The Aerospace Agenda

Aerospace Engineering On High-Pay/Low-Stress Job List

2012-04-06T16:45:09Z

There is some good news recently for aerospace engineers. Not only is the job market looking better, but a recent article lists aerospace engineering as one of the top 5 high-paying, low-stress jobs. A recent article by payscale.com shows aeronautical engineering (OK, that sounds a little antiquated, since most degrees these days are for aerospace, but we get the idea) number four on the list of jobs that have above-average salaries, but where workers report low levels of stress. After 30 years in the aerospace industry, I would tend to agree with that. There were times when my stress would rise, such as before an important presentation, or watching the outcome of a critical ejection seat test that I spent months coordinating, costs $75k, takes weeks of hardware preparation, and is over in 15 seconds. But those events are usually short-lived and certainly provide a high degree of professional satisfaction when completed successfully. For the most part, aerospace engineers are dealing with highly-educated, motivated professional people, and get to work on interesting projects, all which can help keep stress to a reasonable level.

Space Tourism – So Close, Yet So Far Away

2012-01-31T01:11:46Z

A recent article in the New York Times mentions that 2012 could be the year we see the start of limited space tourism via suborbital flights by Virgin Galactic. I'm sure the media coverage (TV, web, magazines) will intensify throughout the year as we get closer to first launch, possibly by the end of the year. Other companies such as Blue Origin, SpaceX, and XCOR have discussed the possibility of launching tourists to the edge of space (suborbital) or even into orbit, but have not actually built and certified any of their hardware for human flight. In spite of the increased media coverage, I’m not yet convinced that we are that close to routinely taking paying customers to space.

Virgin Galactic is definitely the closest of any of the companies to fly paying customers, with their SpaceShipTwo (SS2) having successfully flown gliding/landing tests in Mojave, CA within the least year. SpaceShipTwo is based on the success of SpaceShipOne, the innovative design of legendary aerospace engineer Burt Rutan. SpaceShipOne (SS1) was the first aerospace vehicle to take a private citizen to the edge of space in 2004 to win the first X Prize. It took Rutan’s team about 3 years to design, build, test and fly an aerospace vehicle to take one person up 62 miles. Even before SpaceShipOne flew it’s last flight, Virgin Galactic was formed to develop a larger version for paying customers. However, it has been much harder to scale up SS1 to take multiple passengers, as is evidenced by the over eight years since SS1 flights ended. The hard truth is that human space travel is technically very challenging, and paying customers (and in turn, the government air vehicle certification agencies) are going to demand a much higher degree of reliability and safety than a prototype flown by test pilots, such as SpaceShipOne.

The first paying customers on Virgin Galactic will be shelling out at least $200K for their flights, which being suborbital, will only provide about 5 minutes of continuous free flight in a very small cabin. If the main goal of a paying passenger is to experience weightlessness, you can get the same sensation for much less cost by taking one of these "zero-G" flights in a modified Boeing 727. You’ll also be able to do much more “floating” in the large aircraft cabin compared to the cramped cabin of SS2. I was able to fly in NASA’s famous "Vomit Comet" back in 1999, and I really enjoyed the sensation. I experienced over 15 minutes of zero-G (30 parbolas, about 30 seconds of floating on each parabola), more than 3 times the amount you will get on SS2. Of course in an aircraft you won’t get to experience the kick-in-the-butt acceleration when the SS2 rocket motor ignites, and the view of earth will be more spectacular from SS2, but once again, is that worth over almost 40 times the price? Personnally, I’d rather save my money and wait until I can go all the way to orbit, spending several days in zero-g and enjoying the view of earth while circling the globe. But I’m not anticipating that happening anytime soon at a reasonable (<50K) cost. Getting humans safely to orbit and back is another order of magnitude more expensive and technically difficult than suborbital flight. Media hype not withstanding, I’m figuring it will be at least another 10 years before we see anything remotely approaching regular orbital tourist flights to space.

