- Edited by: David Chidakel
.
ROBOTS OUT, HUMANS IN. THE SPACE PROGRAM
TAKES A BOLD AND SLIGHTLY DAFFY TURN
 
Apollo getting gussied-up for a launch. No vacuum tubes on this baby!
NASA's latest space directive is to go to Mars.
Again.
This time, the hard way - with humans on board. Having demonstrated how deft it has become with robotics, NASA has been tasked by an administration that may be suffering from chronic nostalgia on all fronts, to shift its attention to "Human Exploration" for longer and longer trips. It is easy to see how our remarkable record of success with the Space Shuttle (MOST flights even came back with the original crew) served to convince the administration that a much riskier and orders-of-magnitude more expensive return to human exploration of the planets was justified.
That's sarcastic and disrespectful. Sorry. But isn't this precisely the time that we should be REDUCING our reliance on the frail human body when, at last, we have the ability to do so?
The early days of the space program were inspiring. The technology for reliable robotic missions was way off in the future. In July of 1969, Aldrin and Armstrong trusted their lives and the success of the moon mission to a primitive computer with 36 k of memory (14 bit words) which ran at a rate (effectively) of about 43 khz (divide that by a thousand to convert to Mhz, friends). The technology was "core rope" memory (don't ask!). If you wanted to get to the moon, you knew you could only squeeze so much out of this minimalistic computation contraption. Guts, instinct, and lots and lots of luck might get you there. The CPU could help. A little.
By default, that was the era of human exploration.
But we now inhabit the Apollo program's future . We are the stuff of the boldest science fiction of that time. For over a year, strange beasts of our own manufacture have been "roving" the surface of Mars, changing (or confirming) our ideas about that planet and its history. We may even launch a robotic rescue mission for the Hubble Observatory. Robotics is still a young science but it is maturing rapidly. There was every reason to think that it would continue to pace the needs of NASA's future missions. But in January of 2004, President Bush announced a new set of goals. We would, like in days of yore, set boots on the moon (by 2020). And the moon is to be the base from which we will set off for Mars.
This requires a total reshaping of our space goals and of NASA. which is already sucking other parts of the program dry to finance the vision of human exploration. And yet, an article in Scientific American by Eugene Parker, Shielding Space Travelers , suggests that there is no way, at present, to shield astronauts from damaging cosmic rays. The author systematically considers and rejects all imaginable ways of shielding the craft. This problem, alone, suggests that the decision to commit to human exploration is, at least, premature. For those who aren't up on their physics, cosmic rays are extremely energetic particles that will kill and maim anyone who spends the kind of time in space that would be required for such a journey. This means YOU, dear future astronauts.
Cosmic rays aside, we know that there is a certain fragility to human missions. Humans, undoubtedly, are (so far) more versatile then machines. But only if they are alive when they get there. And, sentimental though we may be, we tend not to think of humans as "spare parts". We REALLY hate to lose a half-dozen astronauts and I am so glad we feel that way. But the inevitable considerations of getting a crew there in one piece lead us toward overly complicated and multiply redundant systems. With all the expense and complications and vulnerabilities, it would seem we are courting delays, disasters, and (sorry to say it) deaths.
Machines will only get smarter and tougher. And they CAN get to Mars in one piece. We have proof. On the other hand, people do NOT appear to be getting particularly smarter. I think there's plenty of proof of THAT. And there's good reason to doubt that they can be carried to Mars safely. The economics are w-a-y upside down for doing a human mission.
An Engineering Gap of Epic Proportions.
The fearful "engineering gap" has come up once again. Dr. Vivek Wadhwa of Duke University has rediscovered "the gap" in a study that was recently released. I don't want to sound parochial and I welcome anyone into our profession who has the desire and the ability to contribute. But this study is flawed. In most fields of engineering the competition is more than adequate. I'm sure you have noticed. The Engineering Gap
The Embedded Systems Conference is coming around again - this year, in San Jose, CA. Since we won't be there, we would welcome "on the scene" thoughts from anyone who makes it to this important meeting.
Hardware design. There are SO many high-function chips available now. Has electronics been reduced to an exercise in bus design?" Has the art of low-level electronics been lost? Not quite.
Trade Shows, Exhibitions & Forums
Trade shows, exhibitions, and forums (real-life ones, as opposed to virtual or online forums) of special interest to Electrical Engineers and designers of electronic products. Entrepreneur.com or biztradeshow .
Bob Pease. Guru to the Engineering Masses. If you haven't discovered Bob Pease yet (can that be true?), you will thank me for this link. Pease Porridge
Global Spec’s Engi-Tips Forum is one of many sources of off-beat and interesting information for the technical-minded.
IEEE Website
This is THE professional organization of Electrical Engineers. It is huge! So much information, support, and training. The list of publications is astonishing. There are other professional organizations but if this isn’t the Motherland, I don’t know what is. IEEE
Engineering Calculators
Here are some engineering calculators from ifigure.com . They are pretty basic. And here are some more advanced calculators (including power, antenna design, stability calculations) are available from RFCafe. RFCafe is also a source of job leads).
EE Times discusses many issues of interest at a nice technical level - not tooooo heavy and not to light. EE Times.
|
