Times' articles is an interesting first-hand account of that period by Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev's son Sergei Kruschev, who was an engineering student who shared his father's zeal for technological progress.
Of course, likely none of the Soviet space spectaculars would have happened were it not for their program's Chief Designer, Sergei Korolev (at left). He, like his counterpart in America, German V-2 designer Wernher von Braun, had a vision for rocketry that extended far beyond military uses such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While von Braun had been pushing for years in the U.S. for manned exploration of space, it was Korolev who got the space race started, and ensured that there was a race.
The U.S. had already announced that it was going to launch a satellite into space, as a key part of its contribution to the International Geophysical Year, a concerted global research effort. That leisurely U.S. effort, however, oriented around the Navy's Vanguard program to orbit a very small satellite, ended up experiencing repeated launch failures. After Sputnik, the Army stepped in with von Braun (who, following Operation Paperclip, had been assigned to the Army's Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama) and its Jupiter Rocket.
While the Jupiter succeeded in orbiting the modest Explorer 1 satellite on January 31, 1958, resulting in the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, the Soviets continued to have a lead for a number of years. This lead was due to a number of factors, not least of which was the Soviets' possessing larger ICBMs, apparently necessitated by the greater "throw weight" of their early nuclear warheads. The Soviets were also a lot more willing to take risks, and many had already paid with their lives by the time Sputnik was launched.
Let us not forget that before Korolev were other pioneers who, as it's said, took the arrows. Most prominent are Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (left) and Robert Goddard. Tsiolkovsky was a prolific visionary who first set out many of the basic scientific and mathematic concepts of spaceflight and determined the rocket equation. While in 1920s-30s Germany, rocket pioneers such as Hermann Oberth would be treated almost like rock stars, Tsiolkovsky received little recognition or opportunity for collaboration with other scientists.
Goddard, who persevered for decades in the development of the liquid rocket engine technology (above right) key to spaceflight, was widely ridiculed early in his career (including, perhaps most notably, by the New York Times). He labored for years with little recognition and assistance beyond that of a few visionaries such as Charles Lindbergh and the Guggenheims, and died just before the advent of a more concerted American rocketry effort.
In the 1935 photo at right, Goddard (center) is flanked by Harry Guggenheim (left) and Lindbergh. To their sides are Goddard's brother-in-law and machinist Albert Kisk (far left) and his machinist N.T. Ljungquist (far right).
Looking forward, from Sputnik to 50 years later, it's clear that in many ways the importance of the event is still not widely appreciated or understood. Sputnik was the crossing of a huge threshold, much as was the Montgolfier brothers' balloon in 1783 and the Wright brothers' airplane in 1903. In some ways, it opened up an even far greater realm for exploration and development, at least the solar system and perhaps beyond.
I'll put off till another time lamenting that so few people even now "get it" about space, that it's a destination and a place to live, like discovering another continent, only so much more vast. Today, we need to be asking the right questions about what allowed such a momentous advance 50 years ago. One particularly interesting question is, "Why did Korolev and von Braun accomplish so much in just a few years?"
A large part of the answer, in my estimation, involved this: the recognition and support of talent. Korolev and von Braun got a lot of help that Tsiolkovsky and Goddard never did. So what does that say about the present and the future?
Today, I'm very concerned that we have lost in many fields the ability to recognize true talent and support it wholeheartedly. This is a subject I'll cover some other time in another place, but throughout our society we need to re-develop the ability to identify truly talented individuals. This proper measuring of accomplishment is a skill that must be taught. Though this skill involves many things, one key aspect is that we must look at how much someone accomplishes with what they've been given, and not just how big a budget they can spend.
Certainly today in our largest space programs, we have a desperate need for technically competent visionaries who can guide us forward, rather than just reinvent the wheel. More generally, we need to have more appreciation for talented folks outside the mainstream government and university programs. Real breakthoughs often - if not primarily - come from outside the cloisters of recognized "experts". It's easy to forget that just six decades ago, rocketry was so scorned in the U.S., that Caltech's Theodore von Karman decided to name his new facility the Jet - not Rocket - Propulsion Lab!
