AeroGoFor students & everyone interested in the engineering, aviation & space fields.
Join Xanga to subscribe, leave a comment, or join blogrings!
About this Entry
Posted by: AeroGo

Visit AeroGo's Xanga Site

Original: 3/28/2007 9:58 AM
Views: 392
Comments: 8
eProps: 8

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site



Wednesday, March 28, 2007
 

That's Why They Call It Space EXPLORATION

SaturnHexagonAurora... Because you might just find something (right). Of course, even when you do, you may not know what it is you've found. Every once in a while, though, the questions prompted by the find are just too compelling to ignore, a point the public seemed to get back in 1968, when the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, based on Arthur C. Clarke's novel supposing a dramatic discovery on the Moon, came out.

Sadly, we seem to have lost this understanding, both with regard to exploration and to advances in space technology. Our society seems to have faded in its enthusiasm for space after being told for decades, by risk-averse establishment "experts", that we've done most all that can be done, without spending hundreds of billions of dollars. This is the worst kind of intellectual arrogance, thinking that we know it all before we even try.

Back in 1894, at the dedication of a lab at the University of Chicago, physicist Albert Michelson made an infamous quote, one of many (some more questionable) from around that time, implying much the same sort of overconfidence: "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . . . Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."

RoentgenFirstXray1sBUT ... within two years William Roentgen had discovered X-rays (first X-ray, left). Just months later, Henri Becquerel, his experiment hindered by a rainy day, put his photographic plate and uranium salts away in a dark drawer, only to find parts of the plate (below, right) fully exposed. Working with Marie and Pierre Curie, they identified various radioactive materials. This discovery of radiation was such a monumental breakthrough that by 1903, all four scientists had won the Nobel Prize. Even a scientist of Albert Einstein's caliber took roughly 17 years to do the same.

BecquerelPhotogPlateRadtnDiscovAt the very point when the "experts" were saying that they knew just about everything and that, by the way, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", the fields of physics and aviation were both on the verge of radical transformation. Within five decades, aviation would go from balloons to jet fighters and V-2 rockets. Physics would go from Newtonian mechanics to relativity, quantum theory and the atomic bomb. It is perhaps more than a bit ironic that a good piece of that physics research would occur right there at Chicago, site of Chicago Pile 1, the world's first nuclear reactor.

Well, that was then, this is now. Sadly, even today folks suggest that perhaps the big breakthroughs are going to be infrequent from here on out. Of course, anyone familiar with the massive progress occurring in so many fields of research, accelerated further by the internet, an incredible research tool, must wonder how anyone could come to such a conclusion! Without a doubt, biology is undergoing a revolution while Moore's Law, amazingly, seems to somehow keep going like the Energizer bunny.

Burt Rutan has remarked that he believes we may be at the beginning of a new golden age in space flight and exploration as well, and I tend to agree. We must expect to be surprised, and keep moving forward confident we'll find quite a few nuggets along our path, and some will actually turn out to be gold. Of course, this used to be a core competency of us Americans, one which needs to be regained, but every country has plenty of potential discoverers who could use some encouragement. Sometimes it takes a long time to really figure out what one has discovered.

SaturnHexagonWith this in mind, consider this new quote, by Kevin Baines of the Cassini visual and infrared mapping spectrometer team, about the north pole of Saturn:

"This is a very strange feature, lying in a precise geometric fashion with six nearly equally straight sides ... We've never seen anything like this on any other planet. Indeed, Saturn's thick atmosphere where circularly-shaped waves and convective cells dominate is perhaps the last place you'd expect to see such a six-sided geometric figure, yet there it is."

SpaceDaily reports further that "The hexagon appears to have remained fixed with Saturn's rotation rate and axis since first glimpsed by Voyager 26 years ago" even though the "actual rotation rate of Saturn is still uncertain." This is indeed curious ... Hopefully the Cassini orbiter will stay in good shape for at least a few more years, until seasonal shifts bring the north polar region, site of some beautiful auroras (blue ring in top image, surrounding hexagon structure) back into sunlight.

Europa6900mFalseColorThe infrared images (top, left, video) obtained recently of the 25,000km-across hexagonal structure, descending to at least 100km below the cloud tops, can be obtained even at night. This is a fascinating discovery, considering we know very little of the outer planets' make-up below the upper cloud layers. Of course, there have been plenty of other interesting questions raised about the outer planets in recent years, as we've now sent third-generation missions to Jupiter (Galileo) and Saturn (Cassini), long after the Pioneer and Voyager flybys of the 1970s and 80s.

