A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.

On 4/11/2010 12:42 PM, hcobb wrote:

Has *anyone* demonstrated that it is "better," student or otherwise?

"however, no end product is currently capable of orbit insertion using
this method."

Another problem is that if what it's suspended from is a unpowered
balloon, you aren't going to be able to predict exactly where it will go
in the high altitude winds.
One of the competitors for the GUSTO program (that later became OXCART
and developed the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird) was a Navy proposal for a
inflatable rubber ramjet (I'm not making this up) that would be carried
aloft by a huge balloon and then boosted by rockets to pick up speed
till the ramjet reached ignition velocity. Kelly Johnson found this
concept extremely amusing, especially when his BOTE calculations showed
that the balloon to carry it would be around a mile in diameter.

Pat

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:34:10 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 3:21 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:57:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:29 am, Robert wrote:
Note also that use of the rocket thrust from the X-33 would also allow
you to reach higher speeds say Mach 3+ before release. This would
allow greater payload, since less delta-V would need to be supplied by
the X-33 after release. The extra rocket propellant for the X-33
required for firing during the linked portion of the trip would be
carried in the carrier craft fuselage.

Bob Clark

Since you need to reach Mach 25+ to orbit this saves you only 12% of
the speed requirement while imposing a requirement for an airframe
that can at least sustain that ground velocity while climbing.

A much better result can be had from a balloon-assisted launch system
where the objective is to start the rocket with as much altitude as
possible rather than speed.

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008/gr...-launch-system

This is a proposal from 2008. Was it approved?

That's not a "proposal", it's a student exercise. Google "Glenn Academy".

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2007/re...oject-proposal
Goals in Project Choice
+ Useful to NASA

It would appear that NASA approved the choice of the project topic.

Just as any teacher approves the choice of the topic of term papers and
other student projects.

I don't know about you, but it wasn't a requirement for my senior
project that it be "useful to the university."


Did the "proposal" not receive some level of review within NASA?

The same review that any educational project gets.

Else it was simply a time-wasting exercise.

By that logic all education is "a time wasting exercise". The purpose
of education is not to come up with wonderful new ways of doing things,
it's to teach students what we already know.

All of education isn't geared toward evaluating technology for
potential application. Does research assistance done by university
students *never* help "to come up with wonderful new ways of doing
things?"

Did you do intern work in college? If so, did the company you worked
for not want results they could use?


Perhaps consistent with the
environment, but that's another issue.

The environment is a summer training program for college students.

It's an elite program. Students who achieve entry deserve better than
to be taught how to spin their wheels on a project that no one cares
about.

If no one cared about it, then "proposal" was just so much NASA-speak.
If some one did care about it, then it received some level of
consideration beyond what was given to my senior project.

On 4/13/2010 1:43 AM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:34:10 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 3:21 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:57:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:29 am, Robert wrote:
Note also that use of the rocket thrust from the X-33 would also allow
you to reach higher speeds say Mach 3+ before release. This would
allow greater payload, since less delta-V would need to be supplied by
the X-33 after release. The extra rocket propellant for the X-33
required for firing during the linked portion of the trip would be
carried in the carrier craft fuselage.

Bob Clark

Since you need to reach Mach 25+ to orbit this saves you only 12% of
the speed requirement while imposing a requirement for an airframe
that can at least sustain that ground velocity while climbing.

A much better result can be had from a balloon-assisted launch system
where the objective is to start the rocket with as much altitude as
possible rather than speed.

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008/gr...-launch-system

This is a proposal from 2008. Was it approved?

That's not a "proposal", it's a student exercise. Google "Glenn Academy".

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2007/re...oject-proposal
Goals in Project Choice
+ Useful to NASA

It would appear that NASA approved the choice of the project topic.

Just as any teacher approves the choice of the topic of term papers and
other student projects.

I don't know about you, but it wasn't a requirement for my senior
project that it be "useful to the university."


Did the "proposal" not receive some level of review within NASA?

The same review that any educational project gets.

Else it was simply a time-wasting exercise.

By that logic all education is "a time wasting exercise". The purpose
of education is not to come up with wonderful new ways of doing things,
it's to teach students what we already know.

All of education isn't geared toward evaluating technology for
potential application.

