SPACE JUNK

SPACE JUNK

The following resources were used in writing this document:

• “Scientists Battle Space Debris Threat”: CBS News, 23 April 2011
• “Space Debris”: Wikipedia
• “Space Junk Endangers NASA Satellites”: Elizabeth Montalbano, Information Week, 2 September 2011
• “Space Junk Janitors Should Sweep Up 5 Dead Satellites”: Biology & Nature, 27 February 2012
• “Space Junk to Triple by 2030”: Lenord Davis, Space.com, 9 May 2011

I can’t stand dirt.  Dirty house, dirty car, dirty office, and I am making some changes.  Fortunately, my wife is a “neatnick”.  She also—CAN’T STAND DIRT.  To further demonstrate the point, one evening, just before sundown, she looked through our den windows towards the setting sun and pronounced “we WILL clean these filthy windows inside and outside tomorrow”.  I felt her “pane”.  (Pardon the clever play on words!)  Dirt is one thing, but I’m OK with a little clutter.  I have several editions of Machine Design, Design News, Science and Technology, etc. sitting around waiting on the spirit to move me towards picking them up to read.  The older ones I consider collector’s items.  This is perhaps the only way I cannot be considered a hoarder.  

The tiny blue dot we live on does have a significant problem with clutter SPACE JUNK–  I will demonstrate as follows:

The digital photograph above shows the approximate position of debris remaining as a result of exploits in space, both ours and other countries, having the technology to launch rockets that carry payloads.  Perhaps a more enlightening JPEG, given below, will be more helpful and further illustrate the issue faced by NASA and other space-related agencies.   Please keep in mind all objects are moving. None are stationary; consequently, any depiction of position must be an estimate of position. 

It has been estimated by Hugh Lewis from The University of Southampton that over this decade, there could be as much as a fifty percent (50%) increase in debris.  Already, the International Space Station has had to fire thrusters to avoid moving “garbage” orbiting earth.  The result would have been disastrous had this action not been taken.  Some experts from NASA and within several university systems state we have already reached the “tipping point” and corrections would be virtually impossible and remarkably expensive.   NASA estimates there are at least 500,000 pieces of debris orbiting earth and some of that debris is moving at 17,500 miles per hour.  Of course, any “strike” at these speeds could produce life-threating damage to personnel and systems.   Damage such as the one shown below could absolutely destroy delicate equipment and seriously injure, if not kill, astronauts.

The overwhelming number of particles are smaller than one centimeter; i.e., 0.39 inches, but others are of considerable size.  Estimates are as follows:

• 1,500 pieces of debris weighing more than 100 Kg or 200 pounds
• 19,000 pieces of debris measuring between 1 to 10 centimeters; 3.9 inches
• An unestimated number of particles, mostly dust and paint “chips” resulting from collisions that have occurred with larger objects also orbiting.  Some “guesses” put that number into the millions.

For the most part, the debris can be categorized as follows:

• Jettisoned garbage from manned spacecraft, purposefully disposed of into lower earth orbit
• Lost equipment; i.e. cameras, tools, measuring devices, fabric hold-down straps, nuts, bolts, cotter pins, etc.
• Debris from collisions tearing apart structures either jettisoned or lost
• Rocket boosters that orbit yet remain in space.  Some, over time, experience decaying orbits, eventually falling to earth. 
• Satellites that no longer function but still orbit in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) or HEO (High Earth Orbit). Generally satellites operate between 435 to 800 miles above the earth.  When these satellites “die”, they do not accomplish reentry but simply stay aloft as dormant objects.  Think of the number of telecommunication devices now orbiting the earth.    Most will eventually fade and no longer fulfill their purpose, being replaced with newer technology. 

With an ever increasing number of launches, engineers and scientists are designing into their products, systems that will provide for ultimate reentry when that system or component performs its function.   Let’s assume a satellite has performed properly for nine years but now is dormant due to programmed obsolescence.  What if, pulse jets could fire altering trajectory and orbit so reentry could be possible?  If that reentry could be a controlled, one “chunk” of debris would be eliminated; consequently, eliminating possible damage to other orbiting bodies or future launches.  This is the current mind-set being explored.

With at least fifty nations participating within the space environment, the amount of debris can only lessen but not be eliminated.  At the present time, over 20,000 pieces of debris are being tracked from facilities such as the one below:

Facilities such as this can at least estimate collisions and, more importantly, any debris that may be in a decaying orbit that will eventually create reentry into earth’s atmosphere.  Over the past ten to fifteen years several large pieces of debris have reentered although most fall into our oceans or uninhabited land.   It becomes ever so critical to remain aware of location to preclude injury on the ground or provide successful future launches.  Several government agencies, as well as universities, have undertaken programs to explore methodologies to reclaim or at least deflect debris that might be potentially dangerous.   Monetary estimates, technical risk and overall complexities of design are significant, and we seem to be a long way from even mounting demonstration programs that will indicate possible success.  This is one area that will be fascinating to watch over the next twenty years.  Stay tuned.