These sites ripe for exploration include the potentially life-bearing sub-surface oceans of Jupiter's moon Europa (false-color image, right), Saturn's relatively Earth-like moon Titan (visited recently by ESA's Huygen's Probe), and several new features in both planet's atmospheres. Of these, Europa seems to be the favored target, and NASA began an ambitious, but now-cancelled, Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission toward that goal. The mission was the victim of both budget and technical risk, the latter of which, as I have argued, will continue to work against the really interesting NASA missions until the agency gets serious again about a sustained space technology effort.

So what is it? ... I don't know ... but I think we might want to find out!
 Posted 3/28/2007 9:58 AM - 392 views - 8 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

8 Comments

Visit peterjang73's Xanga Site!
I do hope our interest and commitment to space exploration will not stop... :(
Posted 3/29/2007 7:55 AM by peterjang73 - reply

Visit AeroGo's Xanga Site!
I guess someone could look at this result from Saturn and say, "so what, astronomical discoveries don't have any practical value." Perhaps so, if you're willing to give up your car, satellite dish, computer, DVD player, etc.!!

Astronomy (and so space exploration) is a very practical field of study. From it, we learned about gravity, Newtonian mechanics, and later relativity and quantum mechanics. In other words, astronomy is the seedbed of physics, which is one of the main drivers of engineering and technology.

Back when Michelson made his speech, astronomers had already known for a century or so that there were problems with Newton's and Kepler's physics, particularly with the orbit of Mercury. So Michelson wasn't being totally honest, anyway.

Relativistic and quantum physics, though somewhat distinct, both blossomed together in the early 20th century (Einstein's Nobel Prize actually cited his work on the photoelectric effect, as relativity was still very controversial). Without these advances in physics we wouldn't have nuclear power, transistors, integrated circuits, lasers, CD and DVD players, modern computers, and on and on. It's very shortsighted to think astronomy and space exploration aren't practical activities!
Posted 3/29/2007 1:50 PM by AeroGo - reply

Visit orchdork7810's Xanga Site!
i agree about not giving up on space exploration and learning whats out there. Although were content in our little box in our corner of the universe, shouldnt we see what else is out there? And plus, we can learn alot about ourselves and science in the process or develop technology that could help us in our daily lives. im definitnely not giving up on that and hopefully will be part of the next generation of engineers or just people in general that will push for NASA to get a more serious space exploration effort.
Posted 3/29/2007 6:34 PM by orchdork7810 - reply

Visit AeroGo's Xanga Site!
I don't have an opinion one way or another on this, but you know, all this public indifference will go away in an instant if we find life out there, of any sort. If there's life one other place (that can't be traced back to Earth, contamination, etc.), then the obvious implication would be that there's probably life lots of places.

Actually, I think there's two distinct questions: 1. Is there "simple" life out there (microbes, plants, animals)? 2. Is there "intelligent" life out there? Maybe #1 ought to really be 3 separate questions.

I'm considerably more skeptical about #2, but the truth is, we really don't know. I do wonder sometimes if, say 500 years from now, folks will marvel that we didn't think there was life elsewhere in the universe, when "of course" there obviously would be!
Posted 3/29/2007 7:54 PM by AeroGo - reply

Visit AeroGo's Xanga Site!
As far as I can tell, planetary scientists figure the hexagonal feature at Saturn's north pole is atmospheric, not solid. I've never heard of an atmospheric feature of that shape, but there are a number of igneous (volcanic) rock formations on Earth that cooled in large hexagonal crystals. The most famous is perhaps the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland (photos: 1, 2).

There are a number of other similar basaltic formations elsewhere in the world. There's even a Giant Crystal Project website with some good photos and links.
Posted 4/3/2007 10:18 AM by AeroGo - reply

Visit qwerty182764's Xanga Site!

I don't know if there's anything on Saturn to build something solid out of, much less something that stays solid at that degree of scale, so it's probably some weird atmospheric thing.

But still, this is cool.