So what? We aren't talking about "all education", we are talking about
one specific exercise.

Does research assistance done by university
students *never* help "to come up with wonderful new ways of doing
things?"

Whether it helps or not, its purpose is to teach the student.

Did you do intern work in college? If so, did the company you worked
for not want results they could use?

When one does "intern work" one is working for an employer, one is not
engaging in a training exercise.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of "exercise".

Perhaps consistent with the
environment, but that's another issue.

The environment is a summer training program for college students.

It's an elite program. Students who achieve entry deserve better than
to be taught how to spin their wheels on a project that no one cares
about.

So what should they do, be put right to work as engineers on something
that will kill people when it crashes?

If no one cared about it, then "proposal" was just so much NASA-speak.
If some one did care about it, then it received some level of
consideration beyond what was given to my senior project.

It was an exercise in proposal-writing. Geez.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:57:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/13/2010 1:43 AM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:34:10 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 3:21 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:57:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:29 am, Robert wrote:
Note also that use of the rocket thrust from the X-33 would also allow
you to reach higher speeds say Mach 3+ before release. This would
allow greater payload, since less delta-V would need to be supplied by
the X-33 after release. The extra rocket propellant for the X-33
required for firing during the linked portion of the trip would be
carried in the carrier craft fuselage.

Bob Clark

Since you need to reach Mach 25+ to orbit this saves you only 12% of
the speed requirement while imposing a requirement for an airframe
that can at least sustain that ground velocity while climbing.

A much better result can be had from a balloon-assisted launch system
where the objective is to start the rocket with as much altitude as
possible rather than speed.

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008/gr...-launch-system

This is a proposal from 2008. Was it approved?

That's not a "proposal", it's a student exercise. Google "Glenn Academy".

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2007/re...oject-proposal
Goals in Project Choice
+ Useful to NASA

It would appear that NASA approved the choice of the project topic.

Just as any teacher approves the choice of the topic of term papers and
other student projects.

I don't know about you, but it wasn't a requirement for my senior
project that it be "useful to the university."


Did the "proposal" not receive some level of review within NASA?

The same review that any educational project gets.

Else it was simply a time-wasting exercise.

By that logic all education is "a time wasting exercise". The purpose
of education is not to come up with wonderful new ways of doing things,
it's to teach students what we already know.

All of education isn't geared toward evaluating technology for
potential application.

So what? We aren't talking about "all education", we are talking about
one specific exercise.

Actually, we were talking about a concept. Someone put a "proposal"
label on it. You seem convinced that it was merely an exercise. I
think the program is poorly conceived if that's all it was.


Does research assistance done by university
students *never* help "to come up with wonderful new ways of doing
things?"

Whether it helps or not, its purpose is to teach the student.

Can a task not have more than one purpose?


Did you do intern work in college? If so, did the company you worked
for not want results they could use?

When one does "intern work" one is working for an employer, one is not
engaging in a training exercise.

In my experience, it was both.


You don't seem to grasp the concept of "exercise".

I understand what an exercise is. I also know what it is to enter
fully-charged from college into a not-as-advertised intern
environment. It can be demoralizing to a college student.


Perhaps consistent with the
environment, but that's another issue.

The environment is a summer training program for college students.

It's an elite program. Students who achieve entry deserve better than
to be taught how to spin their wheels on a project that no one cares
about.

So what should they do, be put right to work as engineers on something
that will kill people when it crashes?

Isn't that what an apprentice aircraft mechanic does?

Why *when* it crashes? Give the students some credit. They actually do
know a thing or two. Do you assume that they are incapable of
designing something that works?


If no one cared about it, then "proposal" was just so much NASA-speak.
If some one did care about it, then it received some level of
consideration beyond what was given to my senior project.

It was an exercise in proposal-writing. Geez.

Is that NASA's product? Proposals?

Or maybe it was more.
http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/archives/535
The high altitude launch of their group project (a balloon assisted
launch system) is scheduled for August 30, 2008 with StratoStar LLC in
Indiana.

If it was only an exercise in writing proposals, why did they plan to
launch anything?


http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/main/mission-statement
Its primary objectives are to:
1. Provide upper level undergraduate/first-second year graduate
students cutting-edge research opportunities with NASA scientists,
engineers, and educators.

