Comments on: Ask the Rocket Scientist - the Real Deal http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/ Melding fiction and science in life and on paper Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:47:30 +0000 http://www.today.com/version-2.3.1 By: GT http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-2214 GT Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:08:10 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-2214 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 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

]]> By: GT http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-2210 GT Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:23:06 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-2210 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 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

]]> By: GaryG http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1129 GaryG Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:31:15 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1129 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. 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.

]]> By: GaryG http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1127 GaryG Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:02:12 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1127 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:
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?

]]> By: stephanieebarr http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1019 stephanieebarr Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:19:22 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1019 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. 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.

]]> By: Shon http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1016 Shon Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:52:50 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1016 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.) 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.)

]]> By: Dave A http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1015 Dave A Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:34:28 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1015 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)! 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)!

]]> By: Dave A http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1013 Dave A Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:40:42 +0000 http://rocketscientist.today.com/2008/12/26/ask-the-rocket-scientist-the-real-deal/#comment-1013 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. 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.

]]>