Debate About Electronic Gadget Use in Airliners Rages On

2011-12-31T17:53:13Z

The debate about using electronic gadgets on airliner cabins seems to be never-ending, and was high-lighted again with the recent Alec Baldwin incident on an American Airlines flight. I addressed a similar issue with this blog post about Europe allowing cell phones. In the almost four years since I wrote that post, very little has changed among the airlines and certification agencies (FAA, etc.) when it comes to allowing electronic devices to be used in all phases of a commercial flight. A recent editorial on Engadget offers some practical solutions for finally ending this debate. The post argues for implementing a testing and certification program for any new electronic device to be used on a commercial airliner. (Although even if an electronic device is found to not interfere with the aircraft avionics, there may be other safety reasons for turning them off or stowing them during certain phases of flight, as is pointed out by a flight attendant in the comments section of the Engadget editorial.)

In my experience working in the aerospace industry for over 30 years, I know the technology is available to not only test for E3 (electromagnetic environmental effects) compatibility among cabin and cockpit electronics, but to also to provide shielding if any adverse affects are discovered. The military has been doing exactly this type of testing for years on every new aircraft that is developed, so it shouldn't be that hard to develop a similar certification program for commercial aircraft. Let's get agreement from all concerned parties to develop a technically sound certification program. The interested parties include the airlines, airliner manufacturers, electronics and avionics manufacturers, government regulators, and most importantly, the electronic/electrical professional organizations such as IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. It's time to stop all the debate and finally provide solid technical reasons why electronic gadgets should or should not be allowed to be used in airline cabins.

External Video Camera Helps Qantas Pilots Assess Airbus A380 Damage

2010-12-05T02:51:00Z

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released their preliminary report on the Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure that occurred on November 4, 2010, and it includes some interesting findings. The report details the extensive damage caused by the uncontained engine failure of the Rolls-Royce Trent engine and the remarkable effort of the aircrew to land the plane safely. (An uncontained engine failure is when a major part of the turbofan engine, such as a compressor disc, fails and pieces exit the engine compartment at high velocity.) In this case, a turbine disc failed and the resulting shrapnel damaged the skin, hydraulic and fuel systems and primary structure in the left wing of the A380, the world's largest commercial airliner. At the ATSB web site you can download the report which includes amazing pictures of the damage.

The photo I found most interesting is on page 12 that shows the damage to the left wing, especially the left wing spar. A wing spar is one of the major structural components of an aircraft, and if a spar fails, it can lead to catastrophic failure of the airframe. In this case, it looks like a good chunk of the forward spar near the failed engine is missing. Fortunately modern airliners are structurally designed with large margins of safety and multiple load paths so that damage in one area doesn't lead to a cascading failure in a nearby area. Still though, this Qantas A-380 is going to require significant work to repair the left wing, including possible replacement of a portion, or all, of the forward spar.

I won't go into detail about the A380 crew effort to save the aircraft, as the ATSB report provides a good summary. But what I did find interesting in the report (page 5) is the mention of externally mounted video camera on the tail of the A380. Apparently the A380 has a video camera facing forward on the vertical tail that provides a live video feed to the in-flight entertainment system. One of the pilots went back into the cabin after the engine failure to see if he could assess where the damage occurred when he was told by a passenger that the external video feed showed a fluid leaking from the left wing. (What is not mentioned in the report is whether this live video is also available in the cockpit.) This information helped him determine the location of the aircraft damage. As far as I know, this would be the first instance of an aircraft-mounted video camera being used to assess damage to a commercial airliner in-flight.