"The vision of the Academy as described by its founder, Dr. Gerald
Soffen is 'To give possible leaders a view into how NASA, the
university community, and the private sector function, set their
priorities, and contribute to the success of the aerospace program.'"

I merely asked what happened to a "proposal" cited as a reference for
a "better" way to launch objects. It got a "Duh!" response from you.
Perhaps that was amiss.

On 4/14/2010 2:22 AM, Matt wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:57:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/13/2010 1:43 AM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:34:10 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 3:21 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:57:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:29 am, Robert wrote:
Note also that use of the rocket thrust from the X-33 would also allow
you to reach higher speeds say Mach 3+ before release. This would
allow greater payload, since less delta-V would need to be supplied by
the X-33 after release. The extra rocket propellant for the X-33
required for firing during the linked portion of the trip would be
carried in the carrier craft fuselage.

Bob Clark

Since you need to reach Mach 25+ to orbit this saves you only 12% of
the speed requirement while imposing a requirement for an airframe
that can at least sustain that ground velocity while climbing.

A much better result can be had from a balloon-assisted launch system
where the objective is to start the rocket with as much altitude as
possible rather than speed.

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008/gr...-launch-system

This is a proposal from 2008. Was it approved?

That's not a "proposal", it's a student exercise. Google "Glenn Academy".

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2007/re...oject-proposal
Goals in Project Choice
+ Useful to NASA

It would appear that NASA approved the choice of the project topic.

Just as any teacher approves the choice of the topic of term papers and
other student projects.

I don't know about you, but it wasn't a requirement for my senior
project that it be "useful to the university."


Did the "proposal" not receive some level of review within NASA?

The same review that any educational project gets.

Else it was simply a time-wasting exercise.

By that logic all education is "a time wasting exercise". The purpose
of education is not to come up with wonderful new ways of doing things,
it's to teach students what we already know.

All of education isn't geared toward evaluating technology for
potential application.

So what? We aren't talking about "all education", we are talking about
one specific exercise.

Actually, we were talking about a concept. Someone put a "proposal"
label on it. You seem convinced that it was merely an exercise. I
think the program is poorly conceived if that's all it was.

So how in your expert opinion do you believe NASA _should_ go about
conducting a summer workshop for college students?

Does research assistance done by university
students *never* help "to come up with wonderful new ways of doing
things?"

Whether it helps or not, its purpose is to teach the student.

Can a task not have more than one purpose?

Most tasks do. What of it?

Did you do intern work in college? If so, did the company you worked
for not want results they could use?

When one does "intern work" one is working for an employer, one is not
engaging in a training exercise.

In my experience, it was both.

Most work is educational in one way or another, but that is not its purpose.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of "exercise".

I understand what an exercise is. I also know what it is to enter
fully-charged from college into a not-as-advertised intern
environment. It can be demoralizing to a college student.

What, work came as a shock to you? In any case, we are talking about a
summer workshop conducted by a government agency, not about an internship.

Perhaps consistent with the
environment, but that's another issue.

The environment is a summer training program for college students.

It's an elite program. Students who achieve entry deserve better than
to be taught how to spin their wheels on a project that no one cares
about.

So what should they do, be put right to work as engineers on something
that will kill people when it crashes?

Isn't that what an apprentice aircraft mechanic does?

After he has been through his basic training program, and under
supervision, he is allowed to perform a limited set of tasks--when he
has mastered those, then he gets to do more.

But mechanics are not engineers.

Why *when* it crashes? Give the students some credit. They actually do
know a thing or two. Do you assume that they are incapable of
designing something that works?

Not incapable, no, sometimes they get lucky. But that's not the way to
bet. Lots of book-smart and no practical sense.

If no one cared about it, then "proposal" was just so much NASA-speak.
If some one did care about it, then it received some level of
consideration beyond what was given to my senior project.

It was an exercise in proposal-writing. Geez.

Is that NASA's product? Proposals?

What does "NASA's product" have to do with the subject of a training
exercise?

Or maybe it was more.
http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/archives/535
The high altitude launch of their group project (a balloon assisted
launch system) is scheduled for August 30, 2008 with StratoStar LLC in
Indiana.