We also need to be looking to invest more in students with a passionate interest in a certain field. This last need is more generally acknowledged, but what is poorly understood is that this sort of thing must be done primarily by folks in that particular field. Researchers who are too busy to devote much effort to teaching and mentoring students may still be accomplishing much that is important, but must realize they're also denying many opportunities.
If nothing else, the story of Sputnik shows how it's not just big government programs, but ultimately individuals, that are important. The Soviet space program never recovered from its loss of Korolev (who may well have been pushed too hard by the elder Kruschev), and neither has the American program seen the kind of progress in manned flight and rocketry that it saw under von Braun. If we really want to see progress in space exploration and development, we must cultivate individuals, and not just budget line items.
Now, in this spirit, one more thing - today's also a special day because one of my children, who I've written about before, is having a birthday. OK, well ... yeah, of course I thought it was a cool day to have for a birthday!
I wrote last year about the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Amidst the many problems with Airbus' huge new A380, the 787 development, though behind that of the A380, has seemed relatively smooth, with only comparatively modest delays.
The Dreamliner was rolled out (below) on July 8th ... that's 7/8/07 in case you didn't notice ! ... Now we're hearing, unfortunately (or perhaps finally), of what the New York Times has called "the first significant setback" to its development schedule. The first flight will reportedly be delayed two-three months (the A380, after flying for over two years, is expected to enter service October 25th).
It's hardly a surprise that the 787, with a number of major innovations, is experiencing some difficulties, yet I was a bit surprised Boeing's still saying these won't impact the plane's May 2008 delivery target. Instead, the flight test schedule will be shortened.
While the delay is being attributed to several things, including a shortage of fasteners, production of specialized parts, and flight software development, whenever I see an announcement like this, it's the word "software" that jumps out at me. Perhaps software is not a big source of delays on the 787 - Boeing built a very expensive Integrated Systems Lab in the 777 project to help with that - but software development delays have been such a common source of difficulty for project managers, that you can't help but wonder.
Boeing's Mike Bair, who runs the 787 program, was quoted as saying that the sofware work "was mis-estimated on how much had to get done" and that it was a "horse race" as to which issue (fasteners or software) was the bigger source of delay. The problem is, while it's easy to write the specs ahead of time with something like a fastener, you often don't know what you need with software until you're well into developing it.
Photo credit: Yasuhiko Obara
Of course, Boeing and Honeywell, Boeing's partner on the fancy 787 flight management system, have done flight software many times, so I wouldn't expect any big surprises, but it's a well-known fact that software projects very commonly experience nasty delays. Software is especially difficult because, unlike an item like fasteners, you can't just put more people on it and make it go faster. In fact, as Fred Brooks showed in his classic essay/book, The Mythical Man-Month, adding people can actually make a software project go slower!
Boeing, for example, can send folks to the various fastener plants and work with them to increase production and make sure the highest-priority fasteners are made first (the 787 rolled out in July was still lacking about 700 itself). On the other hand, putting more software engineers on the project would mean the ones working on it already would have to interrupt their work to train them, then spend more time in meetings and various other forms of communicating as they coordinated their efforts.
Besides software, other hurdles remain. Boeing must complete two structural test aircraft, one for static testing, including the wing ultimate load test (which also damages the fuselage), and the other for fatigue testing (where many take-off, pressurization, and landing cycles are simulated). These airframes will never fly, of course. Regarding the engines, the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 was certified last month. Certification of GE's GEnx, the other type offered on the 787, is expected later this year.
It's ironic that a shortage of fasteners should be a hold-up, since one of the advantages of a composite aircraft like the 787 is that it uses a lot fewer of them. Of course, I guess these are still mainly rivets, not nuts & bolts!
There's reportedly been considerable controversy in particular over how to do the 787's wing ultimate load test. Traditionally Boeing has conducted these tests past the 150% ultimate load requirement and all the way to failure, breaking the wing. This isn't an easy choice to make with the 787's carbon fiber reinforced plastic wing, which would spread carbon particles into the air upon fracturing, necessitating an expensive environmental cleanup. Apparently Boeing is just going to take the wing to 150%, hold for three seconds, and call it a day.