With the evolution of smaller and lighter digital video cameras over the last 10 years, there have been more discussions on the merits of mounting these cameras at strategic locations on the outside of large aircraft to aid the aircrew in assessing aircraft damage. I know that American Airlines at one time offered a live video of takeoff and landing to the passengers in the cabin, but I believe the camera was mounted inside the cockpit and only gave a view looking straight out the front of the aircraft. The small size, high quality and relatively low cost of digital video cameras today could allow for several to be located on the outside of the aircraft (tail, wingtips, belly, etc.), providing views of the entire exterior of the aircraft. It would be relatively easy to have a display in the cockpit that showed individual or multiple views from all the cameras. Also, with cheap, high-capacity digital storage available today, it should be simple to record the video feeds from any camera to aid in accident investigations. It appears that the main reason Airbus mounted the camera on the tail of the giant A380 was for passenger entertainment. However, after seeing how it helped the aircrew assess the extent of the damage to their aircraft in this mishap, I wouldn't be surprised to see the ATSB, or even the National Transportation Safety Board in the U.S., recommend that video cameras providing coverage of the outside of an aircraft be implemented on all new commercial aircraft.

Terrafugia Roadable Aircraft Gets Weight Break from FAA, But Still Far From Production

2010-07-05T20:00:31Z

The Terrafugia Transition roadable aircraft that I have blogged about before is in the news again. A recent press release from the company states that the FAA has upped the maximum gross weight (plane, fuel, passengers, baggage) limit of the Transition by 110 pounds, for a total of 1430 pounds at takeoff. The Terrafugia team is attempting to certify the Transition in the Light Sport Aircraft category to reduce certification costs and complexity. The FAA made the exception for the Transition due to the fact that it is designed to be driven on roads like a car after landing at an airport. The additional weight will allow the Transition to include typical car safety features such as airbags.

While this is encouraging news for the Transition, I believe the company still has a ways to go before they can deliver a production aircraft. After talking with a Terrafugia rep at Oshkosh last summer (see picture below of the Terrafugia display at Oshkosh), I am a little less optimistic than I originally was that the company can deliver an aircraft in the time frame they are currently quoting (4th quarter 2011), if at all. Although the prototype did fly successfully, from what I read, and saw in company videos, it never flew a complete circuit around the airport during the flight test program. That would require a series of 90 degree turns, of which I have never seen any video. It appears that the test pilot only took off and flew straight ahead, landing further down the very long runway. To me this indicated they encountered stability and control issues with the prototype that would not be acceptable in a production aircraft. The rep at Oshkosh said they had to go back to redesign parts of the aircraft to address stability issues, but nothing that couldn't be solved in the second design iteration. In the press release announcing the gross weight increase, Terrafugia says they will unveil "...computer graphics of the production prototype design.." at the big Airventure airshow in Oshkosh, WI later this month. But I'm thinking If they only have computer graphics to show at this time, the first flight of their second version must not be scheduled for any time soon. Add on the extensive flight test program that will be required to certify the production-ready Transition after first flight, and it looks like the end of 2011 to begin delivering production aircraft is very optimistic. I think the real problem is not as much technical as it is financial. I got the feeling from the Terrafugia rep that they need more money to get them through the certification process successfully. Having to build a whole new pre-production aircraft and test it certainly doesn't help with the cost situation. With the estimated cost of a production aircraft near $200K, they probably don't have enough deposits to keep them going until production.They claim to have 70 deposits of $10K each, for a total of $700K - in my opinion not nearly enough to get to production. I'm sure they are seeking other investors to help them out, but in these tough financial times, investors in high risk ventures are much harder to find. I'm still pulling for Terrafugia to be successful, but sometimes having the best, most innovative aircraft design does not always mean you will be successful. Luck and timing has a lot to do with it, and ufortunately Terrafugia is trying to make all this happen in one of the most difficult economies the world has seen in the past 50 years.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Formation Photos

2010-05-17T20:19:00Z

A friend sent me these pictures last week of two Lockheed F-35s in formation flight:

Taken recently, as far as I know these are some of the first official photos of several F-35s in formation flight. These two aircraft are AF-1 and AF-2, the Air Force version of the F-35. AF-1 is the first to fly, and it looks like it has had the vertical stabilizers repainted with lightning bolts, obviously a reference to its nickname "Lightning II". The other version flying is the U.S. Marines F-35B VSTOL version currently undergoing flight test at Patuxent River, Maryland. The Navy version, F-35C, which will have a larger wing, stronger landing gear and tailhook for carrier operations, has not flown yet.