If it was only an exercise in writing proposals, why did they plan to
launch anything?

As backup for the proposal. That was stated in the proposal.

You've never actually sold anything to the government, have you?

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/main/mission-statement
Its primary objectives are to:
1. Provide upper level undergraduate/first-second year graduate
students cutting-edge research opportunities with NASA scientists,
engineers, and educators.

"The vision of the Academy as described by its founder, Dr. Gerald
Soffen is 'To give possible leaders a view into how NASA, the
university community, and the private sector function, set their
priorities, and contribute to the success of the aerospace program.'"

I merely asked what happened to a "proposal" cited as a reference for
a "better" way to launch objects. It got a "Duh!" response from you.
Perhaps that was amiss.

You asked, I ventured an opinion. You chose to become argumentative and
to show how smart you were by telling us all about the purposes of this
proposal which, by your own admission, you know nothing about.

Can you say "netloon"?

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:23:51 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/14/2010 2:22 AM, Matt wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:57:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/13/2010 1:43 AM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:34:10 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 3:21 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:57:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:29 am, Robert wrote:
Note also that use of the rocket thrust from the X-33 would also allow
you to reach higher speeds say Mach 3+ before release. This would
allow greater payload, since less delta-V would need to be supplied by
the X-33 after release. The extra rocket propellant for the X-33
required for firing during the linked portion of the trip would be
carried in the carrier craft fuselage.

Bob Clark

Since you need to reach Mach 25+ to orbit this saves you only 12% of
the speed requirement while imposing a requirement for an airframe
that can at least sustain that ground velocity while climbing.

A much better result can be had from a balloon-assisted launch system
where the objective is to start the rocket with as much altitude as
possible rather than speed.

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008/gr...-launch-system

This is a proposal from 2008. Was it approved?

That's not a "proposal", it's a student exercise. Google "Glenn Academy".

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2007/re...oject-proposal
Goals in Project Choice
+ Useful to NASA

It would appear that NASA approved the choice of the project topic.

Just as any teacher approves the choice of the topic of term papers and
other student projects.

I don't know about you, but it wasn't a requirement for my senior
project that it be "useful to the university."


Did the "proposal" not receive some level of review within NASA?

The same review that any educational project gets.

Else it was simply a time-wasting exercise.

By that logic all education is "a time wasting exercise". The purpose
of education is not to come up with wonderful new ways of doing things,
it's to teach students what we already know.

All of education isn't geared toward evaluating technology for
potential application.

So what? We aren't talking about "all education", we are talking about
one specific exercise.

Actually, we were talking about a concept. Someone put a "proposal"
label on it. You seem convinced that it was merely an exercise. I
think the program is poorly conceived if that's all it was.

So how in your expert opinion do you believe NASA _should_ go about
conducting a summer workshop for college students?

Perhaps they are already closer to my ideal than yours in the quote
from their mission statement says "contribute to the success of the
aerospace program.'


Does research assistance done by university
students *never* help "to come up with wonderful new ways of doing
things?"

Whether it helps or not, its purpose is to teach the student.

Can a task not have more than one purpose?

Most tasks do. What of it?

You seem fixated on the notion that there is one and only one reason
for a student to be involve in an activity: to learn. Learning by
doing also makes a contribution beyond going through the motions of an
academic exercise.

Did you do intern work in college? If so, did the company you worked
for not want results they could use?

When one does "intern work" one is working for an employer, one is not
engaging in a training exercise.

In my experience, it was both.

Most work is educational in one way or another, but that is not its purpose.

Says who?

You speak for all who run work-study programs, do you?


You don't seem to grasp the concept of "exercise".

I understand what an exercise is. I also know what it is to enter
fully-charged from college into a not-as-advertised intern
environment. It can be demoralizing to a college student.

What, work came as a shock to you?

And you call me argumentative?


In any case, we are talking about a
summer workshop conducted by a government agency, not about an internship.

And you see no similarity? If not, I think you're missing something.


Perhaps consistent with the
environment, but that's another issue.

The environment is a summer training program for college students.

It's an elite program. Students who achieve entry deserve better than
to be taught how to spin their wheels on a project that no one cares
about.