COMPUTATIONAL ENGINEERING

Sir Isaac Newton once said in a letter to Robert Hooke, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”  His letter to Hooke was written in 1676 but still carries significant truth, certainly today.  Let’s face facts; technology is evolutionary and not revolutionary.  The Wright brothers flew a bi-wing airplane made from wood and fabric and not an SR-71.  The first “horseless carriage” was not a Lomborghani.   The use of leeches (for medicinal purposes only) definitely preceded penicillin.  The abacus was a very functional “counting device” centuries before the computer.  You get the picture.  Computational engineering is a fascinating technology, evolutionary in nature.  This discipline did not burst upon the scene overnight but evolved over the years to become one of the most truly viable research tools in today’s arsenal of investigative methodology.  The “proper” definition of computational engineering is as follows:

                “Computational engineering encompasses the design, development, and application of computational systems for the solution of physical problems in engineering and science.  These computational systems include not only the algorithms and software required for the solution of mathematical equations describing physical processes, but also the means and methods of visualizing, analyzing and interpreting computed results and other physical data. “ 

This definition is taken from the High Performance Computing Collaboratory facility at Mississippi State University.  Mississippi State has one of the most respected departments of computational engineering in the United States. 

Another excellent definition comes from The University of Auckland and is as follows:

                “Computational Science (called also Scientific Computing or Numerical Analysis) is the design, development, application, and analysis of computer algorithms and software to solve scientific and engineering problems. It includes not only numerical methods, probabilistic modeling, computer-based statistical inference, and computer simulation required for solving underlying systems of math equations, but also computer visualization, statistical analysis, and interpretation of computed solutions.”

All of this is well and good but why oh why do we need discovery techniques of this nature and why so detailed.  I cannot say it any better than the following statement from Dr. J. Tinsley Oden:

                “Near the end of the twentieth century, much of the industrialized world was becoming aware that the foundations of science and engineering were under rapid, dramatic, and irreversible change brought on by the advent of the computer. The steady increase in computer capabilities and the enormous expansion in the scope and sophistication of computational modeling and simulation place computational sciences as the third pillar of scientific discovery and revolutionize the way engineering is done. Computational engineering and science can impact virtually every aspect of human existence, along with the health, security, productivity, and competitiveness of the nation.”
        J. Tinsley Oden, Associate Vice President for Research, The University of Texas at Austin

  Let us now take a look at the results of computational engineering and the output derived from the process.

Formula 1 Racer

 

As you can see from the JPEG above, knowing the airflow around a Formula 1 race car can provide evidence of laminar flow that could provide a win when the checkered flag is dropped.  Disruption of airflow around an object could create resistance to lessen performance.

This is one of my favorite and shows the air flow around a shuttle craft re-entry vehicle.  Critically important information when considering the fact that re-entry is difficult enough and would be more so if surface-generated turbulence was an added problem.

 

Shuttlecraft

The JPEG below shows results of a study demonstrating the effect of “blunt force trauma” to the human skull.  Studies such as this are very important in understanding what happens when an NFL running back meets Ray Lewis.  We all know there is a class-action lawsuit against the NFL to compensate players who have experienced concussions during their playing years.  Computational engineering can aid efforts to fully understand what happens.

Human Skull

 

There are several schools that offer degrees in computational engineering (CmE), usually at the MS and PhD levels.  A BS degree in computer science, mathematics or engineering is almost always a minimum requirement with BS degrees in CmE not being offered.  Excellent schools offering course work and degrees in this field are as follows:

• University of Tennessee at Chattanooga—SIM Center
• Mississippi State University
• MIT
• University of Texas at Austin
• Georgia Institute of Technology
• Purdue
• Notre Dame
• University of Utah
• Arizona State University

 I am sure there are other, maybe many others, but these are noted for their contributions to the technology.   I certainly hope you will take a look at the possibilities and continue to study what is available relative to seminars and short courses.

 

 

UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE

UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE

Merriam-Webster defines language as “A systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures or marks having understood meanings.”  The operative words in this definition are ‘means of communicating’ and ‘understood meanings’.  There are 116 different “official” languages spoken on our planet today but 6900 languages AND dialects. The difference between a language and a dialect can be somewhat arbitrary so care must be taken when doing a “count”.  English, French, German, Greek, Japanese, Spanish etc, all have specific and peculiar dialects; not to mention slang words and expressions so the discernment between a language and a dialect may be somewhat confusing to say the least.. 

