We have received the accelerometer, actuator, and digital analyzer. Corey and I are going up to the school in about an hour to hook it all up and see how it works.
Adios
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Medical Status
I sent Sara an email asking why it didn't show I had completed my flight physical and she said:
As far as the medical, I am waiting on update from another office to update the website. I expected that this or next week sometime. After the website is up to date, I will send an email to the team leads so that the teams can check their status. Thank you.
Sara W. Malloy Lead Reduced Gravity Flight Program Coordinator Office of Education (AE2) NASA Johnson Space Center 281-483-7847 (voice) 281-483-3789 (fax)
As far as the medical, I am waiting on update from another office to update the website. I expected that this or next week sometime. After the website is up to date, I will send an email to the team leads so that the teams can check their status. Thank you.
Sara W. Malloy Lead Reduced Gravity Flight Program Coordinator Office of Education (AE2) NASA Johnson Space Center 281-483-7847 (voice) 281-483-3789 (fax)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Outreach, Etc.
Hey guys,
Just to give everyone an update, I'm working on putting together a flyer to send out to area schools for our design competition. Hopefully we'll get a good response from this. I'll keep you updated as I here back from them.
FYI - The flight physical is due Feb. 29. I believe this is the doctor who is certified for them. You may want to call to be sure.
Vardiman John MD
409-833-9797
3570 College St
Beaumont TX 77701-4683
Just to give everyone an update, I'm working on putting together a flyer to send out to area schools for our design competition. Hopefully we'll get a good response from this. I'll keep you updated as I here back from them.
FYI - The flight physical is due Feb. 29. I believe this is the doctor who is certified for them. You may want to call to be sure.
Vardiman John MD
409-833-9797
3570 College St
Beaumont TX 77701-4683
Monday, December 17, 2007
Digital Analyzer
Hey guys,
Please go look at this site and let me know what you think? I am waiting for an email response from their sales people.
http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/202100
Please go look at this site and let me know what you think? I am waiting for an email response from their sales people.
http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/202100
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Digital Analyzer
I spoke with Iotech, and their package for a digital analyzer will cost around 10k.
I am going to explore another option with NI. Their package appears to be cheaper.
I am going to explore another option with NI. Their package appears to be cheaper.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Proposal Accepted!
Hey guys. We just found out that the proposal was accepted. You can check out ours and all the others that were accepted on this site:
http://microgravityuniversity.jsc.nasa.gov/news/activeteams.cfm
According to the website, the flight week we are scheduled for is Flight Week 2: June 5-14, 2008. It's not as soon as we would have liked but at least it's not well into the summer. Hopefully, this can fit into everyone's graduation->work plans. We'll have to discuss the implications of our flight being after graduation with Dr. Zhou.
Have a great weekend.
http://microgravityuniversity.jsc.nasa.gov/news/activeteams.cfm
According to the website, the flight week we are scheduled for is Flight Week 2: June 5-14, 2008. It's not as soon as we would have liked but at least it's not well into the summer. Hopefully, this can fit into everyone's graduation->work plans. We'll have to discuss the implications of our flight being after graduation with Dr. Zhou.
Have a great weekend.
Friday, November 30, 2007
#3 X-Planes
3. In terms of choosing a drive train to hover above the ground, the two companies choose completely different designs. Give some pros and cons of the two approaches. If you are the chief designer, which design would you choose and why?
Boeing choice to use the more conventional and proven method in the directional exhaust system. Since this system is already in use with the Marine Corps Harrier, it is known how this system will perform and what to expect. With the use of this system, the pilots will already have knowledge of how it works and how to control it effectively. The good thing about this system is that it has a limit number of moving parts involved, in which reduces the chances of a mechanical failure. One problem that is known about this system is that it has a tendency to ingest some of the directional exhaust into the engine causing a stall, and ultimately it could cause a crash. The team of Boeing experienced a slight stall when in testing but the crash was avoided.
Lockheed Martin went out of the box on their choice of a hovering drive train. They decided to implement a lift fan in the center of the aircraft while also using the directional exhaust. This approach is rather radical in the since that it had never been tried and the possibilities of a failure is high. The interesting thing about this system is that the airplane proved to be more stable during vertical landing due to the fact that the aircraft had two columns of air for support instead of just one. The lift fan proved to be much more powerful than the method that Boeing chose to implement, thus making the aircraft more adaptable. While in testing the Lockheed team discovered that the lift fan provided a “breath of fresh air” to the situation. This means that the lift fan directs fresh air from the top of the plane towards the ground creating an invisible shield protecting the engines from ingesting any of the exhaust air and causing a stall. The one downfall to this design is the large amount of mechanical moving parts involved. It makes since to minimize the amount of moving parts in an assembly in order to reduce the possibilities of failure, but Lockheed Martin did exactly the opposite and it paid off.
If it were up to me, I would choose to use Lockheed Martins drive train. Mainly because it has a lot more power, more stable, and it reduces the chances of an engine stall. The team of Lockheed Martin showed that they are willing to take risks and be truly innovative in their design, and it is because of this that I believe they received the contract. Although this system has more mechanically moving parts, I would suggest implementing a routine inspection of the aircraft to ensure the proper function of the hover drive train.
Boeing choice to use the more conventional and proven method in the directional exhaust system. Since this system is already in use with the Marine Corps Harrier, it is known how this system will perform and what to expect. With the use of this system, the pilots will already have knowledge of how it works and how to control it effectively. The good thing about this system is that it has a limit number of moving parts involved, in which reduces the chances of a mechanical failure. One problem that is known about this system is that it has a tendency to ingest some of the directional exhaust into the engine causing a stall, and ultimately it could cause a crash. The team of Boeing experienced a slight stall when in testing but the crash was avoided.
Lockheed Martin went out of the box on their choice of a hovering drive train. They decided to implement a lift fan in the center of the aircraft while also using the directional exhaust. This approach is rather radical in the since that it had never been tried and the possibilities of a failure is high. The interesting thing about this system is that the airplane proved to be more stable during vertical landing due to the fact that the aircraft had two columns of air for support instead of just one. The lift fan proved to be much more powerful than the method that Boeing chose to implement, thus making the aircraft more adaptable. While in testing the Lockheed team discovered that the lift fan provided a “breath of fresh air” to the situation. This means that the lift fan directs fresh air from the top of the plane towards the ground creating an invisible shield protecting the engines from ingesting any of the exhaust air and causing a stall. The one downfall to this design is the large amount of mechanical moving parts involved. It makes since to minimize the amount of moving parts in an assembly in order to reduce the possibilities of failure, but Lockheed Martin did exactly the opposite and it paid off.
If it were up to me, I would choose to use Lockheed Martins drive train. Mainly because it has a lot more power, more stable, and it reduces the chances of an engine stall. The team of Lockheed Martin showed that they are willing to take risks and be truly innovative in their design, and it is because of this that I believe they received the contract. Although this system has more mechanically moving parts, I would suggest implementing a routine inspection of the aircraft to ensure the proper function of the hover drive train.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)