So what should they do, be put right to work as engineers on something
that will kill people when it crashes?

Isn't that what an apprentice aircraft mechanic does?

After he has been through his basic training program, and under
supervision, he is allowed to perform a limited set of tasks--when he
has mastered those, then he gets to do more.

Yet he works - with supervision - on something that could kill people
*if* it crashes.

But mechanics are not engineers.

So? You've never seen a mechanic have a better idea than the engineers
working on a project? This attitude also fits with my final question
in this post.


Why *when* it crashes? Give the students some credit. They actually do
know a thing or two. Do you assume that they are incapable of
designing something that works?

Not incapable, no, sometimes they get lucky. But that's not the way to
bet. Lots of book-smart and no practical sense.

Which is why it is wise for them to work with supervision.


If no one cared about it, then "proposal" was just so much NASA-speak.
If some one did care about it, then it received some level of
consideration beyond what was given to my senior project.

It was an exercise in proposal-writing. Geez.

Is that NASA's product? Proposals?

What does "NASA's product" have to do with the subject of a training
exercise?

I read that one of the criteria for the project was for it to be
"important to NASA." If NASA's aim is to amass piles of proposals,
then training students to write dust-collecting proposals would be
fitting. If not, then maybe they are giving a piece of some real
action to people who can handle it.


Or maybe it was more.
http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/archives/535
The high altitude launch of their group project (a balloon assisted
launch system) is scheduled for August 30, 2008 with StratoStar LLC in
Indiana.

If it was only an exercise in writing proposals, why did they plan to
launch anything?

As backup for the proposal. That was stated in the proposal.

You've never actually sold anything to the government, have you?

So was it just an exercise or were they actually trying to "sell" an
idea?


http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/main/mission-statement
Its primary objectives are to:
1. Provide upper level undergraduate/first-second year graduate
students cutting-edge research opportunities with NASA scientists,
engineers, and educators.

"The vision of the Academy as described by its founder, Dr. Gerald
Soffen is 'To give possible leaders a view into how NASA, the
university community, and the private sector function, set their
priorities, and contribute to the success of the aerospace program.'"

I merely asked what happened to a "proposal" cited as a reference for
a "better" way to launch objects. It got a "Duh!" response from you.
Perhaps that was amiss.

You asked, I ventured an opinion. You chose to become argumentative and
to show how smart you were by telling us all about the purposes of this
proposal which, by your own admission, you know nothing about.

Can you say "netloon"?

You were dismissive of the students' efforts.

Can you say "snob?"

On 4/15/2010 3:10 AM, Matt wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:23:51 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/14/2010 2:22 AM, Matt wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:57:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/13/2010 1:43 AM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:34:10 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 3:21 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:57:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:29 am, Robert wrote:
Note also that use of the rocket thrust from the X-33 would also allow
you to reach higher speeds say Mach 3+ before release. This would
allow greater payload, since less delta-V would need to be supplied by
the X-33 after release. The extra rocket propellant for the X-33
required for firing during the linked portion of the trip would be
carried in the carrier craft fuselage.

Bob Clark

Since you need to reach Mach 25+ to orbit this saves you only 12% of
the speed requirement while imposing a requirement for an airframe
that can at least sustain that ground velocity while climbing.

A much better result can be had from a balloon-assisted launch system
where the objective is to start the rocket with as much altitude as
possible rather than speed.

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008/gr...-launch-system

This is a proposal from 2008. Was it approved?

That's not a "proposal", it's a student exercise. Google "Glenn Academy".

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2007/re...oject-proposal
Goals in Project Choice
+ Useful to NASA

It would appear that NASA approved the choice of the project topic.

Just as any teacher approves the choice of the topic of term papers and
other student projects.

I don't know about you, but it wasn't a requirement for my senior
project that it be "useful to the university."


Did the "proposal" not receive some level of review within NASA?

The same review that any educational project gets.

Else it was simply a time-wasting exercise.

By that logic all education is "a time wasting exercise". The purpose
of education is not to come up with wonderful new ways of doing things,
it's to teach students what we already know.

All of education isn't geared toward evaluating technology for
potential application.

So what? We aren't talking about "all education", we are talking about
one specific exercise.