I had a professor (or was it some sort of guest speaker) that pissed me off. He was talking about the design rate for new aircraft and aerospace projects. He said something to the effect of "Back in the 20's, there was a massive proliferation of new aircraft. In the 30's and 40's WWII, as well as civilian competition drove the creation of hundreds of new designs. As we progressed through the 50's, 60's, 70's, a few tens of new designs were produced. And after that, only a few in this country. In the 21st century, we'll only need one type of jet fighter, only one type of airplane. It's likely that the F-22 is all that will be needed for the next hundred years."

This spawned two parallel tracks of annoyance. The first was "how low do you intend to bow to our conquerors after four or five decades of stagnation, counting on an airplane invented half a century ago to save us from a competent competitor?" (The other frustrating thing is that, the way most of the world is going, there won't be any competent competitors left, but I have hopes for China and India giving us incentive to innovate)

The second was "So we've become less efficient at innovating in aerospace terms, and you're PROUD of it?! Like it's some sort of accomplishment? From hundreds of aircraft companies operating out of hangars in every small-town farm field, we're now down to two or three major aircraft companies, we're now turning out a plane every decade or so, instead of 10 a year, and you like this state of affairs?"

The lecture was topped off with the statement: "Now most of you probably won't get to work on an actual design project at any point in your carreers. That's a little too much to hope for. But there is plenty of rewarding work in doing analysis and sustainment for current systems, or technical writing to keep them operating."

Posted 4/12/2007 7:24 AM by qwerty182764 - reply

Visit AeroGo's Xanga Site!
Yeah, that quote at the end is sort of a corollary to Michelson's quote that has become popular in some circles of engineering (probably the ones "thriving" off of paper studies). There was a popular saying in the aerospace industry that you still hear from time to time, that based on cost trends, by 2050 or so the entire defense budget would buy one airplane a year, and the Air Force and Navy would have to share it.

Obviously something was going to have to give, and by the 1990s cost had become a key requirement, a message that some think was expressed loud and clear by the Air Force's choosing the YF-22 over the YF-23, though the -22 has hardly turned out to be cheap! The massive consolidation during that time was difficult but necessary to reign in costs, but at best I think it just bought some time. Today the Air Force clearly is having a great deal of trouble affording both the F-22 and the F-35, and it's not clear that any country in the world can still afford to develop a heavy bomber.

The Navy's situation is even worse; the A-12, their equivalent to the F-22, was cancelled in 1991, and the still-tenuous nature of the F-35 program should make them very concerned. This lack of opportunity for design experience among young aerospace engineers is made worse by the fact that that a lot of the experienced engineers are nearing retirement.

It's becoming increasingly clear that methods developed in other industries must be applied to the aerospace industry to improve efficiencies and lower cycle times. In some areas such as lean engineering and six sigma, this is already happening. There's still a fundamental disconnect, however, in the area of R&D, because decades-long development programs are just not tenable, as the cost figures for the F-22 are telling us, if anyone will listen.

I'm going to save some of my comments for a post on this that I've been contemplating, but I will say that in my own case, this was a huge dilemma for me early in my career. Ideally, I would have loved to spend a number of years on a design project, seeing the whole process, but that wasn't really possible by the 1980s. I worked for both NASA and Rockwell at JSC, but it was clear that by the late 1980s, the shuttle development work was pretty much done, budgets had been cut, and being rather skeptical of the frequent pronouncements of new space initiatives (that have come every few years since the the early 80s), I didn't see many growth opportunities there.

As things have turned out, it seems I was mostly right. The one exception, really, was the X-38 program. I have a fondness for lifting bodies, and would have loved to have gotten to work on that. Nevertheless that program, more than any, showed the best and worst of working for NASA. It was really advancing the state of the art, and after the Europeans got seriously involved, NASA bailed out!

To paraphrase Sen. Dirksen, a decade here, a decade there, and soon you're talking about a lot of time. It remains a serious career dilemma today, because if you make the wrong choice, you could end up wasting a large part of your career on something that never even flies.
Posted 4/12/2007 1:04 PM by AeroGo - reply

Visit BaseballCardCollector's Xanga Site!
This entry was actually interesting, Dad!
Posted 5/1/2007 3:19 AM by BaseballCardCollector - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
  • Say it with Minis! (?)

Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to AeroGo's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in AeroGo's local time zone:
GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)

Written content © 2005-07 Flight Development Corp.

Twitter Updates

Click this link for AeroGo, Inc. (not affiliated)

free counter statistics