The F-35 has been receiving a fair amount of attention recently because it is one of the most expensive DOD programs, and has been flagged for schedule delays and cost increases. So far there have not been any big technical issues.

Lots of Bull With Record Skydive Attempt

2010-03-16T23:58:00Z

I've noticed more and more coverage in recent months of another attempt to break the 50 year-old altitude "record" for skydiving, including this article in the New York Times science section. Sponsored by the energy-drink maker Red Bull, the Stratos project appears to be well-funded venture, with a team consisting of veterans from the aerospace industry including Joe Kittinger, who made the highest free-fall skydive of 102,800 feet back in 1960. (Though when Kittinger made his jump, he wasn't trying to break any records. He was doing it as part of pioneering aerospace research in the early days of the space program.) Like this other attempt to "out-jump" Kittinger that I previously blogged about, Red Bull is claiming that the Stratos project will provide valuable scientific data on bailout for future astronauts. After reading about this project, my BS meter was again fully pegged. I remain just as skeptical about the Red Bull science as justification for this project as I did for French sky diver Michael Fournier. The only difference is the Red Bull team is much better funded than Fournier. As I wrote previously, there really isn't much to be gained from these type of high altitude parachute jumps. In my experience working on high-performance escape systems, including participating in studies on escape systems for the hypersonic X-30 National Aerospace Plane and the Space Shuttle, manual bailout is not a viable option for escape from high performance aircraft and/or spacecraft. Emergencies happen so fast that you would never have time to manually bailout, especially if there were multiple crew onboard. You really need some type of automated, encapsulated escape system to protect crewmembers at extreme speeds and altitudes. The military and NASA already realize this, and that is why you don't see them doing anything remotely like this anymore. Even if you could justify this project on scientific grounds, risking a person's life would not be the way to do it. The latest scientific manikins (crash dummies) built today are so sophisticated that they can provide much more physiological data than anything available when Kittinger made his jump. That's why you never see human testing of aircraft escape systems, or even less risky car crash testing, any more. I'm sure Stratos sky diver Felix Baumgartner is a very competent and courageous person, but let's not be fooled that he and his sponsors are doing it for the sake of science. Red Bull's marketing is all about adventure sports and breaking records, and to me, this looks like the ultimate marketing ploy to sell a whole sh--load of energy drink.

The Aerodynamic (Winter) Olympics

2010-02-27T15:35:00Z

I was talking with a friend of mine the other day who is also an aerospace engineer, and he made a very true statement. He said that much more than the Summer Olympics, the Winter Olympics is all about aerodynamics. Even though I have blogged about the use of aerospace technology in the Summer Olympics, the use of aerospace technology, and especially aerodynamics, is even more important during the Winter games. In many of the sports, the difference between gold and bronze is usually hundredths of a second. At this level, the athletic prowess of the top athletes are so comparable that it is usually the one with the best technology, including aerodynamics, that winds up standing on the podium. Wind tunnel testing has lead to refinements in bobsleds, luge and skeleton equipment, along with the slick race suits all the skiers (cross-country and alpine) and speed skaters wear. Wind tunnel testing has also been used to "fine tune" the body position of alpine skiers as they rocket down the slopes. Generally the higher the speed of the Winter Olympic sport, the more important is the aerodynamics. This is especially true of the downhill alpine event and the bobsled, both events where speeds in excess of 80 mph are common. But the winter sport that has seen the biggest advancements due to aerodynamics is ski jumping. Ski jumpers use to jump with their skis parallel. But back in the 80's, wind tunnel testing revealed that a V-shaped position of the skis produced greater aero lift, longer flight times, and thus greater jump distances. Also, watch closely during the slow motion video of the jumpers and you can see how they make small movements of their hands to adjust their flight path. They are using their hands just like a rudder or ailerons on an aircraft to control the yaw and roll of their body. I'm sure these techniques were also refined in the wind tunnel to give ski jumpers the best chance of taking home a medal.

