Dec 26 2008
Ask the Rocket Scientist - the Real Deal
So, what do you want to know?
Well, wait, perhaps I should tell you a little about who/what I am and am not. For more information, check out my blog from Wednesday, my Rocket Scientist primer. And remind you that I will only be sporadically available this weekend, but I will answer all questions…eventually :) And note that the space images can be found at the fabulous NASA image archive (click for full effect because these are great images), well worth the trip.
In 1989, I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Physics. Before the ink had quite dried, I was working here at Johnson Space Center. In the intervening 19.5 years, I have worked as a facility electrical engineer on thermal and/or vacuum chambers, been a calibration engineer, been communications engineer, been an integration engineer, been a safety engineer for flight ops and, then, EVA (extravehicular activity), and I’m now a senior project engineer.
I have worked in robotics, software, human rated chambers, data handling systems, biotechnology, flight ops (I have a Mission Evaluation Room console certification - the MER is a support room for flight control), and EVA. I have been a member of the Space Shuttle Safety Review Panel and the Payload Safety Review Panel in the past. I was involved in the EVA for a number of flights, including the last two Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Missions and, sadly, STS-107 (Columbia’s last flight).
I’m not an expert electrical engineer, aerospace engineer, mechanical engineer. If you want a circuit or thermal conditioning system designed, I’m not your gal. (Yes, I’m female). But, if you need someone to make sure a complex multisystem works together, you need someone like me. If you want someone to review a complex design and look for what’s wrong, I’m your gal. If you need someone to evaluate hardware or procedures for areas that could put people at risk, I’m your gal. If you need someone to become knowledgeable on a topic on the fly, I’m your gal. I love to learn and I always bring a unique perspective to what I do. And, yes, I’m arrogant because I know exactly what I can and can’t do.
I don’t do politics, so, if your questions are political, I am probably not the right one to ask. I have a number of past blogs also that describe my view on manned vs. unmanned flight, reflections on the Hubble Space Telescope and a number of other space related and science related topics. Feel free to browse.
Having said all that, I encourage, even urge you to do your own research, question my answers and my opinions, find out more. In the MER, there is a motto: “In God we trust. All others bring data.” Do feel free to question mine. As anyone who loves science, I’m all for anyone learning as much as possible. So, who’s first?
Hi Steph, the Apollo 11 (Tranquility Base) and Apollo 15 landing sites were about 500 miles apart on the moon. At what elevation are mountains 500 miles from Tranquility Base visible on the horizon? Some of the peaks in the Apennines, just south of the Apollo 15 landing site, are in excess of 10,000 meters elevation.
The reason for this question: some “moon landing doubters” point to a so-called “common backdrop” for some photos and I’ve been trying to verify the identity of peaks visible to the northwest of Tranquility Base.
The Hadley Delta (Apollo 15) landing site is about 500 miles northwest of Tranquility Base (Apollo 11). Shots taken in a northwesterly direction at T.B. show some distant peaks. They appear in all the photos I’ve seen taken in that direction, which I assume is the impetus for the “doubters” to label them a fake backdrop. Hadley and the Apennines include some gigantic peaks, exceeding Mount Everest in elevation, so I assume that they may be what is seen in these photos. I haven’t proved it, though. There is plenty of detail to verify that the same features are visible in each picture. Thanks for the links. I’ve been to some of them, but I haven’t seen the entire library of photos (yet)!
Are Americans (on average) too incapable of thought and of learning, to ever actually understand radiation. Basis, most Americans are afraid of nuclear power because of Chernobyl… however that was entirely the fault of a cheaper design that the Ukraine insisted on using. The reactors used in the US are exponentially safer, yet the public is incapable of understanding this and there is still a fear that lingers.
Even considering 3 mile Island, there is no cause for concern, no effects were seen beyond that facility (which is a good thing).
I suppose my actual question is, will there ever be a way to bring mainstream America up to speed with the somatic effects of radiation such that they can finally understand the safety of nuclear power. (Nuclear operators receive MORE exposure during their transit to and from work each day than they receive WHILE AT WORK.)
Shon, I don’t know if I would automatically assume that being leery of nuclear power=thoughtlessness. I used to feel much like you did UNTIL I did more research. Now, I considerably less blase. The assumption make that they are affectively “completely safe” frightens me more than a little healthy fear.
However, I’m not an expert in nuclear power nor am I one of those completely in love with quantitive risk assessment. To say that nuclear power is considerable safer than it used to be; I’d say that is almost undoubtedly true. To say it’s safe, well…
However, radiation concerns in space are different thing. There are (and will continue to be) nuclear forms of propulsion proposed and there are some considerable advantages to them. Again, though, I’ve only seen them in passing and no nothing definitive except some of the concerns presented in a paper at the IAASS conference in spring 2007 (from a Russian gentleman). Fascinating topic, though.
Radiation in space, though especially when we leave our magnetic field, is a huge issue. Protecting our crewmembers on the surface of the moon and on the journey to Mars is a significant issue. Not from nuclear sources, of course, except the Sun, the same source you site for the nuclear technicians.
Stephanie:
You mention the mass penalty in relation to eject systems & maybe other systems as well. The mass penalty for a manned Mars mission must be enormous compared to a robotic mission. The huge success of the 2 Mars vehicles recently in the news would seem to make the case that manned missions aren’t really necessary. Certainly we should postpone any manned mission until after many more rovers have had a chance to explore. I guess my question is why are we spending money on manned missions?
Stephanie:
Of course a manned mission can accomplish more than a robotic one. But there’s a huge amount to be learned from robots, especially with the marvelous cameras. Men on the moon? Yeah, sure. Establish a base there - expand our earthly horizons mightily - and send people to Mars from that base.
I understand the PR value of manned missions, but it seems to me the PR is the greater value at this stage of our exploration.
Dear Stephanie,
This isnt exactly a technical question, so I apologize for its lack of appeal when compared to the posts above, but I think you could provide a lot of insight due to your educational background and employment history. Here goes:
From the reading I’ve done I’ve gathered that selecting an ABET accredited engineering undergraduate program is generally a worthwhile endeavor. However, is it so worthwhile in the case of Engineering Physics? I ask because that is the degree I wish to obtain and it is not accredited at the university I will be attending. I don’t want to close doors on myself but I’m under the impression that a physical engineer will generally not be providing services directly to the public unless he/she’s working for a consulting agency, which doesn’t seem to be where most physical engineers are employed anyway. Please do correct me if I am wrong.
This issue concerns me because I wish to work for an organization dealing in some way with space, experimental physics, and/or nanotechnology, respectively. I do not want to pursue a PhD, but I have not ruled out a masters (is a masters necessary to compete for entry-level jobs in these sectors as an engineer in todays day? I know there are a lot of BEng graduates out there now). I understand these positions may be quite competitive and I want to have a fall-back plan in case I cannot get the job. I’d like a PE certification to be included somewhere in that plan. Thus, back to the ABET accreditation. Oregon State University is accredited in virtually all the other main engineering disciplines. OSU does, however, offer MSc in engineering physics. Maybe I should just start with a relevant discipline and specialize in a branch of engineering physics at the masters level? I’d hate to do this however, because it seems backwards; engineering physics is usually an undergraduate degree.
Your thoughts?
Thanks,
GT
Stephanie,
Thanks for the prompt advice and especially the encouragement. All this crucial and ill-informed decision making can be quite daunting at times and your kind words lighten the load.
GT