Actually, we were talking about a concept. Someone put a "proposal"
label on it. You seem convinced that it was merely an exercise. I
think the program is poorly conceived if that's all it was.

So how in your expert opinion do you believe NASA _should_ go about
conducting a summer workshop for college students?

Perhaps they are already closer to my ideal than yours in the quote
from their mission statement says "contribute to the success of the
aerospace program.'


Does research assistance done by university
students *never* help "to come up with wonderful new ways of doing
things?"

Whether it helps or not, its purpose is to teach the student.

Can a task not have more than one purpose?

Most tasks do. What of it?

You seem fixated on the notion that there is one and only one reason
for a student to be involve in an activity: to learn. Learning by
doing also makes a contribution beyond going through the motions of an
academic exercise.

Did you do intern work in college? If so, did the company you worked
for not want results they could use?

When one does "intern work" one is working for an employer, one is not
engaging in a training exercise.

In my experience, it was both.

Most work is educational in one way or another, but that is not its purpose.

Says who?

You speak for all who run work-study programs, do you?


You don't seem to grasp the concept of "exercise".

I understand what an exercise is. I also know what it is to enter
fully-charged from college into a not-as-advertised intern
environment. It can be demoralizing to a college student.

What, work came as a shock to you?

And you call me argumentative?


In any case, we are talking about a
summer workshop conducted by a government agency, not about an internship.

And you see no similarity? If not, I think you're missing something.


Perhaps consistent with the
environment, but that's another issue.

The environment is a summer training program for college students.

It's an elite program. Students who achieve entry deserve better than
to be taught how to spin their wheels on a project that no one cares
about.

So what should they do, be put right to work as engineers on something
that will kill people when it crashes?

Isn't that what an apprentice aircraft mechanic does?

After he has been through his basic training program, and under
supervision, he is allowed to perform a limited set of tasks--when he
has mastered those, then he gets to do more.

Yet he works - with supervision - on something that could kill people
*if* it crashes.

But mechanics are not engineers.

So? You've never seen a mechanic have a better idea than the engineers
working on a project? This attitude also fits with my final question
in this post.


Why *when* it crashes? Give the students some credit. They actually do
know a thing or two. Do you assume that they are incapable of
designing something that works?

Not incapable, no, sometimes they get lucky. But that's not the way to
bet. Lots of book-smart and no practical sense.

Which is why it is wise for them to work with supervision.


If no one cared about it, then "proposal" was just so much NASA-speak.
If some one did care about it, then it received some level of
consideration beyond what was given to my senior project.

It was an exercise in proposal-writing. Geez.

Is that NASA's product? Proposals?

What does "NASA's product" have to do with the subject of a training
exercise?

I read that one of the criteria for the project was for it to be
"important to NASA." If NASA's aim is to amass piles of proposals,
then training students to write dust-collecting proposals would be
fitting. If not, then maybe they are giving a piece of some real
action to people who can handle it.


Or maybe it was more.
http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/archives/535
The high altitude launch of their group project (a balloon assisted
launch system) is scheduled for August 30, 2008 with StratoStar LLC in
Indiana.

If it was only an exercise in writing proposals, why did they plan to
launch anything?

As backup for the proposal. That was stated in the proposal.

You've never actually sold anything to the government, have you?

So was it just an exercise or were they actually trying to "sell" an
idea?


http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/main/mission-statement
Its primary objectives are to:
1. Provide upper level undergraduate/first-second year graduate
students cutting-edge research opportunities with NASA scientists,
engineers, and educators.

"The vision of the Academy as described by its founder, Dr. Gerald
Soffen is 'To give possible leaders a view into how NASA, the
university community, and the private sector function, set their
priorities, and contribute to the success of the aerospace program.'"

I merely asked what happened to a "proposal" cited as a reference for
a "better" way to launch objects. It got a "Duh!" response from you.
Perhaps that was amiss.

You asked, I ventured an opinion. You chose to become argumentative and
to show how smart you were by telling us all about the purposes of this
proposal which, by your own admission, you know nothing about.

Can you say "netloon"?

You were dismissive of the students' efforts.

Can you say "snob?"

Oh to Hell with it. Can you say plonk?