Aerospace Engineering Ranked High in CareerCast Job List

2010-01-30T15:39:00Z

Here is some good news if you are an aerospace engineering college student currently struggling with fluid dynamics or stability and control courses: a recent list of 200 jobs ranked by CareerCast.com shows Aerospace Engineering coming in at number 18. The web site rankings, from best to worst jobs, were based on a score compiled using five major categories: work environment, stress, physical demands, income and hiring outlook. After compiling the scores, CareerCast listed Aerospace Engineering as the second highest engineering field, only two notches behind Industrial Engineering. The good news is that even though the hiring outlook for industrial engineering was higher than Aerospace (very good vs. moderate), the average salary for aerospace engineers was almost $20,000 more per year than industrial. Even though the airline industry (and thus orders for new aircraft) has taken a big hit with the recent economic downturn, I would surmise that the job market for aero engineers is still relatively good due to the strong defense budgets in the U.S. This is a big turn around from when I went to college in the late 70s, with friends trying to talk me out of aerospace engineering due to the dismal job market. (The aerospace industry was still reeling from the end of the Viet Nam war, the Apollo space program and the cancellation of the Boeing SST. Thousands of aero engineers lost their jobs, especially in the Seattle area, leading to this infamous billboard near Seattle's airport.) They suggested I switch to a more broad major such as mechanical engineering, but my interest in aviation and space was so strong I didn't want to compromise my dreams so early in my career. I stuck it out with aerospace engineering, managed to get a co-op job with the DOD while still at Purdue University, and then a full-time offer at graduation. Since then I have been working steadily in aerospace for over 28 years, and haven't regretted my career choice. It's been challenging, interesting, and most of all, rewarding. So for you aerospace engineering students still slogging your way through one of the toughest undergraduate programs you can take, hang in there. The hard work will be worth it, just as the CareerCast list indicates.

One-Man Electric VTOL Concept Proposed By NASA

2010-01-21T02:31:00Z

The web was awash with stories today on an intriguing concept for a personal Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft being studied by NASA. Called the Puffin, the one-person VTOL would have twin rotors/propellers and be powered by small electric motors. Several web sites, including Scientific American, had stories providing details on the Puffin. Conceptual pictures show the Puffin taking off and landing on it's tail, similar to the experimental Convair XFY Pogo that flew successfully way back in the 1950s. A NASA video shows how the Puffin would take off, transition to horizontal flight, and then back to vertical flight for landing. It appears that unlike tilt-wing or tilt-rotor aircraft such as the Bell-Boeing V-22, the Puffin rotors are fixed, and transitional flight is accomplished by deflection of aerodynamic tail surfaces under the influence of the rotor down-wash. Also unique is the fact that the pilot would be in the standing position for take off and landing, but in the prone position during horizontal flight. Not explained in any of the info I read about the Puffin is what would happen if you had a failure of one of the electric motors driving each rotor, resulting in a very dangerous asymmetrical thrust situation. In the twin-engine V-22, both rotors are can be powered by a single engine driving an interconnected shaft if one engine fails.

While the Puffin concept is intriguing, it is currently just some pretty computer-generated pictures and video. Though it has a healthy pedigree with engineers from NASA, MIT and Georgia Tech behind it, I'm always somewhat skeptical of these ideas for radical flying machines, especially VTOL types. While I applaud any new aerospace concept based on sound engineering principles, the Puffin researchers will have to get a prototype or scale model flying to begin to win me over.