The book of Genesis (Genesis 11: vs. 1-9) recounts a period of time, during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar, when an attempt was made, by mankind, to become equal with God and that one language was spoken by all the people.  We are told that the attempt was not met with too much favor and God was pretty turned off by the whole thing.  Go figure!    With this being the case, He, decided to confound their language so that no one understood the other.  This, as you might expect, lead to significant confusion and a great deal of “babbling” resulted.  (Imagine a session of our United States Congress.)  Another significant result was the dispersion of mankind over the earth—another direct result from their unwise attempt.  This dispersion of the populace “placed” a specific language in a specific location and that “stuck”. 

Regardless of the language spoken, the very basic components of any language are similar; i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, etc.  You get the picture. The use and structure of these language elements within a sentence do vary.  This fact is the essence of a particular language itself. 

Would mankind not benefit from a common language?  Would commerce not be greatly simplified if we could all understand each other? Think of all the money saved if everything written and everything spoken—every road sign and every label on a can of soup—could be read by 6.8 billion people.  Why oh why have we not worked towards that over the centuries as a collective species.  Surely someone has had that thought before.  OK, national pride, but let’s swallow our collective egos and admit that we would be well-served by the movement, ever so gradual, towards one universal language.  Let me backup one minute.  We do have one example of a world-wide common language—

MATHEMATICS

Like all other languages, it has its own grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and word order, synonyms, negations, conventions, abbreviations, sentence and paragraph structure.  Those elements do exist AND they are universal.  No matter what language I speak, the formula for the area of a circle is A=π/4 (D)². 

• π  =  3.14159 26535 89793
• log(10)e  =  0.43429 44819 03252
• (x+y)(x-y)  =  x²-y²
• R(1),R(2)  =  [-b ± ( b²-4ac)]^0.5/2a
• The prime numbers are 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37—You get the picture.
• sinѲcscѲ = 1

 Mathematics has developed over the past 2500 years and is really one of the very oldest of the “sciences”. One remarkably significant development was the use of zero (0)—which has only been “in fashion” over the past millennium.  Centuries ago, men such as Euclid and Archimedes made the following discoveries and the following pronouncements:

If a straight line be cut at random, the square on the whole is equal to the squares on the segments and twice the rectangle contained by the segments. (Euclid, Elements, II.4, 300 B.C.) This lead to the formula:  (a + b)² = a² + b² + 2ab

The area of any circle is equal to a right-angled triangle in which one of the sides about the right angle is equal to the radius, and the other to the circumference, of the circle. (Archimedes, Measurement of a Circle, (225 B.C.)  Again, this gives us the following formula: 

A = 2pr·r/2 = pr ² 

These discoveries and these accompanying formulas work for ANY language we might speak. Mathematics then becomes the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE.

With that being the case, why do we not introduce the “Language of Mathematics” to our middle-school and high school pupils?  Is any school district doing that?  I know several countries in Western Europe started this practice some years ago with marvelous results.  This “language” is taught prior to the introduction of Algebra and certainly prior to Differential Equations.  It has been proven extremely effective and beneficial for those students who are intimidated by the subject.  The “dread” melts away as the syntax and structure becomes evident.  Coupled with this introduction is a semester on the great men and women of mathematics—their lives, their families, were they lived, what they ate, what they smoked, how they survived on a math teacher’s salary.  These people had lives and by some accounts were absolutely fascinating individuals in their own right.  Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus, was a real grouch, a real pain in the drain AND, had been jilted in his earlier years.  Never married, never (again) even had a girlfriend, etc etc.  You get the picture.  The greatest mathematicians of all time are said to be the following:

Isaac Newton Carl F. Gauss Archimedes Leonhard Euler Euclid		Bernhard Riemann Henri Poincaré David Hilbert Joseph-Louis Lagrange Gottfried W. Leibniz		Alexander Grothendieck Pierre de Fermat Niels Abel Évariste Galois John von Neumann
Srinivasa Ramanujan Karl W. T. Weierstrass Brahmagupta René Déscartes Augustin Cauchy		Carl G. J. Jacobi Hermann K. H. Weyl Peter G. L. Dirichlet Leonardo `Fibonacci’ Georg Cantor		Arthur Cayley Emma Noether Eudoxus of Cnidus Muhammed al-Khowârizmi Pythagoras of Samos

What do we really know about these guys?  Do we ever study them when we use their wonderful work?  I think not.  I honestly believe the study would be much more enjoyable IF we knew something about the men and women making the contributions they did.   Think about it.  PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!