Below is a great video from the earlier test of the 777 wing, in 1995. These are spectacular tests, and this one goes all the way to destruction of the wing. You can see the relief on the engineers' & managers' faces as they get to 150%. I wrote last year about Alan Mulally, who is highlighted in the video, and once ran the 777 program. He left Boeing last year to take up another tough challenge, being Ford's new CEO.
Despite all these difficulties, let's not forget that the 787 will be a major advance in airliner technology and passenger comfort. Even if the beautiful cabin renderings are not to be fully believed (airlines typically cram in a lot more seats), the 787 brings many innovations. The big advance in composite construction brings many other benefits, including anticipated lower maintenance costs due to fatigue and corrosion, lower operating/fuel costs due to lighter weight (and more efficient engines), and improved cabin comfort from lower cabin pressure (6,000 ft. vs. 8,000), higher humidity (which has been kept low in airliners to prevent corrosion from condensation), bigger windows and other improvements in cabin dimensions.
The Dreamliner also will offer advanced cabin air filtration and an elaborate gust suppression system, using pressure sensors around the aircraft, to provide a smoother ride. The aircraft even has a standard engine interface, so airlines can easily switch between the Trent and GEnx, potentially lowering their costs by increasing competition between these key suppliers. Finally, perhaps it's just a bit ironic that Boeing's using an airframe made of carbon, along with a lot of help from improved engine technology, to make a new airliner that will have a significantly lower carbon footprint.
After good coverage of the launch Friday, today I've been enjoying watching the ISS spacewalk from NASA TV. I posted these links last night on the LiveJournal Spacexploration community, and while I figure many of you already know about these, in case you don't you should check the NASA TV feed accessible from either of these pages:
I've just kept it running in the background on my Mac these last three days. Sometimes there's more going on than others, but for those of us who don't have time to watch it on cable all day, it's interesting to be able to track the mission online for an extended period of time and just follow along and see the sequence and pace as they've launched, prepared for rendezvous, docked, and begun preparations for a series of spacewalks.
NASA TV also runs video highlights every so often, and press conferences, etc., so in the slow times you might see some stuff from earlier in the mission if you missed it as well as see (such as during the press conferences) the sorts of analysis that goes into resolving the various issues arising during the mission.
In the top image, Mission Specialists Jim Reilly and Danny Olivas are working in daylight on the photovoltaic array which is to be deployed later in this spacewalk. The bottom image shows the station and one of the astronauts late in the night portion of that same orbit, with sunrise again approaching as they are south of Australia.
When you watch these guys at work, just bear in mind that it's all a lot tougher than it looks, especially in zero-G. I can't help thinking about how back in the mid-80s, a lot of folks, including some astronauts and many engineers, including yours truly, were rather skeptical that NASA could pull off the many complex spacewalks required to construct the ISS.
For this reason as well as many others, it's impressive to watch them build this big station. If you'd like to learn more about it, I'd recommend the Space Station DVD of the IMAX film. Hopefully despite previous announcements, NASA will see fit to make good use of it once it's completed. Let's also hope that we'll see a lot more construction in space before too long; some of us have got lots of stuff we'd like to build!
It's a subtle question, but one we need to think about. Today is, of course, the 50th anniversary of the launch of 
One of the Times' articles is an interesting 
The U.S. had already announced that it was going to launch a satellite into space, as a key part of its contribution to the International Geophysical Year, a concerted global research effort. That leisurely U.S. effort, however, oriented around the Navy's Vanguard program to orbit a very small satellite, ended up experiencing repeated launch failures. After Sputnik, the Army stepped in with von Braun (who, following 
Let us not forget that before Korolev were other pioneers who, as it's said, took the arrows. Most prominent are 
In the 
, adding people can actually make a software project go slower!
After good coverage of the launch Friday, today I've been enjoying watching the 
NASA TV also runs video highlights every so often, and press conferences, etc., so in the slow times you might see some stuff from earlier in the mission if you missed it as well as see (such as during the press conferences) the sorts of analysis that goes into resolving the various issues arising during the mission.
